'31:, K1 1! I
1111I {.jz'i‘ ‘III: p
111‘1“#1;1‘1’£:'F

W’

  
    
 
   

    

   
 
  
   

 
 
 
  

II 1-, ‘ g I
I 11.11.6399“
I.IIII.....,II..II.., .

    

111‘ 31",":0}
,III

 

   

 
          

l.
I'IRI 11‘) :1 4,} «H
1.. l I‘Q dI' 1‘0 ‘,' I_ .
' .Ii-I‘::I‘[1r"I’II' I11I:"I4*»-III'I§I:.II>1 If: I; I"‘».-,..d*:» ‘l'fIrlv‘IW‘ 3m
1:,IasIIIILIﬁ‘*~.»- II. I- I new In”. ., IIIIII»
:1 “3;“!1'I'I um ‘31“. ﬂ‘f 1 II x?! .,I,1 Pf ‘lgnv‘. 153mg)"; ' 18%"
~ III": .1I ‘II III III :‘I{: “f I”. I 'jil‘ j"“1‘-:“iI’IEWI:~; I 11’
_ .I IV ..‘ ‘
. 1 {15.1 1-.I 1153' IIII,.I 1' 3‘."t1m"’1'1‘917:':1"Ii“‘.7
, v ,_ 7

  
     

     

   

  

,fr

515% ‘ I‘m 11%, 64 III! 111 pm" H

;‘ {Diuh ‘3‘.Ii i'r‘ If} A?" '|.:LIl-;;I 211;;‘1muﬂgt1k‘f‘m: |" . ”'11“? 1‘3".

I I I - . I. .. M. “II. «I

'3 ” “W "I‘m ‘II Ii :‘I’
31191.11. Q1' -v, - ' Wit? ”it“ I I

'.H
I

 

  
 
 
  

  
  
     

IX
3”

  
      

   
 

  
  

  
   

1,111.3.
I, .

     
 
 

    
  

  

  
 
 
 

 
    

 
  
 
        
   

   
  
 

 

I" IHHl i1",
J:‘ I , 5'
i "‘13:”. 1"?-
Ié iIII‘I'II :I, f, ,
I l 91',
I
_ I
1*
I
1
I
r 3‘I1I1-‘Iﬁ1 - I
I 7'-
‘ ".E‘tﬂ L}1‘SL1'"‘ :-_>
‘ I
, “4'“, IIIITM ii‘ 11K, 813},
If“ I. ‘ 5‘43?) w
. ' _' ' 'I,, I '-"‘ up“ “,3
. 'I , . I153“. I‘I’fII I‘m
4 I
’1 ' -.‘I..
i
{

 
 
   

XII“
'viI'A”
WI'EI‘

   

 

ﬂ. ‘—-- '
”T. A
I " ~

. ;.

, av!

v-r

    

  
 

   
  
  

1r

3‘.

I,‘

t

1" I,

- I.‘ - v. t; '
:9. I' I'vi‘1'u'ht‘l'
I

 

,

 
 
 

'rr'r—q;

 
 
 

"Iﬂl'
'l

lt—UYIIX r1l'lH‘. ”1;."

      
 
 

  
 
  
 

    

‘ .I‘Hu‘“n ‘
ii

QI ' ‘1 . . :" I
i-Eiﬁi‘pgh 4‘ l‘
R —L~-. '1.

11V“. “.11..
“5.5:

    
        

     

‘.
1 I101”? 1‘ 11‘; 4"” 1.
’mn‘ "MINT
‘21? . I?

f ‘5

    
  

   

0522' .i'? 3112':
1’ .

1* I“?

137:1 :95

W 3'91“}

 
 
 

      
 

   

    

I?“ I3!
‘2‘ ‘l’ti‘iu .1 .' 'I' . '
It: ”If I- .2 W “1%? 3:"
‘ Ml“ ""ctLUJ‘ﬁSIIILH I

 
 

‘711I

1‘3“?”

    

WWW" " inc:

TH ssrs
\l

r'ﬁ‘

’ 7 "1

gqi85047

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

A STUDY TO COMPARE
CHICKERING AND REISSER'S (1993) VECTOR 6,
DEVELOPING PURPOSE AND FRANKL’S (1959)
PURPOSE IN LIFE

preSented by
WILLIAM ROBERT MOLASSO

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

 

 

 

Doctoral degree in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Ed.
I MajorPrﬁessgs Signatat '
r11:4qu
Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

JRWB QUSQM DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

J40 9 12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DaleDue.p65-p.15

A STUDY TO COMPARE
CHICKERING AND REISSER’S (1993) VECTOR 6, DEVELOPING PURPOSE
AND FRANKL’S (1959) PURPOSE IN LIFE

By

William Robert Molasso

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education ,
Department Of Educational Administration

2004

ABSTRACT

A STUDY TO COMPARE CHICKERING AND REISSER’S (1993) VECTOR 6,
DEVELOPING PURPOSE AND FRANKL’S (1959) PURPOSE IN LIFE

By

William Robert Molasso

Chickering (1969), an educational researcher in socio-developmental
processes, created one of the first and most widely known and studied college
student development theories. Chickering (1969) believed that the critical task
for college students was the establishment of their identity, and proposed seven
vectors of development through which students must progress. Chickering
and Reisser ( 1993) later revised the seven vectors to take into account more
recent research and a broader demographic base. Extensive research has been
conducted on the seven vectors generally and on several individual vectors
(Greeley 8 Tinsley, 1988; ltzkowitz & Petrie, 1986; Jordan-Cox, 1987; Polkosnik
& Winston, 1989; Straub & Rodgers, 1986). Application of the vectors in student
affairs practice is widespread. The area of Chickering and Reisser’s (1993)
work that has received the least extensive exploration is Vector Six, Developing
Purpose. The ﬁeld of clinical psychology provides another approach to measuring
purpose in life. Victor Frankl (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) made a substantial
contribution toward developing a theoretical foundation for the study of purpose
in life, and has been considered the preeminent scholar on this subject in the

ﬁeld of psychology (Zika and Chamberlain, 1992). Frankl's and Chickering and

Reisser's theoretical writing on developing purpose share a number of common
viewpoints. However, no empirical research has been published that compares
the instrument designed to assess Chickering and Reisser’s Vector Six,
Developing Purpose, and Frankl’s purpose in life.

This study of 354 college sophomores explored the relationship between
Vector 6, Developing Purpose, as measured by the Student Developmental
Task and Lifestyle Assessment—Purpose Form (SDTLA-PUR) (Winston, Miller,
& Cooper, 1999) and Frankl’s purpose in life, as measured by the Purpose in
Life Test (PIL) (Crumbaugh 8 Maholick, 1964). Pearson-product correlational
procedures discovered a relatively weak relationship in how the two instruments
measured purpose in life. Independent ttests determined that signiﬁcant
differences existed between study participants and national normative data for
the two tests, with the study participants experiencing a lower sense of purpose
than expected. ANOVA procedures discovered that only gender had a statistically
signiﬁcant impact on PIL scores. Other demographic variables did not show to
inﬂuence PIL and SDTLA-PUR scores. Finally, regression analysis identiﬁed
a number of environmental factors that inﬂuence how a student experiences a

sense of purpose, as measured by the PIL and the SDTLA-PUR.

DEDICATION

The work involved in this study, as well as this dissertation, is dedicated to

Dr. Elizabeth Broughton.

Liz recruited me into the ﬁeld of Student Affairs many years ago and later into the

faculty role, and has been with me throughout my professional life.

Her guidance and assistance over the last decade has helped make me

the professional I am today.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Marilyn Amey, Professor, Higher, Adult and Lifelong
Education (and my committee chair) at Michigan State University. Dr. Amey has
guided, pushed, and prodded me throughout my doctoral work, and I greatly

appreciate her patience and insight over those years.

I would also like to thank my committee members for their time and energy on
my behalf: Dr. Kristen Renn and Dr. Jim Fairweather, Higher, Adult, and Lifelong

Education, and Dr. Lee June, Vice President for Student Affairs and Services.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ....................................................................................................... ix
Chapter I, Introduction ........................................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ............................................... 5
Plan of the Study .............................................................................................. 6
Rationale for the Study .................................................................................... 7
Operational Deﬁnitions ..................................................................................... 7
Guidelines Used in Study ................................................................................. 9
Organization of the Study ................................................................................ 9
Chapter II, Literature Review ............................................................................ 12
College Student Development ....................................................................... 12
Seven Vectors of Development ...................................................................... 14
Vector 6: Developing Purpose ....................................................................... 16
Purpose in Life ............................................................................................... 18
Conceptual Framework: Frankl's Purpose in Life .......................................... 21
Vector 6 and Frankl’s Purpose in Life ............................................................ 25
Measurement of Vector 6 and Purpose in Life ............................................... 27
Methodological Considerations ...................................................................... 38
Summary ........................................................................................................ 46
Chapter III, Research Methods ......................................................................... 48
Population ...................................................................................................... 49
Setting ............................................................................................................ 50
Sample ........................................................................................................... 51
Instrumentation .............................................................................................. 54
Web-Site Development .................................................................................. 57

vi

Pilot Testing .................................................................................................... 61

Lessons Learned From the Pilot Study ................................. 62
Primary Data Collection ................................................................................. 63
Summary ........................................................................................................ 69
Chapter IV, Data Analysis ................................................................................. 70
Coding Procedures and Decisions ................................................................. 70
Sample Demographics ................................................................................... 73

Research Question One: Are there differences in the way the PIL
and SD TLA-PUR measure a student’s sense of purpose in life? ............ 74

Research Question Two: What demographic variables
impact a student’s sense of purpose in life, as measured
by the SDTLA and the PIL? ...................................................................... 81

Research Question Three: What involvement or environmental
factors impact a student’s sense of purpose in life, as measured

by the SD TLA—PUR and the PIL? ............................................................ 84
Summary ........................................................................................................ 93
Chapter V, Discussion ....................................................................................... 97
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ........................................... 100
Methods ....................................................................................................... 101
Instrumentation ............................................................................................ 101
Sample ......................................................................................................... 104
Major Findings ............................................................................................. 105
Implications of Major Findings ..................................................................... 113
Limitations .................................................................................................... 124
Additional Research ..................................................................................... 125
Appendix A, Demographic Questions Asked ............................................... 128
Appendix B, Time Spent Factor Series ......................................................... 131
Appendix C, Involvement Factor Series ........................................................ 133

vii

Appendix D, Activities Factor Series ............................................................. 135

Appendix E, Informed Consent Statement .................................................... 137
Appendix F, Final Thank You and Referral Screen ....................................... 140
Appendix G, Initial Invitation Email ............................................................... 142
Appendix H, Reminder Email Text ................................................................. 145
References Cited ............................................................................................. 148

viii

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.
Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table 11 .

Table 12.

Table 13.

Table 14.

LIST OF TABLES

Normative Scores for the SDTLA-PUR for
Sophomores, as a Function of Gender ....................................... 30

Mean Normative Scores of
Groupings on the PIL .................................................................. 34

Demographic Breakdown of Population ..................................... 52

Demographic Breakdown of
Study Participants ....................................................................... 75

Two-Way Demographic Breakdown
of Study Participants ................................................................... 76

Demographic Breakdown (%) of Population
and Responders of the Study ..................................................... 77

Means, Standard Deviations, and
lntercorrelations for the PIL and the
SDTLA-PUR ................................................................................ 79

Differences Between Standard
National Norms and Study Participants
On the SDTLA-PUR and the PIL ................................................ 80

Effects of Demographic Variables
on the PIL Score ......................................................................... 82

Effects of Demographic Variables
on the SDTLA-FUR Score .......................................................... 83

lntercorrelations for the PIL and SDTLA-PUR
with the Time Spent Variables ..................................................... 85

lntercorrelations for the PIL and SDTLA-FUR
with the Involvement Variables ................................................... 86

lntercorrelations for the PIL and SDTLA-PUR
with the Activities Variables ......................................................... 87

Regression Analysis Summary for Time Spent
Variables Predicting SDTLA-PUR and PIL ................................. 89

Table 15.

Table 16.

Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.

Table 20.

Table 21.

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.
Table 25.

Regression Analysis Summary for Involvement
In Student Activities Variables Predicting

SDTLA-FUR and PIL .................................................................. 90
Regression Analysis Summary for Activities

Variables Predicting PIL and SDTLA-FUR ................................. 92
Step-Wise Regression Summary for the SDTLA-PUR ............... 94
Step-Wise Regression Summary for the PIL .............................. 96

Demographic Breakdown (%) of Population
and Responders of the Study ................................................... 106

Means, Standard Deviations, and
lntercorrelations for the PIL and the
SDTLA-FUR .............................................................................. 107

Differences Between Standard
National Norms and Study Participants

On the SDTLA-FUR and the PIL .............................................. 108
Regression Summary for Variables

Predicting PIL ............................................................................. 110
Regression Summary for Variables

Predicting SDTLA-PUR .............................................................. 111
Step-Wise Regression Summary for the SDTLA-FUR .............. 114
Step-Wise Regression Summary for the PIL ............................. 116

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

For decades, researchers in higher education have empirically explored
how to enhance programs and services to assist the college student in Ieaming
and personal development. The best instructional methods for the classroom,
administrative efficiency, appropriate intervention techniques for struggling
students, the impact of particular activities and programs on various student
outcomes, and other issues have all been explored through a variety of research
approaches. An area of study that has gained increasing attention over the last
30 years is the developmental processes of college students. Erikson (1968),
Havinghurst (1972), Kohlberg (1971 ), Perry (1970), and others have all made
major contributions to the understanding of how and in what ways students
develop while in college, guiding the work of student affairs practitioners who
must make decisions about policy and practice on a daily basis.

Chickering (1969), an educational researcher in socio-developmental
processes, created one of the ﬁrst and most widely known and studied college
student development theories. Prior to Chickering’s work, there were few studies
related to education beyond adolescence (Reisser, 1995). Chickering believed
that in an increasingly complex society, an important psychosocial developmental
period had emerged, comprising the college years from age 18 to the mid-20s.
“Before Education and Identity, little had been published about development
beyond adolescence, except for writings by Sanford (1961 ), Erikson (1959)
and Marcia (1965 and 1966)” (Reisser, p. 506). Chickering characterized the

college student “as an individual in a distinct psychosocial phase deﬁned by the

emergence of certain inner needs and abilities which interact with the demands
or press of the college milieu” (Edman, 1988, p. 4).

Chickering (1969) believed that the critical task for college students was
the establishment of their identity, and proposed seven vectors of development
through which students must progress. Chickering and Reisser (1993) later
revised the seven vectors to take into account more recent research and a
broader demographic base, hoping to provide “useful tools to a new generation of
practitioners who want to help students become ‘excellent all-rounders'” (p. 41).
Chickering and Reisser's seven vectors deﬁne “major highways for journeying
toward individuation-the discovery and reﬁnement of one’s unique way of being”
(p. 35).

Extensive research has been conducted on the seven vectors generally
and on several individual vectors (Greeley 8 Tinsley, 1988; ltzkowitz 8: Petrie,
1986; Jordan-Cox, 1987; Polkosnik & Winston, 1989; Straub & Rodgers, 1986).
Application of the vectors in student affairs practice is widespread. The area
of Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) work that has received the least extensive
exploration is Vector Six, Developing Purpose.

Concerning Vector Six, Chickering and Reisser (1993) stated that students
determine their place in society. They reasoned that “a plan becomes a map
for moving from the current situation to a more desirable one, for altering status
quo, for composing a life" (p. 210). They concluded that developing purpose
requires establishing a plan of action that integrates vocational plans, avocational
personal interests, and interpersonal and family commitments. To measure the
development of purpose, Winston, Miller, and Cooper (1999) developed the
Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment—Purpose.

The Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA) is
the latest iteration of a counseling tool developed by the University of Georgia
(Winston et al., 1999). The theoretical work of Chickering (1969) and Chickering
and Reisser (1993) “was a major inﬂuence in guiding the creation and evolution
of the SDTLA” (Winston et al., p. 4). The general SDTLA is designed to assess
three of Chickering’s vectors: Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships,
Developing Autonomy, and Developing Purpose, as well as several additional
subtasks and scales. Different forms of the instrument are available to measure
all three vectors, as well as individual forms to measure single vectors. The
SDTLA—FUR is designed speciﬁcally to assess the vector of developing purpose
(Winston et al.).

Until now, little research has been available in the literature assessing how
the STDLA—PUR measures development of purpose, and no research compares
this instrument with other tools for measuring purpose in life. Comparing the
SDTLA—PUR with another conception of developing purpose may assist in
ensuring that the SDTLA-PUR truly measures a student’s sense of purpose, and
will lend greater understanding to this vector of student development.

The ﬁeld of clinical psychology provides another approach to measuring
purpose in life. Victor Frankl (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) made a substantial
contribution toward developing a theoretical foundation for the study of purpose
in life, and has been considered the preeminent scholar on this subject in the
ﬁeld of psychology (Zika & Chamberlain, 1992). Frankl ﬁrst explored and deﬁned
purpose in life in the clinical literature in the 1960s, and is generally considered
the father of Logotherapy, a form of psychotherapy conceived of as therapy

through meaning (Pytell, 2001). Frankl believed that every individual has an

innate desire to develop a purpose in life, which he termed will to meaning. He
explained, “with this we designate man’s striving to fulﬁll as much meaning in
his existence as possible, and to realize as much value in his life as possible”
(Frankl, 1959, p. 161 ). Those who failed to experience a sense of purpose
in life, he believed, were in an existential vacuum or existential/y frustrated,
“that is, inner emptiness, the feeling of having lost the examining of existence
and the content of life” (Frankl,i1959, p. 162). Frankl held that individuals who
experienced existential frustration compensated for their lack of purpose through
very risky behaviors.

Frankl believed an individual discovered meaning in several ways. The
ﬁrst way, which he felt was quite obvious, was “by creating a work or doing a
deed" (Frankl, 1984, p. 115). Purpose could stem from an individual’s work or
vocation. Frankl also believed that meaning could be derived from experiencing
“nature and culture” or “by experiencing another human being in his very
uniqueness—by loving him” (p. 115). Finally, Frankl believed individuals found
purpose even “when confronted with a hopeless situation” (p. 116)—that what
matters is how a person transforms that personal tragedy into achievement.

Based on Frankl’s (1953) theory of purpose in life, Crumbaugh and
Maholick (1964) developed the Purpose in Life Test (PIL) to measure the
degree to which a person experiences a sense of purpose in life. The PIL is the
instrument “most commonly used in clinical psychology [and] has been translated
into at least six languages” (Moran, 2001, p. 271). The PIL has been used widely
in clinical and outpatient contexts. Research in the clinical setting has established
a thread of interesting relationships between the PIL and behavioral issues that

student affairs professionals deal with on a daily basis.

Frankl’s (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) and Chickering and Reisser's (1993)
theoretical writing on developing purpose share a number of common viewpoints.
Both theories contain similar deﬁnitions of “purpose,” and consider that purpose
is derived from vocation or work; cultural, artistic, or recreational interests;
and interpersonal relationships or love. Both theories hold that developing a
sense of purpose is a critical task for healthy development. They differ on when
developing purpose occurs, and on the placement or centrality of purpose to the
total individual.

Thus the two theories appear to have more similarities than differences.
However, no empirical research has been published that compares the
instrument designed to assess Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) Vector Six,
Developing Purpose,*and Frankl's (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) purpose in life.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to explore Chickering and Reisser’s (1993)
Vector 6, Developing Purpose, as measured by the SDTLA-FUR, and Frankl’s
(1959) purpose in life, as measured by the PIL. Chickering and Reisser’s
vectors of student development are commonly used foundations for student
affairs practice across the country. As the preeminent psychological scholar on
the subject of purpose, Frankl provided a useful theoretical concept which to
compare how the SDTLA—PUR measured Vector 6, Developing Purpose. This
study examined three research questions:

1. Are there differences in the way the PIL and SDTLA—PUR measure

a student’s sense of purpose in life?
2. What demographic variables impact a student's sense of purpose in

life, as measured by the SDTLA-PUR and the PIL?

3. What involvement or environmental factors impact a student's
sense of purpose in life, as measured by the SDTLA-PUR and the
PIL?
Plan of the Study

This study used Web-based data collection techniques to gather the
necessary data to answer the three research questions. The massive expansion
of the lntemet and Web-based technologies have allowed this means of research
to spread rapidly in educational settings, where participants have near-universal
access. The nature of the college campus made this means of data collection
particularly appealing, and sampling equivalent to the traditional paper-and-pencil
surveys could occur (Amau, Thompson, 8 Cook, 2001 ).

A random sample of 1,000 sophomore students, enrolled full-time (12 or
more credit hours) at a large Midwestern university was stratiﬁed equally by four
residential settings: residence halls, residential colleges, emerging apartment
communities, and general off-campus. The instrumentation included the
SDTLA-FUR, the PIL, demographic questions, and three series of questions on
environmental inﬂuence factors: Time Spent, Involvement, and Activities.

Data analysis for this study was performed with the Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS), Macintosh Version 11, using the appropriate
statistical methods as outlined by Pallant (2001). To analyze the data
appropriately in order to answer the three research questions, several different
statistical methods were needed, including basic descriptive statistics, ANOVA
procedures, ttests, correlations, and multiple regression procedures. Following

analysis and discussing the data, recommendations for future study were made.

Rationale for the Study

Having a sense of purpose or meaning in life has been reported to be a
strong and consistent predictor of psychological well-being (Chambenain, 1987).
In their review of studies on purpose, Zika and Chamberlain (1992) reported that
“meaning in life is consistently related to positive mental health outcomes, while
meaninglessness is associated with pathological outcomes” (p. 135).

In the most recent Freshmen Survey in the Chronicle of Higher Education,
34% of the freshmen surveyed indicated that the phrase “Searching for Meaning!
Purpose in Life” described them to a great extent (Freshmen Survey, 2004). In
2001, Moran called for student affairs professionals to give greater attention to
the value of purpose in life for the students with whom they work. She proposed
four ways in which purpose in life affects the college student: (1) values-
orientation of the student; (2) connectedness with the campus community; (3)
degree of risk-taking behaviors; and (4) overall well-being and satisfaction. These
propositions have important implications for student affairs professionals.

Before greater attention can be diverted to establishing programs and
policies that positively inﬂuence the development of a sense of purpose for the
college student, additional empirical research must be conducted to give student
affairs professionals the requisite tools to make informed decisions. This study
provided foundational information related to the SDTLA—FUR and the PIL, as
well as investigating how demographic variables and other factors may inﬂuence
a student’s sense of purpose.

Operational Deﬁnitions
Purpose in Life. The sense of having a purpose In life, or the construct

that is measured by the PIL. Frankl’s (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) scholarly work

in the last half of the 20th century is considered the standard characterization of
purpose in life.

Developing Purpose. Those constructs embedded in Chickering and
Reisser’s (1993) Vector Six.

PIL. The instrument developed by Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964) that
purports to measure Frankl's (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) construct of Purpose in
Life.

SDTLA—PUR. The instrument developed by Winston et al. (1999) that
purports to measure Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) Vector Six, Developing
Purpose.

Will to Meaning. The primary motivator of the human experience to strive
toward fulﬁlling as much meaning or purpose in his/her life as possible (Frankl,
1959,1984)

Meaning in Life. That which gives each individual his/her unique purpose
for existence (Frankl, 1959, 1984).

Meaning of Meaning. Denotes the philosophical debate on the meta—
meaning of life. For the purpose of this project, meta-meaning was acknowledged
to be outside human comprehension, beyond the basic understanding that there
is some order to the universe, and the individual has some place in that order
(Allport, 1955).

Existential Vacuum or Frustration. Experience of a lack of having a sense
of purpose in life (Frankl, 1959, 1984).

Age. The student’s age at the time of the study, as typed in by the student.

Gender. The student’s identiﬁcation of gender/sex, as entered in by the

student.

Race/Ethnicity. The student’s identiﬁcation of his/her race/ethnicity from
the choices identiﬁed by the institution of study. These include: African-American,
Asian/Paciﬁc Islander, Caucasian, Hispanic/Latino, lntemational, Native
American, or Other. Students could choose more than one racial/ethnic category.

Sexual Orientation. The student’s identiﬁcation of his/her sexual
orientation, as typed in by the student.

Class. The student’s year in school, deﬁned as freshman, sophomore,
junior or senior.

Socioeconomic Status. The proxy of receiving a Pell Grant during the
academic semester under study served as a measure of socioeconomic status.
Guidelines Used in Study

To report the ﬁndings of this study, several manuals and texts on style,
statistical tests and interpretation, and the creation of tables and ﬁgures were
used.

The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Fifth
Edition (2001) speciﬁed the writing, style, and references cited in this study.

Nicol and Pexman's (1999) outstanding text, Presenting Your Findings:
A Practical Guide for Creating Tables, provided invaluable assistance in the
reporting of data and creation of statistical tables. As recommended, the “play it
safe” tables were used for each statistical procedure to report the outcomes of
this study.

Finally, Pallant's (2001) SPSS Survival Manual guided the selection,
implementation, and interpretation of statistical procedures needed in the study.
Organization of the Study

This study is presented in ﬁve chapters. Chapter I provides a brief

overview of the conceptual foundation of the study, as well as the rationale,
purpose, research questions, operational deﬁnitions, guidelines used, and
organization of the study.

Chapter II reviews the related literature. This review contains a brief
overview of the purpose of education and college student development in
general; a more extensive review of Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) vectors of
college student development, with particular focus on Vector Six, Developing
Purpose; a general review of literature as it relates to purpose in life broadly
conceived; a more extensive review of Frankl's (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997)
theory of purpose in life; a comparison of Chickering and Reisser’s Vector Six
with Frankl’s purpose in life; and a review of the most popular measurement
instrument for each theory, the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle
Assessment—Purpose Form (Winston et al., 1999) and the Purpose in Life
Test (Crumbaugh 8 Maholick, 1964). The literature review also covers the
development of the research design, including Web-based data collection
methods, the residential status of the student, and identifying environmental
factors affecting development.

Chapter III describes the detailed methodology of the study. It covers
the purpose and research questions of the study, the population, the sample
selection, and instrumentation. Description of the data collection Web site
includes the software package selected, issues of cheaters and repeaters, and
the design of the Web-site itself. After a summary of the pilot test and lessons
learned, the design of primary data collection is outlined, including contacts
and response rates, technological back-up, conﬁdentiality, participant burden,

sensitivity of issues, and costs of the study.

10

Chapter IV describes the results of the data analysis, including a
description of the coding procedures and case removal decisions made;
description of correlation analysis of the SDTLA—PUR and the PIL; comparison
of study scores on the two dependent variables with national norms for the
instrument through ttests; sample demographics and their relationship to the two
dependent variables through ANOVA procedures; and regression analysis of the
impact of three series of factors (Time Spent, Involvement, and Activities) on both
the SDTLA—PUR and the PIL; and a summary of the major ﬁndings in the study.

Chapter V includes a review of the research questions in the study,
discussion of the major ﬁndings and their implications, limitations of the study,

and recommendations for future research related to purpose in life.

11

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW

This review of the research available in the literature explored Chickering
and Reisser’s (1993) model of the seven vectors of college student development,
paying particular attention to Vector Six, Developing Purpose. Viktor Frankl’s
(1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) work in Logotherapy, or therapy through meaning,
provided the conceptual framework of comparison to Vector Six. Frankl’s theory
of purpose in life was reviewed and compared to Vector Six. The Student
Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment—Purpose test (Winston et al.,
1999) was designed to measure Chickering and Reisser’s Vector Six, Developing
Purpose; the Purpose in Life Test (Crumbaugh 8 Maholick, 1964) was designed
to measure Frankl’s view of his construct. These instruments were also reviewed.

Literature was reviewed as it relates to the methodological implications of
the study. Astin’s (1993) input—environment—outcomes (l-E-O) model and others
were reviewed to assist in identifying environmental and involvement factors that
may inﬂuence development, including involvement in services and activities,
and inﬂuence of residential setting on development. Important considerations for
study design were also reviewed, including the appropriateness of Web-based
data collection on college campuses and recommendations to improve Web-
based methodologies.

College Student Development

“Two fundamental presuppositions of education are that people can

change and that educators and educational environments can affect that change”

(Winston et al., 1999, p. 3). These fundamental assumptions are apparent

12

throughout the theoretical literature in education (Astin, 1993; Erikson, 1968;
Havinghurst, 1972; Kohlberg, 1969; Perry, 1970). Although some researchers
explain the educational experience as merely a gain in academic skills and
intellectual knowledge, an additional important aspect of college student
development is in the areas of interpersonal skills and knowledge about one’s
own attitudes, beliefs, and ways of being (Astin, 1993). Development of the total
student, meaning personal development in addition to intellectual skills, has
become increasingly regarded as a critical aspect of the mission of educational
institutions. Winston et al. (1981) observed:
The body of research concerning the personal development of
college students has grown rapidly in recent years. Students have
been observed, interviewed, tested, and variously poked and
prodded in efforts to discover what is in their hearts and minds as
they advance in college. (p. 429) '

Chickering and Havinghurst (1981) felt that the purpose of institutions of
higher education “should be to encourage and enable intentional developmental
change in students” (p. 2). Erikson (1968), Havinghurst (1972), Kohlberg (1969),
Perry (1970), and others have all made major contributions to the understanding
of how and in what ways students develop while in college, guiding the work of
student affairs practitioners as they make policy and practice decisions on a daily
basis. Noted as the creator of one of the ﬁrst comprehensive models of student
development, Chickering (1969) proposed a series of paths or vectors through
which students progress developmentally during college. Chickering’s work was
the ﬁrst attempt to synthesize available research into a framework. It has gained

notoriety and inﬂuenced more research and practice than other theoretical

13

models on college student development (Pascarella 8 Terenzini, 1991 ).
Seven Vectors of Development

Chickering (1969) believed that in an increasingly complex society, an
important psychosocial developmental period had emerged during the college
years from age 18 to the mid-20s. He created one of the most widely known
and studied college student development theories. “Before Education and
Identity, little had been published about development beyond adolescence,
except for writings by Sanford (1961), Erikson (1959) and Marcia (1965 and
1966)” (Reisser, 1995, p. 506). Chickering's research on the seven vectors of
college student development proved to be a watershed event in the development
of psychosocial theories for college students. “Psychosocial theories view
development as a series of developmental tasks or stages, including qualitative
changes in thinking, feeling, behaving, valuing, and relating to others and
to oneself” (Chickering 8 Reisser, 1993, p. 2). Chickering characterized the
college student “as an individual in a distinct psychosocial phase deﬁned by the
emergence of certain inner needs and abilities which interact with the demands
or press of the college milieu” (Edman, 1988, p. 4).

Chickering (1969) believed that the critical task speciﬁcally for college
students was the establishment of their identity, and proposed seven vectors of
development through which students must progress. Chickering and Reisser
(1993) later revised the seven vectors to take into account more recent research
and a broader demographic base, hoping to provide “useful tools to a new
generation of practitioners who want to help students become “excellent all-
rounders’" (p. 41).

Chickering and Reisser's (1993) seven vectors deﬁne “major highways for

14

journeying toward individuation—the discovery and reﬁnement of one’s unique
way of being” (p. 35). Unlike many student development theories (Kohlberg,
1969; Perry, 1970), Chickering and Reisser’s theory is not linear. Students do not
travel down exactly the same highway and make the same stops en route. The
seven vectors outline broad constellations of development, through each of which
the student must progress. Because it is not a strict linear stage model, individual
students traverse down their own highways in different ways, with different turns,
speeds, and modes of transportation, but they “eventually all will move down
these major routes” (p. 35). The seven vectors simply indicate a series of tasks
through which the student must advance during the college years, in no speciﬁc
order or sequence. It should be noted that “some tasks are more likely to be
encountered early in the journey” (p. 37), and “each seems to have direction and
magnitude—even though the direction may be expressed more appropriately

by a spiral or by steps than by a straight line” (p. 8). There is also some overlap
between vectors and their corresponding development trajectory.

Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) seven vectors delineate the tasks
necessary for the development of the college student’s identity: Developing
Competence; Managing Emotions; Moving Through Autonomy Toward
Interdependence; Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships; Establishing
Identity; Developing Purpose; and Developing Integrity. Progression in each of
the seven vectors is equally critical to total development.

Chickering and Reisser (1993) believed that it was critical for student
affairs professionals to know and understand what student development looked
like, and how to foster it. Their vectors of development have “attracted greater

attention and inspired more research and administrative programming than other

15

psychosocial theories or models” (Pascarella 8 Terenzini, 1991). As a framework,
the seven vectors “can give us the lenses to see these changes and help them
along” (p. 43). In their review of relevant research, Pascarella and Terenzini
concluded that the theory was frequently criticized in the literature because it
lacked speciﬁcity for practical application. Many of the seven vectors have been
empirically explored to establish that greater speciﬁcity and describe how to
foster development along the particular trajectory studied (Greeley 8 Tinsley,
1988; ltzkowitz 8 Petrie, 1986; Jordan-Cox, 1987; Polkosnik 8 Winston, 1989;
Stran 8 Rodgers, 1986). However, one vector of student development that has
not received signiﬁcant attention is Vector Six, Developing Purpose.
Vector 6: Developing Purpose
Concerning Vector 6, Developing Purpose, Chickering and Reisser
(1993) believed thatdeveloping a map is a mechanism for closing the distance
between who we are, and where we would like to be. Under Vector Six, students
determine “a sense of our place in the larger whole” (p. 234). The researchers
reasoned:
[A] plan becomes a map for moving from the current situation to a
more desirable one, for altering status quo, for composing a life. It
becomes a servomechanism, a grid for measuring achievement,
and a prod for mobilizing further effort to close the gap between the
condition we are in and the target we want to reach. (p. 210)
Developing purpose requires establishing a plan of action that integrates
vocational plans, avocational personal interests, and interpersonal and family
commitments.

Vocation often implies paid employment, but Chickering and Reisser

16

(1993) believed it included paid or unpaid work, or both. Students’ true vocation
was determined “by discovering what we love to do, what energizes and fulﬁlls
us, and what uses our talents and challenges us to develop new ones, and what
actualizes our potentials for excellence” (p. 212). We may work a paid position
to pay the bills, but our vocation may be some other primary work, such as being
an artist or musician. Alternatively, our vocation may be both our love and our
source of income, such as teaching, practicing law, or medicine. Students who
engaged in career counseling services available at their university, participated
in internships and practica, and discussed their plans with professors were much
more likely to have identiﬁed their direction for the future—both the next steps
and the long term.

“[E]very choice to do one thing is a choice not to do nine others"
(Chickering 8 Reisser, 1993, p. 225). Developing a sense of purpose also
includes the stabilization of avocational personal interests and recreational
pursuits. Drawing, poetry, sports, stamp collecting, political action and advocacy,
and other activities and interests have to be weighed against one another, and
long-temi interests incorporated into the student’s identity. The commitment
of personal time and effort must be determined by expanding old interests or
replacing those older interests with new ones.

“Considerations of life-style and family also enter the equation” (Chickering
8 Reisser, 1993, p. 229). Students who “face several forks in the road” (p. 229)
have had to make choices about long-terrn partnerships, future geographic
locations, and further education. “When friendships and the intimate exchanges
that accompany them are valued and promoted, identity and purpose become

clearer" (p. 396).

17

Developing a sense of purpose is not necessarily an absolute; the same
purpose does not have to remain unchanged throughout the lifespan, nor does it
need to be extremely speciﬁc. In developing a sense of purpose, students must
“go beyond what is merely interesting and ﬁnd an anchoring set of assumptions
about what is true, principles that deﬁne what is good, and beliefs that provide
meaning and give us a sense of our place in the larger whole” (Chickering 8
Reisser, 1993, p. 234). As a student explores and experiences new things,
his/her purpose in life may change. Yet the student must develop that sense of
purpose even though it may change in the future.

Purpose in Life
Since the beginning of recorded history, people have always
wondered about such questions as: What is the purpose of being
here? Is there any ultimate meaning to human existence? What
happens when someone dies? Why do bad things happen to good
people? How can one live a meaningful, fulﬁlling life? (Wong, 1998,
p.111)

The struggle for this sense of purpose or meaning in life is a distinctly
human characteristic (Fry, 1998). Literary pundits, self-help authors,
religiously afﬁliated individuals, and others all have expressed a broad range
of perspectives on purpose or meaning in life. These perspectives had their
philosophical origins in Aristotle’s belief that the highest of all human goods was
the realization of a person’s true potential. Other philosophers, such as Nietzsche
and Tolstoy, attempted to further elucidate the meaning of life. Although the work
of these philosophers created healthy debate on the meaning or purpose of life

in their times, their schematics were often too far removed from daily life to be of

18

signiﬁcant value. Deﬁning an exact purpose in life for all humanity was like the
horizon: no matter how far you traveled down the road, the horizon remained
beyond reach.

Klemke ( 1981) believed there were three points of view for answering
the question of the meaning of life: The questioning semantics answer; the
theistic answer; and the nontheistic answer. Philosophers in the ﬁrst group
disputed the meaningfulness of asking the question at all. They focused on the
semantics and cognitively attached connotation to the words of “meaning” or
“purpose.” They asserted that the questions were too ambiguous to answer, and
therefore pointless to ask. The theistic perspective holds that meaning in life
is focused on the existence of a supremely benevolent and all-powerful being.
This god created the universe and created man in his image, endowing him with
a preordained purpose in life. Klemke discovered that it was difﬁcult to defend
this position explicitly in the literature, but recognized that it was a strongly
held conviction among religious believers. Those who asserted the nontheistic
alternative ignored the existence of a supreme being, and believed that purpose
in life had to be found within the natural known universe. This more humanistic
perspective stresses that there cannot be a clear and singular meaning or
purpose of life, beyond a basic acceptance that there is some meta-order in the
universe and that everyone is a part of that meta-order in some way. Regardless
of a person’s orientation to the question of the meaning of life, both the nature
of that meta-order and an individual’s role within it appear to lie beyond human
comprehension.

Although the determination of the meta-meaning of life may be beyond

human ability, individuals must do their best to determine their place in the

19

Universe (Allport, 1955) and create a unique sense of purpose in life. Without
this fundamental sense of purpose for the individual, behaviors are guided simply
by impulse (Baumester, 1991). According to Baumester, a person developing

a sense of purpose for his/her own life was well within his/her grasp, and that
purpose provided direction. Many psychological theorists believed that the
development of that sense of purpose is critical for a healthy way of life, as
outlined below.

In creating more concrete theoretical paradigms than the existential
thinking of philosophers previously discussed, many psychological and
sociological theorists have identiﬁed having a sense of purpose in life as a
fundamental aspect of overall healthy development. These theories leave the
question of the meta-meaning of life aside, and articulate the position that each
individual needs to discover his or her own particular sense of purpose.

In positing his psychological hierarchy of needs, Maslow (1970)
differentiated between basic needs and macro needs in a hierarchal pattern of
progression. Maslow theorized that fulﬁlling one’s own potential through self-
actualization is the pinnacle of human development. His semantics were different,
but related well to Allport’s (1955) conception of motivation. Allport’s model
differentiates between deﬁciency and growth motives of humans. These growth
motives, similar to Maslow’s achieving one’s own potential, include long-range
purpose and striving toward distant goals in the future. Other theories, such
as Rogers’ (1961) description of the fully functioning person, Jahoda’s (1958)
criteria for positive mental health, and Jung’s (1933) process of individuation,
also include a core component based on discovering purpose in one’s life. All of

these conceptions include several distinct characteristics of human development.

20

In each, however, a prominent theme of developing a sense of purpose was
incorporated into the psychological and sociological account. Viktor Frankl,
whose works were required reading in most undergraduate level psychology
classes, took the signiﬁcance of purpose in life one step further. Unlike the
researchers cited above, Frankl (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) believed developing a
sense of purpose in life was the primary requisite of human development.
Conceptual Framework: Frankl’s Purpose in Life

Frankl (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) ﬁrst explored and deﬁned purpose in
life in the clinical literature over 40 years ago, and is generally considered the
father of Logotherapy. From the Greek word logos (translated as meaning),
Logotherapy is a form of psychotherapy conceived of as therapy through
meaning (Pytell, 2001). F rankl’s initial ideas of meaning or purpose in life were
developed prior to World War II. Those ideas were reinforced by his experiences
as a prisoner in a concentration camp (Zika 8 Chamberlain, 1992), revealed in
his acclaimed Holocaust testimony, Man’s Search for Meaning (1959). Frankl’s
work offered a substantial contribution toward the development of a theoretical
foundation for meaning in life and the loss of a sense of purpose. As one of
the leading scholars on the issue of purpose in life, Frankl provided a valuable
concept to compare to Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) Vector Six, Developing
Purpose.

Central to Frankl’s (1984) Logotherapy was the belief that developing a
sense of purpose is the primary objective of human existence (Fabry, 1998). The
lack of meaning by itself was not necessarily pathology or disease, but Frankl
believed that the distress caused by lack of a sense of purpose could quickly

elevate to crisis. These two constructs, termed will to meaning and existential

21

vacuum or frustration were identiﬁed as core elements of Frankl’s Western
perspective on human motivation (Hutzell, 1987). Frankl (1984) metaphorically
compared individuals to a pilot landing in the fog. In this metaphor, the glide
path of the human plane is the individual's unique sense of purpose in life that
guides his/her decision-making toward the future. Loss of this sense of purpose
is comparable to a pilot losing contact with the control tower and being unable to
land in the fog.

Frankl's Logotherapy established three basic tenets: freedom of will, will to
meaning, and meaning in life. Freedom of will declared that individuals have the
ability to assert their own decisions in the meta-order of the universe to create
their own paths, within obvious limitations (Fabry, 1987). Although humans are
not free from external stimuli that often create difﬁcult environmental conditions,
they are always free to choose their attitudes towards those circumstances.
Maddi (1998) believed that our freedom of will allows us to recognize that as we
experience our daily lives, we are constantly making decisions that affect our
present and our future. It is the ability, content, and direction of these decisions
that give human lives meaning. Individuals create meaning by the choices they
are free to make (Frankl, 1984).

As previously articulated, the will to meaning is a primary and basic
human motive and the second tenet of Logotherapy. Unlike his contemporaries,
Frankl (1959, 1984) believed that the main goal in life was not to attain Adler’s
(1958) notion of power or Freud’s (1938) focus on pleasure. He felt it was
to ﬁnd meaning and value in the life an individual leads. He explained will to
meaning as, “with this we designate man’s striving to fulﬁll as much meaning in

his existence as possible, and to realize as much value in his life as possible”

22

(Frankl, 1959, p. 161). Having a purpose in life was not one of many factors
(Frankl, 1992), but the central motivator of the human experience.

It is the interaction of a person’s freedom of will and the will to meaning
that enables humans to transcend external constraints in the here and now to
discover meaning in life, the third tenet of Logotherapy. Meaning in life can be
discovered right up until death and even in the worst of environmental or living
conditions, but individuals must discover it for themselves. It is through this
developed sense of purpose that the person discems a reason for existence and
gains the ability to survive the worst of conditions. Frankl (1984) believed man
does not ﬁnd meaning within a particular religious dogma, which clearly placed
him in a more humanistic orientation towards the meaning of life when compared
to others. However, he claimed that meaning could be secular or religious and
could be present in religious, interpersonal, and creative contexts (Zeitchik,
2000). Frankl believed that an individual discovers meaning in several ways. The
ﬁrst, which he thought was quite obvious, is “by creating a work or doing a deed”
(Frankl, p. 115). Purpose could stem from an individual’s work or vocation. Frankl
also believed that meaning could be derived from experiencing “nature and
culture” or “by experiencing another human being in his very uniqueness—by
loving him” (p. 115). Finally, Frankl believed we also ﬁnd purpose even “when
confronted with a hopeless situation” (p. 116). What matters is how we transform
that personal tragedy into achievement.

Meaning or purpose in life pervades both the conscious and unconscious
thoughts of all human beings at various points in time. Disagreeing with
renowned psychologist Maslow (1970) and others, Frankl (1984) believed that

a person’s concern is to fulfill meaning and to realize value, not to actualize

23

themselves. An individual who achieved Maslow’s true self-actualization in life
would not have a further purpose in life, and would falter without this sense of
direction. “One characteristic of human existence is its transcendence. That is

to say, man transcends his environment toward the world (and toward a higher
world); but more than this, he also transcends his being toward an ought”—not to
what he/she is, but what he/she should or would like to be (Frankl, 1959, p. 159).

Frankl left the debate of the meta-meaning of life to the philosophers,
and focused instead on the application of clinical interventions to assist those
who did not have a sense of purpose to discover it for themselves in their
current situation. This inner emptiness or void Frankl termed existential vacuum
or existential frustration. In Frankl’s (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) use, existential
referred to existence in the human mode, the meaning of existence, or the search
for concrete meaning—his will to meaning. Boredom and distress were often
indicative of existential vacuum or frustration. The individual could compensate
for both vicariously by a will to power or money or the will to pleasure, manifested
sexually or through other hedonistic behaviors. This state of existential frustration
ensued when one failed to identify meaning in his/her life and an inner void or
emptiness was experienced with regard to purposive living.

For Frankl (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997), a person who once felt a sense of
purpose but has lost sight of it for some reason is no different from the person
who never believed that his/her life had meaning or purpose in the ﬁrst place.
Neither experiences a sense of purpose, and both are in need of some kind of
intervention to establish a purpose orientation (Zeitchik, 2000). Logotherapy
was created to assist people in ﬁnding a sense of purpose, especially those who

experience a stunted sense of purpose. Frankl’s theory posits that people who

24

suffer from a lack of meaning in their lives need to be educated to be able to
respond and commit to the values that can be actualized in a speciﬁc situation
(Zeitchik, 2000). Through reality-based awareness and focus on future goals
and responsibilities, an individual can be assisted toward achieving a sense of
purpose in his/her life.

As a clinical psychologist, Frankl (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) focused
on the application of therapy through meaning in the clinical context. Four of
Frankl's core theoretical beliefs are germane for the purpose of this study: (1)
humans possess a fundamental primary motivation to strive to develop a sense
of meaning or purpose in life, denoted as will to meaning; (2) we are only happy
when we have developed that sense of purpose in life; (3) there are signiﬁcant
deleterious affects when we fail to develop a sense of purpose, or Frankl’s
concept of existential frustration; and (4) purpose emanates from work or
deeds (vocation), nature and culture (avocational interests and recreation), love
(interpersonal commitment), and our attitude toward suffering.
Vector 6 and Frankl's Purpose in Life

In reviewing both Frankl’s (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) and Chickering and
Reisser's (1993) work on purpose in life, it is clear that both theories have several
themes in common, but also a few differences. In common, both theories contain
similar deﬁnitions of “purpose”; both posit that developing purpose fundamentally
centers on the same three constructs; and in both theories, developing a sense
of purpose is a necessary and critical task for healthy development. The theories
differ on when the development of purpose occurs and on the placement or
centrality of purpose to the total individual.

Developing purpose, in both theories, means establishing a plan that

25

deﬁnes your goals, and then making necessary adjustments to your current
situation in order to achieve them. Chickering and Reisser (1993) described this
process as a highway; Frankl (1984) used the metaphor of a pilot in the fog. The
road map or air control tower corresponds to a person’s sense of purpose in life
that allows the individual to progress in a forward thinking, intentional way. Both
authors agreed that religion may play a part of that sense of purpose, but that
purpose stemmed from three distinct areas.

Chickering and Reisser (1993) believed that vocational plans, avocational
and recreational interests, and the commitment to interpersonal relationships
and lifestyles formed the foundation for a student’s progress through Vector Six.
Frankl (1984) believed that one’s work, nature or cultural interests, and love were
the foundation of purpose. Although the semantics differed, the authors both
identiﬁed three extremely similar elements of purpose.

An additional commonality between the two theories relates to what
happens if one does not develop a sense of purpose. Both Frankl (1959, 1979,
1984, 1997) and Chickering and Reisser (1993) articulated the concept that
developing purpose is a critical task if the individual is to be happy and healthy.
Both theories have in common the notion that not progressing through the
vector, that is, not developing that sense of purpose, would lead to deleterious
outcomes. As a clinical psychologist, Frankl’s focus was more clearly centered
on these deleterious outcomes than was Chickering and Reisser’s. Because of
Frankl’s clinical work to minimize these kinds of behaviors, a greater amount of
research using Frankl’s construct is available in the literature.

A primary difference between the two theories is related to the centrality

of purpose to the individual. Frankl (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997), who developed a

26

line of psychological counseling based on developing purpose, placed purpose in
life as the single central focus of a person’s development, with other dimensions
stemming from it. Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) placement of developing
purpose as one vector out of seven indicated they felt it was a piece of the larger
development, but not necessarily central to all others.

When a person should develop a sense of purpose was also a major
difference between the two authors. Frankl (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) believed
that age was irrelevant to the development of purpose—that regardless of a
person’s place in life, he/she could develop a sense of purpose. Chickering
and Reisser (1993) believed that students must progress through the earlier
vectors of their schema, and that developing purpose generally begins only in
the later college years and continues afterwards. The two theories differ on the
centrality of purpose to the individual, and when the development of purpose
occurs, but their deﬁnitions and descriptions of the elements of purpose and
the consequences of a stunted sense of purpose are very similar. However, no
empirical research has been published that compares the instruments designed
to assess Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) Vector Six, Developing Purpose, and
Frankl’s (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) purpose in life.

Measurement of Vector 6 and Purpose in Life

Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) and Frankl’s (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997)
conceptions of developing a sense of purpose in life have been shown to be
remarkably similar. Because the theories themselves have such commonality, it
was expected that the instruments designed to assess them would be similar in
design and quantiﬁcation of the constructs. Based on Chickering and Reisser’s

(1993) model of student development, the Student Development Task and

27

Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA) was designed to measure three of the vectors,
including Vector Six, Developing Purpose (Winston et al., 1999). The Purpose in
Life Test (PIL) was developed to measure Frankl’s view of developing purpose
(Crumbaugh 8 Maholick, 1964).

Student Development Task and Lifestyle Assessment. The SDTLA is
the latest iteration of a counseling tool developed by the University of Georgia
to measure students’ psychosocial development (Winston et al., 1999). Earlier
versions of the instrument included the Student Development Task Inventory
(SDTI) (Prince, Miller, 8 Winston, 1974), the SDTl-2 (Winston, Miller, 8 Prince,
1979), and the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Inventory (SDTLI)
(Winston, Miller, 8 Prince, 1987). Although designed primarily as a counseling
tool, the SDTLA and its earlier versions have been used widely in student affairs
practice to assist students in their growth and development (Evans, Fomey, 8
Guido-DiBrito, 1998).

The theoretical work of Chickering (1969) and Chickering and Reisser
(1993) “was a major inﬂuence in guiding the creation and evolution of the
SDTLA” (Winston et al., 1999, p. 4). The SDTLA is comprised of a series of
developmental tasks and subtasks. Developmental tasks are “an interrelated
set of behaviors and attitudes that the culture speciﬁes should be exhibited
at approximately the same time” (Winston et al., p. 10). The SDTLA was
designed to assess three of Chickering and Reisser’s developmental tasks or
vectors: Developing Purpose, Developing Autonomy, and Developing Mature
Interpersonal Relationships. There are four versions of the instrument—one to
measure all three developmental tasks and one each to measure the three tasks

independently. For comparison with Frankl’s Purpose in Life (1959, 1979, 1984,

28

1997), the SDTLA-PUR test was most appropriate.

The SDTLA-PUR, designed to assess the overall Developing Purpose
Vector or developmental task, does so by assessing four subtasks: Educational
Involvement, Career Planning, Lifestyle Planning, and Cultural Participation.
Students with high achievement on the SDTLA-PUR are expected to be active
learners with well-established educational goals, to have well developed career
plans and expectations, to have made future plans that take into acwunt family
and interpersonal ooncems, and to exhibit a wide range of cultural interests
and activities (Winston et al., 1999). The instrument also includes a Response
Bias Scale, 3 series of questions designed to determine if the student is trying
to portray himself/herself in “an unrealistically favorable way” (p. 12). Students
who scored from 4 to 6 on the Response Bias Scale were recommended to be
removed from the data pool. The instrument consists of 57 items that assess
developing purpose and its corresponding four subtasks, using both multiple
choice and true—false formats. The instrument authors assigned individual
weights ranging from one to ﬁve to item responses for each question, indicating
an answer’s relative value when compared to other responses. Average
responses for sophomores by gender on the SDTLA-PUR tasks and subtasks
are included in Table 1. Because only sophomores are included in the sample
of the study discussed in Chapter III, other class level scores have not been
included in this table.

Test—retest reliability of the developmental task and subtasks clustered
around .80, which indicated that the instrument had adequate stability over time.
To determine internal consistency, Cronbach alphas were determined from a

sample of 1,822 students enrolled in 32 colleges and universities during 1994-

29

Table 1
Normative Scores for the SD TLA -PUR for Sophomores,

as a Function of Gender

 

ii_r so

 

Task Men Women Men Women

 

Developing Purpose 3.03 3.13 0.67 0.66

 

Men (n=143); Women (n=222).

Note: From Preliminary Technical Manual for the Student Developmental Task and

Lifestyle Assessment (Winston, Miller, 8 Cooper, 1999).

30

1996. Alpha coefﬁcients ranged from .76 to .81 for the SDTLA-PUR form and its
subtasks, indicating a high degree of internal consistency (Winston et al., 1999).

Of the tasks and subtasks assessed by the SDTLA, Developing Purpose
and its four subtasks have had little signiﬁcant empirical exploration. In their
landmark How College Affects Students, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991)
reviewed over 20 years of research related to college student development.
Although the authors cited a number of studies related to the various iterations of
the SDTLA, all of the research they reviewed explored tasks and subtasks other
than Developing Purpose. Their synthesis made two brief references to purpose,
but did not review any research or data. However, a few other studies have
explored the SDTLA as it relates to Developing Purpose and its four subtasks.

A series of validation studies were conducted to determine the correlation
between the SDTLA-FUR subtasks with other, more established instruments
in higher education. Pace (1983) compared scales from the College Student
Experiences instrument with the SDTLA-PUR tasks and subtasks, and found
correlations for the Career Exploration with the developmental task of Developing
Purpose (r = .53) and the subtasks of Career Planning (r = .60), Experiences
with Faculty Scale and the Educational Involvement Subtask of the SDTLA-FUR
(r = .53), and the Art, Music, and Theatre Scale with the Cultural Participation
Subtask (r = .55). Problem Solving and Decision Making Scale from the Life
Skills Development Inventory have correlated with the Lifestyle Planning Subtask
(r = .56) (Pickleshimer, 1991) and the Career Exploration Scale of the Career
Development Inventory has been correlated with the SDTLA-PUR Career
Planning Subtask (r = .60) (Super, Thompson, Lindeman, Jordaan, 8 Myers,
1981)

31

Wright (1987) found that participation and leadership in student
organizations had a positive impact on the scores of seniors in developing
mature career plans, mature lifestyle plans, and purpose, when compared to
freshman scores. Participation in intercollegiate athletics was found to have a
negative impact on the students’ development of autonomy, mature interpersonal
relationships, and purpose (Lawrence, 1985). Developing purpose was found
to be positively related to students’ intent to persist in college (Paratore, 1984).
Vlﬁlliams and Winston (1985) also found a relationship between participation
in student activities and development of appropriate education plans, mature
career plans, and mature lifestyle plans, as measured by the SDTl-2, but failed
to support the common notion that working students had a developmental
advantage over nonworking students in developing purpose.

Other studies correlated the earlier iterations of the SDTLA-PUR with life
role participation (Niles, Sowa, 8 Laden, 1994), members versus nonmembers
of student organizations (Cooper, Healy, 8 Simpson, 1994), racial identity and
ethnicity (Pope, 2000; Sheehan 8 Pearson, 1995), growth due to enrollment in
a self-awareness course for underprepared freshmen (Higbee 8 Dwinell, 1992),
moral orientation (Jones 8 Watt, 1999), and athletic identity (Cornelius, 1995),
among others.

The SDTLA-FUR “represents a sample of behavior and reports about
feelings and attitudes that are indicative of students who have achieved“ the
developmental task of developing purpose (Winston et al., 1999, p. 10). Although
studies related to the SDTLA-PUR have been conducted on identity development
issues, construct instruments, and activity participation, little work has been

completed in assessing how the SDTLA-FUR measures purpose compared to

32

other conceptions of the same construct. Further research is needed related
speciﬁcaﬂy to Vector Six, Developing Purpose as assessed by the SDTLA,
beginning with a comparison of the SDTLA-FUR with another measurement of
purpose.

Purpose in Life Test. Based on Frankl’s (1959, 1984) theory of purpose
in life, Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964) developed the Purpose in Life Test
(PIL) to assist in measuring the degree to which a person experienced a sense
of purpose in life. The PIL was used widely in both clinical and nonclinical
populations (Hutzell 8 Peterson, 1986). Crumbaugh (1968), Crumbaugh and
Maholick (1964), Meier and Edwards (1974), and Phillips (1980) all found support
for the validity of the instrument as measuring Frankl’s construct of purpose in life
in relation to other similar measures of this construct, as well as in test—retesting
and factorial analysis.

In their initial validation studies of the PIL, Crumbaugh and Maholick
(1964) studied the ability of the PIL to discriminate between patient and
nonpatient populations. In his summation of previous data collected, Crumbaugh
(1968) established benchmark scores for various patient and nonpatient
groupings. He reported the differences between the mean scores of patients (M =
92.60, SD = 21.34, n = 346) and non-patients (M = 112.45, SD = 14.07, n = 805)
were signiﬁcant at the p < . 001 level. As Crumbaugh predicted, the PIL did a
reasonable job of discriminating between the two groups with a high signiﬁcance,
lending construct validity to the instrument. A breakdown of mean scores on
the PIL by each of the nonpatient groupings is provided in Table 2. Crumbaugh
also asserted that the measures of concurrent validity of the PIL were “in line

with the level of criterion validity which can usually be obtained from a single

33

Table 2

Mean Normative Scores of Groupings on the PIL.

 

 

Groupings M SQ _I\_I
Successful business and professional

personnel (Rotarians, Kiwanis, etc.) 118.90 11.31 230
Active and leading Protestant parishioners 114.27 15.28 142
College Undergraduates 108.45 13.98 417
Indigent non-psychiatric hospital patients 106.40 17.71 16
Psychiatric In and Out Patients 92.60 21 .34 346

 

From Crumbaugh (1968).

measure of a complex trait” (p. 79). He reported correlations with therapists”
ratings of patients (.38, N = 50) and ministers of their parishioners (.47, N = 120)
as evidence. The split-half correlation of the PIL (N = 120) yielded a coefﬁcient of
.85, corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula to .92, indicating the survey was
reliable.

Exploration of the impact that intervening variables (age, sex, religiosity,
education level, etc.) may have on PIL scores has also occurred, though with
limited results. Some studies show an impact of demographic Intervening
variables such as race, age, and gender (Crumbaugh, 1972; Doerries, 1970), but
many others do not (Crumbaugh, 1972; Crumbaugh 8 Maholick, 1964; Meier 8
Edwards, 1974; Yamell, 1971 ). Based on these conﬂicting reports and others,
no consistent interaction between the variables of sex, age, education, and
intelligence and the PIL has been determined. Since the inception and original
validation of the PIL, continued study has provided evidence of its relationship
to issues such as engagement in work, values orientation, engagement in risky
behaviors, and basic health and well-being. Because the instrument had its
basis in clinical psychology, there has been broad research on the impact of the
presence or absence of a sense of purpose on other deleterious behaviors.

In addition, there have been a number of studies exploring the PIL
in relation to other instruments and psychological constructs. Studies have
illustrated the PIL’s effectiveness in discriminating levels of occupational
meaningfulness (Crumbaugh, 1968), degree of engagement in college campus
activities (Doerries, 1970), greater degree of purpose among successful
applicants in a religious order (Crumbaugh, Raphael, 8 Schrader, 1970), and

lesser degree of purpose among prison inmates (Reker, 1977). Higher PIL scores

35

have been found to be positively related to reduced anxiousness and increased
self-conﬁdence (Yamell, 1971), self-acceptance (Crumbaugh 8 Maholick, 1969),
intrinsic religiosity (Crandall 8 Rasmussen, 1975), social attitudes (Pearson 8
Shefﬁeld, 1975), satisfaction with current life (Reker 8 Cousins, 1979), positive
expectations of the future (Reker 8 Cousins, 1979), and emotional stability
(Crumbaugh 8 Maholick, 1969). Individuals with higher PIL scores have also
been found to be moderately less neurotic and more sociable, as measured by
the Eysenck Personality Inventory (Pearson 8 Shefﬁeld, 1974).

In the last two decades, purpose or meaning in life has continued to
gain the attention of researchers within their own spheres of interest. Lazuras
and DeLongis (1983) established that sources of personal meaning inﬂuence
the stress and coping process throughout the life span. In two different studies,
Newcomb and Harlow (1986) found that perceived meaninglessness in life
mediated the relation between uncontrollable stress and substance use.
Harlow, Newcomb, and Bentler (1986) found purpose in life to mediate between
depression and self-degradation, and subsequent drug use for women and
suicidal ideation for men, and later found purpose in life positively related to
happiness. Padelford (1974) found a signiﬁcant negative relationship between
high school student drug involvement and a sense of purpose in life. Other
studies have shown the relationship of purpose in life with responsibility and
self-control (Simmons, 1980), and well being (Lazuras 8 DeLongis, 1983).
Additionally, lack of purpose in life has been shown to relate to suicidality and
hedonistic value orientation (Crandall 8 Rasmussen, 1975).

Based on the published research reviewed here and elsewhere about the

PIL, having a sense of purpose in life is clearly related to a range of very positive

36

characteristics, values, and healthy mental outcomes. Lacking that sense of
purpose was also shown to relate to a series of extremely detrimental behaviors.
The purpose in life construct and its corresponding measurement instrument, the
PIL, serves as a valuable theoretical framework to compare the SDTLA-PUR in
assessing developing purpose. Although the PIL appears to be a very valuable
construct for consideration in the ﬁelds of public education, public health, higher
education, and others, it is important to consider the context and methodology
used in these studies before they are generalized to a different nonclinical focus
population.

Frankl’s Logotherapy and the PIL instrument both had their conception in
the ﬁeld of clinical psychology. Therefore, much of the available research on the
construct is focused on the clinical or outpatient population. Additionally, the few
studies available in nonclinical situations tended to use convenience samples, or
more random samples with very narrow population deﬁnitions. These limitations
in the research bring into question the direct applicability of the existing data to
nonclinical settings or wider audiences. In his review of the PIL for the 6th Edition
of the Test Critiques, Hutzell (1987) indicated, “Normative data are notably
absent,” and recommended caution until data that are more representative are
published (p. 445). However, the current PIL research provides some sense
of the relationship between purpose in life and other important constructs in
certain populations, and points to the possibility of similar relationships in a wider
context. The PIL offers a prime opportunity for further exploration of purpose in
life with randomized nonclinical populations to explore the applicability of the
ﬁndings to a broader audience. The research questions outlined in Chapter III are

designed to conduct such an exploration.

37

Methodological Considerations

In developing a research methodology for this study, additional review of
the literature was needed in the areas of Web-based data collection methods,
the residential status of the student and its impact on development, and
environmental factors that may inﬂuence student development. The following
discussion highlights pertinent literature on these topics.

Web-Based Data Collection Methods. The massive expansion of the
lntemet and Web-based technologies over the last 10 years has been well
documented. The widespread adoption of computers in homes and business
has allowed marketing agencies, governmental services, polling organizations,
and a growing number of researchers to expand their research methodologies to
included Web-based and lntemet assisted data collection (Sills 8 Song, 2002).

Collecting data entirely through Web-based approaches may not yet
be possible in the general population of the United States (Dillman, 2000).
However, in population subsets with near universal Web access, it is currently
effective (Crawford, Couper, 8 Lamias, 2001). Arnau, Thompson, 8 Cook (2001)
concluded that “some populations, such as those in the university environment,
may have sufﬁcient technical sophistication and availability of networked
computers for equivalent sampling to occur” (p. 24). Crawford et al. believed that
the “high penetration of Web and lntemet usage" by college students made Web-
based surveys especially popular with this population (p. 146).

Although this mode of data collection is relatively new, it offers signiﬁcant
advantages over other alternatives such as paper and pencil US. Mail survey
methods. Probably the greatest advantage of this method is lower costs; Web-

based data collection is signiﬁcantly cheaper than other alternatives. Dillman

38

(2000), Schleyer and Forrest (2000), and others reported that Web surveys
were operationally more cost effective because printing and postage costs were
essentially eliminated. This is a particularly important advantage for studies
involving larger samples. Schleyer and Forrest reported that when comparing
Web-based modes of data collection to US. Mail, the integrity of the data was
improved through Web-based techniques. This primarily resulted from the
elimination of transcription error during data entry. Web-based data collection
allows the compilation of data from a larger number of participants more quickly
and inexpensively and of higher quality than other alternatives. However, as with
all methods of data collection, there are trade-offs.

Often the greatest objection to Web-based data collection of this nature is
the fear of deception. Uninvited individuals may ﬁnd the survey through various
search engines and take the survey, the participants may not really be who they
say they are, or participants may take the survey more than once (Sweet, 1999).
Sweet believed that the risk of participants cheating or completing the survey
multiple times is minimal.

Even though college students may have increased access to computers,
some participants still may be uneasy with use of the technology. Additionally,
Dillman (2000) acknowledged that the different conﬁgurations of computer
systems used by the public may result in items “seen by one respondent with
one type of computer operating system and screen conﬁguration appearing
signiﬁcantly different from the same questions seen by a respondent who has
another” (p. 354). Dillman provided comprehensive recommendations on the
design of Web-based surveys to limit challenges caused by variations in both

technological conﬁdence level and respondents’ computers used when taking

39

the survey. Those recommendations included: an introduction to the Web survey
that emphasizes ease of use; careful selection of the ﬁrst question so that every
participant could respond, online question formats similar to those used on paper
and pencil surveys, minimal use of colors and graphics, testing of the survey on
multiple conﬁgurations of computers, and speciﬁc help instructions on how to
take each of the necessary actions. Dillman provided signiﬁcant direction to the
development of Web-based surveys to eliminate or signiﬁcantly reduce design-
related limitations of the medium.

By far the greatest risk in utilizing Web-based data collection is the
unknown inﬂuence Web-based techniques may have on response rates of the
participants (Crawford et al., 2001). There is a signiﬁcant need for new and more
robust data collection techniques, for as Krosnick (1999) observed, “response
rates for most major national surveys have been falling during the past four
decades” (p. 539). Crawford et al. believed that nonresponse represents the
main challenge for Web-based surveys. Sills and Song (2002) provided a brief
analysis of response rates from their review of the literature, which varied across
the continuum of types of surveys and populations of study. In a comparison of
Web-based and US. Mail survey methods for the collection of drug and alcohol
data from students at a similar, nearby institution, researchers randomly assigned
3,500 students to a Web-based methodology and 3,500 to the traditional US.
Mail mode. They found a 63% response rate via the Web and 40% for US.

Mail (McCabe, Boyd, 8 Couper, 2002). It should be noted that these high
response rates could be due to the very high incentives provided to each of the
participants.

The verdict on response rate mode comparisons among studies in

40

the literature was still unclear. Because of the concern about response rates
generally and with Web-based methods speciﬁcally, a number of researchers
have begun making signiﬁcant suggestions on ways to improve response rates
in this methodology. Cook, Heath, and Thompson (2000) completed a meta-
analysis of response rates in Web-based surveys, exploring strategies that
increased or decreased response.

Meta-analysis indicated that the greatest response rates are obtained
when three emailed contacts are made; greater numbers of contacts did
not necessarily increase response rates (Cook et al., 2000). The authors
recommended an initial invitation e-mail, followed by two reminders, to achieve
the greatest rate of return. Additionally, the timing of the three emails is
signiﬁcant. Because of natural patterns of work, classes, and free-time, people
used emails and the lntemet different during the week as compared to the
weekends. Emails should be scheduled to take advantage of user-pattems.

The meta-analysis showed that personalized emails generally improve
response rates (Cook et al., 2000). Personalization of the e—mail requires the use
of merging software that can insert the ﬁrst and/or last name of the individual to
whom the e-mail is being sent. Personalization of an e-mail by beginning it with
“Dear ” had a positive impact on response.

The importance of a survey to the participants’ lives had a signiﬁcant
impact on their likelihood to participate. Surveys deemed somewhat salient
tended to have the highest response rates (as opposed to Not Salient and
Very Salient), according to Cook et al. (2000). Survey salience could be
communicated by the subject line of the e-mail, the content of the e-mail

message, or the initial introduction of the Web survey.

41

Common experiences of researchers tended to indicate that providing
incentives to participate increased response rates. The meta-analysis by
Cook et al. (2000) did not summarily support this belief, but the researchers
acknowledged that this result may be due in part to the kinds of surveys
examined that offered incentives. When deploying surveys, scholars expecting
low participation because of size or content of the instrument provided substantial
rewards accordingly.

Dillman (2000) believed that the lack of follow-up with nonresponders to
the survey will usually result in response rates that are “20-40 percentage points
lower than those normally attained” (p. 177). With traditional US. Mail surveys,
researchers often provided an additional contact by a different mode (e.g., e-
mail). Applying this procedure to online data-collection, in which the initial method
of contact is via e-mail, would mean providing some kind of contact via U. S.
mail, such as a postcard or personalized letter.

Response rates for all surveys are a major concern. With the rapid
expansion of a new means of data collection, recommendations for improving
the rate of response in Web-based data collection are beginning to coalesce,
providing some guidance to this new methodology.

Residential Status of the Student. Studies related to the impact of
students’ residential status on their development have been widely cited in the
literature. These studies typically compare students living in a residence hall to
those living in a residential college, and students living on-campus to those living
off-campus (Brown, Winkworth, 8 Braskamp, 1973; Pascarella 8 Terenzini, 1991;
Riahinejad 8 Hood, 1984; Rich 8 Jolicoeur, 1978). A number of conﬁgurations

of residential settings have emerged in the history of higher education, ranging

42

from traditional on-campus residence halls to residential colleges to off-campus
housing and apartments. Because residential setting has been shown to be a
primary determinant of developmental outcomes, it is an important consideration
for exploring purpose in life.

Living in an on-campus residence hall is the single most consistent
positive inﬂuence on student development outcomes, because students are
more connected to campus services and activities (Pascarella 8 Terenzini,
1991). A specialized on—campus residential setting may involve living-Ieaming
communities or residential colleges. Living—Ieaming programs have been
introduced across the country in the past 30 years (lnkelas 8 Weisman, 2003).
These programs are designed generally to integrate academic endeavors
with the residential setting, such as a residence hall or theme house. These
residential colleges are characterized by a common set of shared Ieaming
opportunities, such as courses, co-curricular activities, and special faculty
interactions (lnkelas 8 Weisman).

Students living off campus, often called commuter students on traditional
residential campuses, have increasingly become the norm in American higher
education (Stewart, Merrill, 8 Saluri, 1985). Pascarella and Terenzini (1991)
believed that living off campus provided different environmental factors that
inﬂuence the student’s development. Traditionally, students living off campus live
with a limited number of friends or acquaintances in houses and apartments or
in group settings such as Greek or theme houses. As marketing competition for
students intensiﬁes, apartment complexes, residence halls, and others have had
to expand their services as an enticement for students to move in.

One emerging off-campus residential setting is large apartment complexes

43

that offer many of the same services and beneﬁts as on-campus residence halls.
These emerging apartment compounds include such traditional on-campus
services as weekly activities, social events, and life-skills educational programs;
computer labs; ﬁtness and recreation facilities on site; and roommate matching.
In addition, community ambassadors serve a role in the apartment complex
similar to that of resident advisors in residence halls. These unique attributes
augment many of the luxuries of off-campus living, including private bedrooms
and bathrooms, in-apartment washers and dryers, Ethernet and cable outlets in
each room, and keyless entry and security systems. Students have been easily
drawn to these kinds of complexes from on-campus housing and off-campus
houses or traditional apartment complexes.

Psychosocial development has been shown to be inﬂuenced by the
connectedness of students in a residence hall to the campus community,
compared to the more isolating off-campus housing (Pascarella 8 Terenzini,
1991). These new emerging apartment compounds are a hybrid that may
minimize the deﬁcits of living off-campus.

Environmental Factors Affecting Development. Assessing student
outcomes is critical to the determination of whether or not a particular program,
policy, or practice results in gains in student development (Terenzini 8 Upcraft,
1996). Astin (1991) established one of the “most widely recognized and
frequently used frameworks for assessing outcomes” (Terenzini 8 Upcraft, p.
218). His l-E—O model provided a context in which to explore factors that may
contribute to the development of purpose.

In Astin’s (1991) l—E—O model, the ﬁrst dimension of the model is inputs.

Students enter college already with 17 or more years of experiences and

44

development. Because students grow up in different environments, they differ in
the inputs they bring to the campus. In addition to the students' academic test
scores, choice of major, and degree aspirations, they may also differ substantially
on demographic characteristics such as race/ethnicity, age, socio—economic
status, and gender (Astin). Each of these inputs can inﬂuence educational
outcomes, or the O in Astin’s l—E—O model. When possible, these inputs need to
be taken into account (Terenzini 8 Upcraft, 1996) or controlled in the design of
the study and/or statistical analysis.

Probably the most important segment of Astin’s (1991) l—E—O model
includes those events, activities, and factors that may inﬂuence a student’s
development while on the college campus, which Astin called environmental
factors. Institutional characteristics as identiﬁed by Astin, which include the
institution’s size, student body demographics, faculty morale, etc., are a means
to identify differences resulting from students’ attending different colleges and
universities. In a study involving a single institution, these between-school
differences are controlled for in the design. However, student experiences
within one institution can be extremely diverse. The l-E—O model takes into
account a range of inﬂuences that shape the student experience, including
place of residence, work experiences, and talking with a professor (Astin,
1993). Astin’s (1993) theory of student involvement provides one way of
examining the environmental factors that inﬂuence student developmental
outcomes. He provided a context for results reported in the wide range of
literature on environmental inﬂuences and student development. Astin (1991)
felt that “students Ieam by becoming involved" (p. 295). In Astin's conception,

involvement refers to the amount of physical and psychological energy devoted

45

to an experience. He believed that the ability of students to develop their skills,
both intellectual and psychosocial, was in direct proportion to the time they spent
in activities that were designed to produce these gains. Astin outlined ﬁve general
environmental factors that may inﬂuence students differently within an institution:
academics, faculty, peer groups, work, and other forms.

Astin (1993) felt that the quantity of involvement with academic activities
and faculty was an important environmental inﬂuence on student development.
He outlined a range of ways in which the extent of academic and faculty
involvement could be quantiﬁed, ranging from time spent in the classroom and
other academic programs to the frequency of involvement with faculty outside
of class. Socializing with peers, participation in student organizations and
activities, and working both on and off campus were also considered important to
development. In assessing student involvement in his longitudinal study, Astin felt
that time spent with friends, partying, or participating in student organizations and
activities also were important inﬂuences.

Astin’s (1991) I-E—O model provides a comprehensive model for guiding
an exploration of college outcomes such as retention, growth, and development.
Astin believed that the incomplete adoption of his model is inappropriate in
today’s environment. However, his model provides the level of speciﬁcity needed
to assess general outcomes on a macro-institution level. It was somewhat
impractical for application to a study comparing two measurement instruments.
Astin’s environmental factors did, however, assist in providing some guidance in
establishing the factors to be explored that may inﬂuence developing purpose.
Summary

Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) seven vectors of college student

46

development outlined the major developmental highways on which students
should progress during college. One of those highways, Vector Six, involves
developing a sense of purpose through vocational plans, avocational and
recreational interests, and family and interpersonal commitments. The SDTLA—
PUR test purports to measure Vector Six, Developing Purpose, of Chickering and
Reisser’s model of student development (Winston et al., 1999). As a preeminent
scholar in clinical psychology, Frankl (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) established the
notion of purpose in life in his work through the last half of the 20th century.

He believed that the elements of purpose include one’s work, nature and

cultural interests, and love. Crumbaugh and Maholick’s (1964) PIL test purports
to measure Frankl’s views on purpose. Although both theories have great
commonality in their articulation of the same construct, the instruments designed
to assess those constructs have not yet been empirically compared.

Important considerations for the design of the study were also reviewed.
These Included issues related to Web-based data collection as well as a review
of Astin’s l—E—O (1993) model and the research related to residential setting,
which served to guide the identiﬁcation of specific environmental factors that may

inﬂuence student development.

47

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODS

Chickering and Reisser (1993) and Frankl (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) have
developed similar conceptions of developing a sense of purpose in life. The
instruments constructed to measure these concepts, the Student Developmental
Task and Lifestyle Assessment-Purpose (Winston et al., 1999) and the Purpose
in Life Test (Crumbaugh 8 Maholick, 1964), reﬂect the theoretical foundations
upon which they are based; they focus either on college student development or
on clinical psychology. The literature shows that purpose in life relates to a broad
range of issues important to student affairs professionals (Moran, 2001). The
purpose of this study was to compare how both instruments measure similarly
deﬁned conceptions of purpose in life. This study also explored environmental
inﬂuences on college campuses that may be factors in developing purpose, in
order to provide better information for student affairs professionals on how to
impact a student’s sense of purpose. Using innovative Web-based data collection
methodologies and appropriate instrumentation, this study sought to answer the
following three research questions:

1. Are there differences in the way the PIL and SDTLA-PUR measure a

student’s sense of purpose in life?

2. What demographic variables impact a student’s sense of purpose in

life, as measured by the SDTLA—PUR and the PIL?

3. What involvement or environmental factors impact a student’s sense

of purpose in life, as measured by the SDTLA-FUR and PIL?

This study provides an empirical comparison of the SDTLA-PUR and the

48

PIL and explores demographic and other factors to inform future exploration of
developing purpose among college students.
Population

From the review of the literature, three important considerations emerged
that had direct implications for the deﬁnition of the population for this study:
enrollment level (full time versus part time), residential status, and development
due to maturation. These issues were considered in the deﬁnition of the
population, as well as in the drawing of the sample.

The University Registrar maintains the names, contact information,
enrollment information, demographic variables (such as age, sex, and race)
and other data on all of those who currently take or have taken classes at the
institution. That is, the University Registrar keeps records on any individual who
has taken a class at the institution, from the full-time, regularly enrolled traditional
student to the retiree taking one course—a population difference that seemed
inappropriate for the purposes of this design. Because much of the data collected
on the SDTLA generally is focused on the “traditional student,” it was determined
that this study would make the greatest contribution to the literature by also
examining traditional college students. For the purposes of this investigation,
students who were not enrolled full time as deﬁned by the institution (12 or more
semester credit hours) would be excluded from the population and sample.

As indicated in the review of literature, the residential status of the student
has been shown to impact development (Astin, 1993; Pascarella 8 Terenzini,
1991). Studies typically compare students living in a residence hall versus a
residential college, and students living on-campus versus off-campus. Because

of a unique emerging residential setting occurring near the campus of study, it

49

was determined that more categories of residential setting would be important
to this study. No speciﬁc limitations were set on the deﬁnition of the population
based on residential setting, but the stratiﬁcation of the sample addressed this
variable.

Finally, to address the potential confounding variable of development due
to maturation, it was decided that the population deﬁnition would be limited to a
single class level. A number of student development theories chart development
over time (Chickering 8 Reisser, 1993; Erikson, 1968; Kohlberg, 1969; Perry,
1970). Chickering and Reisser believed that the types of development reﬂected
by some of their seven vectors more naturally occur earlier in the student’s
college experience, and others more naturally occur later. The impact of natural
maturation on development is an important consideration in a study of the
psychosocial outcome of developing purpose, and must be accounted for in the
research design of the study. The sophomore class was selected to control for
this development due to maturation.

The population for this project was deﬁned as sophomore students at a
large Midwestern university, currently registered for 12 or more credit hours as
recorded by the Ofﬁce of the University Registrar.

Setting

Data were collected in the Fall, 2003, semester at a large mid-westem
institution of higher education, Michigan State University (MSU). Founded in
1855 as an autonomous institution of higher education for the citizens of the
State of Michigan, MSU was later designated as the state’s only Land-Grant
institution. Located in East Lansing, Michigan, four miles east of the State

Capitol, it is comprised of over 660 buildings on a 5,500 acre campus. Almost

50

45,000 students from every county in the state, all 50-states in the United States,
and over 125 other countries are involved in one of over 200 program areas in
17 degree-granting colleges. MSU is a selective institution, admitting students
with an average of a 24.5 ACT Score, 1,141 combined SAT Score, and a high
school grade point average of 3.58. One of the unique attributes of the campus
of study is the size and scope of the on-campus residence hall community. MSU
hosts the largest residence hall system in the world, providing almost 15,000
beds in a variety of traditional residence halls, on-campus apartments, Ieaming
communities, and other on-campus settings.

Of the over 34,000 undergraduate students enrolled in the institution
during the semester of the study (Table 3), 55% were women, 21% were
underrepresented minorities, and were distributed across the ages of study (1%
18 years old, 48.46% 19 years old, 35.78% 20 years old, 10.86% 21 years old,
and 3.71% 22 years old or older). Over half of the students in the population
(52.39%) lived in an on-campus residence hall or Ieaming community, almost 2%
lived in an emerging apartment complex as described in the literature review of
this document, and the remaining students lived off-campus (45.75%).

Sample

To determine the most appropriate sampling method for this study, several
predictive models were created to explore the impact that different sampling
methods had on the marginal totals of the demographic variables of interest.
Because this study was designed to compare the SDTLA-PUR and the PIL in
four different residential settings, it was determined that an equal-probability-of-
selection-method (EPSEM) simple random sample of sophomores within each

residential setting would be most appropriate. Probability sampling of this nature

51

Table 3

Demgqraphic Breakdown of Population.

 

 

Variable Source [1 2/9
Age 18 Years Old 91 1 .19%
19 Years Old 3709 48.46%
20 Years Old 2738 35.78%
21 Years Old 831 10.86%
22+ Years Old 284 3.71 %
Race/Ethnicity Caucasian 6040 78.92%
Under Represented Minority 1613 21 .08%
Gender Men 3481 45.49%
Women 4172 54.51%
Residence Residence Hall 3539 46.24%
Residential College 471 6.15%
Emerging Apartment 142 1.86%
Off-Campus 3501 45.75%

 

52

remains the most respected method used by researchers (Babble, 1990), and
would yield the most credible data. In determining the appropriate sample size,
expected response rates were taken into consideration. To aid in determining the
ﬁnal N for the sample selection, consultations were held with researchers who
regularly implement student surveys on the campus of study. Those discussions
indicated that response rates for most surveys generally ranged from 20% to
30%.

Dillman (2000) recommended a completed sample size of 236 to 361 for
populations of the size occurring on the campus of study. Salant and Dillman
(1994) recommended working backward from the completed sample size to
determine the original sample, taking response rates into consideration. Models
were completed to determine what level of sampling would be required to
achieve 236 to 361 completed surveys, estimating a 25% response rate. It was
determined that 1,000 participants divided among the four residential settings
would be randomly selected for the sample. The following information was
obtained in electronic format for the sample: contact name, university-provided e-
mail address, Iocal address, and phone. An electronic format was faster, could be
easily used by the emailing system selected for this project without transcription
error, and provided the greatest ﬂexibility for making changes to the contact
information for nonresponders, if necessary.

Other demographic characteristics, including but not limited to race/
ethnicity, sexuality, socioeconomic class, and disability status, are important
considerations for the work of student affairs professionals and have been shown
to have an effect on the development of purpose in earlier studies (Crumbaugh,

1972; Crumbaugh 8 Maholick, 1964; Doerries, 1970; Meier 8 Edwards, 1974;

53

Yamell, 1971). . However, because of the unique sampling challenges involved
in obtaining sufﬁcient heterogeneity among each of those characteristics, it was
determined that their investigation was better left for future studies.
Instrumentation

The instrumentation needed to answer the research questions in this study
included the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment— Purpose
(Winston et al., 1999); the Purpose in Life Test (Crumbaugh 8 Maholick, 1964);
a series of questions about the demographic characteristics of the participants,
including residential status; and ﬁnally a series of questions about factors that
may interact with a student’s sense of purpose in life. Each of these instruments
is brieﬂy described in this section. Speciﬁc demographic and Factor Series
questions have been included verbatim in Appendices A through D.

Student Developmental Tasks and Lifestyle Assessment—Purpose.
The purpose of the SDTLA is to assess the socio-emotional development of
college students, based on Chickering’s (1969) and Chickering and Reisser’s
(1993) vectors of college student development. Students respond to 153 multiple-
choice and true—false questions in the SDTLA. The scoring of the instrument
involves assignment of different weighting values for each response option,
averaging students’ scores on the instrument, and comparing the students’
scores to nationally established normative data disaggregated by class and
gender. Form 1.99 includes all of the items, and composite scores obtained for
three developmental tasks: purpose, relationships, and academic autonomy.
Form 2.99, the SDTLA—PUR, includes only those 57 questions necessary for the
Developing Purpose task and subtasks of the complete instrument, and was the

version used in this study.

Through validity testing, the scores were found to be sensitive to test-
retesting, establishing growth from the freshman to senior year (Wachs 8 Cooper,
2002). Additionally, Winston et al. (1999) found Pearson product corrections for
all tasks and subtasks in a test-retest situation to cluster around .80, p < .01.
Winston et al. also established intemal consistency of the SDTLA-PUR, with
alpha coefﬁcients from .88 to 62. Although this instrument had not been reviewed
yet in the Mental Measurements Yearbook, the earlier versions upon which it
is based have been reviewed. Henning-Stout (1992) established the reliability
and validity of the SDTI—2 (the earlier version from which the SDTLA evolved)
in the 1992 yearbook. She concluded that the instrument is “a psychometrically
sound inventory that can prove useful in program development and has potential
research applications” (p. 5).

Purpose in Life Test. Based on Frankl’s (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) theory
of purpose in life, Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964) developed the Purpose in Life
Test to assist in measuring the degree to which a person experiences a sense
of purpose in life. This instrument has three parts (only part Awas used in this
study). Part A of the PIL includes 20 items in which students rate themselves on a
7-point scale. For each item, the end points of the scale are different descriptive
anchors, and position 4 is labeled as neutral. A summary score for the PIL
involves simply adding the rankings for each of the 20 items. Participants with
higher scores are expected to have a higher degree of sense of purpose in life.
Section B contains 13 sentence completion questions, and Section C requires a
free-response paragraph on personal aims and ambitions. “Part A is the only one
which is routinely treated quantitatively“ (Hutzell, 1987, p. 131), and was the only

one used for this study.

55

The PIL is used widely in both clinical and nonclinical populations (Hutzell
8 Peterson, 1986). Crumbaugh (1968), Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964), Meier
and Edwards (1974), and Phillips (1980) all found support for the validity of the
instrument as measuring Frankl’s construct of purpose in life in relation to other
similar measures of this construct, as well as in test—retesting and factorial
analysis. Crumbaugh believed the measures of concurrent validity of the PIL
were “in line with the level of criterion validity which can usually be obtained from
a single measure of a complex trait” (p. 79). The split-half correlation of the PIL
(N = 120) yielded a coefﬁcient of .85, corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula
to .92, indicating the survey was reliable.

Demographic Variables. There are a number of ways to look at the
demographics of college students, depending primarily‘on the researcher’s ﬁeld
of work or particular interests. The focus of this study was not the delineation
of the two instruments by demographic considerations, but to more generally
explore demographic variation in the composite scores of the two instruments.
For this study, students were asked to manually type in their identiﬁcation of age,
gender/sex, and sexual orientation. The questions of race/ethnicity, residential
setting, and socioeconomic status (ﬁnancial aid awards used as a proxy) were
delineated as articulated in Appendix A.

Environmental Factors Affecting Development. In reviewing Astin’s
(1993) environmental concerns, three series of factors appear to be particularly
salient to this study. Astin’s view of time spent indicates that quantiﬁcation of
how many hours a student spends on activities each week could be an important
variation among students that inﬂuences development differently. Students were

asked to indicate:

56

1. how many hours they spend each week on a series of academic,
nonacademic, and personal activities (Appendix B);

2. their degree of involvement and leadership in different types of

student organizations (Appendix C); and

3. how often they participated in a series of speciﬁc university and

non-university sponsored activities and services, such as reading
the campus newspaper or talking with a professor outside of class
(Appendix D).

Web-Site Development

The institution under study provided a particularly good environment
for Web-based data collection for several reasons: all entering freshmen were
required to purchase a computer before the ﬁrst day of class; every student
was assigned an e-mail address at the time of admission; the campus provided
a broad array of on-campus computer laboratories in classrooms, academic
buildings and residence halls so that students had easy access to this resource;
dial-in options for off-campus students were widely available; and the campus
had invested strongly in continual improvement of the campus network and e-
mail systems.

Selection of Software Package. Although it would have been less
expensive to create the Web page from scratch and use freeware software for
the storage of the data, this approach would have created a signiﬁcantly higher
need for researcher expertise in HTML than was currently available, as well as
increasing signiﬁcantly the opportunity of a design ﬂaw or error. Therefore, this
study employed a commercial software package that was designed, developed,

and tested speciﬁcally for the purposes of Web-based survey development.

57

Using this package signiﬁcantly increased the reliability of the data collection
mechanism itself.

After a review of the most popular Web-based data collection software
packages and consultation with local users of such software, the package
selected for this project was www.surveymonkey.com. This service, designed for
survey data collection of this nature, was more reliable than creating the page
with basic HTML and freeware technologies. It provided the options for security,
data management, data export, and survey layout needed for this study. Finally,
the service had a helpline with technical experts to assist in problem solving, if
necessary.

Cheaters and Repeaters. Because deception is generally perceived
as a signiﬁcant challenge to the integrity of Web-based data, the software
package selected for this project minimized chance encounters into the Web
site by random Web users through a URL naming structure. Additionally, the
mechanisms employed to invite the participant to the Web site used a unique
Web site address for each respondent. The Web address to which a student
was directed had a series of numbers at the end, such as “16761219E9931.”
The next student in the sample would have the next sequential number,
“16761289E9931"—the identiﬁer changing from 79 to 80 immediately prior
to the E in the address. When students received the e-mail, they simply used
their mouse to click on the Web-page link, and the e-mail program opened the
survey in their lntemet browser. Students with e-mail software programs that
did not automatically open links in this manner were directed to copy and paste

the entire Web-site address from the e-mail into their Internet browser software

program.

.58

The software packaged recorded and tracked which e-mail address was
assigned to which identiﬁcation number in the Web address. When the student
replied to the unique Web address, the software package referred to its data list,
matched the Web-page address with the correct e-mail address, and marked that
participant as “responded.” Once the students responded to the Web site, they
were unable to return and make a duplicate response. This procedure provided
an appropriate level of security to ensure that only those users who were in the
sample submitted data, and eliminated the opportunity for repeaters.

Web-Site Design. Using a personal computer and various Web pages
provided by the selected software package, the researcher developed the Web
site to integrate the instrumentation for this study. The review of the literature
indicated that, similar to paper-and-pencil surveys, the actual design and
layout of the data collection Web site may inﬂuence a responder’s likelihood
of participation in and completion of the survey (Dillman, 2000). The use of
technology also created additional design considerations. Even though the
population of study had increased access to computers, some participants still
might be uneasy with use of the technology. Or, those participants comfortable
with computing might expect a survey that was easy to use and quick to
complete, like the Web pages generally available on the lntemet. These
challenges were managed by the design of the Web site itself. A number of
design elements discussed in the review of literature were included in the design
of the Web site to minimize these challenges and increase the likelihood of both
beginning and completing the survey.

The initial welcome screen to the Web site integrated the traditional

informed consent statement, a statement about the ease of use and speed of

59

the survey, and announcement of the incentive drawing, as recommended in
the review of the literature. For those who may not have a high level of comfort
with using lntemet browsers, an option to complete a series of help screens was
included on this initial welcome screen. The text of the welcome screen is given
in Appendix E.

The number of screens (pages) for the survey portion of the Web site
was kept to a minimum. Very simple, straightforward questions were formatted
similar to their paper-and-pencil equivalents. The data collection sections used
traditional design elements such as dropdown boxes and radio buttons, as used
widely on Web pages and popular software packages. Questions were generally
“point and select.” The student simply used the computer mouse to point and
select from the options for each question, so that actual typing of information was
seldom necessary. The design avoided using graphics and other elements that
delayed the instant loading of a Web page. Finally, screen notations indicated
progress at the half-way point, and the ﬁnal screens indicated that the participant
would soon be ﬁnished.

Because of lessons learned in the pilot study described in the following
section, two Web sites with different sequencing of questions were created for
primary data collection. Both Web sites began with the informed consent page,
help pages (if the student selected that option), and then the demographic
questions. Next, the SDTLA-PUR and the PIL were provided. To reduce any bias
related to sequence of the instruments, the SDTLA-PUR came ﬁrst in one Web-
site sequence, and the PIL came ﬁrst in the other. The instruments were followed
by the three factor series, and ﬁnally by a thank-you and referral page (Appendix

F).

60

Following completion of a ﬁrst, second, and third draft of the data
collection Web site, a small group of graduate students and faculty with varying
degrees of technological sophistication were requested to complete the survey.
The group provided initial thoughts and feedback about the data collection
method. This feedback was reviewed and changes made as appropriate.

Pilot Testing

Once the Web-site was established and preliminary feedback reviewed, a
pilot test was conducted. The purpose of the pilot test was to determine the basic
usability of the Web-site data collection mechanism, test options for presenting
the invitation to participate in order to increase response rates, as discussed in
the literature review, and ﬁnally test the export of the data and statistical analysis.

The pilot sample included 50 sophomores randomly selected from a list
of on-campus students and 50 sophomores randomly selected from a list of
off-campus students. In the pilot study, participants took either the SDTLA-PUR
or the PIL, but not both. Students were randomly assigned to take either the
SDTLA-PUR or the PIL, with 25 on-campus and 25 off-campus students taking
each instrument. All pilot participants answered the same demographic and factor
series questions.

Half of the participants in each assigned category of the sample were sent
a personalized e-mail invitation to participate, as suggested by the meta-analysis
(Cook et al., 2000). In addition, half of each cell were sent a US. Mail postcard
informing and reminding the participants that they were selected to participate.
This procedure tested whether follow-up by alternative methods (mail vs. email)
improved response rates. I

At the conclusion of the pilot study, the data were downloaded, imported

61

into SPSS, and veriﬁed to ensure that the process worked correctly. Finally,
recoding and analysis of the pilot data were completed to ensure that the
outcomes of the analysis provided sufﬁcient evidence to answer the research
questions posed.

Lessons Learned From the Pilot Study

The pilot study provided a number of very important lessons that were
incorporated in the research design for primary data collection. Logistical errors
were identiﬁed and challenges with recoding discovered, instrumentation
modiﬁed, and the sampling slightly altered.

The pilot study identiﬁed a logistical issue concerning the settings on the
Web-site that were used in crafting the invitation e—mail. The wrong survey was
sent to a set of participants in the ﬁnal e-mail reminder. This error indicated a
need for greater care in selecting parameters in the List Management section
of the software package. The challenging nature of recoding the data for the
SDTLA-FUR also became apparent.

The pilot study also revealed that the population (full-time sophomores)
had fewer than 250 students living in emerging residences—the number originally
planned for sampling for this residential setting. However, the total N of 1,000
was still important to achieve. All students living in emergingresidences were
selected for the sample and the general off-campus sample was slightly
increased to ensure a total of 1,000 students in the sample.

The pilot study explored the impact of alternative methods of contact by
sending a postcard through US. Mail to half of the participants. Response rates
were similar between those who received the postcards and those who did not.

Postcard reminders were not used for primary data collection because they were

62

expensive and did not have an impact on total response rates. Also, tracking of
responses in the pilot study indicated that students generally responded within a
6-hour time frame from the time the e-mail was sent. A postcard simply would not
have arrived in time to have a signiﬁcant impact. Postcards were removed from
the primary data collection design because of an unacceptable cost—beneﬁt ratio.

Personalized emails also did not cause a demonstrable improvement in
response rates. However, personalized emails would continue to be used in the
primary data collection because no additional costs or time commitment would
result, and the cost—beneﬁt ratio deemed acceptable.

The data coding and analysis caused a major shift in the design of the
study. In the pilot study, half of the participants completed the SDTLA-PUR
and half completed the PIL. Data analysis options were explored, and it was
determined that the statistical methodology available to complete data analysis
with this design would be insufﬁcient to fully answer the research questions. The
Web-site was modiﬁed so that all students took both the SDTLA-PUR and the
PIL as well as the demographic and factor series questions. Although this created
a much lengthier survey for the participants to complete and increased the
potential for dropout, it was determined that the statistical testing for the research
questions took priority over a potential decrease in survey usability rates.
Primary Data Collection

Following the completion of the pilot study, the lessons Ieamed were
integrated into the primary data collection design. The ﬁnal design described
below includes the process for making contacts, efforts to increase response
rates, and strategies to manage potential technological problems. It also

addresses the issues of conﬁdentiality, participant burden, sensitivity of

63

questions, and costs of the study.

Contacts and Response Rates. Response rates of any survey project
are of concern, including a Web-based data collection study (Dillman, 2000).

On the campus of study, response rates with all survey methods have been a
challenge for a number of years. Traditionally, surveys distributed by US Mail
often barely achieved a signiﬁcant response rate, and Web—based data collection
variations in response are wide. Campus staff typically employed efforts to
bolster response rates up to 25% to 30% of the sample. Because of the concern
about response rates generally, and with Web-based methods speciﬁcally, a
review of the literature related to response rates for Web-based data collection
was completed, several options tested in a pilot study, and the outcomes
integrated into the research design of this study.

In this project, three e-mail contacts were completed, as recommended
in the literature review. The initial e-mail and two reminder emails differed only
in the ﬁrst paragraph. In the reminder emails, a simple paragraph was added
at the beginning indicating that in the previous week, the student was invited
to participate in the survey and had not yet responded. The text of the initial
invitation followed this introductory paragraph. Emails were sent on weekdays
and weekends to take advantage of the different usage patterns of the lntemet.
The content of the initial invitation e-mail is provided in Appendix G, and the text
of the reminder emails in Appendix H.

Personalized emails (emails beginning with the name of the participant)
have been shown in the literature to increase response. The pilot test found no
signiﬁcant difference in response for personalized e-mail. However, because the

Web-site used for this study could easily send personalized emails, a decision

54

was made to use the personalized e-mail option. Each e-mail used in primary
data collection was personalized with “Dear" followed by the ﬁrst name of the
participant.

The literature reviewed indicated that survey salience has an impact on
response. Because this project tested pre-existing instruments, the content of the
survey itself was somewhat inﬂexible. Therefore, survey salience was strongly
addressed in the invitation e-mail and informed-consent welcome page to the
study, indicating how the survey data would impact a broad range of institutional
services important to students, such as career services, the counseling center,
residence life, and student organization programming. See Appendixes E through
H for the texts of the welcoming page, invitation, and reminder emails.

As an incentive to participate in this study, respondents were entered into
a drawing for their choice of a $150 gift certiﬁcate to Best Buy, a store in the
local mall, or the Campus Book Store. It was impractical to provide a substantial
incentive to every participant in this study.

The response rate was a signiﬁcant concern in the design of this study.
The methods mentioned above were selected through comprehensive readings
in the literature and pilot testing, and represent a good-faith effort to increase
response rates.

Technological Backup. Stories are often shared of “almost” completing a
paper, research article, or spreadsheet, only to encounter a technological “blip.”
The power goes out, the computer crashes, a ﬁle is accidentally deleted. In a
review of other research projects utilizing Web-based data collection, a number
of researchers articulated some challenge related to the technology used in the

data collection process. The design of this project accounted for anticipated

65

technological blips reported in several ways.

The Web-site and database were stored on the software’s site server. This
server was regularly backed up, providing duplicate copies should the data or
web-site be destroyed, and server staff were available to manage power outages
and service interruptions quickly. Some concern was identiﬁed in the literature
about server crashes resulting from slow processing speeds, because of the
number of hits to the survey in a very short period. Desktop Web-servers may
encounter this challenge, but the server used in this study was designed for such
high numbers. Additional back-up was scheduled to copy the data automatically
from the server to the researcher’s personal hard disk, thus creating three copies
of the data during collection. The pilot test assisted in determining if the site itself
was designed well and worked correctly, and if export and database systems
worked as anticipated on a small sample of respondents. Finally, the server
provided written guarantees of the security of the data.

Conﬁdentiality. The service utilized for data collection provided a
mechanism whereby emails were sent to individual participants, with a link in the
e-mail that took the participant to the Web-survey. This link is a unique identiﬁer;
when the link is selected and the participant goes to the server, the computer
recognizes the original e-mail of the responder and marks the email address
as responded. This information was maintained in a separate List Management
section maintained by the service, and was used for entry into the incentives
drawing and appropriate follow-up of nonresponders. The program also stored
the e-mail and lntemet Protocol (IP) address of the responder as the ﬁrst two
ﬁelds in the survey data. Those two ﬁelds were deleted at the time of download,

and the cases were subsequently de-identiﬁed. The demographic questions were

66

designed so that it was impossible to identify individual participants with their
survey answers.

Participant Burden. Students experienced only a very slight burden
to participate. No costs were associated with participation, and students were
informed that they would spend no more than 12 to 15 minutes completing the
survey.

Sensitivity of issues. In the determination of risk to the participant, it
was important to review the intrusiveness of the issues under analysis. Because
of the manner in which the sample was drawn, all participants were over the
age of consent (18 years old or older). In this research study, concerns of over-
intrusiveness of the survey questions were minimized because the content
and format of the survey questions generally came from other pre-existing
sources. Although, at ﬁrst glance, the PIL and SDTLA appear to ask a variety
of personal questions, it should be noted that this instrument had been used
in numerous research projects without any reported adverse affects. The
demographic questions were relatively generic for surveys of this population, and
are frequently asked of students at the campus of study. The additional factors
asked of the participant were not very intrusive in their nature. However, in case
completion of the study created a sense of unease in the participants, the ﬁnal
thank-you screen provided information related to university counseling and other
services as a referral for the student participant. See Appendix F for the text of
the ﬁnal thank-you and referral screen.

Analysis of the Data. This study utilized two existing research
instruments to measure developing purpose in life, the SDTLA-PUR and the

PIL. Both instruments were scored according to their own parameters, and one

67

ﬁnal score for each instrument was computed. These two scores for measuring
purpose served as the dependent variables throughout the analysis of the data.

Each of the demographic data questions, and items within each of the
three factor series, served as independent variables when used in appropriate
statistical testing with the dependent variables. As generally accepted in social
science research, a level of p < .05 was selected as the standard for determining
signiﬁcance, although lower signiﬁcance levels were reported when achieved
(Pallant, 2001).

For answering research question one, in which the relationship between
the two dependent test score variables were determined, correlation procedures
were necessary. Franzblau's (1958) standards were used to determine if the
correlation was high or low. Those standards were: less than .20, regarded as
little to no correlation; .40 to .60, regarded as a moderate correlation; and .80
or higher, regarded as a high degree of correlation. For the purposes of this
study, a high degree of correlation was necessary to determine whether the two
instruments measured purpose similarly.

Independent ttest and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedures
were necessary for answering research question two, related to the impact of
demographic variables on the test scores. In a determination of magnitude for
these tests, Cohen's standard deﬁnitions of three levels of power were used:

.01 = a small effect; .06 = a medium or moderate effect; and .14 = a large effect
(Pallant, 2001).

Regression analysis procedures were necessary to analyze the

independent variables included in each factor series with the two dependent test

score variables to answer the ﬁnal research question, involving environmental

68

factors and their inﬂuence on the development of purpose. Standard multiple
regression procedures were used, entering all variables within a factor series
into the equation simultaneously. This method calculated the signiﬁcance of each
independent variable to ascertain if it made a unique contribution to determining
variance, as well as calculating the total amount of variance in the dependent
variables that the factor series was able to explain as a block.

The data were reported using Pallant’s (2001) and Nicol and Pexman’s
(1999) suggestions for text and tables.
Summary

The methodology of this study was guided by research and
recommendations reviewed in the literature. The population deﬁnition and sample
was delineated as 1,000 sophomores enrolled full-time at a large Midwestern
university, stratiﬁed by four residential settings: on campus, residential college,
emerging residential setting, and general off campus. The instrumentation used
in this study, including the SDTLA-PUR, PIL, demographic questions, and three
factor series were described. The design of the Web site itself, including a pilot
test and lessons Ieamed, were outlined. Finally, the primary data collection
methodology, including the methods of contact and of increasing response rates,
technological back-ups, conﬁdentiality, participant burden, sensitivity of the

issues covered, and analysis of the data were addressed.

69

CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS

The purpose of this study was to explore Chickering and Reisser’s (1993)
schema for Vector 6, Developing Purpose, and Frankl’s (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997)
Purpose in Life research to determine if the instruments measure the construct in
similar ways. This was accomplished by the collection of student data utilizing the
Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment-Purpose Form (Winston
et al., 1999) and the Purpose in Life Test (Crumbaugh 8 Maholick, 1964) to
measure Chickering and Reisser’s Vector 6 and Frankl’s Purpose in Life,
respectively. Additionally, three series of other factors, Time Spent, Involvement,
and Activities, were explored to determine their relationship to scores on the two
instruments. The ﬁndings from the study are presented in this chapter.

The ﬁrst section of this chapter describes the major coding procedures
and decisions made, and outlines the basic descriptive statistics of the sample.
The following sections present analysis of the data to explore the three research
questions identiﬁed in this study.

Coding Procedures and Decisions

Data were collected over a two-week period utilizing Web-based software.
Therefore, initial data entry was not necessary. The data ﬁle was downloaded
and imported into SPSS, Macintosh Version 11.1. After descriptive statistics for
the demographic variables were analyzed, several variable categories were
reduced. Questions for the two instruments were recoded, and decisions were
made about the usability of certain cases.

Analysis of Descriptive Statistics. Review of the descriptive statistics of

70

the sample indicated that heterogeneity was not sufﬁcient in several demographic
independent variables, which needed to be reduced. In the independent
variable for Sexuality, participants indicating gay, lesbian, bisexual, or unsure/
questioning were collapsed into a single category of Non-Heterosexual, creating
a dichotomous independent variable of Sexuality-Coded. There was insufﬁcient
heterogeneity in the independent variable of Race/Ethnicity for adequate
analysis. Participants indicating African-American, Asian/Paciﬁc Islander,
Hispanic/Latino, lntemational, Native American, and Other were collapsed
into a single category of Under-represented Minorities (URM). Students who
indicated more than one racial/ethnic identity were also coded as URM. This
reduction created a new dichotomous independent variable of Race-Coded. The
independent variable of Age was recoded, collapsing participants who indicated
an age over 22 into a category of 22+. Finally, for the independent variable of
Residence, three categories (off campus in the greater city area, off campus
outside of the city, and group housing) were collapsed into one, off campus.
This variable than had four distinct categories: on campus, residential college,
emerging residential setting, and general off campus. The demographic factors
of Race/Ethnicity, Sexuality, Class/Age, and Socioeconomic Status could not
be fully investigated in this research design because of sampling limitations.
Exploration of those variables would be better left to future studies with that
sampling focus.

instrument Recoding. Both the PIL and the SDTLA-PUR required
recoding and computations to be usable for analysis. The PIL has 20 scaled
questions, with anchors at each end of the scale indicating extremes. Several

questions reversed the extreme (the more positive extreme would have originally

71

been coded as a 1 and the least positive extreme coded as a 7). As indicated

in the design of the instrument (Crumbaugh 8 Maholick, 1969), the scales were
reversed so that all questions had the more negative extreme on the left side

of the scale and the more positive extreme on the right side of the scale. Next,
counts, total scores, and averages were computed for the 20 questions on

the PIL. The SDTLA-PUR was coded and computed as outlined in the manual
that accompanies the instrument (Winston et al., 1999). Responses on each
question had a weighted value between 1 and 5. As appropriate, each question
was recoded according to the manual. Finally, counts, totals, and averages were
computed for the overall SDTLA-PUR and the Response Bias Scale.

Usability Review. Although 454 students completed part of the survey,
not all of those participants completed a sufﬁcient amount of the survey to be
adequate for analysis. One of the differences between online and print surveys
is the online-researcher is more likely to receive a survey where the participant
dropped-out before the end and submits an incomplete instrument. Participants
in print surveys who do not complete the entire survey simply do not return it.
Because of this methodological differences, removing incomplete cases is more
important for an online survey. The SDTLA-PUR manual indicated that completed
surveys should only be used when 88% of the survey was completed (Winston
et al., 1999). However, review of the overall response patterns of participants
indicated that a more stringent standard for removing cases based on the
SDTLA-PUR would also signiﬁcantly reduce missing data on the later questions.
Students who completed fewer than 54 of the 57 (95%) questions on the SDTLA-
PUR or fewer than 18 of the 20 (90%) PIL questions were removed from the

data set. Participants who failed to complete 75% or more of the additional factor

72

items were removed. This allowed for cases that made a good-faith effort to
complete the entire survey. Finally, participants who scored 4 or higher on the
Response Bias Scale were removed, as suggested by the SDTLA-FUR manual.
A total of 354 cases remained for analysis.

The SDTLA-FUR uses averages, which compensate for missing data
within a particular task or subtask. The PIL, however, is computed by summing
the responses on the twenty 1-to-7 scales into a ﬁnal score. For cases with 18 or
19 answers on the PIL, it was decided the average of the completed responses,
or two times the average score, would be added to the total for that case as
appropriate for each participant to have an accurate 20—question total.

Finally, all variables were organized with labels, location in the database,
value labels, to allow for easier manipulation and interpretation of output.
Sample Demographics

As previously described, 445 students attempted to complete the survey,
for an initial response rate of 45%. After coding, 354 usable surveys remained,
for a usable survey response rate of 35%. The number of usable cases was well
within the frame suggested by Salant and Dillman (1994) for a population of this
size. These response rates were signiﬁcantly higher than anticipated, based on
estimates provided by other researchers completing both print and Web-based
surveys on the campus of study.

Descriptive statistics were computed for the demographic independent
variables of Age, Race-Coded, Gender, Sexuality-Coded, Residence, and
Socioeconomic Status (as indicated by receiving a Pell Grant). Women (n =
243) outnumbered men (n = 120) by more than 2:1, which is disproportionate to

the number of women and men in the population of study. Under-represented

73

Minorities accounted for 13% (n = 47) of the cases, which is slightly lower than
the percentage of Under-represented Minorities on the campus of study. Almost
4% (n = 14) indicated a sexual orientation categorized as Non-Heterosexual.
Socioeconomic status was determined based on receiving a Pell Grant for the
year (n = 64, 17.60%). Finally, 171 (47.10%) of the students indicated they

lived in a general on-campus residence hall; 34 (9.40%) lived in a residential
college; 42 (11.60%) lived in an emerging off-campus apartment complex; and
the remaining 116 (32%) lived off campus. More speciﬁc information about

the demographic breakdown of the participants is provided in Table 4 and 5.
Chi-square analysis were completed to determine if the respondents differed
statistically signiﬁcantly from the population demographic statistics (Table 6). At a
p < .05, the responders did not statistically signiﬁcantly differ from the population
on the demographics of age, race/ethnicity, and gender. Differences where noted
for residential setting (X2 = 10.18, df=3), with a lager percentage of residents

in emerging apartments responding than appear in the population. This was
expected, due to the over-sampling of students in this residential setting.
Research Question One: Are there differences in the way the PIL and
SDTLA-PUR measure a student's sense of purpose in life?

Comparison of the Two Instruments. To answer the ﬁrst research
question, the relationship between Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) Vector 6 (as
measured by the SDTLA-PUR) and Frankl’s (1959, 1979, 1985, 1997) purpose in
life (as measured by the PIL), was investigated using Pearson product—moment
correlation coefﬁcients. Preliminary analyses were performed to ensure that the
data contained no violation of the assumptions of normality and linearity (Pallant,

2000). Correlation analysis indicated a statistically signiﬁcant relationship

74

Table 4

Demographic Breakdown of Study Participants.

 

 

Variable Source i_‘l %
Age 18 Years Old 17 4.70%
19 Years Old 198 54.50%

20 Years Old 114 31.40%

21 Years Old 24 6.60%

22+ Years Old 10 2.80%

Race/Ethnicity Caucasian 316 87.10%
Under Represented Minority 47 12.90%

Gender Men 120 33.10%
Women 243 66.90%

Sexuality Heterosexual 348 95.60%
Non-Heterosexual 14 3.90%

Residence Residence Hall 171 47.10%
Residential College 34 9.40%

Emerging Apartment 42 11 .60%

Off-Campus 116 31.96%

Socioeconomic Received Pell Grant 64 17.60%
Status Did Not Receive Pell Grant 299 82.40%

 

75

 

30:333. maaEmoéO .SocoOuOtO ”33230 manEmoéo 0503Emn3Ew ”330.30
6:00 .mEoEmmmqumw. ”33230 msaEmoéOuOEO 233333...-32nxcoz 233333183... 3.33%“. 6.92": ”30:05.2
umucomoaotmucnuzma Em_m3:m0u0<o 320 .0 33> N~u+NN N20 83> omnO>o~ 6.0 23> 05u0>0v 6.0 E3> 05u0>0w

.3333 0.:3L0oEeu 2833 92 c. Sanguine .0 308323 3503:. 65 300:3. 3.3.5

 

$0N $Nw $0.. $0.. $3. $0.. $05 $05 $00 $05 $00 $NN $ FN $3. $3. __on_
$0N $N0 $N0 $N0 $05 $3” $00 $3 $ 3.. $¢N $v~ 000
$ 3 $ 2. $3 $0 $5 _. $ 3 $0N $00 $3 $0 $N_. 30.0
$3. $0 $5 $05 $0 $0 _. $0 $0 $ 2. $0 $VN mem
$00 $0¢ $3‘ $00 $50 $0..V $0 $0N $.30 $00 $ IV 000
$v $v $N $v $0.. $0 $0 $0 $0 Icoz

$00 $00 $00 $00 $00 $00.. $00 $00 $¢0 am...

$05 $50 $00 $3. $00 $V5 $00 u.

$0N $00 $0“V $50 $50 $0N $00 .2

$0 $5 _. $0.. $N_. $Nw SE:

$005 $00 $3 $00 $00 D<O

 

05—0 .mEm 03m. 0:0 I002 00... u. .2 SE: D<O +NN O>wN O>0N O>0_. O>0e

 

 

.8336..th 350 go 9:80.35 63300.02. >35 .03...
0 3Ba...

76

Table 6

Demographic Breakdown (%) of Population and Responders of the Study

 

 

 

 

% Pop % Sample
Variable Source (n = 7653) (n = 354) )_(2 d_f
Age 18 Years Old 1.19% 4.70% 3.90 4
19 Years Old 48.46% 54.50%
20 Years Old 35.78% 31.40%
21 Years Old 10.86% 6.60%
22+ Years Old 3.71% 2.80%
Race/Ethnicity Caucasian 78.92% 87.10% 2.37 1
Under Represented Minority 21.08% 12.90%
Gender Men 45.49% 33.10% 3.23 1
Women 54.51% 66.90%
Residence Residence Hall 46.24% 47.10% 1018* 3
Residential College 6.15% 9.40%
Emerging Apartment 1.86% 11.60%
Off-Campus 45.75% 31 .96%
* p < .05

77

between scores on both tests for the study participants (r = .55, n = 359, p = .00).
By common social science standards, a correlation of this magnitude indicates a
moderate relationship between the two instruments. The SDTLA-PUR Instrument
also provides sub-scales for measures of Career Planning, Educational
involvement, Cultural Participation, and Lifestyle Planning. Each of these four
sub-scales combine to create the overall Purpose score. Correlation analysis
between the PIL and each of the four sub-scales were also computed, but no
greater correlation between the PIL and the sub-scales were discovered. Means,
standard deviations, and intercorrelations for the PIL and the SDTLA-FUR and its
four sub-scales are outlined in Table 7.

Because the authors of the SDTLA-PUR indicated that scores vary based
on gender and class level (Winston et al., 1999), an additional partial correlation
was computed. Class level was controlled for in the design of the study. In this
second analysis, the same correlation was computed between the SDTLA-PUR
and the PIL, controlled for differences by gender. Controlling for these gender
differences had a negligible impact on the strength of the correlation [r = .55, n =
356, p = .00].

Comparison of Study Cases to National Norms. As nationally used
instruments, both the SDTLA-FUR and the PIL have published normative
estimates. Three independent ttests were conducted to compare scores of
study participants with the normative data published for both instruments, as
summarized in Table 8. The normative data provided by the instrument authors
for the SDTLA-PUR are disaggregated by class level and gender, because of
differences discovered by the authors in initial validation studies of the instrument

(Winston et al., 1999). When compared to sophomores in the national normative

78

do. v a an ~505ch 2m $56508 =<

.xmmﬁaw acicmi 0.38:.— u “.3

£355 cozmgoﬁmn. .8230 u 430 2355 E88202. .mcodwoauw u 5m 2355 @5551 .330 u «<0

Ema... owoesn. 952050.245wa EoEmmomm< 0585 van mxmmk 32952900 3835 u «5.... amok £3 5 309.5 u .__n_

._mcomm_u 05 o>onm 8:583 9m 8% n 5825 no: n :2): Bacon

.2 acagcoo mcozﬂotoo .5th ._mcomm_u 9.: 26.3 c2583 2m 3mm u 2V $53.2th =m .2 £56580 con—£280 ”202

 

 

 

 

mud mud Rd mud mvd wmd mwd Nod mud vmd and u...
5d 5d odd med Ed Ed mud and and and Ed .50
2d and Ed mod mod Ed mod and and 5d ovd Em
and mud mud EN dad EN mud owd and odd Dad m<o
omd mmd omd and mad and 3d mmd 5d mad mmd and
mod? mm: made wmdor dude? dmdow wmd 3d ovd nvd mmd .__d
.2 u __< .2 n. __< u... .50 Em m<o man. .=n_
Q|w \|< woSmmos.

 

 

£8.95 8m 38s manic om m5 new .E we be

 

mcohﬁohoogohs btw accumsom Embcﬁm £232

5 2an

79

Table 8
Diﬂ‘erences Between Standard National Norms and Study Participants
on the SD TLA-FUR and PIL.

 

 

 

M S_D a
Measure Norm Study Norm Study Norm Study t df
PlLT 108.5 105.6 13.98 15.25 417 359 2.72" 774
SDTLA-PUR
Men 3.03 2.80 0.67 0.56 143 116 3.01" 257
Women 3.13 2.88 0.66 0.56 222 243 4.44“ 463

 

1’ National norm scales published for the PIL are not disaggregated by gender.

“p<.01.

80

data table, both men (M = 2.80, SD = .56), and women (M = 2.88, SD = .56)
scored statistically signiﬁcantly lower than the normative SDTLA-PUR scores for
men (M = 3.03, SD = .67) and women, respectively [M = 3.13, SD = .66; t

SDTLA-

m...(257) = 3.01, p < .01; (463) = 4.44, p < .01].

tSDTLA-women
Normative scores published by Crumbaugh (1968) for the PIL are more
generalized, and include a comparison group of “Undergraduate Students.”
Disaggregated normative data by class level and/or gender are not currently
available for the PIL. The scores of the study participants (M = 105.59, SD =
15.25) were compared with the available normative scores for undergraduate
students (M = 108.45, SD = 13.98). A statistically signiﬁcant difference existed,
with study participants scoring lower than the national normative data [t(774) =
2.72, p < .01]. The magnitude of the differences was relatively small (E2 - .01;

PIL "
E2 = .03; 52 = .04).

SDTLA-men SDTLA-Women

Research Question Two: What demographic variables impact a student’s
sense of purpose in life, as measured by the SDTLA and the-PIL?

in the review of literature, studies indicated no deﬁnitive answer related
to the variance in PIL scores due to demographic variables. The authors of the
SDTLA-PUR indicated that scores vary by gender and class level (Winston et al.,
1999), and other studies revealed variations on demographic variables. Variation
in study participants’ test scores on the PIL and the SDTLA-PUR because of
demographic variables was explored.

One—way ANOVA tests were conducted on PIL and SDTLA-PUR scores
and on the independent variables of Age, Race-Coded, Gender, Sexuality-
Coded, Residence, and Socioeconomic Status. Table 9 presents the means,

standard deviations, and ANOVA outcomes for the PlL and Table 10 shows these

81

Table 9

Effects of Demographic Variables on PIL Score.

 

 

 

Variable Source Source if §§ MS E

Age Between Groups 4 572.56 143.14 0.61
Within Groups 354 82,670.07 233.53

Race/Ethnicity Between Groups 1 363.70 363.70 1.57
Within Groups 357 82,878.92 232.15

Gender Between Groups 1 920.38 920.38 3.99“"
Within Groups 357 82,322.24 230.60

Sexuality Between Groups 1 167.07 167.07 0.72
Within Groups 356 83,068.81 233.34

Residence Between Groups 3 543.26 181.09 0.78
Within Groups 355 82,699.36 232.96

Socioeconomics Between Groups 1 19.44 19.44 0.08
Within Groups 357 83,223.19 233.12

’ p < .05.

82

 

Table 10

Effects of Demographic Variables on SD TLA-PUR Score.

 

 

 

 

Variable Source if SS _M§ [5

Age Between Groups 4 1.76 0.44 1.40
Within Groups 354 111.03 0.31

Race/Ethnicity Between Groups 1 0.75 0.75 2.40
Within Groups 357 112.04 0.31

Gender Between Groups 1 0.48 0.48 1.54
Within Groups 357 112.31 0.32

Sexuality Between Groups 1 0.20 0.20 0.63
Within Groups 356 112.40 0.32

Residence Between Groups 3 0.98 0.33 1.03
Within Groups 355 111.81 0.32

Socioeconomics Between Groups 1 0.35 0.35 1.12
Within Groups 357 112.44 0.32

"' p < .05

83

results for the SDTLA—PUR. Of the independent variables analyzed, only Gender
had a statistically signiﬁcant effect on the PIL score [F(1, 357) = 3.99, p < .05].
No other demographic variables showed a relationship with either test scores.
Research Question Three: What involvement or environmental factors
impact a student’s sense of purpose in life, as measured by the SDTLA-
PUR and the PIL?

To further explore the development of purpose in college students,
question three examined the relationship between environmental and
involvement factors reﬂected by scores on the SDTLA-PUR and the PIL. Data
were collected on three series of factors: hours spent in a week on certain
activities (Time Spent), degree of involvement in a list of student organization
themes (Involvement), and other activities of interest, as indicated in the literature
(Activities). For both the PIL and the SDTLA-PUR, each factor series was
entered into one of three multiple regressions for each of the two instruments.
Preliminary analyses were performed to ensure the data contained no violation
of the assumptions necessary for regression analysis. Tables 11-13 show the
intercorrelation coefﬁcients in the check for multicollinearity. '

Time Spent Factor Series. Several variables included in the Time Spent
factor series had an impact on PlL scores (R2 = .16, n = 340, p < .00). More time
spent on exercising (B = 1.52, SEB = .65, p < .02), studying (B = 1.89, SEB =
.65, p < .00), attending parties/social events (B = 1.44, SEB = .70, p < .04), and
spending time with friends (B = 1.36, SEB = .58, p < .02) had a positive and
statistically signiﬁcant relationship with PIL scores. Watching TV (8 = -1.54, SEB
= .61, p < .01) and playing video games (B = -2.36, SEB = .73, p < .00) both

showed a negative and statistically signiﬁcant relationship with PIL scores. A total

84

65030 as 93.... 09.5.8...

mad-5.300 o... .o. 3866:8625 :95de 05 26.3 82.86... 4E 05 5? 2392.00.25 .

 

 

00.0- 00.0 00.0 3.0- 00.0 03.0 N 3.0 00.0 00.0- 0 3.0 N30 0023306. :5 N_.
00.0- 03.0 0N0 3.0 03.0 3.0- 30.0 00.0- 3.0- 00.0- 0N.0- 8800 05 3
00.0 03.0 0v.0 NN.0 00.0 00.0 V0.0 30.0 50.0- 03.0- 50.0 mncmtm 03
00.0 0N0 0Y0 0N0 3.0 03.0 00.0 00.0 N3.0- 00.0- 3.0- 05.00 0
3.0- 3.0 NN.0 0N0 3.0 00.0- 00.0 V0.0- No.0 3.0- 3.0- >._. :80; 0
00.0 03.0 00.0 3.0 3.0 30.0- VNd 03.0 V0.0 000- 0 3.0 4»th \-
03.0 3.0- 00.0 03.0 00.0- 300- N30 3.0 N3.0- 000- N0 >035 0
N...0 30.0 «0.0 00.0 00.0 VN.0 N30 5 3.0 30.0 No.0- 03.0 mm_o.moxm m
00.0 00.0- 30.0 00.0 v0.0- 03.0 3.0 3.0 No.0 N0.0- 3.0 83.0w E00 ¢
00.0- 3.0- 50.0- 3.? No.0 3.0 N 3.0- 30.0 N0.0 3N.0- 3.0 tO-x.0>> m
03.0 00.0- 03.0- 00.0- 03.0- 00.0- 00.0- N0.0- N0.0- 3N.0- 30.0 cO-x.o>> N
30.0 0N.0- 00.0- 00.0- 03.0- 00.0- 0N0 00.0 NN.0 No.0 3.0 «(H—hm)?— 3

N3 3 0.. 0 0 h 0 0 v 0 N 3 0.3005.

 

 

3.8%., .298 we: 2.. 5.2 «3-5.. mm Ba .5 2.. 8. 82.380295

3 0300.

85

3....

.2800 0.... 0>000 00.0000...

mod-5.50 05 .0. 000.50.69.02. 20500.0 05 30.00 002.0005 -_.n. 05 5.? 0000900090.... -

 

 

30.0 V0.0 5.0 3.0 03.0 nN.o VN.0 3N0 0N.0 no.0 0.20 V0.0- 3.0 0.0 B00 3

30.0 00.0 3.0 .00 no.0 03.0 0N.0 3.0 VN.0 ..0.0- 3.0 V0.0 00.0 <1”. 0..
V0.0 00.0 0N.0 00.0 03.0 03.0 0V.o VN.o 03.0 .00- 30 No.0 00.0 >00 2m N..
30.0 3.0 0N.0 no.0 30.0 03.0 3.0 00.0 0N.0 00.0 N ...0 00.0 03.0 o.E000o< 3
3.0 30.0 00.0 no.0 NN.0 o...o 00.0 NN.0 00.0 .00 00.0- no.0 00.0 0.00.2 0..
03.0 no.0 3.0 30.0 NN.0 03.0 03.0 ..N.0 o...o No.0- V0.0 3.0 00.0 053.022 0
nN.o 03.0 0.20 0.20 03.0 03.0 0N.0 V0.0 V0.0 00.0 V0.0 00.0 00.0 0<n. 0
VN.0 0N.0 0V.o 3.0 00.0 0.20 0N.0 0N.0 3N.0 30.0 00.0 00.0 No.0 0.5.3. n
..N.o 3.0 VN.0 00.0 NN.0 ..N.o V0.0 0N.0 N30 V0.0 ..o.o- V0.0 3.0 :000E0.c_ 0
0N.0 VN.0 03.0 0N.0 00.0 03.0 V0.0 No 3.0 00.0 03.0 00.0 03.0 0329.0”. m
no.0 ..o.o- 30.0- 00.0 30.0 No.0- mo.o 30.0 V0.0 00.0 00.0 N0.o- 00.0 0.00.0 V
0.20 3.0 0...o 3.0 00.0- V0.0 V0.0 00.0 30.0- 03.0 00.0 03.0 00.0 000.5 03.0 m
V0.0- Vo.o No.0 00.0 no.0 m ...o 00.0 00.0 V0.0 00.0 No.0- 0_..o 00.0 00..0.5< U. N
nN.o 03.0 NN.0 nN.o 00.0 03.0 0.20 03.0 0N.0 0N.0 30.0 o...0 00.0- Shamﬁzn. ..
3 03 N.. 3 0.. 0 0 n 0 m V m N .. 05000.2

 

 

00380.. $050295 05 5.5. 050.5. o0 .26 .E 2.. .0. 02250820....

N.. 0.00b

86

00000.0 00. 0>000 0200005

mom-(3.50 05 .0. 00000.0..00020. ”00000.0 0.... 30.00 020000... ...n. 0.... 0..? 00000000220. .

 

 

00.0 00.0 0N.0 0N.0 0V0 00.0 30.0 00.0 ..V.o 3.0 00.0 3.0 0000.3000m 0..

00.0 00.0 03.0 no.0 0N.0 0N.0 3.0 00.0 00.0 30.0 3.0 0N.0 0.00>m .30 0.0 N ..
00.0 00.0 03.0 03.0 n00 ..V.o no.0 30.0 NV.0 0N.0 N30 0N.0 .0505 0:0... 3
0N.0 0.20 03.0 00.0 0.20 0N.0 00.0 3.0 0.30 n...o 3.0 0.20 000.5 >0.n. 0..
0N.0 no.0 03.0 00.0 o...o 3N.o 00.0 3.0 n_..o 03.0 No 03.0 0025 00.0; 0
0V0 0N.0 n00 03.0 o...o 30.0 00.0 00.0 V0.0 0N.0 No.0 3.0 .00>m .0.3..30 0
00.0 0N.0 ..V.o 0N.0 ..N.o 30.0 00.0 N00 0V.o V0.0 00.0 VN.o 00:00:; 0M n
30.0 3.0 no.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0N.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00>> 0
00.0 00.0 30.0 3.0 3.0 00.0 N00 0N.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0...o 00.000 m m
3V.o 00.0 NV.0 0.20 3.0 V0.0 oV.o 00.0 00.0 30.0 V0.0 3.0 0050005002“. V
3.0 30.0 0N.0 3.0 03.0 0N.0 V0.0 00.0 00.0 30.0 00.0 00.0 00000302 01 0
00.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3N0 No.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 V0.0 00.0 00.0 0.502 0.0% 0m. N
00.0 V0.0 00.0 N30 00.0 n00 V0.0 0.20 30.0 0N.0 3.0 no.0 (4009......— 3
03 N .. 3 0 .. 0 0 n 0 0 V m N .. 00.3000.)—

 

 

00382 02.2.0... 2.. 5.3. 03.5.. 00 .80 3E 2.. .0. 08.508835

0.. 0.00...

87

of 16% of the variance in PIL scores was accounted for by these six variables.

Of the Time Spent factor series variables, four items showed a statistically
signiﬁcant relationship with SDTLA-FUR scores (R2 = .21, n = 340, p < .00). Time
spent working on campus (B = .01, SEB = .02, p < .01), studying (B = .01, SEB =
.02, p < .00), and participating in student activities (B = .01, SEB = .02, p < .00)
had a positive relationship with the SDTLA-FUR score. Playing video games (B
= -.O1, SEB = .03, p < .01) had a negative relationship with SDTLA-FUR scores.
Over 21% of the variance in SDTLA-FUR scores are accounted for by these
factors. A summary of the Time Spent regression analysis is included in Table 14.

Involvement Factor Series. A regression analysis of involvement in
student organizations indicated that level of involvement in the 13 student
organizations included in the survey did not have a statistically signiﬁcant
relationship with PIL scores (R2 = .05, n = 340, p = .18).

Data on involvement in 13 student organizations were entered into a
regression analysis with the dependent variable of the SDTLA-FUR. Several
types of student organizations showed a statistically signiﬁcant relationship with

the SDTLA, accounting for 18% of variance in the outcome score (R2 = .18, n

340, p = .00). Participating in student religious organizations (B = .11, SEB

.05, p < .03), music or art organizations (B = .15, SEB = .06, p < .02), and
academic or honorary organizations (B = .18, SEB = .05, p < .00), had a positive
relationship with a student’s SDTLA-FUR score. A summary of the Involvement
regression analysis is included as Table 15.

Activities Factor Series. A regression analysis of items included in the
Activities factor series and their relationship with PIL scores showed that several

activities have a statistically signiﬁcant relationship with PIL score (R2 = .19, n

88

Table 14
ﬁegression Analysis Summary for Time Spent
Variables Predicting PIL and SD TLA-PUR Scores.

 

 

 

.8 §__EB ﬁ
Time Spent Variables PIL SDTLA PIL SDTLA PIL SDTLA
Work On-Campus 0.16 0.05 0.45 0.02 0.02 0.15”
Work Off-Campus 0.16 0.02 0.41 0.02 0.02 0.07
Community Service 1.24 0.06 0.91 0.03 0.08 0.10
Exercise/Athletic Activity 1 .52 0.00 0.65 0.02 0.13* -0.01
Study/Class Attendance 1 .89 0.08 0.65 0.02 0.16“ 0.18"
Attending Social Evts/Parties 1.44 -0.02 0.70 0.03 0.12* -0.05
Watching TV -1.54 -0.04 0.61 0.02 -0.14** -0.10
Online/Accessing lntemet -1 .00 -0.01 0.56 0.02 -0.11 -0.02
Talking with Friends 1.36 0.00 0.58 0.02 0.15* 0.00
Playing VId/Comp Games -2.36 -0.07 0.73 0.03 -0.17** 013“
Student Org/Activities 0.26 0.09 0.62 0.02 0.02 0.22“

 

PIL R2 = .164 (n = 340, p < .00); SDTLA-FUR R2 = .213 (n = 340, p < .00).

'p<.05;“p<.01

89

Table 15

ﬂegression Analysis Summary for Involvement in Student Activities
Variables PredictingPIL and SD TLA-PUR Scores.

 

 

 

B SEB ﬂ
Involvement Variables PIL SDTLA PIL SDTLA PIL SDTLA
Intercollegiate Athletics 0.32 -0.10 1.90 0.07 0.01 -0.08
Intramural or club sports 1.43 0.03 1.41 0.05 0.06 0.04
Social Fraternity or Sorority -0.23 -0.03 1.34 0.05 -0.01 -0.03
Religious or interfaith groups 2.60 0.11 1.44 0.05 0.11 0.12*
'"temat'ma' °' 'anguage 5.46 0.16 2.77 0.10 0.12 0.10
groups
M'"°".ty °.' ethn'c -1.83 0.04 1.93 0.07 -0.06 0.04
organizations
P°"t'°a' and S°°'a' a°t'°" -1.01 0.02 2.11 0.07 -0.03 0.01
groups
Mus": °' “her pe"°"“'"9 ans 0.14 0.15 1.78 0.06 0.00 013*
groups
StUde'Tt "ewsPaper' mm“ W’ -2.15 -0.03 3.21 0.11 -0.04 -0.01
magazune, etc.
P'e'p'°f.°ss'°"a" h°"°' °' 2.11 0.18 1.55 0.05 0.08 0.18"
academic groups
Campus student government 0.36 0.11 2.63 0.09 0.01 0.0.8
Residence hall government 057 -0.01 2.24 0.08 -0.02 001
Service organization 1.77 0.11 1.65 0.06 0.07 0.11

 

PIL R2 = .051 (n = 340, p = .183); SDTLA-FUR R2 = .179 (n = 340, p = .00).

*p<.05. **p<.01.

90

= 340, p < .00). PIL scores were positively related with students’ attending an
educational workshop (B = 2.46, SEB = .10, p < .01), talking with professors
outside of class time (B = 2.00, SEB = .67, p < .00), and discussing current
events with friends (B = 1.67, SEB = .63, p < .01). Scores were negatively related
to reading a local newspaper (B = -1.02, SEB = .51, p < .05). Almost 19% of the
variance in SDTLA—PUR scores were accounted for by these involvement factors.

Activities included in the Activities factor series were entered into a
regression analysis to determine their relationship with the dependent variable of
SDTLA-FUR scores (Table 16). Three activities showed a statistically signiﬁcant
relationship with the SDTLA-FUR, accounting for over 31% of the variance in the
score (R2 = .31, n = 340, p < .00). Accessing the World Wide Web/lntemet (B =
.11, SEB = .04, p < .00), talking with a professor outside of class time (B = .10,
SEB = .02, p < .00), and discussing current events with friends (B = .01, SEB =
.02, p < .00), had a positive relationship with SDTLA-PUR scores.

Meta-Regresslon of Signlflcant Factors. Following the completion of the
regression analysis for the three factor series and the PIL and SDTLA-PUR, all of
those items that were discovered to be statistically signiﬁcantly related to the PIL
or SDTLA-PUR were entered into a step-wise regression analysis to determine
of all of the variables identiﬁed as relating to the test scores, which items had the
greatest independent contribution to the resultant test-score.

For the SDTLA-PUR, talking with a professor outside of class (B = .08,
SEB = .02, p < .00), time spent on student activities (B = .07, SEB = .02, p <
.00), discussing current events with friends (B = .09, SEB = .02, p < .00), level of
involvement in student academic (B = .17, SEB = .05, p < .00), religious (B = .09,
SEB = .04, p < .03), and music/arts organizations (B = .012, SEB = .05, p < .02),

91

Table 16

Regression Analysis Summary for Activities Variables Predicting__

PIL and SD TLA-PUR Scores.

 

 

 

g SEB

Activity Variables PIL SDTLA PIL SDTLA PIL SDTLA
Read the State News 0.12 0.00 0.52 0.02 0.02 0.00
ReadAmthe'Da'W -1.02 -001 0.51 0.02 -0.13* -0.03
Newspaper

Read Educat'ma' -0.35 0.00 0.71 0.02 -0.04 -0.03
ﬂyers/brochures

Read S°met“'"9 °" “"6“” 0.32 0.02 0.87 0.02 0.08 0.07
board‘l'

AccesstheWWW/lntemet 1.23 0.11 1.15 0.04 0.06 0.15“
Attend 3" educat'ma' 2.48 0.05 1.00 0.03 0.18” 0.09
wkshp/spkrT

Attendacultural/intellectual 4.09 0.05 0.91 0.03 43.09 0.12
event‘t

Aﬁendasmmng eventasa 0.45 -0.03 0.63 0.02 0.04 -0.07
spectator

Pan'c'PatéfmsW’tW 0.29 0.00 0.52 0.02 0.04 0.00
event/actIVIty

0°”ta°tp'°fess°'°“ts'de °f 2.00 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.19** o.24**
class-r

Talk With fnends about current 1.67 0.06 0.63 0.02 0.16“ 0.16“
events

Getenmuragedm attend -0.31 0.04 0.63 0.02 -0.03 0.11

event/activityt

 

1 Text of original question truncated for reasons of space.

PIL R2 = .188 (n = 340, p = .00); SDTLA-PUR R2 = .314 (n = 340, p = .00).

*p<.05. **p< .01.

92

 

and use of the web were shown to be positively related to SDTLA-PUR scores. i '
Only time spent playing video and computer games (B = -.07, SEB = .02, p < .00)
showed a negative relationship with SDLTA-PUR scores in this ﬁnal regression
(R2 = .35, p < .000). Table 17 summarizes this step-wide regression analysis.

All factors that showed as statistically signiﬁcant with the PIL in the initial
regression analysis were entered into a step-wise regression analysis (Table
18). Of those variables, discussing current events with friends (B = 2.19, SEB =
.55, p < .00), attending educational workshops (B = 2.65, SEB = .78, p < .00),
time spent exercising (B = 2.06, SEB = .60, p < .00), and talking with a professor
outside of class (B = 1.42, SEB = .59, p < .02), had a positive and statistically
signiﬁcant contribution to PIL scores. Time spent playing video games (B = -3.37,
SEB = .72, p < .00), and reading an off-campus newspaper (B = -.84, SEB = .42,
p < .05), both showed a negative contribution to PIL scores (R2 = 22, p < .00).
Summary

To prepare to answer the three research questions, data were downloaded
and recoded and incomplete cases removed. A statistically signiﬁcant moderate
correlation between the PIL and the SDTLA-PUR was discovered. Analysis for
research question two indicated that only gender had the expected statistically
signiﬁcant relationship with PIL scores; no other demographic inﬂuence
was found on the SDTLA-FUR. Finally, three series of factors, Time Spent,
Involvement, and Activities, were placed in multiple regression for both the
SDTLA-PUR and the PIL. Several of the items in the three series showed
statistically signiﬁcant predictive power on the independent variables. These
items were then placed into a ﬁnal regression analysis for each test, to determine
of all the items included, which had the greatest, unique contribution to the test

score.
93

Table 17
Stepwise Regression Analysis for the SD TLA-PUR.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Model Variables 58 .483 B §E_B .13 t ﬁg
1 (Constant) 0.15 2.39 0.07 36.31 0.00
Talk w/Prof 0.15 0.02 0.39 7.72 0.00
(Constant) 0.21 0.06 2.25 0.07 32.07 0.00
2 Talk w/Prof 0.13 0.02 0.34 6.77 0.00
TM Stu Activities 0.10 0.02 0.25 4.96 0.00
(Constant) 0.26 0.05 1.87 0.11 17.86 0.00
3 Talk wlProf 0.10 0.02 0.27 5.41 0.00
TM Stu Activities 0.09 0.02 0.23 4.83 0.00
Dis Cur Events 0.09 0.02 0.23 4.69 0.00
(Constant) 0.30 0.04 1.66 0.11 14.55 0.00
Talk w/Prof 0.10 0.02 0.25 5.05 0.00
4 TM Stu Activities 0.08 0.02 0.19 4.01 0.00
Dis Cur Events 0.09 0.02 0.24 4.91 0.00
IN Academic 0.19 0.05 0.20 4.20 0.00
(Constant) 0.32 0.02 1.80 0.12 14.88 0.00
Talk w/Prof 0.09 0.02 0.23 4.77 0.00
TM Stu Activities 0.08 0.02 0.19 4.05 0.00
5 Dis Cur Events 0.09 0.02 0.25 5.20 0.00
IN Academic 0.18 0.05 0.19 4.08 0.00
TM Vid Games -0.07 0.02 -0.14 -3.14 0.00

 

Steps 1-5, or 8.

94

 

Table 17, Continued
Stepwise Regression Analysis for the SD TLA -PUR.

 

 

 

(Constant) 0.33 0.01 1.66 0.13 12.63 0.00
Talk w/Prof 0.09 0.02 0.22 4.59 0.00
TM Stu Activities 0.07 0.02 0.18 3.82 0.00
Dis Cur Events 0.09 0.02 0.25 5.19 0.00
IN Academic 0.19 0.04 0.19 4.17 0.00
TM Vid Games -0.07 0.02 -0.15 -3.19 0.00
IN Music/Arts 0.13 0.05 0.12 2.59 0.01
(Constant) 0.34 0.01 1.03 0.30 3.44 0.00
Talk w/Prof 0.08 0.02 0.22 4.52 0.00
TM Stu Activities 0.07 0.02 0.18 3.91 0.00
Dis Cur Events 0.09 0.02 0.24 5.02 0.00
IN Academic 0.19 0.04 0.20 4.26 0.00
TM Vid Games -0.07 0.02 -0.14 -3.07 0.00
IN Music/Arts 0.13 0.05 0.12 2.58 0.01
Web 0.09 0.04 0.11 2.34 0.02
(Constant) 0.35 0.01 0.94 0.30 3.13 0.00
Talk w/Prof 0.08 0.02 0.21 4.45 0.00
TM Stu Activities 0.07 0.02 0.17 3.64 0.00
Dis Cur Events 0.09 0.02 0.23 4.91 0.00
IN Academic 0.17 0.05 0.18 3.84 0.00
TM Vid Games -0.07 0.02 -0.14 -3.12 0.00
IN Music/Arts 0.12 0.05 0.11 2.43 0.02
Web 0.10 0.04 0.11 2.45 0.02
IN Religious 0.09 0.04 0.10 2.21 0.03

 

95

Table 18
Stepwise Regression Analysis for the PIL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Model Variables 82 432 B S_EB 5 _t §_ig_.
1 (Constant) 0.08 90.36 3.01 30.00 0.00
Dis Cur Events 2.86 0.54 0.28 5.27 0.00
(Constant) 0.13 0.05 95.82 3.17 30.28 0.00
2 Dis Cur Events 2.93 0.53 0.28 5.55 0.00
TM \ﬁd Games -3.36 0.74 -0.23 -4.54 0.00
(Constant) 0.17 0.04 93.24 3.15 29.56 0.00
3 Dis Cur Events 2.35 0.53 0.23 4.40 0.00
TM Vid Games -3.69 0.73 -0.25 -5.07 0.00
Ed ershop 3.00 0.73 0.21 4.12 0.00
(Constant) 0.20 0.03 88.76 3.39 26.17 0.00
Dis Our Events 2.23 0.53 0.22 4.22 0.00
4 TM Vid Games -3.69 0.72 -0.26 -5.16 0.00
Ed ershop 2.91 0.72 0.21 4.04 0.00
TM Excercise 2.00 0.61 0.16 3.30 0.00
(Constant) 0.21 0.01 86.98 3.47 25.04 0.00
Dis Cur Events 1.97 0.54 0.19 3.67 0.00
5 TM Vid Games -3.43 0.72 -0.24 -4.75 0.00
Ed ershop 2.33 0.76 0.17 3.05 0.00
TM Excercise 1.97 0.60 0.16 3.27 0.00
Talk w/Prof 1.27 0.59 0.12 2.15 0.03
(Constant) 0.22 0.01 87.46 3.47 25.22 0.00
Dis Cur Events 2.19 0.55 0.21 4.01 0.00
TM Vid Games -3.37 0.72 -0.23 -4.67 0.00
6 Ed ershop 2.65 0.78 0.19 3.41 0.00
TM Excercise 2.06 0.60 0.17 3.43 0.00
Talk w/Prof 1.42 0.59 0.13 2.40 0.02
Rd Newspaper -0.84 0.42 -0.11 -1.98 0.05

 

96

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION

Chickering (1969), an educational researcher in socio-developmental
processes, created one of the ﬁrst and most widely known and studied college
student development theories. Chickering held that in an increasingly complex
society, an important psychosocial developmental period had emerged,
comprising the college years from age 18 to the mid-20s. “Before Education
and Identity, little had been published about development beyond adolescence,
except for writings by Sanford (1961), Erikson (1959) and Marcia (1965 and
1966)” (Reisser, 1995, p. 506). Chickering characterized the college student
“as an individual in a distinct psychosocial phase deﬁned by the emergence of
certain inner needs and abilities which interact with the demands or press of the
college milieu” (Edman, 1988, p. 4).

Chickering (1969) believed that the critical task for college students was
the establishment oftheir identity, and proposed seven vectors of development
through which students must progress. Chickering and Reisser (1993) later
revised the seven vectors to take into account more recent research and a
broader demographic base, hoping to provide “useful tools to a new generation of
practitioners who want to help students become ‘excellent all-rounders’” (p. 41 ).
Chickering and Reisser's seven vectors deﬁne “major highways for journeying
toward individuation—the discovery and reﬁnement of one’s unique way of being"
(p. 35).

Extensive research has been conducted on the seven vectors generally

and on several individual vectors (e.g., Greeley & Tinsley, 1988; ltzkowitz 8.

97

Petrie, 1986; Jordan-Cox, 1987; Polkosnik & Winston, 1989; Straub & Rodgers,
1986). Application of the vectors in student affairs practice is widespread.

The area of Chickering and Reisser's (1993) work that has received the least
extensive exploration is Vector 6, Developing Purpose.

Concerning Vector Six, Chickering and Reisser ( 1993) stated that students
determine their place in society. They reasoned that “a plan becomes a map
for moving from the current situation to a more desirable one, for altering status
quo, for composing a life” (p. 210). They concluded that developing purpose
requires establishing a plan of action that integrates vocational plans, avocational
personal interests, and interpersonal and family commitments. To measure
the development of purpose, Winston et al. (1999) developed the Student
Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment-Purpose instrument.

The ﬁeld of clinical psychology provides another approach to measuring
purpose in life. Victor Frankl (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) made a substantial
contribution toward developing a theoretical foundation for the study of purpose
in life, and has been considered the preeminent scholar on this subject in the
ﬁeld of psychology (Zika & Chamberlain, 1992). Frankl ﬁrst explored and deﬁned
purpose in life in the clinical literature in the 19605, and is generally considered
the father of Logotherapy, a form of psychotherapy conceived of as therapy
through meaning (Pytell, 2001). F rankl believed that every individual has an
innate desire to develop a purpose in life, which he termed will to meaning. He
explained, “with this we designate man’s striving to fulﬁll as much meaning in
his existence as possible, and to realize as much value in his life as possible”
(Frankl, 1959, p. 161). Those who failed to experience a sense of purpose

in life, he believed, were in an existential vacuum or existentially frustrated,

98

“that is, inner emptiness, the feeling of having lost the examining of existence
and the content of life” (Frankl, 1959, p. 162). Frankl held that individuals who
experienced existential frustration compensated for their lack of purpose through
very risky behaviors.

Frankl believed an individual discovers meaning in several ways. The ﬁrst
way, which he felt was quite obvious, was “by creating a work or doing a deed”
(Frankl, 1984, p. 115). Purpose could stem from an individual’s work or vocation.
Frankl also believed that meaning could be derived from experiencing “nature
and culture” or “by experiencing another human being in his very uniqueness—
by loving him” (p. 115). Finally, Frankl believed individuals found purpose even
“when confronted with a hopeless situation” (p. 116)—that what matters is how a
person transforms that personal tragedy into achievement.

Based on Frankl’s (1953) theory of purpose in life, Crumbaugh and
Maholick (1964) developed the Purpose in Life Test to measure the degree to
which a person experiences a sense of purpose in life. The PIL is the instrument
“most commonly used in clinical psychology [and] has been translated into at
least six languages” (Moran, 2001, p. 271). The PIL has been used widely in
clinical and outpatient contexts. Research in the clinical setting has established
a thread of interesting relationships between the PIL and behavioral issues that
student affairs professionals deal with frequently, such as substance abuse,
depression, responsibility and others.

Frankl’s (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) and Chickering and Reisser’s (1993)
theoretical writing on developing purpose share a number of common viewpoints.
Both theories contain similar deﬁnitions of purpose, and consider that purpose

is derived from vocation or work; cultural, artistic, or recreational interests; and

99

interpersonal relationships or love. Both theories hold that developing a sense
of purpose is a critical task for healthy development. Although both theories
establish from where an individual develops a sense of purpose, neither Frankl
or Chickering and Reisser provide speciﬁc examples of factors that can assist
individuals in gaining that sense of purpose (Pascarella & Terenzini, 199). They
differ on when developing purpose occurs, and on the placement or centrality
of purpose to the total individual. Thus, the two theories appear to have more
similarities than differences. However, no empirical research has been published
that compares the instrument designed to assess Chickering and Reisser’s
(1993) Vector Six and Frankl’s (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) purpose in life.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to explore Chickering and Reisser’s (1993)
Vector 6, Developing Purpose, as measured by the SDTLA—FUR, and Frankl’s
(1959) purpose in life, as measured by the PIL. Chickering and Reisser’s vectors
of student development are commonly used foundations for student affairs
practice across the country. As the preeminent psychological scholar on the
subject of purpose, Frankl provided a useful comparison by which to evaluate
how the SDTLA—PUR measured Vector 6, Developing Purpose. This study
examined three research questions:

1. Are there differences in the way the PIL and SDTLA—PUR measure a

student's sense of purpose in life?
2. What demographic variables impact a student’s sense of purpose in
life, as measured by the SDTLA—PUR and the PIL?
3. What involvement or environmental factors impact a student’s sense

of purpose in life, as measured by the SDTLA—PUR and PIL?

100

 

Methods

A random sample of 1,000 sophomore students, enrolled full time (12 or
more credit hours) at a large Midwestern university, was stratiﬁed equally by four
residential settings: residence halls, residential colleges, emerging apartment
communities, and general off campus. Web-based data collection methods were
utilized to survey the sample participants. Participants in the study completed
the Student Developmental Tasks and Lifestyle Assessment-Purpose Form
(Winston et al., 1999) and the Purpose in Life Test (Crumbaugh & Maholick,
1964), provided demographic information, and indicated how they spent their
time each week on a list of activities, level of involvement In a series of student
organizations, and frequency of completing a list of other common activities on
college campuses. Each participant was contacted three times via email, and
invited to complete the instrumentation on a Web page designed speciﬁcally
for survey-data collection of this nature. Participants were randomly assigned
to one of two Web sites, in which the SDTLA-PUR and the PIL were reversed
in sequence to minimize bias. As an incentive, participants in the study were
entered into a drawing for a $150 gift certiﬁcate for their choice of a store in the
local mall.
Instrumentation

Student Developmental Tasks and Lifestyle Assessment-Purpose.
The purpose of the SDTLA was to assess the socio-emotional development of
college students, based on Chickering’s (1969) and Chickering and Reisser’s
(1993) vectors of college student development. Students respond to 153 multiple-
choice and true—false questions in the SDTLA. The scoring of the instrument

involved the assignment of different weighting values for each response option,

101

averaging of the students score on the instrument, and comparison of the
student’s score to nationally established normative data disaggregated by class
and gender. Form 1.99 includes all of the items and scores obtained for three
developmental tasks: purpose, relationships, and academic autonomy. Form 2.99
includes only those 57 questions necessary for the Developing Purpose task
and subtasks of the greater instrument, and was the version used in this study.
Through validity testing, the scores were found to be sensitive to test—retesting,
establishing growth from the freshmen to senior year (Wachs & Cooper, 2002).
Additionally, Winston et al. (1999) found Pearson product corrections for all
tasks in a test—retest situation to cluster around .80, p< .01. Those authors also
established intemal consistency with alpha coefﬁcients from .88 to 62. Although
the SDTLA had not been reviewed yet in the Mental Measurements Yearbook,
the earlier versions upon which this instrument is based have been. Henning-
Stout (1992) established the reliability and validity of the SDTl—2 (the earlier
version from which the SDTLA evolved) in the 1992 yearbook. She concluded
that the instrument was “a psychometrically sound inventory that can prove
useful in program development and has potential research applications” (p. 5).
Purpose in Life Test. Based on Frankl’s (1959, 1979, 1984, 1997) theory
of purpose in life, Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964) developed the Purpose in Life
Test to assist in measuring the degree to which a person experiences a sense of
purpose in life. This instrument has three parts. Part A contains 20 items in which
students rate themselves on a 7-point scale. The end points of each scale are
descriptive anchors, and position 4 is labeled as neutral. A summary score for
the PIL involves simply adding the rankings for each of the 20 items. Participants

with higher scores are expected to have a higher degree of sense of purpose

102

in life. Section B involves 13 sentence completion questions, and Section C
requires a free-response paragraph on personal aims and ambitions. “Part A
is the only one which is routinely treated quantitatively” (Hutzell, 1987, p. 131 ),
and was the only one used for this study. The PIL is used widely both in clinical
and non-clinical populations (Hutzell and Peterson, 1986). Crumbaugh (1968),
Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964), Meier and Edwards (1974), and Phillips (1980)
all found support for the validity of the instrument as measuring Frankl's construct
of purpose in life in relation to other similar measures of this construct, as well
as in test—retesting and factorial analysis. Crumbaugh believed the measures of
concurrent validity of the PIL were “in line with the level of criterion validity which
can usually be obtained from a single measure of a complex trait” (p. 79). The
split-half correlation of the PIL (N = 120) yielded a coefﬁcient of .85, corrected by
the Spearman-Brown formula to .92, indicating the survey was reliable.

Demographic Variables. There are a number of ways to look at the
demographics of college students, depending primarily on the researcher’s ﬁeld
of work or particular interests. The focus of this study was not the delineation
of the two instruments by demographic considerations, but to more generally
explore demographic variation. For this study, students were asked to manually
type in their identiﬁcation of age, gender/sex, and sexual orientation. The
questions of race/ethnicity, residential setting, and socioeconomic status
(ﬁnancial aid awards used as a proxy) were delineated as articulated in Appendix
A of this study.

Environmental and Involvement Factors. Three series of questions
were designed to assess the involvement level and activities of student

participants. Students were asked to indicate how many hours they spend each

103

week on a series of academic, non-academic, and personal activities. The
degree of involvement and leadership in different types of student organizations
was asked. Finally, the respondent was asked to indicate how often they
participated in a series of speciﬁc University and non-University sponsored
activities and services. These questions ranged from reading the campus
newspaper to talking with a professor outside of class.
Sample

A total of 445 students attempted to complete the survey for an initial
response rate of 45%. After coding and removing incomplete cases, 354 usable
surveys remained, for a usable survey response rate of 35%. Of those usable
surveys, women (n = 243) outnumbered by more than two times the number of
men (n = 120), which is disproportionate to the number of women and men in
the population of study. Underrepresented Minorities accounted for 13% (n = 47)
of the cases, which is slightly lower than the percentage of Underrepresented
Minorities on the campus of study. Almost 4% (n = 14) indicated a sexual
orientation categorized as Non-Heterosexual. Socio-economic status was
determined based on receiving a Pell Grant for the year (n = 64, 17.60%).
Finally, 171 (47.10%) of the students indicated they lived in a general on-campus
residence hall; 34 (9.40%) indicated they lived in a Residential College; 42
(11.60%) indicated they lived in an emerging off-campus apartment complex; and
the remaining 116 (32%) indicated they lived off-campus. Chi-Square analysis to
determine if the responders differed signiﬁcantly from the population concluded
that the sample was representative of the population for the variables of age,
race/ethnicity, and gender. However, differences existed between responders and

the population for residential setting, with greater representation of responders

104

in emerging apartments than appeared in the population. This was anticipated
because of the sampling method employed (Table 19).
Major Findings

The relationship between the PIL and the SDTLA-PUR was explored
through a Pearson product-moment correlation coefﬁcient analysis. Correlation
analysis indicated a statistically signiﬁcant relationship between scores on both
tests for the study participants [r = .55, n = 359, p = .00]. By common social
science standards, a correlation of this magnitude would indicate that a moderate
relationship existed between the two instruments. The authors of the SDTLA-
PUR indicate that scores may vary based on gender and class level. (Winston
et al., 1999) Class was controlled for in the design of the study by sampling
only sophomore students. Statistically controlling for gender differences had a
negligible impact on the strength of correlation [r = .55, n = 356, p = .00]. Means,
standard deviations, and intercorrelations for the PIL and the SDTLA-PUR are
outlined in greater detail in Table 20.

As nationally used instruments, both the SDTLA-PUR and the PlL have
published normative estimates for the instruments. Three independent ttests
were conducted to compare scores of study participants with the normative data
published for both instruments, as summarized in Table 21. When compared
to sophomores in the national normative SDTLA-PUR data table provided by
the instrument authors (Winston et al., 1999) both men (M = 2.80, SD = .56),
and women (M = 2.88, SD = .56) scored statistically signiﬁcantly lower than
the normative SDTLA-PUR Scores for men (M = 3.03, SD = .67) and women,
respectively [M = 3.13, SD = .66;

(257) = 3.01, p < .01; (483)

tSDTLA-women

= 4.44, p < .01]. Normative scores published by Crumbaugh (1968) for the PIL

tSDTLA-men

105

Table 19

Demographic Breakdown (%) of Population and Responders of the Study

 

 

 

 

% Pop % Sample
Variable Source (n = 7653) (n = 354) 53 d_f
Age 18 Years Old 1.19% 4.70% 3.90
19 Years Old 48.46% 54.50%
20 Years Old 35.78% 31.40%
21 Years Old 10.86% 6.60%
22+ Years Old 3.71% 2.80%
Race/Ethnicity Caucasian 78.92% 87.10% 2.37 1
Under Represented Minority 21.08% 12.90%
Gender Men 45.49% 33.10% 3.23 1
Women 54.51% 66.90%
Residence Residence Hall 46.24% 47.10% 10.18“ 3
Residential College 6.15% 9.40%
Emerging Apartment 1.86% 11.60%
Off-Campus 45.75% 31 .96%
* p < .05

106

.00. v 0 .0 5000.000 0.0 0.00.0508 :4.

200.20 055.00 0.08.... u 03

0.00.000 00..00.0...00 .0550 u .50 0.00.020 5050290. 002.033 0 .0m 0.00.000 050000 .0050 u 0.40

0.00... 0000.00 00.00_0>00-.<Hrom. .00E00000< 03.00.... 000 0x00... .0.00050.0>0o .00020 0 ~50 000... 0... 0. 0000.00 0 ._.0

._00000.0 0.... 0500 00.00005 0.0 .000 0 0005.5 6.. n 00.2. .00000

.0. 0059.000 0500.008 0.000 .2300 00. 30.00 00.00005 0.0 .000 u z. 0500.00.00 =0 .0. 0.00.0508 02.0.0000 ”0.02

 

 

 

00.0 00.0 2.0 00.0 0.0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0..... 00.0 00.0 0...
00.0 3.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 ..o .50
00.0 05.0 :0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 3.0 0.0.0 .00
0...... 05.0 0.0 .00 00.0 3.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 NV.0 0.4.0
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 5.0 00.0 00.0 «50
00.0. 0...... 00.0. 00.00. 05.00. 00.00. 00.0 0.... 0.0.0 3.0 00.0 .__0
.2 0 __< s. 0 =< 0... .50 5m. m<o ~50 ._.0
0'0 .\|< 005000.).

 

 

8.85:0 .25 8.00. 000-3. 00 e... 5:0 0.0 e... 5.
000.005.000.05. 000 000.0300. 0.00005 .0000:

ON 0.00...

 

107

Table 21
Differences Between Standard National Norms and Study Participants
on the SDTLA-FUR and PIL.

 

 

 

M S_D a
Measure Norm Study Norm Study Norm Study t df
PILT 108.5 105.6 13.98 15.25 417 359 2.72“ 774
SDTLA-FUR
Men 3.03 2.80 0.67 0.56 143 116 3.01" 257
Women 3.13 2.88 0.66 0.56 222 243 4.44“ 463

 

T National norm scales published for the PIL are not disaggregated by gender.

**p<.01.

108

‘le'l’ .-

 

are more generalized, and included a comparison group of “Undergraduate
Students.” Disaggregated normative data by class level and/or gender are not
currently available for the instrument. The scores of the study participants (M
= 105.59, SD = 15.25) were compared with the available normative scores for
undergraduate students (M = 108.45, SD = 13.98). A statistically signiﬁcant
difference existed, with study participants scoring lower than the national
normative data (t(774) = 2.72, p < .01). The magnitude of the differences in the
= .03; E2

means was small to moderate (E11,,L = .01; E? = .04).

SDTLA-Men SDTLA-Women

One-way analysis of variance tests (ANOVA) were conducted on the
scores on the PIL and the SDTLA-FUR and the independent variables of Age,
Race-Coded, Gender, Sexuality-Coded, Residence, and Socio—Economic Status.
Of the independent variables analyzed, only Gender had a statistically signiﬁcant
effect on the PIL Score F(1, 357) = 3.99, p < .05. No other demographic variables
showed a relationship with either the PIL or the SDTLA-FUR Scores.

A series of regression analyses were completed to explore the inﬂuence of
environmental and involvement factors related to how students spend their time,
are involved in student organizations, and other activities that may impact scores
on the PIL and the SDTLA-FUR. A number of factors showed a statistically
signiﬁcant relationship with both dependent test score variables, as summarized
below and on Table 22 for the PIL and Table 23 for the SDTLA-FUR.

For the dependent variable of PIL score, three regression analyses
indicated that students who spend more time exercising (B = 1.52, SEB = .65, p
< .02), studying (B = 1.89, SEB = .65, p < .00), attending parties or social events
(B = 1.44, SEB = .70, p < .04), and spending time with friends (B = 1.36, SEB =

.58, p < .02), or who more frequently attend an educational workshop (B = 2.46,

109

Table 22

Regression Summary of Variables Predicting PIL Scores

 

 

Variables B SEB .6
TIME SPENT SERIES
Exercise/Athletic Activity 1 .52 0.65 0.13"
Study/Class Attendance 1.89 0.65 0.16“
Attending Social Evts/Parties 1.44 0.70 0.12*
Watching TV -1.54 0.61 -0.14**
Talking with Friends 1.36 0.58 0.15*
Playing \fId/Comp Games -2.36 0.73 -0.17**
INVOLVEMENT SERIES
ACTIVITIES SERIES
Read Another Daily _1 .02 0.51 4113,,
Newspaper
Attend an educational ,,
wkshp lspk r1- 2.46 1.00 0.18
Contact professor outsude of 2.00 0. 67 0.19,,
classt
Talk With fnends about current 1.67 0. 63 0.16"

events

 

1 Text of original question trunicated for reasons of space.

Only variables with p < .05 included in table.

*p<.05. "p<.01.

110

Table 23
R_egression Summary of Variables Predicting SD TLA-PUR

 

 

Variables B S_EB 3
TIME SPENT SERIES
Work On-Campus 0.05 0.02 0.15“
Study/Class Attendance 0.08 0.02 0.18“
Playing VId/Comp Games -0.07 0.03 -O.13**
Student Org/Activities 0.09 0.02 0.22“
INVOLVEMENT SERIES

Religious or interfaith groups 0.11 0.05 0.12*

Music or other performing arts

groups 0.15 0.06 0.13*

Pre-professional, honor or

academic groups
ACTIVITIES SERIES

Access the WWW/lntemet 0.11 0.04 0.15"

0.18 0.05 0.18"

Contact professor outside of

0.09 0.02 0.24"
classt

Talk with friends about current

0.06 0.02 0.16"
events .

 

1' Text of original question trunicated for reasons of space.
Only variables with p < .05 included in table.
‘p< .05. "p < .01.

111

SEB = .10, p < .01), talk with professors outside of class time (B = 2.00, SEB =
.67, p < .00), and discuss current events with friends (B = 1.67, SEB = .63, p <
.01) had a higher PIL score. Watching TV (B = -1.54, SEB = .61, p < .01), playing
video games (B = -2.36, SEB = .73, p < .00), and reading a local newspaper
(B = -1.02, SEB = .51, p < .05) showed a negative and statistically signiﬁcant
relationship on a student’s PIL score. As a block in the regression analysis, the
Time Spent factors accounted for 16% of the variance and the Activities factors
accounted for almost 19% of the variance in PIL scores.

The dependent variable of SDTLA-FUR score was related to a number
of variables included in three regression analyses. Working on-campus (B = .01,
SEB = .02, p < .01), studying (B = .01, SEB = .02, p < .00), and participating in
student activities (B = .01, SEB = .02, p < .00), had a positive relationship with
the SDTLA-FUR score. Level of participation in religious student organizations (B
= .11, SEB = .05, p < .03), music/art organizations (B = .15, SEB = .06, p < .02),
and academic/honorary organizations (B = .18, SEB = .05, p < .00), also was
positively related to a student’s SDTLA-FUR score. Finally, increased frequency
of accessing the WWW/lntemet (B = .11, SEB = .04, p < .00), talking with a
professor outside of class time (B = .01, SEB = .02, p < .00), and discussing
current events with friends (B = .01, SEB = .02, p < .00) was positively related
to a student's SDTLA-PUR score. Only time spent playing video games (B =
-.01, SEB = .03, p < .01) had a negative relationship with SDTLA-FUR scores.
Variance in SDTLA-FUR scores were accounted for by the three factor series,
Time Spent (21 %), Involvement (18%) and Activities (31%).

Following the completion of the regression analysis for the three factor

series and the PIL and SDTLA-FUR, all of those items that were discovered to

112

be statistically signiﬁcantly related to the PIL or SDTLA-FUR were entered into
a step-wise regression analysis to determine of all of the variables identiﬁed as
relating to the test scores, which items had the greatest independent contribution
to the resultant test-score.

For the SDTLA-FUR, talking with a professor outside of class (B = .08,
SEB = .02, p < .00), time spent on student activities (B = .07, SEB = .02, p <
.00), discussing current events with friends (B = .09, SEB = .02, p < .00), level of
involvement in student aoadmic (B = .17, SEB = .05, p < .00), religious (B = .09,
SEB = .04, p < .03), and music/arts organizations (B = .012, SEB = .05, p < .02),
and use of the web were shown to be positively related to SDTLA-PUR scores.
Only time spent playing video and computer games (B = -.07, SEB = .02, p < .00)
showed a negative relationship with SDLTA-PUR scores in this ﬁnal regression
(R2 = .35, p < .000). Table 24 summarizes this step-wide regression analysis.

Similarly for the PIL Test, all factors that showed as statistically signiﬁcant
in the initial regression analysis were entered into a step-wise regression
analysis. Of those variables, discussing current events with friends (B = 2.19,
SEB = .55, p < .00), attending educational workshops (B = 2.65, SEB = .78, p
< .00), time spent exercising (B = 2.06, SEB = .60, p < .00), and talking with a
professor outside of class (B = 1.42, SEB = .59, p < .02), had a positive and
statistically signiﬁcant contribution to PIL scores. Time spent playing video games
(B = -3.37, SEB = .72, p < .00), and reading an off-campus newspaper (B = -.84,
SEB = .42, p < .05), both showed a negative contribution to PIL scores (R2 = 22,
p < .00). Table 25 summarizes this step-wide regression analysis.
Implications of Major Findings

This study discovered a number of important considerations for both the

113

Table 24
Stepwise RegLession Analysis for the SD TLA-PUR.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Model Van'ables BE 483 _B_ S_EB Q t ﬁg
1 (Constant) 0.15 2.39 0.07 36.31 0.00
Talk w/Prof 0.15 0.02 0.39 7.72 0.00
(Constant) 0.21 0.06 2.25 0.07 32.07 0.00
2 Talk w/Prof 0.13 0.02 0.34 6.77 0.00
TM Stu Activities 0.10 0.02 0.25 4.96 0.00
(Constant) 0.26 0.05 1.87 0.11 17.86 0.00
3 Talk w/Prof 0.10 0.02 0.27 5.41 0.00
TM Stu Activities 0.09 0.02 0.23 4.83 0.00
Dis Our Events 0.09 0.02 0.23 4.69 0.00
(Constant) 0.30 0.04 1.66 0.11 14.55 0.00
Talk w/Prof 0.10 0.02 0.25 5.05 0.00
4 TM Stu Activities 0.08 0.02 0.19 4.01 0.00
Dis Our Events 0.09 0.02 0.24 4.91 0.00
IN Academic 0.19 0.05 0.20 4.20 0.00
(Constant) 0.32 0.02 1.80 0.12 14.88 0.00
Talk w/Prof 0.09 0.02 0.23 4.77 0.00
TM Stu Activities 0.08 0.02 0.19 4.05 0.00
5 Dis Cur Events 0.09 0.02 0.25 5.20 0.00
IN Academic 0.18 0.05 0.19 4.08 0.00
TM Vld Games -0.07 0.02 -0.14 -3.14 0.00

 

Steps 1-5, or 8.

114

Table 24, Continued
Stepwise Regression Analysis for the SD TLA-PUR.

 

 

 

(Constant) 0.33 0.01 1.66 0.13 12.63 0.00
Talk w/Prof 0.09 0.02 0.22 4.59 0.00
TM Stu Activities 0.07 0.02 0.13 3.82 0.00
Dis Cur Events 0.09 0.02 0.25 5.19 0.00
IN Academic 0.19 0.04 0.19 4.17 0.00
TM vld Games -o.07 0.02 0.15 -3.19 0.00
IN Music/Arts 0.13 0.05 0.12 2.59 0.01
(Constant) 0.34 0.01 1.03 0.30 3.44 0.00
Talk w/Prof 0.08 0.02 0.22 4.52 0.00
TM Stu Activities 0.07 0.02 0.18 3.91 0.00
Dis Cur Events 0.09 0.02 0.24 5.02 0.00
IN Academic 0.19 0.04 0.20 4.26 0.00
TM Vid Games pm 0.02 -o.14 -3.07 0.00
IN Music/Arts 0.13 0.05 0.12 2.58 0.01
Web 0.09 0.04 0.11 2.34 0.02
(Constant) 0.35 0.01 0.94 0.30 3.13 0.00
Talk wIProf 0.08 0.02 0.21 4.45 0.00
TM Stu Activities 0.07 0.02 0.17 3.64 0.00
Dis Cur Events 0.09 0.02 0.23 4.91 0.00
IN Academic 0.17 0.05 0.18 3.84 0.00
TM Vid Games -o.o7 0.02 -o.14 -3.12 0.00
IN Music/Arts 0.12 0.05 0.11 2.43 0.02
Web 0.10 0.04 0.11 2.45 0.02
IN Religious 0.09 0.04 0.10 2.21 0.03

 

115

Table 25
Stepwise Regression Analysis for the PIL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Model Variables 82 482 B _S_Eﬁ Q t ﬁg,
1 (Constant) 0.08 90.36 3.01 30.00 0.00
Dis Cur Events 2.86 0.54 0.28 5.27 0.00
(Constant) 0.13 0.05 95.82 3.17 30.28 0.00
2 Dis Our Events 2.93 0.53 0.28 5.55 0.00
TM \ﬁd Games -3.36 0.74 -O.23 -4.54 0.00
(Constant) 0.17 0.04 93.24 3.15 29.56 0.00
3 Dis Our Events 2.35 0.53 0.23 4.40 0.00
TM Vld Games -3.69 0.73 -0.25 -5.07 0.00
Ed ershop 3.00 0.73 0.21 4.12 0.00
(Constant) 0.20 0.03 88.76 3.39 26.17 0.00
Dis Our Events 2.23 0.53 0.22 4.22 0.00
4 TM Vld Games -3.69 0.72 -0.26 -5.16 0.00
Ed ershop 2.91 0.72 0.21 4.04 0.00
TM Excercise 2.00 0.61 0.16 3.30 0.00
(Constant) 0.21 0.01 86.98 3.47 25.04 0.00
Dis Our Events 1.97 0.54 0.19 3.67 0.00
5 TM Vld Games -3.43 0.72 -0.24 -4.75 0.00
Ed ershop 2.33 0.76 0.17 3.05 0.00
TM Excercise 1.97 0.60 0.16 3.27 0.00
Talk w/Prof 1.27 0.59 0.12 2.15 0.03
(Constant) 0.22 0.01 87.46 3.47 25.22 0.00
Dis Our Events 2.19 0.55 0.21 4.01 0.00
TM Vid Games -3.37 0.72 -0.23 -4.67 0.00
6 Ed ershop 2.65 0.78 0.19 3.41 0.00
TM Excercise 2.06 0.60 0.17 3.43 0.00
Talk w/Prof 1.42 0.59 0.13 2.40 0.02
Rd Newspaper -O.84 0.42 -0.11 -1.98 0.05

 

116

theoretical work on purpose in life and for student affairs practitioners working
with students on developing that sense of purpose.

Correlation between the SDTLA-FUR and the PIL. The data analyzed
in this study show that by common social science standards, the SDTLA—FUR
and the PIL have a moderate degree of correlation. However, considering the
similarities in the theoretical foundations of both instruments, a higher correlation
was expected. Franzblau (1958) deﬁned correlation standards as follows: less
than .20, little to no correlation: .40 to .60, a moderate correlation; and .80 or
higher, a high degree of correlation. This study did not achieve a correlation
V coefﬁcient of .80 or higher, indicating that although the two instruments show
some commonality in measuring a student’s sense of purpose, they do not
accurately reflect the high degree of similarity between Chickering and Reisser's
(1993) and F rankl’s (1959) theoretical foundations.

This ﬁnding raises important considerations for potential study including
the SDTLA-FUR or the PIL, as well as further revision of the SDTLA-FUR in
the future. As an established instrument in psychology, the PIL has been the
standard device for assessing a person’s sense of purpose. That the SDTLA-
PUR and the PIL failed to achieve a high degree of correlation with each other
indicates that further theoretical work is needed to ensure the instruments
accurately reﬂect the theoretical foundation upon which they are based.
Practitioners and scholars who use the SDTLA—FUR or the PIL in their work
should view the resultant scores with caution, as they may not truly indicate a
student’s sense of purpose. If determining a student’s purpose or directedness in
life is of speciﬁc interest, it may be best to use multiple instruments until further

exploration establishes a better method for measuring this construct.

117

Demographic Variation on Test Scores. Score differences on the
SDTLA—FUR and the PIL based on demographic variation generally supported
expectations, but also provided a few surprises. The authors of the SDTLA—PUR
indicated that scores on the instrument varied based on class level and gender
(Wlnston et al., 1999). Validation studies of the PIL indicate that this instrument
also shows some variation based on gender, yet researchers have not achieved
consensus on these gender differences (Crumbaugh, 1972; Crumbaugh &
Maholick, 1964; Doerries, 1970; Yarnell, 1971). The data from this study support
the notion that scores on the PIL vary by gender, but did not support the notion
that scores on the SDTLA-FUR vary by gender, unlike the expectations of the
instrument authors (Winston et. al., 1999). Because of the study design, it could
not be determined whether this difference was due to a measurement issue of
the instrument, or if men generally have less sense of purpose in life compared
to women. Contrary to expectations articulated by the authors, class level did
not impact scores on the SDTLA-FUR (Winston et al., 1999). The design of
the study precluded analysis based on class level, because the sample design
controlled for class. Study results showed no differences on socioeconomic
status or race/ethnicity, and none were expected and supported by the validation
studies reviewed on the two instruments (Crumbaugh, 1972; Crumbaugh &
Maholick, 1964; Doerries, 1970; Winston et al., 1999; Yamell, 1971) nor the
theoretical writings of Chickering and Reisser (1993) and Frankl (1959, 1979,
1984,1997)

A surprising ﬁnding based on demographic variables was that residential
status had no discernible impact on developing a sense of purpose. Pascarella

and Terenzini (1994) indicate that residential status impacts almost all areas

118

of college student development, with on-campus students generally achieving
higher levels of development than off-campus students. In fact, Pascarella and
Terenzini indicate that the single most consistent determinant of impact on overall
measures of development is living on campus (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).
Unlike other studies of college student development, this study did not ﬁnd that
residential setting had an impact on student test scores on the SDTLA-FUR and
the PIL. Today, on—campus residence halls are unable to house the increasing
number of students attending post-secondary institutions, and more of those
students are forced to live off-campus. Because of this paradigm shift for
institutions of higher education, campuses are establishing strategies to further
connect off-campus students with the campus community, possibly reducing

the impact of on- and off-campus residential settings on student development.
Additionally, the emerging off-campus complexes reviewed in the literature are
beginning to provide services more like those found in on-campus residence
halls, such as educational programs, computer and ﬁtness areas, and community
ambassadors/resident advisors. The increase in services to off-campus residents
by both of these trends may help to explain why residential setting did not impact
scores on the SDTLA-FUR and the PIL. Exploration of the impact of residential
setting for this generation of college students will be an important consideration
for socio-developmental studies in the future.

Comparison of Study Scores With National Normative Data. For
student affairs professionals on the campus of study, one of the important
ﬁndings was the difference between the scores of study participants with the
nationally established normative scores for both PIL and the SDTLA—FUR.

Students on the campus of study appeared to have less sense of purpose when

119

compared to the nationally established normative scores for both instruments. A
number of factors could account for this ﬁnding.

When the PIL is considered independently, plausible explanations for
lower scores could be established from the design of the study itself. This ﬁnding
may be explained by the design decision to sample only sophomores, and
then comparing results to normative data including all class levels. Therefore,
this ﬁnding could have been due simply to developmental differences in class
levels, and lends credibility to Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) assertion that
developing purpose occurs later in the college career. Another explanation for the
difference between the study scores and the normative scores of the PIL could
be a function of generations—the normative scores for the PIL were established
almost 30 years ago. Less sense of purpose in life could be generally felt by all
today, when compared to US. society in the 1960s and 1970s.

However, for SDTLA—FUR data, neither generational differences nor
development due to maturity can be considered plausible explanations for lower
test scores among study participants. The normative data for the SDTLA-FUR
have been established within the past ﬁve years and are disaggregated by class
level to account for differences by age. Because students scored lower than the
nationally established normative data for both the PIL and the SDTLA-PUR, the
explanations just articulated for lower study participant scores on the PIL become
less plausible. Study participants scored lower on both the PIL and the SDTLA-
PUR. The nature of the SDTLA-PUR normative data accounts for the challenges
in the nature of the PIL normative data previously discussed.

One possible explanation for lower scores of study participants on both

instruments could be a result of institutional culture. This raises the question of if

120

a student’s sense of purpose is affected by different institutional types, such as
large, research institutions versus small, liberal arts colleges, or if purpose plays
a role in the choice of the student to attend a particular institutional setting. The
data from this study do not allow for analysis based on these questions.
However, the conclusion based on both PIL and SDTLA—FUR data is that
students on this campus do generally have less sense of purpose than expected.
This conclusion should be of signiﬁcant concern for student affairs professionals
and health educators on the campus of study. Chickering and Reisser (1993)
believe that developing purpose is one of the critical vectors of development for
college students. A number of studies related to the PIL indicate that less sense
of purpose is related to deleterious behaviors, such as lack of self-control and
responsibility (Simmons, 1980), increase in substance abuse (Padelford, 1974),
and other problem behaviors. The campus of study has struggled for a number
of years with the ways these issues are manifested in the campus community,
including high levels of alcohol and drug use among students and several
serious riots in the past ﬁve years. The general lack of a sense of purpose
among students on this campus may serve as one important factor in explaining
these occurrences. Staff on the campus of study should consider expanding
their prevention efforts to include programs and services designed to increase
a student’s sense of purpose, in an effort to decrease the negative behaviors
experienced by the campus community. The regression analyses of factors
related to the development of purpose discussed below can assist student.
affairs professionals in creating programs that have been shown to inﬂuence this
developmental issue.

Factors That Inﬂuence a Student’s Sense of Purpose. The regression

121

analyses completed in this study identify a number of factors that are related
to a student’s sense of purpose. The outcomes of these analyses can guide
student affairs professionals who are interested in having a positive impact on
development of purpose in students

The ﬁndings of this study indicate that staff who work with students
experiencing a lack of direction or purpose should encourage them to spend
time in activities in which the students will engage with others in the campus
community, a primary outcome of most research on student development
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Spending more time with friends, studying,
exercising, attending parties and social events, working on campus, and
participating in student activities have a statistically signiﬁcant positive
relationship with a student’s sense of purpose. Minimizing time spent watching
TV and playing video games is also recommended, based on the negative
relationship of those activities on the PIL and SDTLA-PUR scores. One way to
summarize these ﬁndings is that activities that engage the student with others
within the campus community positively relate to the development of purpose,
while more isolating activities, such as watching TV and playing video games,
more negatively relates to the construct. These ﬁndings are consistent with
Astin’s (1993) theory of student involvement.

Level of involvement in student organizations did not show any signiﬁcant
relationships to PIL scores, but several were signiﬁcant on the SDTLA-FUR.
Becoming more involved with organizations focusing on music or the arts,
religion, or academic or honorary issues has a positive relationship with a
student’s sense of purpose, as measured by the SDTLA—FUR. In the regression

previously addressed, participating in student activities had a signiﬁcant

122

relationship with development purpose. When combined with the ﬁndings of

this regression, it can generally be concluded that it is the involvement itself,

not the type of student organization speciﬁcally, that is related to developing
purpose. However, as shown by the speciﬁc organizations showing a statistically
signiﬁcant relationship with SDTLA-FUR scores, those organizations that relate
to personal and future interests, and speciﬁcally academic issues and religion,
are more likely to be related to the development of purpose than others.

Finally, student affairs professionals can assist students to develop a
sense of purpose by planning programs and services that allow them to attend
educational workshops not associated with classes, talk with professors outside
of class time, and discuss current events with friends. These kinds of activities
have been shown to have a positive relationship with a student's sense of
purpose; providing opportunities for students to participate in such activities may
support them in developing purpose.

Summary of Major Implications. This study explored three research
questions related to a student’s sense of purpose in life. Although a moderate
correlation was discovered between the PIL and the SDTLA—PUR, a much higher
degree of correlation was expected because the theoretical foundations of both
instruments share so many commonalities. This study showed gender differences
in PlL test scores but not in SDTLA—FUR scores. No differences based on race/
ethnicity, socioeconomic impact, or residential setting were discovered for either
instrument. Professionals working on the campus of study should be concemed
that the study participants scored signiﬁcantly lower than the normative data
established for both the PIL and SDTLA—PUR. Finally, regression analyses led

to recommendations for programs and activities that student affairs professionals

123

 

could develop to produce a positive impact on students’ sense of purpose.
Limitations

The study design had a number of limitations. Because the sample was
limited to sophomores only, presumed development due to maturation could
not be explored. In addition, because the PIL provides normative data only
for undergraduates in general, any conclusions based on comparison of the
sophomore study participants to the PIL’s normative data must be more restricted
than the widespread implications of the PIL data.

This study included only a single large, residential campus in the Midwest.
The role of organizational cultural differences in student development across
institutional type could not be ascertained from this research design limitation.

A multiple-institution study involving various types of institutions could aid in
determining the impact of institutional setting and culture on the development of
purpose. Additionally, additional study of this nature may assist in determining if a
student's sense of purpose develops differently in dissimilar institutional settings,
or if a student’s sense of purpose impacts college choice.

The sample design of this study was not intended to explore in-depth
issues related to differences based on demographic variables. Scholars and staff
working with speciﬁc subpopulations of the campus community, such as students
of color, non-heterosexual students, or students over the traditional age, would
be better served to explore purpose with sampling designs tailored to exploration
of these variables. Exploring how SDTLA-PUR and PIL scores differ between
these kinds of subpopulations of the campus community could assist student
affairs professionals in establishing one explanatory factor to behavioral issues

common among a particular subpopulation, such as fratemitylsorority members

124

and high levels of alcohol and substance abuse. These kinds of studies could
also assist in determining focused interventions to increase the sense of purpose
of members of that particular subpopulation.~

Despite these limitations, the ﬁndings of this study provide support for
the necessity to explore the sense of purpose in life among college students.
As important theoretical foundations of the student affairs profession reveal the
signiﬁcance of developing purpose among students, a greater understanding of
the dynamics of this construct is clearly needed.
Additional Research

This study informed the exploration of developing purpose among college
students in a several ways, as discussed previously. A number of additional
studies are needed to improve the practical application of this construct.

The SDTLA—PUR failed to achieve a high correlation with the PIL,
indicating that the two instruments may not be measuring the same construct
of purpose in life. Additional correlation study of the SDTLA-FUR with other
instruments that purport to measure purpose, as well as correlation studies
involving the PIL and those same measures, may assist in determining why the
SDTLA-FUR and the PIL were not more strongly correlated in this study.

Normative data for the PIL, established more than 30 years ago, categorize

“general undergraduate students” as a group. Contemporary normative data for
the PIL is needed. A multi-institution study of students in all class levels would
answer several of the critical questions raised in this study. Additionally, studies
designed to identify speciﬁc factors that may disproportionately affect the de-
velopment of purpose in speciﬁc subpopulations of interest in higher education,

such as students of color, fratemitylsorority members, athletes, and others, could

125

 

be very useful for student affairs professionals working with those speciﬁc sub-
populations.

The review of the literature indicated that a lower PIL score relates to a
number of negative behaviors, while a higher PIL relates to behaviors that are
more positive. Student affairs professionals often struggle with how often these
negative behaviors occur and their impact on the broader campus community.
Although the PIL has clearly established relationships between test scores and
these behaviors, it should be noted that most of those studies used inpatient
populations and/or convenience samples outside of the college context. It
is important to conduct additional study of the relationship between the PIL
and constructs such as alcohol and other drug use, persistence in college,
involvement with activities and organizations suicidality, and major life changes.
Using stronger empirical methodology with randomized samples of college
students will permit the ﬁndings to be generalized to all college students with a
greater degree of conﬁdence. Similar research exploring the relationship of the
SDTLA—FUR and these kinds of behaviors should be completed.

One of the greatest criticisms of Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) vectors
of student development is that the vectors lack speciﬁcity (Pascarella & Terenzini,
1991). Little research has been completed to lend greater clarity to Vector 6,
Developing Purpose. Exploring ways to improve students’ sense of purpose
as measured by the SDTLA—PUR, including intervention strategies, would
provide additional information to student affairs professionals as they assist the
psychosocial development of their students. Intervention strategies for increasing
purpose in life have been developed in the clinical psychology literature

surrounding the PIL. Translating those strategies from the clinical environment

126

to the campus context is an important additional area of study that would beneﬁt
student affairs professionals and the students they serve.

Finally, additional study on improving response rates and reﬁning Web-
based data collection methodology is also needed. With the continued rapid
expansion of the lntemet and greater availability of Web-based data collection
software packages, student affairs practitioners will be drawn to the many
advantages of this method, but not enough direction is yet available in the

literature to guide its use.

127

APPENDIX A
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS ASKED

128

The following demographic questions were asked of all participants in the

survey.

1. How old are you? (please type in your age)
2. What is your race/ethnicity? (check all that apply)
African American
Asian/Paciﬁc Islander
Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino
lntemational
Native American
Other (please specify)
3. How do you identify your sex/gender (please type in your sex/gender)
4. How do you identify your sexual orientation? (please type in your sexual
orientation)
5. Where do you currently live? (Please select the one best choice)
On-Campus Residence Hall
Lyman Briggs/James Madison College
Apartments in the Northern Tler of East Lansing (Melrose, Chandler,
Crossing Place, Capstone Commons)
Off-Campus House or Apartment in Greater Lansing/East Lansing Area
Off-Campus Housing Outside of Lansing/East Lansing
Group Housing (Greek, Co-Op, Scholarship House, etc.)
6. What kinds of ﬁnancial aid did you receive this year (mark all that apply)?
Pell Grant

129

MEAP Scholarship

Work Study Award

Student Loans

Merit-Based Scholarship/Fellowship other than MEAP

Other (please specify)

130

APPENDIX B
TIME SPENT FACTOR SERIES

131

The following items were included in the Time Spent Factor Series.
Participants where asked to indicate the average number of hours spent each
week on the list of activities, using the following scale: 1=No Time; 2=2 or less
hours; 3=3-5 hours; 4=6-10 hours; 5=11-20 hours; 6= 21-30 hours; 7:31-35

hours; and 8:36 or more hours.

Work On-Campus

Work Off-Campus

Community Service
Exercise/Athletic Activity
Study/Class Attendance
Attending Social Events/Parties
Watching TV

Online/Accessing the lntemet
Talking with Friends

Playing Video/Computer Games

Student Organizations/Activities

132

APPENDIX C
INVOLVEMENT FACTOR SERIES

133

The following items were included in the Involvement Factor Series.
Participants where asked to indicate to what extent they participated in the
following activities in the past year, using the following scale: 1=Not Involved;
2=Attended or Member; 3=Appointed Leadership Position; and 4=Elected Top 5

Leadership Position.

Intercollegiate Athletics

Intramural or club sports

Social Fraternity or Sorority

Religious or interfaith groups

lntemational or language groups

Minority or ethnic organizations

Political and social action groups

Music or other performing arts groups
Student newspaper, radio, TV, magazine, etc.
Pre-professional, honor or academic groups
Campus student government

Residence hall government

Service organization

134

APPENDIX D
ACTIVITIES FACTOR SERIES

135

The following items were included in the Activities Factor Series.
Participants where asked to how often they engaged in the list of activities, using
the following scale: 1=Never; 2=Once/Semester; 3=Once/Month; 4=Twice/Month;

5=1-2 TlmesNVeek; 6=3-4 Times/Week; and 7=Daily.

Read the State News

Read Another Daily Newspaper

Read educational ﬂyers/brochures

Read something on a bulletin board in a campus building.

Access the WWW/lntemet

Attend an educational workshop or speaker outside of a classroom setting/
requirement

Attend a cultural/intellectual event or activity on-campus.

Attend a sporting event as a spectator.

Participate in a sporting event/activity.

Contact a professor outside of a classroom setting

Talk with friends about current events.

Get encouraged by someone you know to attend an event/activity on-

campus.

136

APPENDIX E
INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT

137

The following text appeared as the initial screen on the survey, and served

as the informed consent statement.

You have been selected to participate in an important study exploring MSU
Students' experience of having purpose in their lives. The outcomes of this study
may have signiﬁcant implications for a broad range of University departments
and the services they provide you and other students-from Career Services,
to the Counseling Center, to Olin Health Center, to the programs provided by
student organizations and Residence Life.

Your participation should take no more than 12-15 minutes from start to
ﬁnish!

Participants in this study will be entered into a drawing for a $150 gift
certiﬁcate to the winner’s choice of Best Buy, a store in the Meridian Mall, or the
Student Book Store.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and will not involve
any cost to you. There are several questions that are of a personal nature related
to your well-being, as well as how you spend your time and involvement in on-
campus activities and programs. You may withdraw from the survey at any time
while you are taking it,‘ and/or decline to answer any particular question(s) without
any penalty. We hope, however, that you will spend a few minutes and help us
discover ways to improve programs and services for college students.

Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable bylaw.
This web-page will record that you have completed the survey so that we will
not continue to follow-up with you and to enter you into the incentives drawing.

All identifying infon'nation will be removed from your responses while it is being

138

downloaded. Your responses will not be identiﬁable in any research report or in
storage of the survey responses.

A If you have questions about this study, please contact Billy Molasso,
Doctoral Student, at 316-1454, billym@msu.edu. You may also contact Marilyn
Amey, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Committee Chair, Department of
Education Administration, 432-1056, amey@msu.edu. If you have questions
about your rights as a research subject you may contact, anonymously if you
prefer, Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chairperson of the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects, 202 Olds Hall, 355-2180, ucrihs@msu.edu.

By clicking next below, I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

139

APPENDIX F
FINAL THANK YOU AND REFERRAL SCREEN

140

The text below was included on the ﬁnal screen at the conclusion of the

survey.

Your responses to this survey will assist us as we Ieam how to better

provide for the needs of our students.
If this survey brought to mind things in your life that are problematic for
you, one or more of the following services may be of assistance to you:
Olin Health Center - 355-4510 - olin.msu.edu
MSU Counseling Center - 355-8270 - counseling.msu.edu
Career Services and Placement -355-9510 - csp.msu.edu/index.htm
Department of Student Life - 355-8286 - studentlife.msu.edu

Thank you for your help in this study!

141

APPENDIX G
INITIAL INVITATION EMAIL

142

RE: Research Study About the Purpose in Life of MSU College Students

Dear [insert ﬁrst name],

As a Michigan State University Student, you have been randomly selected
to participate in an important study exploring how college students experience
having purpose in their lives.

Your participation in this study is very important!

So that you may easily participate in this (6-8 or 10-12) minute survey, we
have designed an easy to use web-site for you to complete at:

[web address inserted here]

Complete the survey for a chance to win a $150 gift certiﬁcate to your
choice of Best Buy, a store in the Meridian Mall, or the Student Book Store
(1 :1000 chance to win!)!

Click the link above to go to the online survey. If your email software
program does not provide links to web-pages, simply copy and paste the Web
Address above to your web-browser.

The outcomes of this study may have signiﬁcant implications for a broad
range of University departments and the services they provide you and other
students—from Career Services, to the Counseling Center, to Olin Health Center,
to the programs provided by student organizations and Residence Life.

I am completing this study as part of my doctoral work in the Department
of Educational Administration in the College of Education at Michigan State.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and will not involve
any cost to you. There are several questions that are of a personnel nature

related to your well-being, as well as how you spend your time and involvement

143

in on-campus activities and programs. You may withdraw from the survey at any
time while you are taking it, and/or decline to answer any particular question(s)
without any penalty. We hope, however, that you will spend a few minutes and
help us discover ways to improve programs and services for college students.

Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.
This web—page will record that you have completed the survey so that we will
not continue to follow-up with you and to enter you into the incentives drawing.
All identifying information will be removed from your responses while it is being
downloaded. Your responses will not be identiﬁable in any research report or in
storage of the survey responses.

If you have questions about this study, please contact Billy Molasso,
Doctoral Student, at 316-1454, billym@msu.edu. You may also contact Marilyn
Amey, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Committee Chair, Department of
Education Administration, 432-1056, amey@msu.edu. If you have questions
about your rights as a research subject you may contact, anonymously if you
prefer, Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chairperson of the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects, 202 Olds Hall, 355-2180, ucrihs@msu.edu.

Please note: If do not wish to receive further emails from us, please
click the link below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list.

[unique web-page link]

144

APPENDIX H
REMINDER EMAIL TEXT

145

RE: Important! Research Study About MSU Students

Dear [insert ﬁrst name],

Earlier this week, you were emailed a formal invitation to participate in an
important research study. Thank you to all of those who already completed the
short (6-8 or 10-12) minute online survey! If you have not completed the survey
and entered the drawing for a $150 gift certiﬁcate, please do so today! The
original invitation email is below.

As a Michigan State University Student, you have been randomly selected
to participate in an important study exploring how college students experience
having purpose in their lives.

Your participation in this study is very important!

So that you may easily participate in this (6-8 or 10-12) minute survey, we
have designed an easy to use web-site for you to complete at:

[web address inserted here]

Complete the survey for a chance to win a $150 gift certiﬁcate to your
choice of Best Buy, a store in the Meridian Mall, or the Student Book Store
(1 :1000 chance to win!)!

Click the link above to go to the online survey. If your email software
program does not provide links to web-pages, simply copy and paste the Web
Address above to your web-browser.

The outcomes of this study may have signiﬁcant implications for a broad
range of University departments and the services they provide you and other
students—from Career Services, to the Counseling Center, to Olin Health Center,

to the programs provided by student organizations and Residence Life.

146

I am completing this study as part of my doctoral work in the Department
of Educational Administration in the College of Education at Michigan State.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and will not involve
any cost to you. There are several questions that are of a personnel nature
related to your well-being, as well as how you spend your time and involvement
in on-campus activities and programs. You may withdraw from the survey at any
time while you are taking it, and/or decline to answer any particular question(s)
without any penalty. We hope, however, that you will spend a few minutes and
help us discover ways to improve programs and services for college students.

Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.
This web-page will record that you have completed the survey so that we will
not continue to follow-up with you and to enter you into the incentives drawing.
All identifying information will be removed from your responses while it is being
downloaded. Your responses will not be identiﬁable in any research report or in
storage of the survey responses.

If you have questions about this study, please contact Billy Molasso,
Doctoral Student, at 316-1454, billym@msu.edu. You may also contact Marilyn
Amey, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Committee Chair, Department of
Education Administration, 432-1056, amey@msu.edu. If you have questions
about your rights as a research subject you may contact, anonymously if you
prefer, Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chairperson of the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects, 202 Olds Hall, 355-2180, ucrihs@msu.edu.

Please note: If do not wish to receive further emails from us, please
click the link below, and you will be automatically removed from our mailing list.

[unique web-page link]

147

REFERENCES CITED

Allport, G. W. (1955). Becoming: Basic considerations for a psychology of
personality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Amau, R. C., Thompson, R. L., & Cook, C. (2001). Do different response formats
change the latent structure of responses? An empirical investigation using

taxonomic analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 23-
44.

Astin, A. W. (1991 ). Assessment for excellence. New York: Macmillan.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college ?: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey—Bass.

Babble, E. R. (1990). Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Baumester, R. F. (1991). The meanings of life. New York: Guilford.

Brown, R. D., Winkworth, J. M., & Braskamp, L. A. (1973). Student development
in a coed residence hall: Promiscuity, prophylactic, or panacea? Journal of
College Student Personnel, 14, 98-104

Chamberlain, K. (1987). On the structure of subjective well being. Social
Indicators Research, 20, 581 -604.

Chickering, A. W., & Havinghurst, R. J. (1981 ). The life cycle. In A. W. Chickering
and Associates (Eds.), The modern American college: Responding to the
new realities of diverse students and a changing society. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cook, 0., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response
rates in Web- or lntemet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 60, 821-836.

148

Cooper, D. L., Healy, M. A., & Simpson, J. (1994). Student development through
involvement: Speciﬁc changes over time. Journal of College Student
Development, 35, 98-102.

Cornelius, A. (1995). The relationship between athletic identity, peer and faculty
socialization, and college student development. Journal of College Student
Development, 36, 560-573.

Couper, M. P. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 64, 464-494.

Couper, M. P. (2001). The promises and perils of web surveys. In Westlake, A.,
Sykes, W., Manners, T., & Riggs, M (Eds.) The Challenge of the lntemet.
Proceedings of the ASC lntemational Conference on Survey Research
Methods, London, England: Association for Survey Computing, 35-56.

Crandall, J. E., & Rasmussen, R. D. (1975). Purpose in life as related to speciﬁc
values. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 483-485.

Crawford, S. D., Couper, M. P., & Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web surveys:
Perceptions of burden. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 146-162.

Crumbaugh, J. C. (1968). Cross validation of Purpose in Life Test. Journal of
Individual Psychology. 24, 74481.

Crumbaugh, J. C. (1972). Aging and adjustment: The applicability of Logotherapy
and the Purpose-in-Life Test. Gerontologist, 12, 418-420.

Crumbaugh, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1964). An experimental study in
existentialism: The psychometric approach to Frankl’s concept of noogenic
neurosis. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 20, 200-207.

Crumbaugh, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1969). Manual of instructions for the
Purpose-in-Life Test. Munster: Psychometric Afﬁliates.

Crumbaugh, J. C., Raphael M., & Schrader, R. R. (1970). Frankl’s will to meaning
in a religious order. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 26, 206-207.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and lntemet surveys: The total design method (2nd
ed.) New York: Wiley.

Doerries, L. E. (1970). Purpose in life and social participation. Journal of
Individual Psychology, 26, 50-53.

Edman, N. A. (1988). The relationship between participation in residence hall
student government and the development of purpose. Dissertation
Abstracts lntemational, 49(01), 1 737. (UMI No. 8819537).

149

Erickson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton.

Evans, N. J. (2003). Psychosocial, cognitive, and typological perspectives of
student development. In S. R. Komives, D. B. Woodard, Jr., & Associates
(Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed.), (pp. 179-
202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Evans, N. J., Fomey, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in
college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

F abry, J. B. (1987). The pursuit of meaning: Viktor Frankl, Logotherapy, and life.
San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Fabry, J. B. (1998). The calls of meaning. In P. T. P. Wong & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The
human quest for meaning: Personality and clinical psychology series (pp.
295-305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Frankl, V. E. (1953). Logos and existence in psychotherapy. American Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 7, 15.

Frankl, V. E. (1959). The doctor and the soul. New York: Vlntage.

Frankl, V. E. (1979). The unheard cry for meaning: Psychotherapy and
humanism. New York: Simon and Schuster.

F rankl, V. E. (1984). Man ’3 search for meaning. New York: Washington Square
Press/Pocket Books.

Frankl, V. E. (1997). Man ’s search for ultimate meaning. New York: Insight Books.

Franzblau, A. N. (1958). A primer of statistics for statisticians and non-
statisticians. New York: Harcourt, Brace 8 World.

Freshmen Survey. (2004). This year’s freshmen at 4-year colleges: Their
opinions, Activities and Goals [Electronic version]. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50, 21a.

Fry, P. S. (1998). The development of personal meaning and wisdom in
adolescence: A reexamination of moderating and consolidating factors
and inﬂuences. In P. T. P. Wong 8 P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest
for meaning: Personality and clinical psychology series (pp. 91 -1 09).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Greeley, A., & Tinsley, H. (1988). Autonomy and intimacy development in college
students: Sex differences and predictors. Journal of College Student
Development, 29, 512-520.

150

Harlow, L. L., Newcomb, M. D., 8 Bentler, P. M. (1986). Depression, self-
degradation, substance use and suicide ideation. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 42, 21.

Havinghurst, R. J. (1972). Human development and education (3rd ed.). New
York: Teachers College Press.

Henning-Stout, M. (1992). Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle
Inventory. In J. J. Kramer 8 J. C. Conoley (Eds.), The eleventh mental
measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental

Measurements.

Higbee, J. L., 8 Dwinell, P. L. (1992). The development of underprepared
freshmen enrolled in a self-awareness course. Journal of College Student
Development, 33, 26-33.

Hutzell, R. (1987). Purpose in Life Test. In D. J. Kyser 8 R. C. Sweetland (Eds.),
Test Critiques: VI (pp. 437-446). Kansas City: Westpoint Publishers, Inc.
Test Corp of America.

Hutzell, R. R., 8 Peterson, T. J. (1986). Use of the Life Purpose Questionnaire
with an alcoholic population. lntemational Journal of the Addictions, 21,
51-57.

Inkelas, K. K., 8 Weisman, J. L. (2003). Different by design: An examination of
student outcomes among participants in three types of living-Ieaming
programs. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 335-368.

ltzkowitz, S., 8 Petrie, R. (1986). Northern black urban college students and the
revised Student Developmental Task Inventory. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 16, 63-72.

Jones, C. E., 8 Watts, J. D. (1999). Psychosocial development and moral
orientation among traditional-aged college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 40, 1 25-1 31 .

Jordan-Cox, S. (1987). Psychosocial development of students in traditionally
black institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 28, 504-512.

Klemke, E. D. (1981). The question of the meaning of life. In E. D. Klemke (Ed.),
Meaning in Life (pp. 1-4). New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach

to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and
research. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.

151

Kohlberg, L. (1971) Stages of moral development. In C. Beck, B. Crittenden, 8 E.
Sullivan (Eds.), Moral education. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of
Toronto Press.

Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537-
567.

Lawrence, M. (1985). A comparative study of student development levels of
varsity athletes at the Florida State University. Dissertation Abstracts
lntemational, 41, 04A.

Lazuras, R., 8 Delongis, A. (1983). Psychological stress and coping with aging.
American Psychiatrist, 38, 245-254.

Maddi, S. R. (1998). Creating meaning through making decisions. In P. T. P.
Wong 8 P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning: Personality and
clinical psychology series (pp. 3-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd Ed.) New York: Harper 8
Row.

McCabe, S. E., Boyd, C. C., 8 Couper, M. P. (2002). Mode effects for collecting
alcohol and other drug use data: Web and US. mail. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 63, 755-761.

Meier, A., 8 Edwards, H. (1974). Purpose-in-Life Test: Age and sex differences.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 384-386.

Moran, C. D. (2001). Purpose in life, student development, and well-being:
Recommendations for student affairs practitioners. NASPA Journal, 38,
269-279.

Newcomb, M. D., 8 Harlow. L. L. (1986). Life events and substance use
among adolescents: Mediating effects of perceived loss of control and
meaninglessness in life. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
564-577.

Nicol, A. A., 8 Pexman, P. M. (1999). Presenting your ﬁndings: A practical guide
for creating tables. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Niles, S. G., Sowa, C. J., 8 Laden, J. (1994). Life role participation and
commitment as predictors of college student development. Journal of
College Student Development, 35, 159-163.

Pace, C. R. (1983). College student experiences: A questionnaire (2nd ed.). Los
Angeles: University of California, Higher Education Research Institute.

152

 

Padelford, B. L. (1974). Relationship between drug involvement and purpose in
life. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 303-305.

Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS: Survival manual. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Paratore, J. (1984). The relationship between participation in a mentoring
program and developmental growth and persistence of freshmen
at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. (Doctoral dissertation,
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts
lntemational, 46, 038.

Pascarella, E. T. 8 Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college aﬁects students: Findings
and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pearson, P. R., 8 Shefﬁeld, 8. F. (1974). Purpose in life and the Eysenck
Personality Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 30, 562-564.

Pearson, P. R., 8 Shefﬁeld, 8. F. (1975). Purpose in life and social attitude in
psychiatric patients. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 31, 330-332.

Perry, W. G. (1970). Intellectual and ethical development in the college years.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Phillips, W. M. (1980). Purpose in life, depression, and locus of control. Journal of
Clinical Psychology. 36, 3, 661 -667.

Pickleshimer, B. K. (1991). The development and evaluation of the life-skills
development inventory—college form. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Georgia.

Polkosnik, M., 8 Winston, R. (1989). Relationships between students’ intellectual
and psychosocial development: An exploratory investigation. Journal of
College Student Development, 30, 10-19.

Pope, R. L. (2000). The relationship between psychosocial development and
racial identity of college students of color. Journal of College Student
Development, 41, 302-312.

Prince, J. S., Miller, T. K., 8 Winston, R. B. (1974). Student Developmental Task
Inventory. Athens, GA: Student Development Associates.

Pytell, T. E. (2001). \flktor Frankl and the genesis of the third Wennese school of
psychotherapy. Psychoanalytic Review, 88, 311-334.

Reisser, L. (1995). Revisiting the seven vectors. Journal of College Student
Development, 36, 505-511.

153

Reker, G. T. (1977). The Purpose-in-Life Test in an inmate population: An
empirical investigation. Joumal of Clinical Psychology. 33, 688-693.

Reker, G. T., 8 Cousins, J. B. (1979). Factor structure, construct validity and
reliability of the Seeking of Noetic Goals (SONG) and Purpose in Life (PIL)
tests. Joumal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 85-91.

Riahinejad, A. R., 8 Hood, A. B. (1984). The development of interpersonal
relationships in college. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 498-
502.

Rich, H. E., 8 Jolicoeur, P. M. (1978). Student attitudes and academic
environments: A study of California higher education. New York: Praeger.

Salant, P., 8 Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York:
John Wiley 8 Sons, Inc.

Schleyer, T. K., 8 Forrest, J. L. (2000), Methods for the design and administration
of Web-based surveys. Joumal of American Medical Information
Association, 7, 416-425.

Sheehan, O. T., 8 Pearson, F. (1995). Asian international and American students’
psychosocial development. Journal of College Student Development, 36,
522-530.

Sills, S. J., 8 Song, C. (2002). Innovations in survey research. Social Science
Computer Review, 20, 22-30.

Simmons, D. D. (1980). Purpose in life and the three aspects of valuing. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 36, 921-922.

Stewart, 8., Merrill, M., 8 Saluri, D. (1985). Students who commute. In L. Noel,
R. Levitz, D. Saluri and Associates (Eds.), Increasing student retention:
Effective programs and practices for reducing the dropout rate. San
Francisco: Jossey—Bass.

Straub, C., 8 Rodgers, R. (1986). An exploration of Chickering’s theory and
women’s development. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 216-
224.

Super, D. E., Thompson, A. S., Lindeman, R. H., Jordaan, J. P., 8 Myers, R.
A. (1981). The career development inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologist Press.

Sweet, C. (1999). Expanding the qualitative research arena: Online focus groups.
Brooklyn, NY: Quesst Qualitative Research.

154

 

Terenzini, P. T., 8 Upcraft, M. L. (1996). Assessing program and service
outcomes. In Assessment in student aﬁairs: A guide for practitioners (pp.
217-239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wachs, P. M., 8 Cooper, D. L. (2002). Validating the student developmental task
and lifestyle assessment: A longitudinal study. Journal of College Student
Development, 43, 124-129.

Williams, M., 8 Winston, R. B. (1985). Participation in organized student activities
and work: Differences in developmental task achievement of traditional
aged college students. NASPA Journal, 22, 53-59.

Winston, R. B., Miller, T. K., 8 Cooper, D. L. (1999). Preliminary technical manual
for the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment. Athens,
GA: Student Development Associates, Inc.

Winston, R. B., Miller, T. K., 8 Prince, J. S. (1979). Student developmental task
inventory. Athens, GA: Student Development Associates.

Winston, R. B., Miller, T. K., 8 Prince, J. S. (1987). Student development task
and lifestyle inventory (Rev. 2nd ed.). Athens, GA: Student Development
Associates.

Wong, P. T. P. (1998). Implicit theories of meaningful life and development of the
personal meaning profile. In P. T. P. Wong 8 P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human
quest for meaning: Personality and clinical psychology series (pp. 111-
140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Wygant, S. 8 Lindorf, R. (1999). Surveying collegiate net surfers: Web
methodology or nythology. Quirks Marketing Research Review (available
at: http://www.quirks.comlarticles/article.asp?arg_Articleld=515).

Wright, G. (1987). The relationship between participation and leadership in
organized student activities at a small college and developmental task
achievement. Dissertation Abstracts lntemational, 48, 08A.

Yamell, T. D. (1971). Purpose-in-Life Test: Further correlates. Journal of
Individual Psychology, 27, 1, 76-79.

Zeitchik, G. (2000). The construct validity of the purpose in life. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Adelphi University.

Zika, S., 8 Chamberlain, K. (1992). On the relation between meaning in life and
psychological well-being. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 133-145.

155

   

IIllllllllllllllllllﬂllllﬂllllﬂlllll