NG um!‘ I G L NC E A N MA LR H A R PERSON S-OF EN GPENEG MPIGmAL EM 5' MG M DEM! AGE. N A DEREK N g v.43... . 1 Z . . . LURDY ‘Qfor. Eh o issGrtatio': _ m, G a} , I . . - . . ,... .75.. 23:7,..1, ... .2: ~ fawn??? inf-1.. chi-Erna: .5...,..:£....h.. .1. .._ . .1. 3.4” *5... fig. . .G is _ Ease? .: . ~V1.1... 51.1.: This is to certify that the thesis entitled Mew-using Von-«J hum“ may». 3*“: new“... A: A mums w Whom“ :fln ‘mpmu-k presented by Joana 9‘ . N““\ has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for P“: D 0 degree in P$1M\Qfi7 EMMW (J Major gofessor gt LWA Date Maul El??? 0-7639 - H «r * ”t? 2n E ‘T? muting iv: 7' g . "WAG 8 SUNS' BUGK BINDERY INC. LIBRARY amoens £"'HI£E“"‘L! ABSTRACT INCREASING PERSONAL RELEVANCE AS A MEANS OF ENHANCING ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY BY James Ruskin Lundy In this research, Rokeach's (1968) theory of the structure and dynamics of beliefs, attitudes and values was used to formulate an investigation of the relation- ship between increased personal relevance and academic performance. Personal relevance was Operationally defined as the characteristic taken on by information given to a student when this information concerned variables about which he already possessed knowledge concerning himself. Given this definition of personal relevance, Rokeach's (1968) theory was used to generate a general hypothesis that students exposed to information about their standing on variables to be covered in an undergraduate course in social psychology would exhibit enhanced academic perfor- mance to a greater degree than would students not so exposed. This general hypothesis was tested in four specific James Ruskin Lundy ways: students who are exposed to information about their standing on particular variables that will be covered in the content of an undergraduate course in social psychol- ogy will (I) report the content of the course as being more personally relevant than will students not so exposed, (II) achieve higher scores on an objective final examina- tion than will students not so exposed, (III) perform more satisfactorily on certain unobtrusive measures--days missed, questions asked in class discussion, number of reserve books checked out, and number of tutorials attended--than will students not so exposed, and (IV) achieve higher scores on an essay-type examination given six months after the finish of the course than will students not so exposed. In order to test these hypotheses, two investiga- tions were conducted. The first study was a pilot carried out in order to determine the feasibility of the experimen- tal procedures for use in a small college setting and to uncover data confounding sources of bias. An analysis of the data from this study supported the predictions con- tained in hypotheses I and II; no attempt was made to test hypotheses III and IV in Study Number One. Study Number Two dealt. with thirty-six students enrolled for the first time in an undergraduate course in social psychology. These subjects were randomly selected and randomly partitioned into three equal groups: exper- imental group 1, experimental group 2, and a control group. James Ruskin Lundy Experimental group 1 was exposed to information about their standing on variables that would be covered during the course of the term. Experimental group 2 was allowed to respond to the instruments used to measure the variables but they did not have their tests scored. The control group received neither of these treatments. The influence of the experimental treatment was determined by comparing the subjects' responses to an end-of—course questionnaire (to test hypothesis I), their scores on a one hundred item multiple choice examination (to test hypothesis II), their performance on the four unobtrusive measures (to test hypo- thesis III), and their scores on an essay-type examination administered approximately six months after the end of the course (to test hypothesis IV). Analysis of the data from Study Number Two clearly supported the assertions contained in hypotheses I, II, and IV. Hypothesis III was partially confirmed: students who were in experimental group 1 did ask more questions during class discussion. There were no significant differences between the groups as to days missed from class, number of reserve books checked out, or number of tutorials attended; however, the obtained differences were in the directions predicted. On the basis of the findings from these two inves- tigations, it was suggested that academic performance in undergraduate courses in social psychology can be enhanced James Ruskin Lundy by increasing the personal relevance of the content of the course. One way that can be used to increase personal rel- evance is to expose students to information about their standing on variables that will be covered during the progress of the course. It was further suggested that increased personal relevance enhances achievement on exam- inations over a longer time span than is typically measured and that increased personal relevance tends to enhance academic performance in areas other than those measured by achievement test scores. INCREASING PERSONAL RELEVANCE AS A MEANS OF ENHANCING ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY BY James Ruskin Lundy A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1974 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all those persons who have helped in the planning of this research and in the preparation of this manuscript. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF APPENDICES o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 iv LIST OF TABLES o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 V Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Theoretical Basis of Research . . . . . . 2 Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . 9 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 II. WTHOD O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 16 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Study Number On . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 SUbjeCt—S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 18 Instruments Used . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Analysis Technique . . . . . . . . . . 25 Study Number Two . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Instruments Used . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Analysis Technique . . . . . . . . . . 36 III 0 RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 39 Study Number One . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Hypothesis I . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Hypothesis II . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Study Number Two . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Hypothesis I . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Hypothesis II . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Hypothesis III . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 HypotheSiS IV 0 O O O O O O I O O O O O 61 iii Chapter Page Iv. DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 63 summary I O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 63 Study Number On . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Study Nmer mo 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 70 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 REFERENCES 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 83 APPENDICES I O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 88 A. The one hundred item multiple choice examination used in both Study Number One and Study Number Two . . . . . . . . . 88 B. Essay examination administered as part of Study Number Two . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 C. Script used during experimental treat- ment sessions in Study Number One and Study Number Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 D. Assignment sheet used in both Study Number One and Study Number Two . . . . . . 114 E. Comparison of means of experimental group and control group in Study Numer one 0 O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 116 iv Table 1. LIST OF TABLES Means, variances and standard deviations of the experimental and control groups' res- ponses to the "personal relevance" item-- Study Number One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, variances, and standard deviations of the experimental and control groups' scores on a 100 item multiple choice final exam- ination-—Study Number One . . . . . . . . . Means, variances and standard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the con- trol group's reSponses to the "personal relevance" item--Study Number Two . . . . . Summary of analysis of variance of responses made to the personal relevance item by experimental group 1, experimental group 2 and the control group--Study Number Two . . Means, variances and standard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the control group's scores on the 100 item multiple choice final examination--Study Number Two . Summary of analysis of variance of scores achieved on the 100 item multiple choice examination by experimental group 1, exper- imental group 2 and the control group-- Study Number Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, variances and standard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the control group's scores on the objective final exam- ination with the loaded items disregarded—- Study Number Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 41 43 45 45 49 50 52 Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Page Summary of analysis of variance of scores achieved on the multiple choice examina- tion, with the loaded items disregarded, by experimental group 1, experimental group 2 and the control group--Study Number Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Summary of means of the two experimental groups' and the control group's scores on the objective final examination, the objec- tive final examination with the loaded items disregarded, and the loaded items scored independently--Study Number Two . . . . 53 Means, variances and standard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the control group's number of days missed with the sum- mary of analysis of variance performed on this data--Study Number Two . . . . . . . . . 56 Means, variances and standard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the control group's number of questions asked in class discussion with the summary of analysis of variance performed on this data--Study Num- ber Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Means, variances and standard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the control group's number of reserve books checked out with the summary of analysis of variance performed on this data--Study Number Two . . . 58 Means, variances and standard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the control group's number of tutorials attended with the summary of analysis of variance performed on this data--Study Number Two . . . . . . . . . 59 Means, variances and standard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the control group's scores on an essay type examination administered six months after the end of the course with the summary of analysis of vari- ance performed on this data--Study Number Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION On of the major complaints during recent campus protests has been the irrelevance of the college curriculum to the needs and wants of the student (Blackburn, 1969; MacLeish, 1969; Woodring, 1968). These complaints suggest than an increase in relevance of course content would be a desirable objective; however, the question arises as to what would be the Specific outcome of an increase in per- sonal relevance of the college curriculum. Apparently one hOped for result of an increase in personal relevance would be an enhancing of the students' academic performance. The purpose of this research is to investigate the effects upon academic performance of providing undergradu- ate social psychology students with material that increases the degree of personal relevance that the course has for them. There have been a number of studies which have demon- strated the importance of non-intellectual factors upon academic performance (Briney and Taylor, 1959; Fricke, 1956; Garret, 1949; Garverick, 1964; Neidt and Hedlund, 1967; Stein, 1963; Wooford and Willoughby, 1968). However, the use of personal relevance as an independent variable is a relatively neglected aspect of research on factors influenc— ing academic performance. Theoretical Basis of Research In his article, "A Social Psychology of Education," Getzels (1969: 459) comments that "it is a peculiar fact that until recently education seems to have been omitted from the systematic theoretical and empirical concerns of social psychologists." This research is an effort to make some progress at correcting this omission; that is, this experiment will attempt to make use of both the body of knowledge particular to social psychology and the method- ology of social psychology in an investigation of certain educational processes at the undergraduate level. Within this context and because of the lack of precedent noted above, it is necessary to explicitly des- cribe what is meant by personal relevance before giving additional consideration to how this concept will be used in the present research. In general, the theoretical orientation provided by Rokeach (1968 and 1960) will be used in this study; and in particular, his theoretical stance will be the basis for the derivation of a working definition of personal relevance. It is difficult to imagine an unimportant concern having personal relevance. Therefore, in constructing an Operational definition of this term, it is necessary to consider the question of what constitutes cognitive impor— tance; more particularly, what constitutes cognitive impor- tance for an individual. Rokeach speaks to this question when he describes his theory of beliefs. He considers a belief to be "any simple prOposition, conscious or uncon- scious, inferred from what a person says or does, capable of being preceded by the phrase 'I believe that...'" (1968: 113). These beliefs are organized into belief sys- tems, and a belief system is defined as "having represented within it, in some organized psychological but not neces— sarily logical form, each and every one of a person's countless beliefs about physical and social reality" (1968: 2). Rokeach does not see all beliefs as having equal im- portance; he defines importance "solely in terms of con- nectedness: the more a given belief is functionally con- nected or in communication with other beliefs, the more implications and consequences it has for other beliefs, and, therefore, the more central the belief" (1968: 5). Important beliefs, therefore, are those that have a large degree of connectedness. Rokeach also proposes criteria for evaluating the degree of importance, or connectedness, of beliefs. He notes that "beliefs directly concerning one's own existence and identity in the physical and social world are assumed to have more functional connections..." (1968: 5). Further, Rokeach suggests that "beliefs concerning existence and self identity...that are shared with others are assumed to have more functional connections and con- sequences for other beliefs than those not shared with others" (1968: 5). Therefore, the question of what is important cognitively to an individual is answered, at least in part, by this theory; that is, beliefs about the self which are shared with others are important cognitions for any given person. It follows that any operational definition of personal relevance will have to reflect this conceptual- ization of cognitive importance. In other words, personal relevance will, in some fashion, be that which concerns beliefs about the self which are shared with others. If "being shared with others" can be taken to mean both beliefs communicated to others by the subject as well as those com- municated from another to the subject, then personal rel- evance may be said to mean the characteristic taken on by beliefs about the self which are communicated to an individual from an outside source. Or, more particularly -for this study, personal relevance will refer to the characteristic taken on by information given to a student when this information concerns variables about which he already has beliefs (or knowledge) concerning himself. For example, information about authoritarianism will be per— sonally relevant to a student if he already has knowledge (beliefs) about the degree of authoritarianism in his self structure. Further, personal relevance can be conceptualized within the framework of what Rokeach calls "organization and change within value-attitude systems" (1968: 5). Rokeach contends that attitudes are organizations of several beliefs "focused on a Specific object...or situ- ation, predisposing one to respond in some preferential manner" (1968: 159). He extends his theoretical struc- ture by conceptualizing values as "an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct (instrumental value.) or end- state of existence (terminal value.) is...preferab1e to alternate modes of conduct or end—states of existence" (1968: 160). If and when an individual internalizes a value, Rokeach argues that this value will then function in the following ways: as a standard for directing action, as a criterion for formation and functioning of attitudes, or a means of justification of one's own actions as well as the actions of others, as a basis for making moral judg- ments, and as a procedure or technique useful in comparing one's own self concepts with the self as perceived within others (1968: 160). As would be expected in a complex environment, an individual is frequently confronted with circumstances in which he cannot take action (or hold beliefs) that are consistent with all of his values; there will be cognitive conflict as two or more values clash with each other. Rokeach notes that this cognitive disharmony Operates such that an individual's value system obtains; "a person's value system may thus be said to represent a learned organization of rules for making choices and for resolving conflicts--between two or more modes of behavior or between two or more end-states of existence" (1968: 161). Thus, personal relevance--the characteristic taken on by information when this information concerns variables about which one already has knowledge concerning himself--will be expected to elicit the use of those "rules for making choices and for resolving conflicts." This surely must be the expectation since it is obvious that the individual will receive information that is in conflict with knowledge already internalized, in conflict, if in no other way, by being characterized as additional or more complex informa- tion that will require cognitive work to assimilate. Persona11nflevance, therefore, is conceptualized to be a particular instance of what Rokeach describes as the general case in these terms: Whenever a social object is encountered within a social situation it activates two attitudes, (attitude toward the object) and AS (attitude toward the situation). Each of these two atti- tudes activates, in turn, a subject of instrumen- tal and terminal values with which it is func- tionally connected. Behavior toward a social object within a social situation will therefore be a function of the two activated attitudes, A0 and A which, in turn, will be a function of the number and the relative importance of all the instrumental and terminal values activated by AD as compared with all the instrumental and terminal values activated by As (1968: 164). In particular, when a student is given information concern— ing variables about which he already had knowledge concern- ing himself, values are activated such that it is reason- able to predict that inconsistencies will obtain which will result in behavioral change that is characterized as being long remembered, enduring over time and systematic as to produced changes in connected beliefs and attitudes. Using personal relevance as an experimental treatment, as here conceptualized, is a specific example of a unique method advocated by Rokeach for inducing a state of incon- sistency between elements within an individual's value- attitude system; that is, personal relevance is a condition whereby a student is exposed "to information about states of inconsistency already existing within his own value- attitude system" (1968: 167). This resultant inconsistency activates a motivation for consistency, "but consistency... defined primarily as consistency with self esteem" (1968: 164). In other words, the motive is to achieve consistency among elements of the value—attitude system having to do with the self structure as well as the importance of that self structure. With this theoretical conceptualization of personal relevance in mind, it is possible to turn to a consideration of the question of how to increase the influence of personal relevance. Perhaps the most obvious technique to use would be that of providing the student with detailed information about his standing on certain personality variables. That students are ready and willing to accept information about their self structure has been demonstrated by both Forer (1949) and Ulrich, et_al. (1963). Given the definition of relevance being used in this study, the presence of this self-information should operate to make the content of the course increasingly relevant i£_the variables about which the student now has self-beliefs are discussed, read about, and lectured on during the progress of the course. Since the motivational state conceptualized as being in Opera- tion is one that seeks consistency with regard to self cognitions, the motive to seek should produce more involve- ment with the subject matter of the course. Therefore, for this research, instruments used to measure certain of the variables studied in an undergraduate course in social psychology will be administered to the students during the first class meetings. Following the scoring of these instruments, they will be returned and explained to the student thereby giving him detailed know- ledge about his personal standing on each of these variables. As these variables are considered during the progress of the course, it is predicted that the content of the course will take on increased personal relevance for the student; and, as the content of the course increases in degree of personal relevance, it should follow that the student would increase his degree of participation in the activities of the course, and consequently, his academic achievement as he works to reduce the inconsistencies that have been called to his attention as already existing within his own value-attitude system. Review of Literature The use of tests of academic achievement as the dependent variable in research on instructional procedures and techniques has long been an accepted precedent; McKeachie (1967) flatly states that the ultimate criteria of teaching technique effectiveness must be changes in the student with regard to movement toward educational objec- tives. However, there are researchers who question the accuracy and sensitivity of these measures of academic achievement. Siegel, gg_§1. (1963) contend that a final examination, even if it is carefully structured in accord with instructional objectives, may reflect learning that occurred in the absence of the influence of the indepen- dent variable. But given the undesirableness of complete control of the student, even if such control were possible, this lack of preciseness has to be accepted as a reality of research in the educational setting. Therefore, examina- tions continue to be the most commonly used dependent variable in research on teaching methods at the college level (McKeachie, 1963). Faced with the problems inherent in the use of 10 examination scores as the criterion in experimental com- parison of teaching techniques, researchers have turned to other techniques of evaluation. Buenz and Merrill (1968) predicted that the greater the effort required during the training situation for student nurses, the more resistance to extinction of this learning behavior. Their findings support this hypothesis which was generated from the dissonance theory. The theory holds that dissonance, created by effort, is reduced in the individual by his developing "extra attractions" for the learning conditions. This suggests the use of effort expended as an alternative criterion measure. Writing in Unobtrusive Measures: Non- reactive Research in the Social Sciences, the authors note the use of such a measure and comment that "the most fertile search for validity comes from a combined series of differ— ent measures, each with its idiosyncratic weaknesses..." (Webb, gt_al., 1966: 174). The complexities of the cri- terion problem are not all solved by using examination scores plus other more unobtrusive measures, but the situ- ation is much improved by the addition of these other criteria. The influence of the desires of the teacher are also a concern to researchers in the area of effectiveness of teaching techniques. If the experimental procedure is performed by the author of the design, he may, as Rosenthal (1966) suggests, subtly bias his subjects in a direction 11 favorable to his design. Goodwin (1966) and Johnson and Foley (1969) report results that indicate the need for use of safeguards against the experimenter's influencing the responses of the subjects. Johnson and Foley (1960) also offer results that suggest the presence of a placebo effect in research on teaching methods. Their findings were inter- preted to mean that when the student believes that his participation in a new teaching method experiment will be a personally valuable experience, he will increase his efforts, and consequently, his performance. Obtaining participation without awareness appears to be one solution to this difficulty. In spite of the multitude of studies reported (Eckert and Neale, 1965; Gagne and Rohwer, 1969; McKeachie, 1962 are relatively recent reviews of the literature in this area), there appears to be no conclusive and final answer to the question of how best to teach at the college level. Buxton (1956: 363) notes that "we presently know of no one method of instruction which is best for all subject matters or for all instructors." Apparently, the situation has changed little in the last decade if Dubin and Taveggia are correct in their conclusion (Dubin and Taveggia, 1968). These authors examined the data from ninety-one comparison studies of different methods of college teaching and reported that there were no real differences in effective- ness between one teaching method and another. Lee (1967: l) 12 made a comment that appears to summarize the situation: "Improving teaching is a continuing concern, an ongoing never-ending enterprise on every college campus. It is imperative that ways to improve college teaching be devised, explored, and appraised. Although solutions to such prob- lems are elusive and consensus is difficult to achieve, a painstaking search obviously is demanded." Toward such an end Keller (1963) offered a sugges- tion for a "personal course" in psychology. He noted that a course taught in a "personal" manner would be more pro- ductive because the student would find the content of the course more personally relevant. Apparently little has been done that makes use of this suggestion. Blackburn (1969: 6) writes that "the most striking aspect of these interviews is the extent to which they reveal how profound- ly students are concerned with themselves, with their own personal and social development." However, he continues, "their courses for the most part touch them only incidently and apparently not by design." Supporting this criticism, MacLeish (1969: 18) points out that "the relation under- graduates have in mind when they complain, as they do, over and over, that their education does not respond to their needs, preach to their condition...is not relevance to the 'Huntley-Brinkley Report.‘ It is relevance to their lives, to themselves as men and women living." What characteristics must a course possess if it is 13 to be relevant? Maxwell (1969) asked his students this question and reported that relevance of a course can only be evaluated in terms of the unique individual's vieWpoint, his goals, aSpirations and expectations;in other words, the course that is relevant is one that tells him something about himself. Woodring (1968: 179) supports such a con- clusion when he writes that, "the majority of undergraduates find little that is of interest to them or relevant to their life plans....They study psychology not to learn the more SOphisticated techniques of laboratory experimentation ...but because they h0pe to learn something about their own behavior or that of their friends." This research effort attempts to demonstrate that an undergraduate course in social psychology can be taught in such a way so as to increase the degree of personal relevance that the content of the course holds for those students enrolled in the course. The students will be provided with information about their own self-structure by means of providing them with data concerning their standing on certain of the personality variables that will be covered during the course. As each of these variables are con- sidered in turn, it is predicted that the content of the course will increase in degree of personal relevance. Furthermore, it is predicted that the students for whom the course is increasingly personally relevant will increase their participation in the activities of the course. It is 14 also expected that those students for whom the course is more personally relevant will achieve a greater degree of academic success as indicated by performance on examinations than students for whom the course is not personally relevant. And, finally, it is expected that those students for whom the course is more personally relevant will retain informa- tion gained from the course over a greater span of time than will those students for whom the course is less per- sonally relevant. Astin (1964) makes some observations that are pertinent to this expectation. He advocates dis- tinguishing between conceptual criterion (verbal statements of educational outcomes which are based on the more general purposes of researcher) and criterion performance (observ- able events which are judged to be indicative of the con- ceptual criterion). He further argues that changes in a student's examination score (criterion performance) consti- tute a measure of teaching effectiveness (conceptual cri- terion) only when the researcher is willing to assume that the student's score is an important variable to be manipu- lated by the teacher. Obviously this research is done with the belief that a student's test score is an important variable to be influenced by the teacher and his methods. It is not conceptualized as the only variable worth man- ipulation, but it is considered to be an important variable. 15 Hypotheses In Specific, this study will test the following hypotheses: 1. Students in an undergraduate course in social psychology who are exposed to information about their standing on particular variables that will be covered in the content of the course will report the content of the course as being personally relevant to a greater extent than will students not so exposed. 2. Students in an undergraduate course in social psychology who are eXposed to information about their standing on particular variables that will be covered in the content of the course will achieve higher scores on the objective final examination than will students not so exposed. 3. Students in an undergraduate course in social psychology who are exposed to information about their standing on particular variables that will be covered in the content of the course will perform more satisfactorily on certain "unobtrusive measures" (Webb, gt_al., 1966) than will students not so exposed. 4. Students in an undergraduate course in social psychology who are exposed to information about their standings on particular variables that will be covered in the content of the course will achieve higher scores on an essay-type examination given six months after the finish of the course than will students not so exposed. CHAPTER II METHOD Overview In order to test the hypotheses, two investigations were conducted: one during the fall term of 1969 and the second during the fall and spring terms of the 1970—71 academic year. The first study was a pilot project and involved thirty student subjects enrolled for the first time in an undergraduate course in social psychology offered during the fall term of 1969. These subjects were randomly chosen from the seventy-six students enrolled in the class. The thirty subjects were then randomly divided into two groups: an experimental group which was exposed to information about their own standing on certain variables that were covered in the content of the course and a control group which did not have this exposure. The exposure to the information took place during the first four class meet— ings. The influence of such exposure was measured by record- ing both groups' responses to an end-of—course questionnaire and to a one hundred item multiple choice examination. The second group--those not exposed to the information-- served as the control group for the first investigation. 16 17 The forty-six students not involved in the experiment were not used as a second control group because the statistical analysis techniques used with these data were sample sta- tistics and not population statistics. The second study dealt with thirty-six students enrolled for the first time in an undergraduate course in social psychology offered during the fall term of 1970. These subjects were randomly selected from the fifty-seven students enrolled in the class and were randomly partitioned into three groups: experimental treatment group 1, eXper- imental treatment group 2, and a control group. Experimen- tal group 1 was exposed to information about their own per- sonal scores on certain variables that were covered during the course of the term. This exposure took place during the first four class meetings. Experimental group 2 was exposed to the instruments used to measure the variables that were covered in the content of the course but they did not take the various tests. The control group received neither of these experimental treatments. The influence of the two experimental treatments, as well as the lack thereof, was determined by noting the subjects' responses to an end-of—course questionnaire, their scores on a one hundred item multiple choice examination, their performance on certain "unobtrusive measures," and their scores on an essay-type examination administered approximately six months after the end of the course; that is, the essay 18 examination was given at the end of the spring term, 1971. Study Number One This study served as a pilot project. This was considered necessary in order to determine if the experimen- tal procedures and instruments were feasible for use in a small college setting and to determine what, if any, pro— cedural difficulties might arise. In this study the experimental treatment was also made as different as possible from the control treatment in order to give any changes in the dependent variable optimal Opportunity to be manifested. Subjects Thirty undergraduates, both male and female, enrolled for the first time in social psychology at Grand Valley State College, during the fall term of 1969, parti— cipated in this study. These subjects were randomly chosen from the seventy-six students initially enrolled in this course. The fifteen students that were randomly assigned to the experimental group were seven females and eight males. The average age of the group was twenty-one years and nine months and their overall grade point average was 2.54 on a four point scale. The control group was com- prised of nine males and six females. Their average age was twenty-one years and six months. Their overall grade 19 point average was 2.46. These descriptive characteristics for each group are not significantly different. Instruments Used The textbooks that were used in this course were Principles and Methods of Social Psychology, First Edition by E. P. Hollander and Current Perspectives in Social Psychology, Second Edition by E. P. Hollander and R. G. Hunt. The following books were placed on closed reserve in the library: The Open and Closed Mind by M. Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes and Values by M. Rokeach, The Authori- tarian Personalipy by Adorno, et al., Basic Studies in Social Psychology by H. Proshansky and B. Seidenberg, Current Studies in Social Psychology by I. D. Steiner and M. Fishbein, and Theories of Personality, First Edition by C. Hall and G. Lindzey. Of the many psychological variables covered in the course, the following were chosen as being most useful for this study: authoritarianism, dogmatism, value systems, achievement motive, and certain personality characteristics. During the first four class meetings the following instru- ments were adminstered to the subjects in the experimental group, scored, and then returned for purposes of giving the students information about their standing on the variables indicated: 20 Instrument The F Scale authoritarianism The Dogmatism Scale dogmatism The Edwards Personal achievement motive Preference Schedule Rokeach's Value Survey value systems Scales The Sixteen Personality personality traits Factor Test On the first day of class the students were given an assignment sheet and a data sheet to complete. (See Appendix D for format of the assignment Sheet.) The data sheet simply provided a space for the stud- ent to give his name, sex, age, grade point average and address. A one hundred item multiple-choice examination was administered at the regularly scheduled time during the final examination period. The test that was used, along with the correct answer for each item, appears in Appendix A. The reliabilities of these test items were found to be between .61 and .82 when administered to one hundred and Sixty-eight social psychology students who took the course in the fall term of 1968. These reliability indices were determined by correlating the odd and even items and correcting by the Spearman-Brown formula (Lindquist, 1953: 361). Certain items on this test were designed to measure 21 the recognition knowledge the student had at his command concerning the particular variables used in the experimen- tal treatment. These were questions 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100. These twenty-five items make explicit refer- ence either to the instruments used in the experimental treatment or to the variables measured by these instruments.1 A simple questionnaire was also administered at the same time the final exam was given. This device contained several cover questions as well as a question designed to measure the degree of personal relevance the course held for each student. This questionnaire was attached to the final examination and had the following format: Course Evaluation Please place an "X" at the point on the continuum that best expresses your reSponse to each question. Please be as candid as possible in your answers. 1. What do you think of the lectures? 1 2 3 4 5 very helpful almost useless 1Each item was mentioned twice during the course of the lectures given during the term. This insured equal exposure of this particular material to all subjects, and this procedure was followed in both Study Number One and Study Number Two. 2. What is your Opinion of the multiple choice final exam? 1 2 L I too easy | i too difficult 3. How would you evaluate the discussions that took place from time to time in the class? F T very important part of the course 4. What is your Opinion of the this course? 1 2 L | good in that they stimulated original thought on my part 1 5 T 1 of practically no value to the course textbooks used in T 1 almost worthless and a waste of time 5. What is your opinion of the content of the course taken as a whole? r T T 4 1 very relevant and very irrelevant and of personal value of no personal value Procedure In an attempt to reduce the likelihood of the sub- jects in this study responding to what Orne (1962) called 1This item was used to measure the degree of person- al relevance the course had for the student. 23 "the demand characteristics" of an experiment, the subjects who had been assigned to the experimental group were asked to remain after class on the first day of the course. No additional treatment was administered to the control group. The class was dismissed 25 minutes early. This was done by a faculty member other than the teacher of the course who was unaware of the hypotheses being tested in this study. This faculty member, a clinical psychologist, told these students that he was conducting an experiment and that they had been picked at random from the class for participation in this study. This faculty member administered The F Scale, The Dogmatism Scale, The Edwards Personal Preference Sched- ule, The Sixteen Personality Factor Test and Rokeach's Value System Scale. Students were told to take the instru- ments home with them and return them no later than the second class meeting. This same faculty member returned the scored instru- ments to the subjects during the period following the third and fourth class meeting. When the scored instru- ments were returned, he gave a brief explanation-~using a prepared scriptl--of the meaning of the variables that had been measured, told the students that he had obtained the data he needed, and that they might keep the tests if they so desired. 1See Appendix C. 24 This technique was followed in the hope that the subjects would not perceive the experimental procedure as having anything in particular to do with the course in which they were enrolled. At the end of the term, the clinical psychologist returned and, after dismissing the rest of the class, told the subjects in the experimental treatment that they had participated in some ongoing research being carried out in order to determine the characteristics of students that enrolled for certain courses at Grand Valley State College. Viewed informally, this appeared to have been a successful attempt to convince the subjects that the experimental treatment was not specifically related to the social psychology course in which they were enrolled; that is, no formal measures were taken, but the experimental subjects made no comments to the clinical psychologist nor to the instructor that would indicate they believed something other than they had been told. The experimental subjects, the control subjects and the rest of the members of the class were administered the 100 item multiple choice examination and responded to the attached questionnaire at the same time; i.e., during the regularly scheduled final exam period. Data from the twenty-one students used as neither experimental nor con- trol subjects were not included in the study in any way. 25 Analysis Technique For purposes of testing hypothesis I--students in an undergraduate course in social psychology who are ex- posed to information about their standing on particular variables that will be covered in the content of the course will report the content of the course as being more per; sonally relevant to a greater extent than will students not so exposed--the values of the mean responses made by the experimental and the control group to question five on the course evaluation questionnaire were compared. The compar- ison technique was the t test (Edwards 1968: 88 and 103). Hypothesis II—-students in an undergraduate course in social psychology who are exposed to information about their standing on particular variables that will be covered in the content of the course will achieve higher scores on the objective final exam than will students not so exposed-- was tested by comparing the mean scores of the experimental group and the control group on the 100 item multiple choice exam. No test of hypotheses number III or IV was attempted in Study Number One. Study Number Two During the execution of Study Number One, three things became quite apparent: first, the use of the ruse of "an experiment being conducted by a member of the 26 psychology department other than the instructor" as a means of avoiding the potential bias of having the student sub- jects respond to "the demand characteristics" (Orne, 1962) of the experiment was a successful and necessary part of the methodology; secondly, the first study did not include a technique for checking the possibility that any difference found between the experimental group and the control group was but a manifestation of the so-called "Hawthorne effect" (Roethlisberger, Dickson, and Wright, 1939); that is, the first study did not control for the possibility that the focusing upon and hence isolating of the experimental group--thereby treating them in a "special way"--was the source of any difference found between the control and experimental groups, thus a second experimental group was deemed necessary for the second study. Finally, it has been demonstrated that the expectancies of the behavioral scientist can significantly influence the outcome of eXper- iments (Rosenthal, 1966). And, more particularly, Meichen- baum, Bowers and Ross (1969) have shown that the expec- tancies of the experimenter can manifest themselves even in objective test results; therefore, the instructor of the social psychology class used in the second study should not be aware of the identity of the individual students in each of the three conditions and the assisting professor should not have knowledge of the hypotheses being tested in the experiment. 27 The second study was also carried out in such a way that the third and fourth hypotheses could be tested as well as to provide for a more sophisticated retesting of hypotheses I and II. Subjects Thirty-six undergraduates, both male and female, enrolled in social psychology at Grand Valley State College during the fall and spring terms of the 1970-71 academic year, served as subjects in this study. These subjects were randomly picked from the fifty-seven students initially enrolled in this course in the fall of 1970. The twelve students randomly assigned to experimental group one con- sisted of six males and six females. The average age of this group was twenty-two years, and their mean grade point average was 2.57 on a four point scale. The twelve stud- ents randomly assigned to experimental group two consisted of five females and seven males; their average age was twenty—two years and two months. The mean grade point average for this group was 2.73. The control group was comprised of six males and six females whose average age was twenty-two years and four months and whose mean grade point average was 2.50. These differences in grade point average and age are not Significant. The thirty-six students randomly chosen as subjects for this study were picked by a psychology professor who 28 was not the instructor of the course. This professor also randomly partitioned the subjects into the three groups: i.e., experimental group 1, experimental group 2 and the control group. The instructor of the course was in this way prevented from knowing which students were subjects in this study as well as which students were in what group. This was done to avoid the possibility of contaminating the results of this study with the phenomenon frequently referred to as "the self-fulfilling prOphecy" (Manton, 1948; Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968); that is, it has been demon- strated that the expectations of an experimenter can have an influence upon the responses made by subjects in the experimenter's study (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968; Meichenbaum, Bowers and Ross, 1969). Instruments Used In Study Number Two the same textbooks, the same closed reserve books, the same assignment sheet and the same personal data sheet were used as had been used in Study Number One. Also, the same psychological variables were used in the experimental treatment in Study Number Two as had been used in Study Number One. And, finally, the same one hundred item multiple choice examination and course evaluation rating scale were administered at the end of the course as had been done in Study Number One. In addition to the replication of the use of these 29 instruments in Study Number Two, two other categories of measurement were taken in the second study: certain "unobtrusive measures" (Webb, gt_31., 1966) were taken and an essay type examination was administered to the three groups of subjects six months after the course was finished. The unobtrusive measures taken were four in number: number of days missed, number of questions asked in class discussions, number of closed reserve books used, and num- ber of tutorials attended. These measures were recorded by the instructor of the course but it should be remembered that, at the time of his making these records, he was un- aware Of which students were serving as subjects in the experiment; that is, the instructor recorded these measures for all students enrolled in the class. The essay-type examination was administered by a member of the psychology department other than the instruc- tor of the class--the same individual who had randomly chosen the subjects to be used in this study. This admin- istration took place approximately six months following the end of the course in social psychology. (See Appendix B for the questions and format used.) The subjects were given a maximum of one and one half hours to write the examination. The same member of the psychology department (an individual other than the instructor of the course) monitored the exams,collected them, coded each exam as to which group it belonged, 30 removed the name and other identifying marks, and gave the exams to the instructor to be scored according to a pre— determined set of criteria. The maximum score possible on each question was twenty points. Procedure AS in the first study, a member of the psychology department other than the instructor of the course, came to the class and, after the instructor had left the room, read the names of those students assigned to experimental group 1 and experimental group 2 and asked them to remain after dismissing the rest of the class. This faculty mem- ber then explained that he was conducting some research concerning the characteristics of students that enrolled for certain courses at Grand Valley State College and that they had been chosen at random for participation in this study. He then gave each student a OOpy of The F Scale, The Dogmatism Scale, The Edwards Personal Preference Sched- ule, and The Sixteen Personalitpractor Test. The students were instructed to take these instruments home, complete them and return them the following class period. Only the students in experimental group one were given copies of Rokeach's Value Survey Scale. This was done so as to pre- vent the subjects in experimental group two from seeing their own hierarchical arrangements of values when the 31 tests were returned during the experimental treatment ses- sion. The students returned the tests on the second day of class. After the instructor left the room and the other students had been dismissed, the faculty member collected the tests. The instruments from experimental group 1 were scored by this faculty member and two student assistants. The tests were returned to the students during the third class meeting; the students in experimental group 2 were given their unscored tests, the students in experimental group 1 received their scored tests. The faculty member explained to the subjects, after the instructor and the other students had been dismissed, that there had not been enough time to score all the tests. Therefore, in this fashion the students in experimental group 1 had the tests and their own scores to look at while the subjects in experimental group 2 had only the unscored instruments. The subjects in experimental group 2 were given copies of Rokeach's Value Survey Scale at this time. This rather elaborate procedure was followed in order to determine if merely being isolated from the rest of the class and taking the tests produced changes in the dependent variables or whether the significant experience was actually the exposure to one's own standing on certain variables that would be covered during the progress of the course. This procedure was, in other words, an attempt to 32 control for the "Hawthorne effect." The faculty member then gave a brief explanation of the meaning of the variables that had been measured-— authoritarianism, dogmatism, achievement motive, terminal and instrumental values and the Sixteen personality traits. This consituted the experimental treatment session. This was done during the third and fourth class meetings. (See Appendix C for the contents of the script.) Throughout the term the instructor recorded the number of days each person missed and the number of ques- tions each person asked. This was accomplished with the aid of a seating chart. The number of tutorials (private conversations with the instructor in his office) attended were also recorded by the instructor. This was done on the individual's personal data sheet. At the end of the course, following the final exam, the instructor obtained from the reserve librarian the names of those students who had made use of the books placed on closed reserve and the frequency of this use. At the regularly scheduled final exam period, the one hundred item multiple choice exam (see Appendix A) was administered and scored by the instructor. The course evaluation sheet (see the section on "instruments used" in Study Number One) was also administered at this time. The rating given the course on question number five of this instrument was recorded for each student by the instructor. 33 At the end of the Spring term of 1971, the same faculty member who had administered the experimental treatment contacted each of the subjects (experimental group 1, experimental group 2, and a control group) by mail. In a form letter, he asked the individual if he would please report to a particular room on a particular day to take part in a research project being carried out by the Psychology Department of Grand Valley State College. The letter stated that each student would be paid three dol— lars for his time. When the time for this phase of the experiment arrived (it was five months and three weeks since the final exam had been given in the fall term), all but two of the thirty-six subjects appeared. Both of these indi- viduals were in the control group. They were contacted by phone and persuaded to come in and take the essay type examination that constituted this final phase of the exper- iment; however, they took the exam five days after it was given to the other subjects. They both assured the exam- iner that they had not been told anything about what they were to do, but there was no way to verify that this was actually the case. The essay type examination was administered by the same faculty member that had conducted the experimental treatment. He allowed the subjects a maximum of one hour and thirty minutes to write their answers. All subjects 34 finished before the time limit. He collected the exams and, following the administration of the test to the two "no shows" a week later, he coded each exam as to which group the person taking the test had belonged. After removing (by cutting off that Space on the examination paper) the names and any other identifying marks, he gave the examina- tions to the instructor of the course for scoring. The five questions were scored according to the following formula: 1. Each question was worth a maximum of twenty points. 2. If the student did not answer the question asked, or if his answer was so general that there was no indication of any specific content from the social psychology course, the answer would be scored zero. 3. If the answer mentioned general concepts that were applicable to the question and that had been dealt with in the social psychology course, the answer would be given the score of ten points. 4. For mentioning apprOpriate Specific information-- either theories, names of authors, particular con- structs like compliance, identification and inter— nalization, or particular processes--that had con- stituted part of the social psychology course, the answer would be scored as being worth fifteen points. 5. If the student's answer appeared to be a synergistic product of factual material that comprised some 35 part of the social psychology class, the addition of from one to five points would be made to that particular answer's worth. This was a subjective process but it was considered necessary since it. was assumed that certain answers, upon their being read would be "better" even though there was no additional factual information actually being used. After the tests were scored, the faculty member that had been assbting the instructor recorded the scores on the grade sheet and gave the names of those students in each of the three groups to the instructor. The instructor prepared a master data Sheet on which appeared each subject's score on the one hundred item multiple choice final exam with the loaded items (numbers 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 7o, 75, 80, 85, 9o, 95, 100) disregarded, each subject's score on the essay type exam administered approximately six months after the end of the course, the rating given the course by each subject, the number of days missed by each subject, the number of questions asked by each subject, the number of reserved books used by each subject (each time a book was Signed out counted as one time even if the same book was checked out more than once), and the number of tutorials attended by each subject. 36 Analysis Technique For purposes of testing hypothesis I--students in an undergraduate course in social psychology who are exposed to information about their standing on particular variables that will be covered in the content of the course will report the content of the course as being personally rel- evant to a greater extent than will students no so exposed-- the values of the mean responses made by the two experimen- tal groups and the control group to question five on the course evaluation questionnaire were compared. The compar- ison technique was "the analysis of variance for a randomized group design" (Edwards, 1968: 120). To test hypothesis II--students in an undergraduate course in social psychology who are eXposed to information about their standing on particular variables that will be covered in the content of the course will achieve higher scores on the Objective final exam than will students not so exposed--the mean scores made by each of the three groups were compared in two ways; the comparison technique was "the analysis of variance for a randomized group design" (Edwards, 1968: 120). The first comparison involved the mean scores on the complete 100 item multiple choice exam. The second comparison involved a comparison of mean scores on the multiple choice exam with the loaded items disregarded; i.e., those items having to do specifically with the 37 instruments and variables used in the experimental treat- ment. This was necessary in order to guard against the possibility that any differences found among the three subject groups was merely a function of a "coaching effect;" that is, a comparison of test scores with the loaded items deleted would be a comparison of recognition capacity of the subjects with regard to course content material not directly related to the material dealt with in the exper- imental treatment. In order to test hypothesis III-—students in an undergraduate course in social psychology who are exposed to information about their standing on particular variables that will be covered in the content of the course will perform more satisfactorily on certain "unobtrusive measures" (Webb, et_31., 1966) than will students not so exposed--four comparisons were made of the mean responses of each of the three groups on four different unobtrusive measures. These four comparisons were of the mean number of days missed, mean number of reserve books checked out, and mean number of tutorials attended. The four comparisons were made by use of "the analysis of variance for a random- ized group design" (Edwards, 1968: 120). Hypothesis IV-—students in an undergraduate course in social psychology who are exposed to information about their standing on particular variables that will be covered in the content of the course will achieve higher scores on 38 an essay type examination given approximately six months after the finish of the course than will students not so exposed--was tested by comparing the mean scores on the essay exam of each of the three groups. Once again the comparison technique was "the analysis of variance for a randomized group design" (Edwards, 1968: 120). CHAPTER III RESULTS One methodological consideration should be dis— cussed before turning to the actual results of this exper~ iment; this is the question of what the subjects believed to be the purpose of the experimental treatment to which they were exposed. In both Study Number One and Study Number Two, there were no indications that the subjects believed the experimental treatment to be directly related to the class in which they were enrolled. It would appear that the experimental subjects believed that they were participating in a study to determine "the personality characteristics of students enrolled in certain classes at Grand Valley State College." Of course, many of the subjects (in Study Number Two) that took the essay type exam six months after the end of the course in which the experimental treatment had been administered must have had some insight into the relationship between their having been given information about certain of the course variables and their being paid to take an examination over material that had been covered in the course. However, any response bias that 39 40 might have resulted from such insight was impossible to avoid--given that the post-course test results were to be obtained. The faculty member who administered the test did not report any great expression of concern on the part of the subjects, but he did note that some of the students asked questions like "did this have something to do with the experiment you were doing in the fall?" and "was this test supposed to see if we remembered more than other peOple in the class?" It would seem reasonable to con- tend that some reSponse bias could have occurred in the answering of the post-course essay exam; however, it is also contended that up to that point the subjects were unaware of the actual relation between the experimental treatment and the social psychology course. Study Number One Hypothesis I Hypothesis I predicts that students in an under- graduate course in social psychology who are exposed to information about their standing on particular variables that will be covered in the content of the course will report the content of the course as being more personally relevant than students who do not have such exposure. Table 1 presents the means, the variances, and the standard deviations of the experimental and control 41 Table 1. Means, variances and standard deviations of the experimental and control groups' responses to the "personal relevance" item-- Study Number One. f Y_ j. 32 32 3 Experimental group 1.26a .14 .374 N=15 Control group 2.26 .88 .938 N=15 aThe smaller the number, the greater the degree of personal relevance reported; this difference between means is significant at the .01 level for a two-tailed test (t obtained was 3.86, t required for p<.01 with df=28 is 2.76). groups' reSponses to the item (on the end-of—course questionnaire) that was used as the measure of personal relevance. This item had a maximum value of 5 and a minimum value of l. The smaller the number, the greater the degree of personal relevance. These data from Study Number One clearly support Hypothesis I; that is, students exposed to information about their standing on particular variables to be covered in an undergraduate social psychology class do report the content of the course to be more personally relevant than students who are not exposed to such infor- mation. It should be recalled, however, that in this study, the instructor was aware of the identities of 42 those students comprising the experimental and control groups. Thus, it is impossible to preclude the possibility that this confirmation of Hypothesis I is a consequence of special treatment given by the instructor to those students in the experimental group. The experimenter made every effort to avoid any such differential treatment, but the possibility of this confounding of the results must be noted. Hypothesis II Hypothesis II specifies that students in an under- graduate course in social psychology who are exposed to information about their standing on particular variables that will be covered in the content of the course will achieve higher scores on the objective final examination than will students not so exposed. Once again, however, it should be noted that the instructor was aware of the identities of the students in the experimental and control groups used in Study Number One. Although a sincere effort was made by the instructor to avoid any bias made possible by this knowledge, the possibility of contamin- ation of these results is a reality. Table 2 presents the means, the variances, and the standard deviations of the scores made by the exper- imental and control groups on the 100 item multiple choice examination given at the end of the course. As can be 43 Table 2. Means, variances, and standard deviations of the experimental and control groups' scores on a 100 item multiple choice final examination--Study Number One. H 52 5 Experimental group 69.26 56.64 7.51 N=15 Control group, N=15 59.00 105.00 10.24 aThis difference between.means is significant at the .01 level for a two-tailed test (t obtained was 3.02, t required for p<.01 with df=28 is 2.76). seen these results clearly support Hypothesis II; that is, students who are given information about their standing on particular variables that will be covered in an undergraduate course in social psychology do, in fact, score significant- ly higher on an objective final examination than do stud— ents who are not provided with this information.1 In Study Number One, there was no attempt made to test Hypotheses III or IV. Study Number Two The results reported in this section are the pro- ducts of a design calculated to remove the methodological 1Although not a part of the design of the experi- ment, it is of interest to note that there were no signi- ficant correlations between the students' scores on the various measures used in the experimental treatment and their scores on the multiple choice examination. 44 problems seen to be potentially capable of reducing the confidence placed in the findings reported in Study Number One. Namely, these results are generated by a more closely controlled testing of the four hypotheses of concern. The technique of analysis used was the analysis of variance of randomized group designs. In reference to this procedure, Edwards (1968: 121) comments: "The F test, in other words, is a robust test in that it is relatively insensitive to violations of the assumptions of normality of distribution and homogeneity of variance." Hypothesis I In this study, Hypothesis I is identical with Hypothesis I in Study Number One: exposure of students to information about their personal standing on variables to be covered in an undergraduate course in social psychology will result in their reporting the course as being more personally relevant than will students not so exposed. Table 3 presents the means, the variances, and the stan- dard deviations of the reSponses made to the personal relevance item by the two experimental groups and the control group. 3 Table 4 gives a summary of the analysis of variance performed on the data used to test Hypothesis I. Data reported in these two tables strongly suggest that the three treatments were successful in creating conditions 45 Table 3. Means, variances and standard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the control group's responses to the "personal relevance" item-- Study Number Two. SE s2 3 Experimental group 1 1.20a .11 .33 N=12 Experimental group 2 1.83 .63 .79 N=12 Control group 1.70 .70 .84 N=12 aThe smaller the number, the greater the degree of personal relevance; this difference between means is sig- nificant at the .01 level for a two-tailed test (F Ob- tained was 16.14, F required for p<.01 is 6.26). 46 Table 4. Summary of analysis of variance of responses made to the personal relevance item by exper- imental group 1, experimental group 2 and the control group--Study Number Two. Source SS df ms F bg 9.04 2 4.52 16.14 wg 9.26 33 .28 tot 18.30 47 which produced variations in perception of course relevancy in all three groups. It may be seen that experimental group l--the group which was exposed to information about their own standing on particular variables to be covered in the course--reported the course as significantly more relevant than either the controls or those in experimental group 2--the group which was given the opportunity to take the instruments used but did not see the instruments with their standings on the variables indicated. A point of interest is that the data suggest that the experience of taking the tests but then not being able to see one's own scores on these instruments produces something of a nega- tive reaction; the mean relevancy rating for experimental group 2 indicates that these subjects perceived the course as less relevant than the control group to which nothing was done. Perhaps what is being manifested here is hos- tility generated by the frustration of having taken the tests but not having been given any personal feedback; i.e., reward for the effort expended. However, in view of the conclusion, previously mentioned, that the subjects did not perceive the experimental treatment as being directly related to the course in social psychology, this explanation for the low relevancy rating given to the course by experimental group 2 is tenuous but not impos- sible. Perhaps the subjects in experimental group 2 scapegoated the context within which their frustration 48 occurred (the social psyChology course) without actually perceiving any real connection between the two. Hypothesis II In this study, Hypothesis II was identical to that tested in Study Number One; however, in this case, two tests of the prediction that students exposed to informa— tion about their own standing on variables that would be covered in an undergraduate course in social psychology would achieve higher scores on the final exam than would students not so exposed were carried out.1 The first test involved a comparison of scores made on the complete 100 item test. Table 5 displays the means, variances and stan- dard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the control group's scores on the 100 item multiple choice final examination. As can be seen by inSpection of Table 5, experimental group l—-those exposed to information about their standing on particular variables to be covered in the course—-achieved significantly higher scores on the final examination than did either experimental group 2 or the control group. One interpretation that could be made of the fact that experimental group 2 scored higher than 1Although not part of the design of this study, it is of interest to note that there were no significant cor— relations between the students' scores on the various measures used in the experimental treatment and their scores on the multiple choice examination. Similarly, there were no significant differences between groups with reference to mean scores on the various measures used in the experimental treatment. 49 Table 5. Means, variances and standard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the control group's scores on the 100 item multiple choice final examination--Study Number Two. _' .1 i 52 5 Experimental group 1 71.91a 56.81 7.52 N=12 Experimental group 2 64.41 57.36 7.56 N=12 Control group 60.25 68.09 8.25 N=12 aThis difference between means is Significant at the .01 level for a two tailed test (F obtained was 6.86, F required for p<.Ol is 6.26). the control group is that the mere exposure to the instru- ments used in measuring the variables to be covered in the course increased their level of achievement. This is not an unreasonable hypothesis since these subjects did, in fact, have some exposure to the variables that would be dealt with during the progress of the course while the control did not. This exposure could have served to sen- sitize these students to the related material as it appeared in the assignments and lectures,thereby aiding them in being able to retain this and related information. Table 6 is a summary of the analysis of variance that was performed on these data used in the first test of Hypothesis II. If it can be assumed that the Mswg is 50 an unbiased estimate of the common pOpulation variance 02, it is of interest to note that the sample variance for both the two experimental groups fall below this figure. The reduction in variation of the scores on the final exam made by these two groups suggest that it might be of value to test Hypothesis II by a second means; that is, could the reduction in variation in the scores of the two exper- imental groups be a function of their having had the common experience of being exposed to the instruments used to measure the variables covered in the content of the course. In other words, what would be the relationship among the scores obtained by the three groups if the scores used to test Hypothesis II are the points earned on the examination with the loaded items ignored? Table 6. Summary of analysis of variance of scores achieved on the 100 item multiple choice exam- ination by experimental group 1, experimental group 2, and the control group--Study Number Two. Source 53 df ms F bg 838 2 419 6.86 wg 2005 33 61 tot 2843 The results of the second test of Hypothesis II which predicts that students exposed to information about 51 their standing on particular variables to be covered in an undergraduate course in social psychology will achieve higher scores on an objective examination than will stud- ents not so exposed are displayed in Tables 7 and 8. In effect, this is testing the hypothesis in such a way that any criticism based on a contention that all that had been measured in the first test of this hypothesis was the results of "coaching" versus "non-coaching" can be negated. This coaching effect could have been the cause of the differences found between the mean scores of the three groups; there are twenty—five items on the final examin- ation that deal directly with the variables used in the experimental treatment or with the instruments used to measure these variables. However, if it were true that all that was being measured in the first test of Hypothesis II was a difference in amount of coaching (or exposure) to the variables used in the experimental treatment, then one would find these differences "washed out" when the scores for the three groups were compared with the loaded items removed. As is evident from Tables 7 and 8, this is not the case. This second testing of Hypothesis II supports even more strongly than the first testing the prediction that exposing students to their standing on variables to be covered in an introductory course in social psychology will indeed result in their achieving significantly higher scores on an objective final examination than that achieved 52 by students not so exposed. Table 7. Means, variances and standard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the control group's scores on the objective final examination with the loaded items disregarded--Study Number Two. 3': .s2 ‘ 3 Experimental group 1 55.83a 33.27 5.77 N=12 Experimental group 2 49.16 35.63 5.95 N=12 Control group 45.00 28.18 5.29 N=12 __Yi aThis difference between means is significant at the .01 level for a two-tailed test (F obtained was 11.08, F required for p<.01 is 6.26). Table 8. Summary of analysis of variance and scores achieved on the multiple choice examination, with the loaded items disregarded, by exper— imental group 1, experimental group 2 and the control group—-Study Number Two. Source 55 df ms F bg 717 2 358 11.08 wg 1068 33 32.3 tot 1784 53 Adding to the support of this successful second testing of Hypothesis II is the data presented in Table 9. Table 9. Summary of means of the two experimental groups' and the control group's scores on the objective final examination with the loaded items disre- garded, and the loaded items scored independent- 1y--Study Number Two. " I T i for i for examination i for 25 loaded 100 item with 25 loaded items scored examination items disregarded independently Experimental 71.91 55.83 16.08 Group 1 N=12 Experimental 64.41 49.16 15.25 Group 2 N=12 Control Group 60.25 45.00 15.25 N=12 By examination of this comparison of mean scores on the objective final examination with the loaded items included, disregarded and scored independently, it can be seen that there is no significant difference between the experimental groups' and the control group's mean scores on the loaded items scored independently. On the surface this appears to be a rather Odd circumstance; however, it should be recalled that the loaded items concerned material which was highly salient for all members of the class in which the experiment was conducted. This saliency was produced by 54 two major factors: the process of "selective exposure" (Festinger, 1964: 96) in which the subjects were sensitized to material in both the text and the lecture that dealt with the psychological instruments that they had been given (as was the case for both experimental groups) or that they had heard were being used (as was the case for the control group) and, secondly, the fact that each of the loaded items was discussed in lecture by an instructor whose campus reputation includes "he emphasizes his lec- tures on his examination.” The specificity of the twenty- five loaded items--with regard to the psychological instru- ments used in the experimental treatment—-resulted in all three groups achieving approximately the same score on these items. That this "selective exposure" and “campus reputation" influenced only those items specifically related to the psychological instruments used in the experiment and did not generalize to the other material on the examination can be interpreted to strongly support the argument that exposing students to their standing on variables to be covered is the independent variable that produced the increased achievement level on the objective examination. Hypothesis III Hypothesis III predicts that students exposed to information about their standing on the particular 55 variables that will be covered in the content of an under- graduate course in social psychology will perform more satisfactorily on certain unobtrusive measures than will students not so exposed. The unobtrusive measures used in this experiment were number of days missed from class, number of questions asked during class discussion, number of books checked out from the reserve book selection set aside for the social psychology course, and the number of tutorials attended. Therefore, Hypothesis III was tested by four independent procedures. Tables 10, 11, 12, and 13 present the results of these four tests of Hypothesis III. Clearly, the data support only one of the predictions made in Hypothesis III; that is, the number of questions asked in class discussion by students in experimental group 1 were much greater than the number asked by either the control group or experimental group 2. There were no significant differences found among the three groups with regard to the number of days missed, the number of reserve books checked out, nor the number of tutorials attended; however, the differences that were found were in the direction predicted. One possible interpretation of this failure to find Significant differences among the three groups in three of the four unobtrusive measures taken is that the selection of unobtrusive measures used was at fault. An alternative explanation could be that the experimental treatment did 56 Table 10. Means, variances and standard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the control groups number of days missed with the summary of analysis of variance performed on this data-- Study Number Two. ‘1? X s 5 Experimental Group 1 2.00a 3.45 1.86 N=12 Experimental Group 2 3.08 6.45 2.53 N=12 Control Group 3.33 9.90 3.14 N=12 Source SS df ms F bg l4 2 7 1.11 wg 205 33 6.2 tot 219 aThis difference between means is not Significant. The F required for p<.01 is 6.26. 57 Table 11. Means, Variances and standard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the control group's number of questions asked in class discussion with the summary of analysis of variance per- formed on this data—-Study Number Two. )2 .2 5 Experimental Group 1 9.25a 22.00 4.69 N=12 Experimental Group 2 1.91 5.18 2.25 N=12 Control Group .33 .42 .65 N=12 Source 55 df ms F bg 543 2 271 30.11 wg 304 33 9 tot 847 aThis difference between means is significant at the .01 level for a two-tailed test (F obtained was 30.11, F required for p<.01 is 6.26). 58 Table 12. Means, variances and standard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the control group's number of reserve books checked out with the summary of analysis of variance performed on this data-—Study Number Two. i 52 3 Experimental Group 1 .83a 1.63 1.25 N=12 Experimental Group 2 .16 .15 .38 N=12 Control Group .33 .75 .86 N=12 Source SS df ms F bg 2.89 2 1.44 1.65 wg 29.00 33 .87 tot 30.89 aThis difference between means is not Significant. The F required for p<.01 is 6.26. 59 Table 13. Means, variances and standard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the control group's number of tutorials attended with the summary of analysis of variance performed on this data-- Study Number Two. X s2 s EXperimental Group 1 1.33a .81 .900 N=12 Experimental Group 2 .91 .82 .905 N=12 Control Group .50 .63 .79 N=12 Source SS df ms F bg 4 2 2 2.89 wg 23 33 .69 tot 27 aThis difference between means is not significant. The F required for p<.01 is 6.26.- 60 not, in fact, influence the behaviors of the student sub- jects. But negating this explanation is the finding that those students who were exposed to information about their standing on variables to be covered in an undergraduate class in social psychology did, in fact, ask more questions than did students not so exposed. Furthermore, the failure to find significant differences in number of days missed from class, number of reserve books checked out, or number of tutorials attended does not weaken the confidence that can be placed in the partial confirmation of Hypothesis III simply because there was no way of knowing before the fact if these unobtrusive measures were actually capable of being influenced by the degree of personal relevance of the class. For example, it is entirely possible that there are student norms concerning the number of days one "should cut class" and/or how many tutorials one "should attend" that are stronger than any manipulation of an independent variable directly related to classroom eXperience. The data presently available allows no conclusion to be reached on this point. Further, the students in experi— mental group 1 may well have been using the same books (that had been placed on reserve for this course in social psychology) but this use could have been at one of the four other colleges located within a 25 mile radius of Grand Valley State College. Data was not collected to test such a hypothesis; hence, no conclusion can be 61 reached concerning this unobtrusive measure and its rela- tion to the experimental treatment. Hypothesis IV This hypothesis predicts that students who are exposed to information regarding their standing on variables to be covered in an undergraduate course in social psychol- ogy will achieve significantly higher scores on an essay type of examination given Six months after the end of the course than will students not so exposed. Table 14 dis- plays the results of the testing of this hypothesis and the summary of the analysis of variance that was performed on this data. Inspection of this table Shows that the results of this study clearly support the prediction made in Hypothesis IV. Without doubt, there are legitimate criticisms that can be made of the procedures used in testing this hypothesis; i.e., the use of a subjectively scored examination (which is very "unscientific"), the use of money as an incentive to get the students to come to the designated location and take the examination and, perhaps most seriously, the necessity of tracking down two recalcitrant subjects and thereby having to administer the test separately to them. Nevertheless, the end sought-— the determination of whether or not the experimental treatment had any longitudinal effects--seems to more than 62 justify the means used. After all, one of the major objectives of educational procedures is to have effects that last longer than the last day of class. Table 14. Means, variances and standard deviations of the two experimental groups' and the control group's scores on an essay type examination administered Six months after the end of the course with the summary of analysis of variance performed on this data--Study Number Two. X s 3 Experimental Group 1 76.08a 116.81 10.80 N=12 Experimental Group 2 67.50 25.00 5.00 N=12 Control Group 53.99 477.72 21.85 N=12 Source SS df ms F bg 2998 2 1499 7.27 wg 6815 33 206 tot 9813 aThis difference between means is significant at the .01 level for a two-tailed test. (F obtained was 7.27, F required for p<.01 is 6.26). CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION Summary Using Rokeach's (1968) social psychological theory of the structure and dynamics of beliefs, attitudes and values, an operational definition of personal relevance was formulated for use in this investigation of academic performance. Personal relevance was defined as that characteristic taken on by information given to a student when this information concerns variables about which he already has knowledge concerning himself. Given this definition of personal relevance, Ro- keach's (1968) theoretical stance was used to generate the general hypothesis that students, for whom certain vari- ables to be covered in an undergraduate course in social psychology were made more personally relevant, would exhibit enhanced academic performance. This general hypothesis was tested in four specific ways. Students who are exposed to information about their standing on parti— cular variables that will be covered in the content of an undergraduate course in social psychology will (1) report the content of the course as being more personally relevant 63 64 than will students not so exposed, (2) achieve higher scores on an objective final examination than will students not so exposed, (3) perform more satisfactorily on certain unobtrusive measures--number of days missed, number of questions asked in class discussion, number of reserve books checked out, and number of tutorials attended--than will students not so exposed, and (4) achieve higher scores on an essay-type examination given six months after the finish of the course than will students not so exposed. To test these hypotheses two studies were conducted. The first study was a pilot project performed in order to determine the feasibility of the experimental procedures for use in a small college setting and to assist in dis- covering possible sources of experimental bias. Study Number One involved thirty students enrolled for the first time in an undergraduate course in social psychology at Grand Valley State College. These subjects were randomly chosen from the class list and randomly assigned into two equal groups: an experimental group which was exposed to information about their standing on particular variables that were to be covered in the content of the course, and a control group which did not have this exposure. The experimental treatment took place during portions of the first four class meetings after the other members of the class had been excused. The influence of this experimental treatment was measured by comparing the responses of both 65 groups to an end-of-course questionnaire (a section of which asked about the degree of personal relevance the course had had for the student) and to a one hundred item multiple choice examination. The analysis of these data supported the predictions contained in hypotheses I and II; no attempt was made to test hypotheses III or IV in Study Number One. The theoretical concerns and procedural require- ments of this first study made it apparent that the use of a cover story was successful, and therefore needed in Study Number Two, in order to prevent the subjects' res- ponses from being contaminated by what Orne (1962) called "the demand characteristics" of an experiment; that is, it was deemed a justifiable deception to tell the subjects that they were participating in the experimental treatment "as part of a research project dealing with the personality characteristics of students taking certain courses at Grand Valley State College." It was also considered necessary to conduct the second study in such a way as to avoid the bias produced by the "self fulfilling prophecy" (Rosenthal, 1966); in other words, it was desirable that the experimen- tal procedure be performed by someone other than the author of the design so that the author could not subtly bias his subjects in a direction favorable to his design. Finally, it appeared that the degree of confidence that could be placed in the positive results from Study Number One was 66 reduced due to the absence of a control for the "Hawthorne effect" (Roethlisberger, Dickson and Wright, 1939). There- fore, the second study was carried out so as to control for the possibility that the experimental treatment effects were not confounded by the influence of the subjects having been isolated and treated in a "Special" way. Study Number Two dealt with thirty-Six students enrolled for the first time in an undergraduate course in social psychology taught at Grand Valley State College. These subjects were randomly selected and randomly parti- tioned into three equal groups: experimental group 1, experimental group 2, and a control group. Experimental group 1 was exposed to information about their standing on variables that would be covered during the course of the term. Experimental group 2 was given the opportunity to take the instruments used to measure these variables, but they did not see the instruments with their own standings on these variables indicated; that is, subjects in group 2 had their own unscored tests returned to them for the administration of the experimental treatment. These pro- cedures were carried out by a member of the psychology department other than the instructor of the course and the instructor had no knowledge of which students were serving as subjects in Study Number Two. In addition, the assist- ing professor had no knowledge Of the hypotheses being tested in this study. The control group did not receive 67 the experimental treatment. The influence of the experimen- tal treatment was determined by comparing the subjects' reSponses to an end-Of—course questionnaire (to test hypo- thesis I), their scores on a one hundred item multiple choice examination (to test hypothesis II), their perfor— mance on the four unobtrusive measures (to test hpothesis III), and their scores on an essay type examination admin- istered six months after the end of the course (to test hypothesis IV). The analysis of the data from Study Number Two supported the predictions contained in hypotheses I, II, and IV and partially confirmed the predictions con- tained in hypothesis III. Study Number One The experimental treatment subjects in the first, or pilot study, reported that they found the course more "relevant" to their own personal lives, and they also achieved higher scores on an objective final examination. How might one explain these results given that the personal relevance construct is valid? That is, given that personal relevance--the giving of information to the student concern- ing variables about which he already possesses knowledge-- is an example of "exposing a person to information designed to make him consciously aware of states of inconsistency that exist chronically within his own value-attitude system below the level of his conscious awareness" 68 (Rokeach, 1971: 453), what elements were inconsistent? What evoked a motivational state that resulted in the behavioral changes that were manifested and measured? Or in Rokeach's words, "To Speak of dissonance meaningfully is to identify at least two elements, X and Y, that are in some dissonant relation to one another" (1971: 453). Rokeach has postulated that "while a person will typically strive for both kinds of consistency, consistency with self-esteem is probably a more compelling consider- ation than consistency with logic or reality" (1968: 164). Following this line of reasoning, it can be argued that the elements brought into conflict by the experimental treat- ment were self-esteem and self—understanding. The exper- imental subjects were exposed to information concerning their own standing on certain personality traits, value systems, achievement motive, dogmatism, and authoritarian— ism. This treatment made these self-image (self-esteem) factors more salient and more explicitly a part of their conscious awareness. However, these subjects were then exposed to the opportunity--via textbook assignments, lectures and discussions--of gaining additional informa- tion about these variables which thereby made self- understanding elements more salient. To reduce the incon- sistency between these two elements, the experimental sub- jects apparently increased their efforts to obtain infor- mation that would more nearly equate the self—understanding 69 elements with the self-esteem elements. The consequences of these efforts were made manifest in the two dependent variables measured in this first study. By inspection of the data contained in Appendix E, an apparent paradox is seen; that is, the experimental sub- jects in Study Number One scored significantly higher than the controls on the objective final examination with the twenty-five loaded items included, but when the loaded items are considered independently, there was no Signifi- cant difference between the two groups. This is only an apparent paradox because of certain factors that were, unavoidably, a part of the experimental procedure. The class in which the experiment was conducted was small and those students in the control group could not be prevented from having knowledge that certain of their classmates were being given "tests." In spite of efforts to control this variable, the names of these tests were discussed among the students. Couple this dynamic with the fact that each of the twenty-five loaded items was mentioned explicitly in lecture by an instructor whose campus reputation in- cludes "He puts a lot of emphasis on his lectures when he gives an exam," and it becomes relatively easy to under— stand why these loaded items would have had increased saliency for both the experimental and control groups. The significant difference in scores between the two groups on the non-loaded items tends, on the other hand, to 70 support the thesis that the independent variable of admin- istering the personal relevance experimental treatment was responsible for the enhanced achievement by the experimen- tal group. An alternative explanation for these data is, of course, possible. The experimental subjects could have Simply "liked" the course more than the controls because they were given Special treatment, and they had had per- sonal experience with some of the constructs mentioned in the text and lectures. However, if one is to accept this exploration, the results displayed in Appendix B become extremely difficult to understand. In short, one would expect that there would have been a significant difference between the groups on the loaded items if "liking" of the course was the only explanation given for these findings; the individuals who were not exposed to the experimental treatment would be expected to "dislike" the course and, consequently, score lower on both loaded and non-loaded items. Study Number Two The subjects in the second study were divided into three groups, and the data strongly suggest that the three treatments were successful in creating conditions which' produced variations in perception of course relevancy. The group that received the personal relevance 71 experimental treatment perceived the course as more rel- evant than either the control group or the group that simply took the instruments but did not see their scores. But, even more Significant, was the finding that the con- trol group perceived the course as more personally rele- vant than did experimental group 2. Perhaps the experience of taking the tests but then not being able to see one's own scores produced enough unresolved inconsistency to result in a negative evaluation of the course. This could explain experimental group 2 having a relevancy score lower than the control group. An alternative explanation could be that this group was hostile toward social psychology (scapegoating the context from which such testing appeared to originate) because of the frustration of having had to expend the energy required to take the tests and then to receive no reward for the effort made. Experimental group 1 also scored significantly higher on the objective multiple choice examination than did the other two groups; and, as was the case in Study Number One, these differences were washed out when only the scores on the loaded items were compared. Once again this apparent paradox can be explained by recalling that these loaded items contained material which was highly salient for all members of the class. This saliency was produced by (a) the apparent fact that all subjects were sensitized to this material either because they had taken 72 the test or had heard that such testing was being carried out, and (b) the "common knowledge" that the course in- structor placed heavy emphasis upon lecture material in his examinations (all twenty-five loaded items were men- tioned in lecture). The explanation for these experimental subjects scoring significantly higher on the non-loaded items is the same as that offered in the discussion of Study Number One; i.e., in an attempt to reduce the incon- sistency between the self-esteem and self-understanding elements, their achievement on the examination was enhanced. There were no Significant differences found among the three groups with regard to three of the four unob- trusive measures taken; however, the differences found were in the predicted direction. The number of questions asked in class discussion by students in experimental group 1 was Significantly greater than either of the other two groups. It would appear that these students were motivated to reduce the inconsistency between self- esteem elements and self-understanding elements; therefore, they used the technique of question asking to gain desired information. This appears to be a particularly interesting finding when viewed within the context of the rather ubiquitous hesitancy shown by college students to speak out in classes larger than ten to twenty individuals. This finding could be interpreted as one indication of the strength of the motive elicited by the personal relevance 73 experimental treatment. Of course, it could be claimed that experimental group 1 simply contained more extroverted individuals; however, the fact that subjects were randomly assigned to the groups appears to nullify this particular alternative explanation. The lack of Significant differences among the three groups with regard to number of days missed, number of reserve books checked out, and number of tutorials attended is disappointing. One explanation for these negative find- ings could be that the experimental treatment did not, in fact, have the influence that has heretofore been attri- buted to it. However, the findings that students in exper- imental group 1 scored higher on the objective examination, asked more questions in class discussion, and reported the class as having more personal relevance would appear to negate this alternative explanation. Perhaps a more plaus— ible reason for these negative results would be the strength of student norms; that is, it is quite possible that there are student norms concerning the number of classes one should "out," how many tutorials one should attend, and how often one is "seen" in the library that are stronger than the motivation induced by the manipulation of the independent variable in this study. The final result obtained in Study Number Two suggests that students eXposed to the experimental treat- ment of personal relevance will score higher on an essay 74 type examination given Six months after the end of the course than will students not so exposed. There are many legitimate criticisms that can and should be made of this portion of Study Number Two. To mention but two: the use of a subjectively scored examination-is rather "unscienti- fic," and the hesitancy of two of the subjects which‘ required a separate testing of these individuals raises the question of reliability of results. However, the mere suggestion that the eXperimental treatment produced meas- urable longitudinal effects on academic achievement is very important. Perhaps Rokeach expressed it best when he said "we emphasized the persuasive effects of group pressure, prestige, order of communication, role playing, and forced compliance...but we neglected to more difficult study of the more enduring effects...." (1968: 159). That manipulation of an individual's awareness of states of inconsistency that are present within his value-attitude system produces long range consequences appears to be a conclusion that can be legitimately drawn from the final portion of Study Number Two. Rokeach (1971) has also demonstrated this result; hOwever, what can be said of the dynamics of this long range modification? If it is accepted that the motive to achieve consistency, particularly with regard to self-esteem, is the basic "cause" of the changes in the dependent variables, how does one explain the continuation of the effect? Perhaps 75 the most parsimonious eXplanation is simply that, once change has been generated by the motive to re-establish consistency, the changed state becomes the status quO or the base line against which any further inconsistency awareness will have to be directed. In other words, the change effected through the use of the personal relevance treatment became the "is that ought to be" and against which later change is resisted or made. Conclusions As noted by Evans and Rozelle (1970: 251), "greater confidence in a particular experimental result is gained if this result can be consistently demonstrated across a wide variety of settings, peOple, and eXperimental tasks." This experiment produced positive results using two differ- ent groups of subjects involved in a variety of experimen— tal tasks covering a period of approximately eighteen months; however, the results of any single experiment, regardless of the span of time covered, tasks involved, or variety of subjects used, are still only the results of a Single experiment. Thus, the conclusions suggested by the investigation are not to be seen as conclusive. Neverthe- less, certain assertions appear to be warranted by the findings of this experiment: students in undergraduate courses in social psychology who are exposed to informa- tion about their standing on particular variables to be 76 covered in the content of the course will (1) report the content of the course as being more personally relevant than will students not so exposed, (2) achieve higher scores on an objective final examination than will stud- ents not so exposed, (3) ask more questions during class discussion than will students not so exposed, and (4) achieve higher scores on an essay examination administered six months after the end of the course than will students not so exposed. In a more general statement of the findings of this experiment, it suggested that academic performance in undergraduate courses in social psychology can be Signifi- cantly enhanced, both immediately and over the passage of time, by increasing the personal relevance of the content of the course. 933 technique of increasing personal rel- evance is exposing the student to information pertaining to his standing on particular variables that will be covered during the progress of the course. It is further suggested that increasing the degree of personal relevance enhances academic performance in areas other than those tradition- ally measured by scores on achievement type examinations. One question that can be raised is whether or not "relevance" was that which was being manipulated in these two studies. One might argue that the independent vari- able was "importance of the material" to the student, or perhaps what obtained was yet another variation of the 77 Hawthorne Effect. In the absence of still another control group--which could have been given information about them- selves concerning variables 22E covered in class-~it is difficult to unconditionally affirm that the obtained results were not merely a product of "being treated in a special way." However, the question is an empirical one that could be answered. Until such evidence is provided, data from this study support the contention that "relevance" (as Operationally defined in this research) was the vari- able that made "a difference" in the academic performance of the subjects.1 An important aSpect of any discussion of the con- clusions reached as the result of an empirical investiga— tion is pointed out by Bakan (1969: 21 and 22) when he says "when the test of significance has been run, the necessity for induction has hardly been completely satisfied. It is certainly the case that, as confirming particulars are added, the credibility of the general is increased." In the case of this research, "the general" is the theory used to generate the Operational definition of personal rele- vance as well as the particular hypotheses tested. Without belaboring the obvious, it can be suggested that the 1In non-technical terms, the difference in academic performance between the relevance groups and the other stud- ents was one letter grade; i.e., the enhancement effect was typically from a "C" to a "B" or from a "B" to an "A." 78 positive results of this single research effort can and Should be seen as supporting Rokeach's theory of the struc- ture and dynamics of beliefs, attitudes and values. In particular these findings lend increased credibility to Rokeach's contentions regarding that which constitutes cognitive importance for an individual; i.e., cognitive importance is related to the degree of "connectedness: the more a given belief is functionally connected or in communication with other beliefs, the more implications and consequences it has for other beliefs" (Rokeach, 1968: 5). The findings herein reported also suggest the conclusions that Rokeach's proposed criteria for evaluating the degree of importance, or connectedness, of beliefs-- "beliefs concerning existence and self identity...that are Shared with others are assumed to have more functional connections and consequences for other beliefs...." (Rokeach, 1968: 5)--has increased validity. But perhaps the most Significant implication that derives from this research concerns Rokeach's theory about change in value attitude systems. AS he noted, "We not only seek to des- cribe the manner in which value-attitude systems may be organized but also how they may change" (1968: 164). The use of the construct of personal relevance as a specific example of exposing a person to the knowledge that there already exist states of inconsistency within his own value-attitude system allowed for a test of the validity 79 of Rokeach's claim that this procedure is an effective means of inducing a state of inconsistency between elements in this system. The data obtained in this study appear to support this claim and gives added reason for acting on Rokeach's stated wish that this technique "Opens the door to an experimental study of problems of education and re- education" (1968: 167). There is another conclusion that appears to be indicated by this investigation: social psychological theory and procedures are amenable for use in research con- cerning educational processes. This is of particular im- portance in view of the criticism made of most of the research being done into instructional processes and techniques. Gage and Tohwer (1969: 381) comment that "remoteness of applicability to instruction...character- izes many studies of human learning, retention and trans- fer, appearing in the most prestigious of psychological journals." Social psychological theory and procedures are available, and, as demonstrated in this research, these can be used to investigate educational processes without creating a degree of contrivance that makes the findings all but useless. Implications The support for and elaboration of Rokeach's theory of attitude-value systems suggests the most obvious 80 implication of this study; i.e., this is a "good theory" in that it generates useful and verifiable hypotheses and deserves further study and differentiation. In addition, it seems that the possibility of "a social psychology of education" is implied by this research effort. J. W. Getzels' article, "A Social Psychology of Education" in Volume V of The Handbook of Social Psychology, Second Edi- tion and the book The Social Psychology of Education by David W. Johnson further support this implication. However, what is yet to be determined are the boundaries and struc- ture of this area of study. Neither the above works nor this study justify anything but cautious statements as to what will constitute a social psychology of education; however, there are certain implications to be drawn from this study that can be added to this adumbration. Given that this investigation has a degree of validity, a logical next step would be the study of the relationship between the content of the variables used to induce personal relevance and the degree of relevance Ob- tained. Are there certain attitudinal or personality variables that Should not be communicated to the student because of the harmful and/or negative consequences that might be obtained? Or, conversely, are there certain variables about which the student can be told that will elicit a greater degree of personal relevance. These are empirical questions and are capable of being answered. 81 Another empirical concern that deserves attention is the question of what academic performance indices, other than scores on achievement tests, are responsive to the manipulation of personal relevance. In this investigation it was found that number of days missed, number of tutori- als attended and number of reserve books checked out were not significantly influenced by the manipulation of per- sonal relevance. Perhaps personal relevance could be increased to the degree that these dependent variables would reflect such an increase or perhaps these unobtrusive measures are beyond control of the independent variable in question. But once again, these are questions that could and should be answered empirically. Perhaps one of the more important implications from this study, for purposes of structuring a social psychology of education, concerns the problem of the longitudinal- impact of the education experience. Increasing the per- sonal relevance, as here conceptualized within the frame~ work of Rokeach's theory of value-attitude systems, of a course in social psychology, was suggested to be one way to increase the length of time which the student retained concepts and information from the course content. If this be a valid finding, it is necessary to take the next logical steps and determine the dynamics of this increase. What is the span of time over which such an influence lasts and under what conditions can the maximal time span 82 be obtained? It is just this area--enhancing academic performance by means of increasing personal relevance-- that appears to hold perhaps the most promise for contri- buting to a productive social psychology of education. REFERENCES REFERENCES Astin, A. "Criterion Centered Research," Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1964, Winter, 807-822. Bakan, D. On Method: Toward a jReconstruction of Psycho- logical Investigation, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, I969. Blackburn, R. T. "Live and Learn? A Look at Students in Their Setting," in Memo Number 32 of the Center for, Research on Learning andITeacHing at the University 6f Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1969. Briney, R. C. and Taylor, M. J. "Scholastic Behavior and Orientation to College," Journal of Educational Psychology, 1959, 50, 266:274: Buenz, R. Y. and Merrill, I. R. "Effects of Effort on Retention and Enjoyment," Journal of Educational Psychology, 1968, 59, 154-158. Buxton, C. C. College Teachings-A Psychologist' s View. New York: Harcourt, Brace and'COmpanies,Il956. Campbell, E. T. and Stanldy, C. Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Cattel, R. B. and Eber, H. W. Manual for Forms A and B Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Cham- paign, Illin01s: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1962. Dubin, R. and Taveggia, T. The Teaching-Learning Paradox. Eugene, Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1968. Eckert, R. E. and Neale, D. C. "Teachers and Teaching," Review of Educational Research, 1965, 35, 304-317. Edwards, A. L. Manual Edwards Persongl Preference Schedule. New York: THE Psychological Corporation, 1959. 83 84 Edwards, A. L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research, Third Edition. New York: Holt, Riner Hart and Winston, 1968. Evans, R. I. and Rozell, R. M. Social Psychology in Life. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1970.' Festinger, L. Conflict, Decision and Dissonance. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1964. Forer, B. R. "The Fallacy of Personal Validation: A Classroom Demonstration of Gullibility," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1949, 44, II8-' 123. Fricke, B. G. "Prediction, Selection, Mortality and Qual- ity of Control," College and University, 1956, 32, 34-52 0 Gagne, R. M. and Rohwer, W. D. "Instructional Psychology," In Mussen, P. H. and Rosenzeig, M. R. 'Annual Review of Psychology. Palo Alto: AnnuaI Reviews, Inc., 1969. Garret, H. F. "A Review and Interpretation of Investiga- tion of Factors Related to Scholastic Success in Colleges of Arts and Sciences and Teachers Colleges, Journal of Experimental Education, 18, 91-138. Garverick, C. M. "Retention of School Learning as In- fluenced by Selected Affective Tone Variables," Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964, 55, 31-34. Getzels, J. W. "A Social Psychology of Education," In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Editors) The Handbook of Social Psychology, Second Edition. Volume 5. Applied Social Psychology. Reading, Massachusetts: AddiSon-Wesley, 1969. Goodwin, W. L. "Effect of Selected Methodological Condi— tions of Dependent Measures Taken after Classroom Experimentation," Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966, 57, 350-358. 1 Johnson, D. W. The Social Psychology of Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Johnson, H. H. and Foley, J. M. "Some Effects of Placebo and Experiment Conditions in Research on Methods of Teaching," Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969, 60, 6-10. 85 Keller, A. "A Personal Course in Psychology," paper read at the American Psychological Association, Phila- delphia, 1963. Lee, C. "Improved College Teaching: Inquiry and Quest," Improving College Teaching. Edited by C. Lee. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1967. Lindquist, E. F. Design and Analysis of Experiments in PS cholo and Education. Boston: Houghton MiifIin, 1953. MacLeish, A. "The Revolt of the Diminished Man," Saturday Review, (June 7, 1969), 16-19. McKeachie, W. J. "Procedures and Techniques of Teaching: A Survey of Experimental Studies," 'The'American Colle e. Edited by N. Stanford. New York: Jofin Wiley and Sons, 1962. . "Research on Teaching at the College and Univer- sity Level," Handbook of Research‘on‘Teaching, Edited by N. L. Goge. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. . "Research in Teaching: The Gap between Theory and Practice," Improvingggllege Teaching. Edited by C. B. Lee. Wa§hington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1967. Maxwell, W. D. "Some Dimensions of Relevance," AAUP Bulle- tin, 1969, 55(3), 337-341. Meichenbaum, D. H.; Bowers, K. S.; and ROSS, R. R. "A Behavioral Analysis of Teacher Expectancy Effect," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 13(4) , 306-316. Merton, R. K. "The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy," Antioch Review. 1948, 8, 193-210. Neidt, C. and Hedlund, D. "The Relationship between Changes in Attitude towards a Course and Final Achievement," Journal of Educational Research, 1967, 61, 56-58. Orne, M. T. "On the Social Psychology of the Psychological Experiment: With Particular Reference to Demand Characteristics and Their Implications," American Psycholqgist, 1962, 17, 776-783. 86 Robinson, J. P. and Shaver, P. R. Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes. Ann Aibor, Michigan: Institute for Sdcial Research, 1969. Roethlisberger, F. J.; Dickson, W. J.; and Wright, H. A. Management and the Worker: An Account of a Research Prqgram Conducted By the Western EIectric Company, Hawthorne Works, Chicago. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1939. Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. . Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass, 1968. . "Long Range Experimental Modification of Values, Attitudes, and Behavior," American Psychologist, 1971, 26(5), 453-459. Rosenthal, R. "The Volunteer Subject," Human Relations, 1965, 18, 389-406. i ’ . Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1966. , and Jacobson, L. Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinefiart and Winston, I968. Siegel, L.; Siegel, L. C.; Capretta, P. J.; Jones, R. L.; and Berkowitz, H. "Students' Thoughts during Class: A Criterion for Educational Research," Journal of Educational Psychology, 1963, 54(1), 45-51. Stein, M. J. Personality Measures in Admissions. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1963. Ulrich, R. E.; Stachnik, T. J.; and Stainton, N. R. "Student Acceptance of Generalized Personality Interpretations," Psychological Reports, 1963, 13, 831-834. Webb, E. J.; Campbell, D. T.; Schwartz, R. D.; and Sech- rest, L. Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Re- search in theiSocial Sciences.7iChicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Wofford, J. C. and Willoughby, R. L. "Attitudes and Schol- astic Behavior," Journal of Educational Research, 1968,61, 360-362. 87 Woodring, P. The Higher Leagping in America: 'A Reassess- ment. New York: McGraw—HiIl, I969. Young, R. K. and Veldman, D. S. Introductory Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New Yorki’ HoIt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE ONE HUNDRED ITEM MULTIPLE CHOICE EXAMINATION USED IN BOTH STUDY NUMBER ONE AND STUDY NUMBER.TWO 1. (3) 2. (4) 3. (3) 4. (l) 5. (4) 6. (4) APPENDIX A THE ONE HUNDRED ITEM MULTIPLE CHOICE EXAMINATION USED IN BOTH STUDY NUMBER ONE AND STUDY NUMBER TWO Social Psychology Psychology 330 Final Exam A feature of experimentation which enhances the eXperi- menter's potential as an influence course has been termed: (1) social facilitation; (2) status enhance- ment; (3) demand characteristics; (4) suggestibility bias. A criticism of the concept of national character is that: (1) much of this work rests on unsubstantiated general impressions; (2) national and cultural boun- daries often fail to correSpond; (3) cultural patterns change through time; (4) all of these. The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire is: (l) a test used only with neurotics; (2) a test that describes surface traits only; (3) a test that can be used with both neurotics and normals; (4) a test that describes unipolar traits only. The concept of personality types which is widest in terms of recognizing the range of variation within a society is that of: (l) modal personality; (2) basic personality; (3) core personality; (4) stable person- ality. Values may be defined as: (l) a single belief that transcendentally guides behavior; (2) an imperative to action; (3) a standard; (4) all of the above. The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire: (1) can- not be used to obtain insights into the structure of personality; (2) can be used only with adults; (3) can be used only with college age individuals; (4) can be used to obtain insights into the structure of person- a ity. 88 7. (4) 8. (3) 9. (2) 10. (2) ll. (3) 12. (1) l3. (2) 14. (4) 15. (3) 89 The relationship between conformity and non-conformity: (1) involves multiple motives; (2) can be misleading if external appearances alone are relied on; (3) is not a matter of simple Opposites; (4) all of these. The distinction between "leadership" and a "leader" is essentially that: (l) the former is,a position of designated authority while the latter is not; (2) the former is a practical process while the latter is sym— bolic process; (3) the former is a relationship while the latter is indicative of a role in that relation- ship; (4) the former is a necessary group resource and the latter is an element in attaining the resource. The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire is: (l) a test develOped by means of complex patterning analy— sis; (2) a test develOped by means of a complex corre- lational techniques; (3) a test developed by making reference to normal behavior only; (4) a test develOped by making reference to abnormal behavior only. Values: (1) are not directly related to behavior; (2) may be either instrumental or terminal (3) are not directly related to attitudes; (4) can be measured by simply noting an individual's attitudes toward a given object. Two important unconscious features of prejudice are: (l) homogeneity and heterogeneity; (2) the in-group and the out-group; (3) projection and rationalization; (4) the self-concept and social acceptance. The use of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire would: (1) be very helpful in studying adjustment; (2) not be very useful in studying normal behavior; (3) be useful in only studying normal behavior; (4) not be very useful in studying adjustment. Thibaut and Kelley term the standard for evaluating the attractiveness of a relationship in terms of rewards relative to costs: (1) status congruence; (2) compar- ison level; (3) comparison level for alternatives; (4) behavioral control level. A deficiency in the trait typology approach to person- ality is that it: (1) ignores situational variables; (2) focuses exclusively on responses; (3) slights the large number of "mixed types"; (4) all of these. A person's value system represents: (1) his total be- lief system; (2) a learned way of inducing worth; (3) a learned organization of rules for making choices 16. (4) 17. (2) 18. (2) 19. (l) 20. (2) 21. (4) 22. (2) 23. (4) 90 between modes of behavior or end states of existence; (4) a construct that has theoretical significance only since values cannot be objectively measured. The research by Stougger and his colleagues, on "rela- tive deprivation" in military groups, indicated in general that: (1) people with low expectations for promotion were least satisfied; (2) people with high expectations for promotion were most successful; (3) people with high expectations for promotion were most satisfied; (4) peOple with high expectations for pro— motions were least satisfied. Hartshorne and May have found that the "honesty" of children is most highly related to: (l) authoritarian family structure; (2) the particulars of a given situ- ation; (3) introversion more than extroversion; (4) achievement motivation. The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire is par- ticularly useful to the social psychologist interested in group behavior in that the test: (1) can be used to measure group cohesiveness; (2) can be used to measure domination—subordination of group members; (3) correlates well with the universal index of group productivity; (4) correlates almost perfectly with the sociogram. - "Bill behaves dependently; therefore, he has a trait of dependency" would be illustrative of what G. W. Allport calls the: (l) fallacy of misplaced concrete- ness; (2) proaction; (3) the dispositional approach; (4) reification. Within a person's value system: (1) all values are equally important; (2) his values exist in a hierarch- ical structure; (3) instrumental values are more impor— tant that terminal values; (4) all of the above. Goffman states that his approach to role behavior is: (l) structural; (2) political; (3) cultural; (4) drama- turgical. The person who tends to behave in an anticonforming way is actually revealing great: (1) independence; (2) de- pendence; (3) self-esteem; (4) individuality. Homans' statement that "influence over others is pur- chased at the price of allowing one's self to be in- fluenced by others" reveals a View of leadership that' is mainly: (l) situational; (2) resource-oriented; (3) trait-oriented; (4) transactional. 24. (2) 25. (4) 26. (4) 27. (4) 28. (3) 29. (2) 30. (2) 31. (l) 91 The consideration that individuals are most likely to react to certain aspects of a social situation as "sig- nificant aspects" has particular implications for: (1) value systems; (2) roles; (3) perceptual illusions; (4) status congruence. The values that are related to an individual's behavior in a given situation: (1) will be a function of his attitude toward the object of concern; (2) will be a function of his attitude toward the Situation of con- cern; (3) will be a function of the instrumental and terminal values activated by the attitudes involved; (4) all of the above. According to Heider, the basic difference between ob- ject perception and person perception lies in the con- sideration that: (1) object perception and person perception involve different perceptual processes; (2) objects and persons differ in structural charac- teristics; (3) objects lack locomotion; (4) objects lack motivation. The approach to leadership through the study of the "traflxv'of leaders: (1) was aimed at determining what factors made a person a leader; (2) slighted the effects of the situation including followers' responses; (3) yielded a highly mixed picture of leadership; (4) all of these. The term "group locomotion" refers to: (l) the over- all level of interaction in a group; (2) the extent to which members move in and out of a group; (3) the group's activity in attaining a desired goal; (4) the extent to which shifts occur in the status of group members. Legal action is most likely to be taken against an individual who violates a: (1) folkway; (2) more; (3) convention; (4) usage. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule: (1) meas- ures the predisposition of an individual to be path- ological; (2) measures the individual's predominant personality motivations; (3) is used to measure White's competence motive; (4) is used to measure the strength of various instinctive urges. In a follow-up of his Bennington study, Newcomb found that the more liberally-inclined girls in college later tended to: (l) marry men with liberal politi- cal leanings; (2) marry more politically conservative 32. (4) 33. (4) 34. (4) 35. (4) 36. (1) 37. (4) 38. (1) 39. (4) 40. (1) 92 men from their upper-class environment; (3) marry much later in life than the conservatively-inclined girls; (4) none of these. The contemporary functional view of leadership consi- ders leadership to be: (1) a function which may be served by different behaviors; (2) a property of the group's structure; (3) an individual resource; (4) both 1 and 2. In general, identification with others leads to an increase in: (1) reliance on them as a source of social reality; (2) a sense of belonging; (3) suscep- tibility to their assertions of influence; (4) all of these. The term "social expectancy" may apply to: (l) taboos; (2) conventions; (3) roles; (4) all of these. Which one of the following motives are measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule? (1) Power; (2) Dependency; (3) Competence; (4) None of the above. One of the determinants of interpersonal attraction is "prOpinquity," which means that people are most likely to be attracted toward those: (1) in closest contact with them; (2) in least contact with them; (3) who are Similar to them; (4) who are dissimilar from them. Leadership imposed in a formal structure by external authority illustrates: (l) emergent leadership; (2) socio-emotional leadership; (3) attempted leadership; (4) none of these. For the most part, social psychology is interested in conformity as a: (l) phenomenon which is produced by and leads to influence effects; (2) feature of society which stifles individuality; (3) deterministic process; (4) pattern of institutional conformism. Paul and Laulicht's finding that 70% of a national sample of Canadian voters favored disarmament even though only 38% felt that others did illustrates: (1) cultural conflict; (2) communication processes; (3) contradictory societal values; (4) pluralistic ignorance. One of the values of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule is that: (l) the test reduces the likelihood of respondents making just the socially desirable res- ponse; (2) the test has a built-in "tendency to 41. (3) 42. (l) 43. (4) 44. (2) 45. (2) 46. (1) 93 deceive" measure; (3) the test can be used with non— verbal individuals; (4) the test is capable of being used in different cultures without cross-cultural contamination. Thibaut and Kelley distinguish between two kinds of power, "behavior control" and "fate control." By the latter they mean: (1) X can affect Y's outcomes under some circumstances; (2) X can affect Y's outcomes so as to make it desirable for Y to do certain things; (3) X can affect Y'S outcomes regardless of what Y does; (4) none of these. With his "least preferred coworker" rating Fiedler has found a relationship between the leader's LPC score and group creativity that is: (1) positive under pleasant relaxed conditions; (2) positive under un- pleasant, stressful conditions; (3) negative under pleasant, relaxed conditions; (4) none of these. Communication within a group: (1) is consumed by the group's task entirely; (2) creates role behavior; (3) maintains differences in role behavior; (4) both 2 and 3. According to Helson's adaptation level theory, a mod- erate appeal for social reform, made to an audience having just heard a strong appeal in favor of such reform, would probably be judged by the audience to be: (1) a moderate appeal for reform; (2) an appeal favoring the status quo; (3) a strong appeal for re- form; (4) adaptation level not relevant to this ques- tion. The achievement motive, one of the variables measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, was initially studied by McClelland: (l) by measuring the amount of achievement imagery produced in looking at work pictures; (2) looking at the differences in re- ported imagery to pictures between an achievement aroused and a control group; (3) studying the person- ality characteristics of fast and Slow problem-solvers; (4) interviewing successful and unsuccessful business- men. Social interaction is best characterized as: (1) a reciprocal relationship between persons whose behavior is interdependent; (2) face-to-face contact between persons; (3) an implicit relationship; (4) both 2 and 3. 47. (l) 48. (4) 49. (4) 50. (4) 51. (1) 52. (4) 53. (3) 54. (1) 94 Inter-group relations can be considered to encompass: (1) both actual or implied interaction; (2) only actual interaction between contending parties; (3) collective relations but not individual relations; (4) membership groups but not reference groups. Research on interaction as a function of group Size indicates that as a group gets larger: (1) different qualities may characterize internal group relation- ships; (2) a greater degree of competitive behavior may be evidenced; (3) a greater disparity may occur in member prominence; (4) all of these. In the Bruner and Goodman experiment with children on estimation of size of different coins it was found that: (l) wealthy children were very accurate; (2) poor children were very accurate children; (3) wealthy children underestimated the size of coins; (4) poor children overestimated the Size of coins. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule: (1) would be of little use to the social psychologist; (2) can- not be used with any person that is psychologically abnormal; (3) would be of use to a social psychologist interested in measuring interpersonal sensitivity; (4) would be of use to a social psychologist interested in predicting interpersonal attraction patterns. Which factor is most important in accounting for con- notative meaning as measured by semantic differential rating techniques? (1) evaluative; (2) potency; (3) activity; (4) denotative. Effectiveness in the advocacy function of leadership is largely Shaped by: (1) the expectations of follow- ers; (2) the utterances of the leader; (3) the per- ceived group goals; (4) all of these. Low status members of a group are most likely to: (1) reject the status hierarchy within the group; (2) direct considerable aggression toward members who hold high status; (3) try to better themselves with members who hold high status; (4) avoid interaction with mem- bers who hold high status. For the most part, in the absence of apprOpriate cat- egories for new experience, peOple tend to: (1) rely on old ones; (2) Show perceptual discrimination; (3) indulge in perceptual distortion; (4) manifest avoid- ance behavior. 55. (2) 56. (2) 57. (4) 58. (2) 59. (3) 60. (4) 61. (4) 62. (1) 95 Authoritarianism and dogmatism: (l) are the same thing; (2) are different with dogmatism being the more general concept; (3) are different with authoritarian- ism being the more general concept; (4) can neither be measured. As technical terms, scientists try to use words that have only denotative meanings because: (1) they imply a range of concepts for a Single word; (2) connotative meanings of words can cause two words with the same denotative meaning to convey different things; (3) words with connotative meanings tend to be longer and more structurally complicated; (4) all of these. A criticism of the view which says the expression of aggression is a necessary feature of human affairs is that: (1) it varies considerably from place to place and time to time; (2) individuals must be recruited and even coerced to take part in collective aggression; (3) the capacity for being aggressive does not demon- strate its fundamental necessity; (4) all of these. For the most part, the avowed functions of a group: (1) represent the group goals which are actually sought; (2) may not be the same as its real functions; (3) directly determine the group's cohesiveness; (4) none of these. The degree to which an individual perceives others as rewarding him increases his: (1) conflict-reduction; (2) balance between internal psychological states and behavior; (3) motivation to be identified with them; (4) none of these. The authors of "The Authoritarian Personality" con- cluded that: (l) the appraoches of an individual to different areas of his life may be quite Similar to each other; (2) a personality structure formed in childhood may lead to a particular political orienta- tion in later life; (3) one basic personality pattern is more flexible and more "democratic" than another; (4) all of the above. The inability to treat words and the things they stand for as separate is called: (1) linguistic relativity; (2) ego-centric Speech; (3) semantics; (4) semantic confusion. The distinction between formal and informal groups rests mainly in the determination of: (l) the source of the group's structure; (2) members' satisfactions; 63. (4) 64. (1) 65. (l) 66. (2) 67. (3) 68. (3) 69. (1) 7o. (4) 71. (4) 96 (3) group cohesiveness; (4) the degree to which the group persists over time. Research on resistance to persuasion indicates that: (l) the forewarning of a desire to persuade tends to bolster the audience's defenses; (2) self-esteem may increase resistance; (3) a communicator indicating a liking for the audience reduces resistance; (4) all of these. The first two major textbooks in social psychology appeared in: (1) 1908; (2) 1893; (3) 1920; (4) 1912. Which personality trait is more likely to be found in the authoritarian personality than in the non- ethnocentric personality? (1) holds conventional values; (2) internalizes socially inacceptable im- pulses; (3) has realistically appraised parents; (4) maintains self-independence. The concept that language is the mediator through which cultural influences affect psychological pro- cesses is termed: (1) the semantic differential; (2) linguistic relativity; (3) the verbal community; (4) phonetic symbolism. The most common measure of cohesiveness in use is: (1) group productivity; (2) conformity to group norms; (3) group attraction; (4) social reality. Festinger's concept of "insufficient rewards" refers to the proposition that: (1) the less the inducement, the less the compliance; (2) the greater the induce- ment, the greater the compliance; (3) the less the inducement, the greater the compliance; (4) none of these. An essential quality of social psychology, which makes it distinctive, is its focus upon: (1) the individual as a participant in social processes; (2) the group as the major influence in social processes; (3) the inter- action between groups; (4) the influence of society and culture. According to the concept of "The Authoritarian Person- ality," those who are antisemitic will also be: (1) anti-negro; (2) anti-democratic; (3) highly national- istic; (4) all of the above. Lewin's develOpment of "group dynamics" emphasized: (l) the present psychological states of the individual; (2) laboratory; (3) the relationship between the indi- vidual and the situation; (4) all of these. 72. (2) 73. (l) 74. (3) 75. (3) 76. (3) 77. (2) 78. (4) 79. (2) 80. (2) 81. (4) 97 Behavior conventionally expected in society, such as a food preference, is termed: (l) conformism; (2) con- gruence conformity; (3) movement conformity; (4) none of these. The relationship of the validity and the reliability of attitude measurement is such that: (l) unreliabil- ity sets limits on validity; (2) validity sets limits on reliability; (3) validity and reliability are essen- tially independent of one another; (4) none of these. When the expressed belief that an event will occur acts to increase the probability of the event actually occurring,this is an instance of: (l) cognitive dis- sonance; (2) social reality; (3) self-fulfilling pro- phecy; (4) the "human nature" fallacy. Which childhood situation is more likely to have occurred in the non-authoritarian's life than in the anthonflarian's life? (1) harsh parental discipline; (2) concern with family status; (3) unconditional love from parents; (4) hierarchical family structure. The study of meaning is called: (1) denotation; (2) phonetics; (3) semantics; (4) syntactic logic. In social psychology the term "psychology field" refers to: (1) the entire set of phenomena with which psychologists are concerned; (2) a person's own inter- pretation of his world; (3) the range or number of peOple affected by the individual; (4) the process of person perception. The reliability of a measure means that: (1) it measures what it is supposed to measure; (2) it avoids bias from the framing of the questions; (3) it con- trols for constant errors of measurement; (4) it gives results which are consistent from one measurement to the next. Group cohesiveness is essentially defined as: (l) the degree of social reality in a group; (2) overall attrac- tion of a group to its members; (3) patterns of agreed- upon group communication; (4) the common goals of a group. Rokeach defines dogmatism in terms of (1) authoritarian- ism; (2) closed-mindedness; (3) hostility; (4) depen- dency. Languages can change in response to: (l) cultural in- novation; (2) cultural contact; (3) the modeling in- fluence of a prestigious person such as a king; (4) all of these. 82. (1) 83. (4) 84. (l) 85. (3) 86. (3) 87. (3) 88. (3) 89. (4) 90. (2) 98 The attachment a person feels toward others which gives him a place in society can be referred to as: (1) social identity; (2) social support; (3) social reality; (4) social influence. Miller and Dollard's concept of matched-dependent behavior pertains mainly to: (l) attitude formation; (2) attitude change; (3) reciprocation; (4) imitation. The study of population characteristics including num- bers of peOple and their geographic distribution is called: (1) demography; (2) cultural anthrOpology; (3) genetic geography; (4) historicity. Which of the following statements concerning dogmatic individuals 23d authoritarianism is true: (1) both are inclined toward the political "left"; (2) both are inclined toward the political "right"; (3) auth- oritarians are usually inclined toward the political "right" while dogmatic individuals may be inclined either way; (4) dogmatic individuals are usually in- clined toward the political "left" while authoritarians may be inclined either way. The technical term for the "bow-wow" theory of lan- guage origination is the: (l) interjectional theory; (2) theory of phonetic symbolism; (3) onomatopoeic theory; (4) none of these. Inferences about underlying personality from typical behavior are: (1) usually made through projective tests; (2) indicative of the dynamic aspect of person— ality; (3) likely to be misleading; (4) reasonably accurate indicators of the self-concept. An acquired cognitive response which has the property of making a person react to things happening to another person as if they were happening to him is a definition of: (1) primary imitativeness; (2) matched-dependent; behavior; (3) identification; (4) modeling behavior. Lewin's develOpment of "group dynamics" emphasized: (l) the present psychological states of the indivi- dual; (2) experimentation on small-scale social sys- tems in the laboratory; (3) the relationship between the individual and the Situation; (4) all of these. In an autokinetic Situation, with low and high dogma- tic individuals, one would expect that: (1) low dogmatic people would tend to agree more with a high status source; (2) high dogmatic peOple would tend to agree more with a high status source; (3) high 91. (3) 92. (4) 93. (1) 94. (3) 95. (2) 96. (3) 97. (4) 99 dogmatic people would tend to agree less with others regardless of their status; (4) high dogmatic peOple would tend to agree more with others regardless of their status. Research by Hollingshead and Redlich in New Haven found that: (l) the prevalence of psychotic dis- orders was unrelated to social class; (2) the upper classes had a greater prevalence of psychotic dis- orders; (3) the lower classes had a greater prevalence of psychotic disorders; (4) lower classes had a greater prevalence of neurotic disorders. Group structure refers to: (1) the distribution of group functions among members; (2) the communication network within the group; (3) the normative patterns within the group; (4) all of these. Katz contends that creating ambiguity is the most apt strategy for changing an attitude which serves the: (1) knowledge function; (2) value-eXpressive function; (3) ego-defensive function; (4) instrumental function. Laboratory experimentation iS the procedure of study in social psychology which is most highly: (1) nat- uralistic; (2) refined measurement; (3) controlled; (4) observational. The more dogmatic an individual: (1) the less his cognitions are dependent upon external authority; (2) the more his cognitions are dependent upon exter- nal authority; (3) the less resistive he is to accep— tance of information that is contradictory to his system of beliefs; (4) the more cognitions he will have about objects that are negatively evaluated. Which of the following would be least valid as a basis for defining the boundaries of a subculture: (1) social class; (2) geographic area of residence; (3) intellectual capacities; (4) religion. Several experiments indicate that a person placed in a more central position in a communication net will: (1) evidence more assertive behavior; (2) report more involvement in the group's activity; (3) be perceived by others in the group as more important in determin- ing the outcome of the group's activity; (4) all of these. ’ 98. (2) 99. (2) 100. (4) 100 The functional approach to attitudes is mainly con- cerned with attitudes in terms of their: (1) perceptual-categorical functions; (2) motivational functions; (3) adaptive functions; (4) dynamic func- tions for change. The fact that social psychological phenomena involve ongoing processes means eSpecially that: (l) inde- pendent and dependent variables must be clearly stated; (2) time relationships must be taken into account; (3) multi-causality must be studied; (4) research must be empirical. A cognitive organization is considered to be closed to the extent that there is:(1) a high degree of interdependence between central and peripheral beliefs; (2) a low degree of interdependence among peripheral beliefs; (3) dedifferentiation within the disbelief system; (4) all of the above. APPENDIX B ESSAY EXAMINATION ADMINISTERED AS PART OF STUDY NUMBER TWO APPENDIX B ESSAY EXAMINATION ADMINISTERED AS PART OF STUDY NUMBER TWO This is a test designed to measure how much of the material you have retained from the course in social psy- chology you took last fall term. Please do your best and be as explicit as you can. 1. Using the principle of "interaction" and your knowledge of interpersonal attraction, power, leadership and conformity, explain the phenomenon of "charisma." Given that you understand the "psycholsocio- cultural" approach to understanding, controlling, and predicting human behavior, use your knowledge of power, conformity, socialization, roles and role-strain to suggest actions that our society might take to reduce the likelihood of our con- tinued involvement in wars. Using your knowledge of socialization processes, competitiveness, conformity and role processes, describe what our society might do to reduce the production of "super-males" and "super-females." Explain the dynamics of interpersonal attraction that are presently being used in our society for 101 102 mate-selection (romantic love), and explain why this process has proved to be maladaptive and pathogenic. Using your knowledge of power, status and communica— tion, leadership, and group productivity and satis- faction, eXplain how the present educational pro- cesses used in colleges and universities could be improved both from the student's vieWpoint and from the long range vieWpoint of society. APPENDIX C SCRIPT USED DURING EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT SESSIONS IN STUDY NUMBER ONE AND STUDY NUMBER TWO APPENDIX C SCRIPT USED DURING EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENT SESSIONS IN STUDY NUMBER ONE AND STUDY NUMBER TWO Today I would like to go over the tests that you took for me. I'm sorry that I was unable to score all of them but those of you who have unscored tests can still look at the answer sheets and gain some understanding of what the particular tests are measuring. Those of you who have your tests scored can take note of where you stand on the particular variables as I discuss their mean- ing. First, let's look at The F Scale. This instrument was the product of research done during the late 1940's-- following the Second World War. The research was under- taken in order to try to gain an understanding of the psychological roots of anti-semitism. As the research progressed, the investigators began to conceptualize anti- semitism as only one manifestation of a broader, more gen- eralized personality, the authoritarian personality. The F Scale was designed to measure authoritarian, or implicit anti-democratic trends, in a personality. The authoritarian personality was conceived of as being com- posed of nine different variables: 1. Conventionalism--rigid adherence to conventional, middle class values. 103 .1]!!! . .l .7u 71‘94A 104 2. Authoritarian submission-~submissive, non-critical attitudes toward authority of the in-group. 3. Authoritarian aggression--the predisposition to punish people who violate in-group values. 4. Anti-introception--opposition to introspective, imaginative thinking. 5. Supersition and stereotype--the tendency to believe in mystic determination of one's fate and to think in terms of rigid, compartmentalized categories. 6. Power and toughness--the tendency to Show tough- ness, strong-willedness; the prediSposition to identify with power figures. 7. Destructiveness and cynicism--the tendency to be cynical and hostile. 8. Projectivity--the tendency to believe that the world is full of dangerous and evil peOple. 9. Sex--the tendency to think that people in the out- group are involved in excessive and unacceptable sexual behavior (Robinson and Shaver, 1969: 224). According to the authors of The F Scale, a high positive score is indicative of a high degree of author- itarianism. A person high in authoritarianism would then be expected to manifest the just-described characteristics in their lives. On the other hand, a person low in author- itarianism would not be expected to Show evidence of these 105 nine variables in his life. Next, let's look at the variable dogmatism as measured by The Dqgmatism Scale. As was the case for the authoritarianism measuring device, the higher a person's score the more dogmatic he is said to be. Conversely, the lower the individual's score, the less dogmatic he is said to be. The author of The Dogmatism Scale, Dr. Milton Ro- keach, defines dogmatism as closemindedness; that is, a closeminded person is characterized by (l) a predisposition to reject beliefs that are different from his own, (2) a low degree of interconnectedness or interrelatedness among his various belief systems, and (3) the possession of a larger amount of knowledge and ideas about objects and situations that are positively evaluated than about objects and Situations that are negatively evaluated. The dogmatic individual tends to form his cognitions (ideas, thoughts, beliefs) about objects and situations more as a function of irrelevant wants and external authority than as a func- tion of reason and logic. The dogmatic person is likely to be quite resistive to accepting information which is contradictory or which goes against his own beliefs, and the dogmatic individual is hesitant to endure close rela- tionships with those who are different from him, parti- cularly those with different beliefs. On the other hand, the individual who scores low 106 on the dogmatism scale (40 is the lowest score possible and 280 is the highest possible score) is said to be Open- minded. Rokeach states that the extent to which a person's belief systems are Open is "the extent to which the person can perceive, evaluate, and act on relevant information received from the outside on its own intrinsic merits, unencumbered by irrelevant factors in the Situation arising from within the person or from the outside" (Rokeach, 1960: 57). In other words, the Openminded person can respond to information in a logical, rational and disinterested (meaning impartial) manner; he does not come to a parti- cular Situation with his Opinions, beliefs and attitudes already formed. The Openminded person is seen as more flexible and less rigid in his cognitions than is the closeminded individual. Next, let's look at the Edwards Personal Preference Test. This test was designed as an instrument for use in research and counseling as a means of providing a rela- tively quick and convenient measure of a number of normal personality variables. The EPPS measures 15 of these personality characteristics; namely, achievement, defer- ence, order, exhibition, autonomy, affiliation, intra- ception, succorance, dominance, abasement, nurturance, change, endurance, heterosexuality and aggression (Edwards, 1959). If you will look at the profile sheet (hold up 107 example) you will see that an individual's score on each of these 15 variables is reported in terms of percentile. For example, if your score on achievement fell at the 85th percentile, you would know that only 15 percent of the individuals in the standardization group had higher achieve- ment motive scores than you did. Or, if your achievement score placed you at the 20th percentile, you would know that your achievement score was exceeded by 80 percent of those in the normative sample. Because of the limitations in time, we will only discuss one of the 15 variables--achievement need or motive. Individuals who score high on this variable are said to have the following manifest needs: to do one's best, to be successful, to accomplish tasks requiring skill and effort, to be a recognized authority, to accom- plish something of great significance, to do a difficult job well, to solve difficult problems and puzzles, to be able to do things better than others, and to write a great novel or play. In general, if you are high in achievement motive, you will tend to perform better in occupational and academic goals, you will do better on immediate tasks when the purpose is to meet some standard of excellence, you will have a high level of motivation to finish incom- plete tasks, you will tend to prefer to work with success- ful strangers rather than unsuccessful friends, and you will usually be socially active in your community and school. 108 Those individuals who score low--say below the 25th percentile--on the achievement scale on the EPPS are not necessarity conceptualized as being just the opposite of the high achievement individual.’ Rather, a low achieve- ment score is seen as an indication that the individual is not motivated to achieve, accomplish, or reach some goal, for the mere sake of this achievement in and of itself. An individual with a low achievement score on the EPPS may well demonstrate a high level of apparent goal oriented motivation but, as the theory of achievement motivation suggests, this motivation will be related more to extrinsic rewards rather than to the accomplishment of the goal for accomplishment's sake. Thus, the difference between a high and low scoring individual on the achievement scale is more in terms of his motivational dynamics rather than in his manifested beha- viors. However, all things being equal and knowing nothing else about the individual, one would be more willing to predict achievement oriented behavior in a person whose achievement score was high than in a person whose achieve- ment score was low. In short, the knowledge of an indi— vidual's achievement score on the EPPS is an aid to predicting his achievement oriented behaviors but the score, in and of itself, is not an absolute indicator of achievement behaviors Since other factors such as fame or money or power may influence the behavior actually 109 exhibited. Next, let's look at Rokeach's Value Survsy Scales. This instrument is used for the purpose of assessing an individual's hierarchical arrangement of two kinds of values: instrumental and terminal. But before we talk about the difference between instrumental and terminal values it would perhaps be better to tell you what Rokeach means by the term "value." In his book, Beliefs, Attitudes and Values (1968: 159-160), Rokeach says that: values...have to do with modes of conduct and end-states of existence. To say that a person 'has a value' is to say that he has an endur- ing belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally and socially prefereable to alternate modes of conduct or end-states of existence. Once a value is internalized it becomes, consciously or unconsciously, a standard or criterion for guiding action, for develOping and maintain- ing attitudes toward relevant objects and Situations, for justifying one's own and others' actions and attitudes, for morally judging self and others, and for comparing self and others. With this definition of values in mind, note what Rokeach (1968: 160) has to say about the difference between instrumental and terminal values: "An instrumental value is...defined as a Single belief that always takes the following form: 'I believe that such-and-such a mode of conduct...is personally and socially preferable in all situations with reSpect to all objects.‘ A terminal value takes a comparable form: 'I believe that such—and-such an 110 end-state of existence...is personally and socially worth striving for.'" In the value survey that you have before you, the first list of 18 alphabetically listed values are terminal; that is, the first list is composed of various end-states of existence. The second list is 18 instrumental values, modes of conduct that one may see as personally and socially preferable. If you responded to this instrument, you might note what you considered to be the most and least important of the terminal and instrumental values. Such information has been found to have certain predictive validity; for example, the higher one ranks the terminal value "salvation" the more likely that individual is to be regular in church attendance (Robinson and Shaver, 1969: 463). As you might imagine the relationship between the rankings of certain values can also be used to predict certain behaviors. For instance, look at how you ranked equality and freedom and think about what this might mean regarding how you think about your own freedom in rela- tionship to the freedom of others. Finally, let's turn to the Sixteen Personality Factor Test. This instrument is an objectively-scored test designed to provide scores on sixteen functionally independent and psychologicaly meaningful personality traits. Because they have been established as unitary 111 entities in many research efforts dealing with various life situations, each of the sixteen measures provides a new piece of information about the individual. Look at the profile sheet (hold up an example). As you can see, there are Sixteen bipolar continuums on this profile sheet. The space between the ends of each continuum is divided into ten units or stens. An indivi- dual's responses to the questions are scored and then converted to sten units. If a person's score on a particular scale is a sten of 1 to 3, then the descriptive terms on the left side of that continuum are said to apply to him. On the other hand, if his score is a sten of 8 to 10, the des- criptive terms on the right side of the continuum are applicable. If his score is 4 to 7, the terms from either Side of the continuum may be somewhat more applicable than the other depending on which Side of the midpoint his score is located. The Sixteen personality bipolar continuums meas- ured by the 16 P.F. are as follows: (1) reserved versus outgoing; (2) less intelligent versus more intelligent; (3) affected by feelings versus emotionally stable; (4) humble versus assertive; (4) sober versus happy-go-lucky; (6) expedient versus conscientious; (7) Shy versus ven- turesome; (8) tough-minded versus tender-minded; (9) trusting versus suSpicious; (1) practical versus 112 imaginative; (ll) forthright versus shrewd; (l2) placid versus apprehensive; (13) conservative versus experiment- ing; (14) group-dependent versus self-sufficient; (15) un- disciplined self conflict versus controlled; and (16) relaxed versus tense. In addition to these sixteen personality factors, this test can also be used to obtain four broad second order factors. These are adjustment versus anxiety, intro- version versus extroversion, tenderminded emotionality versus alert poise, and subduedness versus independence. These second order scores are derived from the stens by the use of rather complicated formulas; for example, (write this on board): "subduedness vs. independence 4 times sten on factor 9 = add 3 times sten on factor 8 add 4 times sten on factor 4 = add 4 times sten on factor 5 = sub-total = subtract 3 times sten on factor 8 subtract 2 times sten on factor 3 Total = divide by 10 to give approximate sten score for subduedness versus independence" (Cattell and Eber, 1962: 22) 113 If the individual's score on this second order factor is a sten of 1 to 3, "he is likely to be a group- dependent, chastened, passive personality. He is likely to derive and need support from-other persons, and likely to orient his behavior toward persons who give such support. However, if the sten is 8 to 10, the per- son will usually be an aggressive, independent, daring, incisive person. He will seek those Situations where such behavior is at least tolerated and possibly rewarded, and is likely to exhibit considerable initiative" (Cattel and Eber, 1962: 22). This ends my sessions with you. You may keep the tests if you wish. I will be getting in touch with each of you later on this year; I hope you will be willing to continue your participation in this project.1 Thank you for your help. 1This sentence was not used in Study Number One. APPENDIX D ASSIGNMENT SHEET USED IN BOTH STUDY NUMBER ONE AND STUDY NUMBER.TWO Week APPENDIX D ASSIGNMENT SHEET USED IN BOTH STUDY NUMBER ONE AND STUDY NUMBER TWO Psychology 330 Fall 1969 The two texts for this course are: (1) Principles and Methods of Social PSychology by HOIIdnder (2) gprrent Perspegtives in Socigl Psycholoquby Hdllander and Hunt Please purchase both books and make an earnest attempt to read the assignments before coming to class. These assignments, as well as the topics to be covered in each lecture, are as follows: Assignment in Principles... Chapters 1,2 & 3 Chapters 4 & 8 Chapters 10 & 11 Chapter 9 Chapter 7 Assignment in Current... Section I Section II Section III Section IV Section V 114 Lecture TOpic An introduction to Social Psy- chology as a science Society, culture and group pro- cess The role of Per— sonality Theory in Social Psy- chology Language and communications Some dynamics of social interaction 115 Week Assignment in Assignment in Lecture Topic Principles... Current.;., 6 Chapters 5 & 6 Section VI Attitudes; their source, function and change 7 Chapters 12 & 14 Section VII Intra-group processes: norms and conformity 8 Chapter 15 Section VIII Leadership: a (pages 430-448) transactional process 9 Chapter 15 Section IX Organizational (pages 449-459 theory 10 Chapter 13 Section x Inter-group relations The grade you receive in this course will be a function of (1) your performance in class, and (2) your performance on the final exam (a 100 item multiple choice test). Please feel free to schedule tutorials with the instructor if you have any questions or problems. The following books are placed on closed reserve at the library. You may find one or more of these helpful as the course progresses: (l) The gpenand ClosedMind by Rokeach (2) Beliefs, Attitudes and Values by Rokeach (3) The AuthoritarianfiPersonality by Adorno, et_gl. (4) Basic Studies in Social Psychology by Proshansky (5) Current Studies in Social Psychology by Steiner and Fishbein (6) Theories of Personality, First Edition by Hall and Llndzey APPENDIX E COMPARISON OF MEANS OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP AND CONTROL GROUP IN STUDY NUMBER ONE APPENDIX E COMPARISON OF MEANS OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP AND CONTROL GROUP IN STUDY NUMBER ONE Summary of means of the experimental group's and the control group's scores on the objective final examin— ation, the objective final examination with the loaded items disregarded, and the loaded items scored indepen- dently-~Study Number One. vhf —r X for X for X for 25 100 item examination loaded items examination with 25 scored inde- loaded items pendently disregarded ..... . . 6 . Experimental Group N=15 69.26 55.67 13.59a Control Group N=15 59.00 47.00 12.00 aThe difference between means is not significant at the .01 level. 116 hyped and Printed in the U.S.A. Professional Thesis Preparation Cliff and Paula Haughey 144 Maplewood Drive .» ,. 5 East Lansing. Michigan 48823 Telephone (517) 337-1527 "Tilifinlfllglu[)flijiiiigiiflliiis