L05 A. ABSTRACT THE LONGITUDINAL EFFECTS OF SEVERITY ON THE SOCIALIZATION 0F RECRUITS IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS By Dominic Martin Bulgarella The present study investigated the effects of severity on the socialization of recruits in the U. 5. Marine Corps in a real-life setting. More specifically, two groups of 55, one designated as High Severe (HS) and the other as Low Severe (LS), were compared on several variables longitudinally to determine whether severity increased 55' liking for the organization. The data, taken from questionnaires and Semantic Differential-type scales, were analyzed without consideration of time as a variable, and the results generally showed no significant differences between the groups upon completion of bootcamp training. However, when the groups were compared on three crucial concepts (Marine Corps, Marine, and myself), over time, the Ss in the HS group generally held a more positive image by completion of their training. Furthermore, it was found that the HS group became significantly more religious than the LS group. In addition, both groups showed improvement in self-concept. They felt that they had become more honest, more intelligent, more confident, more happy, more religious, more superior, more aggressive, and physically stronger. The findings of this study, regarding the effects of severity, were briefly compared with those of other studies which focused on severe versus non-severe training methods. The present results tend to support the hypothesis that high severe training methods increases one's liking for the organization. THE LONGITUDINAL EFFECTS OF SEVERITY ON THE SOCIALIZATION OF RECRUITS IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS By Dominic Martin Bulgarella A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Social Science 1974 Copyright by DOMINIC MARTIN BULGARELLA l974 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study would not have been possible without the assistance of many persons, including those who participated in the numerous interviews. Special credit is given to the individuals listed below, however, for without their cooperation and assistance this study would have remained only an idea: Robert E. Cushman, Commandant of the Marine Corps, Major General John N. McLaughlin, Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California, Colonels Verle E. Ludwig and J. B. Crooks, Division of Information, Headquarters Marine Corps, Washington, D.C., Colonel E. G. Derning, Commanding Officer, Recruit Training Regiment, San Diego, California, Mr. Rowland P. Gill, Historical Reference Section, U. S. Marine Corps, Washington, D. C., Major P. 5. Beck, Operations Officer, Recruit Training Regiment, San Diego, California, Major J. E. Harms, Education Officer, Marine Corps Recruit Training Depot, San Diego, California, and Captain L. A. Chatelle, Jr., Public Affairs Officer, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California, Captain R. K. Pearson, Recruit Administration Center, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California. In addition very special thanks must be given to Captain Robert E. Thompson, Assistant Operations Officer, Recruit Training Regiment, San Diego, California, and Master Sergeant M. R. Mason, Operations Chief, Recruit Training Regiment, San Diego, Califbrnia, fbr providing the author with briefings, tours and arranging and rearranging very iii complicated training schedules so that the 55 would be available for interviews. Captain Thompson and Master Sergeant Mason worked many long and extra hours to make certain that the 55 were at the scheduled places at the designated times and dates. Without their cooperation and efficiency, this study would not have been completed. The computer programing and technical assistance was graciously provided by Lydia Sullivan, Instructional Programmer and Graduate Assistant Carl Byington, Computer Center, California State College, San Bernardino, California, and Carol Adams, Department of Statistics, University of California, Riverside, California. Special thanks is also due my wife, Rosaria A. Bulgarella, for her helpful suggestions and criticisms. Lastly, and extremely important, deep gratitude and appreciation is due my Dissertation Committee: Professors Donald H. Olmsted, (Chairman), and Federick B.Haisanen, Department of Sociology, Charles Hanley, Dean, Department of Social Science and Professor of Psychology, Professor Raymond C. Hatch, Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology, fbr their helpful suggestions, guidance, and the generous giving of their highly demanded time. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES .......................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ......................... xviii INTRODUCTION ........................... l METHOD .............................. l3 Selection of Subjects .................... l4 Selection of Experimental and Control Groups ........ 15 Measuring Instruments .................... 16 Pilot Study ......................... l9 Testing Procedure and Instructions ............. 20 RESULTS ............................. 23 Questionnaire Analyses ................... 23 Semantic Differential Analyses ........... ‘. . . . lO9 DISCUSSION ............................ l28 CONCLUSION ............................ l43 LIST OF REFERENCES ........................ l45 APPENDICES ............................ l49 Appendix A Supplementary Analyses of Semantic Differential Data .......................... 149 Appendix B Recruit Questionnaire-~Form A Appendix C Drill Instructor Questionnaire--Form 8 Appendix D Recruit Questionnaire-~Form C Appendix E Semantic Differential--Form D TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES .......................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ......................... xviii INTRODUCTION ........................... 1 METHOD .............................. 13 Selection of Subjects .................... 14 Selection of Experimental and Control Groups ........ 15 Measuring Instruments .................... 16 Pilot Study ......................... 19 Testing Procedure and Instructions ............. 20 RESULTS ............................. 23 Questionnaire Analyses ................... 23 Semantic Differential Analyses ........... ‘. . . . 109 DISCUSSION ............................ 128 CONCLUSION ............................ 143 LIST OF REFERENCES ........................ 145 APPENDICES ............................ 149 Appendix A Supplementary Analyses of Semantic Differential Data .......................... 149 Appendix B Recruit Questionnaire--Form A Appendix C Drill Instructor Questionnaire--Form B Appendix D Recruit Questionnaire--Form C Appendix E Semantic Differentia1--Form D LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1 Orthogonally rotated factor loadings ..... . ......... 18 2 The recruits' general classification test (GCT) scores ..... 24 3 The recruits' ages . . . . . . ................. 25 4 Racial composition of HS and LS groups ............. 26 5 Marital status of recruits ................... 27 6 Frequency distribution of 55' home state ............ 28 7 55' home-town size . . . . . . . ................ 29 8 85' religious preference at time of entry into service ..... 3O 9 Frequency of church attendance prior to enlistment (Interview 1) ...................... 31 10 Frequency of church attendance after enlistment (Interview 2) ...................... 31 11 Frequency of church attendance after enlistment (Interview 3) ...................... 32 12 Frequency of church attendance after enlistment (Interview 4) ...................... 32 13 Years of schooling completed by Ss ............ I. . . 33 14 55' perception of their intelligence .............. 34 15 55' political philosophy .................... 34 16 55' civilian occupation .................... 35 17 55' liking of their civilian occupation ............ 36 18 85 previous military service .................. 36 19 Military-type organizations to which 55 had belonged prior to enlistment ........................ 37 vi TABLE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 55' freedom while living at home ................ 55' use of narcotics prior to enlistment ............ 55' use of alcoholic beverages prior to enlistment ....... Ss' smoking habits prior to enlistment ............. Ss' dating habits prior to enlistment ............. Severity of 55' home punishment (Interview 1) ......... Severity of 55' home punishment (Interview 2) ......... Severity of 55' home punishment (Interview 3) ......... Severity of 55' home punishment (Interview 4) ......... Frequency with which 55' parents used physical punishment Ss' desire to become A Marine (Interview 1) .......... Ss' desire to become A Marine (Interview 2) .......... Ss' desire to become A Marine (Interview 3) .......... Ss' desire to become A Marine (Interview 4) .......... The kind of Marine Ss intend to become (Interview 1) ...... Ss' judgment on how good they are as Marines (Interview 2) . . . Ss' judgment on how good they are as Marines (Interview 3) . . . Ss' judgment on how good they are as Marines (Interview 4) . . . 55' rating of 015' toughness with recruits (Interview 2) . . . . 55' rating of 015' toughness with recruits (Interview 3) . . . . 85 rating of 015' toughness with recruits (Interview 4) 55' liking of their 015 (Interview 2) ............. Ss' liking of their 015 (Interview 3) ............. Ss' liking of their 015 (Interview 4) ............. vii Page TABLE 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Page Ss' rating of their 015 (Interview 2) .............. 52 Ss' rating of their 015 (Interview 3) .............. 52 Ss' rating of their 015 (Interview 4) .............. 53 Ss' rating of their platoon with other platoons (Interview 2) . . 53 55' rating of their platoon with other platoons (Interview 3) . . 54 Ss' rating of their platoon with other platoons (Interview 4) . . 54 Amount of liberty permitted Ss' while in bootcamp (Interview 2) ....................... 55 Amount of liberty permitted 55 while in bootcamp (Interview 3) ....................... 56 Amount of liberty permitted Ss' while in bootcamp (Interview 4) ....................... 56 Frequency that 55 were permitted to meet and talk with recruits from other platoons (Interview 2) ......... 57 Frequency that $5 were permitted to meet and talk with recruits from other platoons (Interview 3) ......... 58 Frequency that 55 were permitted to meet and talk with recruits from other platoons (Interview 4) ......... 58 Frequency that 55 were permitted to write letters (Interview 2) . 59 Frequency that $5 were permitted to write letters (Interview 3) . 59 Frequency that 55 were permitted to write letters (Interview 4) . 60 Frequency that 55 were permitted to smoke (Interview 2) ..... 60 Frequency that 55 were permitted to smoke (Interview 3) ..... 61 Frequency that $5 were permitted to smoke (Interview 4) ..... 61 Frequency that 55 were permitted to go to the PX (Interview 2) . 62 Frequency that 55 were permitted to go to the PX (Interview 3) . 62 Frequency that 55 were permitted to go to the PX (Interview 4) . 63 viii TABLE 66 67 68 69 7O 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Frequency that 55 were permitted to attend the movies (Interview 2) ....................... Frequency that $5 were permitted to attend the movies (Interview 3) ...................... Frequency that 55 were permitted to attend the movies (Interview 4) ...................... Frequency that $5 were permitted to drink alcoholic beverages (Interview 2) ............. , ......... Frequency that $5 were permitted to drink alcoholic beverages (Interview 3) ...................... Frequency that 55 were permitted to drink alcoholic beverages (Interview 4) ...................... Ss' rating of bootcamp punishment (Interview 2) ........ 55' rating of bootcamp punishment (Interview 3) ........ Ss' rating of bootcamp punishment (Interview 4) ........ Frequency with which Ss were punished (Interview 2) ...... Frequency with which 85 were punished (Interview 3) ...... Frequency with which 55 were punished (Interview 4) ...... Recency of Ss' punishment (Interview 2) ............ Recency of Ss' punishment (Interview 3) ............ Recency of Ss' punishment (Interview 4) ............ Ss' comparison of bootcamp discipline with home discipline (Interview 2) ....... . . . . . . . . . ...... Ss' comparison of bootcamp discipline with home discipline (Interview 3) ............... . . ..... Ss' comparison of bootcamp discipline with home discipline (Interview 4) ............... . Ss' opinion as to whether they could complete bootcamp training (Interview 2) .................. Ss' opinion as to whether they could complete bootcamp training (Interview 3) ........ . ......... ix . 63 . 64 67 67 68 68 69 69 7O 7O 71 73 73 TABLE 86 87 88 89 9O 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 .99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 Ss' opinion as to whether they could complete bootcamp training (Interview 4) Bootcamp‘s Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's Bootcamp's effect effect effect effect effect effect effect effect effect effect effect effect effect effect effect effect effect effect effect effect effect effect effect on on 071 Oil on on on 011 Oil on 011 on on on on Oil on on Oil on on Oil 011 Ss' Ss' aggressiveness (Interview 2) ..... aggressiveness (Interview 3) ..... aggressiveness (Interview 4) ..... physical strength (Interview 2) physical strength (Interview 3) physical strength (Interview 4) happiness (Interview 2) ....... happiness (Interview 3) happiness (Interview 4) honesty (Interview 2) honesty (Interview 3) honesty (Interview 4) superiority (Interview 2) superiority (Interview 3) superiority (Interview 4) ...... intelligence (Interview 2) ...... intelligence (Interview 3) ...... intelligence (Interview 4) ...... religiousness (Interview 2) ..... religiousness (Interview 3) religiousness (Interview 4) ..... confidence (Interview 2) ....... confidence (Interview 3) ....... X Page 83 85 85 TABLE Page 110 Bootcamp's effect on Ss' confidence (Interview 4) ....... 86 111 Ss' liking of bootcamp (Interview 2) ............. 86 112 Ss' liking of bootcamp (Interview 3) ............. 87 113 Ss' liking of bootcamp (Interview 4) ............. 87 114 Ss' happiness to undergo bootcamp training again (Interview 2) ...................... 88 115 Ss' happiness to undergo bootcamp training again (Interview 3) ...................... 88 116 Ss' happiness to undergo bootcamp training again (Interview 4) ...................... 89 117 Ss' opinion as to whether bootcamp was fulfilling its purpose (Interview 2) , ................. 89 118 Ss' opinion as to whether bootcamp was fulfilling its purpose (Interview 3) . .‘ ................ 90 119 Ss' opinion as to whether bootcamp was fulfilling its purpose (Interview 4) .................. 90 120 Ss' general anxiety level (Interview 1) ............ 93 121 Ss' present anxiety level (Interview 2) ............ 93 122 Ss' present anxiety level (Interview 3) ............ 94 123 Ss' present anxiety level (Interview 4) ............ 94 124 Probability of Ss joining the Marines if they had to do it over (Interview 2) .................... 95 125 Probability of Ss joining the Marines if they had to do it over (Interview 3) .................... 95 126 Probability of S5 joining the Marines if they had to do it over (Interview 4) .................... 96 127 55 who wished the had joined another military service (Interview 2 ...................... 98 128 S5 who wished they had joined another military service (Interview 3) ...................... 98 129 55 who wished they had joined another military service (Interview 4) ...................... 99 TABLE Page 130 Ss' intention of making the Marine Corps their career (Interview 2) ...................... 99 131 Ss' intention of making the Marine Corps their career (Interview 3) ...................... 100 132 Ss' intention of making the Marine Corps their career (Interview 4) ...................... 100 133 55 who would encourage a brother or relative to join the Marines (Interview 1) .................. 101 134 55 who would encourage a brother or relative to join the Marines (Interview 2) .................. 101 135 Ss who would encourage a brother or relative to join the Marines (Interview 3) .................. 102 136 Ss who would encourage a brother or relative to join the Marines (Interview 4) .................. 102 137 Ss' happiness prior to enlistment (Interview 1) ........ 105 138 .Ss' present happiness (Interview 1) .............. 105 139 Ss' present happiness (Interview 2) .............. 106 140 Ss' present happiness (Interview 3) .............. 106 141 Ss' present happiness (Interview 4) .............. 107 142 Ss' liking being Marines (Interview 2) ............ 107 143 Ss' liking being Marines (Interview 3) ............ 108 144 Ss' liking being Marines (Interview 4) ............ 108 145 The means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, controlled-free .............. 150 146 Summary of analysis of variance on interview one for scale one, controlled-free ................... 151 147 Summary of analysis of variance on interview two for scale two, controlled-free ................... 152 148 Summary of analysis of variance on interview three for scale one, controlled-free ................... 152 xii TABLE Page 149 Summary of analysis of variance on interview four for scale one, controlled-free ................... 153 150 The means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, like-dislike ............... 154 151 Summary of analysis of variance on interview one for scale two, like-dislike .................... 155 152 Summary of analysis of variance on interview two for scale two, like-dislike .................... 157 153 Summary of analysis of variance on interview three for scale two, like-dislike .................... 159 154 Summary of analysis of variance on interview four for scale two, like-dislike . .I .................. 161 155 The means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, good-bad ................. 163 156 Summary of analysis of variance on interview one for scale three, good-bad ..................... 164 157 Summary of analysis of variance on interview two for scale three, good-bad ..................... 165 158 Summary of analysis of variance on interview three for scale three, good-bad ..................... 167 159 Summary of analysis of variance on interview four for scale three, good-bad ..................... 169 160 The means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, tough-easy ................ 170 161 Summary of analysis of variance on interview one for scale four, tough-easy ..................... 171 162 Summary of analysis of variance on interview two for scale four, tough-easy ..................... 173 163 Summary of analysis of variance on interview three for scale four, tough-easy ..................... 176 164 Sumary of analysis of variance on interview four for scale four, tough-easy ..................... 177 165 The means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, excitable-calm .............. 178 xiii TABLE 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 Summary of analysis of variance on interview one for scale five, excitable-calm ................... Summary of analysis of variance on interview two for scale five, excitable-calm ................... Summary of analysis of variance on interview three for scale five, excitable-calm ................... Summary of analysis of variance on interview four for scale five, excitable-calm ................... The means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, fair-unfair ................ Summary of analysis of variance on interview one for scale six, fair-unfair ..................... Summary of analysis of variance on interview two for scale six, fair-unfair ..................... Summary of analysis of variance on interview three for scale six, fair-unfair ..................... Summary of analysis of variance on interview four for scale six, fair-unfair ..................... The means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, coward-hero ................ Summary of analysis of variance on interview one for scale seven, coward-hero ........ . ........... Summary of analysis of variance on interview two for scale seven, coward-hero .................... Summary of analysis of variance on interview three for scale seven, coward-hero .................... Summary of analysis of variance on interview four for scale seven, coward-hero .................... The means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, kind-cruel ................. Summary of analysis of variance on interview one for scale Eight, kind-crUE] o o o o o o o o o o o o o‘ oooooooo Summary of analysis of variance on interview two for scale eight, kind-cruel ..................... xiv 204 207 TABLE 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 Summary of analysis of variance on interview three for scale eight, kind-cruel ..................... Summary of analysis of variance on interview four for scale eight, kind-cruel ..................... The means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, strong-weak ................ Summary of analysis of variance on interview one for scale nine, strong-weak ..................... Summary of analysis of variance on interview two for scale nine, strong-weak ..................... Summary of analysis of variance on interview three for scale nine, strong-weak ..................... Summary of analysis of variance on interview four for scale nine, strong-weak ..................... The means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, worthless- valuable ............. Summary of analysis of variance on interview one for scale ten, worthless-valuable .. ................. Summary of analysis of variance on interview two for scale ten, worthless-valuable . . . . . ............. Summary of analysis of variance on interview three for scale ten, worthless-valuable .................. Summary of analysis of variance on interview four for scale ten, worthless-valuable .................. The means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, sincere- -insincere ............. Summary of analysis of variance on interview one for scale eleven, sincere-insincere ................. Summary of analysis of variance on interview two for scale eleven, sincere-insincere ................. Summary of analysis of variance on interview three for scale eleven, sincere- -insincere . . ............... Summary of analysis of variance on interview four for scale eleven, sincere-insincere ................. XV Page 208 209 211 214 216 217 218 219 223 226 228 230 232 TABLE 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 Page 200 The means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, immoral-moral ................ 234 Summary of analysis of variance on interview one for scale twelve, immoral-moral ................... 235 Summary of analysis of variance on interview two for scale twelve, immoral-moral ................... 235 Summary of analysis of variance on interview three for scale twelve, immoral-moral ................... 236 Summary of analysis of variance on interview four for scale twelve, immoral-moral ................... 236 The means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, pleasant-painful .............. 237 Summary of analysis of variance on interview one for scale thirteen, pleasant-painful ................. 238 Summary of analysis of variance on interview two for scale thirteen, pleasant-painful ................. 240 Summary of analysis of variance on interview three for scale thirteen, pleasant-painful ................. 242 Summary of analysis of variance on interview four for scale thirteen, pleasant-painful ................. 243 The means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, sad-happy .................. 244 Summary of analysis of variance on interview one for scale fourteen, sad-happy . . , ................. 245 Summary of analysis of variance on interview two for scale fourteen, sad-happy .................... 247 Summary of analysis of variance on interview three for scale fourteen, sad-happy .................... 249 Summary of analysis of variance on interview four for scale fourteen, sad-happy .................... 251 The means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, relaxed-tense ................ 252 Summary of analysis of variance on interview one for scale fifteen, relaxed-tense .................. ' . 254 xvi TABLE Page 217 Summary of analysis of variance on interview one for scale fifteen, relaxed-tense ................... 254 218 Summary of analysis of variance on interview three for scale fifteen, relaxed-tense ................... 255 219 Summary of analysis of variance on interview four for scale fifteen, relaxed-tense ................... 255 220 HS and LS groups compared on SD results-a summary ........ 132 221 HS and LS groups compared with the DI group on SD results-- a summary ......................... 136 xvii FIGURE 1 2 OOWVGU'I-b 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 LIST OF FIGURES General Anxiety Level ................... Probability Of Joining The Marines If They Had To Do It Over Subjects Who Would Encourage A Brother Or Close Relative To Join The Marine Corps Righteousness Factor For The Concept "Myself" ....... Righteousness Factor For The Concept "Marine" ....... _ Righteousness Factor For The Concept "Marine Corps" . . . . (Evaluative Factor For The Concept "Myself" ......... '.Evaluative Factor For The Concept "Marine" ........ Evaluative Factor For The Concept "Marine Corps" ..... Mood Factor For The Concept "Myself" ........... Mood Factor For The Concept "Marine" ........... Mood Factor For The Concept "Marine Corps" ........ Toughness Factor For The Concept "Myself" ......... Toughness Factor For The Concept "Marine" ......... Toughness Factor For The Concept "Marine Corps" ...... Permissiveness Factor For The Concept “Myself" ...... Permissiveness Factor For The Concept "Marine" ...... Permissiveness Factor For The Concept "Marine Corps" xviii Page 92 97 104 110 111 112 114 115 116 118 119 120 121 122 123 125 126 127 INTRODUCTION The pride and commitment which one observes in U. S. Marines is quite interesting, particularly from the socialization viewpoint. The identity that Marines have with the Corps is often referred to in historical and military literature as esprit de corps. How this commitment or espirit is instilled in Marines is generally ignored or attributed to the policy that the Marines only take volunteers. During times of war or national emergencies, however, most Marines are drafted. Seldom is such commitment to one's organization found in other U. S. military services, with the possible exception of some special elite units or in the so-called normative or remunerative organizations discussed by Etzioni (1961). Of special interest also is the apparent long-lasting identity that former members of the Marines have with the Corps. Even though their active service may have been terminated years ago, many of these former Marines still express pride in the fact that they served in the Corps. To this inveStigator, such commitment (pride or esprit de corps) can, perhaps, be best understood by focusing attention on the socialization process employed by the U. S. Marines in training their recruits. It is the purpose of this study, therefore, to determine what effect severity has on Marine recruits' liking for the Marine Corps during their bootcamp training. More specifically, attention will be centered on the use of severity by the role incumbents (i.e., Drill Instructors or 015) 2 . to assess its effects on the role aspirants (recruits). Socialization: A Capsule History The "socialization process" has long been of interest to many academic disciplines throughout the world. In the United States, however, those disciplines most concerned have been anthropology, political science, psychology. social psychology and sociology. According to Clausen (1968), the term "socialization," was listed in The Oxford Dictionary of the 1 English Language in 1828--prior to its usage by sociologists. There seems to be some evidence which suggests that the French also used the term for it was found in their dictionary in 1846. Apparently the concept was used in the language long before it became an object of study, and it was interpreted to mean "render social or to make fit for living in society." During the 18905, the concept appeared in the sociological works of Simmel (1895), Ross (1896,1908), Giddings (1897), and Burgess (1916). These works focused on the process by which the individual develops restricted behavior patterns from a vast repertoire of malleable ones. The scholarly interest in socialization then declined and was replaced by the "Culture and Personality" school which became prominent during the late 19205 or early 19305. This school, moreover, absorbed most of the knowledge we today classify as socialization. Socialization, as it is used currently, did not evolve until 1939, when it appeared in two articles of the American Journal of Sociology. One article was written by Robert Park (1939) and the other, by John Dollard (1939). During the early 19205, however, Cooley (1922) focused 1 Much of this section is based on the excellent work by Clausen, cited above. 3 on the subjective elements of social life and how these elements developed through the process of social interaction. Thomas' (1920) work also can be included under socialization even though he did not actually use the concept. His works covered many years but one sees that during his early years Thomas was more concerned with problems of behavior and personality development. In his later years, he focused more on the child and problems of adjustment. Interest in the socialization process was also incorporated in the works of Park and Burgess (1921). They stressed the view that man was not born human but became human through socialization. Clausen also credits John Dewey (1922) and George Herbert Mead (1934) with advancing social-psychological interest in the socialization process. Dewey felt that morality was social. Mead, in the idea of development of the self, believed that a child must be able to take the role of the other. To this investigator, Mead's position is actually the underpinings of the entire socialization process, for if the child is unable to take the role of the other, it would seem that his adjustment patterns would be abnormal. Mead's perspective, unlike Cooley and Thomas', is important in view of the recent interest in adult socialization, for he was less child-oriented. Interest by sociologists doing research on the socialization process appears to have emerged during the early part of the twentieth century. This sociological research, however, focused on the problems of delinquency largely as a result of Burgess' influence. Others, such as the Lynds (1929), directed their attention to child rearing practices. The Lynds' clasic study, Middletown, was, of course, greatly influenced by the work of anthropologists and psychologists. The field of psychology-~especially child psychology--also contributed much to understanding the development of personality and social growth. The research conducted by Stanley Hall (1883), and James M. Baldwin (1911), was instrumental in advancing the field of psychology generally. In the area of social psychology, the works by Ross (1896, 1908), McDougall (1908), Floyd Allport (1924), and Gardner Murphy, Lois Murphy and Theodore Newcomb (1937), as well as others, contributed much to further the understanding of socialization. In the area of personality development, the so-called "Yale School" (under Clark Hull and John Dollard) in 1935 attempted to fit psychoanalytic theory into the learning theory framework. Sears (1936) then utilized learning theory to explain the psychoanalytic concepts of projection, repression and amnesia. Even though the Yale School made important contributions in several areas of socialization, it was mostly concerned with the adult and how he learned social behavior as well as the effects aggression and frustration had on this socialization process. Hull, combining conditioning and reward, focused on the acquisition of habits at successive stages of growth from childhood to adulthood. Miller and Dollard (1941), meanwhile, studied children in order to learn how they acquired behavior patterns which were necessary for their adult life. The work by Hull and Dollard provided the impetus for others to study the effects of punishment on personality development. Researchers did experiments with animals in the laboratory and produced anxiety in them by using punishment; subsequently, they were able to extinguish it. These experiments were quite important, for many believed that such findings could be applied in the study of how individuals learned to avoid forbidden activities and acquire those which are socially acceptable. Although interest in socialization diminished for a time, perhaps due to the complexity of researching such a nebulous and comprehensive concept, it has awakened again mainly as a result of the cultural studies undertaken by such anthropologists as Malinowski (1927), Mead (1928), Benedict (1934), Sapir (1934), Kluckhohn (1939) and Kardiner (1939). The important element in their studies which stimulated renewed interest in the socialization process was the description of child rearing practices in the cultures they studied. The information about how Ibehavioral patterns were learned and transmitted by children in different cultures apparently provided the key for those interested in knowing how cultures survive. In recent years, political scientists have contributed much in the field of political socialization. Langton (1969) reviews some of the approaches and models used in the past, especially the structural- functional approach (Easton, 1957; Easton and Hess, 1961; Mitchell, 1962, 1967; and Greenstein, 1961, 1965a, 1965b). Langton then discusses the importance of specific agencies-~the family, role, peer groups, schools--which the political scientist focused upon in addition to the learning process. Langton and Karns (Langton, 1969, pp. 140-60) suggest that a general model used by them appears to be better suited for examining political socialization since it enables the investigator to estimate not only the relative role of the agencies involved (i.e., family, school, role, peer group), but, in addition, it enables the investigator to determine how the independent variable affected each level of the dependent variable. For example, the school or family could influence the direction of a child's political efficacy from low-to-medium range whereas the peer group's influence is in the medium-to-high range. The last discipline to be discussed in this brief historical account is sociology. The sociologists have displayed varying degrees of interest at various times in history in the socialization process. One need only examine the previously cited works of Simmel (1895), Rose (1896, 1908), Giddings (1897), Burgess (1916), Thomas (1920), Park and Burgess (1921), Cooley (1922), the Lynds (1929), Mead (1934), and, more recently Cottrell (1942), Parsons (1951, 1955) Merton (1957), Coleman (1961), Brim and Wheeler (1966) and Goslin (1969). Clausen (1968, p. 48), however, feels that sociological interest can be historically classified at least into four major themes. They are as follows: 1) concern with modes of social control and deviant behavior; 2) the significance of social interaction in the attainment of human nature with emphasis on the social self and self-other patterns; 3) the influence of social structure and value orientations on child-rearing practices; and 4) the significance of social roles, role recruitment and role training. It appears, however, that current interest by sociologists is primarily directed toward organizational and adult (i.e., secondary) socialization, including the effects each has on the other, This study is of the latter type. It will focus primarily on secondary socialization in a formal, complex organization. Attention will also be given to the four themes mentioned above, since it is apparent that all are interrelated to some extent. Socialization Defined Child (1954, p. 655) has defined socialization as, "a broad term for the whole process by which an individual, born with behavioral potentialities of enormously wide range, is led to develop actual behavior which is confined within a much narrower range--the range of what is customary and acceptable for him according to the standard of his group." Such a definition appears to be an adequate explanation for defining socialization. In order to make the concept operational or researchable, however, one needs to define the process differently. According to Goslin (1969, p. 2), the major concern of some scholars who are interested in the socialization process is to discover 1) hgw_ some individuals lgarg_to participate effectively in society; 2) why_ others have difficulty; and 3) why_some groups function better than others. In addition to the above, this investigator feels that it is necessary for one to distinguish the studies which focused on child- hood socialization, secondary socialization, and/or organizational socialization. Although it is realized that each of these categories overlap and that each is affected by the others, for the purpose of this study, a separation of these categories was made in order to facilitate analyses of the data. Consequently, this study also focused on organizational socialization by studying the role incumbent's influence on the role aspirant. It is believed that such an approach contributes to a better understanding of the process of organizational socialization. Organizational socialization, for this study, is defined as, "the process by which an individual, both from an individual and organizational perspective, becomes a part of the organization (Manning, 1966, p. 1)." This study, therefore, was an attempt to examine severity as a process used by the U. S. Marine Corps to socialize its members. The Marine Corps was specifically selected because a large number of individuals are apparently socialized into the organization in a relatively short period of time. This seemingly total assimilation by Marine recruits of the norms and values of the Corps is all the more remarkable when one realizes that Marine recruits are taken from the society at-large and include members from all groups of society with different cultural, ethnic, religious, racial, social and educational backgrounds. Lastly, it is believed that the implications of this study, especially in light of the apparent disintegration of traditional values in our society (and more specifically in the Army, Navy and Air Force), might increase our understanding of the effects of adult socialization in an organization which stresses conformity. Review of the Relevant Literature An enormous number of historical publications have been written about the military, Many of these works, however, are not relevant to this study since as histories they devote little attention to the intricate process by which recruits are transformed from civilians to soldiers. During the 19305 and 19405, however, the majority of studies on the military took a psychological and social-psychological approach more along the line of this study. The now-classic work was done in the United States by Stouffer and his associates. Their four volume study, The American Soldier, was a consequence of the problems confronting the Army during World War II in the area of troop morale, adjustment to military life and combat effectiveness. Hoping to make more effective decisions, the Army employed a team of social scientists to do research on such problems. This important research project was carried out under the direction of Professor Samuel Stouffer. The volume most relevant to this study is volume I (Stouffer, Suchman, DeVinney, Star and Williams, Jr., 1949), which pertains to the soldier's adjustment during army life. Although that work does not concern itself with the socialization process per;§g, it contains data related to socialization (e.g., acquisition of military values, the importance of primary groups, adjustment to military roles and social cohesion). Another important work related to this study was done by Janowitz (1960). He did an in-depth analysis of the professional soldiers in the Army, Navy and Air Force, by examining the unique characteristics and qualities possessed by the elites in those services. Janowitz presented data on their background, life style, educational attainment and career development and concluded that a new type of military officer was emerging--a managerial type. He contends that this managerial type of officer would become more important than the traditional heroic type officer, due to the changing conditions in the military. Whereas Janowitz's work focused on the officers, this study attempts to determine how enlisted men are socialized. Janowitz and Little (1965) reported on some of the current research which had been done on the military. Their book was of interest because it discussed the importance of assimilation, primary groups and 10 organizational control--concepts related to the present study. The Janowitz and Little work provided an excellent synthesis of military research because it incorporated a large number of studies. Lovell (1964) did a study on socialization of West Point cadets which attempted to determine whether men with military backgrounds were more prone to making the military a career after an academy education than cadets from non-military backgrounds. He discovered that, by the junior year, both groups were more of the managerial rather than the heroic type. Lovell suggest that academy training was now less in the direction of traditional military socialization and more in the direction of career selection. Such findings tend to support the conclusion reached by Janowitz (1960). Lovell's study concentrated on cadets for the officer corps whereas this study focuses on enlisted men. Moreover, the present study attempts to determine how one aspect of the socialization process works. In a much cited study, Dornbush (1955) indicated that the purpose of a military academy was to serve as an assimilating institution. That article is related to the aims of this study in that it concentrated on how the cadet was socialized, although Dornbush did not use that term. His study provides some interesting insights, but he did not approach the problem as scientifically as Janowitz (1960) or Lovell (1964). Dornbush's study of the Coast Guard cadet is descriptive in nature, and no data are presented to confirm his hypothesis. It consists mainly of Dornbush's impressions. This study, on the other hand, attempts to determine scientifically the consequence of organizational socialization on recruits when they are subjected-to severe discipline. 11 Goffman (1961) discusses the effects of isolation on the individual in the total institution. In the total institutional setting, the individual is completely dependent upon the organization to provide him with the basic necessities of life. Marine bootcamp (i.e., recruit training) can be compared to the total institution because the recruit is totally dependent upon the organization to fulfill his basic physical, psychological, social and economic needs. Consequently, the impact which isolation has had in the socialization process of Marine recruits is briefly discussed in this study. A study by Wallace (1964) focused on the socialization of college freshmen. It was Wallace's contention that a culture, if it is to be perpetuated, must be rapidly transmitted to newcomers. Wallace stated that freshmen are quickly socialized and contact between them and upper classmen is limited by administrative planning; this, he claims, is especially true during welcome week when only freshmen are on campus. His study was longititudinal and attempted to discover the critical periods when freshmen acquired the prevailing cultural patterns of their peers, i.e., sophomores, juniors and seniors. Recruit training can be viewed in a similar manner since recruits are also rapidly socialized-- the training period currently last eleven weeks. During this formal training period, contact with other recruits, especially those who are in the more advanced stages of training, is extremely limited. The most relevant article, in terms of this study, was done by Aronson (1959). His findings suggested that the more severe an organization's initation rite, the greater one's liking for that organization. The present study attempted to test Aronson's hypothesis in a real life situation, rather than in a contrived or laboratory type 12 setting as his was, in order to determine whether severity is, in fact, the crucial variable which best explains the success of Marine Corps socialization. Also quite relevant to this study was one completed recently by Earle (1972), at the time the present study was still being conducted. Earle (1972) compared the effects of stressful versus non-stressful training on a sample of "scientifically" selected cadets enrolled in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Academy. His finding indicated that non-stressfully trained cadets were superior in every respect. They made higher grades, were more adaptable, presented a more positive image, maintained better relationships with superiors, were more interested in and enthusiastic about their jobs, were better informed about police work, and are more willing to follow orders than the stressfully trained cadets. These findings are contrary to the hypothesis which was tested in this study and, therefore, were of particular interest to E. Purpose An attempt was made in this study to determine whether severity of initiation increases one's liking for the Marine Corps. This was examined by: 1) comparing the attitudes of recruits with those of 015 on various concepts; 2) comparing the attitudes of recruits having a severe (tough) 01 with recruits having a lenient (easy) DI; and, 3), assessing the overall effects of Marine Corps socialization on recruits. Hypothesis and Variables The primary hypothesis tested was, "severity (independent variable) of initiation increases one's liking (dependent variable) for the 13 organization." Emphasis was placed on the role incumbent's attitudes, as measued by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum's (1957) Semantic Differential (SD), in the belief that the DI reflects the values of the Marine Corps and is responsible for instilling these values in recruits. An attempt was also made to identify and separate the severe from easy 015 in order to obtain an experimental and control group. METHOD Subjects The Ss initially consisted of 876 male enlisted Marine recruits (role aspirants) preparing to commence their training and 114 male 015 (role incumbents) stationed at the U. 5. Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD), San Diego, California. The recruits were formed into twelve platoon-sized groups having the following distribution of $5: 62, 66 67, 69, 73, 75, 76, 77, 77, 78, 78, and 78. Two of these platoons (151 recruits) were excluded from this study at the outset because of scheduling conflicts. Another 169 55 were recycled (i.e., set back in training) or discharged, at various stages in their training by the Marine Corps for a variety of reasons and, consequently, were dropped ‘from the study by E. An additional 69 55 were also dropped since they failed to properly identify their questionnaires, thus preventing E from comparing their responses over the four testing periods. Three 015 from each of the ten platoons were also tested. To increase the sample size, however, 84 015 were also taken from other units. Of this number, four 015 were eliminated because they did not wish to participate in the experiment. The actual sample size, therefore, consisted of 497 recruits and 110 DIs for a total N of 607 Ss. 14 Selection of Subjects The Recruit Training Regiment (RTR), a subordinate unit of the MCRD, is primarily responsible for training recruits. The Regiment is divided into three training battalions; each battalion is divided into three companies; each company is divided into four series; and each series is divided into four platoons. (A platoon generally consists of 75 recruits and 3 015.) Recruits who live West of the Mississippi River are usually sent to the MCRD at San Diego; those who live East of the Mississippi, to Parris Island, South Carolina. As an enlistment incentive, however, some recruits may be sent to the training depot of their choice. regardless of their place of residence. Consequently, recruits are arriving daily at the depot from all parts of the country and are processed in the following manner. Immediately upon arrival at the MCRD, the recruits are placed in the Receiving Barracks. During this period (usually five days) they undergo complete classification (including aptitude and physical examinations) and are issued the necessary training uniforms and equipment. When this is completed, the recruits are moved to the next stage, called the Forming period, which usually lasts for three days, and are assigned to their platoons. Platoon assignments are done in a 15 random manner and recruits are placed in whichever platoon is being formed at that particular moment. One series in each battalion is completely filled, before the process is repeated. This procedure has the additional value of permitting the RTR to stagger the training periods (time-wise) so that all recruits are not starting or completing their training on the same day. After the Forming period is completed, the platoons are presented formally to their 015 (who are also randomly assigned their platoons by each battalion) and the eleven week (80 days) boot training begins. After their platoon graduates, the 015 are not assigned to another platoon for at least five days; in the meantime, their names are once again placed in the battalion's DI pool for their next assignment. Selection of Experimental and Control Platoons Because of the random procedures used by the Marine Corps in assigning $5 to platoons, E did not deem it necessary to utilize any other sampling technique and, therefore, selected those three series (one from each battalion) which were being formed at the time he commenced the study. As was previously mentioned, this was not a contrived or simulated laboratory type experiment but a study of a real-life situation. Consequently, E had to devise a method for separating the 55 into an experimental and control group for meaningful analysis. This was accomplished by using 55 responses to selective questions on the questionnaires. 55 were asked to rate 015 and their platoons on a toughness scale. The information obtained was then transferred to IBM 16 data cards and processed by computer. The following scores represent the total number of Ss (recruits) which selected that particular platoon as being toughest: 80, 93, 108, 232, 119, 115, 99, 116, 110 and 65. After examination of the data, it was decided to use only the two extreme scores (232 and 65) because they provided the greatest differences between the groups and, in addition, they were also confirmed as being the toughest and easiest by the 015 ratings. The platoon and DI which was rated as toughest by 232 recruits was also rated toughest by 10 015 (the highest total received by any DI or platoon). Conversely, the platoon and 01 which received only 65 ratings as being the toughest by recruits was rated toughest by only 3 015. As a result, the platoon rated toughest by 232 85 was designated by E as the High Severe (HS) or experimental group and the platoon which was rated toughest by 65 55 was designated as the Low Severe (LS) or control group.2 The actual number of recruits reported in this study, therefore, is 109; 53 Ss in the HS group and 56 Ss in the LS group. Measuring Instruments The data for this study were collected by means of two types of instruments--the questionnaire and the Semantic Differential (SD). The questionnaire forms (See Appendices B, C and 0) consisted of a variety of questions--open-ended, rating and check-off types. Form A was 2 It was decided that L5 was a better description of the situation; describing this platoon as "easy" would be a distortion of reality, as was evidenced by the fact that it was selected by 65 recruits as being the toughest. Also, it is common knowledge that Marine Corps training is designed to be quite demanding in order to prepare recruits for combat. 17 designed for recruits and was administered to them only once, at the beginning of their training. Its purpose was to obtain background data and to assess the recruit's attitude toward the Marine Corps. Form C, a shorter version of Form A, was also designed for recruits. It was administered on three subsequent occasions and its purpose was to assess the attitudinal changes, if any, in the 55 during training. Form B, an expanded version of Form A, was administered to the 015 only on one occasion. Its purpose was to gain insight into the role incumbent's background characteristics and his attitudes toward the Marine Corps and to have him rate (judge) other 015 as to their severity with recruits. This latter task was included to facilitate separating the 55 into tough and easy experimental groups. The SD (Form 0 see Appendix E) used in this study consisted of 15 bipolar, seven-point adjective scales which measured the following seven concepts: DI, Marine Corps, Marine, recruit, most people, myself and bootcamp. Since some of the adjective pairs were specifically designed by E for this study, it was considered necessary to factor analyze the scales in order to determine their loadings. Five factors were extracted and rotated orthogonally into simple structure. The results are presented in Table 1. An examination of the loadings on Factor 1 indicate that the following scales--strong-weak, worthless-valuable, sincere-insincere and immoral-moral--clustered with loadings ranging from .64 to .83 and were designated "righteousness." 0n Factor 2, the scales controlled- free, like-dislike, good-bad, fair-unfair, coward-hero and excitable- calm clustered with loadings ranging from .56 to .88 and were designated 18 "evaluative" meaning. On Factor 3, the scales excitable-calm, pleasant- painful, sad-happy and relaxed-tense, clustered with loadings ranging from .55 to .82 and reflect "mood". Only the scale, tough-easy had a high loading (.92) on Factor 4 which E calls "toughness." Factor 5 had two scales, kind-cruel, with a high loading of .81 and controlled- free with a loading of .49, reflects what E calls "permissiveness." Table l Orthogonally Rotated Factor Loadings ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Factor Adjective Pairs Rightlous- Evaluitive Mogd Tofigh- Permigsive- h2 ness ness ness 1 controlled-free -.12 .56 .43 -.11 .49 .77 2 like-dislike .26 .84 .11 .19 .10 .82 3 good-bad .35 .84 .11 .06 .19 .87 4 tough-easy .21 .02 .12 .92 .18 .94 5 excitable-calm .13 .61 .55 .12 .20 .75 6 fair-unfair .16 .88 .24 .15 -.05 .88 7 coward-hero .30 .78 .23 .28 -.21 .87 8 kind-cruel .33 -.Ol .23 .29 .81 .90 9 strong-weak .74 .15 .32 .27 -.08 .76 10 worthless-valuable .83 .22 .17 .13 .14 .80 ll sincere-insincere .77 .30 .26 -.O5 .21 .79 12 immoral-moral .64 .29 .36 .21 .16 .7O 13 pleasant-painful .44 .26 .68 .02 .25 .79 14. sad-happy .35 .23 .80 .19 .02 .84 15 relaxed-tense .35 .19 .82 .05 .18 .86 19 Factor loadings, according to Fruchter (1954, p. 15), respresent correlation coefficients. Usually, loadings ranging from .30-.50 are regarded as moderate; those ranging from .50-.7O as high and those above .70 as very high. As is further evidenced by Table l, the high to very high loadings on these scales appear to confirm that they are rather good indicators of the meanings being studied even though there is some overlapping of categories. The SD was administered to recruits on each of the four test (interview ) periods together with the questionnaires. It was also given to the 015 with Form B on the one occasion when they were tested. The results of the 50 will be more fully discussed later. Pilot Study The above-mentioned instruments were tested on two pilot groups of $5. One group consisted of college students enrolled in an under- graduate sociological methods and research course and the other consisted of Marines from the local reserve unit. Both groups were instructed to write the starting and finishing times on their forms so that E could calculate the length of time it took S5 to complete the interviews. 55 were also asked to to comment on the length, complexity, structure and fatigue in filling out the instruments. They were asked to point out ambiguous questions or to add points which might have been overlooked. As a result of the pilot study, minor modifications were made in the questionnaires. It was also determined that $5 could complete Forms A and D or B and 0, if given as one unit, within one hour; Forms 20 C and 0 if given as a unit could be completed within 30 minutes. The time required to complete these questionnaires did not appear to be unreasonable so the length of the forms was not shortened.3 Testing Procedure and Instructions For the first interview, all the S5 (excluding the 015) were assembled in a large auditorium. Each S received a copy of Form A and D and was seated with his platoon. E was then introduced by a Marine officer as a sociology professor who had been granted permission to do a study about Marine boot training. E informed 55 that he was doing a study on the "Making of Marines" for his doctoral thesis, at Michigan State University, and that he greatly appreciated the help Ss would give him by filling out the questionnaires. E stressed the fact that only he would see their responses and, to further reassure them, instructed 55 not to put their names on any of their forms. He explained that, since they were to be retested on later dates, there had to be some way of identifying the questionnaires. The best way to do this and still protect the S's anonymity, E suggested that each S put only the last four digits of his service number on each form whenever being interviewed. E explained that such a procedure would enable him to study each S's progress by keeping track of all the questionnaires. 55 were then given detailed verbal instructions on filling out the various kinds of questions and scales and were told to take their time in answering them. Form A was to be completed befOre filling out Form D. 3 The questionnaires were also designed to conceal the true intent of the study from 85 by asking questions on several topics, hoping to reduce falsified answers. 21 E also stated that he would be present during the interview to assist any Ss who had questions about any items. . After all Ss completed their forms, they were collected, identified by platoon number and stored in boxes by E. In order to further reduce Ss' anxiety, E asked for volunteers to help him carry the boxes out to his car, hoping that by this gesture the S5 would be reassured that the Marine Corps would not see what they had written on their questionnaires. Since bootcamp training was divided into three phases, the other three interviews were conducted at the conclusion of each phase. The second interview, consequently, was held after the S5 completed Phase I (i.e., three weeks). 55 on this occasion received Forms C and D and the instructions as cited above were repeated; again, no 015 were present. The above procedure was also repeated for the remaining two interviews. Interview three was given at the conclusion of Phase II (i.e., eight weeks) and interview four, the final one, was given on the day before graduation (i.e., completion of Phase III or eleven weeks) since 85 are immediately transferred to another duty station or sent home on leave and would not be available for testing. The 015, on the other hand, were only interviewed once by using Forms 8 and 0. Because many 015 were attached to different units with conflicting training schedules, it was impossible for E to assemble them all on one occasion. They were divided, therefore, into two groups and interviewed separately on different days. The instructions they received were identical to those given the recruits. The 015 were asked, however, to put their names on the forms. As an added inducement, E promised to 22 provide each DI who put his name on the form with a summary of this study. Since the last section of Form B (dealing with the DIs toughness with recruits) might be threatening to the 015, it was explained that E was doing a comprehensive study on the "Making of Marines" and did not want to overlook any information which might help him understand Marine Corps training; moreover, such information would help E learn how 015 judged one another's ability. RESULTS Questionnaire Analyses In order to compare differences between the HS and LS groups, both prior and subsequent to their military socialization, the following variables were used: intelligence, age, race, marital status, home state, home-town size, religious preference, church attendance, civilian occupation, liking of civilian occupation, political ideology, amount of schooling completed, happiness before enlistment, anxiety level before enlistment, desire to become a Marine, amount of freedom permitted at home, amount and severity of parental discipline, previous military socialization, use of drugs and frequency of dating, smoking and drinking. Intelligence for the purpose of this study was determined to be what had been measured by the General Classification Test (GCT). GCT scores are obtained by summing the scores each recruit received on three tests-- Verbal Ability, Arithmetic Reasoning and Pattern Analysis--and dividing the total by three. In Table 2, the GCT scores for the HS and LS groups are presented. The scores were compared by using the t-test and no 4 significant difference was found between groups at the .05 level for intelligence (t = 1.15; df = 107).4 Table 3 shows the ages of the HS and LS groups. The t-test was also used to compare the groups on age. The results show no significant difference existed between groups at the .05 level for age (t = .62; df = 107). 4 For all analyses used in this study, the level of significance which E considered appropriate for rejection of the null hypothesis was p 5_.05. 24 Table 2 The Recruits' General Classification Test (GCT) Scores HS Group LS Group 104 118 114 91 100 104 80 76 79 123 94 98 115 101 98 100 90 126 89 107 129 114 116 88 75 117 128 95 98 110 115 87 112 94 96 115 74 83 96 101 76 100 109 99 94 100 104 82 102 69 107 88 93 100 92 82 79 119 95 91 99 114 75 98 84 98 76 88 75 108 110 76 73 86 92 91 140 126 98 84 101 117 117 80 101 78 99 87 109 130 104 114 87 88 101 124 126 84 95 95 98 92 83 103 89 92 86 96 99 Totals 5105 5592 n 53 56 Means 96.17 99.48 2 x22 505067 568966 (2 X) 2/n 491717.24 55840l.8 z x2 13349.76 10564.2 df 52 55 Pooled 52 13349. 76m + 10564. 2_ _23913%96 - 223 495 n + n2 - - sag/[752 ‘ =‘\//E(223. 50) (lO9)/2968]=24361 5°— =2 87 x1"‘2 n1n 2 = 3.31/2.87 = 1.15 p > .05 25 Table 3 The Recruits' Ages HS Group LS Group 17 17 19 17 18 l9 17 18 19 17 18 l9 17 18 l9 l7 18 19 17 18 19 17 18 19 17 18 19 17 18 20 17 18 19 17 18 20 17 18 19 17 18 20 l7 18 20 17 18 20 17 18 20 17 18 20 17 18 20 17 18 20 17 18 21 17 18 20 17 18 21 17 18 20 17 18 22 17 18 22 17 18 23 18 19 22 17 18 27 18 19 22 17 18 18 19 23 17 19 18 19 23 17 19 18 19 24 17 19 18 19 Totals 974 1049 n 53 56 Means 18.20 18.41 2 x2 2 18074 19809 (2 X) In 17899.29 19650.1 2 x2 174.71 158.90 df 52 55 2 174.71 + 158.90 _ 333.61 3 Pooled s 107 - -T67—- 3.11 \/_2 n] +1712 ‘\/ t = .21/.338 = .62 p > .05 26 The questionnaire data, except for intelligence and age, were analyzed by means of the Chi-square (X2) tests because the data were 2 considered non-parametric. The X analyses were done by computer, using the MILTAB program, which automatically made Yates' (1934) correction when the expected frequency was less than 5 for any cell. In comparing the groups for racial differences, a X2 test was done and the results indicate that the groups did not differ significantly at the .05 level, on the basis of race. The racial composition of the groups is shown in Table 4. Table 4 Racial Composition of HS and LS Groups Race Group Blaéki RedTi :White Brown Yellow Totals HS 12 o 29 1o 2 53 L5 16 3 30 6 1 56 Totals 28 3 59 16 3 109 x2 = 4.84, df = 4; p > .05 The groups were also compared f0r differences in marital status, by means of the X2 test. On this variable, the LS group did not differ significantly (p :>.05) from the HS group. The data are presented in Table 5 and, although the LS group contained slightly more married 55, it is of interest to note that both groups were composed primarily of single men, each group having 46. 27 Table 5 Marital Status of Recruits Marital Status Group Single 'Married No Totals Response HS 46 5 2 53 LS 46 10 O 56 Totals 92 15 2 109 x2 = 3.59, df = 2; p > .05 In order to determine Ss' home state, a frequency distribution was made. Table 6 shows the results of such a distribution. For the HS group, California was the state which had provided most recruits with 15; the balance, 38 S5, came from 13 rather widely scattered states. The L5 group was mostly represented by Texas with 12; from the Midwest it was Illinois (10), Ohio (8), and Indiana (7). The balance, 19 S5, came from 9 rather widely scattered states. In view of the fact that persons living in the West are sent to San Diego for training, it was anticipated that the western states would be most represented. It was rather surprising to find that one-third of the 26 states represented were East of the Mississippi. Therefore, because of the number of states involved and the few 55 from most states, the X2 test was not computed. This variable was used primarily to identify the $5 geographically. 28 Table 6 Frequency Distribution of 55' Home State State HS LS Totals Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California 1 Colorado a District of Columbia Idaho Illinois Indiana Kentucky Louisiana Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri New Mexico North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Dakota Texas Virginia Washington d —J —‘—l «b-‘NNNO‘N‘O-dw—‘fl-JNN—‘OU'INNNU‘lww-‘N ._a OON—‘OO’lomo-‘O-fl-‘N—‘OVON-‘OOOWOO «b—‘m-‘NON—‘dN—‘OOO-‘dwtflO-‘NU‘wo—‘N _.n a Technically, it is acknowledged that the District of Columbia is not a state but a district. For this analysis, however, it was classified as a state. 29‘ In Table 7, the home-town size of S5 is compared by groups. The X2 test was calculated and no significant difference was found between the HS and LS groups at the .05 level.. An interesting finding, however, was that 55 of the 109 85 were from home-towns which had populations under 20,000. Table 7 Ss' Home-town Size Grou Home-Town Size HS LS Totals On A Farm 5 3 8 Open Country But Not On A Farm 3 8 11 Small City or Town (Less Than 20,000 Population) 14 22 36 City Over 20,000 But Less Than 100,000 Population 13 8 21 Suburban Community Near A Large City 9 2 11 City Over 100,000 But Less Than One Million 3 7 10 City Over One Million 4 5 9 No Response 2 l 3 Totals 53 56 109 x2 =12.17, df = 7; p > .05 A comparison which was made between the two groups on religious preference is presented in Table 8. The category "Baptist" was not collapsed with "Protestant" because Ss wrote on their questionnaires that they were Baptists not Protestants. A X2 test was done and the groups differed significantly at the .05 level in that the LS group had more Baptists. It was of interest to note that "Baptist" comprised the second largest denomination and was almost as large as the "Protestant" category which had been collapsed to include several denominations. 3O , Table 8 Ss' Religious Preference at Time of Entry into Service Religious Preference Group Protestant Catholic Baptist Other None Totals HS 17 14 10 9 3 53 L5 13 ll 19 3 10 56 Totals 30 25 29 12 13 109 In order to determine the effects of severity on $5; church attendance, the groups were compared over time by using the Ss' responses from all four interviews. Interview 1 asked 55 to state how frequently they attended church prior to enlisting. Interviews 2, 3 and 4 asked Ss how frequently they attended church now. The data are presented in Tables 2 5 9, 10, 11 and 12 and were analyzed by means of the X test. The results show that the groups did not differ significantly at the .05 level on interview 1 (Table 9). However, the HS group differed significantly, p < .001, from the LS group on interviews 2, 3 and 4 (Tables 10, 11 and 12), in that the HS group attended church more frequently while undergoing military socialization. 5 For the X2 tests, the N throughout this study will vary with the type of question being analyzed. Questions based on seven-point scales were collapsed by throwing out the middle or neutral score (4); only scores of 1-3 and 5-7 were used. 31 Table 9 Frequency of Church Attendance Prior to Enlistment (Interview 1) Attendance Group Infrequently Frequently Totals HS 28 14 42 LS 43 9 52 Totals 71 23 94 x2 = 3 23. df = 1, p > 05 Table 10 Frequency of Church Attendance After Enlistment (Interview 2) Attendance Group Infrequently Frequently Totals HS 1 48 49 L5 23 22 45 Totals 24 7O 94 32 Table 11 Frequency of Church Attendance After Enlistment (Interview 3) Attendance Group Infrequently Frequently Totals HS 0 48 48 LS 27 15 42 Totals 27 63 90 x2 = 44.08, df = 1; p < .001 Table 12 Frequency of Church Attendance After Enlistment (Interview 4) Attendance Group Ififlequently Frequently Totals HS 1 49 50 L5 28 20 48 Totals 29 69 98 33 Another variable used to compare the groups at the outset of this study was educational level completed by S5. The responses on this variable are presented in Table 13. The data were analyzed using a X2 test, and the results showed that the groups did not differ significantly at the .05 level. An interesting finding, however, was the number of 55 who had not completed 12 years of schooling. This was all the more surprising when one examines Ss' GCT scores (Table 2) which shows that both groups have normal intelligence. Table 13 Years of Schooling Completed by S5 Years Completed Group ' 6-8 9-11 12 1 Year of’ Over 2 Years Totals College of College HS 3 29 15 6 O 53 LS 5 37 ll 2 l 56 Totals 8 66 26 8 1 109 A question asking S5 to rate themselves on intelligence was used by E as an indicator of self esteem. This question attempted to determine how the S5 viewed themselves at the beginning of their military socialization. Table 14 shows how the 55 are distributed on 2 this question. A X test was done and the results show that the groups did not significantly differ at the .05 level. 34 Table 14 Ss' Perception of Their Intelligence Intelligence Group DulTT’ Bright Totals HS 6 30 36 LS 7 36 43 Totals 13 66 79 One question was used to determine whether the 55 were politically liberal or conservative. A comparison of the HS and LS groups on this variable is presented in Table 15. The X2 test was used in this analysis, and the results showed that the groups did not differ significantly at the .05 level. It is of interest to note, however, that both groups were more liberal than conservative. Table 15 Ss' Political Philosophy Political Philosophy Group ConservatiVe Liberal Totals HS 13 19 32 L5 9 27 36 Totals 22 46 68 35 In an attempt to assess the Ss' occupational skill, two questions were asked. One focused upon 55' occupation prior to enlistment. Table 16 shows the frequency distribution on this question. A X2 test was done and the results show no significant difference between groups at the .05 level. The other question focused on Ss' liking of his civilian occupation. This question indirectly measured Ss' possible motivation for joining the Marine Corps. If 55 were dissatisfied with their jobs, they may have enlisted in hopes of learning a new occupation or to escape their old one. The results on this question are shown in Table 17. A X2 test was done and the groups did not differ significantly, at the .05 level, in how much they liked their previous occupations. Table 16 Ss' Civilian Occupation Group Occupation HS LS Totals Professional ' 2 O 2 White Collar 1 5 6 Blue Collar 12 13 25 Farm 3 2 5 Service 11 20 31 Other 3 4 7 None 13 9 22 No Response 8 3 11 Totals 53 56 109 2 X = 10.59, df = 7; p > .05 36 Table 17 Ss' Liking of Their Civilian Occupation Occupation Group Little Much Totals L1ked L1ked HS 10 19 29 L5 7 31 38 Totals 17 50 67 In order to ascertain whether the H5 or LS group differed in their exposure to military life, a question was asked about 55' previous military service. Table 18 shows the distribution of their responses, by groups, to this question. A X2 test was done and the results show that the groups did not differ significantly at the .05 level. Table 18 Ss' Previous Military Service Military Service Group Yes No No Response Totals HS 1 47 5 53 LS l 51 4 56 Totals 2 98 9 109 -; ....................................................................... 37 A related question, also attempting to determine whether the two groups differed in their exposure to military socialization, asked the $5 to indicate any military-type organization to which they had belonged before enlistment in the Marine Corps. Table 19 shows the responses to this question. A X2 test was done and the results showed that the two groups did not differ significantly at the .05 level. Table 19 Military-Type Organization to Which 55 Had Belonged Prior to Enlistment . Group Organization . HS LS Totals Young Marines 1 O l U. S. Marine Corps Reserve 1 O 1 U. S. Naval Reserve 0 O O U. S. Army Reserve 4 2 6 U. 5. Air Force Reserve 2 O 2 Scouts (All Types) 24 30 54 Other 2 3 55 None 2 l 3 No Response 17 18 35 Not Determinable O 2 2 Totals 53 56 109 x2 = 7.82, df = 8; p > .05 Ss' responses to a question dealing with the amount of privacy they enjoyed while living at home are presented in Table 20. The data were 2 analyzed by means of a X test, and the results showed that the groups did not differ significantly at the .05 1eve1 on this question. 38 Table 20 Ss' Privacy While Living At Home Had Privacy and Own Room Group Yes No No Response Totals HS 38 13 2 53 LS 4O 14 2 56 Totals 78 27 4 109 Table 21 shows the frequency distribution of $5 on a question which attempted to determine how much freedom they enjoyed while living at home. A X2 test was done, and the results show that the LS group differed significantly (p < .05) from the HS group on this question. Table 21 55' Freedom While Living At Home Freedom Group Had Little Had Much Totals HS 9 37 46 LS 3 47 50 Totals 12 84 96 .fi-------------—---------------------------------------------------------- 39 55 were asked a series of four questions dealing with their use of narcotics, alcohol, smoking and dating in order to ascertain the frequency with which they participated in such activities. Such questions, E felt, would be indicators of freedom prior to enlistment and severity after enlistment, since such activities are drastically curtailed during training. Table 22 shows the frequency distribution of 55 who have tried narcotics prior to enlistment. A X2 test was done, and the results show that the groups did not differ significantly at the .05 level. Table 22 Ss' Use of Narcotics Prior to Enlistment Narcotics Group HaveTTried Have Not Tried No Response Totals HS 12 39 2 53 LS 19 35 2 56 Totals 31 74 4 109 x2 = 1.72, df = 2; p > .05 Table 23 shows the frequency distribution of 55 who have drunk whiskey or other kinds of alcoholic beverages prior to their enlistment. 2 The data was analyzed by means of the X test, and the results show that the LS group differed significantly at the .05 level from the HS group in that they had drunk alcoholic beverages more frequently. 40 Table 23 Ss' Use of Alcoholic Beverages Prior to Enlistment Frequency of Drinking Group Seldom Frequent Totals HS 25 ll 36 LS 16 25 41 Totals 41 36 77 In response to the question dealing with 55' smoking habits, prior to enlistment, the data are presented in Table 24. The X2 test was used to analyze the data, and the results show that the two groups did not differ significantly on this variable at the .05 level. Table 24 Ss' Smoking Habits Prior to Enlistment Frequency of Smoking Group Seldom Frequent Totals HS 11 20 31 LS ll 32 43 Totals 22 52 74 41 In reply to a question dealing with Ss' dating habits prior to enlistment, the results are presented in Table 25. A X2 test was done, and the results show that the groups did not differ significantly at the .05 level on this variable. Table 25 Ss' Dating Habits Prior to Enlistment Frequenpy of Dating Group SeldOm Frequent Totals HS 4 36 4O LS 1 45 46 Totals 5 81 86 Two questions were asked in order to determine the severity and frequency of punishment to which the recruits had been subjected while living at home. These were considered important questions because E thought that 55 who had experienced severe punishment at home would judge bootcamp discipline differently from S5 who had not been exposed to such discipline. Table 26 presents a frequency distribution showing how 55 responded to the question on toughness of home discipline. A X2 test was done and the results showed no significant difference between groups at the .05 level. This question is particularly important since it shows that the HS and LS groups did not differ in their past experiences of severity. 42 Table 26 Severity of Ss' Home Punishment (Interview 1) Severity Group Easy Tough Totals HS 17 21 38 LS 22 22 44 Totals 39 43 82 In order to determine whether Ss' evaluation of their home discipline changed after exposure to Marine Corps training, the question on home discipline was repeated for all the interviews. Chi- square tests were done for Tables 27, 28 and 29, and the results showed that the groups did not differ significantly at the .05 level for any interview. Table 27 Severity of Ss' Home Discipline (Interview 2) Severity Group Easy Tough Totals HS 27 18 45 LS 30 15 45 Totals 37 33 9O 43 Table 28 Severity of Ss' Home Discipline (Interview 3) Severity Group Easy Tough Totals HS 26 15 41 LS 22 20 42 Total 48 35 83 x2 = 1 04, df = 1, p > 05 Table 29 Severity of Ss' Home Discipline (Interview 4) Severity Group Easy Tough Totals HS 28 15 43 LS 22 15 37 Totals 50 3O 80 44 Since "severe" is a global concept and may mean different things to different people, a related question was used by E to classify 55 according to the frequency with which their parents used physical 'types of punishment. The results are presented in Table 30. A X2 test was done, and the results showed no significant difference between groups at the .05 level. Table 30 Frequency With Which Ss' Parents Used Physical Punishment Physical Punishment Group Least Used Most Used Totals HS 17 21 38 LS 22 22 44 Totals 39 43 82 55 were asked three questions in order to determine whether the groups differed in their motivation to become Marines. The question, "How strong is your desire to become a Marine?" was asked on all four interviews. The data are presented in Table 31, 32, 33 and 34. A X2 test was done for each interview, and the results showed no significant difference between groups, at the .05 level, for any interview. 45 Table 31 Ss' Desire to Become A Marine (Interview 1) Desire Group Weak Strong Totals HS 8 39 47 LS 8 43 51 Totals 16 82 98 2 X = 03, df - l, p > 05 Table 32 Ss' Desire to Become A Marine (Interview 2) Desire Group Weak Strong Totals HS 1 48 49 L5 2 51 53 Totals 3 99 102 46 Table 33 Ss' Desire to Become A Marine (Interview 3) Desire Group Weak Strong Totals HS 0 51 51 LS l 53 54 Totals 1 104 105 x2 = 00, df = 1, p > 05 Table 34 Ss' Desire to Become A Marine (Interview 4) Desire Group Weak Strong Totals HS 2 47 49 LS 4 52 56 Totals 6 99 105 47 On interview one only, $5 were asked the question, "What kind of Marine do you intend to be?" Their responses to this question are shown in Table 35. A X2 test was done, and the groups did not differ significantly at the .05 level. The third question (a follow-up to the second) was asked only on interviews 2, 3 and 4; it asked 85, "At this stage of training, how good a Marine do you think you are?" The data is given in Tables 36, 37 and 38. These data were analyzed 2 by using the X test, and no significant difference between groups on any of these interviews were found. Table 35 The Kind of Marine Ss Intended to Become (Interview 1) Group Worst Best Totals HS 1 43 44 LS 3 46 49 Totals 4 89 93 -g ....................................................................... Table 36 Ss' Judgment on How Good They Are As Marines (Interview 2) How Good A Marine Are You? Group Worst Best Totals HS 6 35 41 L5 6 24 30 Totals 12 59 71 252222222222:le222222222222:22222222222:22:22:222:22:2222:2:ZZZ2:222: 48 Table 37 Ss' Judgment on How Good The Are As Marines (Interview 3 How Good A Marine Are You? Group Worst Best Totals HS 2 47 49 LS l 48 49 Totals 3 95 98 Table 38 Ss' Judgment on How Good They Are As Marines (Interview 4) How Good A Marine Are You? Group Worst Best Totals HS 0 49 49 LS 3 46 49 Totals 3 95 98 2 X = 1.38, df = 1; p > .05 49 The 55 were asked four questions on interviews 2, 3 and 4 which were designed to obtain a measure of the 015' toughness. One specifically asked the $5 to rate their 015 on toughness with recruits. The results for this question are presented in Tables 39, 40 and 41. These data were analyzed by means of the X2 test, and no significant difference was found between groups, at the .05 level, on any interview. Table 39 Ss Rating of 015' Toughness with Recruits (Interview 2) Group Easy Tough Totals HS 2 47 49 LS 7 4O 47 Totals 9 87 96 Table 40 55 Rating of DIs' Toughness with Recruits (Interview 3) 015' Toughness Group easy Tough Totals HS 0 49 49 LS 2 45 47 Totals 2 94 96 x2 = .02, df . 1; p > .05 50 Table 41 S5 Rating of 015' Toughness with Recruits (Interview 4) 015' Toughness Group Easy Tough Totals HS 2 ' 48 ' 50 L5 3 41 44 Totals 5 89 94 The second question, "How much do you like your DI?" was an indirect measure of severity. It was expected that severe 015 would not be as well liked as lenient 015. The results to this question are 2 presented in Tables 42, 43 and 44. A X test was done for each interview, and the results showed that the LS group differed significantly (p < .05) from the HS group on all three interviews, in that they expressed a greater liking for their DIs. Table 42 Ss' Liking of Their DIS (Interview 2) Liking of 015 Group Little Much Totals HS 12 3O 42 LS 2 48 50 Totals 14 78 92 x2 = 10.68, df =1; p < .01 50 Table 41 S5 Rating of 015' Toughness with Recruits (Interview 4) Group Easy Tough A Totals HS 2 ' 48 ‘ 50 LS 3 41 44 Totals 5 89 94 The second question, "How much do you like your 01?" was an indirect measure of severity. It was expected that severe 015 would not be as well liked as lenient 015. The results to this question are 2 presented in Tables 42, 43 and 44. A X test was done for each interview, and the results showed that the LS group differed significantly (p < .05) from the HS group on all three interviews, in that they expressed a greater liking for their 015. Table 42 Ss' Liking of Their 015 (Interview 2) Liking of 015 Group Little Much Totals HS 12 3O 42 LS 2 48 50 Totals 14 78 92 - -; ........................................................................ 51 Table 43 Ss' Liking of Their 015 (Interview 3) Liking of 015 Group _ Little Much Totals HS 11 31 42 L5 2 35 37 Totals 13 66 79 Table 44 Ss' Liking of Their 015 (Interview 4) Liking of 015 Group Little Much Totals HS 21 23 44 LS 9 30 39 Totals 30 53 83 52 The third question asked S5 to rate their DI with other 015 they had seen. The results are presented in Tables 45, 46 and 47. The x2 analyses showed that the groups did not differ significantly, at the .05 level, in that both rated their 015 as the worst. These results are somewhat puzzling in light of the findings on question two for the LS group. Table 45 Ss' Rating of Their 015 (Interview 2) DI Rating; Group Worst Best Totals HS 46 3 49 LS 54 2 56 Totals 100 5 105 x2 = 02, df - 1, p > 05 Table 46 Ss' Rating of Their 015 (Interview 3) DI Rating Group Worst Best Totals HS 48 3 51 L5 50 2 52 Totals 98 5 103 53 Table 47 Ss' Rating of Their 015 (Interview 4) 01 Rating, Group W0rst *Best Totals HS 46 2 48 LS 48 4 52 Totals 94 6 100 The fourth question asked the S5 to rate their platoon with other platoons. E expected, in view of the major hypothesis, that the HS group would rate their platoon significantly better than would the LS group. The results, obtained by X2 analyses, showed that, on interview two (Table 48), the HS group differed significantly (P < .05) from the LS group by rating their platoon the best. On interviews 3 and 4 (Tables 49 and 50), however, the groups did not differ significantly at the .05 level. Table 48 55' Rating of Their Platoon With Other Platoons (Interview 2) Platoon Rating Group Worst Best Totals HS 0 49 49 LS 17 28 45 Totals 17 77 94 X = 22.60, df = 1; p < .001 54 Table 49 Ss' Rating of Their Platoon With Other Platoons (Interview 3) Platoon Rating Group Worst Best Totals HS 1 50 51 LS 3 50 53 Totals 4 100 104 Table 50 Ss' Rating of Their Platoon With Other Platoons (Interview 4) Platoon Rating Group Worst Best Totals HS 0 50 50 LS 0 51 51 Totals 0 101 101 55 Seven questions were used to assess the amounts of freedom and isolation which were imposed on recruits in the HS and LS groups. In some respects, these questions can be interpreted to be measures of severity, since withdrawl of such privileges may be interpreted by 55 as punishment.6 For the purpose of this study, therefore, both lack of freedom and isolation are considered measures of severity. Three of the seven questions (amount of liberty permitted, meeting and talking with recruits from other platoons, and frequency with which 55 were permitted to write letters) were used primarily to assess the amount of isolation the two platoons experienced. On the question of liberty, Ss' responses are presented in Tables 51-53. The data were analyzed by means of the X2 test, and, as anticipated (footnote 6), the results showed no significant difference between the HS and LS groups (p > .05) on any of the three interviews. Table 51 Amount of Liberty Permitted 55 While in Bootcamp (Interview 2) ---—--------------.~—-------------------------—--------------------------- Permitted Liberty Group Seldom ’Frequent Totals HS 50 O 50 LS 55 O 55 Totals 105 O 105 -; ....................................................................... 6 S5, while in bootcamp, are not permitted to go on liberty (i.e., leaves, passes etc.) except in emergencies or to drink alcoholic beverages. Moreover, 55 are restricted greatly in their smoking, talking, writing, Post Exchange (PX) and movie privileges. Consequently, these questions also served as indicators of Ss' honesty in answering E's questionnaire. 56 Table 52 Amount of Liberty Permitted 85 While in Bootcamp (Interview 3) Permitted Liberty Group Seldom Frequent Totals HS 51 l 52 LS 52 2 54 Totals 103 3 106 Table 53 Amount of Liberty Permitted Ss While in Bootcamp (Interview 4) Permitted Liberty Group SéldOm Frequent Totals HS 49 l 50 L5 50 2 53 Totals 99 3 102 -; ........................................................................ 57 The frequency with which Ss were able to meet and talk with recruits from other platoons is presented in Tables 54-56. A X2 test was used to analyze the data, and the findings showed that the HS group differed significantly (p < .05) from the LS group (in that the HS group was more isolated in their contacts with other recruits) on interview two. On interviews three and four, however, no significant differences were found between groups at the .05 level. The frequency distributions for these two tables suggest the LS group became more isolated when these later interviews are compared with interview two. Table 54 Frequency That S5 Were Permitted to Meet And Talk With Recruits From Other Platoons (Interview 2) Permitted to Meet And Talk Group Seldom Frequent Totals HS 41 3 44 LS 37 12 49 Totals 78 15 93 x2 = 5.35, df = 1; p < .05 58 Table 55 Frequency That 55 Were Permitted to Meet And Talk With Recruits From Other Platoons (Interview 3) Permitted to Talk And Meet Group Seldom Frequent Totals HS 43 6 49 LS 43 6 49 Totals 86 12 98 Table 56 Frequency That Ss Were Permitted to Meet And Talk With Recruits From Other Platoons (Interview 4) Permitted to Talk And Meet Group Seld0m Frequent Totals HS 40 ll 51 LS 35 10 45 Totals 75 21 96 -; ....................................................................... 59 The frequency with which Ss were permitted to write are presented in Tables 57-59. The data were analyzed by means of the X2 test, and the results showed that the HS group differed significantly (p < .05) from the LS group, on all three interviews, in that they were not permitted to write as frequently as the LS group. This finding suggests the HS group was more isolated from home contact and had severer restrictions regarding letter writing. Table 57 Frequency That Ss Were Permitted To Write Letters (Interview 2) Permitted To Write Letters Group Seldom Frequent Totals HS 16 25 41 LS 7 35 42 Totals 23 6O 83 x2 = 5.18, df = 1; p < .05 Table 58 Frequency That Ss Were Permitted To Write Letters (Interview 3) Permitted To Write Letters Group Selfibm Frequent Totals HS 21 17 38 LS 4 38 42 Totals 25 55 80 x2 = 19.43, df = 1; p < .001 60 Table 59 Frequency That Ss Were Permitted To Write Letters (Interview 4) Permitted To Write Letters Group Seldom Frequent Totals HS 16 22 38 L5 9 37 46 Totals 25 59 84 -; ...................................................................... The other four questions focused on smoking, drinking and going to the Post Exchange (PX) and the movies. The frequency with which 55 were permitted to smoke is presented in Tables 60-62. The data 2 were analyzed by means of the X test, and the results showed that the HS group differed significantly from the LS group at the .05 level, .on all three interviews, in that they were not permitted to smoke as frequently as the LS group. ‘ Table 60 Frequency That 55 Were Permitted To Smoke (Interview 2) Permitted To Smoke Group Seldom Frequent Totals HS 46 3 49 L5 23 12 35 - Totals 69 15 84 -g ....................................................................... X = 11.04, df = 1; p < .001 61 Table 61 Frequency That 55 Were Permitted To Smoke (Interview 3) Permitted To Smoke Group Seldom Frequent Totals HS 49 2 51 L5 8 31 39 Totals 57 33 90 x2 = 54.34, df = 1; p < .001 1 Table 62 Frequency That 55 Were Permitted To Smoke (Interview 4) Permitted To Smoke Group Seldom Frequent Totals HS 34 6 4O LS 17 22 39 Totals 51 28 79 x2 = 14.80, df = 1; p < .001 62 For PX privileges, the frequency distributions are presented in 2 Tables 63-65. The data were analyzed by means of a X test, and the results showed no significant differences between groups, at the .05 level, for any interview, since both groups were quite restricted from going to the PX. Table 63 Frequency That Ss Were Permitted To Go To The PX (Interview 2) Permitted To Go To The PX Group Seldom Frequent Totals HS 31 8 39 LS 23 15 38 Totals 54 23 77 x2 = 3.30, df = 1; p > .05 Table 64 Frequency That 55 Were Permitted To Go To The PX (Interview 3) Permitted To Go To The PX Group Seldfim Frequent Totals HS 30 6 36 LS 3O 8 38 Totals 60 14 74 x2 = .23, df = 1; p > .05 63 Table 65 Frequency That Ss Were Permitted To Go To The PX (Interview 4) _Permitted To Go To The PX Group seldom Frequent Totals HS 25 10 35 L5 32 6 38 Totals 57 16 73 The frequency with which 55 reported being able to attend movies is presented in Tables 66-68. The X2 test was used to analyze the data, and the results showed that there were no significant differences between groups (p > .05) on any interview for movie attendance, in that both groups were quite restricted. Table 66 Frequency That 55 Were Permitted To Attend The Movies (Interview 2) Permitted To Attend Movies Group Seldom Frequent Totals HS 53 O 53 LS 51 2 53 Totals 104 2 106 -g ...................................................................... 64 Table 67 Frequency That 55 Were Permitted To Attend The Movies (Interview 3) Permitted To Attend Movies Group Seldom Frequent Totals HS 53 O 53 LS 45 3 48 Totals 98 3 101 x2 = 1 59, df = 1, p > 05 Table 68 Frequency That 55 Were Permitted To Attend The Movies (Interview 4) Permitted To Attend Movies Group Se1d0m Frequent Totals HS 51 l 52 LS 46 3 49 Totals 97 4 101 2 65 The frequency with which 55 were permitted to drink alcoholic beverages is reported in Tables 69-71. The data were analyzed by 2 means of the X test, and the results, as expected showed no significant difference between groups, at the .05 level for any of the three interviews. Table 69 Frequency That 55 Were Permitted To Drink Alcoholic Beverages (Interview 2) Permitted To Drink Alcoholic Beverages Group ‘ Seldom Frequent Totals , HS 52 l 53 LS 54 0 54 Totals 106 1 107 -; ...................................................................... Table 70 Frequency That 55 Were Permitted To Drink Alcoholic Beverages (Interview 3) Permitted To Drink Alcoholic Beverages Group Seldom Frequent Totals HS 52 1 53 LS 55 O 55 Totals 107 l 108 66 Table 71 Frequency That 55 Were Permitted To Drink Alcoholic Beverages (Interview 4) Permitted To Drink Alcoholic Beverpges Group Selaom Frequent Totals HS 50 O 50 LS 52 3 55 Totals 102 3 105 LEI:I:I:I:22:22:22222222222222:22222222222:2222222222222:2222222222222: As previously mentioned, "severity" is a global concept, and several questions were used on interviews 2, 3 and 4 to obtain a measure of its many facets. Regarding bootcamp severity, Ss were asked questions about toughness of its punishment, frequency of punishment (including whether they, personally, had been recently punished), comparison of bootcamp punishment with their home punishment, whether they thought they could complete bootcamp training, how bootcamp training had affected them, how much they liked bootcamp, how happy would they be to go through bootcamp again, and, whether bootcamp was fulfilling its purpose. Tables 72-74 contain the frequency distributions of Ss' ratings on bootcamp punishment. The data were analyzed by means of the X2 test, and the results showed that the groups differed significantly (p < .05) only on Table 73 (Interview 3) in that the HS group rated bootcamp punishment as being tougher. 67 Table 72 Ss' Rating Of Bootcamp Punishment (Interview 2) Bootcamp Punishment Group E§5y Tough Totals HS 2 45 47 LS 8 33 41 Totals 10 78 88 C; ...................................................................... Table 73 Ss' Rating Of Bootcamp Punishment (Interview 3) Bootcamp Punishment Group Easy 7T0ugh Totals HS 2 44 46 LS 10 35 45 Totals 12 79 91 68 Table 74 Ss' Rating Of Bootcamp Punishment (Interview 4) Bootcamp Punishment Group Easy Tough Totals HS 3 43 46 LS 5 35 40 Totals 8 78 86 -2 ...................................................................... Tables 75-77 present the 55' responses on the frequency with which they were punished. The data were analyzed by means of the X2 test, and the results showed no significant difference, at the .05 level, between groups for any of the interviews. Table 75 Frequency With Which Ss Were Punished (Interview 2) Frequency Of Punishment Group Se1d0m Frequent Totals HS 17 23 40 L5 21 18 39 Totals 38 41 79 -g ...................................................................... 69 Table 76 Frequency With Which 55 Were Punished (Interview 3) Frequency Of Punishment Group Seldom Frequent Totals HS 15 26 41 LS 17 25 42 Totals 32 51 83 Table 77 Frequency With Which 55 Were Punished (Interview 4) Frequency Of Punishment Group Seldom *Frequent Totals HS 19 21 4O LS 19 23 42 Totals 38 44 82 x2 = .04, df = 1; p > .05 70 The frequency distributions on whether 55 had been punished recently are presented in Tables 78-80. The X2 test was used to analyze the data, and the results showed no significant difference between groups at the .05 level for any of the interviews. Table 78 Recency Of Ss' Punishment (Interview 2) Recently Punished Group Yes No No Response Totals HS 30 22 l 53 LS 22 3O 4 56 Totals 52 52 5 109 x2 = 4.18, df = 2; p > .05 Table 79 Recency Of Ss' Punishment (Interview 3) Recently Punished Group Yes No No Response Totals HS . 23 26 4 53 LS 23 29 4 56 Totals 46 55 8 109 x2 = 1.22, df = 2; p > .05 71 Table 80 Recency Of 55' Punishment (Interview 4) Recently Punished Group Yes No No Response Totals HS 25 25 3 53 LS 16 35 5 56 Totals 41 6O 8 109 X = 4.06, df = 2; p > .05 A comparison of Ss' home punishment with bootcamp punishment is presented in Tables 81-83. The data were analyzed by means of the X2 test, and the results showed no significant difference (p > .05) between groups, for any of the interviews, on this question. Table 81 Ss' Comaprison Of Bootcamp Discipline With Home Discipline (Interview 2) Bootcamp Discipline Group Easier Tougher Totals HS 4 41 45 L5 3 45 48 Totals 7 86 93 -; ....................................................................... = .00, df = 1; p > .05 72 Table 82 Ss’ Comparison Of Bootcamp Discipline With Home Discipline (Interview 3) Bootcamp Discipline Group Easier Tougher Totals HS 5 I 37 42 LS 2 43 45 Totals 7 80 87 -g ...................................................................... Table 83 Ss‘ Comparison Of Bootcamp Discipline With Home Discipline (Interview 4) Bootcamp Discipline Group Easier Tougher Totals HS 4 36 4O LS 3 41 44 Totals 7 77 84 x2= .02, df=l; p> .05 73 The frequency distributions on whether 55 thought they could complete bootcamp training are presented in Tables 84-86. The data were analyzed by means of the X2 test, and the results showed no significant difference between groups, at the .05 level, for any of the interviews. Table 84 Ss' Opinion As To Whether They Could Complete Bootcamp Training (Interview 2) Opinion Group Yes No No Response Totals HS 50 2 1 53 LS 53 O 3 56 Totals 103 2 4 109 x2 = 3.01, df = 2; p > .05 Table 85 Ss' Opinion As To Whether They Could Complete Bootcamp Training (Interview 3) Opinion Group Yes No No Response Totals HS 51 0 2 53 L5 54 O 2 56 Totals 105 O 4 109 x2 = 1.34, df = 2; p > .05 74 . Table 86 Ss' Opinion As To Whether They Could Complete Bootcamp Training (Interview 4) Opinion - Group Yes No No Response Totals HS 47 2 4 53 L5 51 O 5 56 Totals 98 2 9 109 X =2.19, df=2; p> .05 Responses to the questions regarding the effects of bootcamp on $5, pertaining to aggressiveness, strength, happiness, honesty, superiority, intelligence, religion, and confidence were also analyzed (Tables 87- 110). Tables 87-89 contain Ss' responses to a question which asked whether bootcamp had made them more or less aggressive. That data were analyzed with the X2 test, and the results showed that the two groups did not differ significantly (p > .05) on any of the interviews, in their aggressiveness. Table 87 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Aggressiveness (Interview 2) Aggressiveness Group Less More Totals HS 4 37 41 LS 6 43 49 Totals 10 80 9O 75 Table 88 Bootcamp's Effect 0n Ss' Aggressiveness (Interview 3) Aggressiveness Group Less More Totals HS 2 44 46 LS 2 50 52 Totals 4 94 98 x2 = 15, df = 1, p > 05 Table 89 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Aggressiveness (Interview 4) Aggressiveness Group Less More Totals HS 2 43 45 LS 4 44 48 Totals 6 87 93 76 Ss' responses as to whether bootcamp had made them physically stronger or weaker are presented in Tables 90-92. The X2 test was performed for each table, and the results showed that the groups did not differ significantly, at the .05 level, over the three interviews. Table 90 Bootcamp's Effect On 55' Ph sical Strength (Interview 2 Strength Group Weaker Stronger Totals HS 1 49 50 LS l 50 51 Totals 2 99 101 x2 = 49, df = 1, p > 05 Table 91 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Physical Strength (Interview 3) Strength Group Weaker Stronger Totals HS 1 51 52 LS l 54 55 Totals 2 105 107 77 Table 92 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Physical Strength (Interview 4) Strength Group Weaker Stronger Totals HS 1 50 51 LS 3 50 53 Totals 4 100 104 Tables 93-95 contain the frequency distributions of Ss' responses to the question asking whether bootcamp had made them more happy or more sad. The X2 test was performed for each table, and the results showed that the groups did not differ significantly (p > .05), on this question, for any of the interviews. Table 93 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Happiness (Interview 2) Happiness Group Less More Totals HS 17 26 43 LS ll 21 32 Totals ' 28 47 75 78 Table 94 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Happiness (Interview 3) Happiness Group Less More Totals HS 10 29 39 LS 9 3O 39 Totals 19 59 78 2 _ X - O7, df = l, p > 05 Table 95 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Happiness (Interview 4) Happiness Group Less More Totals HS 13 29 42 LS 8 31 39 Totals 21 6O 81 79 Ss' responses to the question asking if bootcamp had made them more honest or less honest are presented in Tables 96-98. The X2 test was calculated for each table, and the results showed no significant difference (p > .05) between groups on any of the interviews. Table 96 Bootcamp's Effect On 55' Honesty (Interview 2) Honesty Group Less More Totals HS 3 39 42 LS 8 36 44 Totals 11 75 86 x2 = 2.35, df = 1; p > 05 Table 97 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Honesty (Interview 3) Honesty Group Less More Totals HS 0 46 46 LS 3 4O 43 Totals 3 86 89 x2 = 1.53, df = 1; p > .05 80 Table 98 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Honesty (Interview 4) Honesty Group Less More Totals HS 3 41 44 LS 2 43 45 Totals 5 84 89 55 were asked if bootcamp made them feel superior or inferior and their responses are presented in Tables 99-101. The data were analyzed 2 by means of the X test, and the findings showed that the groups did not differ significantly at the .05 level on any interview. Table 99 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Superiority (Interview 2) Supgriority Group Less More Totals HS 2 35 37 L5 2 36 38 Totals 4 71 75 X = .24,df=l;p>.05 81 Table 100 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Superiority (Interview 3) Superiority Group Less re Totals HS 1 37 38 L5 3 42 45 Totals 4 79 83 x2 = 1.47, df = 1; p > .05 Table 101 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Superiority (Interview 4) Superiority Group Less More Totals HS 1 43 44 LS 5 41 46 Totals 6 84 90 x2 =1.47,df - 1; p > .05 82 When asked whether they became more intelligent or less intelligent, as a result of bootcamp, Ss responded as shown in Tables 102-104. The data were analyzed by means of the X2 test, and the results showed that there was no significant difference, at the .05 level, between groups on any interview. Table 102 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Intelligence (Interview 2) Intelligence Group Less More Totals HS 2 42 44 LS 2 44 46 Totals 4 86 90 Table 103 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Intelligence (Interview 3) Intelligence Group Less More Totals HS 2 41 43 L5 5 42 47 Totals 7 83 90 x2 83 Table 104 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Intelligence (Interview 4) Intelligence Group Less More Totals HS 5 36 41 LS l 41 42 Totals 6 77 83 x2 = 1.70, df = 1; p > .05 Ss' responses to a question which asked whether bootcamp had made them less or more religious are presented in Tables 105-107. The data were analyzed by using the X2 test, and the results showed that the groups did not differ significantly, at the .05 level, on interview one; however, the HS group differed significantly (p < .05) from the LS group on interviews three and four (Tables 106 and 107) in that they became more religious. Table 105 Bootcamp’s Effect On Ss' Religiousness (Interview 2) Religiousness Group Less More Totals HS 2 41 43 LS 2 31 33 Totals 4 72 76 84 Table 106 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Religiousness (Interview 3) Religiousness Group Less More Totals HS 1 45 46 L5 8 3O 38 Totals 9 75 84 x2 = 5 19, df = 1, p < 05 Table 107 Bootcamp's Effect 0n Ss' Religiousness (Interview 4) Religiousness Group Less More Totals HS 0 49 49 LS 12 26 38 Totals 12 75 87 2 X =17.95, df =1; p < .001 85 A question was also asked to determine whether Ss' confidence had been affected by bootcamp training. Ss' responses to this question are presented in Tables 108-110. The data for each table were 2 analyzed by means of the X test, and the results showed that the groups did not differ significantly at the .05 level on any of the interviews. Table 108 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Confidence (Interview 2) Confidence ' Group Less More Totals HS 5 38 43 LS 2 45 47 Totals 7 83 90 x2 = 83, df - 1, p > 05 Table 109 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Confidence (Interview 3) Confidence Group Less More Totals HS 2 42 44 LS O 50 50 Totals 2 92 94 86 Table 110 Bootcamp's Effect On Ss' Confidence (Interview 4) Confidence Group Less More Totals HS 1 47 48 LS 4 46 50 Totals 5 93 98 S5 were also asked how much they liked bootcamp. It was expected that the HS group would like bootcamp more than the LS group if the major hypothesis was correct. Ss' responses are presented in Tables 111-113. The data were analyzed by means of the X2 test, and the results showed that the two groups did not differ significantly at the .05 level on interviews 2 and 4. There was a significant difference (p < .05), however, on interview 3 in that the HS group showed a greater; liking for bootcamp; this suggests some support for the major hypothesis. Table 111 Ss' Liking Of Bootcamp (Interview 2) Liked Group Little Much Totals HS 25 15 4O LS 31 ll 42 Totals 56 26 82 87 Table 112 Ss' Liking Of Bootcamp (Interview 3) Liked Group Little Much Totals HS 22 22 44 L5 33 10 43 Totals 55 32 87 x2 = 6 69, df = 1, p < 01 Table 113 Ss' Liking Of Bootcamp (Interview 4) Liked Group Little Much Totals HS 23 21 44 LS 27 16 43 Totals 50 37 87 X2- 98,df=1,p> 05 88 A related question, to the one above, asked 55 how happy they would be if they had to go through bootcamp again. The frequency distributions (Tables 114-116) show Ss' responses on the three interviews to the question. The X2 test was calculated for each table, and the results showed that the groups did not differ significantly, at the .05 level, on any interview. Table 114 Ss' Happiness To Undergo Bootcamp Training Again (Interview 2) Happiness Group Sad Happy Totals HS 43 4 47 L5 42 3 45 Totals 85 7 92 2 X = 00, df = 1, p > 05 Table 115 Ss' Happiness To Undergo Bootcamp Training Again (Interview 3) Happiness Group Sad Happy Totals HS 45 2 47 LS 41 4 45 Totals 86 6 92 2 89 Table 116 55' Happiness To Undergo Bootcamp Training Again (Interview 4) Happiness Group Sad Happy Totals HS 46 4 50 LS 46 5 51 Totals 92 9 101 A question was also asked to determine whether 55 thought bootcamp was fulfilling its purpose. Tables 117-119 present the frequency distributions of the $5 on this question. The data were analyzed by means of the X2 test, for each interview, and the results show that no significant difference at the .05 level was found between groups. Table 117 Ss' Opinion As To Whether Bootcamp Was Fulfilling Its Purpose (Interview 2) Opinion Group Yes No Don't Know Totals HS 50 2 l 53 LS 52 4 O 56 Totals 102 6 l 109 x2 = 1.63, df = 2; p > .05 90 Table 118 Ss' Opinion As To Whether Bootcamp Was Fulfilling Its Purpose (Interview 3) Opinion Group Yes No No Response Totals HS 48 4 l 53 LS 53 3 0 56 Totals 101 7 1 109 x2 = 1.31, df = 2; p > .05 Table 119 Ss' Opinion As To Whether Bootcamp Was Fulfilling Its Purpose (Interview 4) Opinion Group Yes N6” Don't Know No Response Totals HS 47 3 1 2 53 LS 52 2 O 2 56 Totals 99 5 1 4 109 = 1.37, df = 3; p > .05 91 The following seven questions (dealing with Ss' anxiety, joining the Marine Corps, joining another military service, making the Marine Corps a career, encouraging a brother or close relative to join the Marine Corps, happiness, and liking for the Marine Corps) were used primarily by E to determine Ss' liking for the organization as stated in the major hypothesis. Since "liking" is also a global concept, E attempted to obtain as many measures of it as practical. The results of Ss' responses to these questions are discussed and presented in Tables 120-144. One's anxiety level was considered to be directly related to the amount of severity and/or stress to which he is subjected. Therefore, E attempted to determine Ss' anxiety level prior and during their military socialization. This was done by asking $5 a question about their anxiety on all four interviews. Ss' responses to this question are presented in Tables 120-123. The data were analyzed by means of the X2 test, and the results showed that there was no significant difference- (p > .05) between groups in their anxiety on any of the interviews. However, a comparison of Ss' anxiety levels when plotted longitudinally . (Figure 1) shows that $5 in the HS group became more anxious during bootcamp training (i.e., on interviews 2, 3, and 4) even though S5 in the LS group had a higher anxiety level at the beginning of training (i.e., on interview 1). PERCENT HAVING HIGH ANXIETY &MJ .0. was ac; nun no. and 3.. MI Imcwm ‘ 0mzmm>r >zx.m._.< Pm 05 Table 121 Ss' Present Anxiet Level (Interview 2 Anxiety_ Group High Low Totals HS 8 34 42 LS 3 42 45 Totals 11 76 87 x2 = 3.02, df = 1; p > 05 94 Table 122 55' Present Anxiety Level (Interview 3) Anxiety Group High Low Totals HS 4 41 45 LS o ' 48 48 Totals 4 89 93 x2 = 2 56, df - 1, p > 05 Table 123 Ss' Present Anxiety Level (Interview 4) Anxiety , Group High Low Totals HS 8 42 50 LS 3 48 51 Totals 11 90 101 95 Ss' responses to the question, "if you had to do it over, how likely is it that you would join the Marines," were tabulated and are presented in Tables 124-126. The data were analyzed by means of the 2 X test, and the results showed that the groups did not differ significantly at the .05 level for any of the interviews. Table 124 Probability of Ss Joining The Marines If They Had To Do It Over (Interview 2) Probability Group Unlikely Likely Totals HS 19 25 44 LS 18 28 46 Totals 37 53 90 x2 - 15, df - 1, p > 05 Table 125 Probability of Ss Joining The Marine? If They Had To Do It Over Interview 3 Probability Group Unlikely Likely Totals HS 20 23 43 LS 28 17 45 Totals 48 4O 88 x2 = 2.19, df = 1; p > .05 96 Table 126 Probability Of Ss Joining The Marines If They Had To Do It Over (Interview 4) Probability Group Unlikely Likely Totals HS 20 23 43 LS 28 17 45 Totals 48 4O 88 The percentages of $5 in the HS and LS groups who indicated their willingness to enlist in the Marines again, if given a second opportunity (see Tables 124-126), were plotted longitudinally (Figure 2). The results show a greater percentage of HS 55 would join the Marine Corps again by the completion of bootcamp training even though 35 in the LS group had expressed a greater willingness to do so on interview 2. PERCENT LIKELY TO JOIN AGAIN 75" 70, 65‘ 97 FIGURE 2 PROBABILITY OF JOINING THE MARINES IF THEY HAD TO DO IT OVER Ch 60 '1 “‘£3‘ 55 d W \ 50- \~ ' N \ \ 45 -' ‘ ‘5 ‘5 4o - ‘0 35 -1 3O ‘ 25 -I 261 is - 10 4 5 d O F r I TIME 98 A related question attempted to determine whether 55 wished they had joined another military service. The responses to this question are presented in Tables 127-129. The data were analyzed by means of the X2 test, and the results showed that the groups did not differ significantly (p > .05) on any of the interviews. Table 127 55 Who Wished They Had Joined Another Military Service (Interview 2) --------------‘-------------------------------------------------------- Wished Another Service Group Yes ‘No Don't Know No Response Totals HS 13 38 1 1 43 LS 6 46 1 3 56 Totals 19 84 2 4 109 -g ....................................................................... Table 128 55 Who Wished They Had Joined Another Military Service (Interview 3) Wished Another SerVice Group T'Yes No Don't Know No Response Totals HS 6 41 2 4 53 L5 5 47 l 3 56 Totals 11 88 3 7 109 -; ....................................................................... 99 Table 129 85 Who Wished They Had Joined Another Military Service (Interview 4) Wished Another Service Group 'Yes No Don't Know No Response Totals HS 5 45 O 3 53 LS 5 44 l 6 56 Totals 10 89 l 9 109 x2 = 4.06, df = 3; p > .05 Ss' responses as to whether they intended to make the Marines a career were tabulated and are presented in Tables 130-132. The data 2 were analyzed by means of the X test, and the results showed no significant difference (p > .05) between groups on any interview. Table 130 Ss' Intention Of Making The Marine Corps Their Career (Interview 2) Career'Intention Group ‘Ye§ 7N0 Don't Know No Response Totals HS 13 27 8 5 53 L5 12 34 9 1 56 Totals 25 61 17 6 109 100 Table 131 Ss' Intention Of Making The Marine Corps Their Career (Interview 3) Career Intention Group *Yes TNo Don't Know No Response Totals HS 14 22 12 5 53 L5 12 23 12 4 56 Totals 26 45 24 9 109 Table 132 Ss' Intention Of Making The Marine Corps Their Career (Interview 4) Career Intention Group TYes ‘No Don't Know No Response Totals HS 11 27 12 3 53 LS 10 29 10 7 56 Totals 21 56 22 10 109 x2 = 1.82, df = 3; p > .05 101 When asked whether they would encourage their brother or close relative to join the Marine Corps, Ss responded as shown in Tables 133-136. The data were analyzed by means of the X2 test, and the results showed that the LS group differed significantly (p < .05) from the HS group on interview one, in that they would more encourage a brother or relative to join the Marine Corps. However, on the last three interviews there was no significant difference between groups at the .05 level. Table 133 S5 Who Would Encourage A Brother Or Relative To Join The Marines (Interview 1) Encourage Brother or Relative Group Encourage *Discourage Totals HS 14 21 35 LS 30 9 39 Totals 44 30 74 x2 = 10.43, df = 1; p < 05 Table 134 55 Who Would Encourage A Brother Or Relative To Join The Marines (Interview 2) Encourage Brother or Relative Group Encourage ’Discourage Totals HS 14 22 36 LS 14 27 41 Totals 28 49 77 .---------------------------------------------------------------------- 102 Table 135 S5 Who Would Encourage A Brother Or Relative To Join The Marines (Interview 3) __Encourpge Brother or Relative Group Encourage Discourage Totals HS l6 18 34 L5 13 23 36 ..... Totals 29 41 7O -; ........................................................................ Table 136 85 Who Would Encourage A Brother Or Relative To Join The Marines (Interview 4) Encourage Brother or Relative Group Encourage Discourage Totals HS 15 22 37 LS 17 24 41 Totals 32 46 78 103 The data in Table 133-136, when plotted longitudinally (Figure 3), show considerable fluctuation between the two groups. On interview 1, a greater percentage of S5 in the LS group indicated a willingness to encourage a brother or close relative to join the Marine Corps. However, on interviews 2 and 3, a greater number of $5 in the HS group expressed such a willingness. At the completion of bootcamp (interview 4), both groups were almost equal; however, slightly more 55 in the LS group indicated a willingness to encourage a brother or close relative to join the Marine Corps. A question was asked to determine Ss' happiness, both prior and subsequent to their enlistment, since it was felt by E that one's mental attitude (i.e., happiness or sadness) would be reflected in the answers he gave on his questionnaire. In addition, E considered "happiness" also to be an indicator of "liking." Consequently, 55 were asked to rate their degree of happiness five times--twice on interview one (once to assess prior happiness and once to assess S's present happiness), and once on each of the three subsequent interviews. The frequency distributions showing Ss' response to this question are presented in Tables 137-141. The data for each of these interviews were analyzed by means of the X2 test, and the results showed no significant difference between groups, for happiness, at the .05 level, on any interview. It was of interest to note, however, that both groups appeared to have become more happy by interview four (Table 141) than they were before their enlistment (Table 137). PERCENT WHO WOULD ENCOURAGE A BROTHER OR RELATIVE TO JOIN THE MARINE CORPS 2... 3.4 Q“ 17;... -3 No: 0?; 00... $1 ‘01 or Emcmm w mcwngAm €10 <mm > macazmm Ow OrOmm wmr>jw_zm OOmum 104 105 Table 137 Ss' Happiness Prior To Enlistment (Interview 1) Prior Happiness Group Sadi Happy Totals HS 10 31 41 LS 8 43 51 Totals 18 74 92 Table 138 Ss' Present Happiness (Interview 1) Present Happiness Group Sad Happy Totals HS 21 16 37 LS 24 19 43 Totals. 45 35 80 x2 = 1.15, df = 1; p > .05 106 Table 139 Ss' Present Happiness (Interview 2) Present Happiness Group Sad Happy Totals HS 13 24 37 L5 8 26 34 Totals 21 50 71 x2 = 1.15, df = 1; p > .05 . Table 140 55' Present Happiness (Interview 3) Present Happiness Group Sadi Happy Totals HS 10 27 37 LS ll 28 39 Totals 21 55 76 x2= .01, df-1; p> .05 107 Table 141 Ss' Present Happiness (Interview 4) Present Happiness Group Sad Happy Totals HS 7 42 49 L5 4 46 50 Totals 11 88 99 -g ...................................................................... X = .99, df = 1; p > .05 Responses to the question which specifically asked S5 to rate how much they liked being Marines are presented in Tables 142-144. The data 2 for each interview were analyzed by means of the X test, and the results showed that the two groups did not differ significantly (p > .05), on any of the interviews, in that both groups indicated they liked being Marines very much. Table 142 55' Liking Being Marines (Interview 2) Likin Group Litile *MuCHF Totals HS 0 47 47 LS l 50 51 Totals 1 97 98 x2 = .00, df . 1; p > .05 108 . Table 143 55' Liking Being Marines (Interview 3) Likin Group Little Much Totals HS 0 48 48 LS 2 50 52 Totals 2 98 100 x2 =_.43. df = 1; p > .05 Table 144 55' Liking Being Marines (Interview 4) Liking Group Little Mich Totals HS 4 41 45 LS 4 45 49 Totals 8 86 94 = .06, df = 1; p > .05 109 Semantic Differential Analyses Tables 145, 150, 155, 160, 165, 170, 175, 180, 185, 190, 195, 200, 205, 210, and 215 in Appendix A show the means of the HS and LS groups for each of the seven concepts on the 15 scales over time (i.e., on the four interviews) compared with the means of the 015. As mentioned previously, the 015 were the role incumbents and Semantic Differential (SD) data were obtained on their first and only interview. The SD data from the HS and LS groups, on the other hand, were obtained over time. Their data are compared on each of the four interviews with the 015' data from interview one in order to detect changes, if any, in their evaluation of the seven concepts with time. In this study, the main concern was the difference among groups on the concepts over time.7 Therefore, in order to assess the longitudinal effects of severity on the HS and LS groups, the SD findings were further analyzed by using loadings z_.49 for any of the fifteen scales on the five following factors: Righteousness, Evaluative, Mood, Toughness, and Permissiveness (see Table 1). Moreover, since E considered only three of the seven concepts-- myself, Marine, and Marine Corps--to be the important indicators for determining the effects of severity on organizational liking, the mean scores for the appr0priate clusters on Tables 145-215 and above-names concepts, for each of the five factors, were summed for the HS 7 The computer program used to compute these repeated measures of analysis of variance was BL-877, which also included individual comparisons by means of Duncan's (1955) Multiple Range Test. Also, the n for each of the scales varied from the total N because several 55 (Including 015) left some scale(s) or page(s) of their 50 blank on some or all the interviews. Therefore, in order to have meaningful analyses with equal numbered groups and to eliminate the possibility of E's biases in selecting Ss, E had an independent party select 55 on the basis of the Table of Random Numbers. SUM OF MEAN SCORES Rabat ”Fae .. ~92... wruo .. 3.60 4 ”Pace no.2; .090: .900: 3501 mac—am A anxqmocmzmmm «>03: no; «2m oozomuq .._s0403 mow 41m nozomvd ..Z>m_zm: 4.3m 111 SUM OF MEAN SCORES 06.00 .. 9500 .. ”5.3 I ”0.60 L ”0.00 1 ”0.60 ._ ”900 L n..u0 1 Incmm 0 3.0:...m0cmzmmm I‘M—.0: m0: 4.1m 0020mm: ..£>m.zm OOmvm: 2.00 4.3m 112 113 and LS groups and plotted over time on graphs (see Figures 4-18). The results are presented below. On "Righteousness," only the scales, strong-weak, worthless-valuable, sincere-insincere, and immoral-moral show high loadings (3_.49). Consequently, the means (see Tables 185, 190, 195, and 200, Appendix A) for each of the two groups on these scales were summed and plotted f0r all f0ur interviews (11, 12, I3, and I4). Figures 4-6 show that the HS group was considerably lower than the LS group at the beginning of the socialization process but, by interview four, the HS group rated all three concepts higher on “righteousness." On the "Evaluative" factor, the mean scores for the scales, which showed high loadings, controlled-free, like-dislike, good-bad, fair- unfair, and coward-hero (Tables 145, 150, 155, 170, and 175, Appendix A), were summed and plotted for the three concepts over time (Figures 7-9). In Figures 7 and 8, the LS group was higher in their ratings of "myself" and "Marine" on the first interview. By the conclusion of bootcamp training, however, and after considerable fluctuation by both groups, the LS group had a slightly higher rating for these concepts than did the HS group (See Figures 7-8). On the other hand, on the concept, "Marine Corps", the HS and LS groups were about equal in their ratings at interview one, with the HS group slightly higher. Both groups increased their scores by interview two, but the HS group had a greater increase which remained higher throughout the training (see Figure9). Therefore, on the Evaluative factor, the HS group had a greater liking for the organization (“Marine Corps") which tends to support the hypothesis even though they had lower ratings on the concepts "myself" and "Marine." SUM OF MEAN SCORES 06.00 .. 00.00 i nu.00 1 ”‘00 .. N900 .. ”who Inc—am N m<>rc>drc>i040w .uOm 41m 002052.. 23>2zm: 00.00 .. 00.001 MHIIII 1 \ II 3.3 - \ Ill 00.00 .. 0u.u0.+ 00.00 . 0b.u0 .. 00.00 1 0000.; 00.00 4 .1 .22—m 115 SUM OF MEAN SCORES Incwm 0 m<>rc>._._0._.0_a $.03 ._._..m 00:05:. :§>m_zm now—um: 00.00 L 00.00 L 00.00 L 0 0.00 .. W“..."‘F’F"’, 00.00 L 00.00 .. 00.00 .. 00.00 L 00.00 .. 8.8 1 P4 8.3 . . . _. 1 4.3m 116 117 On the "Mood" factor, the mean scores for the scales, excitable- calm, pleasant-painful, sad-happy, and relaxed-tense (Tables 165, 205, 210, 215, see Appendix A), having high loadings were summed and plotted longitudinally on graphs (Figures 10-12). All three graphs show that on interview one, the HS group was lower in their ratings for all three concepts than the LS group. However, by interview four, the HS group was higher on "Mood" for all three concepts and this finding tends to support the hypothesis being tested. The LS group, 'on the other hand, tended to fluctuate from interview to interview. On the "Toughness" factor, only the mean score from the scale, tough-easy, had a sufficiently high loading to be plotted (Figures 13-15). For all three concepts, the LS group had a higher score on toughness at the outset of the study (interview one) than the HS group. However, by the conclusion of bootcamp, the HS group had rated the three concepts higher on toughness. If the recruits viewed toughness as a desired goal, then this finding also tends to support the hypothesis being tested. 0n the "Permissiveness” factor, the mean scores for the scales, "controlled-free" and ”kind-cruel" (Tables 145, and 180, Appendix A), were summed and plotted over time (Figures 16-18). At interview one, the HS group rated the concept, "myself," as being less permissive than the LS group. Moreover, they rated the concepts "Marine" and "Marine Corps" more permissive (i.e., higher) than the LS group (see Figures 17-18). Both groups, however, showed considerable fluctuation from interview to interview, but the LS group, by the conclusion of training SUM OF MEAN SCORES 00.00 1 00.00 1 3:3- .000 1 .0001 .0001 .0001 .000 1 .0004 .000 I .000 4 .006 .4 .000 1 Incwm .0 :03 «>30: .6: 42m 8233 ..:m_zm: ..._z.m 119 SUM OF MEAN SCORES Emcmm .0 2000 m>0403 m0: 4.1m 002020... ..§>a.zm 00:00: .000. .000... .000.L 120 .000L .000... .0001 .000... .0004 3.8 . w . . . SUM OF MEAN SCORES 0.001 0.00.. 0.00... 0.00.. 0.00.. Emcwm .0 accozzmmm «>03: .6: 41m 3233 ..z_w.zm: 0.00 4.3m 122 SUM OF MEAN SCORES 0.00.. 0.00.. 0.00.. 000.. Emcwm .0 HOCDIzmmm 390403 m0... 41m 00202.4 ..§>n.zm 000.00: 0.00 ._..z.m 123' 124 rated the concepts "Marine" and "myself" more permissive than the HS group (see Figures 16-17). In addition, the HS group rated "Marine Corps" more permissive on interview four (i.e., at the completion of training, see Figure 18). This finding also supports the hypothesis being tested since the HS group perceived the Marine Corps as being more free and more kind. Conversely, since the HS group perceived the concepts "myself" and "Marine" as being more cruel and controlled (i.e., less permissive), this finding cannot be interpreted as supporting the hypothesis, although the goal of Marine Corps socialization is to instill a degree of confonnity and discipline in their recruits. However, the important variable is how the groups perceived the organization, Marine Corps. SUM OF MEAN SCORES 000.4 0.00 L 0.00 L 000 .. 0.00 .. 0.00 1 0.00 .. 0.00 1 _u_0cmm .0 .ummzzmmzmzmmm 0.50.003 m0: 41m OOZOmv... ..§0403 m0.» ......m 002020... :2.>m.2m: 4.3m 126 SUM OF MEAN SCORES 0.00.. 0.00.. 000. 0.00.. 0.00.. 000.. Imcmm .0 vmw’immzmzmmm $50003 m0.» 41m 0020MB. ..:>w.zm 00000: 0.00 4.3m 127 128 Discussion The experimental (HS) and control (LS) groups were compared on several variables (e.g., age, race, religion, intelligence, marital status, church attendance, occupation, schooling completed, amount of freedom permitted at home, parental severity, frequency of drinking, dating,and smoking, happiness, anxiety, and motivation) on interview 1 in order to determine whether they differ significantly (p < .05) at the outset of the study. If differences were found at the outset of the study, differences found on subsequent interviews might be attributable to these original differences rather than to the effects of severity. The results of these comparisons showed that the LS group differed significantly from the HS group in that the former had more: 1) freedom at home (Table 21), 2) S5 who drank frequently (Table 23), and 3) S5 who would encourage a brother or close relative to join the Marine Corps (Table 133). Variable 1 and 2 seem to be related. That is, the men who have had more freedom, probably drank more than the men who did not have as much freedom. It was decided to ignore the finding that the LS group had more freedom than the HS group at this point and consider the two groups equivalent at the outset of the study. Actually, the fact that the LS group was accustomed to more freedom would tend to make them regard the restrictive atmosphere of bootcamp as more severe. Consequently, there would be less difference between groups in perceived severity of bootcamp training and less likihood of difference between groups in liking for the Marine Corps. 129 The reason(s) why 55 in the LS group were more willing to encourage a brother or close relative to join the Marine Corps is not so easily explained. At first, E though that perhaps the LS group had a greater motivation for becoming Marines, but the results contained in Tables 124-132, and 142-144, show that the HS and LS groups did not differ significantly in their motivation. It was further considered that, since the LS group had had more freedom, perhaps the LS Ss' were more optimistic in their outlook than the HS S5, and this feeling was projected by their favorable ratings. That is, they viewed their future life as Marines to be worthwhile and were willing to have their relatives share in it. However, when the groups were compared on optimism (e.g., happiness [Tables 137-141]), no significant differences were found and therefore, the optimistic thesis was rejected. Consequently, a more tenable explanation was considered--chance fluctuation. Since the finding occurred only on interview one, and was at the .05 level, it was felt that this difference might well have been speculative and does not really answer the question. The $5 in the HS group, on the other hand, remained consistently negative in their ratings of this variable on all four interviews by indicating that they would not encourage a brother or close relative to join the Marine Corps. An interesting, as well as significant, finding occurred in the area of religiousity. Tables 10-12 show that the HS group differed significantly from the LS group in that the $5 in the former group 130 attended church more frequently and, in addition, became more religious (Tables 106-107). The reason(s) for such findings are not clear.. Greater church attendance could possibly be explained by saying that perhaps the Marine Corps requires recruits to attend church. If this were the case, however, no significant difference would be found between groups because both groups would be required to attend church. Moreover, it is doubtful that “forced" attendance would increase one's religiousness. In view of these arguments, it appears that these findings may have been due to the particularly high severity experienced by the HS group. Because of the high severity, the HS group was possibly under more stress and experienced more fear. Consequently, the Ss in the HS group may have attempted to resolve their plight by appealing to God for assistance, as men have done in the past when faced with uncertainty. Additional studies are needed to investigate the effects of severity on one's religiousity. however, in order to determine the validity of this interpretation. Another significant finding showed that the LS group expressed greater liking for the 015 than the HS group (Tables 42-44). If one considers 015 to be symbolic of the Marine Corps, this finding is contrary to the hypothesis tested, since Aronson (1959) contended, "the higher the severity, the greater the liking." Perhaps the level or degree of Pseverity" is the important factor for increasing liking. Use of ob5cene words, as in Aronson's (1959) study, is one level 0f severity; extreme physical and psychological stress is another. In any event, additional research is needed to determine whether level of severity is a factor. 131 To further test the validity of Aronson's (1959) hypothesis, E used Osgood's gt_gl_(1957) SD. In Table 220, a summary of all the SD analyses (see Appendix A for supplementary SD analyses) showing the effects of severity on liking is presented. Although the pattern appears to be indicative or randomness, the LS group on interviews 1, 2, and 3, rated some concepts significantly more positive (favorable) than the HS group. The L5 group also showed a greater liking for "DI" (a finding which was consistent with the x2 findings reported earlier in Tables 42-44). But the sudden shift on interview 4, which showed that the LS group did not differ significantly from the HS group's rating of "DI" requires further explanation. The HS and LS groups were compared on interview four to detect any additional differences. The results, as can be seen in Table 220, show that on scales 1 (controlled-free), 2 (like-dislike), 3 (good- bad), 4 (tough-easy), 6 (fair-unfair), 8 (kind-cruel), 9 (strong-weak), ll (sincere-insincere), 12 (immoral-moral), 13 (pleasant-painful), and 15 (relaxed-tense), the two groups did not significantly differ in their ratings. This finding indicates that Marine Corps socialization was quite effective for both HS and LS type training and would appear not to support Aronson's (1959) hypothesis, although one must keep in mind that the LS group also experienced severity. On only two scales, 7 (coward- hero) and 14 (sad-happy), did the findings support the hypothesis, in that the HS group significantly rated both more favorably on interview four. On the other hand, on two scales, 5 (excitable-calm) and 10 (worthless-valuable), the LS group had significantly more favorable ratings; a finding contrary to the stated hypothesis. 132 Table 220 HS and LS Groups Compared on SD Results-A Summary Interview Scale Concepts 1 2 3* 4 l l Controlled- 2 Free 3 4 5 6 7 2 Like-Dislike 1 LS like* LS like 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 Good-Bad 1 LS good 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 Tough-Easy 1 2 3 4 LS tough 5 6 LS tough 7 5 Excitable- 1 HS calm ' 2 3 4 HS calm 5 6 LS calm 7 * Indicates the group that rated the concept significantly on the positive side of the scale. 133 Table 220 (cont'd.) Interview p Scale Concepts 1 2 3 4 6 Fair-Unfair 1 LS fair LS fair 1 2 3 4 5 6 HS fair HS fair 7 7 Coward-Hero 1 LS hero LS hero LS hero HS hero 2 3 LS hero 4 LS hero 5 LS hero 6 HS hero 7 HS hero HS hero 8 Kind-Cruel 1 LS kind 2 LS kind 3 4 LS kind 5 6 LS kind 7 9 Strong-Weak 1 LS strong 2 LS strong 3 LS strong 4 5 6 HS strong 7 10 Worthless- 1 LS valuable Valuable 2 LS valuable 3 4 LS valuable 5 LS valuable 6 7 LS valuable LS valuable LS valuable 134 Table 220 (cont'd.) Interview Scale Concept 1 2 3 4 . ll Sincere- 1 Insincere 2 3 LS sincere 4 LS sincere 5 6 7 12 Immoral-Moral l 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 Pleasant- 1 LS pleasant LS pleasant LS pleasant Painful 2 LS pleasant LS pleasant 3 4 HS pleasant 5 6 HS pleasant 7 l4 Sad-Happy 1 LS happy LS happy 2 LS happy 3 LS happy 4 HS happy 5 6 HS happy 7 15 Relaxed-Tense \IO‘U‘I-wa—J 135 In Table 221, a summary of the SD findings is presented to show how the recruits differed from the 015 in their ratings of the concepts, by scales, in order to examine the effects of severity on 55' military socialization. That is, socialization would have been judged effective if the Ss' ratings were similar to the 015' ratings on interview 4. On scales 1 (controlled-free), 12 (immoral-moral), and 15 (relaxed-tense), no significant differences are shown for any concepts, on any interview, between the HS, LS and DI groups. Moreover, on interview 4, scales 4 (tough-easy), 9 (strong-weak), ll (sincere-insincere), and 13 (pleasant-painful), Table 221 also shows no significant differences between the three groups. On seven of the 15 scales, then, the HS and LS groups did not differ significantly from the DI group, in their ratings, upon completion of their training. Except for concept 7 (recruit), Table 221 shows a wide variation of ratings on the interviews and, because of this randomness, the ratings are difficult to interpret. The consistent favorable ratings of the HS and LS groups in comparison with the unfavorable rating by the DI group on "recruit" is understandable, and it was expected that $5 would rate themselves more favorably than the 015 would. The findings, as indicated by the individual comparisons in this study, for'both the questionnaires and the SD are generally inconclusive, in terms of supporting Aronson's (1959) hypothesis. This is all the more interesting in light of a recent study conducted by Earle (1972). In his study, Earle (1972) found that nonstressfully trained sheriff cadets were "superior in every respect" to the stressfully trained cadets (see page 12). The findings of the present study do not support Earle's 136 Table 221 HS and LS Groups Compared With The DI On SD Results-A Summary Interview Scale Concepts 1 if 3 4” 1 Controlled- 1 Free 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 Like-Dislike 1 LS* HS & LS HS & LS HS & LS 2 2 HS & LS HS & LS HS & LS 3 LS 4 5 LS 6 L5 7 HS 8 LS HS & LS HS & LS HS 3 LS 3 Good-Bad 1 HS & LS HS HS 2 LS 3 4 5 LS HS 6 HS 7 HS 8 LS HS & LS HS & LS HS & LS 4 Tough-Easy l 2 HS & LS HS 3 LS HS & LS 3 HS & LS HS 8 LS HS 4 HS 5 LS HS 8 LS HS 8 LS 6 7 HS 8 LS HS 3 LS HS & LS 5 Excitable- 1 HS & LS HS & LS LS HS 8 LS Calm 2 3 HS HS & LS HS 3 LS HS 8 LS 4 LS HS & LS LS LS 5 HS HS & LS HS 3 LS HS 6 L5 7 HS & LS HS & LS HS & LS * Indicates group(s) which significantly differed from the DI group 137 Table 221 (cont'd.) Interview Scale Concept 1 2 3 4 6 Fair-Unfair 1 HS HS HS HS & L5 2 HS & LS HS 3 HS & LS HS & LS HS & LS 4 HS 5 L5 6 LS LS LS 7 HS & LS HS & LS HS & LS 7 Coward-Hero 1 HS HS 2 HS & LS 3 HS HS 4 HS HS 8 LS HS 5 HS LS 6 7 HS & LS HS & LS HS & LS HS 8 LS 8 Kind-Cruel l 2 3 HS 4 LS LS HS & LS 5 6 7 HS & LS LS HS 8 LS HS & LS 9 Strong-Weak 1 HS 2 LS HS & LS 3 LS HS & LS HS & LS 4 HS 5 HS 8 L5 L5 6 7 HS & LS HS & LS HS & LS lO Worthless 1 HS Valuable 2 HS 8 LS LS 3 LS 4 HS HS HS 5 LS 6 LS HS & LS 7 HS 8 LS HS & LS HS & LS HS & LS 138 Table 221 (cont'd.) Interview Scale Concept 1 2 3 4 ll Sincere- 1 HS & LS HS LS Insincere 2 3 4 HS LS HS 5 6 7 HS HS HS & L5 12 Immoral-Moral l 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 Pleasant- 1 LS Painful 2 LS HS 3 HS HS HS & LS 4 5 LS 6 7 HS & LS LS HS 14 Sad-Happy 1 LS LS LS 2 LS LS LS L5 3 HS & LS LS LS HS 4 HS 5 HS 6 HS & LS LS HS 8 L5 7 LS HS & LS 15 Relaxed-Tense \IO’iU'IDwN-J 139 (1972) conclusion since both the HS and the LS groups were quite similar in their attitudes at the conclusion of their Marine Corps training. Aronson (1973), in a very recent article, explained the finding that severity increases one's liking for the group of his 1959 study within the framework of Festinger's (1957) cognitive-dissonance theory. In the Article, Aronson (1973) argues that individuals who join a group using severe initiation rites later like that group more than those who join a group without severe initiation, since they must justify going through hardship by feeling that the organization must be worth it. If the cognitive-dissonance theory were used to explain this study, Aronson (1973) would interpret Ss' liking for the Marines as an attempt to lessen their dissonance. That is, the $5 rationalize their bootcamp experience as being worth the effort by believing that the organization they have joined is something very special rather than feeling they have made a bad decision. Of course, the results of the individual comparisons are inconclusive and do not statistically support Aronson's (1959;1973) views. However, when the means of the SD scales were summed on the bases of factor loadings on three crucial concepts and longitudinally plotted (Figures 4-18), the results show a trend which seems to support Aronson's (1959) findings rather than Earle's (1972). More specifically, the HS group rated the concept "Marine Corps" higher (i.e., more positive) than the LS group on all five factors. That is, Righteousness (Figure 6), Evaluative (Figure 9), Mood (Figure 12), Toughness (Figure 15), and Permissiveness (Figure 18). This finding supported by the results shown in Figure 2 which indicates that a greater percentage of the Ss 140 in the HS group would, if given a second opportunity, join the Marine Corps again. Perhaps, as Aronson (1973) suggests, such findings could be explained in terms of the cognitive-dissonance theory. Inasmuch as Aronson (1959) was primarily interested in the effects of severity on liking for the group, corresponding changes should also occur in both the individual's perception of himself and of others who are members of the organization. Consequently, the data were analyzed to determine how the level of severity affected Ss' perception on the concepts "myself" and "Marine". On the factors: Righteousness (Figure 5-6), Mood (Figure 10-11), and Toughness (Figure 13-14), the HS group rated "myself" and "Marine" higher (i.e., more positive) than the LS group rated them by the completion of bootcamp. However, on the Evaluative (Figures 8-9) and Permissiveness (Figures 16-17) factors, the LS group rated "myself" and "Marine" higher than the HS group. The data also show that the LS group was slightly more willing than the HS group to encourage a brother or close relative to join the Marine Corps (see Figure 3). The latter finding does not lend support for the cognitive-dissonance explanation if one assumes that encouraging a brother or relative to join reflects positive feeling toward the organization, Marine Corps. Although not unexpected, it was found that the HS group had a higher anxiety level than the LS group by the completion of bootcamp even though the latter group had a higher anxiety level at the beginning of training (see Figure l). Apparently, high severe training methods tends to increase Ss' anxiety level. 141 A possible explanation for the statistical inconclusiveness of the findings in this study is that the HS and LS groups may not have been sufficiently different in the amounts of severity to which they were subjected. As discussed previously, the fact that the LS group had more freedom previous to bootcamp training may have made them perceive training as more severe and minimized possible differences between the groups. Furthermore, a shift may have occurred after the HS and LS groups were designated as such by E, and the discipline to which the LS group was subjected became more severe on subsequent interviews, particularly if the 015 began to suspect that severity of training was an important variable in this study. If this did occur, it would better explain the findings on interview four, which showed no significant difference between groups on eleven of the fifteen scales. Another possible explanation for the lack of statistical differences between groups is that the relationship of effects of severity and one's liking for the organization may actually be curvilinear rather than linear, and thereby suggests a modification of the hypothesis. That is, perhaps low and medium levels of severity may be more effective for instilling liking during a short training period.' High severity may not be most effective, especially when the training period is of long duration. Of course, it should be remembered that Aronson (1959) merely con- ducted a laboratory-type study whereas the present study investigated a real-life situation. Consequently, the present study should have greater validity since no attempt was to control or influence the real-life 142 setting. Therefore, differences in Aronson's (1959) findings from those of the present study should not be interpreted to mean that the laboratory-type study is more valid. The present study was "reality", whereas Aronson's (1959) was trying to approximate reality. It would appear that additional studies in real-life settings or laboratory- type studies which approximate the real—life setting should be conducted. In any event, it was of particular interest to note that the $5 in both the HS and LS groups perceived themselves to have improved in mental, moral, and physical development in the following eight areas: aggressiveness, honesty, intelligence, confidence, happiness, religiousity, superiority, and strength. Such a finding would seem to have implications for social scientists and, particularly, educators. It suggests that a sense of morality (as well as other subject matter) can be effectively taught in a highly disciplined setting. Whether such techniques are applicable or should be applied to classroom situations is not within the realm of this study and has political implications. However, this finding is worthy of additional research itself. 143 Conclusion‘ The findings of this study tended to show no statistical (p < .05) evidence in support of Aronson's (1959) hypothesis that severity increases one's liking for the organization. Moreover, the findings by Earle (1972) which indicated that non-stressfully trained sheriff cadets "were superior in every respect" to stressfully trained cadets were not supported by the findings in this study. When the SD results for all four interviews were plotted longitudinally on graphs, however, the HS group appears to have had a greater liking for the Marine Corps (as well as for the concepts Marine and myself), a finding which tends to support Aronson's (1959) hypothesis. Such a finding raises some interesting questions about Earle's (1972) findings which showed that non-authoritarian-type training methods were superior to authoritarian- type training methods. It is suggested, therefore, that the relationship between severity of initiation and liking (as well as job performance) for the organiz- ation be studied further in order to ascertain the validity of the findings in this and the previous studies. Moreover, the question as to whether the relationship of severity of initation and liking for the organization is linear or curvilinear as previously mentioned should also be studied. The development of higher self-concept and morality as a result of a rather severe training regimen should not be over- looked by these future studies. 144 Lastly, in spite of the fact that the major hypothesis was not statistically supported by the findings, it appears that severity of initiation increases one's liking for the organization. Moreover, some interesting and important areas of research have been suggested as a consequence of this study, especially in the area of severity and religiousity. LI ST OF REFERENCES 145 List Of References Allport, Floyd H. Social Psychology. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1924. Aronson, Elliot. The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. J. Abnor. and Soc. Psych., 59, 1959, pp. 177-181. Aronson, Elliot. Man the rationalizing animal. Psychology Today, May. 1973’ pp- 46'52. Baldwin, James M. The Individual and Society. Boston: Richard Badger, The Gorham Press, 1911. Benedict, Rtuh. Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1934. Brim, Orville G., Jr., and Stanton Wheeler. Socialization after Childhood. New York: John Wiley, 1966. Burgess, E. W. The Function of Socialization in Social Evolution. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1916. Child, Irving L. Socialization. In Gardner Lindzey (Ed) Handbook of Social P5 cholo . Reading: Addison-Wesley, vol 2, 1954. pp. 655-692. Clausen, John A. (Ed) Socialization and Society. Boston: Little, Brown, 8 Co., 1968. ' Coleman, James S. The Adolescent Society: The Social Life of the Teenager and its Impact on Education. *New York: The Free—Press, 1961. Cooley, Charles H. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner's, Rev. ed., 1922. Cottrell, L. S., Jr., and Ruth Gallager. Developments in social psychology. 1930-1940. Sociometry Monographs. No. 1, 1941. Dewey, John. Human Nature and Conduct. New York: Holt, 1922. Dollard, John. Culture, society, impulse, and socialization. 5g§_ 1939, 45. PP. 50-63. Duncan, 0. B. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics. 1955, 11. PP. 1-42. Dornbush, S. M. The military academy as an assimilating institution. Social Forces. 33, May 1955, pp. 316-321. 146 Earle, Howard. An investigation of authoritarian versus non-authoritarian training in the selection and’trainingrof‘law enffircement officers. (Doctoral di§5ertation, University of Southern California) Los Angeles, Calif: University Microfilms, 1972. No. 72-21. 677. Easton, David. An approach to the analysis of political systems. World Politics. 9, 1957. PP. 383-400. Etzioni, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: The Free Press, 1961. pp. 226-251. Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, Ill: Row, Peterson, 1957: Fruchter, Benjamin. Introduction to Factor Analysis. Princeton: ' Van Nostrand Co., 1954. - Giddings, F. P. The Theory of Socialization. New York: The Macmillian Co., 1897. Goffman, Erving. The characteristics of total institutions. S osium on Preventive and Social Ppychiatry. Washington, D.C., Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 1957. Goffman, Erving. Asylums. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1961. Goslin, David A. (Ed) Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969: Greenstein, Fred. The impact of personality on politics: an attempt to clear away underbrush. Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev., 61, September 1967, pp. 629-641. Greenstein, Fred. Children and Politics. New Haven: Yale Univ Press, 1965a. Greenstein, Fred. Personality and political socialization: the theories of authoritarian and democratic character. The Annals. 361. 1965b. pp. 81-95. Hall, G. Stanley. The contents of children's minds. W. Dennis (Ed) Readings in the History of Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century- Croffs, 1948. Janowitz, Morris. The Professional Soldier. New York: The Free Press, 960. Janowitz, Morris and Roger Little. Sociology and the Military Establish- ment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965 Rev. Kardiner, Abraham. The Individual and His Society. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1939. 147 Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, G Winston, 1964. pp. 564-580. Kluckhohn, Clyde. Theoretical bases for an emperical method of studying the acquisition of culture by individuals. Clyde Kuckhohn (Ed) Culture and Behavior. New York: The Free Press, 1962. Langton, Kenneth P. Political Socialization. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1969. Lindquist, E. F. Design and Analysis of Experiments in Psychology and Education. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1956. Lovell, John P. The professional socialization of the west point cadet. Morris Janowitz (Ed) The New Military: Changing Patterns of ‘ Organization. New York: RusSéll Sage Foundation, 1964, pp. 119-157. Lynd, Robert S. and Helen M. Lynd. Middletown: A Study in Contemporary American Culture. New York: HarEBOrt, Brace, 1929. Malinowski, Bronislaw. Sex and Repression in Savage Society. New York: Humanities Press, 1927. Manning, Peter K. Talking and becoming: A view of Organizational Socialization. Unpublished paper, presented to the Sociology Dept., Mich. State Univ., October, 1966. p. l. McDougal, William. An Introduction to Social Psychology. Boston: Luce, 1908. Mead, George H. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press, 1934. Mead, Margaret. Coming of Age in Somoa. New York: William Morrow & Co., 1928. Merton, Robert. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press, 1968 Rev. Miller, Neal E. and John Dollard. Social Learning_and Imitation. New Haven: Yale Univ Press, 1941. Mitchell, William C. The American Polity. New York: The Free Press, 1962. Mitchell, William C. Sociolo ical Analysis and Politics. New York: The Free Press, 1967. Murphy, Gardner, Murphy, Lois B. and Theodore Newcomb. Experimental Social Ps cholo : An Interppetation of Research on the Sbcialization of the Infilvlauai. New York: Harper, 1937 2nd Ed} 148 Osgood, Charles E., Suci, George J., and Percy H. Tannenbaum. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1957. Park, Robert E. Symbiosis and socialization: a frame of reference for the study of society. AJS, 1939, 45, pp. 1-25. Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. New York: The Free Press, 1951. Parsons, Talcott and Robert Bales. Family Socialization and Interaction Process. New York: The Free Press, 1965. Ross, E. A. Social Control. AJS, 1896, 1, pp 513-535. Ross, E. A. Social Psychology. New York: The Macmillian Co., 1908. Sapir, E.' The emergence of the concept of personality in a study of cultures. J. of Soc. Psych., 1934, 5, pp. 408-415. Sears, R. R. Functional abnormalities of membor with special reference to amnesia. Psychological Bulletin, 1936, 33. pp. 229-274. Simmel, Georg. The Problem of Sociology. The Annals. 1895, 6, pp. 412-423. Stouffer, Samuel A., Suchman, Edward A., Devinney, Leland C., Star, Shirley A., and Robin M. Williams, Jr. The American Soldier: Adjustment DuringyArmy Life. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, vol 1, 1949. - Stouffer, Samuel A., Lumsdaine, Arthur A., Lumsdaine, Marion H., Williams, Robin M., Jr., Smith, M. Brewster, Janis, Irving L., Star, Shirley A., and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. The American Soldier: Combat and its Aftermath. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, vol 2, 1949. Tannenbaum, Percy H. and Jack M. McLeod. On the measurement of social- ization. Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1967, 31, pp. 27-37. Thomas, W. I., and F. Znaniecki. The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. Boston: Richard C. Badger, 1918-1920. 4 vols. Wallace, Walter L. Institutional and life-cycle socialization of college freshmen. ASE, November, 1964, 70, pp. 303-318. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Yates, Frank. Contingency tables involving small numbers and the X2 test. Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 1934, 1, p. 217. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Supplementary Analyses of Semantic Differential Data 149 Supplementary Analysis of Semantic Differential Data Sixty separate Lindquist (1953, pp. 267-273) Type I analysis of variance were computed, four for each of the 15 bipolar adjective scales. However, only if the overall F value was significant are the individual differences reported since, according to Winer (1962, p. 208), individual differences computed, without overall significant F values, are question- able. Individual comparisons, moreover, were not made for significant differences among concepts, since these differences were not important for the purpose of this study. It was assumed by E that responses to concepts would be different. 150 In Table 145, the means of the three groups for the seven concepts over time on the scale, controlled-free, are presented Table 145 The Means Of The Three Groups On The Seven Concepts Over Time For The Scale Controlled-Free Concept Inter- Group DI Boot- Marine Myself Marine Most Recruit Group view camp Corps People Mean 1 HS 2.94 2.17 2.46 3.80 2.77 4.14 2.71 3.00 LSb 2.06 1.77 1.51 3.09 2.00 4.09 2.54 2.44 DI ' 2.31 2.20 2.46 2.91 2.43 3.91 2.23 2.64 Concept Mean 2.44 2.05 2.14 3.27 2.40 4.05 2.50 2 HS 2.69 2.03 2.03 2.63 1.80 4.40 2.26 2.55 LSb 2.51 1.54 1.89 2.14 1.74 4.60 2.57 2.43 DI 2.31 2 20 2.46 2.91 2.43 3.91 2.23 2.64 Concept Mean 2.50 1.92 2.12 2 56 1.99 4.60 2.35 3 HS 2.40 1.69 1.94 2.51 2.06 3.74 2.60 2.55 LSb 1.91 1.60 1.57 1.80 1.86 4.34 1.89 2.43 DI 2.31 2.20 2.46 2.91 2.43 3.91 2.23 2.64 Concept Mean 2.21 1.83 1.99 2.41 2.11 4.00 2.24 4 HS 2.49 1.66 2.03 2.06 1.86 4.20 2.29 2.37 LSb 2.14 1.94 2.00 2.37 2.31 4.37 2.60 2.54 DI 2.31 2.20 2 46 2.91 2 43 3.91 2.23 2.64 Concept Mean 2.31 1.93 2.16 2.45 2.20 4.16 2.37 n = 35 $5 per group b The means for DIs are identical over time for all concepts and scales since the 015 were tested once only and the results function as a standard against which the HS and LS means were compared. 151 The analysis of variance (Table 146) showed no significant difference among groups. The differences among the seven concepts were significant (F = 22.48, df = 6/612; p < .001). No individual comparisons were made, however, since it was not of interest whether there were significant dif- ferences between any two concepts. It was assumed that responses to con- cepts would be different. In this study, the main concern was the differ- ence among groups on the concepts over time. On the other hand, the inter- action term, concepts x groups, was not significant (F = 1.06, df = 12/612; p > .05). Table 146 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance 0n Interview One For Scale One, Controlled-Free Source df MS F Groups 2 19.98 2.64 Subjects 102 7.57 Concepts 6 53.78 22.48 *** Concepts x Groups 12 2.54 1.06 Error 612 2.39 Total 734 n = 35 Ss per group Table 147 shows the summary of analysis of variance for the scale, controlled-free, on the second interview. Only the F value for main effect concept was significant (F = 30.65, df = 6/612; p < .001). On interview three, Table 148, the only significant overall F value again was among concepts (F = 25.29, df = 6/612; p < .001). *** p < .001 152 Table 147 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Two For Scale Two, Controlled-Free Source df df MS F Groups 2 2.67 .41 Subjects 102 6.56 Concepts 6 70.10 30.65 *** Concepts x Groups 12 3.62 1.58 Error 612 2.29 Total 734 n = 35 $5 per group Table 148 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Three For Scale One, Controlled-Free Source df MS F Groups 2 15.27 2.15 Subjects 102 7.12 Concepts 6 55.97 25.29 *** Concepts x Groups 12 3.27 1.48 Error 612 2.21 Total 734 n = 35 55 per group *** p < .001 Table 149 presents the summary table of the analysis of variance for the scale,ccontrolled-free, for interview four. As on the previous three tables, the only significant overall F value was among concepts (F = 25.09, df = 6/612; p < .001). 153 Table 149 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Four For Scale One, Controlled-Free Source df MS F Groups 2 4.53 .52 Subjects 102 8.64 Concepts 6 58.44 25.09 *** Concepts x Groups 12 2.40 1.03 Error 612 2.32 Total 734 n = 35 $5 per group In Table 150, the means of the three groups for the seven concepts over time for the four interviews on the scale, like-dislike, are shown. The analysis of variance performed on the results of interview one for the scale, like-dislike, is reported in Table 151. It shows that no significant difference existed among groups (F = .20, df = 2/648; p > .05). There was a significant difference, however, among the seven concepts (F = 34.92, df = 6/648; p < .001). More importantly, the interaction term, concept x groups, was significant (F = 4.45, df = 12/648; p < .001). Individual comparisons were therefore made, and the results showed that the LS group differed significantly from the DI group (F = 4.74, df = 1/648; p < .05) on concept one (DI) by having rated it higher, on the liking side of the scale. On concept three (Marine Corps), the LS group again differed significantly from the DI group (F = 6.09, df = 1/648; p < .05) by rating "Marine Corps" higher, on the like side of the scale. *** p < .001 154 In Table 150, the means of the three groups for the seven concepts over time for the four interviews on the scale, like-dislike, are shown. Table 150 The Means Of The Three Groups On The Seven Concepts Over Time For The Scale Like-Dislike Concept Inter- Group DI Boot- Marine Myself Marine Mo$t Recruit Group View camp Corps People Mean 1 HS 3.87 3.68 5.11 5.32 5.22 4.41 4.51 4.59 LS 4.27 3.30 4.89 5.49 5.30 4.87 4.19 4.61 01 3.46 3.14 5.81 5.92 5.65 4.78 2.46 4.46 Concept Mean 3.87 3.37 5.27 5.58 5.39 4.69 3.72 2 HS 4.22 4.65 6.08 5.43 6.14 4.76 4.19 5.07 LS 5.78 4.97 6.49 6.03 6.46 4.22 4.27 5.46 01 3.46 3.14 5.81 5.92 5.65 4.78 2.46 4.46 Concept Mean 4.49 4.25 6.13 5.79 6.08 4.59 3.64 3 HS 4.68 4.35 6.30 5.78 6.22 4.70 4.46 5.21 LS 5.65 4.89 6.11 5.95 6.27 4.30 4.49 5.38 01 3.46 3.14 5.81 5.92 5.65 4.78 2.46 4.46 Concept Mean 4.60 4.13 6.07 5.88 6.05 4.60 3.80 4 HS 4.51 4.32 6.16 5.84 6.30 4.38 3.84 5.05 LS 4.84 4.11 5.89 5.73 5.84 3.97 3.76 4.88 01 3.46 3.14 5.81 5.92 5.65 4.78 2.46 4.46 Concept Mean 4.27 3.86 5.96 5.83 5.93 4.38 3.35 n = 37 $5 per group 155 Table 151 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview One For Scale Two, Like-Dislike Source df MS F Groups 2 1.76 .20 HS vs LS 1 .10 .01 HS vs DI l 2.10 .24 LS vs DI 1 3.09 .35 Subjects 108 8.77 Concepts 6 89.59 34.92 *** Concepts x Groups 12 11.42 4.45 *** HS vs LS C 1) 1 3.04 1.19 HS vs 01 C 1) 1 3.04 1.19 LS vs DI (C 1) 1 12.16 4.74 * HS vs LS (C 2) 1 2.65 1.03 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 5.41 2.11 LS vs DI (C 2) 1 .49 19 HS vs LS (C 3) 1 .87 .34 HS vs DI (C 3) 1 9.14 3.56 LS vs 01 (C 3) l 15.62 6.09 * HS vs LS (C 4) 1 .49 .19 HS vs DI (C 4) l 6.54 2.55 LS vs DI (C 4) 1 3.46 1.35 HS vs LS (C 5) 1 .12 .05 HS vs 01 (C 5) 1 3.46 1.35 LS vs DI (C 5) 1 2.28 89 HS vs LS (C 5) 1 3.91 1.52 HS vs 01 (C 6) 1 2.65 1.03 LS vs DI (C 6) 1 .12 05 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 1.95 .76 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 78.05 30.42 *** LS vs DI (C 7) 1 55.35 21 57 *** Error 648 2 57 n = 37 $5 per group * p < .05 *** p < .001 156 On concept seven (recruit), both the HS group (F = 30.42, df = 1/648; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 21.57, df = 1/648; p<.OOl) differed sig- nificantly from the DI group by having rated "recruit” higher, on the like side, on the scale. Table 152 presents a summary of the analysis of variance for the scale (like-dislike) on interview two. The results showed that there was a significant difference among groups (F = 9.40, df = 2/648; p<.OOl). The HS group differed significantly from the DI group (F = 6.81, df = 1/648; p<.05) in that the HS group showed a higher overall "liking" rating for the seven concepts. The LS group differed significantly from the DI group (F = 18.52, df = 1/648; p<.OOl) in that they too rated the seven concepts higher, overall, on the liking side of the scale. There was also a significant difference among the seven concepts (F = 45.76, df = 6/648; p<.OOl). In addition, the interaction term, con- cept x groups, was significant (F = 5.48, df = 12/648; p<.001) and, there- fore, individual comparisons were made. The results showed that the HS group differed significantly from both the DI group (F = 19.03, df = 1/648; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 4.43, df = 1/648; p<.05) on concept one (01) in that the HS group had a greater liking for "DI" than did the DI group but a lesser liking that the LS group. The LS group differed significantly from the DI group (F = 41.83, df = 1/648; p<.OOl) on this concept by showing a greater liking for "DI". On Concept two (bootcamp), the HS group differed significantly from the DI group (F = 17.74, df = 1/648; p<.OOl) in that they rated it higher on the liking side of the scale. On this concept, also, the LS group differed significantly from the 01 group (F = 26.15, df = 1/648; p<.OOl) by having rated "bootcamp" higher on the liking side of the scale. 157 Table 152 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Two For Scale Two, Like-Dislike Source df MS F Groups 2 65.72 9.40 *** HS vs L5 1 20.08 2.87 HS vs DI 1 47.59 6.81 * LS vs DI 1 129.50 18.52 *** Subjects 108 7.00 Concepts 6 109.34 45.76 *** Concepts x Groups 12 13.09 5.48 *** HS vs LS (C 1) 1 45.46 19.03 *** HS vs DI C l) 1 10.60 4.43 * LS vs 01 (C l) 1 99.95 41.83 *** HS vs LS (C 2) 1 1.95 .81 HS vs DI (C 2; l 42.38 17.74 *** LS vs 01 (C 2 1 69.49 26.15 *** HS vs LS (C 3) l 3.04 1.27 HS vs DI (C 3) 1 1.35 .57 LS vs DI (C 3) 1 8.45 3.53 HS vs LS (C 4) 1 6.54 2.74 HS vs DI (C 4) 1 4.38 1.83 LS vs DI (C 4) l .22 09 HS vs LS (C 5) l 1.95 .81 HS vs DI (C 5) 1 4.38 1.83 LS vs DI (C 5) l 12.16 5.09 * HS vs LS (C 6) 1 5.41 2.26 HS vs DI (C 6) l 1.35 .01 LS vs 01 (C 6) 1 5.96 2.49 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 .12 05 HS vs 01 (C 7) l 55 35 23 17 *** HS vs DI (C 7) 1 6O 66 25 39 *** Error 648 2 39 Total 776 n = 37 $5 per group 158 On concept five (Marine), the results showed that the LS group differed significantly from the DI group (F = 5.09, df = 1/648; p<.001) by having rated “Marine" higher on the liking side of the scale. In Table 153, a summary table of the analysis of variance for the scale, like-dislike, is presented for interview three. The results showed that the groups were significantly different (F = 8.33, df = 2/648; p<.OOl). The HS group (F = 9.84, df = 1/648; p<.01) and the LS group (F = 14.66, df = 1/648; p<.OOl) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated the seven concepts higher overall on the liking side of the scale. There was also a significant difference among the seven concepts (F = 41.52, df = 6/648; p<.OOl). An examination of the interaction term, concepts x groups, also showed significance (F = 4.84, df = 12/648; p<.OOl) and, con- sequently, individual comparisons were made. On concept one, all three groups differed significantly; the HS group from both the LS group (F = 7.09, df = 1/648; p<.Ol) and the 01 group (F = 11.07, df = 1/648; p<.01) by showing less liking for "DI" than the LS group but a greater liking than the DI group. Moreover, the LS group also differed significantly from the DI group on this concept (F = 35.87, df = 1/648; p<.001) by having rated "DI" higher on the like side of the scale. On concept two (bootcamp), both the HS group (F = 11.07, df = 1/648; p<.01) and the LS group (F = 23.10, df = 1/648; p<.OOl) differed signif- icantly from the DI group by having rated "bootcamp" higher on the liking side of the scale. 0n concept seven (recruit), both the HS group (F = 29.94, df = 1/648; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 30.75, df = 1/648; p<.001) differed signif- icantly from the DI group by having rated "recruit" higher on the liking 159 Table 153 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Three For Scale Two, Like-Dislike Source df MS F Groups 2 62.11 8.33 *** HS vs L5 1 3.57 .48 HS vs D1 1 73.41 9.84 ** LS vs 01 1 109.35 14.66 *** Subjects 108 7.46 Concepts 6 102.62 41.52 *** Concepts x Groups 12 11.96 4.84 *** HS vs LS (C 1) 1 17.51 7.09 ** HS vs DI (C 1) 1 27.37 11.07 ** LS vs DI (C 1) 1 88.66 35.87 *** HS vs LS (C 2) l 5.41 2.19 HS vs DI (C 2) l 27.37 11.07 ** LS vs DI (C 2) 1 57.10 23.10 *** HS vs LS (C 3) l .66 27 HS vs 01 (C 3) l 4.38 l 77 L5 vs DI (C 3) 1 1.64 66 HS vs LS C 4) 1 .49 20 HS vs 01 C 4) 1 .34 14 L5 vs 01 (C 4) 1 .01 01 HS vs LS (C 5) l .05 .02 HS vs DI (C 5) 1 5.96 2.41 LS vs DI (C 5) 1 7.15 2.89 HS vs LS (C 6) 1 3.04 1.23 HS vs DI (C 6) l .12 .05 L5 vs DI (C 6) 1 4.38 1.77 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 .01 01 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 74 OO 29 94 *** LS vs 01 (C 7) 1 76 Ol 30 75 *** Error ' 648 2 47 Total 776 n = 37 $5 per group ** p < .01 160 side of the scale. A summary of the analysis of variance for interview four on the scale, like-dislike, is presented in Table 154. The analysis showed that there were no overall significant differences among groups (F = 2.70, df 2/648; p>.05) even though the HS group did differ significantly (F 5.11, df = 1/648; p<.05) from the DI group in rating the concepts higher overall on the liking side of the scale. A significant difference did exist, however, among the seven concepts (F = 50.88, df = 6/648; p<.OOl). An examination 0f the interaction term, concepts x groups, showed significance (F = 2.84, df = 12/648; p<.001) and, therefore, in- dividual comparisons were made. On concept one, the HS group (F = 7.95, df = 1/648; p<.01) and the LS group (F = 13.59, df = 1/648; p<.001) both differed significantly from the DI group by rating "DI" higher on the like side of the scale. For concept two (bootcamp), again the data showed that the HS group (F = 10.12, df = 1/648; p<.01) and the LS group (F = 6.77, df = 1/648; p<.05) both differed significantly from the 01 group by rating "bootcamp" higher on the like side of the scale. On concept six (most people), the LS group differed significantly from the DI group (F = 4.70, df = 1/648; p<.05) by rating the concept higher on dislike. On concept seven (recruit), the HS group (F = 13.59, df = 1/648; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 12.04, df = 1/648; p<.001) both differed significantly from the DI group by rating "recruit" higher on the like side of the scale. Table 155 shows the means of the three groups for the seven concepts over time for the four interviews on the scale, good-bad. 161 Table 154 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Four For Scale Two, Like-Dislike SOUrce df MS F Groups 2 23.87 2.70 HS vs LS 1 3.91 .44 HS vs 01 1 45.19 5.11 * LS vs DI l 22.52 2.55 Subjects 108 8.84 Concepts 6 131.59 50.88 *** Concepts x Groups 12 7.35 2.84 *** HS vs LS (C l) l 1.95 .75 HS vs 01 (C 1) l 20.55 7.95 *** LS vs DI (C l) 1 35.15 . 13.59 *** HS vs LS (C 2) 1 .87 .33 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 26.16 10.12 ** LS vs DI (C 2) 1 17 51 6 77 * HS vs LS (C 3) 1 1.35 52 HS vs 01 C 3) 1 2.28 88 LS vs 01 C 3) 1 .12 05 HS vs LS (C 4) 1 .22 08 HS vs DI (C 4) l .12 05 LS vs DI (C 4) l .66 26 HS vs LS (C 5) l 3.91 1.51 HS vs DI (C 5) 1 7.78 3.01 LS vs DI (C 5) l .66 .26 HS vs LS (C 6; l 3.04 1.18 HS vs 01 (C 6 1 3.04 1.18 LS vs DI (C 6) l 12.16 4.70 * HS vs LS (C 7) 1 .12 .05 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 35 15 13.59 *** LS vs DI (C 7) 1 31 14 12.04 *** Error 648 2 59 Total 776 n = 37 $5 per group 162 In Table 156 a summary of the analysis of variance for interview one for scale three, good-bad, is presented. An examination of the table shows no significant difference among the groups (F = .30, df = 2/576; p>.05). There was a significant difference, however, among the seven concepts (F = 10.74, df = 6/576; p<.OOl). On the interaction term, con- cepts x groups, a significant difference was also present (F = 3.52, df = 12/576; p<.001) and individual comparisons were therefore made. On concept one, both the HS group (F = 10.73, df = 1/576; p<.Ol) and the LS group (F = 6.95, df = 1/576; p<.01) differed significantly from the 01 group by rating "DI" lower on the good side of the scale. The results for concept seven also showed that the HS group (F = 17.27, df = 1/576; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 15.33, df = 1/576; p<.001) both differed sifnificantly from the 01 group in that they rated "recruit" higher on the good side of the scale. The analysis of variance reported on in Table 157 for interview two, scale three, good-bad, shows that there was a significant difference among groups (F = 5.55, df = 2/576; p<.01). The results further showed that the LS group differed significantly from the 01 group (F = 10.98, df = 1/576; p<.OOl) in that the LS group rated the seven concepts higher overall on the good side of the scale. A significant difference also existed among the seven concepts (F = 25.84, df = 6/576; p<.OOl). Since the interaction term, concepts x groups, was also significant (F = 3.53, df = 12/576; p<.OOl), individual comparisons were made. Table 157 shows that the HS group differed significantly from both the LS group (F = 11.72, df = 1/576; p<.OOl) and the DI group (F = 7.41, df = 1/576; p<.Ol) on concept one because they rated "DI" lower on the good side of the scale. 163 Table 155 shows the means of the three groups for the seven concepts over time for the four interviews on the scale, good-bad. Table 155 The Means Of The Three Groups On The Seven Concepts Over Time For The Scale Good-Bad Concept Inter- Group DI Boot- Marine Myselfl Marine Most Recruit Group view camp Corps People Mean 1 HS 4.52 4.56 5.36 5.15 5.42 4.64 4.85 4.93 LS 4.76 4.91 5.27 5.58 5.55 4.70 4.76 5.07 DI 5.76 5.09 5.97 5.76 5.67 4.30 3.27 5.12 Concept Mean 5.01 4.86 5.54 5.50 5.55 4.55 4.29 2 HS 4.82 5.36 6.33 5.97 6.12 5.06 4.88 5.51 LS 6.00 5.73 6.52 6.03 6 55 4.39 5.21 5.78 DI 5.76 5.09 5.97 5.76 5 67 4.30 3 27 5.12 Concept Mean 5.53 5.39 6.27 5.92 6.11 4.59 4.46 3 HS 5.58 5.61 6.55 5.79 6.46 4.91 5.21 5.73 LS 6.12 5.85 6.12 5.97 6.24 4.36 5.30 5.71 01 5.76 5.09 5.97 5.76 5.67 4 30 3.27 5.12 Concept Mean 5.82 5.52 6.21 5.84 6.12 4.53 4.60 4 HS 4.82 5.21 6.42 6.18 6.33 4.27 4.67 5.42 LS 5.42 5.21 6.15 6.09 6.12 4.46 4.94 5.49 DI 5.76 5.09 5.97 5.76 5.67 4.30 3.27 5.12 Concept Mean 5.33 5.17 6.18 6.01 6.04 4.34 4.29 n = 33 $5 per group 164 Table 156 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview One For Scale Three, Good-Bad Source df MS F Groups 2 2 19 .30 HS vs LS 1 2.36 .32 HS vs 01 1 4.00 .55 LS vs 01 l .22 .03 Subjects 96 7.32 Concepts 6 25.48 10.74 *** Concepts x Groups 12 8.35 3.52 *** HS vs LS (C l) 1 .97 .41 HS vs 01 (C 1) 1 25.47 10.73 ** LS vs DI (C l) 1 16 50 6.95 ** HS vs LS (C 2) l 1.83 77 HS vs 01 (C 2) 1 .38 1 85 LS vs 01 (C 2) 1 .55 23 HS vs LS (C 3) l .14 .06 HS vs DI (C 3) 1 6.06 2.55 HS vs DI (C 3) 1 8.12 3.38 HS vs LS (C 4) 1 2.97 1.25 HS vs DI (C 4) l 6.06 2.55 LS vs DI (C 4) 1 .55 23 HS vs LS (C 5) l .24 10 HS vs DI (C 5) 1 .97 41 LS vs 01 (C 5) 1 .24 10 HS vs LS (C 6) l .06 03 HS vs DI (C 6) 1 1.83 77 L5 vs 01 (C 6) l 2.56 1 08 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 .14 06 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 4O 97 17 27 *** LS vs DI (C 7) 1 36 38 15 23 *** Error 576 2 37 Total 692 n = 33 $5 per group 165 Table 157 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Two For Scale Three, Good-Bad Source df MS F Groups 2 25.29 5.55 ** HS vs LS 1 8.32 1.83 HS vs DI 1 17.53 - . 3.85 LS vs 01 1 50.01 10.98 ** Subject 96 4.56 Concepts 6 50.80 25.84 *** Concepts x Groups 12 69.44 3.53 *** HS vs LS (C 1) 1 23.05 11.72 *** HS vs DI (C l) l 14.56 7.41 ** LS vs DI (C l) 1 .97 49 HS vs LS (C 2) l 2.18 l 11 HS vs DI (C 2) l 1.23 62 LS vs DI (C 2) l 6.68 3 40 HS vs LS (C 3) l .55 28 HS vs DI (C 3) 1 2.18 l 11 L5 vs DI (C 3) 1 4.91 2 50 HS vs LS (C 4) 1 .06 03 HS vs DI EC 4) 1 .74 38 LS vs DI C 4) 1 1.23 62 HS vs LS (C 5) l 2.97 1.51 HS vs DI (C 5) l 3.41 1.73 LS vs DI (C 5) l 12.74 6.48 * HS vs LS (C 6) l 7.33 3.73 HS vs DI (C 6) 1 9.47 4.82 * LS vs DI (C 6) 1 .14 .07 HS vs LS (C 7) l 1 83 93 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 42 56 21 65 *** LS vs 01 (C 7) 1 62 O6 » 31 57 *** Error 576 l 97 Total 692 n = 33 $5 per group 166 On concept five, the LS group differed significantly from the DI group (F = 6.48, df = 1/576; p<.05) by rating "Marine" higher on the good side of the scale. On concept seven, the HS group (F = 21.65, df = 1/576; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 31.57, df = 1/576; p<.001) both differed significantly from the DI group by rating "recruit" higher on the good side of the scale. In Table 158 the analysis of variance for interview three, scale three, good-bad, showed that the groups differed significantly (F = 6.29, df = 2/576; p<.01). Furthermore, the analysis showed that the HS group (F = 9.70, df = 1/576; p<.Ol) and the LS group (F = 9.16, df = 2/576; p%.Ol) differed significantly from the 01 group in that both rated the seven concepts higher on the good side of the scale. The results also showed that there was a significant difference among the seven concepts (F = 24.84, df = 6/576; p<.01). On the interaction term, concepts x groups, a significant difference was also shown (F = 3.10, df = 12/576; p<.001); therefore, individual comparisons were made. On concept two, the LS group differed significantly (F = 4.96, df = 1/576; p<.05) from the 01 group by rating "bootcamp" higher on the good side of the scale. On concept five, the HS group differed significantly (F = 5.36, df = 1/576; p<.05) from the DI group by rating the concept higher on the good side of the scale. For concept seven, both the HS group (F = 37.50, df = 1/576; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 35.62, df = 1/576; p<.001) differed significantly from the 01 group in that both rated "recruit" higher on the good side of the scale. 167 Table 158 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Three For Scale Three, Good-Bad Source df MS F Groups 2 27.90 6.29 ** HS vs LS 1 .04 .01 HS vs DI 1 43.03 9.70 ** LS vs DI l 40.63 9.16 ** Subjects 96 4.44 Concepts 6 47.42 24.84 *** Concepts x Groups 12 5.92 3.10 *** HS vs LS (C 1) 1 4.91 2.57 HS vs 01 (C 1) l .55 .29 L5 vs 01 (C l) 1 2 18 1 14 HS vs LS (C 2) 1 .97 .51 HS vs 01 (C 2) 1 4.38 2.29 LS vs DI (C 2) 1 9.47 4.96 * HS vs LS (C 3) l 2.97 1.56 HS vs DI (C 3) l 5.47 2.86 LS vs DI (C 3) l .38 .20 HS vs LS (C 4) 1 .55 29 HS vs DI (C 4) l .02 01 LS vs DI (C 4) 1 .74 39 HS vs LS (C 5) l .74 .39 HS vs 01 (C 5) 1 10.24 5.36 * LS vs 01 (C 5) l 5.47 2.86 HS vs LS (C 6) 1 4.91 2.57 HS vs 01 (C 6) l 6.06 3.17 LS vs DI (C 6) 1 .06 .03 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 .14 .07 HS vs DI (C 7) l 62.06 37.50 *** LS vs 01 (C 7) 1 68 02 35 62 *** Error 576 1 91 Total 692 n = 33 $5 per group 168 In Table 159 the summary of the analysis of variance on interview four, for scale three, good-bad, is presented. The main effect term, groups, showed no significant difference (F = 1.36, df = 2/576; p>.05). On the other hand, a significant difference was found among concepts (F = 27.92, df = 6/576; p < .001). On concept one, the HS group differed significantly (F = 6.54, df = 1/576; p<.05) from the DI group by rating "DI" lower on the good side of the scale. On concept seven, both the HS group (F = 14.40, df = 1/576; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 20.59, df = 1/576; p<.OOl) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "recruit" higher on the good side of the scale. In Table 160, the means of the three groups for the seven concepts overtime on the scale, tough—easy, are presented. In Table 161, the summary of the analysis of variance on interview one for scale four, tough-easy, is presented. It shows that there was a significant difference among groups (F = 6.47, df = 2/648; p<.01). The table further showed that the LS group differed significantly from both the HS group (F = 8.61, df = 1/648; p<.01) and the 01 group (F = 10.68, df = 1/648; p<.01) in that the LS group rated the seven concepts higher overall on the tough side of the scale. The table also showed a signif- icant difference among concepts (F = 37.74, df = 6/648; p<.OOl). For the interaction term, concepts x groups, there was also a significant differ- ence (F = 3.39, df = 12/648; p<.OOl) and individual comparisons were therefore made. On concept two, the HS group (F = 5.33, df = 1/648; p<.05) and the LS group (F = 15.78, df = 1/648; p<.OOl) differed significantly from the 169 Table 159 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Four For Scale Three, Good-Bad Source df MS F Groups 2 8.83 1.36 HS vs LS 1 .55 .09 HS vs D1 1 10.31 1.59 LS vs 01 l 15.64 2.42 Subjects 96 6.47 Concepts 6 62.14 27.93 *** Concepts x Groups 12 5.45 2.35 ** HS vs LS (C 1) l 6.06 2.72 HS vs DI (C l) l 14.56 6.54 * LS vs DI (C 1) 1 1.83 .82 HS vs LS (C 2) 1 .OO 00 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 .24 11 LS vs DI (C 2) l .24 11 HS vs LS (C 3) l 1.23 55 HS vs 01 (C 3) 1 3.41 l 53 LS vs DI (C 3) 1 .55 25 HS vs LS (C 4) 1 .14 06 HS vs 01 (C 4) l 2.97 l 35 LS vs DI (C 4) l 1.83 82 HS vs LS (C 5) 1 .74 33 HS vs 01 (C 5) 1 7.33 3 29 LS vs DI (C 5) 1 3.41 1 53 HS vs LS (C 6) 1 .55 25 HS vs DI (C 6) 1 .02 01 LS vs DI (C 6) l .38 17 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 1.23 .55 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 32.06 14.40 *** LS vs DI (C 7) l 45.83 20.59 *** Error 576 2.23 Total 692 n = 33 $5 per group 170 In Table 160, the means of the three groups for the seven concepts over time on the scale, tough-easy, are shown. Table 160 The Means Of The Three Groups On The Seven Concepts Over Time For The Scale Tough-Easy Concept Inter- Group DI Boot- Marine Myselfl Marine Most Recruit Group view camp Corps People Mean 1 HS 5.73 6.00 6.14 4.41 5.76 3.89 5.11 5.29 LS 6.11 6.49 6.46 5.62 6.24 4.51 5.16 5.80 DI 6.00 5.32 5.54 5.76 5.73 3.89 4.38 5.23 Concept Mean 5.95 5.94 6.05 5.26 5.91 4.10 4.88 2 HS 6.22 6.51 6.68 5.38 6.62 4.22 5.24 5.84 LS 5.78 6.22 6 35 5.55 6.62 3.97 5.27 5.68 DI 6.00 5.32 5 54 5.76 5.73 3.89 4.38 5.23 Concept Mean 6.00 6.02 6.19 5.56 6.32 4.03 5.96 3 HS 6.00 6.49 6.41 5.62 6.60 3.65 5.41 5.74 LS 6.32 6.43 5.95 5.81 6.57 4.22 5.32 5.80 01 6.00 5 32 5.54 5.76 5.73 3 89 4.38 5.32 Concept Mean 6.11 6.08 5.96 5.73 6.30 3.92 5.04 4 HS 6.49 6.46 6.41 5.87 6.19 4.00 4.78 5.74 LS 6.03 6.05 6.16 5.76 6.11 3.57 4 70 5.48 DI 6.00 5.32 5 54 5.76 5.73 3 89 4 38 5.23 Concept Mean 6.17 5.95 6.04 5.79 6.01 3.82 4.62 n = 37 $5 per group 171 Table 161 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance 0n Interview One For Scale Four, Tough-Easy Source df MS F Groups 2 25.26 6.47 ** HS vs LS l 33.64 8.61 ** HS vs 01 1 .43 .11 LS vs DI 1 41.72 10.68 ** Subjects 108 3.91 Concepts 6 59.76 37.74 *** Concepts x Groups 12 5.37 3.39 *** HS vs LS (C 1) 1 2 65 l 67 HS vs 01 (C 1) 1 1 35 85 L5 vs DI (C l) 1 .22 14 HS vs LS (C 2) l 4.38 2.76 HS vs 01 (C 2) 1 8.45 5.33 * LS vs DI (C 2) 1 24.99 15.78 *** HS vs LS (C 3) l 1.95 1.23 HS vs 01 (C 3) 1 6.54 4.13 * LS vs DI (C 3) l 15.62 9.86 ** HS vs LS (C 4) 1 27.37 17.28 *** HS vs 01 (C 4) 1 33.78 21.33 *** LS vs DI (C 4) 1 .33 21 HS vs LS (C 5) 1 4.38 2.76 HS vs 01 (C 5) l .01 .Ol LS vs 01 (C 5) l 4.88 3.08 HS vs LS (C 6) 1 7.15 4.51 * HS vs 01 (C 6) 1 .00 .OO LS vs DI (C 6) l 7.15 4.51 * HS vs LS 2C 7) 1 .05 .03 HS vs DI C 7) 1 9.85 6.22 * LS vs DI (C 7) 1 11.37 7.18 ** Error 648 1.58 Total n = 37 $5 per group 172 DI group in that both rated "bootcamp" higher on the tough side of the scale. On concept three (Marine Corps), the HS group (F = 4.13, df = 1/648; p<.05) and the LS group (F = 9.86, df = 1/648; p<.01) differed signifi- cantly from the 01 group in that both rated "Marine Corps" higher on the tough side of the scale. On concept four (myself), the HS group differed significantly from both the LS group (F = 17.28, df = 1/648; p < .001) and the 01 group (F = 21.33, df = 11648; p<.001) by having rated "myself" lower on the tough side of the scale. For concept six (most people), the LS group differed significantly from both the HS group (F = 4.51, df = 1/648; p<.05) and the DI group (F = 4.51, df = 1/648; p<.05) in that the LS group rated "most people" higher on the tough side of the scale. On concept seven, both the HS group (F = 6.22, df = 1/648; p<.05) and the LS group (F = 7.18, df = 1/648; p<.01) differed significantly from the DI group by having rated "recruit" higher on the tough side of the scale. Table 162 contains the summary of the analysis of variance on inter- view two for scale four, tough-easy. It shows that a significant differ- ence existed among groups (F = 8.18, df = 2/648; p<.OOl). Further exam- ination of the table also showed that both the HS group (F = 15.21, df = 1/648; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 8.30, df = 1/648; p<.01) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated the seven concepts higher overall on the tough side of the scale. There was, moreover, a significant difference among concepts (F = 40.91, df = 6/648; p<.001) as well as for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 2.23, df = 12/648; 173 Table 162 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Two For Scale Four, Tough-Easy Source df MS F Groups 2 25.60 8.18 *** HS vs LS l 3.25 1.04 HS vs 01 l 47.59 15.21 *** LS vs 01 l 25.98 8.30 ** Subjects 108 3.13 Concepts 6 75.57 40.91 *** Concepts x Groups 12 4.11 2.23 ** HS vs LS (C l) l 3.46 1.87 HS vs 01 (C l) 1 .87 .47 LS vs DI (C 1) l .87 47 HS vs LS (C 2) l 1.64 .89 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 26.16 14.16 *** LS vs 01 (C 2) 1 14.72 7.97 ** HS vs LS (C 3) 1 1.95 1.05 HS vs DI (C 3) l 23.84 12.91 *** LS vs DI (C 3) l 12 16 6 58 * HS vs LS (C 4) l .49 26 HS vs DI (C 4) 1 2.65 l 43 L3 vs 01 (C 4) l .87 47 HS vs LS (C 5) 1 .OO .00 HS vs 01 (C 5) 1 14.72 7.97 ** LS vs DI (C 5) 1 14.72 7.97 ** HS vs LS (C 6) l 1.10 59 HS vs DI (C 6) 1 1.95 1 05 L5 vs DI (C 6) 1 .12 07 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 .01 .01 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 13.84 7.49 ** LS vs 01 (C 7) l 14 72 7.97 ** Error 648 1 85 Total 776 n = 37 55 per group 174 p < .01). As a result of the latter, individual comparisons were made. On concept two, the HS group (F = 14.16, df = 1/648; p < .001) and the LS group (F = 7.97, df = 1/648; p < .01) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "bootcamp" higher on the tough side of the scale. On concept three, the HS group (F = 12.91, df = 1/648; p < .001) and the LS group (F = 6.58, df = 1/648; p < .05) differed significantly from the 01 group in that both rated "Marine Corps“ higher on the tough side of the scale. On concept five (Marine), the HS group (F = 7.97, df = 1/648; p < .01) and the LS group (F = 7.97, df = 1/648; p < .01) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "Marine" higher on the tough side of the scale. On concept seven, the HS group (F = 7.49, df = 1/648; p < .01) and the LS group (F = 7.97, df = 1/648; p < .01) again differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "bootcamp" higher on the tough side of the scale. In Table 163, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview three for the scale, tough-easy, is presented. An examination of the results showed that there was a significant difference among groups (F = 7.47, df = 2/648; p < .001). Individual comparisons showed that the HS group (F = 10.13, df = 1/648; p < .01) and the LS group (F = 12.93, df = 1/648; p < .001) differed significantly from the DI group since both rated the seven concepts higher overall on toughness. The Table also 6/648; showed a significant difference among concepts (F = 43.89, df p < .001) and for the interaction term, concepts x groups, (F 2.15, 175 df = 12/648; p<.05). Because of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. Table 163 shows that the HS group (F = 13.89, df = 1/648; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 12.63, df = 1/648; p<.OOl) significantly differed, on concept two, from the DI group in that both rated "bootcamp" higher on the tough side of the scale. On concept three, the HS group differed significantly (F = 7.69, df = 1/648; p<.01) from the 01 group because it had rated "Marine Corps" higher on the tough side of the scale. For concept five, the HS group (F = 7.69, df = 1/648; p<.Ol) and the LS group (F = 7.22, df = 1/648; p<.01) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "Marine" higher on the tough side of the scale. On concept seven, the HS group (F = 10.85, df = 1/648; p<.01) and the LS group (F = 9.20, df = 1/648; p<.Ol) both differed significantly from the DI Group by having rated "recruit" higher on the tough side of the scale. Table 164 shows the summary of analysis of variance on interview four for scale four, tough-easy. An inspection of the table showed that a significant difference existed among groups (F = 3.51, df = 2/648; p<.05); moreover, individual comparisons showed that the HS group differed signif- icantly from the DI group (F = 7.02, df = 1/648; p<.01) by having rated the seven concepts overall higher on the tough side of the scale. The ‘table also showed a significant difference among the concepts (F = 49.57, df = 6/648; p<.OOl); however, for the interaction term, concepts x groups, no significant difference was found (F = 1.05, df = 12/648; p>.05) and, therefore, individual comparisons were not made. 176 Table 163 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Three For Scale Four, Tough-Easy Source df MS F Groups 2 25.32 7.74 *** HS vs LS l .56 .17 HS vs 01 l 33.13 10.13 ** LS vs DI 1 42.29 12.93 *** Subjects 108 3.27 Concepts 6 78.97 43.89 *** Concepts x Groups 12 3.86 2.15 * HS vs LS (C 1) l 1 95 l 08 HS vs 01 (C 1) 1 .OO 00 LS vs DI (C 1) 1 1.95 1 08 HS vs LS (C 2) l .05 .03 HS vs DI (C 2) l 24.99 13.89 *** LS vs DI (C 2) 1 22.72 12.63 *** HS vs LS (C 3) 1 3.91 2.17 HS vs DI (C 3) l 13.84 7.69 ** LS vs DI (C 3) l 3.04 l 69 HS vs LS (C 4) l .66 37 HS vs DI (C 4) l .34 19 LS vs 01 (C 4) 1 .05 03 HS vs LS (C 5) l .01 .01 HS vs 01 (C 5) 1 13.84 7.69 ** LS vs DI (C 5) 1 12.99 7.22 ** HS vs LS (C 6) 1 5.96 3.31 HS vs 01 (C 6) 1 1.10 .61 LS vs DI (C 6) 1 1 95 1.08 HS vs LS (C 7) l .12 .07 HS vs 01 (C 7) l 19 51 10.85 ** LS vs 01 (C 7) 1 16 55 9.20 ** Error 648 1 80 Total 776 n = 37 $5 per group 177 Table 164 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Four For Scale Four, Tough-Easy Source df MS F Groups 2 16.82 3.51 * HS vs L5 1 8.67 1.81 HS vs DI 1 33.64 7.02 ** LS vs DI l 8.16 1.70 Subjects 108 4.79 Concepts 6 90.18 49.57 *** Concepts x Groups 12 1.92 1.05 Error 648 1.82 Total 776 n = 37 $5 per group In Table 165, the means of the three groups for the seven concepts over time on the scale, excitable-calm, are presented. In Table 166, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview one for scale five, excitable-calm, is presented. The analysis showed that there was no significant difference among groups (F = .73, df = 2/540; p > .05). There were, however, significant differences among the seven concepts (F = 9.29, df = 6/540; p < .001). The interaction term, concepts x groups, was also significant (F = 2.79, df = 12/540; p < .001) and, consequently, individual comparisons were made. On concept one, the HS group (F = 5.20, df = 1/540; p < .05) and the LS group (F = 4.15, df 1/540; p < .05) differed significantly from the DI grwnlp in that both had rated "DI" higher on the excitable side of the scale. 0n concept three, Table 166 shows that the HS group differed signif- icantly (F = 11.71, df = 1/540; p < .001) from the DI group by rating “Marine Corps" higher on the excitable side of the scale. 178 In Table 165, the means of the three groups for the seven concepts over time on the scale, excitable-calm, are shown. Table 165 The Means Of The Three Groups On The Seven Concepts Over Time For The Scale Excitable-Calm Concept Inter- Group ’DI Boot- Marine Myself Marine Most Recruit Group view camp Corps PeOple 1 HS 3.81 3.03 2.84 3.48 3.32 3.48 3.36 3.33 LS 3.90 2.58 3.52 3.39 3.55 3.45 2.97 3.34 DI 4.71 2.61 4.19 4.26 4.13 3.26 2.23 3.63 Concept Mean 4.14 2.74 3.52 3.71 3.67 3.40 2.85 2 HS 2.94 2.48 2.13 3.26 2.48 2.81 2.68 2.68 LS 3.29 2.03 2.45 2.77 2.16 3.77 2.58 2.72 DI 4.71 2.61 4.19 4.26 4 13 3.26 2.23 3.63 Concept Mean 3.65 2.38 2.92 3.43 2 93 3.28 2.50 3 HS 3.94 2.84 2.81 3.77 2.71 3.00 2.32 3.06 LS 2.81 2.10 2.16 2.42 2.58 3.71 2.07 2.55 DI 4.71 2.61 4.19 4.26 4.13 3.26 2.23 3.63 Concept Mean 3.82 2.52 3.05 3.48 3.14 3.32 2.20 4 HS 2.87 2.29 2.71 3.48 3.23 3.26 2.74 2.94 LS 2.94 2.77 2.68 3.16 3.32 4.16 2.94 3.14 01 4.71 2.61 4.19 4.26 4.13 3.26 2.23 3.63 Concept Mean 3.51 2.56 3.19 3.63 3.56 3.56 2.63 n = 31 $5 per group 179 Table 166 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview One For Scale Five, Excitable—Calm Source df MS F Groups 2 6.20 73 HS vs LS 1 .00 00 HS vs 01 l 9.44 1.11 LS vs DI 1 9.15 1.08 Subjects 90 8.47 Concepts 6 22.58 9.29 *** Concepts x Groups 12 6.79 2.79 *** HS vs LS (C l) l .15 .06 HS vs DI (C l) l 12.65 5.20 * LS vs DI (C 1) 1 10.08 4.15 * HS vs LS (C 2) 1 3.16 1.30 HS vs DI (C 2) l 2.73 1.12 LS vs DI (C 2) 1 .02 01 HS vs LS (C 3) l 7.11 2.93 HS vs DI (C 3) 1 28.45 11.71 *** LS vs DI (C 3) l 7.11 2.93 HS vs LS (C 4) l .15 06 HS vs DI (C 4) 1 9 29 3 82 LS vs DI (C 4) 1 11 76 4 84 * HS vs LS (C 5) 1 .79 33 HS vs DI (C 5) 1 10 08 4 15 * LS vs DI (C 5) 1 5.23 2 15 HS vs LS (C 6) l .02 01 HS vs 01 (C 6) 1 .79 33 LS vs DI (C 6) l .58 24 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 2.32 .96 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 19.76 8.13 ** LS vs DI (C 7) l 8.53 3 51 Error 540 2 43 Total 650 n = 31 $5 per group 180 On concept four, the LS group differed significantly (F = 4.84, df = 1/540; p<.05) by having rated "myself" higher on the excitable side of the scale. For concept five, the results of the analysis showed that the HS group differed significantly (F = 4.15, df = 1/540; p<.05) from the DI group in that it rated "Marine" higher on the excitable side of the scale. 0n concept seven, the HS group differed significantly (F = 8.13, df = 1/540; p<.01) from the DI group because it had rated "recruit" lower on the excitable side of the scale. 4 Table 167 presents a summary of the analysis of variance on interview two for scale five, excitable-calm. The results showed that there was a significant difference among groups (F = 9.81, df = 2/540; p<.01); both the HS group (F = 15.36, df = 1/540; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 14.04, df = 1/540; p<.001) differed from the DI group by having rated the seven concepts higher overall on the excitable side of the scale. In addition, there was a significant difference among the seven concepts (F = 8.13, df = 6/540; p<.001) and on the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 4.45, df = 12/540; p<.OOl). As a result of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. On concept one, the HS group (F = 19.18, df = 1/540; p<.001) and the LS group (F = 12.27, df = 1/540; p<.001) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "DI" higher on the excitable sideof the scale. 0n concept three, (see Table 167), the HS group (F = 25.97, df = 1/540; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 18.49, df = 1/540; p<.001) differed signif- icantly from the 01 group by having rated "Marine Corps" higher on the excitable side of the scale. On concept four, the HS group (F = 6.09, df = 1/540; p<.05) and the 181 Table 167 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Two For Scale Five, Excitable-Calm Source df MS F Groups 2 61.85 9.81 *** HS vs LS 1 .19 .03 HS vs DI 1 96.83 15.36 *** LS vs DI 1 88.52 14.04 *** Subjects 90 6.31 Concepts 6 20.68 8.13 *** Concepts x Groups 12 11.32 4.45 *** HS vs LS (C 1) l 1.95 .77 HS vs DI (C l) 1 48.79 19.18 *** LS vs 01 (C 1) 1 31.23 12.27 *** HS vs LS (C 2) 1 3 16 1 24 HS vs DI (C 2) l .26 10 LS vs 01 (C 2) l 5 23 2 05 HS vs LS (C 3) l 1.61 .63 HS vs 01 (C 3) 1 66.06 25.97 *** LS vs DI (C 3) 1 47.03 18.49 *** HS vs LS (C 4) 1 3 63 1 43 HS vs 01 (C 4) 1 15.50 6.09 * LS vs DI (C 4) 1 34.13 13.41 *** HS vs LS (C 5) 1 1.61 .63 HS vs 01 (C 5) 1 41.95 16.49 *** LS vs DI (C 5) l 60.02 23.59 *** HS vs LS (c 6) 1 14 52 '5 71 * HS vs 01 (C 6) l 3 l6 1 24 LS vs DI (C 6) 1 4 13 l 62 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 .15 06 HS vs DI (C 7) l 3.16 1 24 LS vs DI (C 7) 1 1.95 77 Error 540 2.54 ‘Total 650 n = 31 $5 per group 182 LS group (F e 13.41, df = 1/540; p<;001) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated ”myself" higher on the excitable side of the scale. On concept five, the HS group (F = 16.49, df = 1/540; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 23.59, df = 1/540; p<.OOl) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "Marine" higher on the excitable side of the scale. For concept six, the analysis showed that the HS group differed sig- nificantly (F = 5.71, df = 1/540; p<.05) from the LS group in that the HS group rated "most people" higher on the excitable side of the scale. In Table 168, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview three for scale five, excitable-calm, is presented. The results showed that there was a significant difference among groups (F = 8.88, df = 2/540; p<.001) in that the HS group (F = 4.98, df = 1/540; p<.05) and the LS group (F = 17.73, df = 1/540; p<.OOl) differed from the DI group by having rated the seven concepts higher overall on the excitable side of the scale. There was, moreover, a significant difference among concepts (F = 10.11, df = 6/540, p<.OOl) and on the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 3.44, df = 12/540; p<.001); because of the latter, individual com- parisons were made. On concept one, (see Table 168), the analysis showed that the LS group differed significantly (F = 6.95, df = 1/540; p<.Ol) from the HS group and the 01 group (F = 19.74, df = 1/540; p<.001) in that the LS group rated "DI" higher on the excitable of the scale. On concept three, the HS group (F = 10.49, df = 1/540; p<.Ol) and the LS group (F = 22.51, df = 1/540; p<.001) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "Marine Corps" higher on the excitable 183 Table 168 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Three For Scale Five, Excitable-Calm Source df MS F Groups 2 63.16 8.88 *** HS vs LS 1 27.88 3.92 HS vs 01 1 35.43 4.98 * LS vs DI 1 126.16 17.73 *** Subjects 90 7.12 Concepts 6 28.74 10.11 *** Concepts x Groups 12 9.79 3.44 *** HS vs LS (C 1) 1 19.76 6.95 ** HS vs 01 (C 1) 1 9.29 3.27 LS vs DI (C 1) 1 56.15 19.74 *** HS vs LS (C 2) 1 8.53 3.00 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 .79 .28 LS vs DI (C 2) 1 4.13 l 45 HS vs LS (C 3) 1 6.45 2.27 HS vs DI (C 3) l 29.82 10.49 ** LS vs 01 (C 3) l 64.02 22.51 *** HS vs LS (C 4) 1 28.45 10.01 ** HS vs DI (C 4) l 3.63 1.28 LS vs DI (C 4) l 52.40 18.43 *** HS vs LS (C 5) l .26 .09 HS vs DI (C 5) 1 31.23 10.98 ** LS vs 01 (C 5) 1 37.16 13.07 *** HS vs LS (C 6) l 7 81 2 75 HS vs 01 (C 6) l 1.03 36 LS vs DI (C 6) l 3.16 l 11 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 1.03 36 HS vs 01 (C 7) l .15 05 LS vs DI (C 7) l .40 14 Error 540 2 84 Total 650 n = 31 $5 per group L, 184 side of the scale. On concept four, the LS group differed significantly from the HS group (F = 10.01, df = 1/540; p<.01) and the 01 group (F = 18.43, df = 1/540; p<.001) by having rated "myself" higher on the excitable side of the scale. 4 0n concept five, the HS group (F = 10.98, df = 1/540; p<.01) and the LS group (F = 13.07, df = 1/540; p<.OOl) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "Marine" higher on the excitable side of the scale. In Table 169, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview four for scale five, excitable-calm, is presented. According to the find- ings, there was a significant difference among groups (F = 3.41, df = 2/540; p<.05); the HS group differed significantly (F = 6.44, df = 1/540; p<.05) from the 01 group in that the former rated the seven concepts higher overall on the excitable side of the scale. A significant differ- ence also existed among concepts (F = 6.40, df = 6/540; p<.OOl) and on the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 3.38, df = 12/540; p<.001); because of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. On concept one (see Table 169), the HS group (F = 17.16, df = 1/540; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 15.98, df = 1/540; p<.001) differed signif- icantly from the 01 group in that both rated “DI" higher on the excitable side of the scale. 0n concept three, the HS group (F = 11.17, df = 1/540; p<.001) and the LS group (F = 11.67, df = 1/540; p<.001) differed significantly from the DI group since both rated "Marine Corps" higher on the excitable. side of the scale. On concept four, the LS group differed significantly from the DI 185 Table 169 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance 0n Interview Four For Scale Five, Excitable-Calm Source df MS F Groups 2 27.10 3.41 * HS vs LS l 4.26 .54 HS vs 01 l 51.15 6.44 * LS vs DI l 25.89 3.26 Subjects 90 7.94 Concepts 6 19.56 6.40 *** Concepts x Groups 12 10.31 3.38 *** HS vs LS (C 1) 1 .07 .02 HS vs DI (C 1) l 52.40 17.16 *** LS vs DI (C l) l 48.79 15.98 *** HS vs LS (C 2) l 3.63 1 19 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 1.61 53 LS vs DI (C 2) l .40 13 HS vs LS (C 3) l .02 .01 HS vs DI (C 3) 1 34.13 11.17 *** LS vs DI (C 3) 1 35.63 11.67 *** HS vs LS (C 4) l 1.61 53 HS vs DI (C 4) 1 9.29 3.04 LS vs DI (C 4) 1 18.65 6.11 * HS vs LS (C 5) 1 .15 .05 HS vs 01 (C 5) 1 12.65 4.14 * LS vs DI (C 5) 1 10.08 3.30 HS vs LS (C 6) l 12.65 4.14 * HS vs DI (C 6) l .00 .00 L5 vs DI (C 6) 1 12.65 4.14 * HS vs LS (C 7) l .58 .19 HS vs 01 (C 7) l 4.13 1.35 LS vs DI (C 7) 1 7.81 2.56 Error 540 3.05 Total 650 n = 31 $5 per group 186 group (F = 6.11, df = 1/540; p<.05) in that the former rated "myself" higher on the excitable side of the scale. On concept five, the HS group differed significantly (F = 4.14, df = 1/540; p<.05) from the DI group by having rated “Marine" higher on the excitable side of the scale. Concept six showed that the LS group differed significantly from the HS group (F = 4.14, df = 1/540; p<.05) and the 01 group (F = 4.14, df = 1/540; p<.05) in that the LS group rated "most people" higher on the calm side of the scale. In Table 170, the means of the three groups on the seven concepts overtime for the scale, fair-unfair, are presented. Table 171 shows the summary of the analysis of variance on interview one for scale six, fair-unfair. An examination of the results showed no significant difference among groups (F = 1.19, df = 2/612; p>.05). There was a significant difference among concepts (F = 18.54, df = 6/612; p<.001) as well as on the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 3.68, df = 12/612; p<.OOl), and, because of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. Table 171 shows that the HS group differed significantly (F = 12.22, df = 1/612; p<.OOl) from the DI group on concept one by having rated "DI" lower on the fair side of the scale. On concept two, both the HS group (F = 14.85, df = 1/612; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 16.26, df = 1/612; p<.001) differed significantly from the DI group by rating "bootcamp" lower on the fair side of the scale. On concept four, the HS group differed significantly (F = 5.02, df = 1/612; p<.05) from the 01 group in that the former rated "myself" lower on the fair side of the scale. 187 In Table 170, the means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, fair-unfair, are presented. Table 170 The Means Of The Three Groups On The Seven Concepts Over Time For The Scale Fair-Unfair Concppt Inter- Group 01 Boot- Marine Myself Marine Most Recruit Group view camp Corps People Mean 1 HS 4.94 4.40 5.14 5.46 5.26 4.06 4.89 4.88 LS 5.46 4.34 5.40 5.91 5.63 4.20 4.80 5.11 DI 6.06 5.63 4.86 6.17 5.31 4.49 4.06 5.23 Concept Mean 5.49 4.79 5.13 5.85 5.40 4.25 4.58 2 HS 4.54 5.09 5.91 5.69 5.69 4.60 4.77 5.18 LS 5.80 5.43 5.89 5.89 6.00 3.60 4.94 5.36 DI 6.06 5 63 4.86 6.17 5.31 4.49 4 06 5.23 Concept Mean 5.47 5.38 5.55 5.91 5.67 4.23 4.59 3 HS 4.49 4.69 6.00 5.80 5.89 4.31 4.80 5.14 LS 5.63 5.29 6.09 5.74 6.06 3.57 5.11 5.36 DI 6.06 5.63 4.86 6.17 5.31 4.49 4 06 5.23 Concept Mean 5.39 5.20 5.65 5.91 5.75 4.12 4.66 4 HS 4.71 5.11 5.89 5.97 5.66 3.91 4.17 5.06 LS 4.63 5.03 5.86 6.03 5.71 3.60 4.66 5.07 01 6.06 5 63 4.86 6.17 5.31 4 49 4 06 5.23 Concept Mean 5.13 5.26 5.53 6.06 5.56 4.00 4.30 n = 35 Ss per group 188 Table 171 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview One For Scale Six, Fair-Unfair Source df MS F Groups 2 7.62 1.19 HS vs LS 1 6.40 . 1.00 HS vs DI 1 14.75 2.29 LS vs 01 1 1.72 .27 Subjects 102 6.43 Concepts ' 6 32.97 18.54 *** Concepts x Groups 12 6.54 3.68 *** HS vs LS (C l) l 4.63 2.60 HS vs 01 (C l) 1 21.73 12.22 *** LS vs DI (C l) 1 6.30 3.54 HS vs LS (C 2) l .06 .03 HS vs 01 (C 2) l 26.41 14.85 *** LS vs DI (C 2) 1 28.93 16 26 *** HS vs LS (C 3) 1 1.16 .65 HS vs DI 2C 3) l 1.43 .80 LS vs DI C 3) 1 5.16 2.90 HS vs LS (C 4) 1 3.66 2.06 HS vs DI (C 4) 1 8.93 5.02 * LS vs DI (C 4) l 1.16 .65 HS vs LS (C 5) 1 2.41 1 36 HS vs DI (C 5) l .06 O3 LS vs 01 (C 5) 1 1.73 97 HS vs LS (C 6) l .36 20 HS vs DI (C 6) l 3.21 l 81 L5 vs DI (C 6) 1 1.43 80 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 .13 .07 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 12 01 6.75 ** LS vs DI (C 7) l 9 66 5.43 * Error 612 l 78 Total 734 n = 35 $5 per group 189 On concept seven, the HS group (F = 6.75, df = 1/612; p<.01) and the LS group (F = 5.43, df = 1/612; p<.05) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "recruit" higher on the fair side of the scale. Table 172 shows the summary of the analysis of variance on interview two for scale six, fair-unfair. The analysis showed no significant dif- ference among groups (F = .44, df = 2/612; p>.05); there was, however, a significant difference for the main effect term, concepts, (F = 17.75, df = 6/612; p<.OOl). There was significance also for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 4.55, df = 12/612; p<.001) and, therefore, individual comparisons were made. On concept one, the analysis showed that the HS differed signifi- cantly from both the LS group (F = 12.48, df = 1/612; p<.OOl) and the DI group (F = 18.10, df = 1/612; p<.OOl) in that the HS group rated "DI" lower on the fair side of the scale. On concept two, (see Table 172), the HS group (F = 8.82, df = 1/612; p<.01) and the LS group (F = 8.82, df = 1/612; p<.01) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "Marine Corps" higher on the fair side of the scale. On concept six, the LS group differed significantly from both the HS group (F = 7.90, df = 1/612; p<.01) and the DI group (F = 6.19, df = 1/612; p<.05) in that the LS group rated "most people" higher on the unfair side of the scale. On concept seven, the HS group (F = 4.03, df = 1/612; p<.05) and the LS group (F = 6.19, df = 1/612; p.05). There was, however, a significant difference among concepts (F = 20.95, df = 6/612; p<.001) and for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 5.66, df = 12/612; p<.OOl). As a result of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. On concept one, the HS group differed significantly from both the LS group (F = 11.03, df = 1/612; p<.01) and the DI group (F = 20.85, df = 1/612; p<.OOl) in that the HS group rated "DI" lower on the fair side of the scale. On concept two, the HS group differed significantly (F = 7.51, df = 1/612; p<.Ol) from the DI group in that the former rated "bootcamp" lower on the fair side of the scale. I On concept three (see Table 173), the HS group (F = 11/03, df = 1/612; p<.01) and the LS group (F = 12.75, df = 1/612; p<.OOl) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "Marine Corps" higher on the fair side of the scale. On concept five, the LS group differed significantly (F = 4.66, df = 1/612; p<.05) from the 01 group in that the former rated "Marine" higher on the fair side of the scale. 0n concept six, the LS group differed significantly from the HS group (F = 4.66, df = 1/612; p<.05) and the 01 group (F = 7.06, df = 1/612; p<.Ol) in that the LS group rated "most people" higher on the unfair side of the scale. On concept seven, the HS group (F = 4.66, df = 1/612; p<.Ol) and the LS group (F = 9.44, df = 1/612; p<.01) differed significantly from 192 Table 173 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Three For Scale Six, Fair-Unfair Source df MS F Groups 2 2.91 .52 HS vs L5 1 5.73 1.02 HS vs DI 1 .90 .16 LS vs DI l 2.09 .37 Subjects 102 5.59 Concepts 6 43.41 20.95 *** Concepts x Groups 12 11.73 5.66 *** HS vs LS (C 1) 1 22.86 11.03 ** HS vs DI (C l) l 43.21 20.85 *** LS vs DI (C l) 1 3 21 l 55 HS vs LS (C 2) 1 6.30 3 04 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 15 56 7 51 ** LS vs DI (C 2) 1 2 O6 99 HS vs LS (C 3) l .13 .06 HS vs DI (C 3) l 22.86 11.03 ** LS vs DI (C 3) 1 26.41 12.75 *** HS vs LS (C 4) 1 .06 .03 HS vs DI (C 4) l 2.41 1.17 LS vs DI (C 4) 1 3.21 1.55 HS vs LS (C 5) 1 .51 .25 HS vs DI (C 5) l 5.71 2.76 LS vs DI (C 5) 1 9.66 4.66 * HS vs LS (C 6) 1 9.66 4.66 * HS vs DI (C 6) l .51 .25 LS vs DI (C 6) 1 14 63 7.06 ** HS vs LS (C 7) 1 1.73 .83 HS vs 01 (C 7) 1 9 66 4.66 * LS vs DI (C 7) 1 19 56 9.44 ** Error 612 2 07 Total 734 n = 35 $5 per group 193 the DI group in that both rated "recruit" higher on the fair side of the scale. Table 174 shows the summary of the analysis of variance on interview four for scale six, fair-unfair. An examination of the results showed that no significant difference existed among groups (F = .32, df = 2/612; p>.05). Among concepts, the main effect term, there was a significant difference (F = 25.21, df = 6/612; p<.001) as there was also for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 3.66, df = 12/612; p<.OOl). Be- cause of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. On concept one, both the HS group (F = 14.21, df = 1/612; p<.001) and the LS group (F = 16.09, df = 1/612; p<.OOl) differed significantly from the 01 group in that both rated "DI" higher on the fair side of the scale. On concept three (see Table 174), the HS group (F = 8.34, df = 1/612; p<.Ol) and the LS group (F = 7.88, df = 1/612; p<.Ol) differed significantly from the DI group in that both had rated "Marine Corps" higher on the fair side of the scale. On concept six, the LS group differed significantly (F = 6.18, df = 1/612; p<.05) from the 01 group in that the former rated "most people" lower on the fair side of the scale. Table 175 contains the means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, coward-hero. In Table 176, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview one for scale seven, coward-hero, is presented. The results showed a Significant difference among groups (F = 3.67, df = 2/576; p<.05). The results further showed that the LS group (F = 7.26, df = 1/576; p<.Ol) differed significantly from the HS group in that the former had rated 194 Table 174 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Four For Scale Six, Fair- Unfair Source df MS F Groups 2 2.03 .32 HS vs LS l .02 .00 HS vs 01 1 3.27 .52 LS vs DI l 2.79 .44 Subjects 102 6.29 Concepts 6 55.97 25.21 *** Concepts x Groups 12 8.13 3.66 *** HS vs LS (C l) l .13 .06 HS vs DI (C l) 1 31.56 14.21 *** LS vs 01 (C l) l 35.71 16.09 *** HS vs LS (C 2) l .13 .06 HS vs DI (C 2) l 4.63 2.08 LS vs DI (C 2) 1 6.30 2.84 HS vs LS (C 3) l .01 .01 HS vs DI (C 3) 1 18.51 8.34 ** LS vs DI (C 3) 1 14.50 7.88 ** HS vs LS (C 4) l .06 03 HS vs DI (C 4) l .70 32 LS vs DI (C 4) 1 .36 16 HS vs LS (C 5) 1 .06 03 HS vs DI (C 5) 1 2.06 93 LS vs DI (C 5) l 2.80 1 26 HS vs LS (C 6) 1 1.73 .78 HS vs DI (C 6) 1 5.71 2.57 LS vs DI (C 6) l 13.73 6.18 * HS vs LS (C 7) 1 4.13 1.86 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 .23 .10 LS vs 01 (C 7) 1 6.30 2.84 Error 612 2.22 Total 734 n = 35 $5 per group 195 Table 175 contains the means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, coward-hero. Table 175 The Means Of The Three Groups On The Seven Concepts Over Time For The Scale Coward-Hero Concept Inter- Group DI Boot- Marine Myself Marine Most Recruit Group view camp Corps People Mean 1 HS 4.67 4.70 5.12 4.49 4.88 4.06 4.73 4.66 LS 5.82 5.15 6.00 5.18 5.76 4.15 4.09 5.17 DI 5.79 4.82 5.88 5.73 5.52 4.00 3.00 4.96 Concept Mean 5.42 4.89 5.67 5.13 5.38 4.07 3.94 2 HS 5.09 5.67 6.46 5.12 6.00 4.12 4.55 5.29 LS 5.91 5.42 6.27 5.00 6.15 3.49 4.42 5.24 DI 5.79 4.82 5.88 5.73 5.52 4.00 3.00 4.96 Concept Mean 5.60 5.30 6.20 5.28 5.89 3.87 3.99 3 HS 5.30 5.24 6.09 5.06 5.85 3.73 4.30 5.08 LS 5.97 5.27 6.18 5.24 5.91 3.88 4.97 5.35 DI 5.79 4.82 5.88 5.73 5.52 4.00 3.00 4.96 Concept Mean 5.69 5.11 6.05 5.34 5.76 3.87 4.09 4 HS 5.73 5.79 6.21 5.21 5.76 ‘ 3.79 4.30 5.26 LS 5.49 5.27 5.85 5.27 6.09 3.85 4.09 5.13 01 5.79 4.82 5 88 5.73 5.52 4.00 3.00 4.96 Concept Mean 5 67 5.29 5 98 5.40 5.79 3.88 3.80 n = 33 $5 per group 196 Table 176 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview One For Scale Seven, Coward-Hero Source df MS F Groups 2 14.72 3.67 * HS vs LS l 29.13 7.26 ** HS vs DI 1 10.31 2.57 LS vs DI l 4.78 1.19 Subjects 96 4.01 Concepts 6 45.46 33.80 *** Concepts x Groups 12 8.96 6.66 *** HS vs LS (C 1) l 21.88 16.27 *** HS vs DI (C 1) 1 20.74 15.42 *** LS vs DI (C 1) l .02 01 HS vs LS (C 2) l 3.41 2 53 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 .24 18 LS vs DI (C 2) l 1.83 l 36 HS vs LS (C 3) 1 12.76 9.48 ** HS vs 01 (C 3) l 9.47 ’ 7.04 ** LS vs DI (C 3) 1 .24 18 HS vs LS (C 4) 1 8.02 5.96 * HS vs DI (C 4) l 25.47 18.94 *** LS vs DI (C 4) 1 4 91 3.65 HS vs LS (C 5) 1 12.74 9.48 ** HS vs DI (C 5) l 6.68 4.97 * LS vs DI (C 5) l .97 .72 HS vs LS (C 6) l .14 10 HS vs 01 (C 6) 1 .06 05 LS vs DI (C 6) l .38 28 HS vs LS (C 7) l 6 68 4.97 * HS vs 01 (C 7) l 49 23 36.61 *** LS vs DI (C 7) 1 19 64 14.60 *** Error 576 1 35 Total 692 n = 33 $5 per group 197 The seven concepts higher overall on the hero side of the scale. There was also a significant difference among concepts (F = 33.80, df = 1/576; p < .001) as well as for the interaction term, concepts x grOups (F = 6.66, df = 12/576; p < .001). As a consequence of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. On concept one, the HS group differed significantly from both the LS group (F = 16.27, df = 1/576; p < .001) and the 01 group (F = 15.43, df = 1/576; p < .001) in that the HS group had rated "DI" lower on the hero side of the scale. On concept three, the HS group differed significantly from both the LS group (F = 9.48, df = 1/576; p < .01) and the 01 group (F = 7.04, df = 1/576; p < .01) in that the HS group had rated "Marine Corps" lower on the hero side of the scale. 4 Individual comparisons also showed that, on concept four, the HS group differed significantly from both the LS group (F = 5.96, df = 1/576; p < .05) and the DI group (F = 18.94, df = 1/576; p < .001) in that the 115 group rated "myself" lower on the hero side of the scale. On concept five, the HS group differed significantly from both the LS group (F = 9.48, df = 1/576; p < .01) and the DI group (F = 4.97, df = 1/576; p < .05) in that the HS group rated "Marine" lower on the hero side of the scale. On concept seven, the HS group differed significantly from both the LS group (F = 4.97, df = 1/576; p < .05) and the DI group (F = 36.61, df = 1/576; p < .001) having rated "recruit" higher on the hero side of the scale. Table 177 presents a summary of the analysis of variance on inter- viemu two for scale seven, coward-hero. The results showed that no signif- icant difference existed among groups (F = 2.01, df = 2/576; p > .05). 198 Table 177 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Two For Scale Seven, Coward-Hero Source df MS F Groups 2 7.10 2.01 HS vs LS 1 .26 .07 HS vs DI 1 12.18 3.45 LS vs DI 1 8.87 2.51 Subjects 96 3.53 Concepts 6 80.51 59.97 *** Concepts x Groups 12 7.55 5.62 *** HS vs LS (C 1) 1 11.05 8.23 ** HS vs 01 (C l) 1 8.02 5.97 * LS vs DI (C l) l .24 18 HS vs LS (C 2) l 97 .72 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 ll 88 8.25 ** LS vs DI (C 2) 1 6.06 4.51 * HS vs LS (C 3) 1 .55 .41 HS vs DI (C 3) 1 5.47 4.07 * LS vs DI (C 3) l 2.56 1.91 HS vs LS (C 4) l .24 .18 HS vs DI (C 4) 1 6.06 4.51 * LS vs DI (C 4) l 8.73 6.50 * HS vs LS (C 5) l .38 .28 HS vs DI (C 5) 1 3.88 2.89 LS vs DI (C 5) 1 6.68 4.98 * HS vs LS (C 6) 1 6.68 4.98 * HS vs 01 (C 6) 1 .24 .18 LS vs DI (C 6) 1 4.38 3.26 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 .24 18 HS vs 01 (C 7) l 39 41 29 36 *** LS vs DI (C 7) l 33 47 24 93 *** Error 576 1 34 Total 692 n = 33 Ss per group 199 There was, however, a significant difference among concepts (F = 59.97, df = 6/576; p<.OOl) and on the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 5.62, df = 12/576; p<.OOl). As a consequence of this latter finding, individual comparisons were made. On concept one, the results showed that the HS group differed sig- nificantly from both the LS group (F = 8.23, df = 1/576; p<.01) and the DI group (F = 5.97, df = 1/576; p<.05) in that the HS group had rated "DI" lower on the hero side of the scale. On concept two, the HS group (F = 8.25, df = 1/576; p<.Ol) and the LS group (F = 4.51, df = 1/576; p<.05) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "bootcamp" higher on the hero side of the scale. Individual comparisons also showed that, on concept three, the HS group differed significantly (F = 4.07, df = 1/576; p<.05) from the DI group in that the former rated "Marine Corps" higher on the hero side of the scale. On concept four, the HS group (F = 4.51, df = 1/576; p<.05) and the LS group (F = 6.50, df = 1/576; p<.05) differed significantly from the 01 group in that both rated "myself" lower on the hero side of the scale. On concept five, the LS group differed significantly (F = 4.98, df = 1/576; p<.05) from the DI group in that the former rated "Marine" higher on the hero side of the scale. On concept six, the HS group differed significantly (F = 4.98, df = 1/576; p<.05) from the LS group in that the former rated "most people" higher on the hero side of the scale. On concept seven, both the HS group (F = 29.36, df = 1/576; p<.001) and the LS group (F = 24.93, df = 1/576; p<.OOl) differed significantly ‘From the DI group in that both rated "recruit" higher on the hero side of 200 the scale. Table 178 shows the summary of the analysis of variance on interview three for scale seven, coward-hero. The results showed that there was no significant difference among groups (F = 2.06, df = 2/576; p > .05). There was a significant difference, however, among concepts (F = 39.40, df = 6/576; p < .001) and on the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 3.45, df = 12/576; p < .001). Because of the latter finding individual comparisons were made. On concept one, the HS group differed significantly (F = 4.10, df = 1/576; p < .05) from the LS group in that the former rated "DI“ lower on the hero side of the scale. 0n concept four, the HS group differed significantly (F = 4.10, df = 1/576; p < .05) from the 01 group in that the former rated "myself" lower on the hero side of the scale. On concept seven, the LS group differed significantly from both the HS group (F = 4.10, df = 1/576; p < .05) and the DI group (F = 35.82, df 8 1/576; p < .001) in that the LS group rated "recruit" higher on the hero side of the scale. The HS group also differed significantly (F = 15.68, df = 1/576; p < .001) from the 01 group on this concept in that the former rated "recruit" higher on the hero side of the scale. The 01 group, that is, rated "recruit" lower than the other groups by having rated it toward the coward side of the scale. On the other hand, the LS group rated "recruit" significantly higher, than the other two groups on the hero side of the scale. Table 179 presents a summary of the analysis of variance on interview four for scale seven, coward-hero. The analysis showed that there was no significant difference among groups (F = 1.19, df = 2/576; p > .05). A 201 Table 178 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Three For Scale Seven, Coward-Hero Source df MS F Groups 2 8.97 2.06 HS vs LS l 8.05 1.85 HS vs DI l 1.70 .39 L5 vs 01 l 17.15 3.93 Subjects 96 4.36 Concepts 6 70.42 39.40 *** Concepts x Groups 12 6.17 3.45 *** HS vs LS (C 1) 1 7.33 4.10 * HS vs DI (C 1) 1 3.88 2.17 LS vs DI (C 1) l .55 .31 HS vs LS (C 2) 1 .02 .01 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 2.97 1.66 LS vs 01 (C 2) 1 3.41 1.91 HS vs LS (C 3) 1 .14 08 HS vs DI (C 3) 1 .74 42 LS vs DI (C 3) 1 1.52 85 HS vs LS (C 4) 1 .55 31 HS vs 01 (C 4) l 7.33 4 10 * LS vs DI (C 4) l 3.88 2 17 HS vs LS (C 5) l .06 03 HS vs DI (C 5) 1 1.83 1 O3 LS vs DI (C 5) l 2.56 l 43 HS vs LS (C 6) 1 .38 21 HS vs DI (C 6) 1 1.23 69 LS vs DI (C 6) 1 .24 14 HS vs LS (C 7) l 7 33 4.10 * HS vs DI (C 7) 1 28 02 15.68 *** LS vs 01 (C 7) 1 64 02 35.82 *** Error 576 1 79 Total 692 n = 33 Ss per group 202 Table 179 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Four For Scale Seven, Coward-Hero Source df MS F Groups 2 5.04 1.19 HS vs LS 1 1.82 .43 HS vs DI l 10.01 2.36 LS vs DI 1 3.29' .78 Subjects 96 4.24 Concepts 6 80.57 47.13 *** Concepts x Groups 12 4.47 2.61 ** HS vs LS (C 1) 1 .97 57 HS vs DI (C l) 1 .06 04 L5 vs DI (C l) 1 1.52 89 HS vs LS (C 2) 1 4.38 2.56 HS vs 01 (C 2) 1 15.52 9.08 ** LS vs 01 (C 2) l 3.41 1.99 HS vs LS (C 3) 1 2.18 1.28 HS vs 01 (C 3) l 1.83 1.07 LS vs DI (C 3) l .02 01 HS vs LS (C 4) 1 .06 04 HS vs 01 (C 4) l 4.38 2 56 LS vs DI (C 4) 1 3.41 1 99 HS vs LS (C 5) l 1.83 1 07 HS vs DI (C 5) 1 .97 57 LS vs DI (C 5) l 5.47 3 20 HS vs LS (C 6) 1 .06 04 HS vs 01 (C 6) l .74 43 LS vs DI (C 6) l .38 22 HS vs LS (C 7) l .74 .43 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 28.02 16.39 *** LS vs DI (C 7) 1 19 64 11 49 ** Error 576 1 71 Total 692 n = 33 $5 per group 203 significant difference was found, however, among concepts (F = 47.13, df = 6/576; p<.OOl) and on the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 2.61, df = 12/576; p<.01). As a result on the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. On concept two, the HS group differed significantly from the LS group (F = 9.08, df = 1/576; p<.Ol) in that the former rated "bootcamp" higher on the hero side of the scale. Individual comparisons also showed that, on concept seven, the HS group (F = 16.39, df = 1/576; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 11.49, df = 1/576; p<.OOl) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "recruit" higher on the hero side of the scale. In Table 180, the means of the three groups on the seven concepts overtime for the scale, kind-cruel, are presented. Table 181 shows a summary of the analysis of variance on interview one for scale eight, kind-cruel. An examination of the results showed no significant difference among groups (F = 1.45, df = 2/504; p>.05). There was a significant difference among concepts (F = 12.14, df = 6/504; p<.001) and for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 2.15, df = 12/504; p<.05), however. Because of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. On concept four, the LS group differed significantly from the HS group (F = 5.76, df = 1/504; p<.05) and the DI group (F = 14.03, df = 1/504; p<.OOl) in that the LS group had rated "myself" higher on the kind side of the scale. For concept seven, the HS group (F = 13.32, df = 1/504; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 8.86, df = 1/504; p<.Ol) differed significantly from the 01 group in that both rated "recruit" higher on the kind side of the scale. 204 In Table 180, the means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, kind-cruel, are presented. Table 180 The Means Of The Three Groups On The Seven Concepts Over Time For The Scale Kind-Cruel Concept Inter- Group DI Boot- Marine Myselfi Marine ’Most Recruit Group view camp Corps People Mean 1 HS 3.62 3.28 4.69 4.83 4.52 3.90 4.76 4.23 LS 4.00 3.62 4.41 5.69 4.45 4.55 4.52 4.46 DI 3.93 3.28 4.59 4.35 4.55 4.00 3.45 4.02 Concept Mean 3.85 3.39 4.56 4.95 4.51 4.15 4.24 2 HS 3.28 2.86 4.79 4.97 4.66 4.38 4.14 4.15 LS 4.45 3.69 4.97 5.66 4.62 4.04 4.55 4.57 DI 3.93 3.28 4.59 4.35 4 55 4.00 3.45 4.02 Concept Mean 3.89 3.28 4.78 4.99 4.61 4.14 4.05 3 HS 3.38 3.28 5.35 4.90 4.59 4.66 4.97 4.44 LS 3.93 3.66 4.76 4.76 4.86 3.83 4.52 4.33 DI 3.93 3.28 4.59 4.35 4.55 4.00 3.45 4.02 Concept Mean 3.75 3.40 4.90 4.67 4.67 4.16 4.31 4 HS 3.62 3.76 5.28 5.17 5.17 4.07 4.52 4.51 LS 3.41 3.93 4.90 5.31 5.10 3.59 4.21 4.40 DI 3.93 3 28 4.59 4.35 4.55 4 00 3.45 4.02 Concept Mean 3.66 3.66 4.92 4.94 4.94 3.89 4.06 n = 29 $5 per group 205 Table 181 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview One For Scale Eight, Kind-Cruel Source df MS F Groups 2 9.99 1.45 HS vs LS 1 5.68 .83 HS vs DI l 4.35 .63 LS vs DI 1 19.95 2.90 Subjects 84 6.87 Concepts 6 22.70 12.14 *** Concepts x Groups 12 4.03 2.15 * HS vs LS (C l) l 2.09 1.12 HS vs DI (C l) l 1.40 75 LS vs DI (C 1) l .07 04 HS vs LS (C 2) l 1.72 92 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 .OO 00 LS vs DI (C 2) l 1.72 92 HS vs LS (C 3) 1 1.10 59 HS vs 01 (C 3) l .16 O8 LS vs DI (C 3) l .43 23 HS vs LS (C 4) l 10.78 5.76 * HS vs 01 (C 4) l 3.38 1.81 LS vs DI (C 4) l 26.22 14.03 *** HS vs LS (C 5) 1 .07 04 HS vs 01 (C 5) 1 .02 01 LS vs DI (C 5) l .16 08 HS vs LS (C 6) l 6.22 3 33 HS vs 01 (C 6) l .16 08 LS vs DI (C 6) 1 4.14 2 36 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 .85 .45 HS vs DI (C 7) l 24.90 13.32 *** LS vs DI (C 7) l 16 57 8.86 ** Error 504 l 87 Total 608 n = 29 Ss per group 206 In Table 182, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview two for scale eight, kind-cruel, is presented. The analysis showed that there was no significant difference among groups (F = 2.70, df = 2/504; p>.05). However, there was a significant difference among concepts (F = 15.80, df = 6/504; p<.001) and for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 1.94, df = 12/504; p<.05). Consequently, individual comparisons were made. Table 182 also showed that, on concept one, the HS group differed significantly (F = 10.38, df = 1/504; p<.01) from the LS group in that the former rated "DI" higher on the cruel side of the scale. On concept two, the HS group differed significantly (F = 5.17, df = 1/504; p<.05) from the LS group in that the former rated "bootcamp" higher on the cruel side of the scale. On concept four, the LS group differed significantly (F = 12.96, df = 1/504; p<.OOl) from the DI group in that the former rated "myself" higher on the kind side of the scale. On concept seven, the LS group differed significantly (F = 9.19, df = 1/504; p<.01) from the DI group in that the former rated "recruit" higher on the kind side of the scale. Table 183 shows a summary of the analysis of variance on interview three for scale eight, kind-cruel. The analysis showed that among groups there was no significant difference (F = 1.55, df = 2/504; p>.05). How- ever, there was a significant difference (F = 12.46, df = 6/504; p<.OOl) among concepts as well as for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 2.09, df = 12/504; p<.05). Because of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. On concept three, the HS group differed significantly (F = 4.10, df’= 1/504; p<.05) from the 01 group in that the former had rated "Marine 207 Table 182 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Two For Scale Eight, Kind-Cruel Source df MS F Groups 2 1.65 2.70 HS vs LS 1 17.38 2.84 HS vs 01 l 1.80 .29 LS vs DI l 30.35 4.97 * Subjects 84 6.11 Concepts 6 30.35 15.80 *** Concepts x Groups 12 3.72 1.94 * HS vs LS (C 1) 1 19.93 10.38 ** HS vs DI (C 1) l 6.22 3.24 LS vs DI (C 1) l 3.88 2.02 HS vs LS (C 2) l 9.93 5.17 * HS vs 01 (C 2) 1 2.48 1.29 LS vs DI (C 2) l 2.48 1.29 HS vs LS (C 3) 1 .43 22 HS vs 01 (C 3) l .62 32 LS vs 01 (C 3) l 2.09 l 09 HS vs LS (C 4) 1 6 90 3.59 HS vs DI (C 4) l 5.59 2.91 LS vs DI (C 4) l 24.90 12.96 *** HS vs LS (C 5) l .02 01 HS vs 01 (C 5) 1 .16 08 LS vs DI (C 5) 1 .07 04 HS vs LS (C 6) 1 1.72 90 HS vs 01 (C 6) 1 2.09 1 O9 LS vs DI (C 6) 1 .02 01 HS vs LS (C 7) l 2.48 1.29 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 6.90 3.59 LS vs DI (C 7) l 17.66 9.19 ** Error 504 1.92 Total 608 n = 29 Ss per group 208 Table 183 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Three For Scale Eight, Kind-Cruel Source df MS F Groups 2 9.77 1.55 HS vs LS l 1.30 .21 HS vs DI 1 18.22 2.88 LS vs DI 1 .OO .00 Subjects 86 6.32 Concepts 6 25.33 12.46 *** Concepts x Groups 12 4.26 2.09 * HS vs LS (C l) 1 4.41 2.17 HS vs DI (C l) l 4.41 2.17 LS vs DI (C l) 1 .OO .00 HS vs LS (C 2) l 2.09 1.03 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 .OO .00 LS vs DI (C 2) 1 2.09 1.03 HS vs LS (C 3) 1 4.98 2.45 HS vs DI (C 3) l 8.35 4.10 * LS vs 01 (C 3) l .43 .21 HS vs LS (C 4) l .28 .14 HS vs 01 (C 4) 1 4 41 2.17 LS vs DI (C 4) l 2 48 1.22 HS vs LS (C 5) 1 1.10 54 HS vs DI (C 5) l .02 01 LS vs DI (C 5) 1 1.40 69 HS vs LS (C 6) 1 9.93 4.88 * HS vs DI (C 6) 1 6.62 3.06 LS vs DI (C 6) l .43 21 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 2 91 1 43 HS vs DI (C 7) l 33 38 16 41 *** LS vs DI (C 7) l 16 57 8 15 ** Error 504 2 03 Total 608 n = 29 Ss per group 209 Corps" higher on the kind side of the scale. On concept six, the data showed that the HS group differed signifi- cantly (F = 4.88, df = 1/504; p<.05) from the LS group in that the former rated "most people" higher on the kind side of the scale. Individual comparisons also showed that, on concept seven, the HS group (F = 16.41, df = 1/604; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 8.15, df = 1/504; p<.01) differed significantly from the DI group in that both had rated "recruit" higher on the kind side of the scale. In Table 184, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview four for scale eight, kind-cruel, is presented. The analysis showed that no significant difference (F = 1.84, df = 2/504; p>.05) was found on the main effect, groups. Among the seven concepts, however, a significant difference (F = 15.56, df = 6/504; p<.05) was found. However, since no significant difference was found (F = 1.42, df = 12/504; p>.05) for the interaction term, concepts x groups, individual comparisons were not made. TABLE 184 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Four For Scale Eight Kind-Cruel Source df MS F Groups 2 12.79 1.84 Subjects 84 6.95 Concepts 6 32.94 15.56 *** Concepts x Groups 12 3.00 1.42 Error 504 2.12 Total 608 n = 29 $5 per group In Table 186, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview one for scale nine, strong-weak, is presented. The analysis showed that 210 Table 185 contains the means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, strong-weak. Table 185 The Means Of The Three Groups On The Seven Concepts Over Time For The Scale Strong-Weak ‘ Concgpt Inter- Group EDI Boot: Marine ’Myself’ Marine Most Recruit Group view campi Corps People Mean 1 HS 5.26 5.80 5.77 5.06 5.83 4.06 4.91 5.24 LS 6.03 6.40 6.54 5.54 6.17 4.40 4.74 5.69 DI 6.14 5.74 5.77 5.63 5.83 4.03 3.29 5.20 Concept Mean 5.81 5.98 6.03 5.41 5.94 4.16 4.31 2 HS 5.63 6.43 6.66 5.54 6.57 4.23 4.63 5.67 LS 6.17 6.40 6.57 5.66 6.63 3.63 4.66 5.67 01 6.14 5.74 5.77 5.63 5.83 4.03 3.29 5.20 1 Concept Mean 5.98 6.19 6.33 5.61 6.34 3.96 4.19 i 3 HS 6.20 6.20 6.54 5.69 6.34 3.97 4.97 5.70 LS 6.40 6.26 6.40 5.83 6.54 4.11 5.20 5.82 DI 6.14 5.74 5 77 5.63 5.83 4.03 3.29 5.20 Concept Mean 6.25 6.07 6.24 5.71 6.24 4.04 4.49 4 HS 6.17 6.29 6.37 6.06 6.20 4.11 3.91 5.59 LS 5.74 5.74 6.31 5.69 5 69 3.51 4.29 5.32 DI 6.14 5.74 5 77 5.63 5 83 4.03 3.29 5.20 Concept Mean 6.02 5.92 6.15 5.79 6 oo 3.89 3 83 n = 35 Ss per group 211 Table 186 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview One For Scale Nine, Strong-Weak Source df MS F Groups 4 2 17.92 4.08 * HS vs L5 1 24.69 5.63 * HS vs 01 1 1 .17 .04 LS vs 01 ; 1 28.90 6.59 * Subjects ; 102 4.39 Concepts ‘ 6 68.31 49.21 *** Concepts x Groups 12 6.00 4.32 *** HS vs LS (C l) 1 10.41 7.50 ** HS vs 01 (C l) l 13.73 9.89 ** LS vs DI (C 1) 1 .23 .16 HS vs LS (C 2) 1 6.30 4.54 * HS vs DI (C 2) 1 .06 .04 LS vs DI (C 2) 1 7.56 5.44 * HS vs LS (C 3) 1 l 10.41 7.50 ** HS vs DI (C 3) l 1 .OO .00 LS vs DI (C 3) 1 10.41 7.50 ** HS vs LS (C 4) l .13 2.97 HS vs 01 (C 4) 1 5.71 4.12 * LS vs DI (C 4) l l .13 .09 HS vs LS (C 5) 7 1 2.06 1.48 HS vs DI (C 5) 1 .OO .00 LS vs DI (C 5) 1 2.06 1.48 HS vs LS (C 6) l 2.06 1.48 HS vs DI (C 6) 1 .01 .Ol LS vs 01 (C 6) 1 2.41 1.74 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 .51 37 HS vs DI (C 7) l 46 41 33 44 *** LS vs 01 (C 7) l 37 16 26 77 *** Error 612 1 39 Total 734 n = 35 55 per group 212 there was a significant difference (F = 4.08, df = 2/612; p<.05) for the main effect, groups. The analysis further showed that the LS group dif- fered significantly from both the HS group (F = 5.63, df = 1/612; p<.05) and the 01 group (F = 6.59, df = 1/612; p<.05) in that the LS group rated the seven concepts higher overall on the strong side of the scale. More- over, there was also a significant difference among concepts (F = 49.21, df = 6/612; p<.OOl) as well as for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 4.32, df = 12/612; p<.OOl). Individual comparisons were made, there- fore, because of the latéer finding. On concept one, the HS group differed significantly from both the LS group (F = 7.50, df = 1/612; p< 01) and the 01 group (F = 9.89, df = 1/612; p<.01) in that the HS grqup rated "DI" lower on the strong side of the 1 scale. ' 1 I On concept two, thé LS group differed significantly from both the HS group (F = 4.54, df = 1/912; p<.05) and the DI group (F = 5.44, df = 1/612; p<.05) in that the LS grqup rated "bootcamp" higher on the strong side of the scale. On concept three, the LS group differed significantly from both the HS group (F = 7.50, df = 1/612; p<.01) and the 01 group (F = 7.50, df = 1/612; p<.01) in that the LS group rated "Marine Corps" higher on the strong side of the scale. On concept four, the HS group differed significantly (F - 4.12, df = 1/612; p<.05) from the 01 group in that the former rated "myself" lower on the strong side of the scale. 0n concept seven, the HS group (F = 33.44, df = 1/612; p<.001) and the LS group (F = 26.77, df = 1/612; p<.001) differed significantly from the DI group in that bothgrated "recruit" higher on the strong side of 213 the scale. Table 187 shows the summary of the analysis of variance on interview two for scale nine, strong-weak. An examination of the results showed that there was a significant difference (F = 4.99, df = 2/612; p < .01) among groups. Both the HS group (F = 7.42, df = 1/612; p < .01) and the LS group (F = 7.55, df = 1/612; p < .01) differed significantly from the DI group in that both had rated the seven concepts higher overall on the strong side of the scale. A significant difference also existed among concepts (F = 69.51, df = 6/612; p < .001) and for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 3.30, df = 12/612; p < .001). As a result of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. On concept two, the individual comparisons showed that the HS group (F = 5.27, df = 1/612; p < .05) and the LS group (F = 4.84, df = 1/612; p < .05) both differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "bootcamp" higher on the strong side of the scale. On concept three, the HS group (F = 8.79, df = 1/612; p < .01) and the LS group (F = 7.17, df = 1/612; p < .01) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "Marine Corps" higher on the strong side of the ‘scale. Individual comparisons further showed, on concept five, that the HS group (F = 6.18, df = 1/612; p < .05) and the LS group (F = 7.17, df = 1/612; p < .01) differed significantly from the 01 group in that both rated "Marine" higher on the strong side of the scale. On concept six, the HS group differed significantly (F = 4.03, df = 1/612; p < .05) from the LS group in that the former rated "most people" higher on the strong side of the scale. 214 Table 187 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Two For Scale Nine, Strong-Weak Source df MS F Groups 2 17.84 4.99 ** HS vs LS ' 1 .OO .00 HS vs 01 1 26.52 7.42 ** LS vs DI 1 26.99 7.55 ** Subjects 102 3.58 Concepts 6 108.57 69.51 *** Concepts x Groups 12 5.15 3.30 *** HS vs LS (C 1) 1 5.16 3.30 HS vs DI (C l) 1 4.63 2.96 LS vs DI (C 1) 1 .01 .01 HS vs LS (C 2) 1 .01 .01 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 8.23 5.27 * LS vs 01 (C 2) l 7.56 4.84 * HS vs LS (C 3) 1 .13 .08 HS vs DI (C 3) 1 13.73 8.79 ** LS vs DI (C 3) l 11.20 7.17 ** HS vs LS (C 4) l .23 15 HS vs DI (C 4) 1 .13 08 LS vs DI (C 4) 1 .01 01 HS vs LS (C 5) 1 .06 .04 HS vs 01 (C 5) l 9.66 6.18 * LS vs DI (C 5) l 11.20 7.17 ** HS vs LS (C 6) l 6.30 4.03 * HS vs DI (C 6) l .70 .45 LS vs DI (C 6) 1 2.80 1 79 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 .01 .01 HS vs DI (C 7) l 31.56 20.20 *** LS vs DI (C 7) 1 32 91 21 O7 *** Error 612 l 56 Total 734 n = 35 Ss per group 215 For concept seven, the individual comparisons showed that the HS group (F = 20.20, df = 1/612; p < .001) and the LS group (F = 21.07, df = 1/612; p < .001) differed significantly from the DI group in that both had rated "recruit" higher on the strong side of the scale. In Table 188, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview three for scale nine, strong-weak, is presented. The analysis showed that there was no significant difference among groups (F = 5.73, df = 2/612; p > .01). Both the HS group (F = 6.64, df = 1/612; p < .05) and the LS group (F = 10.17, df = 1/612; p < .01) differed significantly from the DI group since both had rated the seven concepts higher overall on the strong side of the scale. The analysis further showed that there was a significant difference among concepts (F = 53.3 , df = 6/612; p < .001) and also for the interaction term, concepts x group (F = 2.59, df = 12/612; p < .01). Consequently, because of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. On concept three, the HS group (F = 6.06, df = 1/612; p < .05) and the LS group (F = 4.02, df = 1/612; p < .05) differed significantly from the 01 group in that both rated "Marine Corps" higher on the strong side of the scale. Individual comparisons also showed that, on concept five, the LS group differed significantly (F = 5.20, df = 1/612; p < .05) from the DI group in that the former rated "Marine" higher on the strong side of the scale. On concept seven, the HS group (F = 29.95, df = 1/612; p < .001) and the LS group (F = 37.33, df = 1/612; p < .001) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "recruit" higher on the strong side of the scale. 216 Table 188 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Three For Scale Nine, Strong-Weak Source df MS F Groups 2 26.21 5.73 ** HS vs LS l 1.72 .38 HS vs DI f 1 30.38 6.64 * LS vs DI ‘ 1 46.53 10.17 ** Subjects . 102 4.57 Concepts 1 6 89.98 52.38 *** Concepts x Groups 12 4.45 2.59 ** HS vs LS (C 1) 1 .70 41 HS vs 01 (C 1) 1 .06 03 LS vs DI (C l) 1 1.16 67 HS vs LS (C 2) 1 .06 03 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 3.66 2 13 LS vs DI (C 2) 1 4.63 2 69 HS vs LS (C 3) 1 .36 .21 HS vs DI (C 3) l 10 41 6.06 * LS vs DI (C 3) 1 6 91 4.02 * HS vs LS (C 4) l .36 21 HS vs DI (C 4) l .06 O3 LS vs 01 (C 4) 1 .70 41 HS vs LS (C 5) l .70 .41 HS vs DI (C 5) l 4.63 2.69 LS vs DI (C 5) l 8.93 5.20 * HS vs LS (C 6) l .36 21 HS vs 01 (C 6) l .06 O3 LS vs DI (C 6) 1 .13 07 HS vs LS (C 7) l .91 .53 HS vs 01 (C 7) l 49.73 29.95 *** LS vs 01 (C 7) 1 64 13 37 33 *** Error 612 1 72 Total 734 n = 35 Ss per group 217 Table 189 shows a summary of the analysis of variance on interview four for scale nine, strong-weak. The analysis showed that there was no significant difference (Fl= 1.60, df = 2/612; p>.05) among groups. There was, however, a significant difference (F = 68.76, df = 6/612; p<.001) among concepts. For the interaction term, concepts x groups, the results showed no significant difference (F = 1.57, df = 12/612; p>.05) and, con- sequently, no individual comparisons were made. TABLE 189 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Four For Scale Nine Strong-Weak Source df MS F Groups 2 9.46 1.60 Subjects 102 5.91 Concepts 6 113.63 68.76 *** Concepts x Groups 12 2.60 1.57 Error 612 1.65 Total 734 n = 35 $5 per group In Table 191, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview one for scale ten, worthless-valuable, is presented. An examination of the results showed that there was a significant difference (F = 4.53, df = 2/630; p<.05) among groups. Individual comparisons showed that the HS group differed significantly (F = 9.06, df = 1/630; p<.05) from the LS group (F = 9.06, df = 1/630; p<.01) in that the former had rated the seven concepts lower overall on the valuable side of the scale. There was also a significant difference (F = 40.06, 6/630; p<.OOl) among groups as well as for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 4.79, df = 12/630; p<.01). Therefore, as a result of the latter finding, individual 218 Table 190 contains the means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, worthless-valuable. Table 190 The Means Of The Three Groups On The Seven Concepts Over Time For The Scale Worthless-Valuable Concept Inter- Group 01 Boot- Marine Myself wMarine Most Recruit Group view camp Corps People Mean 1 HS 5.11 5.69 5.83 4.61 5.33 4.33 4.75 5.10 LS 5.92 6.33 6.28 5.58 6.08 4.64 4.92 5.68 01 6.25 5.83. 6.11 6.06 5.83 3.86 3.81 5.39 Concept Mean 5.76 5.95 6.07 5.42 5.75 4.28 4.49 2 HS 5.94 6.61 6.61 5.28 6.19 4.11 4.64 5.63 LS 6.56 6.50 6.75 5.72 6.50 3.72 5.25 5.86 DI 6.25 5.83 6.11 6 06 5.83 3 86 3.81 5.39 Concept Mean 6.25 6.32 6.49 5.69 6.18 3.90 4.57 3 HS 6.19 6.28 6.47 5.39 6.28 4.53 4.56 5.67 LS 6.25 6.58 6.44 5.92 6.53 4.58 5.61 5.99 DI 6.25 5.83 6.11 6 06 5.83 3.86 3.81 5.39 Concept Mean 6.23 6.23 6.34 5.79 6.21 4.32 4.66 4 HS 5.78 6.00 6.39 5.50 6.03 3.94 4.44 5.44 LS 5.89 6.14 6.28 5.97 6.14 3 86 5.31 5.66 DI 6.25 5.83 6.11 6 06 5.83 3 86 3.81 5.40 Concept Mean 5.97 5.99 6.26 5.84 6.00 3.89 4.52 n = 36 Ss per group 219 Table 191 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview One For Scale Ten, Worthless-Valuable Source dfi MS F Groups 2 21.44 4.53 * HS vs LS 1 42.88 9.06 ** HS vs D1 1 11.16 2.36 LS vs DI 1 10.29 2.17 Subjects 105 4.73 Concepts 6 55.77 40.06 *** Concepts x Groups 12 6.67 4.79 *** HS vs LS (C l) 1 11.68 8.39 ** HS vs 01 (C l) l 23.35 16.77 *** LS vs 01 (C l) 1 2.00 1.44 HS vs LS (C 2) 1 .35 5.28 ,* HS vs 01 (C 2) 1 .35 .25 LS vs DI (C 2) l 4.50 3.23 HS vs LS EC 3) l 3.56 2.55 HS vs 01 C 3) l 1.39 1.00 LS vs 01 (C 3) l .50 .36 HS vs LS (C 4) l 17.01 12.22 *** HS vs 01 (C 4) l 37 56 26 98 *** LS vs DI (C 4) l 4.01 2 88 HS vs LS (C 5) l 10.13 7.27 ** HS vs DI (C 5) l 4.50 3 23 LS vs DI (C 5) 1 1.13 81 HS vs LS (C 6) l 1.68 1.21 HS vs DI (C 6) 1 4.01 2.88 LS vs DI (C 6) l 10.89 7.82 ** HS vs LS (C 7) l .50 .36 HS vs DI (C 7) l 16.06 11.53 *** LS vs DI (C 7) 1 22.22 15.96 *** Error 630 1 39 Total 755 n = 36 Ss per group 220 comparisons were made. On concept one, the HS group differed significantly from the LS group (F = 8.39, df = 1/630; p < .01) and the DI group (F = 16.77, df = 1/630; p < .001) in that the HS group rated "DI" lower on the valuable side of the scale. On concept two, the individual comparisons showed that the HS group differed significantly (F = 5.28, df = 1/630; p < .05) from the LS group in that the former rated "bootcamp" lower on the valuable side of the scale. On concept four, the HS group differed significantly from both the LS group (F = 12.22, df = 1/630; p < .001) and the 01 group (F = 26.98, df = 1/630; p < .001) in that the HS group rated "myself" lower on the valuable side of the scale. On concept five, the HS group differed significantly (F = 7.27, df = 1/630; p < .01) from the LS group in that the former rated "Marine" lower on the valuable side of the scale. On concept six, the results showed that the LS group differed sig- nificantly (F = 7.82, df = 1/630; p < .01) from the DI group in that the former rated "most people" higher on the valuable side of the scale. On concept seven, the HS group (F = 11.53, df = 1/630; p < .001) and the LS group (F = 15.96, df = 1/630; p < .001) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "recruit" higher on the valuable side of the scale. Table 192 shows the summary of the analysis of variance on interview two for scale ten, worthless-valuable. The analysis showed a significant differenc existed among groups (F = 3.79, df = 2/630; p < .01). The LS group differed significantly (F = 7.58, df = 1/630; p < .01) from the DI group in that the former had rated the seven concepts higher overall on 221 Table 192 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Two For Scale Ten, Worthless-Valuable Source df MS F Groups 2 13.58 3.79 * HS vs LS l 6.68 1.86 HS vs 01 l 6.91 1.93 LS vs DI 1 27.16 7.58 ** Subjects 105 3.58 Concepts 6 108.52 73.63 *** Concepts x Groups 12 5.01, 3.40 *** HS vs LS (C l) 1 6.72 4.56 HS vs 01 (C 1) 1 1.68 1.14 LS vs DI (C 1) l 1.68 1.14 HS vs LS (C 2) l .22 .15 HS vs 01 (C 2) l 10.88 7.39 ** LS vs DI C 2) 1 8.00 5.43 * HS vs LS (C 3) 1 .35 .24 HS vs DI (C 3) l 4.50 3.05 LS vs DI (C 3) l 7.35 4.99 * HS vs LS (C 4) l 3.56 2.41 HS vs 01 (C 4) l 10.89 7.39 * LS vs DI (C 4) 1 2.00 1.36 HS vs LS (C 5) l 1.68 1.14 HS vs DI (C 5) l 2.35 1.59 LS vs DI (C 5) 1 8.00 5.43 * HS vs LS (C 6) l 2.72 1.85 HS vs DI (C 6) 1 1.13 .76 LS vs DI (C 6) l .35 .24 HS vs LS (C 7) l 6 72 4.56 * HS vs 01 (C 7) 1 12 50 8.48 ** LS vs DI (C 7) 1 37 56 ' 25.48 *** Error 630 1 47 Total 755 n = 36 Ss per group 222 the valuable side of the scale. The results also showed a significant difference (F = 73.63, df = 6/630; p < .001) among groups and for the inter- action term, concepts x groups (F = 3.40, df = 12/630; p < .001). Because of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. On concept two, the HS group (F = 7.39, df = 1/630; p < .01) and the LS group (F = 5.43, df = 1/630; p < .05) significantly differed from the DI group in that both rated "bootcamp" higher on the valuable side of the scale. On concept three, the LS group differed significantly (F = 4.99, df = 1/630; p < .05) from the DI group in that the former rated "Marine Corps" higher on the valuable side of the scale. Individual comparisons further showed that, on concept four, the HS group differed significantly (F = 7.39, df = 1/630; p < .05) from the 01 group in that the former rated "myself" lower on the valuable side of the scale. On concept five, the LS group differed significantly (F = 5.43, df = 1/630; p < .05) from the 01 group in that the former rated "Marine" higher on the valuable side of the scale. On concept seven, the LS group differed significantly from both the HS group (F = 4.56, df = 1/630; p < .05) and the 01 group (F = 25.48, df = 1/630; p < .001) in that the LS group rated "recruit" higher on the valuable side of the scale. Moreover, the HS group rated the concept, "recruit", significantly higher (F = 8.48, df = 1/630; p < .01) on the valuable side of the scale than did the DI group. In Table 193, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview three for scale ten, worthless-valuable, is presented. The analysis showed 223 Table 193 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Three For Scale Ten, Worthless-Valuable Source df MS F Groups 2 22.36 5.47 ** HS vs LS l 12.70 3.11 HS vs DI 1 9.72 2.38 LS vs DI l 44.64 10.92 ** Subjects 105 4.09 Concepts 6 76.09 48.04 *** Concepts x Groups 12 4.77 3.01 *** HS vs LS (C l) l .06 04 HS vs DI (C l) 1 .06 04 L5 vs DI (C 1) 1 .OO 00 HS vs LS (C 2) l 1.68 1.06 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 3.56 2.25 LS vs 01 (C 2) l 10.13 6.39 * HS vs LS (C 3) l .01 .01 HS vs 01 (C 3) l 2.34 1.48 LS vs DI (C 3) 1 2.00 1.26 HS vs LS (C 4) l 5.01 3.17 HS vs 01 (C 4; l 8.00 5.05 * LS vs DI C 4 1 .35 22 HS vs LS (C 5) 1 1.13 .71 HS vs DI (C 5) 1 3.56 2.25 LS vs DI (C 5) l 8.68 5.48 * HS vs LS EC 6) 1 .06 .04 HS vs DI C 6; l 8.00 5.05 * LS vs DI (C 6 1 9.39 5.93 * HS vs LS (C 7; 1 20 06 12.66 *** HS vs DI (C 7 1 10 13 6.39 * LS vs DI (C 7) 1 58 68 37 05 *** Error 630 l 58 Total 755 n = 36 Ss per group 224 that there was a significant difference (F = 5.47, df = 2/630; p < .01) among group. The LS group differed significantly (F = 10.92, df = 1/630; p < .01) from the DI group in that the LS group had rated the seven concepts higher overall on the valuable side of the scale. The results also showed a significant difference (F = 48.04, df = 6/630; p < .001) among concepts as well as for the interaction term, concepts x group (F = 3.01, df = 12/630; p < .001). Because of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. On concept two, the LS group differed significantly (F = 6.39, df = 1/630; p < .05) from the DI group in that the former rated "bootcamp" higher on the valuable side of the scale. Individual comparisons further showed that, on concept four, the HS group differed significantly (F = 5.05, df = 1/630; p < .05) from the DI group in that the former rated "myself" lower on the valuable side of the scale. On concept five, the individual comparisons showed that the LS group differed significantly (F = 5.48, df = 1/630; p < .05) from the DI group in that the former rated "Marine" higher on the valuable side of the scale. On concept six, the results showed that the HS group (F = 5.05, df = 1/630; p < .05) and the LS group (F = 5.93, df = 1/630; p < .05) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "most people" higher on the valuable side of the scale. On concept seven, the LS group differed significantly from both the HS group (F = 12.66, df = 1/630; p < .001) and the DI group (F = 6.39, df = 1/630; p < .05) in that the LS group rated "recruit" higher on the valuable side of the scale. Moreover, the HS group also differed significantly (F = 37.05, df = 1/630; p < .001) from the 01 group in that the HS group rated "recruit" higher on the valuable side of the scale. 225 Table 194 shows the summary of the analysis of variance on interview four for scale ten, worthless-valuable. The results showed no significant difference (F = .88, df = 2/630; p > .05) among groups. Among concepts, however, a significant difference was found (F = 54.97, df = 6/630; p < .001). In addition, the interaction term, concepts x groups, also showed a signif- icent difference (F = 2.40, df = 12/630; p < .01) and, consequently, individ- ual comparisons were made. ' On concept seven, the individual comparisons showed that the HS group (F = 4.52, df = 1/630; p < .05) and the LS group (F = 24.90, df = l/630; "’ p < .001) significantly differed from the DI group in that both had rated "recruit" higher on the valuable side of the scale. Moreover, the HS group differed significantly (F = 8.21, df = 1/630; p < .01) from the LS group in that the former rated "recruit" lower on the valuable side of the scale. In Table 195, the means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, sincere-insincere, are presented. Table 196 shows a summary of the analysis of variance on interview one for scale eleven, sincere-insincere. The results showed no signifi- cant difference (F = 1.05, df = 2/612; p > .05) among groups. There was a significant difference (F = 26.50, df = 6/612; p < .001), however, among the seven concepts. In addition, the interaction term, concepts x groups, also showed a significant difference (F = 3.37, df = 12/612; p < .001). As a result of this latter finding, individual comparisons were made. On concept one, the HS group (F = 9.92, df = 1/612; p < .Ol).and the LS group (F = 9.92, df = 1/612; p < .01) differed significantly from the 01 group in that both rated "DI“ lower on the sincere side of the scale. On Concept three, the HS group differed significantly (F = 6.16, df = 1/612; p < .05) from the LS group in that the former rated "Marine 226 Table 194 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Four For Scale Ten, Worthless-Valuable Source df MS F Groups 2 4.91 .88 HS vs LS l 5.79 1.04 HS vs DI l .29 .05 LS vs DI l 8.64 1.55 Subjects 105 5.58 Concepts 6 89.40 54.97 *** Concepts x Groups 12 3.90 2.40 ** HS vs LS (C 1) 1 .22 .14 HS vs DI (C 1) l 4.01 2.47 LS vs DI (C l) 1 2.35 1.44 HS vs LS (C 2) 1 .35 21 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 .50 31 LS vs DI (C 2) 1 1.68 l 03 HS vs LS (C 3) 1 .22 14 HS vs DI (C 3) l 1.39 85 LS vs DI (C 3) l .50 31 HS vs LS (C 4) l 4.01 2.47 HS vs DI (C 4) l 5.56 3.42 LS vs 01 (C 4) 1 .13 08 HS vs LS (C 5) 1 .22 14 HS vs DI (C 5) 1 .68 42 LS vs DI (C 5) 1 1.68 1 03 HS vs LS (C 6) l .13 08 HS vs 01 (C 6) 1 .13 08 LS vs 01 (C 6) 1 .00 00 HS vs LS (C 7) l 13 35 8.21 ** HS vs DI C 7) 1 7 35 4.52 * LS vs 01 (C 7) l 45 50 24.90 *** Error 630 l 63 n = 36 Ss per group 227 In Table 195, the means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, sincere-insincere, are presented. Table 195 The Means Of The Three Groups On The Seven Concepts Over Time For The Scale Sincere-Insincere Concept Inter- Group 01 Boot- Marine Myself Marine Most Recruit Group view camp Corps People Mean 1 HS 5.14 4.94 5.34 5.14 5.31 4.23 4.80 4.99 LS 5.14 5.29 6.09 5.77 5.34 4.06 4.43 5.16 01 6.09 5.43 5.60 6.20 5.80 4.23 3.86 5.31 Concept Mean 5.46 5.22 5.68 5.71 5.49 4.17 4.36 2 HS 5.43 5.66 5.97 5.71 5.91 4.20 5.03 5.42 LS 5.83 5.63 5.86 5.57 5.77 3.89 4.43 5.28 DI 6.09 5.43 5.60 6.20 5.80 4.23 3.86 5.31 Concept Mean 5.78 5.57 5.81 5.83 5.83 4.11 4.44 3 HS 5.54 5.63 5.74 5.57 5.80 4.31 4.69 5.33 LS 5.49 5.46 5.71 5.77 5.54 4.03 4.94 5.28 DI 6.09 5.43 5.60 6.20 5 80 4.23 3.86 5.31 Concept Mean 5.71 5.51 5.69 5.85 5.71 4.19 4.50 4 HS 5.37 5.71 5.91 5.71 5.63 3.83 4.34 5.22 LS 5.06 4.94 5.71 5.29 5.34 3.77 4.20 4.90 DI 6.09 5.43 5 60 6.20 5.80 4.23 3.86 5.31 Concept Mean 5.51 5.36 5.74 5.73 5.59 3.94 4.13 n = 35 Ss per group 228 Table 196 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview One For Scale Eleven, Sincere-Insincere Source df MS F Groups 2 6.54 1.05 HS vs LS 1 3.60 .58 HS vs DI l 13.06 2.10 LS vs 01 l 2.95 .47 'Subjects 102 6.21 Concepts . 6 41.56 26.50 *** Concepts x Groups 12 5.29 3.37 *** HS vs LS (C l) 1 .00 .OO ‘ 1 HS vs DI (C 1) 1 15.56 9.92 ** LS vs 01 (C 1) 1 15.56 9.92 ** HS vs LS (C 2; l 2.06 1.31 HS vs DI (C 2 1 4.13 2.63 LS vs DI (C 2) 1 .36 23 HS vs LS (C 3) 1 9.66 6.16 * HS vs DI C 3) 1 1.16 .74 LS vs DI (C 3) l 4.13 2.63 HS vs LS (C 4) l 6.91 4.41 * HS vs DI (C 4) 1 19.56 12.47 *** LS vs DI (C 4) 1 3.21 2.05 HS vs LS (C 5; 1 .01 .01 HS vs DI (C 5 l 4.13 2.63 LS vs 01 (C 5) 1 66 2.33 HS vs LS (C 6) 1 .51 33 HS vs 01 (C 6) l .00 OO LS vs DI (C 6) l .51 33 HS vs LS (C 7) l 2.41 1.54 HS vs 01 (C 7) 1 15.56 9.92 ** LS vs DI (C 7) 1 5.71 3.64 Error 612 1.57 Total 734 n = 35 Ss per group 229 Corps" lower on the sincere side of the scale. Individual comparisons also showed that, on concept four, the HS group differed significantly from both the LS group (F = 4.41, df = 1/612; p<.05) and the DI group (F = 12.47, df = 1/612; p<.OOl) in that the HS group rated "myself" on the sincere side of the scale. On concept seven, the results showed that the HS group differed sig- nificantly (F = 9.92, df = 1/612; p<.01) from the DI group in that the former rated "recruit" higher on the sincere side of the scale. In Table 197, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview two for scale eleven, sincere-insincere, is presented. The results showed no significant difference (F = .19, df = 2/612; p>.05) among groups. How- ever, there was a significant difference (F = 32.58, df = 6/612; p<.001) among concepts as well as for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 2.05, df = 12/612; p < .05). As a consequence of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. The comparisons showed that the HS group differed significantly (F = 4.28, df = 1/612; p<.05) from the DI group in that the former rated "DI" lower on the sincere side of the scale, on concept one. On concept four, the LS group differed significantly (F = 3.92, df = 1/612; p<.05) from the DI group in that the former rated "myself" lower on the sincere side of the scale. On concept seven, the HS group differed significantly (F = 13.61, df = 1/612; p<.OOl) from the DI group in that the former rated "recruit" higher on the sincere side of the scale. Table 198 presents a summary of the analysis of variance on interview three for scale eleven, sincere-insincere. The results showed that there was no significant difference (F = .02, df = 2/612; p>.05) among groups. 230 Table 197 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Two For Scale Eleven, Sincere-Insincere. Source df MS F Groups 2 1.21 .19 HS vs LS l 2.22 .35 HS vs 01 l 1.28 .20 LS vs DI l .13 .02 Subjects 102 .63 Concepts 6 57.49 32.58 *** Concepts x Groups 12 3.62 2.05 * HS vs LS (C l) 1 2.80 1.59 HS vs DI (C l) l 7.56 4.28 * LS vs 01 (C l) l 1.16 .66 HS vs LS (C 2) l .01 01 HS vs DI (C 2) l .91 52 LS vs DI (C 2) l .70 40 HS vs LS C 3; l .23 13 HS vs DI C 3 l 2.41 l 37 LS vs DI (C 3) l 1.16 66 HS vs LS (C 4) l .36 20 HS vs DI C 4) l 4.13 2.34 LS vs DI C 4) l 6.91 3.92 * HS vs LS C 5) l .36 20 HS vs DI C 5) 1 .23 13 L5 vs DI (C 5) l .01 01 HS vs LS (C 6) l 1.73 98 HS vs DI (C 6) l .01 01 L5 vs DI (C 6) l 2.06 1 17 HS vs LS EC 7) l 6.30 3.57 HS vs DI C 7) l 24.01 13.61 *** LS vs DI (C 7) l 5.71 3.24 Error 612 1.77 n = 35 $5 per group 231 Table 198 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Three For Scale Eleven, Sincere-Insincere Source df MS F Groups 2 .16 .02 HS vs LS l .29 .04 HS vs DI l .18 .00 L5 vs 01 l .17 .02 Subjects 102 7.63 Concepts 6 47.33 29.54 *** Concepts x Groups 12 3.45 2.15 * HS vs LS (C 1) l .06 .04 HS vs DI (C 1) l 5.16 3.22 LS vs 01 (C 1) l 6.30 3.93 HS vs LS (C 2; l .51 32 HS vs DI (C 2 l .70 44 LS vs DI (C 2) l .01 01 HS vs LS (C 3) l .01 01 HS vs DI (C 3) l .36 22 L5 vs DI (C 3) l .23 14 HS vs LS (C 4) l .70 44 HS vs 01 (C 4) l 6.91 4 32 * LS vs 01 (C 4) l 3.21 2 01 HS vs LS (C 5) l 1.16 72 HS vs 01 (C 5) l .00 00 LS vs 01 (C 5) 1 1.16 72 HS vs LS (C 6) l 1.43 89 HS vs 01 (C 6) l .13 08 LS vs 01 (C 6) l .70 44 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 l 16 .72 HS vs DI (C 7) l 12 01 7.50 ** LS vs DI (C 7) 1 20 63 12.87 *** Error 612 1 60 Total 734 n = 35 $5 per group 232 There was, however a significant difference (F = 29.54, df = 6/612; p<.001) among concepts and for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 2.15, df = 12/612; p<.05). Because of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. The comparisons showed that, on concept one, the LS group differed significantly (F = 3.93, df = 1/612; p<.05) from the DI group in that the former rated "DI" lower on the sincere side of the scale. 0n concept four, the HS group differed significantly (F = 4.32, df = 1/612; p<.05) from the DI group in that the former rated "myself" lower on the sincere side of the scale. 0n concept seven,both the HS group (F = 7.50, df = 1/612; p<.01) and the LS group (F = 12.87, df = 1/612; p<.001) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "recruit" higher on the sincere side of the scale. J In Table 199, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview four for scale eleven, sincere-insincere, is presented. The results showed that the only significant overall F value was found among concepts (F = 32.89, df = 6/612;p<.001). Consequently, no individual comparisons were made. TABLE 199 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance 0n Interview Four For Scale Eleven Sincere-Insincere Source df MS F Groups 2 11.37 1.74 Subjects 102 6.53 Concepts 6 62.07 32.89 *** Concepts x Groups 12 3.02 1.60 Error 612 1.89 Total 734 ------------------------’--------------------‘--------------------------- n = 35 $5 per group 233 Table 200 contains the means of the groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, immoral-moral. In Table 201, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview one for scale twelve, immoral-moral, is presented. The results showed no over- all significant F value for any of the main effects or the interaction term. Table 202 presents the summary table of the analysis of variance on interview two for scale twelve, immoral-moral. The only overall signifi- cant F value was among concepts (F = 4.73, df = 6/540; p < .001). In Table 203, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview three for scale twelve, immoral-moral, is presented. The only overall significant F value was among concepts (F = 3.21, df = 6/540; p < .01). Table 204 presents the summary of the analysis of variance on inter- view four for scale twelve, inmoral-moral. The only overall significant F value was among concepts (F = 5.06, df = 6/540; p < .001). Table 206 shows the summary of the analysis of variance on interview one for scale thirteen, pleasant-painful. The results showed that there was no significant difference (F = .77, df = 2/612; p > .05) among groups. However, there was a significant difference (F = 32.49, df = 6/612; p < .001) among concepts as well as for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 3.02, df = 12/612; p < .001). As a consequence of the latter finding, indi- vidual comparisons were made. On concept one, the comparisons showed that the HS group differed significantly (F = 6.06, df = 1/612; p < .05) from the DI group in that the former rated "DI" higher on the painful side of the scale. On concept two, the LS group differed significantly (F = 6.06, df = 1/612; p < .05) from the DI group in that the former rated "bootcamp" higher 234 Table 200 contains the means of the groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, immoral-moral. Table 200 The Means Of The Three Groups On The Seven Concepts Over Time For The Scale Immoral-Moral Concept Inter- Group DI Boot- Marine Myself Marine Most Recruit Group view camp Corps People 1 HS 4.65 4.58 4.84 4.52 4.68 4.61 4.65 4.65 LS 4.90 4.77 5.00 5.16 4.81 4.23 4.55 4.77 DI 4.61 4.94 4.65 4.61 4.45 4.48 4.03 4.54 Concept Mean 4.72 4.76 4.83 4.76 4.65 4.44 4.41 2 HS 4.26 4.52 5.03 5.03 5.00 3.94 4.32 4.59 LS 5.19 4.97 4.97 4.90 4.94 3.84 4.58 4.77 01 4.61 4.94 4.65 4.61 4.45 4.48 4 03 4.54 Concept Mean 4.69 4.81 4.88 4.85 4.80 4.09 4.31 3 HS 4.52 4.61 5.03 5.10 4.97 4.19 4.68 4.73 LS 4.55 4.36 4.65 4.61 5.07 3 65 4.39 4.47 01 4.61 4.94 4.65 4.61 4.45 4 48 4.03 4.54 Concept Mean 4.56 4.63 4.77 4.77 4.83 4.11 4.37 4 HS 4.36 4.55 5.16 5.13 4.61 4.23 4.58 4.66 LS 3.84 4.39 5.10 5.00 4.77 3.65 4.07 4.40 DI. 4 61 4 94 4.65 4.61 4.45 4.48 4 03 4.54 Concept Mean 4.27 4.62 4.97 4.91 4.61 4.12 4.23 n = 31 $5 per group 235 Table 201 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview One For Scale Twelve, Immoral-Moral Source df MS F Groups 2 3.01 .31 Subjects 90 9.57 Concepts 6 3.55 1.56 Concepts x Groups 12 1.51 .93 Error 540 1.63 Total 650 n = 31 $5 per group Table 202 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Two For Scale Twelve, Immoral-Moral Source df MS F Groups 2 3.23 .25 Subjects 90 12.75 Concepts 6 8.85 4.73 *** Concepts x Groups 12 2.88 1.54 Error 540 1.87 Total 650 n = 31 $5 per group 236 Table 203 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance 0n Interview Three For Scale Twelve, Immoral-Moral Source df MS F Group 2 3.98 .33 Subjects 90 12.22 Concepts 6 6.35 3.21 ** Concepts x Groups 12 2.49 1.25 Error 540 1.98 Total 650 n = 31 $5 per group Table 204 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Four For Scale Twelve, Immoral-Moral Source df MS F Groups 2 3.62 .31 Subjects 90 11.54 Concepts 6 10.62 ' 5.06 *** Concepts x Groups 12 2.97 1.42 Error 540 2.10 Total 650 n = 31 $5 per group 237 In Table 205, the means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, pleasant-painful, are presented. Table 205 The Means Of The Three Groups On The Seven Concepts Over Time For The Scale Pleasant-Painful Concept Inter- Group DI Boot- Marine Myself Marine Most Recruit Group view camp Corps People Mean 1 HS 2.97 2.43, 3.80 4.86 3.80 4.37 4.37 3.80 LS 3.80 2.20 4.29 5.46 4.40 4.20 4.17 4.07 DI 3.57 3.03 4.86 4.83 4.11 4.29 3.34 4.00 Concept Mean 3.45 2.55 4.31 5.05 4.11 4.29 3.96 2 HS 3.23 2.11 4.06 4.89 4.37 3.94 3.74 3.77 LS 4.34 3.03 4.34 5.23 4.83 3.71 4.20 4.24 DI 3.57 3.03 4.86 4.83 4.11 4.29 3.34 4.00 Concept Mean 3.71 2.72 4.43 4.98 4.44 3.98 3.76 3 HS 3.09 2.43 4.14 5.14 4.74 4.80 4.23 4.08 LS 3.94 3.20 4.14 4.40 4.34 3.97 3.86 3.98 DI 3.57 3.03 4 86 4.83 4.11 4.29 3.34 4.00 Concept Mean 3.53 2.89 4.38 4.79 4.40 4.35 3.81 4 HS 3.86 2 94 4.94 5.51 4.77 3.86 3.83 4.25 LS 3.77 3.23 4.40 4.91 4.69 4.29 4.17 4.21 DI 3.47 3.03 4.86 4.83 4.11 4 29 3.34 4.00 Concept Mean 3.73 3 07 4.73 5.09 4.52 4.14 3.78 n = 35 $5 per group 238 Table 206 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview One For Scale Thirteen, Pleasant-Painful Source df MS F Groups 2 4.95 .77 HS vs LS 1 9.16 1.43 HS vs DI 1 5.10 .80 LS vs D1 1 .59 .09 Subjects 102 6.41 Concepts 6 64.39 32.49 *** Concepts x Groups 12 5.98 3.02 *** HS vs LS (C l) l 12.01 6.06 * HS vs DI (C 1) l 6.30 3.18 LS vs DI (C l) 1 .91 .46 HS vs LS (C 2) l .91 .46 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 6.30 3.18 LS vs 01 (C 2) 1 12.01 6.06 * HS vs LS (C 3) l 4.13 2.08 HS vs DI (C 3) 1 19.56 9.87 ** LS vs 01 (C 3) l 5.71 2.86 HS vs LS (C 4) l 6.30 3.18 HS vs 01 (C 4) 1 .01 .Ol LS vs DI (C 4) 1 6.91 3.49 HS vs LS (C 5) l 6.30 3.18 HS vs 01 (C 5) 1 1.73 .87 LS vs DI (C 5) l 1.43 .72 HS vs LS (C 6) l .51 26 HS vs DI (C 6) 1 .13 O6 LS vs DI (C 6) l .13 06 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 .70 .35 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 18.51 9.34 ** LS vs 01 (C 7) 1 12 01 6 06 * Error 612 l 98 n = 35 $5 per group 239 on the painful side of the scale. On concept three, the results showed that the HS group differed significantly (F = 9.87, df = 1/612; p<.01) from the DI group in that the former rated "Marine Corps" higher on the painful side of the scale. On concept seven, the HS group (F = 9.34, df = 1/612; p<.01) and the LS group (F = 6.06, df = 1/612; p<.05) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "recruit" higher on the pleasant side of the scale. In Table 207, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview two for scale thirteen, pleasant-painful, is presented. The results showed that there was no significant difference (F = 1.91, df = 2/612; p<.05) among groups. However, for the main effect, concepts, there was a signif- icant difference (F = 25.06, df = 6/612; p<.OOl). Moreover, the analysis showed that the interaction term, concepts x groups, was also significantly different (F = 2.18, df = 12/612; p<.05). As a result of the latter find- ing, individual comparisons were made. The individual comparisons showed that, on concept one, the LS group differed significantly from the HS group (F = 10.02, df = 1/612; p<.01) and the DI group (F = 4.80, df = 1/612; p<.05) in that the LS group rated "DI" higher on the pleasant side of the scale. On concept two, the HS group differed significantly from the LS group (F = 6.75, df = 1/612; p<.01) and the DI group (F = 6.75, df = 1/612; p<.01) in that the HS group rated "bootcamp" higher on the painful side of the scale. 0n concept three, the results showed that the HS group differed sig- nificantly (F = 4.80, df = 1/612; p<.05) from the DI group in that the former rated "Marine Corps" lower on the pleasant side of the scale. On concept five, the LS group differed significantly (F = 4.12, 240 Table 207 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance 0n Interview Two For Scale Thirteen, Pleasant-Painful Source df MS F Groups 2 13.73 1.91 HS vs L5 1 27.46 3.82 HS vs DI l 6.87 .95 L5 vs D1 1 6.87 .95 Subjects 102 7.19 Concepts 6 54.34 25.06 *** Concepts x Groups 12 4.73 2.18 * HS vs LS (C 1) 1 21.73 10.02 ** HS vs DI (C 1) 1 2.06 95 LS vs 01 (C l) 1 10 41 4 8O * HS vs LS EC 2) l 14 63 6.75 ** HS vs DI C 2) 1 14 63 6.75 ** LS vs 01 (C 2) 1 .00 00 HS vs LS (C 3) 1 1.16 .53 HS vs DI (C 3) 1 10.41 4.80 * LS vs DI (C 3) l 4.63 2.13 HS vs LS (C 4) 1 2.06 .95 HS vs 01 (C 4) l .06 .03 LS vs 01 (C 4) l 2.80 1.29 HS vs LS (C 5) l 3.66 1.69 HS vs DI (C 5) l 1.16 .53 LS vs DI (C 5) l 8.93 4.12 * HS vs LS (C 6) l .91 .42 HS vs DI (C 6) 1 2.06 .95 L5 vs DI (C 6) 1 5.71 2.64 HS vs LS (C 7) l 3.66 1.69 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 2.80 1.29 LS vs DI (C 7) l 12.86 5.93 * Error 612 2.17 Total 734 n = 35 $5 per group 241 df = 1/612; p < .05) from the DI group in that the former rated "Marine” higher on the pleasant side of the scale. On concept seven, the LS group differed significantly (F = 5.93, df = 1/612; p < .05) from the DI group in the former rated "recruit" higher on the pleasant side of the scale. Table 208 shows the summary of the analysis of variance on interview three for scale thirteen, pleasant—painful. An examination of the results showed that there was no significant difference among groups (F = .11, df = 2/612; p > .05). However, there was a significant difference among concepts (F = 20.60, df = 6/612; p < .001) as well as for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 3.00, df = 12/612; p < .001). As a result of the finding on the interaction term, individual comparisons were made. The individual comparisons showed that, on concept one, the HS group differed significantly (F = 5.94, df = 1/612; p < .05) from the LS group in that the former rated "DI" higher on the painful side of the scale. On concept two, the HS group differed significantly (F = 4.82, df = 1/612; p < .05) from the LS group in that the former rated "bootcamp" higher on the painful side of the scale. On concept three, the HS group (F = 4.13, df = 1/612; p < .05) and the LS group (F = 4.13, df = 1/612; p < .05) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "Marine Corps" lower on the pleasant side of the scale. On concept four, the HS group differed significantly from the LS group (F = 4.47, df = 1/612; p < .05) in that the former rated "myself" higher on the pleasant side of the scale. On concept six, the HS group differed significantly (F = 5.56, df = 1/612; p < .05) from the LS group in that the former rated "most people" 242 Table 208 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Three For Scale Thirteen, Pleasant-Painful Source df MS F Groups 2 .70 .11 HS vs LS 1 1.28 .20 HS vs 01 l .74 .ll LS vs 01 1 .07 .01 Subjects 102 6.47 Concepts 6 44.56 20.60 *** Concepts x Groups 12 6.49 3.00 *** HS vs LS (C 1) l 12.86 5.94 * HS vs DI (C 1) l 4.13 1.91 LS vs 01 (C 1) l 2.41 1.12 HS vs LS (C 2) l 10.41 4.82 * HS vs DI (C 2) 1 6.30 2.91 LS vs DI (C 2) 1 .51 .24 HS vs LS (C 3) l .00 .00 HS vs DI (C 3) l 8.93 4.13 * LS vs DI (C 3) l 8.93 4.13 * HS vs LS (C 4) l .97 4.47 * HS vs DI (C 4) l 1.73 .80 LS vs DI (C 4) l 3.21 1.49 HS vs LS (C 5) l 2.80 1.29 HS vs DI (C 5) 1 6.91 3.20 LS vs DI (C 5) 1 .91 .42 HS vs LS (C 6) 1 12.01 5.56 * HS vs 01 (C 6) l 4.63 2.14 LS vs DI (C 6) 1 1.73 .80 HS vs LS (C 7) l 2.41 1.12 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 13.73 6.35 * LS vs DI (C 7) 1 4.63 2.14 Error 612 2.16 n = 35 $5 per group 243 higher on the pleasant side of the scale. On concept seven, the HS group differed significantly (F = 6.35, df = 1/612; p<.05) from the DI group in that the former rated "recruit" higher on the pleasant side of the scale. In Table 209, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview four for scale thirteen, pleasant-painful, is presented. Accordingly, no individual comparisons were made since the only overall significant F value found was among concepts (F = 25.92, df = 6/612; p<.OOl). TABLE 209 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Four For Scale Thirteen Pleasant-Painful Source df MS F Groups 2 4.12 .46 Subjects 102 9.05 Concepts 6 49.68 25.92 *** Concepts x Groups 12 2.99 1.56 Error 612 1.92 Total 734 n = 35 $5 per group In Table 211, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview one for scale fourteen, sad-happy, is presented. The table shows that there was no significant difference among groups (F = .15, df = 2/612; p>.05). There was, however, a significant difference among concepts (F = 14.19, df (F 6/612; p<.OOl) as well as for the interaction term, concepts x groups 2.03, df = 12/612; p<.05). Because of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. The individual comparisons showed that, on concept one, the HS group (F = 13.58, df = 1/612; p<.OOl) and the LS group (F = 9.60, df = 1/612; 244 Table 210 shows the means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, sad-happy. Table 210 The Means Of The Three Groups On The Seven Concepts Over Time For The Scale Sad-Happy Concept Inter- Group DI Boot- Marine Myself Marine Most Recruit Group view camp Corps People Mean 1 HS 3.91 3.57 4.49 4.60 4.49 4.14 3.94 4.16 LS 4.51 3.17 4.11 4.71 4.51 4.00 3.74 4.11 DI 4.06 3.20 4.43 4.77 4.60 4.54 2.69 4.04 Concept Mean 4.16 3.31 4.34 4.70 4.53 4.23 3.46 2 HS 4.34 3.66 4.63 4.63 5.03 3.63 3.29 4.17 LS 5.40 4.57 5.77 4.86 5.23 3.74 3.80 4.77 DI 4.06 3.20 4.43 4.77 4.60 4.54 2.69 4.04 Concept Mean 4.60 3.81 4.94 4.75 4.95 3.97 3.26 3 HS 4.69 3.43 4.80 5.06 5.51 4.57 3.51 4.51 LS 5.17 4.03 5.26 4.66 5.06 3.43 3.46 4.34 DI 4.06 3.20 4 43 4.77 4.60 4.54 2.69 4.04 Concept Mean 4.64 3.55 4.83 4.83 5.06 4.18 3.22 4 HS 4.63 3.46 5.11 5.69 5.14 3.77 3.11 4.42 LS 4.86 4.06 5.06 4.94 4.86 3.71 3.26 4.39 DI 4.06 3.20 4.43 4.77 4.60 4.54 2 69 4.04 Concept Mean 4.51 3.57 4.87 5.13 4.87 4.01 3.02 n = 35 $5 per group 245 Table 211 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview One For Scale Fourteen, Sad-Happy Source df MS F Groups 2 .92 .15 HS vs LS 1 .35 .05 HS vs DI 1 1.84 .29 LS vs D1 1 .59 .09 Subjects 102 6.33 Concepts 6 28.91 14.19 *** Concepts x Groups 12 4.13 2.03 * HS vs LS (C l) 1 6.30 3.09 HS vs DI (C l) 1 .36 .18 LS vs DI (C 1 l 3.66 1.80 HS vs LS (C 2) l 2.80 1.37 HS vs DI (C 2) l 2.41 1.19 LS vs DI (C 2) 1 .01 01 HS vs LS (C 3) 1 2.41 1 19 HS vs DI (C 3) l .06 03 L5 vs DI (C 3) 1 1.73 85 HS vs LS (C 4) l .23 11 HS vs 01 (C 4) l .51 25 LS vs DI (C 4) 1 .06 03 HS vs LS (C 5) 1 .01 01 HS vs DI (C 5) l .23 11 L5 vs DI (C 5) l .13 06 HS vs LS (C 6) 1 .36 .18 HS vs DI (C 6) l 2.80 1.37 LS vs DI (C 6) 1 5.16 2.53 HS vs LS (C 7) 1 .70 .34 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 26 66 13.58 *** LS vs DI (C 7) 1 19 56 9.60 ** Error 612 2 04 n = 35 Ss per group 246 p<.01) differed significantly from the DI group in that both had rated "recruit" higher on the happiness side of the scale. Table 212 presents the summary of the analysis of variance on inter- view two for scale fourteen, sad-happy. The results showed that there was a significant difference (F = 5.34, df = 2/612; p<.01) among groups. In- dividual comparisons showed that the LS group differed significantly from both the HS group (F = 6.32, df = 1/612; p<.05) and the DI group (F = 9.40, df = 1/612; p<.01) in that the LS group rated the seven concepts higher .4"— overall on the happy side of the scale. Furthermore, the results showed that there was a significant difference among concepts (F = 23.13, df = 6/612; p<.OOl) and for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 3.42, df = 12/612; p<.OOl). As a consequence of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. The individual comparisons for Table 212 showed that, on concept one, the LS group differed significantly from the HS group (F = 10.08, df = 1/612; p<.01) and the DI group (F = 16.29, df = 1/612; p<.OOl) in that the LS group had rated "DI" higher on the happy side of the scale. On concept two, the LS group differed significantly from the HS group (F = 7.54, df = 1/612; p<.01) and the DI group (F = 16.96, df = 1/612; p<.OOl) in that the LS group had rated "bootcamp" higher on the happy side of the scale. On concept three, the comparisons showed that the LS group differed . significantly from the HS group (F = 11.78, df = 1/612; p<.001) and the 01 group (F = 16.26, df = 1/612; p<.OOl) in that the LS group had rated "Marine Corps" highercuithe happy side of the scale. 0n concept six, the HS group (F = 7.54, df = 1/612; p<.01) and the LS group (F = 5.77, df = 1/612; p<.05) both differed significantly from 247 Table 212 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Two For Scale Fourteen, Sad-Happy -------------------------------------—-- ----------------------------- Source df MS F Groups 2 36.75 5.34 ** HS vs LS 1 43.50 6.32 * HS vs DI 1 2.09 .30 LS vs DI 1 64.66 9.40 ** Subjects 102 6.88 Concepts 6 44.88 23.13 *** Concepts x Groups 12 6.64 3.42 *** HS vs LS (C 1) 1 19.56 10.08 ** HS vs DI (C 1) 1 1.43 .74 LS vs DI (C l) 1 31.56 16.26 *** HS vs LS (C 2) 1 14.63 7.54 ** HS vs DI (C 2) 1 3.66 1.88 LS vs DI (C 2) l 32.91 16.96 *** HS vs LS (C 3) l 22.86 11.78 *** HS vs 01 (C 3) 1 .70 .36 LS vs DI (C 3) l 31.56 16.26 *** HS vs LS (C 4) l 91 .47 HS vs DI (C 4) l .36 .18 LS vs 01 (C 4) l .13 07 HS vs LS (C 5) 1 .7O 36 HS vs DI (C 5) l 3.21 1 66 LS vs DI (C 5) 1 6.91 3 56 HS vs LS (C 6) 1 .23 .12 HS vs DI (C 6) 1 14.63 7.54 ** LS vs DI (C 6) l 11.20 5.77 * HS vs LS (C 7) 1 4.63 2.39 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 6.30 3.25 LS vs DI (C 7) l 21.73 11.20 ** Error 612 1.94 Total 734 n = 35 $5 per group 248 the DI group in that both rated "most people" lower on the happy side of the scale. Individual comparisons on concept seven showed that the LS group differed significantly (F = 11.20, df = 1/612; p < .01) from the DI group in that the former rated "recruit" higher on the happy side of the scale. In Table 213, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview three for scale fourteen, sad-happy, is presented. The results showed that there was a significant difference (F = 3.28, df = 2/612; p < .05) among groups. Individual comparisons further showed that both the HS group (F = 5.66, df = 1/612; p < .05) and the LS group (F = 4.03, df = 1/612; p < .05) differed significantly from the 01 group in that both rated the seven concepts higher overall on the happy side of the scale. The anal- ysis also showed that there was a significant difference among concepts (F = 27.20, df = 6/612; p < .001) and for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 3.38, df = 12/612; p < .001). Consequently, because of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. On concept one, the LS group differed significantly (F = 11.33, df = 1/612; p < .01) from the DI group in that the former rated "DI" higher on the happy side of the scale. On concept two, the LS group differed significantly (F = 6.26, df = 1/612; p < .05) from the DI group in that the former rated "bootcamp" higher on the happy side of the scale. The individual comparisons also showed that, on concept three, the LS group differed significantly (F = 6.26, df = 1/612; p < .05) from the DI group in that the former rated "Marine Corps" higher on the happy side of the scale. On concept five, the HS group differed significantly (F = 7.63, df = 1/612; p < .01) from the DI group in that the former rated "Marine" higher Table 213 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Three For Scale Fourteen, Sad-Happy Source Groups HS HS LS V5 V5 VS Subjects Concepts Concepts HS HS LS HS HS LS HS HS LS HS HS LS HS HS LS HS HS LS V5 V5 V5 VS V5 V5 VS VS V5 V5 VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS VS DI DI LS DI LS DI DI LS DI LS DI DI LS DI DI LS DI DI 400me #01 mo: m—l-A . O O 0101 *** *** ** *‘k *** *** n = 35 $5 per group 250 on the happy side of the scale. On concept six, the LS group differed significantly from both the HS group (F = 11.92, df = 1/612; p<.OOl) and the DI group (F = 11.33, df = 1/612; p<.OOl) in that the LS group rated "most people" lower on the happy side of the scale. Individual comparisons on concept seven, Table 213, showed that the HS group (F = 6.26, df = 1/612; p<.05) and the LS group (F = 5.43, df = 1/612; p<.05) differed significantly from the DI group in that they both rated "recruit" higher on the happy side of the scale. Table 214 shows a summary of the analysis of variance on interview four for scale fourteen, sad-happy. Among groups, the results showed no significant difference (F = 1.46, df = 2/612; p>.05). There was, however, a significant difference (F = 30.09, df = 6/612; p<.OOl) among concepts and for the interaction term, concepts x groups (F = 2.24, df = 12/612; p<.01). As a consequence of the latter finding, individual comparisons were made. On concept one, the comparisons showed that the LS group differed significantly (F = 5.30, df = 1/613; p<.05) from the DI group in that the former rated “DI" higher on the happy side of the scale. 0n concept two, the results showed that the LS group differed sig- nificantly (F = 6.08, df = 1/612; p<.05) from the 01 group in that the former rated "bootcamp" higher on the happy side of the scale. On concept three, the results showed that the HS group differed significantly (F = 3.89, df = 1/612; p<.05) from the DI group in that the former rated "Marine Corps" higher on the happy side of the scale. Concept four showed that the HS group differed significantly from both the LS group (F = 4.57, df = 1/612; p<.05) and the 01 group (F = 251 Table 214 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Four For Scale Fourteen, Sad-Happy Source df MS F Groups 2 10.81 1.46 HS vs LS 1 .07 .01 HS vs DI 1 17.27 2.33 LS vs DI 1 15.09 2.04 Subjects 102 7.42 Concepts 6 63.64 30.09 *** Concepts x Groups 12 4.73 2.24 ** HS vs LS (C 1) l .91 .43 HS vs DI (C 1) l 5.71 2.70 LS vs DI (C 1) 1 11.20 5.30 * HS vs LS (C 2) l 6.30 2.98 HS vs DI (C 2) 1 1.16 .55 LS vs DI (C 2) l 12.86 6.08 * HS vs LS (C 3) 1 .06 .03 HS vs DI (C 3) 1 8.23 3.89 * LS vs DI (C 3) 1 6.91 3.27 HS vs LS (C 4) l 9.66 4.57 * HS vs DI (C 4) l 14.63 6.92 ** LS vs DI (C 4) l .51 .24 HS vs LS (C 5) l .43 .68 HS vs DI (C 5) 1 5.16 2.44 LS vs DI (C 5) 1 1.16 .55 HS vs LS (C 6) 1 .06 .03 HS vs DI (C 6) 1 10.41 4.92 * LS vs 01 (C 6) l 12.01 5.68 * HS vs LS (C 7) l .36 .17 HS vs DI (C 7) 1 3.21 1.52 LS vs DI (C 7) 1 5.71 2.70 Error 612 2.12 Total 734 n = 35 $5 per group 252 In Table 215, the means of the three groups on the seven concepts over time for the scale, relaxed-tense, are presented. Table 215 The Means Of The Three Groups On The Seven Concepts Over Time For The Scale Relaxed-Tense ' Concept Inter- Group DI Boot- Marine Myself Marine Most Recruit Group view camp Corps People Mean 1 HS 3.58 2.58 3.81 4.17 3.94 3.89 3.00 3.57 LS 4.28 2.56 3.44 4.50 3.86 4.25 3.22 3.73 DI 3.81 2.53 3.78 4.64 4.42 3.69 2.19 3.58 Concept Mean 3.89 2.56 3.68 4.44 4.07 3.94 2.81 2 HS 3.44 2.78 4.03 3.69 4.00 3.53 3.03 3.50 LS 4.31 2.89 4.33 3.94 4.39 3.75 2.58 3.74 01 3.81 2.53 3.78 4.64 4.42 3.69 2.19 3.58 Concept Mean 3.85 2.73 4.05 4.09 4.27 3.66 2.60 3 HS 4.14 3.03 4.72 4.47 5.03 4.64 3.14 4.17 LS 3.92 2.58 3.83 3.47 4.33 3.31 2.92 3.48 DI 3.81 2.53 3 78 4.64 4 42 3.69 2.19 3.58 Concept Mean 3.95 2.71 4.11 4.19 4.59 3.88 2.75 4 HS 4.00 3.25 4.44 5.17 4.86 3.56 2 42 3.96 LS 4.22 3.39 4.75 4.42 4.58 3.94 3 03 4.06 DI 3.81 2.53 3 78 4.64 4.42 3.69 2 19 3.58 Concept Mean 4.01 3.06 4.32 4.74 4.62 3.73 2.57 n = 36 $5 per group 253 6.92, df = 1/612; p < .01) in that the HS group rated "myself" higher on the happy side of the scale. On concept six, both the HS group (F = 4.92, df = 1/612; p < .05) and the LS group (F = 5.68, df = 1/612; p < .05) differed significantly from the DI group in that both rated "most people" lower on the happy side of the scale. Table 216 shows the summary of the analysis of variance on interview one for scale fifteen, relaxed-tense. The results showed that the only significant overall F value was among concepts (F = 22.47, df = 6/630; p < .001); consequently, no individual comparisons were made. In Table 217, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview two for scale fifteen, relaxed-tense, is presented. The results showed that the only significant overall F value was among concepts (F = 20.68, df = 6/630; p < .001); therefore, individual comparisons were not made. Table 218 shows the summary of the analysis of variance on interview three for scale fifteen, relaxed-tense. The results showed that there was a significant difference (F = 4.97, df = 2/630; p < .01) among groups. Comparisons showed that the HS group differed significantly from both the LS group (F = 8.50, df = 1/630; p < .01) and the DI group (F = 6.22, df = 1/630; p < .05) in that the HS group had rated the seven concepts higher overall on the relaxed side of the scale. The only other significant finding was among concepts (F = 24.32, df = 6/630; p < .001). In Table 219, a summary of the analysis of variance on interview four for scale fifteen, relaxed-tense, is presented. The results showed that the only significant overall F value was among concepts (F = 29.30, df = 6/630; p < .001); consequently, individual comparisons were not made. 254 Table 216 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview One For Scale Fifteen, Relaxed-Tense Source df MS F Groups 2 2.07 .26 Subjects 105 7.91 Concepts 6 51.26 Concepts x Groups 12 3.78 1.66 Error 630 2.28 Total 755 n = 36 $5 per group Table 217 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview One For Scale Fifteen, Relaxed-Tense Source df MS F Groups 2 3.84 .50 Subjects 105 7.64 Concepts 6 48.70 20.68 *** Concepts x Groups 12 4.04 1.71 Error 630 2.36 Total 755 n = 36 $5 per group 255 Table 218 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Three For Scale Fifteen, Relaxed-Tense Source df MS F Groups 2 34.69 4.97 ** HS vs L5 1 59.38 8.50 ** HS vs DI 1 43.46 6.22 * LS vs DI l 1.24 .18 Subjects 105 6.99 Concepts 6 57.08 24.32 *** Concepts x Groups 12 4.06 1.73 Error 630 2.35 Total 755 n = 36 $5 per group Table 219 Summary Of Analysis Of Variance On Interview Four For Scale Fifteen, Relaxed-Tense Source df MS F Groups 2 15.91 1.78 Subjects 105 8.95 Concepts 6 70.79 29.30 *** Concepts x Groups 12 3.09 1.28 Error 630 2.42 Total 755 n = 36 $5 per group APPENDIX B Recruit Questionnaire--Form A —_ -— Bat? mm M last are? mane ‘ Rank Service Number unit 91+. 63- '53 m*w'mm Military Statue : usuc __ usucn __ usuoss __ 2 Date of birth your age now Place of birth city state (country if not U.S.) Home town city state Which of the below choices best describes where you spent most of your childhood? on a farm open country but not on a farm small city or town (less than 20,000 population) city over 20,000 but less than 100,000 population suburban community near a large city city over 100,000 but less than one million city over one million Date of entry into USMC Amount of time served to date years months Marital status: Single ___ Married Divorced ___ Divorced & remarried ___ If ever married, number of children you have What is your height What is your weight when you were a child, how often were you sick? (check a point on the scale which best represents your health on each question) always : z z : z : never How strong, physically, were you as a child? weak 3 x z : 3 : strong In general, how is your health now? bad a : : : : : good How strong, physically, are you now? strong a z a a 2 : weak Circle your order of birth (that is, which number child are you?) 1 2 3 4 5 b 7 8 9 10 ll 12 How many brothers do you have How many sisters do you have What is your race? Black Red White Brown Yellow What is your nationality? (that is, Irish, German, etc.) In general, how anxious are you? O. O . not at all very anxious : z Hhat is your father's nationality? Where was your father's father nationality? What was your father's mother nationality? What is your mother's nationality? What was your mother's mother nationality? What was your mother's father nationality? What is your religion? Protestant Jew none Catholic Muslim other Before joining the Marines, how often did you attend church or religious services? never : z z x 3 : always Do you have any hobbies? yes no If yes, what are your hobbies? If no, what did you do for enjoyment? In general, how happy were you before you joined the Marines? happy I z 2 z : 3 sad How happy are you now? sad : z a : 3 3 happy What high school did you attend? name _‘f city "—~—N"~—- state # of pupils How much schooling have you had? (check the highest grade or year completed) none grammar school, grades 1 2 ,_3 4___5 6 7 8 high school, grades 9 10 11 12___ college (years) 1___2 3___Ah__5___§___ Have you attended any technical schools? yes no if yes, what kind? Have you attended any military or service schools? yes DC If yes, what kind? Have you taken any correspondence courses? yes no If yes, what courses did you take? How intelligent do you think you are? dull : : : bright How much did you like school? very much : : : _ __ very little How often did you skip or miss classes? never : z z : : : alwayS What subjects did you like the most? What subjects did you like the least? Do you speak, read, or write in any foreign language(s)? yes ___ no If yes, which language(s)? What kind of work or job did you have before you joined the Marines? How many hours did you work each week? How much money did you earn per week? How well did you like your job? very little : : .0 O. O. 0. very much What are your favorite sports? (list them in order of preference) In which sports did you excell? Do you consider yourself to be a joiner? yes no In how many organisations did you belong? What kind(s) of organization(s) are they? political ___5 social ____3 religious ; military 3 other (please explain) were you well-liked by your family and friends? yes _____ n0 if no, why do you think they disliked you? Whom did you respect the most in civilian life? name occupation What is your goal in life? (That is, what do you want to be or do?) Is your father living? yes no *— Is your mother living? yes no Are your original parents divorced? yes no What is your father's occupation? Is he currently employed? yes no How much money did he earn per week? How much money did he earn per year? What is your mother's occupation? How much money did she earn per week? How much did she earn per year? How much education does your father have? Is she currently employed? yes no year completed) none grammar school, grades 1 ___2 3 A 5 6 high school, grades 9 10 11 12 college, years 1 2 3 A 5 6 professional schools‘TIaw, med., etc:) 7 (check the gighest grade or technical schools (radio repair, etc.) military schools (course(s) studied) correspondence schools (coure(s) studied) How much education does your mother have? To none ____ grammar school, grades 1 2 3 4 5 6 high school, grades 9___10___11___12___ college, years 1___2 3 4 5 6 professional schools-(law. med., etc:) technical schools (secretarial, etc.) 7 military schools (course(s)studied) correspondence schools (course(s) studied) which social class do you belong? To lower middle class upper lower class middle lower class lower lower class upper upper class middle upper class lower upper-class upper middle class middle middle class ___ To To which political party does your father belong? which pnlitiCul party does your mother belong? which political party do you think you belong? In general, how do you classify yourself? liberal 3 3 3 3 g : conservative In general, how do you classify your father? conservative ___ z a z e : : liberal In general, how do you classify your mother? liberal _~ , , 3 g z : conservative .- ~-‘.~v~-~ Did you live at home with your parents? yes no If your parents were divorced, with whom did you live? How well did you like the family meals? very little 8 8 8 8 8 : very much How much freedom did you have at home? very much 8 8 8 8 8 8 very little Did you have your own room and some privacy at home? yes ___ no ___ Have you ever tried any kind of dope or narcotics? yes no Do you drink whiskey, beer, etc? yes ___ no ___ if yes, how often? frequently 8 8 8 8 8 8 seldom Do you smoke? yes ___ no ___ if yes, how often? seldom 8 8 8 8 8 8 frequently Do you enjoy going out with girls? yes ___ no ___ if yes, how often? frequently 8 8 8 8 8 8 seldom Do you have a steady girl? yes ___ no __ (married ___) How often were you disciplined or punished at home? seldom 8 8 8 8 8 8 frequently How was the discipline or punishment you received at home? tough 8 8 8 8 8 8 easy Who administered the discipline in your family? (use numbers in the space after the person to indicate order--use 1 for person who disciplines the most, 2 for the next, etc.) Then check the scale after each person you marked to indicate the severity of that person's punishment. father____easy 8 8 8 8 8 8 tongh mother____tough 8 8 8 8 8 8 easy brother___ easy 8 8 8 8 8 8 tough sister____tough 8 8 8 8 8 8 easy uncle_____ easy 8 8 8 8 8 8 tough aunt tough 8 8 8 8 8 8 easy cousin easy 8 8 8 8 8 8 tough other (specify 8 ) ___. tough 8 8 8 8 8 8 easy When you were disciplined or punished at home, what kind of punishment was used? (that is, how were you punished-spanking, etc.) List them is the order of frequency used. 4. When did you first think about joing the Marines? How old were you when you first considered joining the Marines? How strong was your desire to become a Marine? very weak 8 8 8 8 8 very strong In order of importance, who influenced you to join the Marines? (put 1 after the person or thing which was most important, 2 after the next most important, and 3 after the next etc. check as many as were relevant) father aunt the war mother teacher in-law brother recruiter ___ cousin sister a Marine friend ___ books _______ friend draft news uncle movies plays (give the titles of movies, books, and plays on the following lines:) In general, what is your opinion toward military service? very positive . 3 8 8 8 8 very negative Has any member of your family served in the armed forces? yes __ no) __ if yes, check which relatives and name the branch of service in which he or she served Relgtive Branch father mother brother sister uncle aunt cousin other (specify).___ Ill Any previous military service? yes ___ no if yes, give branch of service and dates served branch ___ (date). - - to (date) Have you ever been in front-line combat? yes___ no ___ if yes, list the place(s) and date(s) Presently, how strong is your desire to become a Marine? very weak 8 8 8 8 8 8 very strong Have you ever belonged to any of the organisations listed below? (check as many as you joined) Boy Scouts USMCR ROTC USAR Sea Scouts USAFR USNR other (specify) Young Marines -...—..--....~. _.-- 10 Before you joined the Marines, did you consider joining some other branch of service? yes ___. no if yes, which branches did you consider? (list in order of preference) 1 2 3 4 In order of preference, what were the most important reasons for your selecting the Marine Corps? (put 1 after your first preference, 2 after the second, and so forth) to be a Marine it builds men learn a trade ____ avoid the draft ___ to leave home ____ no 30b defend country orphan, no home ___ 0.1- 3111 ___. good retirement ___ to travel security ___. other (please explain) Do you intend to make the Marines your career? yes no if yes, why? if no, why not? If you had to do it over, how likely is it that you would join the Marines? very likely 8 8 8 8 8 8 very unlikely What do you like most about being a Marine? (in order of preference) 1. 3. 2. ,_ _ 4. 11 What do you like least about being a Marine? (in order most dislikes) 1. 3. 2. 4. Would you encourage your brother or one of your close friends to join the Marines? greatly encourage 8 8 8 8 8 8 greatly'discourage What qualities do you think a person has to have in order to become a Marine? (number in order of importance, 1 for most important, 2 for next, etc.) intelligence leadership qualities,____ physical strength military bearing mental attitude loyalty discipline patriotism __._ dedication to be a Marine ___ Cleanliness ____ ambition to get ahead ___ other (please explain) What kind of duty do you want most in the Marines? (in order of preference) 1. 3. 2. L. What kind of duty do you want least in the Marines? (in order of most dislike) 1. 3. 2. A- ___.._ -_._.-..---—_._-_-- -- ~— “"' In your opinion, what is the purpose of bootcamp? What kind of Marine do you intend to be? best 8 8 8 8 8 worst APPENDIX C Drill Instructor Questionnaire--Form B date Name k last first middle Rank Servi ee Number Unit I L Plt Ce Bn 969° Military Statusx USMC usuca __ USMCSS __ Date of birth your age now Place of birth city state (country if not U.S.) Home town' city state Which of the below choices best describes where you Spent most of your childhood? on a farm open country but not on a farm small city or town (less than 20,000 population) city over 2C,OOO but less than 100,000 population suburban community near a large city city over 100,000 but less than one million city over one million HIH Date of entry into USMC Amount of time served to date years months Marital status: Single Married Divorced Ldvorced & remarried If ever married, number of children you have What is your height What is your weight When you were a child, how often were you sick? (check a point on the scale which best represents your health on each question) always 8 8 8 8 8 8 never How strong, physically, were you as a child? weak 8 4fi8 8 8 8 8 strong In general, how is your health now? bad 8 8 8 8 8 8 good How strong, physically, are you now? strong 8 8 8 8 8 8 weak Circle your order of birth (that is, which number child are you?) 1 2 3 4 5 A 7 8 9 10 11 12 How many brothers do you have ______ How many sisters do you have What is your race? Black ____ Red ____ White ____ Brown ____ Yellow ___. What is your nationality? (that is, Irish, German, etc.) In general, how anxious are you? very anxious 8 8 not at all What is your father's nationality? Where was your father's father nationality? What was your father's mother nationality? What is your mother's nationality? What was your mother's mother nationality? What was your mother's father nationality? What is your religion? Protestant Jew none Catholic Muslim other Before Joining the Marines, how often did you attend church or religious services? never 8 8 8 8 8 8 always Do you have any hobbies? yes no If yes, what are your hobbies? If no, what did you do for enjoyment? In general, how happy were you before you joined the Marines? happy 8 8 8 8 8 8 sad How happy are you now? sad 8 8 8 8 8 8 happy What high school did you attend? name city state # of pupils How much schooling have you had? (check the highest grade or year completed) none grammar school, grades 1___2 3___Ah__5 6 7 8 high school, grades 9 1O 11 12___ college (years) 1 2 _3 4.__5 6 Have you attended any technical schools? if yes, what kind? yes ___. no Have you attended any military or service schools? yes no __._ If yes, what kind? Have you taken any correspondence courses? yes no ____ If yes, what courses did you take? How intelligent do you think you are? dull 8 8 8 8 8 bright How much did you like school? very much 8 8 8 How often did you skip or miss classes? never __7 8 8 8 8 What subjects did you like the most? What subjects did you like the least? Do you speak, read, or write in any foreign language(s)? yes If yes, which language(s)? _* very little always no What kind of work or job did you have before you joined the Marines? How many hours did you work each week? How much money did you earn per week? ___ How well did you like your job? very little __g 8 8 __ very much What are your favorite sports? (list them in order of preference) In which sports did you excell? Do you consider yourself to be a joiner? yes ____,no In how many organisations did you belong? What kind(s) of organization(s) are they? political ___; 8001811.... religious 8 military 8 other (please explain) 0 9 Were you well-liked by your family and friends? yes _____ no if no, why do you think they disliked you? Whom did you respect the most in civilian life? name occupation What is your goal in life? (That is, what do you want to be or do?) Is your father living? yes ___, 11° Is your mother living? yes no Are your original parents divorced? yes no What is your father's occupation? Is he currently employed? yes no u How much money did he earn per week? How much money did he earn per year? What is your mother's occupation? How How How How To To To To In In In J\ Is she currently employed? yes no much money did she earn per week? much did she earn per year? much education does your father have? (check the gighest grade or year completed) none grammar school, grades 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 high school, grades 9 1O 11 12 college, years 1 2 3 A 5 6 professional schoolsfi(law, med., etc:) technical schools (radio repair, etc.) military schools (course(s) studied) correspondence schools (coure(s) studied) much education does your mother have? none ____ grammar school, grades 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 high school, grades 9___10 11 12 college, years 1 2 3 4 5 6 professional schools (law. med., etc.) technical schools (secretarial, etc.) military schools (course(s)studied) correspondence schools (course(s) studied) which social class do you belong? upper upper class lower middle class ____ middle upper class lower upper class upper middle class middle middle class ___ upper lower class middle lower class lower lower class which political party does your father belong? which politiCul party does your mother belong? which political party do you think you belong? general, how do you classify yourself? liberal 8 8 8 8 8 general, how do you classify your father? conservative 8 8 8 8 general, how do you classify your mother? liberal __ 8 : conservative liberal conservative Did you live at home with your parents? yes no If your parents were divorced, with whom did you live? How well did you like the family meals? very little 8 8 8 8 8 . very much How much freedom did you have at home? very much 8 8 8 8 8 8 very little Did you have your own room and some privacy at home? yes ___ n0 Have you ever tried any kind of dope or narcotics? yes no Do you drink whiskey, beer, etc? yes ___ no ___ if yes, how often? frequently 8 8 8 8 8 8 seldom Do you smoke? yes ___ no ___ if yes, how often? seldom 8 8 8 8 8 8 frequently Do you enjoy going out with girls? yes ___ no ___ if yes, how often? frequently 8 8 8 8 8 8 seldom Do you have a steady girl? yes ___ no __ (married ___) How often were you disciplined or punished at home? seldom 8 8 8 8 8 8 frequently How was the discipline or punishment you received at home? tough 8 8 8 8 8 8 easy Who administered the discipline in your family? (use numbers in the space after the person to indicate order---use 1 for person who disciplines the most, 2 for the next, etc.) Then check the scale after each person you marked to indicate the severity of that person‘s punishment. father____easy 8 8 8 8 8 8 tough mother____tough 8 8 8 8 8 8 easy brother___ easy 8 8 8 8 8 8 tough sister____tough 8 8 8 8 8 8 easy uncle_____ easy 8 8 8 8 8 8 tough aunt _____tough . 8 8 8 8 8 8 easy tough O. O. O. O. cousin easy 8 8 other (specify ~ ) _.__ tough 8 8 8 8 8 8 easy When you were disciplined or punished at home, what kind of punishment was used? (that is, how were you punished-spanking, etc.) List them is the order of frequency used. 1. 2. 3. A. When did you first think about joing the Marines? How old were you when you first considered joining the Marines? *_“____“g How strong was your desire to become a Marine? very weak 8 8 8 8 8 very strong In order of importance, who influenced you to join the Marines? (put 1 after the Person or thing which was meet important, 2 after the next most important’ (and.3 after the next etc. check as many as were relevant} father aunt the war mother teacher in-law brother recruiter ____ cousin sister a Marine friend ___ books friend draft news uncle movies plays (givetthe titles of movies, books, and plays on the following lines:) In general, what is your opinion toward military service? ‘Very'P051tive Nfl_‘, 8 8 8 8 8 very negative ‘00 . Has any member of your family served in the armed forces? yes.___zum if yes, check which relatives and name the branch of service in which he or she served Relative Branch father mother brother sister uncle aunt cousin other (specify) __ Any previous military service? yes ___ no if yes, give branch of service and dates served branch (date). -- - to (date) Have you ever been in front-line combat? yes___ no'___ if yes, list the place(s) and date(s) Presently, how strong is your desire to become a Marine? very weak : 3 : a 8 8 very strong Have you ever belonged to any of the organisations listed below? (check as many as you joined) Boy Scouts USMCR ROTC USAR Sea Scouts USAFR USNR other (specify) Young Marines 10 Before you joined the Marines, did you consider joining some other branch of service? yes __ no if yes, which branches did you consider? (list in order of preference) 1 2 3 z. In order of preference, what were the most important reasons for your selecting the Marine Corps? (put 1 after your first preference, 2 after the second, and so forth) to be a Marine it builds men learn a trade avoid the draft ___ to leave home no job defend country orphan, no home ___ G.I. Bill good retirement ___ to travel security other (please explain) Do you intend to make the Marines your career? yes ___, n0.___ if yes, why? if no, why not? If you had to do it over, how likely is it that you would join the Marines? very likely 8 8 8 8 8 8 very unlikely What do you like most about being a Dhrine? (in order of preference) 1. 3. 2. h -_ ,_ A. ---—_-—-—oq—_—-- ’— 11 What do you like least about being a Marine? (in order most dislikes) 1. 3. 2. 4. Would you encourage your brother or one of your close friends to join the Marines? greatly encourage 8 8 8 8 greatly discourage What qualities do you think a person has to have in order to become a Marine? (number in order of importance, 1 for most important, 2 for next, etc.) intelligence leadership qualities physical strength military bearing mental attitude loyalty discipline patriotism.___m dedication to be a Marine ____ Cleanliness.____ ambition to get ahead ___' other (please explain) What kind of duty do you want most in the Marines? (in order of preference) 1. 3. 2. 4. What kind of duty do you want least in the Marines? (in order of most dislike) 1. 3. 2. lg- In your opinion, what is the purpose of bootcamp? What kind of Marine do you intend to be? best 8 8 8 8 8 8 worst 12 Do you think bootcamp is fulfilling its purpose? yes ___ no if no, why not? When you were a recruit, what did you like most about bootcamp? (in order of preference) 1. 3. 2. 4. When you were a recruit, what did you like least about bootcamp?“n order of most disliked) 1. 3. 2. 4. If you were in-charge, what changes would you make in bootcamp? When you were a recruit, how certain were you of being able to complete the training? very uncertain 8 8 very certain When you completed bootcamp, what kind of Marine were you? best 8 8 8 8 8 8 worst What did you like most about your Drill Instructor when you were in bootcamp? (in order of preference) 1. 3. 2. 4. What did you like least about your Drill Instructor when you were in bootcamp? (in order of most dislike) 1. 3. -2o 40 13 What changes do you think have occurred to you as a person as a result of going through bootcamp? That is, how do you think bootcamp has changed you? Check the position on each scale which you feel reflects that change. more aggressive 8 8 8 8 8 8 more passive weaker physically 8 stronger physically more happy 0. .0 O. O. .0 on less happy less honest more honest inferior 8 8 8 8 8 8 superior more intelligent 8 8 8 8 8 8 less intelligent less religious 8 8 8 8 8 8 more religious less confident more confident How happy would you be if you had to go through bootcamp again as a recruit? very happy 8 8 8 8 8 8 very unhappy How pleasant was your life as a recruit? very painful 8 8 8 very pleasant How did you get assigned to D.I. duty? How long have you been a D.I.? years months Is this your first tour of D.I. duty? yes ___ no Did you attend a D.I. school? yes ___ no if yes, give the name of the school and the dates attended name of school Base (location) from (date) to (date) List the qualities which you think a person needs in order for him to be a good D.I. (list in order of perference) 1o 3. 2- I 4. 14 How many hours does a D.I. have to spend each day with his recruits? hours per day Do you have the authority to train your recruits as you see fit? yes no if no, who tells you what to do? name rank position How do you rate D.I. duty? best 8 8 8 8 8 8 worst Would you advise other Marines to become Drill Instructors? yes ___ no ___ if no, why not? What kind of D.I. are you? best 8 8 8 8 8 8 worst How do you think other D.I.‘s rate you? worst 8 8 8 8 8 8 best How do you think your Commanding Officer rates you as a D.I.? best 8 8 8 8 8 8 worst In your opinion, who is the best D.I. on this Base? name rank organization Why do you think that the person you named is the best D.I.? Does he have (or has he had) any honor platoons? yes ___ no Have you had any honor platoons? yes ____no ___ How would you rate yourself on toughness with recruits? very tough 8 8 8 8 8 8 very easy How do you think other D.I.‘s would rate you on toughness with recruits? very easy 8 8 8 8 8 8 very tough How often have you been reported for mistreating a recruit? often 8 8 8 8 8 8 never How often have you been disciplined or punished since you have been a.b%r5n~? never 8 8 8 8 8 8 often How do you rate yourself as a Marine? best 8 8 8 8 8 8 WORST Do you hope to become a commissioned officer some day? yes ___ no The following question asks you to rate six D.I.‘s whom you know on this base. Name three who are easy on their recruits and three who are tough. Check a point on each scale after the name to indicate how easy or tongh you think that person is with recruits. tough 8 8 8 8 8 8 easy name easy 8 8 8 8 8 8 tough name tough 8 8 8 8 8 8 easy name easy 8 8 8 8 8 8 tough name tough 8 8 8 8 8 8 easy name easy 8 8 8 8 8 8 tough name APPENDIX D Recruit Questionnaire--Form C date Name last first middle Rank Service Number Unit Plt Co En Base Military Status8 USMC USMCR USMCSS ii 1 l I!“ I II. II How strong is your desire to become a Marine? very weak 8 8 8 8 8 8 very strong How much do you like bootcamp? very much 8 8 8 8 8 8 not at all What do you like most about bootcamp? (in order of preference) 1. 3. 2. A. What do you like least about bootcamp? 1. 3. 2. L. If you were in-charge, what changes would you make in bootcamp? (in order of preference) 1. 3. 2o 4. In your opinion, what is the purpose of bootcamp? Do you think the objectives of bootcamp are being fulfilled? yes ___ no if no, why not? How much do you like your Drill Instructor? not at all 8 8 8 8 8 8 very much In order of preference, what characteristics do you like most about your D.I.? 1. 3. 2. lo. 1': II III I Ill-III I‘ll! What characteristics do you dislike most about your D.I.? (in order of preference) 1. 3. 2. 4. Do you think that you will be able to complete boot training? yes no if no, why not? In order of preference, what qualities or characteristics do you think one must have in order to become a Marine? 1. 3. a 2. 4. How often do you attend religious services now? always 8 8 8 8 8 8 never How often are you able to meet and talk with recruits from other platoons? never 8 8 8 8 8 8 always How often are you permitted to go to the movies? always 8 8 8 8 8 8 never How often are you permitted to go to the Post Exchange? never 8 8 - 8 8 8, 8 always How often are you permitted to smoke? always 8 8 8 8 8 8 never How often are you permitted to drink liquor or beer? never 8 8 8 8 8 8 always How often are you permitted to go on liberty? always 8 8 8 8 8 8 never How often are you permitted to write letters? always 8 8 8 8 8 8 never Ill] 1.81"}! Hhe are your best friends in bootcamp? name unit Whom do you respect most in bootcamp? name unit How has bootcamp changed you? That is, how are you different from when you first joined the Marine Corps? more aggressive 8 8 8 8 ‘1_ 8 more passive weaker physically 8 8 8 8 8 8 stronger physically more happy 8 8 8 8 8 8 less happy less honest 8 8 8 8 8 8 more honest inferior 8 8 8 8 8 8 superior more intelligent 8 8 8 8 8 8 less intelligent less religious 8 8 8 8 8 8 more religious less confident 8 8 8 8 8 8 more confident How would you rate your platoon with the others you have seen? best 8 8 8 8 8 8 worst How would you rate your D.I. with other D.I.‘s you have seen on this Base? best 8 8 8 8 8 8 worst In your opinion, which platoon has the best D.I.? Plt# Co Bn If you had a choice, which platoon would you like to be in? Plt# $0 Bn Why would you want to be in this platoon? At this stage of training, how good of a Marine do you think you are? best 8 8 8 8 8 8 worst In your opinion, how tough is your D.I. on recruits? tough 8 8 8 8 8 8 easy In order of preference, what kind of duty do you want most in the Marines? 1. 3. 2. A. What kind of duty do you want least in the Marines? 1. 3. 2. 4. How much would you like to be a D.I.? not at all 8 8 8 8 8 8 very much If you would like to be a D.I., please give the reasons why8 How much do you like being a Marine? very much 8 8 8 8 8 8 not at all In order of preference, what do you like most about being a Marine? 1. 3. 2. 4. all I ll .lll'l ll I ll what do you like least about being a Marine? (List your dislikes in order of importance to you.) 10 ,0 2. L. To which social class do you belong? upper upper class lower middle class 1 middle upper class upper lower class 7" lower upper class middle lower class . upper middle class lower lower class fl middle middle class ___ ; 'lL Do you intend to make the Marine Corps your career? yes ___ no if yes, why? if no, why not? If you had to do it over, how likely is it that you would Join the Marines? very likely~ 8 _8, 8 ' 8 8 8 8 very unlikely Heuld you encourage your brother or one of your close friends to join the Marines? greatly encourage 8, 88 8 8 8 8 greatly discourage Do you wish that you would have Joined another branch of service? yes __ no if yes, which branch would you have joined and why? How often have you been disciplined or punished by your D.I.? frequently 8 8 8 8 8, 8 never Have you been disciplined or punished recently? yes ____ no ____ How wbuld you rate the kind of punishment given to recruits? easy 4 8 8 8 8 8 tough How was the discipline or punishment you received at home? tough 8 8 8 8 8 8 easy How does bootcamp punishment compare with your home punishment? easier 8_ 8 8 8 8 8 8 tougher List some of the D.I.‘s whom you think are real tough on their recruits name Plt. How happy would you be if you had to go through bootcamp again? very unhappy 8 8 8 8_ 8_ 8 very happy How happy are you now? very happy .8 8 8 8 8 8 very unhappy How anxious are you now? very anxious 8 8 ‘8 8 8 8 natat all How much does bootcamp differ from your civilian life? very much 8 8 8 8 8 8 very little What is your goal in life? (What do you want to be or do?) 'i'll‘ell l I APPENDIX E Semantic Different1a1--Form D date Name last first middle Rank Service Number Unit Plt Co 888 Base Military Status8 USMC USMCR‘____ USMCSS ____ INSTRUCTIONS8 For each concept listed, place an x in the space which best describes that concept in terms of the pairs of adjectives listed below. controlled like good Drill Instructor tough excitable fair coward kind strong worthless sincere immoral pleasant sad relaxed free dislike easy call hero cruel weak valuable insincere moral painful happy tense controlled like good tough excitable fair coward kind strong worthless sincere immoral pleasant sad relaxed Bootcamp free dislike bad easy calm unfair hero cruel weak valuable insincere moral painful happy tense Ill-8111' | 111‘ 4, .. Marine Corps controlled 8 8 8 8 8, 8 free like 8 8 8 8 8 8 dislike. good 8 8 8 8 8 8 bed tough 8 8 8 8 8 8 easy excitable 8 8 8 8 8 8 calm fair 8 8 8 8 8 8 unfair coward 8 8 8 8 8 8 here kind 8 8 8 8 8 8 unkind strong 8 8 8 8 8 8 weak worthless 8 8 8 8 8 8 valuable sincere 8 8 8 8 8 8 insincerex immoral 8 8 8 8 8 8 moral pleasant 8 8 8 8 8 8 painful sad 8 8 8 8 8 8 happy relaxed 8 8 8 8 8 8 tense controlled like good tough excitable fair coward kind strong worthless sincere immoral pleasant sad relaxed Myself free dislike bad Ag_ easy calm unfair hero cruel weak valuable insincere moral painful heppy tense controlled like good tough excitable fair coward kind strong worthless sincere immoral pleasant - sad relaxed .0 b. free bad easy calm unfair hero cruel weak valuable insincere moral painful happy tense controlled like good tough excitable fair coward kind strong worthless sincere immoral pleasant sad relaxed Most People free dislike . bad it; easy calm unfair hero unkind weak valuable insincere moral painful happy tense