AN INVESTIGATION OF SELECTED
NON - INTELLECTUAL VARIABLES
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO

COLLEGE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

MARY ELIZABETH McCLELLAND
1969

 

”IVAN/IAIN ,

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

AN INVESTIGATION
OF SELECTED NON-INTELLECTUAL VARIABLES
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP
TO COLLEGE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

 

presented by

Mary Elizabeth McClelland

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph. D. degree in Education

 

Date May 1, 1969

0-169 I

   
  

1,4 .1 ‘ _ . .
BINDING av
..".‘I‘E...‘..§9.'§I.—.]

, ~~..— -uvI--v~ II |
‘ m “-mn-—— Ah-_‘_- _

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

AN INVESTIGATION
OF SELECTED NON—INTELLECTUAL VARIABLES
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP
TO COLLEGE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

by

May Elizabeth McClelland
It was the purpose of this study to investigate selected non—

intellectual variables and their relationship to college academic
achievement. The study was conducted at Tri-State College, Angola,
Indiana, with a sample of 233 United States born freshmen male subjects.
The sample was confined to freshmen who enrolled in college for the first
time in the Fall, 1966, and declared their major in Engineering or
Business.

The criterion of academic achievement was the cumulative grade
point average of the three consecutive terms during the freshmen year of
college.

The design of the study utilized The Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule to measure fifteen independent normal personality variables,
the Study of Values was administered to determine the basic interests
and motivation of the subjects, the socio~economic background of the
subjects was analyzed and a structured interview was conducted with each
subject in the sample in an attempt to determine his commitment to a goal.

Multiple correlations were derived to determine which variables

would emerge as contributors to any increment in prediction of college

academic achievement. The statistical analysis revealed that the variable,

Mary Elizabeth McClelland

Exhibitionism, as measured by the E.P.P.S. differentiated between the

academically successful and unsuccessful subject. The academically

unsuccessful student scored significantly higher on the variable,

Exhibitionism (t = 2.08, p.05).
Comparisons of the academic achievement and the responses to the
Study of Values test yielded no significant differences.
The socio-economic variables provided significant differences in

the variables; number of children, amount of education of the mother and

The subjects who had assumed a parental role

degrees held by the mother.
The amount of education

were academically more successful (t = 1.74, p.05).

and degrees held by the mother of the academically unsuccessful subject

was significantly greater than that of the successful subject

(t = 1.88, p.05; c = 1.87, p.05).

The X analysis relative to commitment to a goal revealed no

significant difference. The subjective interviews, however, provided

insight into the underlying motivation and attitude toward the future

goals and academic achievement of the subjects in the study.

Appropriate to the prediction of academic achievement at Tri-State
College, the study submitted twelve non—intellective variables that would
increase reliability from the base of .30 to .56.. The inclusion of the
selected variables to the rank in high school and the S.C.A.T. total

would allow a greater predictive value for the entering freshman in the

field of Engineering.

AN INVESTIGATION
OF SELECTED NON—INTELLECTUAL VARIABLES
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP
TO COLLEGE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

by

Mary Elizabeth McClelland

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

Doctor of Philosophy
School of Education

1969

ii.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Most deeply I am indebted to Dr. Walter Johnson, my advisor,
for his suggestions, patience and guidance during this thesis work.
Also, I wish to express my appreciation to the other members of my

committee, Dr. Willa Norris, Dr. Vandel Johnson and Dr. Orden

Smucker for their helpful suggestions and criticisms.

I am further grateful to the faculty, staff and students at Tri-

State College, Angola Indiana, who made this study possible by their

cooperation and assistance.

I wish to acknowledge my deepest appreciation to my mother and
my brother who unfailingly gave me support and encouragement and

without whom this thesis would not have been possible.

iii.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.
II. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Statistical Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

V. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

LIST OF REFERENCES_ . . . . . . 51

APPENDIX A. An Analysis of the E.P.P.S. Study of Values, Socio-
economic Variables and Commitment to a Goal Based
on Cumulative Grade Point Range . . . . . . . . . . 55
. . 69

APPENDIX B. E.P.P.S. Intercorrelation Tables . . . . .

TABLE

4—II

4—III

4-IV

4-VI

4—VII

4—VIII

4-1x

iv.

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Significant Differences As Measured By The "t”
Test Of The E.P.P.S. Variables Of The Academically

Successful and Unsuccessful Subjects In The Study .

Differences As Measured By The ”t” Test Of The Study
Of Values Variables Of The Academically Successful

and Unsuccessful Subjects In The Study . . . . . 29

Significant Differences As Measured By The "t” Test
Of The Socio-economic Variables Of The Academically
Successful and Unsuccessful Subjects In The Study . 30

A X2 Analysis Of The Homestate Socio—economic Variable
Of The Academically Successful and Unsuccessful

O O O 31

Subjects In The Study . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A X2 Analysis Of The Family Attended Tri-State College
Socio-economic Variable Of The Academically Success—
ful and Unsuccessful Subjects In The Study . . . . . . 31

The Effect Of Residualization On The Percentage Of

Variance Controlled And The Multiple (g) . . . . . . 33

Tests Of Significance Of The Multiple Correlation . . . . 35

Identification Of Variables Selected For Purposes of

. . . 36

Analysis . . . . . . . . . .

A X2 Analysis Of Commitment To A Goal 0f Successful
and Unsuccessful Subjects In The Study . . . . . . . . 37

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The trend in recent research studies on college academic achieve—
ment appears to be on the investigation of nonintellective variables
Significant

as important factors in predicting academic achievement.

findings have indicated that intellective measures account for 35 to

45 percent of the variation in academic performance. While no other

single factor accounts for this much variation, more than half still

remains unexplained.

Bloom and Peters (8) have stated in their publication (1961) that
although high school grades have been shown to be the best single
evidence from which to predict college achievement, it does not alter

the fact that the level and precision of predictions from grades have

remained consistently low. Feder (14) has stressed that there is ample

evidence that college grades are affected by nonintellective factors
and that research is needed in this area.
Previous research findings may be Substantiated at Tri—State College.

Tri—State College is a small, private, predominantly male college granting

degrees in Engineering or Business. A comparison made in 1965 of the mean

School and College Ability Test (S.C.A.T.) percentile scores made by fresh-
men students who were dismissed during their freshman year due to inability
to achieve scholastically and the mean percentile score of the total fresh—
men population revealed no significant difference in potential ability.

The faculty and administration at Tri—State College are concerned as
to why the student with potential ability is unable to satisfactorily meet

the academic requirements. Questions which have remained unanswered are:

Is the environment of the college favorable for the students
possessing certain psychological characteristics and values?

Is the socio—economic status of the student reflected in his
academic achievement?

Is it essential for the student at Tri—State College to have a
commitment to a Specific goal?

According to Lavin, (29) recent research investigating academic
achievement has assumed a multivariate approach. Attention has been
directed toward the measurement of a larger number of variables and the
assessment of their interrelations and the dimensions of personality
which are independently related to academic achievement.

It seems apprOpriate to analyze selected nonintellective variables
and their relationship to academic achievement in an attempt to contribute
further information on the academic achievement of college students. The
significance of the study exists in the utilization of a multivariate
approach with a sample of freshmen students enrolled in a highly specialized
college where the apparent socio—economic background and interests of the

students are relatively homogeneous.

Statement gf_the Problem

The purpose of the study is to examine selected sociological and
psychological factors and their interactions that may have an impact on
the academic achievement of freshmen students at Tri—State College.

More Specifically, an attempt has been made to analyze the relationship
0f personality characteristics, values, the socio-economic background, and
the declared commitment to a goal of freshmen male students at Tri-State
College to their academic achievement during their first year of college

work.

 

L

Importance__£ the Stud

This study provides an analysis of data which may add information
to the relevance of the use of nonintellective factors in admission
policies and the counseling of college students.

It may also provide Tri-State College and colleges having similar
professional emphasis with a concept of the motivating factors which may
be essential for the successful academic achievement of their students.

The study also Opens possible avenues for further extensive research
in the area of psychological needs of a specific student population. It
may provide information relative to values and socio—economic background
of a comparatively homogeneous student body and the desirability of early

commitment to a major.

Hypothesis

The research hypothesis supported by the investigator is that a
significant relationship exists between the psychological characteristics,
the values and socio-economic background and the commitment to a major of
the freshman college student and his academic achievement during his first

year in college.

Assumptions

 

The following assumptions have been made by the investigator:
Psychological characteristics as measured by the Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule are related to academic achievement.

Values as measured by the Study of Values are related to academic

achievement.

Socio-economic background is a determinent of academic achievement.

The commitment to a specific career goal is related to academic

achievement.

Plan 2£_the Study
The introductory chapter includes the need for the study, the

statement of the problem, the importance of the study, the research
hypothesis and assumptions.
A review of related research is presented in the second chapter

followed by a design of the study in chapter three and an analysis of

data is in chapter four. The fifth chapter contains a summary of the

study, the conclusions and recommendations of the investigator based upon

the results of the study.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH

A review of related research provides numerous studies in the area
of college academic achievement. In an attempt to improve on college
admission policies and in the counseling of college students, consider-
able emphasis has been placed on the use of intellective factors as
predictors of academic performance.

The major emphasis of research in college academic achievement has
been the use of achievement test scores, high school grades and high
school rank. Representative of the research reported using achievement
test scores is the study of Frederickson and Schrader (16) who found
that the correlation of the American Council on Education, Psychological
Examination, with freshman year college grades ranged from .28 to .61 in
homogeneous groups of male college freshmen in twelve colleges. Support-
ing research also indicates that the correlations average about .50,

(38) (41) with a range of .30 to .70.

Of all the measures used in predicting college academic achievement,
the one that consistently emerges as the best single predictor is the
high school rank. Swenson (46) found that students in the upper two-fifths
of their graduating class in high school received significantly higher
grades at the end of the first semester of college than students who
graduated in the lower three-fifths of their high school class, even

though these two groups did not differ on a standard aptitude test.

It appears from a review of recent research that intellective
predictors have reached a plateau in forecasting scholastic success in
college and that significant findings are being discovered through the
use of non-intellective instruments.

It is only within recent years that an attempt has been made to measure
personality characteristics and their relationship to academic achievement.
Various psychoneurotic and personality inventories, such as the Bernreuter,
(39) (47) the Bell Adjustment Inventory, (2) the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory, (21) (44) and the Downey Will-Temperament Test (42)
are examples of instruments used in studies that have investigated the
relationship of personality characteristics to academic achievement.

Recent studies have made use of the Rorschach, (32) the TAT and Q sorts
(15) (31) projective tests.

One of the most thorough and successful studies of personality in
relation to academic achievement is that of Cough (19) who developed a
36 item true-false test which correlated from .36 to .58 with grades of
students in eight introductory psychology classes.

Apparent in the studies reviewed is that one possible reason for the
lack of success of personality test studies, may be that the social desir-
ability values of the items are not controlled. Di Vesta, Woodruff, and
Hertel, (12) for example, developed an Orientation Inventory designed to
obtain opinion of entering students toward college. Although the questions
of this scale should be related to academic achievement, they are also
highly loaded with social desirability items and it was possible for the
student to obtain a favorable score by answering each question in the

socially approved direction.

The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) (13) was deveIOped
with the intention of minimizing a subject's tendency to endorse items of
a socially desirable nature. The test is composed of 225 pairs of items;
each pair is matched on the basis of social desirability scale value, and
each item in the pair represents a different need, as derived from Murray's
(13) need system. The subject is asked to select the item in each pair
with which he is most in agreement. Fifteen scores are obtained on the
test representing such normal personality needs as achievement, order,
succorance, dominance and aggression. A score is also obtained on
consistency of the subject in responding to the items by comparing answers
on fifteen pairs repeated throughout the test.

Bendig, (4) investigating the EPPS in relation to success in a course
in beginning psychology, discovered that those students obtaining the best
grades in the course were those with high achievement and low deference
scores on the EPPS. Klett (26) found significant positive correlations
between IQ and the following EPPS variables: achievement, exhibitionism,
autonomy, dominance, and consistency score. From these findings, it would
seem reasonable to suppose that some of the EPPS variables would also be
significantly related to achievement as measured by grade point average,
and might prove useful included in a predictive battery.

Most of the predictive studies using the Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule (13) on college level students have been concerned with single
personality variables. Of the four recent studies using the multivariate
approach, one study by Demos and Spolyar (11) found no significant differ—
ences between different achievement groups within different ability levels.
The other three studies showed significant findings. Krug (28) stated

that overachievers were higher on needs for affiliation and heterosexuality.

Merrill and Murphy (34) reported that low«ability students whose school
performance was adequate were higher on needs for deference, endurance,

and dominance, but lower on autonomy, exhibitionism, and affiliation,

as compared with low-ability students who were failing. A third study

conducted by Gebhart and Hoyt (18) found that overachieving male fresh—

men were higher than underachievers on the needs for achievement, order,

intraception, and change. The findings from these three studies suggest

that overachievers are higher on need for achievement, order and endurance

and lower on need for affiliation.

One possible general interpretation of the present findings is that

personality factors are most important in determining the academic achieve-

ment of the average ability college male. Intellectual factors are less

predictive of success when used in determining the success or failure of

the average ability student.

Another variable that has been hypothesized as relevant to academic

achievement is that of socio—economic status (SES).

Lavin (30) provides the following observation:

Sociological variables are related to academic performance
because they symbolize certain uniformities of personality.
That is, positions in the social structure such as socio-
economic status and sex tend to produce certain similarities
in personality among the occupants of these positions. Some
of these personality characteristics are, in turn, related

to academic achievement.

According to Crowley, (10) Mitchell, (35) and Noll, (37) persons of
different economic status face different kinds of life situations, and in
adapting to them, they may develop different sets of values and life styles.
Studies supporting the thesis that variations in social class are associated

with variations in academic achievement have been made by Knief and Stroud

(27) and Friedhoff. (l7)

The findings of Strodtbeck (45) suggest that the use of achievement
values and achievement motivation together may increase the efficiency of
predicting academic performance.

A review of recent research indicates that the majority of studies
report that socio—economic status is directly related to academic perfor—
mance.

The higher one's social status, the higher his level of performance.
These findings are supported at all educational levels.

The research presented has been primarily limited to public institu-
tions where the upper social class segment has not been adequately sampled.
There appears to be some evidence that the upper social class need only to
maintain their status level and the academic record they achieve is not as
important due to their personality and value differences.

Contrary evidence to the majority of studies reviewed exists in a
study by Jones (25) who reported a very low positive correlation was found
between socio-economic status and quality point average in the subjects
studied at the University of Alabama. He found the lower 10 percent of the
pepulation in the variable of socio-economic status was found to be above
the mean of the group in the criterion of quality point average. Staton
(43) also stated that in his study of freshmen at the University of Oklahoma,
he did not find the occupation of the parent to be significantly related to
academic success in college. The findings by Jones (25) and Staton (43)
may be due to the selection of their sample and motivational drives of the
subjects.

The studies reviewed on high school size were inconsistent in the
findings. Hoyt (23) found that graduates of smaller high schools tend to
receive lower grades in college, even though they were not lower in intel-

ligence. Altman (2) found the size of high school to be unrelated to

10

college performance. Consideration should be given in the results of
these studies to the increase in consolidation of high school in the
rural areas.

According to Bernstein, (6) family size is inversely related to
academic performance; the larger the number of siblings, the lower the
level of school achievement. Hunt (24) suggests that the correlation
between family size and intelligence holds within all occupational levels
except at the extreme upper level. He maintains that family size is
independently related to both intelligence and academic performance.
Bernstein (7) and Nesbet (36) suggest that there is an association between
family size, intelligence and academic performance. Bernstein (7) and
Nesbet (36) suggest that the association between family size and intelli-
gence is due to the negative effects of large families on verbal development.

There is an evident lack of research in the area of values and their
relationship to academic achievement. Reported research which has used
the Study of Values (1) instrument has provided studies based on college
populations. The related studies have primarily emphasized the interest
and values of college students relating them to a chosen major or occupa-
tion. The apparent need exists in research in the students' values to
determine their significance in academic performance. If the Study of
Values is composed to some extent of two psychological dimensions; namely,
interest and value, then it may be a useful instrument in an analysis of
academic achievement of the college student.

Evidence that personality characteristics and socio-economic status
influence academic performance is generally accepted. However, contradic-

tory research findings exist when one attempts to determine that the

11

college student who is committed to a goal will be more successful
academically in his academic performance than the student who is indefi—
nite in his future goal.

Holland and Nichols (22) found that the tendency to change educational
and vocational plans was associated with achievement and creativity. Such
does not appear to be true in the study by Ashley, Wall and Osipow (3) who
found that the tentative decision group performed at an average academic
level; while the undecided group did very well academically. One explana-
tion for the discrepancy may be that Rolland and Nichols studied National
Merit Scholarship finalists while the study by Ashley, Wall and Osipow was
‘ composed of a sample from a normal freshman pOpulation.

Weitz, Clark and Jones (50) and Marshall and Simpson (33) found definite
choice of major to be positively correlated with academic performance.
Watley's (49) results seem to be contradictory. He found that students
who were certain of their choice of major had lower grade point averages
than those who were uncertain of their choice. Differences in type of
sample studied and in the procedure may have accounted for apparent
contradiction. Watley investigated students attending a technical school
and based the grade point average on two semesters of college work while
the study by Weitz, Clark and Jones examined subjects enrolled in a liberal
arts college and limited their findings to one semester's academic work.

While research findings appear inconsistent on commitment to a major,

the inclusion of this subjective variable appears justified as a relevant

factor in analyzing academic achievement.

12

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Sample

Tri—State College, located in Angola, Indiana, is a small, private,
predominantly male college granting degrees in Engineering or Business.

The College was accredited by the North Central Association in the Spring,
1966.

The sample selected for analysis relative to academic achievement

was 233 United States born freshmen men who enrolled in college for the

first time in the Fall Quarter of 1966.

The subjects had declared their major either in Engineering or Business.
The academic course requirements during the first three terms in college
did not differ significantly between the Engineering or Business departments.

Transfer students, foreign born students and women were not included

in the study. Students who had enrolled in the nondegree programs of

General Education or in Drafting and Design were excluded from the study.

The decision to base the study on the sample of freshmen who had not
had prior college experience was largely determined on the basis that the

future expected enrollment at Tri-State College will be drawn from students

coming to college directly from high school. The transfer students who

were classified as freshmen in the Fall Quarter, 1966, did not lend them—

selves to investigation due to their variance in age, educational and work

experience. The foreign student freshmen were not included in the study

as the instruments used in the analysis did not seem appropriate in their

validity for foreign students. Women students were excluded due to the

13

small sample size. The limited number of students enrolled in General

Education and the apparent lack of commitment to a major was the basis

for not including them in the study. The four—term nondegree program

of Drafting and Design required the student to complete different academic

course requirements than the students who were pursuing a degree in

Engineering or Business.

The 233 subjects in the sample were enrolled at Tri-State College

for three consecutive terms. The seventeen subjects who withdrew from

college or were dismissed for scholastic reasons at any time during their

freshman year are included in the statistical analysis of the study.

Instrumentation

The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (13)

Allen L. Edwards

The instrument is designed to measure fifteen independent normal

personality variables.

The statements in the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the

variables that these statements purport to measure have their origin in
a list of manifest needs presented by H. A. Murray and others. The test
has an ipsative scale.

The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule was selected as an instrument

for the research study as it provided a number of relatively independent

normal personality variables. Normative data has been established for male

COllege students. Profile correlations obtained from the college normative
group indicated that the average profile correlation was .74. This was

based upon the z transformation. With 13 degrees of freedom, 3 profile

correlation of .44 would be significant at the 5 percent level.

14

Coefficients of internal consistency were determined for the 15

personality variables. The internal consistency coefficients, corrected

by the Spearman-Brown formula ranged from .74 to .88.

The validity of the test has been based largely on self-ratings and

by evidence supporting correlations with the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale

and the Guilford-Martin Personnel Inventory.

Edwards has attempted by use of the forced-choice method and system—
atic comparisons of strengths of needs within the person to avoid some of

the difficulties inherent in the simple true~false dichotomy employed by

earlier inventories.

Study of Values (1)

Gordon Allport, Philip E. Vernon and Gardiner Lindzey

The instrument is designed to measure the relative prominence of six

basic interests or motives in personality. The test has an ipsative scale.

The Study of Values was selected as an instrument in an attempt to
explore the relationship of socio—economic status to values and the

correlation to academic achievement. It also was selected to measure the

existence of any correlation between values and psychological needs as

determined by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule.

The Study of Values was originally published in 1931. It was standard-

ized on a college pOpulation. The revised form of 1951 increased the

diagnostic power of the items, simplified wording and modernized certain

items, revised and shortened the scoring system, provided fresh norms, and,

as a whole, increased the reliability of the test.

The split-half reliability ranges from .84 to .95. The mean reliability

coefficient, using a §_transformation, is .90. The item analysis, carried

15

out on a group of college students, shows a positive correlation for each
item with the total score for its value, significant at the .01 level of
confidence.

The validity of the scale was primarily based on prior expectations
of values, identifiable by sex. The norms obtained from various groups

supported the expected direction that the values would take.

Socio-economic Variables

The following socio—economic variables were obtained from a question-
naire form completed by the student during the Fall, 1966, Orientation
program:

Age

Home State

Size of Hometown

Marital Status

If Married, Number of Children

Father's Occupation

Father's Education

Degrees held by Father

Father's Citizenship

Mother's Occupation

Mother's Education

Degrees held by Mother

Mother's Citizenship

Number of Siblings

Research reviewed (10) (35) (37) (27) (17) supports the influence of

socio-economic background as an influencing factor in academic achievement.

16

The relationship of values and the psychological needs of the subject
to his academic achievement may provide relevant information on motiva-
tional factors.

The occupational level of the mother and/or father was classified
according to the United States Bureau of Census. The occupations are
divided into: (1) professional; (2) proprietors, managers and officials;
(3) clerks and sales; (4) skilled; (5) semi-skilled and (6) unskilled
categories and (7) farmers. An eighth classification included those who
were retired or had no evidence of following any occupation.

Nine categories of social status were used in the structure with upper,
middle and lower classifications.

Past studies conducted by the faculty and staff at Tri-State College
have emphasized the homogeneous socio-economic background of its students.
It has been stated that they are from the upper-lower social status, the
father's occupational level is skilled or semi—skilled and they are the
members of the first generation to attend college.

The verification or denial of these findings will be evident in the

present study.

Structured Interview
An interview was conducted by the investigator with each student in
the sample during his first term in college.
Questions used to elicit attitudes through response:
Why did you decide to attend Tri—State College?
When did you decide on your major?
Why did you select your specific major?

What are your future goals?

What effect will the military service requirement have upon

your future plans?

17

The primary purpose of the structured interview was to determine if
the subject indicated a definite commitment to a goal. The response was
then categorized as committed or uncommitted to a specific goal.

Immediately after each interview, the general comments made by the
subject were recorded by the investigator.

As each subject in the study had declared a major in either Engineering
or Business, the objective of the interview was to determine how specific
he was in his future plans and how definite he was in his commitment to a

major.

Agademic Achievement

 

Satisfactory progress as determined by the requirement at Tri—State

College was as follows:

First term enrollment 1.50 or D+ cumulative grade point average
Second term enrollment 1.75 or C- cumulative grade point average
Third term enrollment 2.00 or C cumulative grade point average
Failure to meet the above minimum requirements may result in the
student being placed on academic probation for the succeeding term. The

student is subject to dismissal after being placed on academic probation

for two successive terms.

The following information was included in the analysis of academic

achievement:

High School Rank

Entrance Examination Scores (School and College Ability Test)

Grade Point Average of Subjects during their First Three Consecutive

Terms in College

The cumulative grade point average based on the first three consecutive

quarters in college was selected as the criterion of academic achievement.

have not taken exactly the same courses.

However, according to Carter, (9) the reliability of grades in a
single course may be disputed and a study by Bendig (5) indicated that
various faculty members do not assign grades in the same manner.

One might consider the use of the cumulative grade point average,
then, to be a measure of a student's ability to achieve on the letter
grade scale irrespective of his achievement in terms of learning or
specific subject matter.

The academic achievement of the subjects was divided into the
following categories for purposes of analysis:

3.00 - or more
2.99 - 2.50
2.49 - 2.00
1.99 - 1.50

1.49 - or less
Subjects achieving a 2.00 or better cumulative grade point average
were defined as satisfactory in their academic achievement. Those who
received less than a 2.00 cumulative grade point average were defined as
unsatisfactory in their academic achievement.

Included in the analysis of academic achievement were the subjects'

high school rank and the scores obtained on the School and College Ability

Test which was administered during the Fall Orientation program.

l9

Hypotheses

Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference in measured personality character-
istics between the freshmen students who maintained satisfactory academic
status and the freshmen students who did not maintain a satisfactory

academic status during their first three quarters in college.

Alternate Hypothesis

The group mean score on measured personality characteristics of the
freshmen students who maintained a satisfactory academic status during
their first year in college will differ significantly from the freshmen

students who did not maintain a satisfactory academic status during their

first year in college.

Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference in values between the freshmen
students who maintained a satisfactory academic status and the freshmen

students who did not maintain a satisfactory academic status during their

first three quarters in college.

Alternate Hypothesis

The group mean score on measured values of the freshmen students who
maintained a satisfactory academic status during their first year in college
will differ significantly from the freshmen students who did not maintain

a satisfactory academic status during their first year in college.

Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference in socio—economic background
between freshmen students who maintained a satisfactory academic status

and the freshmen students who did not maintain a satisfactory academic

Status during their first three quarters in college.

20

Alternate Hypothesis

The group mean score on socio—economic variables of the freshmen
students who maintained a satisfactory academic status during their
first year in college will differ significantly from the freshmen

students who did not maintain a satisfactory academic status during

their first year in college.

Null Hypothesis

There is no significant difference in commitment to a goal between
the freshmen students who maintained a satisfactory academic status and

the freshmen students who did not maintain a satisfactory academic status

during their first three quarters in college.

Alternate Hypothesis

The freshmen students who maintained a satisfactory academic status
during their first year in college declared a commitment to a specific
goal while the students who did not maintain a satisfactory academic

status were uncommitted to a definite goal.

Analysis

The common problems encountered in designing a research study relating
to achievement are the resultant errors of measurement, heterogeneity of
the criterion, and the limited sc0pe in the predictors and the impact of
varied experiences upon the individual.

Complete freedom from bias and perfect precision is often impossible.
The purpose of the study undertaken by the investigator was to determine
whether there is any relationship between the selected independent variables

and the criterion variable. If a true relationship exists, the presence

of the relationship will be revealed in the statistical analysis.

21

The criterion measure of achievement in the study was the cumulative
grade point average of the subjects in the sample. The subjects had
declared their major to be in Engineering or in Business. The course
requirements for either program are somewhat similar for the first three
terms of their college program. The general indications are that the
scholastic requirements are similar in both degree programs. An analysis

of the cumulative grade point average of seniors graduating in the academic

year 1966-67 was as follows:

Senior Average 2.470
Business Major Average 2.479
Engineering Major Average 2.463

The inclusion of socio—economic variables in the study was an attempt
to reduce the influence of other determinants in academic achievement.
The study was also limited to males, within a comparable age range and
having had no previous college or extensive work experience.

The administration of the instruments used in the study was in a

group testing situation. The directions were presented by the investigator

but no attempt was made to explain the purpose or intent of the research.
The subjects were not informed that they were in a research study.

Each subject in the sample was notified by mail during the Fall Term
and requested to make an appointment for an interview. The interviews were
scheduled for fifteen minutes and structured questions were used by the
investigator.

The analysis of the data is an attempt to determine the significant

differences as measured by the "t” test of the non—intellective variables

and the academic achievement of the subjects in the study.

22

The dependent criterion is the cumulative grade point average of the
subjects in the sample based on three consecutive quarters.

The independent non-intellective variables are the scores obtained on
the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, which has been supported as a
determiner of academic achievement in previous research. The scores
obtained on the values included in the Study of Values, an instrument
that has not been used extensively in research related to academic
achievement. The socio-economic background of the subject and his declared

commitment or noncommitment to a goal may contribute additional information
relevant to the study.

Included in the study are the intellective factors of rank in high
school and scores obtained by the subject on the School and College Ability
Test.

The sample size of 233 subjects suggests that the investigator may
state with confidence the significance of the relationship of the variables
in the study. The level of significance has been set at .05.

Partial correlation was undertaken to determine the extent to which
each variable made a contribution to achievement and multiple correlation

attempted to evaluate the level of prediction that is possible by combining

the variables.

Summary

The design of the study was selected to determine if a significant
relationship exists between the personality characteristics, values,
socio-economic background and commitment to a goal of the freshman male

student at Tri—State College and his academic achievement during his

first year in college.

23

The statistical analysis applied to the data was a correlation

analysis. The dependent variable in the study was the cumulative grade
point average. A regression analysis was also used in an attempt to
refine the findings.

The selection of a sample to study was based on meeting the require—

ments which would increase the precision of the study and reduce the

error of measurement.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

This chapter presents the analysis of the statistical data as the
plan was presented in Chapter III. The hypotheses will be presented
operationally, the population defined, and the statistical data will be
analyzed utilizing the mean tests of significance between the successful
and unsuccessful subjects in the study according to their responses on
the E.P.P.S. (l3) and the Study of Values. (1) The socio-economic
variables will also be analyzed to determine significant differences
between the successful and unsuccessful subjects.

A correlational and multiple regression analysis will be presented t//
to evaluate the relationship between academic achievement and significant
non-intellective variables.

The findings of the individual interviews will be presented in order
to provide factors important to motivation and attitude toward achievement
in college.

The problem posed in this study was to examine selected sociological V4
and psychological factors and their interactions that may have an impact
on the academic achievement of freshmen students at Tri-State College.

More specifically, an attempt has been made to analyze selected V.
personality characteristics, values, the socio-economic background, and
declared commitment to a goal of freshmen male students and their relation-

ship to academic achievement during the first year of college work.

lg.)

25

Four major hypotheses to be tested at the five percent level of

significance were stated in Chapter III.

Defining the Population

 

The subjects selected for analysis relative to academic achievement
were 233 United States—born freshmen men who enrolled in college for the
first time in the Fall Quarter of 1966.

The subjects had declared their major in Engineering or Business.

The academic course requirements during the first three terms in college
did not differ significantly between the Engineering or Business departments.

The 233 subjects in the sample were enrolled at Tri—State College for
three consecutive terms. The seventeen subjects who withdrew from college
or were dismissed for scholastic reasons at any time during their freshman
year are included in the statistical analysis of the study.

The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Study of Values were
administered by the investigator in a group testing situation during the
orientation week of the Fall Term of 1966.

The socio—economic variable information was obtained from a question-
naire form completed by the student during the Fall, 1966, Orientation
program.

Each subject in the study was requested by mail to make an appoint-

ment for an interview with the investigator. Interviews were scheduled

for fifteen minutes. Five questions were used in the structured interview

to elicit a response from the subject in an attempt to determine their

commitment to a goal. Interviews were scheduled and completed during the

first six weeks of the Fall Term of 1966. Mid—term grades were issued

at the completion of six weeks of the term.

26

Academic achievement was based on the grade point average of the /’
subjects during their first three consecutive terms in college. Successful
subjects earned at least a 2.00 point or C cumulative average. The academic
achievement used in analysis was the total average of the three enrolled
terms. In the case of the seventeen subjects who withdrew or were dismissed
during the academic year, their academic average at the time of leaving the

college was used in the statistical data.

Statistical Analysis_of the Data
One hundred and twenty nine of the subjects were successful in their
academic achievement at the close of the study. One hundred and four

subjects failed to meet the minimum requirements of a C average after

three terms in college.

Difference Between Academically Successful
and Unsuccessful Subjects on the Variables
of the E.P.P.S.*

The null hypothesis tested was:
H0 There is no significant difference in measured personality
characteristics between the freshmen students who did not maintain

a satisfactory academic status during their first three quarters
in college.

The t-ratio of 2.08 on the variable Exhibitionism indicated

differences in the E.P.P.S. mean score that are significant at the

.05 percent level; thus, the null hypothesis of no difference between

 

5, standard deviations, and t-ratios

*Table 4-1 resents the mean score
P 1 subjects on the E.P.P.S. variables.

for the successful and unsuccessfu

27

TAELE 4-I

Significant Differences As Measured By The "t" Test Of The E.P.P.S.
Variables Of The Academically Successful And Unsuccessful Subjects
In The Study

 

Freshmen

 

 

 

 

 

N=233
Successful , Unsuccessful—

N=129 =10h
Variable
E.D.P.S. Mean 5.0. Mean 8.0. "t" Ratio
Achievement 13.92 h.36 13.26 3.57 0.89
Deference 10.88 3.08 10.16 3.h5 1.00
Order 10.23 b.8h 9.38 b.1h 0.0%“
Exhibitionism 12.97 3.539 114.112 3.5» 2.00"
Autonomy 13.01. 11.26 13.81 1.01 1.00
Affiliation 13.6b b.2h 13.51 h.§? 0.16
Intraception 10.36 h.3 1h.l2 h.>9 0.28
Succorance 11.11 h.§3 11.2 0.39 0.20
Dominance 13.38 b.7b 13.9b b.06 0.0b
Abasement 111.28 5.19 1,309] 50.31% 0-32
Nurtrance 13.27 L.39 13.35 holb 0.17
Change 15.88 b.35 17.11 h.h3 1.83
Endurance 13.77 5.02 12.21 S.h3 l.)9
Heterosexuality 20.15 6.37 20.hp 6.10 0.20
Aggression 12.72 5.06 13-90 0.81 1.25
Consistency 8.39 3.39 8.17 3.29 0.16

*The corresoonding means are significantly different at the five percent
level of confidence

HO

measured personality characteristics of freshmen students who
maintained satisfactory academic status and the freshmen students
who did not maintain a satisfactory academic status was rejected.

The successful subjects were significantly lower on the mean
score in the variable of Exhibitionism.

Differences Between Academically Successful and
Unsuccessful Subjects on the Variables of the
Study of Values*
The null hypothesis tested was:

There is no significant difference in values between the
freshmen students who maintained a satisfactory academic status
and the freshmen students who did not maintain a satisfactory
academic status during their first three quarters in college.

There was no significant difference in the mean scores of the

Study of Values of the successful and unsuccessful subjects. There-

fore, the null hypothesis was accepted as stated.

 

*Table 4-II presents the mean scores, standard deviations, and t-ratios
for the successful and unsuccessful subjects in the Study of Values
variables.

HO

Differences Between Academically
Successful and Unsuccessful Subjects
on Socio-economic Variable*

The null hypothesis tested was:
There is no significant difference in socio-economic back—

ground between the freshmen who maintained a satisfactory academic

status and the freshmen students who did not maintain a satisfactory

academic status during their first three quarters in college.

 

*Table 4-III presents mean sco
0f certain socio-economic variables.

res, standard deviations, and t—ratios
Tables 4-IV and 4—V provide an

XZ analysis of socio-economic variables.

29

TABLE 4-11

Differences As Measured By The "t" Test Of The Study Of Values
Variables Of The Academically Successful And Unsuccessful Subjects
In The Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freshmen
N=233
Successful Unsuccessful
N=l29 N=10h
Variable
Study of Values Mean 5.0. Mean S.D. "t" Ratio
Theoretical 1.2.50 7.15 1.11.01 6.15 1.22
Economic h6.20 8.hu hh.29 6.79 1.3h
Aesthetic 32.53 8.1h 3b.76 7.33 1.?h
Social 38.96 6.68 35 .06 6 .32 0.08
Political 143.08 7.118 113.98 5.62 0.78
Religious 38.13 8.89 37.3h 8.50 O.h8

30

TABLE 4-111

Significant Differences As Measured By The "t" Test Of The
Socio-economic Variables Of The Academically Successful And
Unsuccessful Subjects In The Study

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freshmen
N=233
Successful Unsuccessful
N=l29 N=10h
Variable
Socio-economic
Variable 2339 8.0. Mean 8.3. "t" Ratio
Age 18.08 2.00 17.07 1.06 1.57
Size of Hometown 2.77 1.39 2.75 1.h0 2.08
Marital Status 1.07 0.25 1.08 0.32 0.60
Number of Children .05 .31 0.00 0.00 1.78*
Father Living 1.0h 0.19 1.07 0.26 0.75
Occupation 16.30 13.58 18.80 16.21 0.90
Education 11.72 2.65 11.91 2.07 0.03
Highest Degree 0.11 0.38 0.11 0.37 0.00
Mother Living 1.02 0.17 1.02 0.1h 0.00
Occupation 3.26 5.h5 3.05 3.10 0.2h
Education 11.12 3.09 12.06 2.22 1.80*
Highest Degree 0.0a 0.27 0.32 1.13 1.87*
Siblings 2.32 1.75 2.27 1.95 0.1t

* . . . - . . .
The corresponding means are Significantly different at tne five percent
level of confidence.

31

TABLE 4-IV

A X2 Analysis Of The Homestate Socio-economic Variable Of The
Academically Successful And Unsuccessful Subjects In The Study

 

 

 

Freshmen
N=2l9
Successful Unsuccessful
N-122 N=97
Homestate
Illinois 6 S
Indiana h6 33
Michigan 13 13
New Jersey b 5
New York 7 h
Ohio 29 20
Pennsylvania 17 17

X2 equalled 1.896. A X2 of 12.59 was required for significance at the
five percent level of confidence.

TABLE é-V

A X2 Analysis Of The Family Attended Tri-State College Socio-economic
Variable Of The Academically Successful And Unsuccessful Subjects In

 

 

 

The Study
Freshmen
N‘233
Successful Unsuccessful
Family Attended Tri-State College 16 9
Family Did Not Attend Tri-State College 113 95

X2 equalled .BhS. A X2 of 3.8h was required for significance at the
five percent level of confidence.

32
The t-ratio of 1.74 obtained on the variable of the number of

children of the subject indicated a mean score that was significant
at the .05 level. The variable of education of the subjects' mother

provided a t-ratio of 1.88 and the highest degree held by the mother,
a t—ratio of 1.87, which were held significant at the .05 percent

level; thus, the null hypothesis of no difference in socio-economic

background was rejected.

Further analysis of the socio-economic variables, homestate

and previous attendance of family members at Tri-State College, did

not yield a significant difference.

An X2 analysis yielded 1.896 on homestate while an X2 of 12.59

was required for significance at the .05 percent level of confidence.

Family attendance equalled an X2 of .845 and 3.84 was required for

significance.

Multiple Regression Analysis*

A multiple regression analysis yielded a multiple correlation
coefficient (R) of .59. This degree of correlation was significant beyond
the .01 percent level of confidence.

The partial correlation coefficients
were generally non—significant.

This indicated the significant variables

could be residualized with respect to the non—significant variables

without undue shrinkage of the multiple (R).

It was noted that twenty variables could have been deleted without

decreasing the multiple (R)-

L

In addition, the percentage of the variance

*Table 4-VI presents the effect of residualization on the percentage of
variance controlled and the multiple R.

The arrangement in the residual
column was according to the amount of variance the variable could account

for from the smaller amount to the largest.

TABLE 4—VI

The Effect Of Residualization On The Percentage Of Variance Controlled
And The Multiple (3)

33

 

Residual Delete

Economic
Intraception
Mother's Occupation
Siblings
Affiliation
Father's Education
Aggression
Social Status
Succorance
Endurance
Abasement
Aesthetic
Theoretical
Consistency
Size of Hometown
Heterosexuality
Religious
Mother‘s Degree
Dominance
Autonomy
Order
Father's Degree
Social
Nurtrance
Deference
Mother Living
Marital Status
Occupational Classification
Achievement
Father Living
Father's Occupation
Exhibitionism
Political
Change
Age
Major (Engineering)
Mother's Education
SCAT Total
Rank in Class

Percentage Of Variance
Remaininngnder Control

.3535
.3535
.3535
.3535
.3534
.3534
.3533
.3532
.3530
.3529
.3525
.3522
.3517
.3512
.3506
.3501
.3491
.3484
.3472
.3462
.3438
.3411
.3368
.3322
.3280
.3228
.3177
.3114
.3033
.2935
.2823
.2724
.2607
.2448
.2292
.2157
.1858
.1500
.0914

Multiple (R)

.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.59
.58
.58
.58
.57
.57
.56
.56
.55
.54
.53
.52
.51
.49
.48
.46
.43
.38
.30

34
under control would have dropped only one percent.

Deletion of seven
additional variables for a total of twenty-seven would result in a

decrease of .03 percent for the multiple (R) and decrease of four percent
in variance controlled. This action would yield twelve variables

controlling thirty-one percent of the variance with a multiple (R) of
.56.

Tests of significance of the multiple correlations (Table 4-VII)

presents multiple correlations significantly larger than the apprOpriate

standard beyond the one percent level of confidence.

The inclusion of S.C.A.T. Total Score and Rank in High School plus
seventeen selected non~intellective variables yielded a (R) of .59.
Certain intellective variables were excluded for predictive purposes as
they would not be accessible at the initial entrance to college.

A zero—order correlation matrix and summary data and tests of

significance are presented in Appendix B (Table I and 11).

Significant Findings of the Structured Interviews
Conducted by the Investigator with the Subjects
in the Study

“04 There is no significant difference in commitment to a goal
between the freshmen who maintained satisfactory academic status
and the freshmen students who did not maintain a satisfactory
academic status during their first three quarters in college.*

An X2 analysis equalled 1.51. A 3.84 X2 was required for

significance at the .05 percent level of confidence.

__..__

*An X analysis of commitment to a goal of successful and unsuccessful
subjects in the study.

TABLE] 4—VII

TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MULTIPLE CORRELATION

 

 

 

N = 233
Sum of Degrees
Squares of Multiple
Value of R 1 - R2 Freedom "F"
R 44
v.1, ..., 44 = .9634 .0718 156 45.8246**
R 6
1.1, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44 = .9552 .0876 194 336.6029**
39
RY.1, ..., 37, 39, 43 = .5946 .6465 161 2.2573**
R
1.1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11,
12, 19, 20, 26, 27, 28, __12_ J
31, 32, 34, 37, 39, 43 = .5863 .6562 181 4.9909.*

 

** Significant at the .01 percent level.

Y = Cumulative H.P.A. at the completion of three quarters.
Identification of variables 1 through 44 - (see Table VIID.

35

(30,150)

(16,150)

ir‘liNH
O O I O O

C \O (Rx) O\\f1
O

1

HP
f\)}'—‘
on

1.4
M)
0

1h.

1...:
U1
0

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
3h.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
h2.
43.
4h.
-::- 45.

"115

TAELE 4-VIII

Identification

Age

Kajor
Theoretical
Economic
Aesthetic
Social
Political
Religious
Achievement

Exhibition

Autonomy

Affiliation

Intraception

Succorance

Dominance

Abasement

Nurtrance

Change

Endurance

Heterosexuality

Aggression

Consistency

Size of hometown

Marital Status

Father Living

Father's Occupation
Occupational Social Status
Father‘s Educational Level
Father's Degrees

Mother Living

Nother's Occupation

Mother's Educational Level
Mother's Degrees

Number of Siblings

Rank in High School

First Term Grade Point Average
Occupational Classification
Second Term Grade Point Average
Verbal Score

Quantitative Score

Total S.C.A.T. Score

Third Term Grade Point AveraTTe
Cumulative Three Term Grade Point Averafe

"Y” criterion

3? Variables
Selected For Purposes 0f Analysis

36

37

TAFLF 4—IX

An X2 Analysis Of Commitment To A Goal Of Successful And Unsuccessful
Subjects In The Study

 

 

 

Freshmen
N=233
Committed Non-Committed
N=118 N=115
Successful 7O 59
Non-successful h? 56

38

In this study, each subject was interviewed by the investigator.
A total of 233 interviews were conducted during the first six weeks of the
Fall Quarter of 1966. All interviews were completed prior to the subject
receiving mid-term grades during their first quarter in college. The
interviews were scheduled for a fifteen-minute period; however, in
several cases, the interviewee requested an additional appointment to
further discuss his future plans. The subjects were requested by mail
to make an appointment with the investigator at their convenience.

The interviews were structured and the following questions were

asked by the investigator:
1. Why did you decide to attend Tri-State College?
2. When did you decide on your major?
3. Why did you select your specific major?

4. What are your future goals?

5. What effect will the military service requirement have upon
your future plans?

The primary purpose of the structured interview was to determine if

the subject indicated a firm commitment to a goal. Immediately after the

interview, the general comments made by the subject were recorded by the

investigator and the attitude was then categorized as committed or

uncommitted to a goal.

Typical of the responses made by committed subjects were:

1. I selected Tri—State College because it is a small college and
I would not be just a number.

graduated from Tri-State

ith several fellows who
2. I have talk3d W d school and I was impressed

College, and they thought it was a goo
with them.

3. There is not much social life here, and I knew I had to study so
I felt I wouldn't be distracted.

4o

10.

ll.

12.

13.

39

I have always wanted to be an engineer. I can't remember when
I decided; it must have been when I was in fifth or sixth grade.

When I was a junior in high school, we had to write a paper on
what we wanted to do. I wrote on engineering and got real
interested in it.

I worked on the highway during the summer and talked a lot with
engineers. I guess I decided this summer.

I have always wanted to be an engineer since even in grade school.
It's the only thing I have ever wanted to do.

I have worked in a factory during the summers, and I want some-
thing better for myself.

I like math and enjoy working on machines, especially cars. That
is why I would like to become a mechanical engineer.

I feel that a degree in Business is broad enough that I could
go into a lot of areas.

I like to work with my hands and build things. That's why I have
chosen civil engineering.

After I get through college, I would like to go on and get my
master's in Business. I think this would be a good combination

with Engineering.

I want to be an accountant. I like working with figures;
eventually, I would like to be a CPA.

A general trend appeared that the committed subject was aware of his

interests and abilities.
range and he was apt to discus

expression of confiden

self.

As he thought in terms of his goal, it was long

3 his future rather than the immediate. An

ce in himself was present when he talked about him—

There was evidence in his responses that he had a realistic awareness

0f the requirements of earning a degree.

The comments of the uncommitted were as follows:

1.

2. My mother read an ad in a magazine and sugges

I selected Tri—State College because it is close to home and
I can work on the weekends.

ted I apply for

admission.

40

3. I wanted to go to Purdue, but my grades were not good enough.

4. I think I will go here a year and transfer to a larger school.

5. I haven't decided what I want to do. I'll see how my grades go.
6. My Dad thought I should go into Engineering and I do 0.K. in math.

7. My brother went to Tri—State and he majored in Business. He
has a good job.

8. It wasn't until my senior year I thought of going to college. I
didn't apply until late summer and was accepted at Tri—State.

9. I haven't decided if college is for me.

10. I just take one day at a time. If I make good grades, I might
keep going.

There was an apparent pessimistic trend in the uncommitted subjects'
thinking. He did not chose to commit himself to a future goal but pre—
ferred to leave the way Open for alternatives. Attendance at a college
appeared to be motivated by someone other than himself. His expectations
of success were not high.

The question asked in the interview regarding the effect the military
service requirement would have upon their future plans resulted in common
response from the committed and uncommitted subjects. In both groups,

there existed an apprehensive attitude toward entering the military service.
Eight of the 233 subjects in the study were not eligible for the draft.

The replies to the stated question were as follows:

1. I hOpe to be able to stay in college until I get a degree. I
am undecided as to whether I should go in the service first
and then go to college. Maybe it would be best to get it out

of the way.

2. I am afraid that I will have forgotten everything I learned by
the time I get on the job.

3. If I go into Engineering, I will probably be able to get a job
deferment.

41

4. If I don't make the grades in college, I can always join up and
get it over with.

5. Maybe it will all be over by the time I graduate and I won't be
drafted.

6. I'd like to go in now, but my parents want me to stay in school
as long as I can.

7. I thought I would go for two years and then go in the service.
I'd finish up when I get out.

8. I don't have the money to go four years. I could use the veteran's
check to pay the rest of my way.

9. I'd get a better break in the service if I had a degree. I'd go
to officer's training school.

10. Maybe I would get some experience in the service and decide if
I really liked Engineering.

Uppermost in the thoughts of the subjects in the study appeared to be
a fatalistic attitude toward going into the service. Only five subjects
definitely stated that they were afraid of being drafted into the service.
The majority hOped to complete their college degree and then expected to
be drafted. There was some evidence that they felt an Engineering degree
could provide them with a deferment or would offer them an opportunity

to avoid combat duty.

Summary

In testing the difference in mean scores of the E.P.P.S. earned by
academically successful and unsuccessful subjects, the t—ratio indicated
differences significant at the .05 level in the variable Exhibitionism.

The Study of Values revealed no significant differences in the
corresponding mean scores of the academically successful and unsuccessful

subjects at the .05 level of confidence.
The statistical analysis of the socio-economic variables revealed

that married students with children scored significantly higher in

42

academic performance. The educational level of the mother also yielded

significant differences at the .05 level of confidence.

No significant differences were identified in the X2 analysis of

academically successful and unsuccessful subjects and their commitment

or non~commitment to a goal.

The structured interview provided responses that were enlightening

in relation to the subjects attitude and motivation toward college. The

emphasis of the interview tended to be toward the effect of the military
draft and the subject's reluctance to commit himself to a future goal.
The committed subject gave evidence of being confident of his

abilities and was realistic in his assessment of his potentials. The

uncommitted subject hesitated to acknowledge his abilities but preferred

to rationalize his possible failure in achieving a goal.

The multiple regression analysis yielded a multiple correlation

coefficient (R) of .59. This degree of correlation was significant

beyond the .01 level of significance. The partial correlation coefficients

were generally non-significant. This indicated the significant variables

could be residualized with respect to the non-significant variables with-

out undue shrinkage of the multiple (R). Deletion of seven additional

variables for a total of twenty-seven resulted in a decrease of .03 for
the multiple (R) and a decrease of four percent in variance controlled.

This action yielded twelve variables controlling thirty-one percent of

the variance with a multiple (R) of .56.

43

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to investigate selected non—intellective

variables and their relationship to academic achievement. The study was

undertaken at Tri-State College, a private college in Angola, Indiana.

Two hundred and thirty-three male students comprised the subjects

in the study. The sample was confined to United States born male freshmen

who were entering college for the first time in the Fall, 1966. They had

declared their major in Engineering or Business.

The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (13) and the Study of Values
(1) tests were administered to the subjects in the study to determine if
there was a significantly different response between the students who were
academically successful and the students who did not achieve academic
success during their first year in college.

The socio—economic background of the subjects was also analyzed.
Interviews were conducted with each subject in an attempt to gain insight
into their attitudes, motivation and commitment to a goal.

The criterion of academic achievement used was the cumulative fresh-
men year grade point average.

Multiple correlations were derived to determine which variables

would emerge as the most important contributors to any increment in

prediction of grade point average.

44

Findings

“—0—3—0

The results of the various approaches to the objective were as

follows:

1.

The statistical analysis of The Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule (13) indicated a significant difference at the .05
percent level of confidence in the variable, Exhibitionism.

The academically unsuccessful subject had a significantly

higher score (t = 2.08, p.05) in the variable, Exhibitionism,
defined as a need for attention and a high activity level.

Comparisons of the academic achievement and the scores on
six basic interests or motives in personality as measured by

the Study of Values (1) yielded no significant differences in

mean SCOIBS o

The analysis of the socio«economic background of the subjects
in the study provided three variables which were significantly

different between the academically successful and unsuccessful

subject. The education of the mother (t = 1.88, p.05) and the

degrees held by the mother (t = 1.87, p.05) of the academically
unsuccessful subjects indicated a significant difference

academically. Successful subjects who were married and had

children provided a significant difference (t = 1.74, p.05).

The hypothesis tested using the X2 analysis relative to commit-

ment to a goal revealed no significant difference in academic

achievement between the committed and uncommitted subjects in

the study. The interviews, however, provided insight into the

underlying motivation and attitudes toward the future goal and

academic achievement of the subjects in the study.

4S

5. The inclusion of the selected non-intellective variables in a
correlation matrix from which multiple correlations were derived
to predict the cumulative grade point average of freshmen male
students at Tri-State College resulted in multiple correlations
significantly larger than the correlation of rank in high school
and S.C.A.T. total score. The rank in high school and the S.C.A.T.
total score revealed fifteen percent of the variance remaining
under control with a multiple (R) of .38. The addition of
twelve non-intellective variables controlled thirty-one percent
of the variance with a multiple (R) of .56. A multiple regression
analysis yielded a multiple correlation coefficient (R) of .59.
This degree of correlation was significant beyond the .01 percent
level of confidence. The partial correlation coefficients were

generally non-significant.

Conclusions
The significant finding that the variable, Exhibitionism differentiates

between the academically successful and unsuccessful subject suggests that
the unsuccessful subject at Tri—State College has a higher activity level
and a greater need for attention. The limited range of activities at
Tri-State College is primarily due to the location of the college in a
small rural town and the predominance of male students. If the need for
activity was extremely strong, it would require the student to seek out
his own activities, thereby reducing the time available for study. The
need for attention could also provide frustrations for the student as

the scholarly setting of Tri—State College emphasizes the development of

an independent, non-involved professional male. There may be present an

46

unconscious feeling of male weakness or femininity if the student seeks
out attention from his peers or members of the faculty.

The fihding of a high score on the variable, Exhibitionism, as
being significantly related to unsuccessful academic achievement has
not been proposed by other researchers. On the contrary, Klett (26)
found significant positive correlations between IQ and the E.P.P.S.
variable, Exhibitionism. Merrill and Murphy (34) reported low ability
students also low on the need for exhibitionism. The evidence presented
in the above studies may be interpreted that the results of their studies
were obtained by utilizing the extreme ranges of ability while the present
study was composed primarily of average ability students.

A trend existed in the academically unsuccessful subject obtaining
a higher mean score in the variables of Change and Agression. The high
mean score on the variable Change may support the need for activity and
variety of experience while the resultant frustration produced agressive
rebellion directed toward the academic environment.

The academically successful subjects tended to score higher on the
variable, Endurance, which may indicate a greater conformity and willing-
ness to concentrate on the academic requirements. Although a trend
‘ existed in the above variables, the statistical analysis did not find the
correSponding means to be significantly different at the .05 percent level
of confidence.

The Study of Values (1) an instrument designed to measure basic
interests or motives did not provide significant differences between the
academically successful and unsuccessful subjects in the study. There
existed a trend, however, toward the unsuccessful student obtaining a

higher mean score on Theoretical and Aesthetic values. As the emphasis

47

at Tri-State College is on the practical application of performance,

the theoretical student may feel that the education he receives is

inadequate for his future goals. The aesthetic variable implies creativity

and an interest in cultural pursuits. The environment at Tri—State College

is limited in cultural programs and a conformity pattern is encouraged.
The unsuccessful student may feel a void in his life due to the lack of
cultural activities and may resent the apparent conformity pattern that
exists on the campus.

The findings of this study may indicate that students basic interests
or motives as measured by the Study of Values have no significant bearing
on college academic achievement.

The statistical analysis of the socio-economic variables of the
subjects in the study indicated that the students who were married and
had children were significantly more successful in their academic work
than the student who did not have family responsibilities.

Motivating factors may have been the added responsibility of being
a parent and the stability of a family environment. The seriousness of

purpose in realizing their goal reflected in the academic achievement of
the student who had assumed a parental role.

The student who was unsuccessful in his academic achievement came
from a home where the mother had attained a higher amount of education
than the mother of the successful student and held degrees beyond the
high school diploma. Explanation of this significant finding may be that
the role of the mother in the family was more predominant than the father

and reflects in her ambitious educational drive for her son. The son may
have identified with the mother rather than the father and a conflict

resulted in that he unconsciously resented the goals of higher education

48

set for him by his mother. As the subjects in the study are primarily
enrolled in the highly masculine profession of Engineering, a rebellious
attitude may exist toward parental domination by the mother.

Supporting research by Staton (43) the occupation of the father was
not found to be significantly related to academic success in college. The
size of the high school, as concurred by Altman, (2) did not appear to
be related to college performance.

Previous research findings seemed to be inconsistent in measuring
the academic achievement of the subject and his commitment to a goal;
therefore, the inclusion of this subjective variable appeared to be
justified as a relevant factor in investigating the academic performance

of the subjects in this study. The findings of this investigation
support the studies of Waltey (49) and Ashley, Wall and Osipow (3).

As stated, commitment to a goal did not prove to be a significant factor
in the academic achievement of the subject. Possible explanation for
the non-significant findings may be that the young men who composed the
sample of study were eligible for the military draft. A feeling of

vague uncertainty as to their future pervaded the interviews. Many of
the subjects verbally expressed fears concerning their future and hesitated
to make concise statements as to future goals. A number of the subjects
stated that they would pursue their academic program only as long as they
felt they could maintain satisfactory academic records. If their grade
point average declined, they would then change their curriculum to enable
them to remain in college and avoid being subjected to the military draft.

Some subjects expressed a desire to enlist in the service after

completing one year of college as they felt their maturity and experience

49

would then enable them to make a more positive decision regarding their
future goals.

The interview data revealed various attitudinal and motivational
factors of the young man in college who is under military draft classifi-
cation and facing an uncertain future.

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate non-intellective
variables and their relationship to academic achievement, however, the
study also provided a predictor of academic achievement at Tri—State
College. The study submits twelve variables that would increase predictive
reliability from the base of .30 to .56. The inclusion of ten additional
non-intellective variables to the high school rank and the S.C.A.T. total
would allow a greater predictive value for the entering freshman at
Tri-State College who is majoring in the field of Engineering. High
school rank and the S.C.A.T. are at the present time obtained for
admission purposes. The implication derived from this predictor of
academic achievement would be the usefulness in a counseling program for

freshmen entering Tri—State College.

Recommendations

1. Replication of this study should be repeated at Tri-State
College for successive freshmen classes in order to ascertain
whether the same findings of non-intellective factors would
prevail in academic performance.

2. The subjects in the study should be re-examined in their senior
year of college (1970) on the selected non-intellective variables
used in the initial study. A comparison of the relationship

in their freshmen and senior year and the response to The

50

Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Study of Values
instruments may support or reject the findings of this study.
In depth interviews with college freshmen male students is

needed to investigate students' attitudes and motivation and

its relationship to academic performance.

 

7.

~44.)

9.

10.

ll.

51

LIST OF REFERENCE

Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. H., and Lindzey, 3., Study of Values, Hanual,
Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1951.

Altman, F. 3., "The Effect of Rank in Class and Size of high School on
the Academic Achievement of Central Michigan College Seniors, Class of
1957," Journal of Educational Research, vol. 52, 1959, pp. 307-309.

Ashley, J. D., Wall, H. w., and Osipow, S. H., "Vocational Certainty

and Indecision in College Freshmen," The Personnel and Guidance Journal,

vol. ht, 1966, pp. 1037-1oh1. '"" “"

Bendig, A. w., "Objective Measures of Needs and Course Achievement in
Introductory Psychology," Reported by Edwards, A. L., Personal Communication,
Karch, 1956.

Bendig, A. W., ”The Reliability of Letter Grades," Educational Psychological
Measurement, vol. 13, 1953, pp. 311-321.

 

Bernstein, 8., "Some Sociological Determinants of Perception; an anuiry
into Sue-Cultural Differences," British Journal of Sociolocv, vol. 9,

1958, pp. lS9-l7h.

Bernstein, 8., "Social Class and Linguistic Development; a Theory of
Social Learning," in Halsey, A. H., Floud, J. A., and Anderson, C. A.,
editors, Education, Pconomy, and Society, The Free Press, New York,
1961, pp. 238-3lh.

Bloom, B. S. and Peters, P. R., EEE.E§E 2g Academic Prediction Scales for
Counseling and Selecting College Entrants, The Free Press of Glencoe,'___
Inc., a Division of the Crowell—Collier Publishing Co., New York, N. Y.,
1961, p. 8.

Carter, R. S., "Non-Intellectual Variables Involved in Teacher‘s Parks,"
Journal of Educational Research, vol. h7, 1953, Pp. 81-95.

Crowley, F. J., "The Goal of Hale High School Seniors," Personnel and
Guidance Journal, vol. 37, 1959, pp. hSB-h92.

 

Demos, G. D. and Spolyar, L. J., "Academic Achievement of College Freshmen
in Relation to the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule," Educational

- 229 PsychOIOgical Measurement, vol. 21, 1961, PP. h73-h79.

12.

13.

1h.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Di Vesta, F. J., Woodruff, A. D., and Hertel, J. P., "Motivation as
a Predictor of College Success," Educational Psychological 1-3"rr’me‘c,
V01. 93 l9h9, pp. 339'3h80

Edwards, A. L., Personal Prefer nce Schedule Manual, New York,
Psychological Corporation, l95h.

Feder, D. D., "Intriguing Problems of Design in Predicting College
Success," Educational Psychological Heasurenent, vol. 25, 1965,
ppo 29‘370

 

Field, L. H., "Personality Correlates of College Achievement and
Major Areas of Study," Unpublished, Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Iowa, 193h.

 

Frederickson, N. and Schrader, W. D., "The A. C. E. Psychological

A

Examination and High School Standing as Predictors of College Success,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 39, 1955, pp. Eel-265.

_..

 

 

Friedhoff, W. H., tm Relationships Among Various Measures of Socio—
economic Stat us, Social Class Identification, Intelligence, and School
Achievement," Dissertation Aostracts, vol. 15 ,1955, p. 2098.

 

Gibhart, G. G. and Hoyt, D. P., "Personality Needs of Under- and
Over-Achieving Freshmen," Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. b2,

 

Cough, H., "The Construction of a Personality Scale to Predict
Scholastic Achievement," Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 37,
1953, pp. 361-366.

 

Griffith, J. R., "The Relationship Between Scholastic Achieveuent
and Personality Adjustment of Hon College Students," Journal of

Applied Psychology, vol. 29, l9h5, pp. 350-357

Hackett H. R. "The Use of F. M. P. I. Items to Predict Collere
’ ) u

Achievement," Personnel 5rd Guidance Journal, vol. 39, 1940, pp. 215-217.

 

Holland, J. L. and Nichols, . C
an Indecision Scale; the Fatura 1
Journal of Counseling Ps; c‘olc$

'"he Develop":ent and .alidati on of
Lstory of a Problem in casic research,"
I: No. 11, IQC'h, pp. 97-3L.

,
p"

 

Ho oyt, D
C - nc

. P., "Size of High School and College Grades," Personrel and
it e J ‘rna , vol. 37, 1959, pp. Sf9-‘73.

C1“.

 

Hurt, J. M., In.telligence ard Zrherience, The Ronald Press New Yorh
1961.

 

 

Jones, W., "A Study of Selected V riables Pelated to Cells

9 ccess,”
Unpublished, Dissertation Abstract, Unniversity of Alabama,19

C‘
L.
01/
K

n
l.

 

Klett, C. J., "Performance of El h School Students on the Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule, " Journal of Consulting Pfigchology,
vol. 21, 1957, pp. 68- 7?.

 

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

3b.

39.

b0.

b1.

53

{nief, L. M. and Stroud, J. D., 'lntercorrelations Among Various

Intelligence, Achievement, and Social Class Scores," Journal of
Educational Psychology, vol. 50, 1959, pp. 117-120.

"Over- and Under-Achievement and the Edwards Personal
13 3-135“.

Kruc, R. E.,
L3: 9?-

Preference Schedule," Journal g£_Applied Psychology, vol

Lavin, D. E., The Prediction of Mcader21c Perf ormarce ,Russell Sage
Foundation, New York, N. Y., 1951, g:p. 105-111.

Lav1n, D. E., The Prediction of Academic Performance, FUuQell S 9
Foundation, New York, 19(5, p. ”125.

Leighton, R. W}, IBtudies to Determine the Relative AChievement of
Studies of College Teaching,

Students at Different Potentiality Levels,"
I, 1933’ p. 390

McCandless, D., "The Rorschach as a

Success for Matched Groups of Highly Superior men," Americ

vol. 2, 19b7, p. blh. (abstract)

Maistall, F. V. and Simpson, E. D., 'Wocational Choice and Collebe
Grades,” Journal SE Educational Research, vol. 37, 19h}, pp. 303-305.

‘iCCcrential Predictor 0C Academic
:n Psychologist,

Merrill, R. M. and Furphy, D. T., "Personality Factors and Academic
Achievement in Colleje," Jourral of Counselinr Psvcholo J, Vol. 6,
1959, pp. 207- 210.

Factorial Structure of

Mitchell, J. V. Jr., "A Comparison of t}
' Journal 01

Cognitive Functions for a High and Low Status uroun,
Educational Psychology, vol. L7, pp. 397-le.
A. H.,

Nesbit, J., "Family Environment and Intelligence," in Hal e ,
Societv,
“A

Floud, J., and Anderson, C., editors, Education, Econonv, or
The Free Press, New York, 1961, pp. 273—257.

’011 V H., "Relation of Scores on Davis Ellis Games to MOP10'0C01031p
Status, Intelligence Test Pesults, and Social Achievement," Educational

and Psvchological Measurement, vol.

 

O'Neil, R. C., "Predictin; College Success with the Iowa Tesfis of
Journal of Educational Pcswa~ch,

 

Educational Development," California

vol. 10, 1959, pp. 86-59.
Heed, H. 5., '“he Relation of the Cernreuter Personality Score
Scholastic and Mechanical Achievement," Psychological Bulletin, vol
19b0, pp. bA9-b50. (abstract)

P "Intelligence and

Sanders, W. B., Osborne, T. R., and Creene, J. D.,
Academic Performance of College Students of Urban, Rural, and Mixed
Bacl Tounds," Journal of Educationa al Research, vol. D9, 1955, pp. 155—193.

 

s to

37,

Sharp, H. C. and Pickett, In D., 'The General Aptitude Test Battery
as a Predictor of College Success," Educational Psvcholc cical leasuremer+

vol. 19, 1959, pp. 617—623.

b2.

143.

Lb.

b5.

ho.

b7.

L8.

54

Stagner, R., 'The Relationship of Personality to Academic Aptitude
and Achievement," Journal of Educational Research, vol. 24, 1933,

pp . €u’48"66‘00

Staton, J. T., 'The Relationship of Selected Factors to Academic
Success for Eeginning Freshmen," Unpublished, Dissertation Abstract,

The University of Oklahoma, 1962.

Stone, D. R. and Ganung, G. R., "A Study of Scholastic Achievement
Related to Personality as Keasured by the Kinnesota lultinhasic Inventory,"

,1 I ,_J/
.— C _1‘“ k‘
/ I / V' .

Journal of Educational Research, vol. 50, 1956, pa. 1

Strodtbeck, F. L., ”Family Interaction, Values, and Achievement," in

cClelland, D. C. and Associates, Talent and Societv, D. Van Wostrand

Co., Inc., Princeton, N. J., 1958,“pp. 133fi? .

H!

.A

Swenson, C. J. Jr., "College Performance of Students with Hijh and
Low High School Grades When Academic Aptitude is Controlled," Journal
of Educational Research, vol. 50, 1957, pp. 597-503.
Turrell, A. H., 'fielationship of Personality to Scholarship," Junior
College Journal, vol. 5, 1935, pp. 55-357.

Washburn, N. F., "Socio-economic Status, Urbanism, and Academic
Performance in College," Journal of Educational Research, vol. 53,

1959, pp. 130—137.
Hatley, D. J., "Performance and Characteristics of the Confident Student,”

‘4.

Personnel and Guidance Jourzal, vol. LB, 1955, p?- 591-59

Weitz, H., Clark, M., and Jones, C., 'The Relationship Letween Choice
of a Hafor Field of Study and Academic Preoaration an‘ Performance,"
Educational Psycholojjcal KOQSUTQWCRt, V01. 15, lgigy Pp- 2&"380

APPENDIX A

An Analysis of the E.P.P.S. Study of Values,
Socio-economic Variables and Commitment to
a Goal Based on Cumulative Grade Point Range

55

APPENDIX A-TABLE

-§.—BLo-t—) iLcIl-l' 5.);kL—‘i/I'i:

may; no u"? (“W-"T‘y-‘VD; Dijj-gt TF3:-
FOR SUBJECTS gAV

CF'

'1 o
L J
‘13} A 3.00+ CUXVLASTV?

I

-—T‘| (1'31 '7‘. 1. 73'
.s sihuV CF YAL ~

C
A NJ 4s-I
Tar-Tn“
g \ ‘-I‘ ‘1-~"1‘ -A

 

Variable

Study of Values

Theoretical
Economic
Aesthetic
Social
Political
Religious

-.

Edwards Personal Preference Schedule

 

Achievement
Eeference
Order
Exhibition
Autonomy
Affiliation
lntraception

Succorance
Dominance
Abasement
Nurtrance
Change
Endurance
Heterosexuality
Aggression

Consistency

pr; ’T‘Q 1" yaw

...ng.) ¢-¢-AI

i=18

 

‘7‘“: T

\ l
A'L-.AI11

£2.20
£3.70
33.75
35.90
bl.éo
h2.80

17.05
1.30
9.70

12.95

13.50

12.90

in mg

...,.\l

12.51

15.95
13.90
lh.b§
lh.90
17.65
12.30

8.60

 

 

 

U)
c:

O O
~JC7

(h “J \7‘1 (7‘ ”\J ~J
o o

('7) ’\] (TN JT‘I‘ O

b—J \J W L'

\firotu-4r4-q

O
b<3.uzo\nro

IST'K») c-u to \o k.)
\:l
H'

‘v-lfi- u'H“

."r‘ I.
A 11.21611 -J 4‘“ $11

APPENDIX A- TAP-LE

r \ . 4 ‘|'\
I ‘ n
.

f‘.flfTV—-<rr \‘I‘I yv I T v~"\"‘ I ~‘*‘
-. ~.. - , y (1 4 1.4' . r . .1 . 5)
A ..44 UL by” 2.- 4..._J\‘-Jsv' ALL‘H

AT' “.‘ I. I} ' A ,\

1-“; A L .50-.: .Q’
'1 -" ~°- ,~--1

‘. ' '1 l 3‘

..A. 1'. ---..L»‘._.

 

 

 

P2313213]
‘T__ 1'"
M-39
Variable .HW. a -
i"- ”Aid"? :) 01-; 0
Study of Values
Theoretical 53.35 9.39
Economic Lfo39 11.53
Aesthetic 32.25 lO.hO
0 q d
SOCl-al /;OO!J 50,4
Political bl.€3 9-79

Religious

E.P.P.S.

 

Achievement
Deference
Order
Exhibition
Aut onomy
Affiliation
lntraception

Succorance
Dominance
Abasement
Nurtrance
Change
Endurance
Heterosexuality
Aegression

Consistency

76.08 10

_/

o o
.‘\"\J

I

‘

+4+4+u14+4

..JL_J
JJMNE—JOKV.)
O
mi-‘xlbo

'.
L.
O

\_,J .L‘.“

_“ \
o

\0 ~\] U‘xi‘." Cm .‘K‘LJ

J

,\;'"L Cr)

79
\71 CO re ’0

O
t

A) \JJ \JJ \0
O

i
K
o
I

gigiq
\J

Fikd

4091
l9.(/

11.72

A
I
‘\
J

\1
O
\p
O'\
1:- (xvi J:-'\,) ‘31 \11 It“

K»

7.75

.06

O
\1

O . O
O“ C)\ \i.‘
‘N‘ K] \rl I\) 'v) m ‘0 (3“

O O
9“] j-

’\
\J

0
\O‘

.26

 

APPENDIX A-TAPLE

MEANS are STAEDAPD LEVIAPIOZ

S
CUWULATIVE GRADE

III

:71 v.1
OP .5. i113

STUDY OF VALUES ABD
HAiins A 2.00-2.h9
POINT AVEPACE

58

 

FREiGFEI

 

 

N=76
Variable MEAN S.D.
Studv of; Values
Theoretical b2.33 5.51
Economic £7.28 6.88
Aesthetic 32.53 6.91
SOCial 3D.59 5.71
Political bu.23 5.92
Religious 37.75 8.53
E.P.P.S.
Achievement 13.25 b.1b
Deference 10.79 2.90
Order 9.83 b.Z7
Exhibition 13.23 3.09
Alltonomy 13 .12 £0 33
Affiliation 13.65 b.83
Intraception 13.50 .
Succorance 11.51 b.23
Dominance 13.33 b. 2
S8

13.92 bOL
Abasement tr
IT 13.03 IJOJ)
\urtrance . 4

16.b2 L.MO
Change P

12 88 b.11
Endurance . 6 09
Heterosexuality 21-00 5:05
Aggression 13-33

8.69 3.b3

Consistency

 

 

APPENDIX A-TWBLE IV

YTY'fid fl '_\

59

T"
:D 11].?‘PQS.

 

 

 

 

ELI... Ii3 A: 5'D STAMDA DID LE'VI .ATIO BIS OF TTH :53 STU 1.1.x. 70F, ‘47}. 1.7 1;...) fi'
FOR SUEJE EC"S :L-‘UJI’EG A 1.5-0 1. 99 CUII ULA.I E CFJDE PC1-.T ’iV-.:iAGE
FEES IX-"T‘IN
N=62

Variable MEAN 8.0.
Study 9: Values
Theoretical L.’O 6.16
Economic hh.l9 7.06
Aesthetic 35.91 7.37
Social 3L.L0 6.10
Political L3.L0 5.5t
Religious 37.22 8.01
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
Achievement 13.1b 3-59
Deference 10.31 3.68
Order 10.27 b.36
Exhibition 1b.b3 3.b1
Autonomy 13.78 b.08
Affiliation 13-0C 1.1.70
Intraception lb.bb b.68
Succorance 11.65 b.38
Dominance 13-56 b.81
Abasement lb.73 5-33
Nurtrance 12.78 b.60
Change 17.00 b.1o
Endurance 13-13 5.65
Heterosexuality 19°55 6-06
Aggression 13-26 b.77

8.50 3.27

Consistency

 

APPENDIX A-TABLE V

MEANS 110 STANDARD DEVIATIOhs OF THE STUDY CF VALUES 1:0 a.p.

 

 

 

 

P . S .
FOR SU EJEC‘JI‘S HAVE-33 A l .50 OR LESS CUP-CULAT II." E. (PALE POI li‘T V SHINE
FILES E73 ZEN
N=b2

Variable 1‘-‘17:QAI‘I S .D .
Studz 23 Values

Theoretical b3.12 6.12
Economic bh.h7 6.39
Aesthetic 32.71 6.90
Social 36.2b 6.63
Political 145.03 5.71
Religious 37.56 9.h3
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule

Achievement l3.L7 3.58
Deference 9.91 3.06
Order 9.18 3.66
Exhibition 11.35 3.86
Autonomy 13.85 3.96
Affiliation 111.99 11.58
Intraception 13.56 L.Lb
Succorance 10.65 b.bl
Dominance lb.09 h.hb
Abasement 12.52 5.16
Nurtrance 1b.b1 5-89
Change 17.32 b.9b
Endurance 10-56 h-53
Heterosexuality 22-05 [-12
Aggression 15-06 9-79
Consistency 7°59 3'30

6O

 

61

 

 

 

 

mm.m mg.qa m4.g @m.mH oo.4 mg.wfi OH.4 oo.~a mm.g mm.wa omcmzo
mo.q oa.aa mw.m HQ.4H Ha. nu.mfi mg.m mH.mH mm.: mm.OH mocmpscqm
no.m Om.ma mm.m mm.mH m.4 mo.mH 0%.; w>.mfi mL.g H1.qa mocmpppsz
5m.m mm.ma mw.m ww.ma ww.a mm.MH mm.m mw.q ma.m mm.mH pcmsmmmn<
om.g mm.mH ao.m mm. ma mw.a mm.mH Hw.; ;.mH n3.g mo.nfi mocmcflsou
H®.4 Om.mH 0m.a ow.m mw.a Hm.HH wm.: mo. HH Hq.4 m®.ca oonmhooosm
Hm.a mo.mH mm.m nm.qa mw.a 3.MH @<.a 3;.3H 4g.n mm.MH cowpmmomhpcw
aw.m om.ma mm.: mN.MH No.4 mo. ma o\.g wo.ma wm.g mm.4a coapmflaflmm«
om.4 om.mH ma.: Hw.ma om.a NH.mH no. a w~.ma o©.m mm.rfi ercopsd
mm.m mo.ma Hm.q Nq.m mm.m mm.mfi Hg.m mg.ga ww.m mm.aa cowpflnflgxm
m~.m o~.m mm.m mo.HH Nw.a mm.m om.a pm.oH cw.m oa.m umnpo
mH.m om.HH mm.m om.oa om.m a~.ra ao.m Hm.oa mo.m m.m mocmpmmmm
m~.m mo.~H pm.g Fm.mH 4H.g mm.ma mm.m 4H.ma mm.m NJ. ma pcmgm>mflgo¢
.m.m.m.m
an.o oa.ma oo.oa mo.om mm.m ®~.~m Ho.o mm.~m mg.m om.wm muoHMHHmm
-.~ oo.aa m~.m mw.aa mm.m mm.qq am.m Og.ma H~.m mo.mq HmOHpHHoa
mo.m Om.mm mm.® ga.mm Hm.m m3.:m OH.© 04.4m no.0 gm.@m Hmaoom
Ja.o m~.mm Or.OH mm.mm Hm.@ mm.mm >m.m Hm.mm om.w H~.wm oHpmnpmm¢
~4.~ 3m.mq mm.HH om.m4 om.o nm.mg oo.m ma.qa mm.o Hfi.:4 oasosoom
no.” cm.mg mo.m mm.mq Ho.m mm.m4 :H.o om.Jg ma.o NH.mg Hmowpmpomne
mmsam>.mm muspm
.Q.m :mmz .Q.m ammz .Q.m :mmz .Q.m cam: .Q.m cmmz manwapm>
+oo.m mm.muom.m m4.muoo.m mm.Huom.H mq.au ezHcm ma¢xo
wauz mmuz ownz mouz mquz m>~e¢qzzao
.m. m az< mrxm: z mum<u
many m maHgmm nzg Lo HH;:M>mHmo< oH mq<o¢
92¢ .m.m.m.u mzw mu_ q<> mo >aagm mre mo mHm>n<2< z¢

H> mam: I< xHsznEaV

62

cam. 0mm. Hma.

(”W

oo.oNH mg.mmm Hm.mwm mo.wwm

Omo.

‘1H om.qu

.w>< .m.o .Esu

 

 

om.mH 04.9w mo.uH Hw.mw m;.HH gm.H\ 04.wfi mo.oN JP.HH mm.mw Hnwce

mo.m om.m4 ga.m ng.w4 ma.w ow.om wo.m 4m.am ou.w cc.\m opfipmpflpzm;q

oo.afl oo.~« Qw.¢ mo.ww ma.m mm.Hm w».® o¢.0m m.~ Hm.om Hague?

OpodllLOm

MV.m cm.m Mm.m mw.» mg.m eg.m pm.m om.¢ om.m mm.~ houcpmflmuoo

m~.3 em.mfl No.; NN.HH wo.m mm.mH ww.a gm.ma gp.g ko.m nowmwmgmm¢

., ‘ \. ‘ . . n .1... ‘ O . \I \0 I1 .JJA 01.. )I.‘ J a . l)\..¢

«0.x u\.rH 50.x <u.0~ cc x 0c Hm \c.w ML or or.x m: on h4waosmwoch+ n

0‘41? 0.. .o 0.9

A LCCV no 0 F ...n

.g.m swam .m.m gnaw .m.m cam: .m.m cmmz .u.m cama mfipwwump
+0 .m oo.m-cm.m 04.m-oo.m mm.Huom.H

mmuz

wmuz

quz

42, 4 wax): .)
fryplfrk.“ r..>_L.<mrK

m PH 5: P ..E

MAM: v‘\ nuA “A

 

 

63

APPENDIX A-TQBLE VII

AN ANALYSIS OF THE sOCIO-EJONDMIC VARIABLflS 0F SUBJACTS 11 THE STUDY
BASED ON CUHULATIVE GRADE POINT AVfiRAGE

Cumulative Grade #’ r

I. A e
Agerage 18.56 17.96 18.17 13.91 18.10
Range 13-23 17-20 17-21; 17-29 10—25
Frequency

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2h
25
28
29

(\D
AJFJ

F‘F’CDFJFJRDAJCDFJFJvIC)
ti
‘—

[.1
OOOOI—‘OOF—‘NNOO

UIFJ
OOOI—‘HMOOOE’MO

“L:
OOOOOOOMCOCD O
OOHOOOOOO

II. Home State
Washington, D. C.
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Maryland
Michigan
Minesota
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Virgin Islands

H

[\D

H
OHI—‘OOVIOOF-‘HOWOUIOOO

FJFJ
C)C)C>C>n)kJO\Uin>cysac>«ocrp4yo

OOOF-‘ONC'ONOHl—‘VIOOO
PH

l—‘HOI—‘l—JHl—‘r'wOWO-xlwoo

OOOOOHUII-‘l—‘HwOC‘NOO

III. Size of Home Town
Country
Less than 5,000
5,000-15,000
15,000-100,000
Over 100,000

b 15
15
9 2o
9 11

\JIUINNN
}_s
\0
01000 O\f\)
WC'WWU'I

n. ..c

V.

'4’.

L—afl’.

qr

IL:

...7

0‘...

'v-

s.”

 

 

 

 

64

Cumulative Grade

 

 

Point Average -1.49 1.50-1.99 2.00-2.49 2.50-2.99 3.00+
IV. Marital Status
Single 16 61 74 30 17
Married 0 l 2 S 1

V. Number of Children

No Children 16 0 62 76 32 17
1 Child 0 O 0 1 0
2 Children 0 O 0 2 1
VI. Father Living
Yes 15 56 75 32 17
No l 6 1 3 1
VII. Father's Occupational
Level
I Professional 1 5 13 4 4
II Proprietors, Managers,
Officials O 4 8 1 4
III Clerks and Sales 3 16 11 7 4
IV Skilled 7 22 32 14 4
V Semi—Skilled l 5 5 2 1
VI Unskilled 2 3 3 4 O
VII Retired or no Evidence
of an Occupation 2 7 4 3 1
VIII. Father is U.S. Citizen
Yes 15 62 76 34 18
No 1 O 0 l 0
IX. Father's Education
Average 11.81 12.06 11.99 11.23 12.11
Range 7-17 8-17 6—17 6-17 10-16
Frquency 0 0 1 1 0
7 2 O O O O
8 O 3 6 3 O
9 l 1 5 1 O
10 O 5 5 3 2
11 1 5 2 0 2
12 8 35 40 17 12
13 O 3 3 1 8
14 3 3 4 2 0
15 0 l 2 1 2
Unanswered 0 O O

 

 

65
Cumulative Grade
Point Average -l.49 1.50—1.99 2.00—2.49 2.50—2.99 3.00+

X. Highest Degree
Held by Father

H.S. Diploma 11 41 48 21 12

College Degree 0 5 7 4 2

Masters Degree 1 2 2 0 O
XI. Mother Living

Yes 16 62 75 32 18

No 0 0 l 3 0

XII. Mother's Occupational

Level
I Professional 2 4 2 3 0
II Proprietors, Managers,
Officials O 0 3 0 0
III Clerks and Sales 5 12 13 7 0
IV Skilled O 2 O O O
V Semi—Skilled O 0 O l 0
VI Unskilled 0 O 7 4 2
VII Retired or no Evidence
of an Occupation O O 1 3 0
Housewife 9 44 50 17 16
XIII. Mother is U.S. Citizen
Yes 15 62 76 34 18
No 1 0 0 l 0
XIV. '
rszrzges Education 12.13 12.22 11.81 11.71 11.60
Range 7—16 8—16 8—18 4-17 8-14
Frequency 0 O O 1 0
7 1 o 0 0 0
8 0 3 6 2 1
9 l 2 l O 1
10 1 4 5 3 1
ll 0 3 1 0 O
12 7 35 52 25 12
13 2 O 2 l g
14 1 8 8 1 0
15 0 l 0 O 0
l6 2 6 0 1 o
17 O O O 1 0
Unanswered 1 0 O

Cumulative Grade

66

 

 

Point Average —1.49 1.50-1.99 2.00-2.49 .50—2.99 3.00+
XV. Highest Degree
Held by Mother
H.S. Diploma 10 43 62 27 13
College Degree 2 7 O 1 0
Masters Degree 0 O 1 l 0
XVI. Siblings
Average 1.63 2.35 2.09 2.37 2.44
Range 0—6 0—14 0—5 0-5 0—10
Frequency
0 4 4 10 3 1
1 5 19 19 5 7
2 3 l9 19 14 4
3 2 11 16 6 2
4 1 4 6 3 2
5 0 2 6 4 1
6 l O 0 O O
7 0 1 O 0 O
9 O 1 0 0 0
10 0 0 O O 1
14 O l 0 O O
XVII. Family Attended
Tri—State
Yes 0 7 8 5 3
No 16 55 68 30 15
If Yes
Brother 4 2 3 O
Brother-in-law 0 0 O 1
Father 1 4 0 2
Uncle 2 2 2 O

Beautician

Cashier

City Treasurer
Clerk

Cook

Factory Worker
Housewife

Nurse
Office‘Worker

Real Estate Broker
Self Employed
Teacher

Telephone Operator
Waitress

APPENDIX AJDKHEI VIII

SUBJECTS STATED RUTHERS' OCCUPATIJN

 

67

68

APPENDIX A-TABLT IX

SUBJECTS STATED FATHE “' OCCUPATICN

Architectural Engineer Restaurant Manager
Auditor Retired
Bacteriologist Sales Engineer
Bank Teller Security Guard
Broadcaster Self Employed
Butcher Teacher

City Health Officer Tool and Die Maker
Civil Service Employer Trucker

Claim Adjuster Unemployed

Clerk Warehouse Employee
Construction Worker Welder

Crane Operator Yard Master

Die Setter

Draftsman

Electrical Engineer

Farmer

Field Representative

Fireman

Floor Layer

Golf Pro

Heating Contractor
IBM Programmer
Insurance Salesman
Laboratory Technician
Laborer

Lathe Operator
Mechanic

Meter Reader
Military Man

Milk Driver

Mill Worker

Night Club Owner
Office Worker
Painter
Patternmaker

Plant Inspector
Plant Supervisor
Plastic Molder
Plumber

Postal Clerk
Purchasing Agent
Railroad Clerk
Real Estate Broker
Repairman

APPENDIX A-TABLE X

Iii ALGAE/BIS OF ACALEX-ZIC . 1
BASED ON TEEIR DECLLMD C :2: 3.1'1‘311111‘

_‘W. 1 1-1.
“ ' ._‘12~.I' CV SERUM ,

69

 

 

 

 

 

Freshmen
N=233
Committed fen~Counittcd
M=118 N=11§
Successful
Academic Achievement Number Yunbcr
3.00+ 7 11
201-19 - 2000 Ag ‘5-
Total 70 59
Unsuccessful
Academic Achievement Number M22223
'3
1.99 - 1.50 30 :2
104-19 " 1'2 :2:
148 56

Total

70

APPENDIX B

E.P.P.S. Intercorrelation Tables

 

APPENDIX B—TABLE I

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND ZERO-ORDER CORRELATION MATRIX
OF 233 FRESHMEN MALE COLLEGE STUDENTS' ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
AND THE RELATIONSHIP TO SELECTED NON-INTELLECTUAL VARIABLES

71

 

\OGDNO‘UI-waH

bbbbbbwwwwwwwwwwNNNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
u1$~uaharlc>m>aaxscxuwc~uannhac>m>a>xlo~UIbwgIVpdcaxocn~Jc\U1$~uaNDPJCD

Variables 'X S.D.

Total H.P.A. 2.1943 0.5245
Age 18.3085 1.6292
Major 4.9701 2.3977
Theoretical
Economic
Aesthetic
Social
Political
Religious
Achievement
Deference
Order
Exhibition
Autonomy
Affiliation
Intraception
Succorance
Dominance
Abasement
Nurtrance
Change
Endurance
Hetrosexuality
Aggression
Consistency
Hometown Size
Marital Status
Father Living
Father's Occ.
Social Status
Education
Degrees Held
Mother Living
Mother's Occ.
Education
Degrees Held
Siblings

Rank in H.S.
Grade Point (1)

3

.1093
.0471

4

.0783
.1988**
-.0569

 

—__

31"}:

Dec. Class.

Grade Point (2)

Verbal

Quantitative

Total SCAT

Grade Point (3)

E Of .138 is significant at .05 with 200 df.
E Of .181 is significant at .01 with 200 df.

72

 

 

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
.0163 -.O904 .0061 -.1689 .0839 .1359 .0856 .0177
.0093 .0631 -.1525* .0854 -.1120 .1738* .1161 .1732*
.0841 -.0329 -.1171 .1737* -.0703 .0740 .0096 -.1253
.1352 .1581* -.0912 .1010 -.1912** .2462** .0139 .1026
--- -.1667* -.0288 .1778* -.0898 .1363 .1055 .0909

--- .0028 -.0528 —.2360** .0135 .0066 -.0127
--- -.0953 .1843** -.O777 .0511 .0055

--- -.0559 .1268 .0131 .0288

--- -.0434 .1370 .1406

--- .1634* .1096

"" o3748**

 

 

73

 

 

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-.2100** -.0836 -.0134 .0631 .0161 -.0387 .0458 -.0111
-.2096** -.0346 -.1594* .1722* -.2227** -.0197 -.1669* -.1005

.0413 -.0240 .0180 -.0035 .0347 .0752 -.0949 -.0469
.0628 .0860 -.O949 .0662 -.1549* .0572 -.1858* -.1852**
.0122 .0284 -.1162 -.1515* -.0652 .0529 -.0049 -.1007
.1203 .1818** .0458 .0395 -.0058 -.0518 -.0196 .0641
.0117 -.O931 .1057 .0104 .2777** -.0198 .1985* .2304**
.0203 -.0888 -.1531* -.0561 -.1081 .2977** -.1639* -.2821**
-.0789 -.1496* .0648 -.0483 .1008 -.0555 .2627** .0935
.1073 .1430* -.3096 -.0683 .0046 .2294** -.2084** -.2595**
.0197 -.2293** -.0676 -.O394 -.0215 -.0849 .0244 .0115
-.1250 -.1471* -.2581** -.1470* .0342 -.1193 .0861 -.1947**
--- .2362** -.0830 -.0292 .0715 .1538* -.1423* -.1696*
--- -.1935** .0239 -.O320 .1007 -.2375** -.2259**
--- -.1170 .0445 -.2097** .0931 .5663**
--- -.1498 .0067 .1090 -.0114
--- -.1615* .0356 .1558*
--- -.1830* -.3156**

 

.2545**

 

74

 

 

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-.1653* .1265 -.0484 -.0972 .0196 -.0516 .0999 -.0309
.0514 .1436* -.0525 -.1458* -.0971 .0438 .4937** .1976**
-.0617 -.2089** .0353 .1018 .1438* .0173 .0734 -.o495
.0503 .0844 .0166 .0630 -.0243 .0604 .0955 .1545*
-.0171 .1281 .0482 .1479* .1252 .0109 .1647* .0898
.1799* -.1107 .0751 .0607 .0269 -.1157 -.0348 .0356
-.0942 -.0799 -.O600 -.2177** -.O677 -.0193 -.1013 -.O496
-.0710 -.0670 .0144 .2130** -.0361 .1552* -.0064 .0131
-.2262** .2032** -.2158** -.1176 .0524 .0974 -.0563 —.1250
-.0738 .1898** -.1224 .0614 .0601 .0553 .1408* -.0283
.0340 .2864** -.0932 -.0817 -.0139 .0602 .0890 -.0364
-.1274 .3419** -.0417 -.1023 -.0526 -.0879 .1490* .1022
.1661* -.1884** .1790* .2463** .1644* .1101 -.1552* -.0647
.1527* -.0976 .0297 .4334** .0874 .0081 -.0274 -.0488
.1239 -.1487* .0205 -.2199** .0737 -.0554 -.1888** .0092
.0124 -.0688 -.1675* -.0805 -.0530 .0281 .0273 -.0543
-.1357 -.2048** .0808 .0450 .0077 -.0980 -.1895** -.0632
.0228 .0485 -.0264 .2319** .0188 .1169 .0344 .0029
-.1852** .1039 -.1131 -.1432* -.0222 -.0487 -.1567* -.1489*
-.0148 -.1316 -.O968 -.2328** -.0247 -.1552* -.0775 .0097
--- -.0990 .0165 -.0348 .0987 -.0213 -.0773 .0351
--- -.1503* -.0271 -.0292 -.O693 .1518* .0145
--- .2106** .1920** .1083 -.0738 .1374
--- .0991 .0942 -.O778 -.0097
--- -.0347 -.0824 -.0453
--- -.0570 .0472

.0919

 

75

 

 

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
-.1304 -.0064 -.1001 -.0292 .1075 -.0636 -.1913** -.1463*
-.o488 -.1376* -.2820** -.0535 .1702* .1077 -.2307** .0059

.0978 .0267 .1403* .0757 .0166 -.0435 .0307 .0559
-.1320 -.1380* -.0066 .0379 -.0016 -.0057 .0370 .1179
-.1023 -.1351 -.0531 -.0516 -.0106 .0318 -.0289 -.0427

.0139 .0292 .0318 .1419* -.1267 .1208 .0382 -.0666

.0311 .0984 -.0574 .0030 -.0620 .0132 .0043 -.0694
-.0570 .0264 .0761 -.0636 .0911 -.1147 -.0903 .0382

.0351 .0652 -.0006 .0111 -.0067 .0014 -.0367 .0520

.0120 -.0108 -.0384 -.0187 .0662 -.0617 -.1299 .0012

.0538 .0265 -.0738 .0793 .0010 .0194 -.0437 -.14S8*

.0538 -.0507 -.1321 .0532 .0759 -.0421 -.1678* -.0879

.0209 .1277 .2143** .0723 -.0867 .0935 .1842** .0509
-.0752 .0534 .1234 .0691 -.1030 .0450 .1485 .1122
-.0295 -.0337 -.0265 —.0748 .0078 .0397 -.0178 -.2071**
-.0261 -.0040 .0069 -.0443 -.0832 -.0717 -.0002 .0828

.0524 .0023 .1729* .0767 .0315 -.0317 .1097 -.0555
-.0152 -.0529 .1118 -.0003 -.0831 -.0193 .0260 1335
-.0252 .0855 .0709 .0268 -.0587 -.0885 .0117 -.1537*
-.0389 -.0000 -.0647 -.0264 -.0178 .0468 -.0079 -.1074

.0141 -.0372 -.0234 -.0107 -.0157 .1038 .1604* .1084

.0173 -.0251 -.1699* -.0342 .0515 -.0219 -.1541* -.0844

.0238 -.0500 .0384 .0615 .0073 .1177 -.0311 -.0167
-.0509 .0008 .1773* .1492* -.0562 .0374 .1068 1050

.0099 -.0332 .1150 .0772 -.0898 .0722 -.0553 .0791

.0041 -.1112 .1559* .1226 -.0065 .1486* .0609 .0457
-.1312 -.2298** -.1483* —.0669 .0924 -.0393 -.1076 .0034
-.2775** -.6937** -.0972 .0378 -.0359 .0127 -.O963 .0325

--- .2710** .0055 .0048 -.0374 .1873** .1177 .2036**

--- .0129 -.1572* .0767 .0451 -.0019 -.0703
--- .5717** .0084 .0766 .2510** 1035

--- -.0468 .2062** .1380 .0087

--— -.O946 —.0502 -.0296
--- .0873 1442*

2824**

76

 

 

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
.0305 -.3023** .7044 -.0643 .6765** .2850** .2607** .2825**
-.0691 .0236 .0214 .0011 -.0384 .0163 -.1686* -.O820
-.0843 .0882 .0084 -.0427 .2003** -.0461 -.2387** -.1293
.0821 .1541 -.O996 .0817 -.0703 -.0239 .0610 .0133
.0040 .0109 -.0564 -.0799 .0676 .0534 .0498 .0901
.0005 .1000 -.0335 .0514 -.1352 .0150 -.1537* -.0503
.0858 -.0351 -.0400 .1309 .0102 -.1023 -.0701 -.1163
-.0971 .2319** -.1546* -.0860 -.0719 -.0853 -.1476* -.1734*
-.0661 -.1547* .0764 .0302 .1001 -.1056 -.0017 -.0766
-.0529 .0281 .0498 -.0124 .0683 .0696 .0618 .0586
-.0236 -.0261 .0738 -.0711 .1107 -.1244 -.0824 -.0865
.0395 -.0158 -.O836 -.0977 .0425 -.1897** .0104 -.0891
-.1182 .0781 -.1918** -.0373 -.1976** -.0293 -.0516 -.0484
-.0620 .0167 -.0848 .0213 -.1090 .190544 .0782 .1911*
-.0116 -.0877 .0517 .1435* -.0655 -.0750 .0271 -.0125
-.0271 .0629 .1088 .0438 .0277 .1653* .0144 .1657
-.0583 -.0416 -.0120 -.0519 .0512 -.1054 .0669 -.0093
-.0785 .0260 -.0074 -.o135 -.0016 .0746 -.0852 -.0641
.0058 .0188 .0723 -.1070 .0413 -.1149 .0430 -.0662
.0564 -.0949 .0133 .1412 -.0464 -.0396 -.0005 -.0029
-.0073 .0205 -.1092 -.0040 -.0902 .0529 -.1334 -.0220
.0498 -.1999** .0744 -.0433 .1118 .0606 .1492* .0403
-.0000 .0503 -.0756 -.0967 -.1160 .0291 -.0647 -.0490
-.1479* .0417 -.1067 -.0502 -.0484 .1016 -.0026 .0556
-.0175 -.0668 -.0011 -.O6OO -.0767 .0910 .0300 .0826
-.2327** .1309 -.0079 -.0231 -.0348 .0314 -.0719 .0342
-.0354 -.0889 .0414 .0521 .0291 .0673 -.0481 .0324
.0156 -.0048 -.0128 -.2984** -.0239 .0308 .0412 .0498
-.1166 -.0113 -.1544* .2741** -.0000 -.1205 -.1143 -.1344
.0916 -.0147 -.1019 .4452** .0040 -.1857* -.0346 -.1392*
-.0874 .0601 -.0726 -.2172** -.0844 .0380 -.1009 .0358
-.0254 -.0378 -.0127 -.2509** -.1009 .0189 -.0004 .0246
.0827 .0869 .0825 -.1070 .0502 .0316 -.o140 .0208
-.0948 -.0448 -.0674 .0511 -.1196 ..0101 -.1151 -.0305
-.1701* .0645 -.0690 .0034 -.2006** .0396 -.0279 .0585
.0416 .1500* -.1048 .0886 -.0804 .1195 -.0621 .0629
--- -.0079 .0002 -.0578 .0412 -.0997 .0623 -.0573
--- -.2145** -.0702 -.2026** -.0740 -.27S8** -.1426*
--- -.0742 .4932** .2515** .2815** .2640**
--- -.0867 -.0479 .0797 -.0059
-—- .1135 .1207 .1333
-—- .2951** .7655**

.6225**

77

 

45

 

.8237**
.1580*
.1458*
-.0175
.0310
-.0766
.0544
.0876
.0073
.1498*
.0368
.0119
.1026
.0169
.0198
.0002
.0023
.0032
.0292
.0053
.1829**
.0635
.0619
.0852
.0639
.1177
.1414*
.0524
.1025
.0820
.1053
.0649
.1378*
.0519
.2172**
.1470*
.0156
.2117**
.3710**
.0071
.4253**
.2166**
.2075**
.2018**

 

uu yup—HL.-.-a-<

 

 

 

 

[U

¥¥0N.N

1. A. a)! 4.4H4 -.l.fi-

 

0040. 00.4 0040. 00. 0000.- 00.0 04.04 666666060 04
00.4 4040. 00.4 0440. 04.4 0000. 00.0 40.04 606E6>64060 0
44. 0400. 44.4 0400. 04.0 00.40 666404460 0
«004.4 4040.- «00.0 4040.- 00.4 0400.- 40.0 00.00 466404460 4
00.4 0000. 00. 0000. 40. 0400.- 40.0 00.00 464660 0
40. 0400. 04. 0000. 40.0 40.00 640606660 0
00. 4000.- 00. 0000. 00.4 00.00 64646660 0
00. 0400.- 00.4 0400.- 00.0 00.00 46646666600 0
0.04.0 4400. «440.4 0400. 00. 0000.- 00.4 40.0 66062 4
4400.0 4000. 00.4 0400. «444.0 4040. «444.4 0040. 00.4 40.04 600 4
M. :n: M. :n: M. :n: M. :n: cowum0>ma cmmz manmwum>
.00660 .00660 .00660 .00660 06666660
«0mm.0 n m
00. u 00 .00
.40 .00 .40 .40
.04 .44 .04 .04 «004.4 - 0 4400.000 6 0
.04 .44 .44 .04 00. n 00 .00 00. u 00 0.40.00
00 a“ he 0N .Howm ARM «to. “How.“

.00 .00 .40 .4.00 00. - 00 ....

u 0
.4000

 

 

HZMZm>MHmU< UHEMQ<U< ho ZOHHUHmem MIR ZH cum: muz<UHhHZUHm mo mHmmH OZ< <H<o >m<zzbm

MUMAAOU mH<HmIHxH H4 mHZmQDHm ZMZmemm mq<z MMN mo

HH m4m<Hlm XHQZMLA<

 

 

Ila-I9; Ill-3E
440.4 4004.- 00. 0404.- 00. 0040.- 04. 00.4 064>44 66066.4 44
4400.4 0004.- 00.4 0404.- 440.0 0404.- 04. 00.4 666660 466466: 04
00. 0400.- 00.4 4040. 00.4 40.4 6364 666: 06 6640 04
04. 0000.- 00. 4000. 00.0 00.0 46666646660 04
00. 0400.- 00.4 4000. 00.0 00.44 6646666000 04
00. 0000. 40.4 0400.- 04.0 04.04 46446646666660 44
00. 0400.- 00. 4000. 44.0 40.04 666666060 44
4440.0 0040.- 04.4 0440.- 44. 0400. 00.0 04.04 606660 04
4400.4 0440.- 04.4 4040.- 44. 4400.- 00.0 40.04 666666662 04
44. 0400. 04. 0400. 04.0 00.04 666666600 04
00. 4000. 00.0 4000.- 44.0 00.04 666664660 44
00. 4400. 00. 0000. 40.0 44.44 6666666660 04
00. 0000. 40. 0000. 00.0 00.04 664666666664 04
40. 0400. 04. 0400.- 40.0 00.04 66466444400 04
00. 0000.- 00.0 0000.- 04.0 40.04 46666660 04
4400.0 4440.- 404.0 0440.- 00. 0400.- 00.0 00.04 6646404040 44
04. 0400.- 40. 0400.- 00. 0000. 40.0 00.04 46060 44
M- :n: M :n: w- :n: M :44: 4400044044604 44me
.00660 .00660 .40660

6406466>
.00660 06666660

 

40. 0400.- 00.0 00.00 664666466660 40
00.4 0400. 44.0 44.40 460666 40
4440.40 4400.00 0404. 40. 00.4 66464 60660 00
4400.4 0040.- 44.4 0040.- 40. 0000.- 04.4 44.0 66466640466640
465004693000 om
4400.004 4400.004 0004. 44. 40.4 66466 66660 00
4400.04 4000.- 4404.44 4000.- 4400.0 400.0 4000.- 00.004 00.040 66640 64 4660 40
40. 4400.- 00.4 0440. 44.4 44.4 60644040 00
04. 0040.- 00. 4000.- 04. 04. 6666660 00
4444.0 0440.- 00.4 4040.- 00.4 0000. 00.4 00.44 664666600 00
40. 0000.- 00. 4000.- 04.0 44.0 6646666660
6.66666: 00
400.4 0000. 04.4 0404. 00.4 4044.- 04. 40.4 064>44 66666: 40
00.4 0004.- 00. 0440.- 04. 0040. 00. 44. 646: 6666060 40
00. 0000.- 04. 0000. 00.4 00.44 664666660 00
40. 0400. 40. 0000.- 44.4 00.04 666660 464660 04
4440.0 0000.- 40.4 4000.- 44. 0000.- 00.04 04.04 6646666660
6.666660 04
M. :n: M. :n: M. M. :n: coauwfi>mo cmwz 64n6446>
.mwmoo .wwmou .wwmou vuwvcmum

81

.6666665U 664:6 mo 50446HQE06 6:6 um .<.m.s 6>44605E5o u y

.H6>6a 6:6646a HC. 634 um acmowwwcaww ««
.06>6H uc66669 me. 636 um uamuwwwawwm «

 

 

 

406 004.000 406 004.40 406 004.000 406 004.40
40. um 40. um 40. 66 Ho. 46
66645066 mw.4 66605666 04.0 66645664 mw.a 66445664 00.0
mo. 66 mo. 46 mo. 46 mo. um
66605664 0m.a 66645664 mm.m 66405666 0m.H 66605664 mm.m
N0m0.N m0m0.4 Hamm. mmma. mm. a4.m 4:40m 66660
6>44645E5u m0
64mm.00m mmmc. «6cm.mm0 0000. me. oo.N unwom 66660 00
«43m.04 mmoo. «4am.m4 4440. mo. mooo. Ho.m4 mw.04 46609 m0
M ..0.. ..0 :0: .4. :0: .04. :0: 664 664.460 666: 64064666
.ww6ou .u46oo .mw6oo .ww6ou numvcwum

ICHI RN STRTE UN

0 IV. LIBRARIES
IV ”H H munmm lHlHll‘llll‘WWII”HI
10 173834

llH II!
31293

 

H
0