CRITICAL THINKING, ATTITUDES
AND VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH
FRATERNITY MEMBERSHIP

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CHARLES G. EBERLY
1970

III III I I IIIIIIIIIIII‘IIILIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEII L.

3 1293

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Critical Thinking, Attitudes and Values
Associated with Fraternity Membershipr

presented by

Charles G. Eberly

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Adminis tration and

Ph.D.
Higher Education

degree in

7'
Q/W % a '
1v // {/2 y/Ls/L’LLEZT

Major professor

Date May 14, 1970

0-169

LI':R.-" Y

’ls’iitl} igan :51. He
University

 

  

 

II! anox amnsnv me.

I. I" LIBRARY BINDERS

  

”unis & sous It

 

._.._.._-__ ,

 

 

 

 

7 ”gagglkloggooz

MAN 9 @0624

 

 

,ABSTRACT

CRITICAL THINKING, ATTITUDES AND VALUES
ASSOCIATED WITH FRATERNITY MEMBERSHIP

By
Charles G. Eberly

This study examined differences in critical thinking,
attitudes and values among four groups of Michigan State University
male students defined by degree of association with social fraternities.
The groups (N = #6 each) were (1) Greeks: men who joined and remained
in fraternities, (2) Dropouts: men who joined and later dropped out
of fraternities, (3) Pledgeouts: men who pledged but never formally
joined fraternities, and (H) Stayouts: men who never formally
associated with fraternities.

The entire population of H77 students with complete records
were separated into four classifications. All groups except one,
where all subjects in the classification were used, were randomly
selected from the classifications. Subjects were students who entered
as freshmen in fall, 1958, and were in attendance during each fall,
winter, and spring term through spring, 1962.

Groups were compared at three points in time:(l) at the
beginning of the freshnan.year, (2) at the end of the freshman year,
and (3) at the end of the senior year. Instruments used in the study

were The College_Qualification Test, The MSU Reading Test, A Test of

 

 

Charles G. Eberly

Critical 'I'hinidng, Form G, The Inventory of Beliefs , Rokeach' s

 

Dogmatism Scale , The Differential Values Inventog, and The Senior-

 

 

Year Experience Inventory. Cognitive instruments were administered

 

only at the beginning of the freshman year. Affective instruments

were administered at all three points in time. The Senior-Year

 

Experience Inventory was administered at the end of the senior year .

 

A test score profile analysis technique using analysis
of variance as the statistical tool was the principal means for
determining significance of difference in test score profile and
level among groups . Kendall' s Coefficient of Concordance and
chi-square tests were used where analysis of variance was not applicable.
In all computations the . 05 level of confidence was used to
determine statistical significance .

At entrance to college there was no simple statistical
difference in test score profile or level anong the groups on
scores from the six published instruments . However, considering only
the three instruments used in the longitudinal study , the Inventory
of Beliefs, A Test of Critical Thinking, and The Differential Values

 

 

Inventory, Greeks were statistically different in test score level
but not profile from Stayouts at all three times . The additional
data considered in the first analysis may have resulted in a Type II
statistical error. Greeks were lower on critical thinking scores
and higher on measures of stereotypy and other-directedness than
Stayouts . These results appear to demonstrate yet another instance
where input determines output . The variability of the groups
around test score means was similar for all three points in time.

For all groups , senior scores on the Dggnatism Scale were more

 

Charles G. Eberly

homogeneous than freshman scores. Specific aspects of University
experience reinforcing or modifying original attitudes and beliefs

could generally be placed in two categories: (I) fandliar or specialized
activities could be called reinforcing, and (2) unfamiliar or general
education activities were generally modifying. All groups except
Stayouts, who chose the vocational type, were most likely to choose

the non-conformist type of the ClarkrTrow student typologies.

However, of those students choosing the collegiate typology, two-thirds
were Greeks. The attractiveness of the noneconfOrmist typological
description used in this researCh may have influenced the direction

of student responses.

CRITICAL THINKING, ATTITUDES AND VALUES

ASSOCIATED WITH FRATERNITY MEMBERSHIP

By

Charles G . Eberly

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration
and Higher Education

1970

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sincere appreciation is expressed to Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker,
Dr. Andrew Porter, and Dr. James McKee for their helpful cooperation
as members of the guidance committee.

Inspiriting assistance was offered at all stages of this
study by Dr. w. Harold Grant who served as Chairman of the guidance
committee. Dr. Grant's freSh insight into the human meanings of
numerical data was especially helpful.

Special thanks must be directed to the staff of the
Office of Evaluation Services of Michigan State University; to
Dr. Irvin Lehmann, who released the data, to Dr. Willard warrington,
who released the time to complete the study, and Dr. LeRoy Olson,
who offered many critical suggestions. Many other people should
be mentioned, including Dr. Ernest Thedinga and Dr. Eugene Cech
of Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh, who first encouraged me toward
doctoral study.

To my wife, Sharon, and to my daughters, Mary and Judith,
I give my thanks for being so patient with an absent husband and

father.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............... . .

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ............ . . . . ......
Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION . . . ....................

Spheres of Influence . . . . . . ....... . . . . .

Statement 0f'the Problem, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Characteristics Investigated. . . ........ .

Hymthe S e S O O C O O O O I O O I O O I O O O O O O O O O O O
Ifinfitations of the Study. . . . ....... . . .

3.

Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sunnen37.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RELATED RESEARCH. . ........... . . . . .

Research on the College Fraternity. . . .

 

Investigations of Impact. . . . . . . . . .

 

Longitudinal Studies. . . . . . . . . . .
Residential Impact. . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

fhnnnxny . . . . . . . . . . . . ......
METHODOLOGY .............. . .
Definition of the Population. . . . . . .

 

Geller‘al izab H {W O O O C O O O O O 0 O O O O

 

Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
' Research Design . . . . . ..... . . .
Statistical HyPo'thes'es. . . .......
' Data ColleCtion . . . . . ...... . .
‘Analysis of Data. . . . .........
Scale ”Development . ...........
DefinitiOns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Additional Item.Groups. . . .......
Student'Typologies. . . . . . ......
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O O ......
O O O O
...... O O
O O ......
O O O .....
........
O .......
........
O O O O O
O O O O O G
........
O O O O

H

l—‘OQUlU'I-PM

F‘F’

12
1H
19
2M
29

32

32
3M
35
39
to
us
an
1+7
as
55
55
55

Chapter Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

u. ANALXSIS OF DATA . ..................... 57
Published Instruments .................... 57
HyPOthesis l ................... . . . . 58
‘flypOthesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 60
HypothesesTS’and H ....... . . ..... . ..... 63
HypotheSis S . . . . . ..... . ........ . . . . 69
'Hypothesis‘g . . . . . . . . . . . ............ 71
‘flypothesisi7. . ....... . ......... 76
Senior—Year Experience Inventory. . ............ 78
Hypothesis 8 . . . . .». . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . 78

"' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 82

‘Student Typologies . . . . . . ............ . . 89
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . 93

5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............. 9H
Purpose and Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 9H
’Find‘“ 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
DiscuSSion and Conclusions . ...... . ...... . . . 100
Ldnfitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Suggestions fOr Phrther ResearCh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 106
APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . 111

A. SenioreYear Experience Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
B. Senior-Year EXperience Inventory Scales With Low Reliability 123
C. Senior—Year’Experience Inventory Factor Analyses . . . . . . 127
D. Item.weights Fbr SenioreYear Experience Inventory Scales . . 137

iv

Table

3.1

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8

4.9

4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17

4.18

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Year and Term.of First.Association With
Fraternities for Greeks, Dropouts, and Pledgeouts . . . . . 34

Variance Analysis for Hypothesis 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Pest-HCC Contrasts: Hypothesis 1 Variance Analysis . . . . 59
Variance Analysis for Hypothesis 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
PoSt-HOC Contrasts: Hypothesis 2 Variance Analysis. . . . . 62
Variance Analysis for Hypotheses 3 and 4. . . . . . . . . . 63
Post-Bee Contrasts: Hypotheses 3 and 4 Variance Analysis. . 65
Dogmatism Variance Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Hypothesis 5 Variance Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Estimates of the Interaction Parameters:
Hypothesis 5 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7O

Levene Variance Analysis, Fall, 1958. . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Levene Variance Analysis, Spring, 1959. . . . . . . . . . . 75
Levene Variance Analysis, Spring, 1962 ..... . ..... 75
Levene Variance Analysis, Hypothesis 7. . . . . ...... 77
Levene Dogmatism.Dispersion.Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Rave Scales Variance Analysis . . . . . . ........ . 79
PbSt-HOC Contrasts: SRI Rave Analysis . .......... 8O
Levene Variance Analysis: SRI Scales. . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Self-Perceived Impact of Various Courses
on Attitudes and Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Table

4.19

4.20

4.21

4.22

4.23

4.24

4.25

Page

Self-Perceived Impact of Various Instructors
on Attitudes and Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Self-Perceived Impact of Peers on Attitudes and Values. . . 86

Self-Perceived Impact of Student Organizations on
Attitudes and Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Self-Perceived Impact of Student Activities on
Attitudes and Values. . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . 87

Self-Perceived Impact of University Facilities
on Attitudes and Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Self-Perceived Impact of Other Influences on
Attitudes and Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Self-Perceived Typology Changes fawn
Freshman to Senior Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 91

vi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Illustration

3.1 ResearchDesigns...........

4.1 Group Mean Score Profile, Spring, 1959 . .......
4.2 DognatismMean Score Profile . . . . . .

4.3 Test Dispersions Common to All Times . .

vii

Page
40
62
68

73

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The first sentence of Baird's Manual of American College

 

Fraternities states: "The American college fraternity is an American

 

institution and the chapter in the form.it ideally exists on the college
campus is a miniature of the larger American democracy" (Robson, 1963).
Since its founding in 1776, the American college fraternity system.has
continued to assert that it is a character-building institution supportive
of the ideals of the American democracy and the educational objectives
of higher education . Authors in fraternity publications never tire of
pointing with pride to the large numbers of fraternity alumni serving
the country in high governmental , business and educational offices . Such
men, their accaiplishnents and their personal endorsements , are displayed
as justification by fraternity leaders to demonstrate the personality-
rounding developmental opportunities to be found in the college fraternity
experience. The following statements by Mike Mansfield, Majority Leader
of the united States Senate, and Mark O. Hatfield, Senator from.Oregon,
are examples (NIC, 1959):
When men live and work together in a fraternal association in
college they enhance each other ' 5 growth and each other ' s .
capacity to contribute to the larger fraternities of communrty ,
state, nation and world.
Fraternity life inspires intellectual development , spiritual
and ethical points of view. This kind of brotherhood molds and
gentles its young members and challenges them through self-
government, courtesy, group living and character.

1

2

Such statements implicitly accept the hypothesis, not proved,
that men who join college fraternities develop in societally sanctioned
ways as a result of their fraternity experience which remain undeveloped
or are at best poorly developed in men who do not join fraternities. It
is an accepted fact that students who join fraternities are already diff-
erent from other students via processes of fraternity group selection and
individual self-selection. Since those who join may be differentially
characterized, the question arises whether the "personality—rounding"
development claimed by fraternity advocates might be more a result of the
prior development of the men themselves than a product of their experiences.

It would be interesting and valuable to analyze data which
might shed light on aspects of personality development-habits of thought,
attitudes, values and beliefs-of a group of fraternity men as they have
progressed through college. This information could then be compared and
contrasted with similar data from a group of nonefraternity classmates.
Such a comparison.might suggest areas in which the fraternity experience

may indeed differentially affect student developmental growth.

Spheres of Influence

The significance of this problemlto the greater society is clear.
It would appear that fraternity members are disproportionately represented,
according to their number in the general pOpulation, in organizations which
may critically affect the lives of all citizens. An obvious example is the
individuals who comprise the membership of the United States Congress. Over
30 per cent of Representatives and 65 per cent of Senators in the 89th,
90th, and 918t Congresses were fraternity members, but little more than
one per cent of the American population are college fraternity or sorority

members (Lurding, 1965; Howe, 1967; Howe, 1969).

3
Research data available on the long termlstability of attitudes

and values suggest that they are maintained much as they were upon leaving
college (Feldman.and Newcomb, 1969, pp. 313-317). It would seem.important
to know whether attitudes, values and beliefs may be differentially affected
by the fraternity experience, since the men.Who carry those attitudes,
values and beliefs apparently are likely to become participants in principal
decisionemaking circles of our society.
A case in point is our federal government. In 1964, the 89th
Congress passed the landmark Civil Rights Act. When a controversy regarding
discrimination in his StanfOId.University chapter of Sigma Chi arose,
Senator Lee Metcalf, Montana, requested the opinion of Commnssioner of
Education Francis Keppel about distribution of federal funds to institutions
harboring fraternities practicing ge_facto discrimination (Blackwell, 1966,
pp. 53-54). Keppel's opinion stated the institution.was responsible for
assuring that fraternities did not discriminate. His opinion implied that
noncomplying institutions might lose federal support.
While a complex of events undoubtedly was involved, the 1965

Higher Education Act contained the f0110wing amendment originally introduced
by Representative Joe waggoner, Kappa Sigma, Lousiana (Blackwell, 1966,
p. 54):

Nothing in the act or any other act Shall be construed to

authorize any department...or employee of the United States

to exercise direction, supervision or control over...the

memberShip practices or internal operations of any fraternal

organization, fraternity, sorority, private club, or religious

organization of any institution of higher education whose facilities

are not owned by the institution of higher education and whose

activities are financed by funds derived from.private sources.

Such an amendment, now the "law of the land," has implications far beyond

the limited sphere of college fraternities and sororities. It is interesting

u
to note that the amendment also covers such organizations as the Weather—
men of Students for a Democratic Society.

Regardless of the potential later influence of fraternity meme
bers in American society, fraternities are a prominent campus peer group
organization affecting the thrust of student life (Clark and Trow, 1966,
pp. 20-38). The fraternity should be understood simply because it is a
mediating fOrce between a student and his formal education. Few studies
have surveyed personality-associated attitudes, values and beliefs of
fraternity members, let alone considered changes in such attitudes,

values and beliefs which may be related to fraternity membership.

Statement of the Problem

 

The problem.investigated in this research was the relationship
between fraternity membership and changes in aspects of "personality"--
habits of thought, attitudes, values and beliefs--during four years of
undergraduate study at Michigan State University. It was the purpose of
this study to determine if there were differential changes in the pattern
of stereotypy, beliefs, attitudes and values between fraternity and
nonefraternity students.

Data were available from the Office of Evaluation Services which
enabled a study of developmental change associated with fraternity member—
ship to be performed. Data collected by Lehmann and Dressel for their

reports, Critical Thinking, Attitudes and Values In Higher Education

 

(1962), and Changes In Critical Thinking, Attitudes and Values Associated
With College Attendance (1963), have never been analyzed according to
fraternitybnon-fraternity'membership. The Lehmann-Dressel data presented

a unique opportunity to study the organizational relationship of fraternity

5

membership on factors related to personality development.

List of Characteristics Investigated

 

Characteristics investigated in this study included the follow-
ing: critical thinking, stereotypy, dogmatism, value orientation, academic
aptitude, educational orientation, and self-perceived changes in educa-
tional typology, interpersonal, social, political, economic and religious
attitudes and values. In addition, selected social, economic, political
and religious attitudes at the time of exit from college were surveyed.

With the exception of an inventory constructed for the study,
data were collected by means of published instruments which will be
described in detail in Chapter 3. Pre-test data were collected using:

1. The College Qualification Test, (The Psychological Corporation).
2. The MSU Reading Test, (Michigan State University).

 

 

Pre-test and post-test data.were collected using:

3. The Test of Critical Thinking, Fbrm.G, (The American Council
on Education).

4. The Inventory of Beliefs, Form.I, (The American Council on
Education).

5. Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form.E, (Milton Rokeach, Michigan
State Universityi.

6. The Differential Values Inventogy, (Richard Prince, The
University of ChicagO).

 

 

 

 

Pest-test data only were collected using:

7. The Senior—Year Experience Inventory (Michigan State University).

 

Hypotheses

 

As the review of literature in Chapter 2 indicates, there are
relatively few longitudinal studies comparing fraternity and non-frater—
nity students on changes in personality variables. Even those studies
available do not provide consistent evidence about change in one direction

on dimensions of personality.

6

Since the hypotheses stated below were not based on any

particular personality theory which would suggest directionality of

results, and existing research is contradictory or ambiguous , the hypoth-

eses were stated in the classical, nondirectional null form. Specifically,

this study tested the following hypotheses:

1.

Upon initial enrollment in college, there is no difference

on selected cognitive and affective variables among individuals
who eventually join and remain in fraternities, join and

later drop out of fraternities , pledge and never formally

join fraternities , and never formally associate with frater-
nities .

One year after initial enrollment in college , there is no
difference on selected affective variables among individuals
who eventually join and remain in fraternities, join and
later drop out of fraternities , pledge but never formally
join fraternities , and never formally associate with
fraternities .

One year after initial enrollment in college, there is no
difference in degree and direction of change over time on
selected affective variables among individuals who eventually

'join and remain in fraternities, join and later drop out

of fraternities , pledge but never formally associate with
fraternities , and never formally associate with fraternities .

Four years after initial enrollment in college , there is
no difference in degree and direction of change over time
on selected affective variables among individuals who
eventually joined and remained in fraternities , joined
and later dropped out of fraternities , pledged but never
formally associated with fraternities , and never formally
associated with fraternities.

Four years after initial enrollment in college , there is
no difference on selected affective variables among
individuals who eventually joined and remained in
fraternities , joined and later dropped out of fraternities ,
pledged but never formally associated with fraternities ,
and never formally associated with fraternities .

There is no difference in the dispersion of test scores
among individuals who eventually join and remain in
fraternities , join and later drop out of fraternities ,
pledge but never formally associate with fraternities , and
never formally associate with fraternities (1) upon initial
entrance in college, (2) one year after initial enrollment

7

in college, and (3) four years after initial enrollment
in college.

7. There is no difference in the dispersion of test scores over
time within groups (1) one year after initial enrollment in
college, and (2) four years after initial enrollment
in college.

8. Four years after initial enrollment in college, there is
no difference in degree and direction of self-reported
change , or in attitudes and values among indivfduals
who eventually joined and remained in fraternities , joined
and later dropped out of fraternities , pledged but never

formally associated with fraternities , and never formally
associated with fraternities .

9. Four years after initial enrollment in college, there
is no difference in the dispersion of self-reported
change, or in dispersion of attitudes and values , among
individuals who eventually joined and remained in
fraternities , joined and later dropped out of fraternities ,

pledged but never formally associated with fraternities , and
never formally associated with fraternities.

Limitations of the Study

The present study had many of the limitations of longitudinal
studies dealing with measured change over time. While it is important
to consider these limitations in drawing inferences from the findings ,
the lack of research in the area and the availability of sound data
from which such a longitudinal study could be formulated would appear
to be enough to overcome the reservations discussed below.

The first limitation concerned the sample of responses available
for analysis. The group size (N = 46/ group) was dictated by the total
number of students meeting the criteria for inclusion in one of the groups
under study. Furthermore, subjects were available only from a sample of
Students who had completed four years of undergraduate education at
Michigan State University and who had left a complete data record behind

1Zhem. Data were not available for other graduates or for students who ‘

8

dropped out of school sometime during the four years of the original
study, 1958-1962. However, Lehmann and Dressel stated that original
fall, 1958, test scores of those students completing their study were
not significantly different from original test scores of students who,
in effect, dropped out of their study. They draw the conclusion that
their results are thus generalizable to the entire original sample of
students entering Michigan State University in fall, 1958 (Lehmann and
Dressel, 1963, pp. 37-38). Since subjects fOr the present study were
randomly drawn from the males comprising Lehmann and Dressel's data
(except fOr the limiting group), it may be reasonable to justify this
study, too, as generalizable to the entire 1958 entering class at
Midhigan State university. However, it was recognized that while this
assumption may be tenable fOr both studies, knowing that original test
scores for respondents and nonrrespondents are not significantly differ—
ent does not imply that if post-test scores were available for non-
respondents they would not be differential from.post-test scores of
respondents. This would seem to suggest that at best the results of
this study are generalizable to a single Midhigan State University class
group who attended the university during the early part of this decade.
At worst the results are generalizable to a group of students who
graduated from.the University during a given time period, and who left a
complete data record behind them.

A second limitation has been alluded to above. Conclusions drawn
from data collected from 1958 to 1962 may have little or no relation to
the present-day situation. However, there is strong reason to assert that
in view of the rapid change of our campus and society, periodic studies

of campus groups are warranted in order to ascertain where changes have

occured (Lozoff, 1968, Ch. 7).

A third limitation has to do with the size of the groups
studied. Differences across the fraternity and non-fraternity groups,
if any, may be discussed, but the more important differences may indeed
be within the particular types of groups in.which a student has his
associations. It was recognized that mean differences across fraternities
may mask unique differences within individual chapters.

The qualitative categories differentiating the various groups
were a feurth limitation. It was not known how much relative exposure
in actual time spent any of the groups had.with fraternity experiences.

It was only assumed that some had more than others based on students' self-
reports and available data.

.A fifth limitation to be considered.was the measures of
personality used in the study. These measures were used to describe such
personality traits as stereotypy, dogmatism, values and beliefs. One
needs to know if the instruments were sufficiently valid, reliable and
stable for the sample at hand. Furthermore, was there indication that
the instruments measured the same phenomena at one time as at another?
Since such instruments asked each respondent to indicate his opinions or
feelings, was the respondent honest when he answered the items? Finally,
for extreme scorers, was the change registered from one time to another
a "true" Change, or was much of it a.result of the now well known
regression effect? Some of these questions are considered in Chapter III.
For others there is no way of knowing the "true" answer, and one may only
resort to the argument that they are limitations common to many studies of

the type carried out here.

10

Importance of the Study

 

The importance of this study lies in its consideration of the
relationship of fraternity membership to certain educationally desirable
outcomes, i.e., openness to change, flexibility, and critical thinking
ability. More needs to be known about the impacts of environments and
associations to which students let themselves be exposed. If peer group
influence is a significant factor in student development, it is important
to know the relationship that a historically powerful and visibly
prominent peer group--the college fraternity--has on student development.
Knowledge of such relationships can potentially assist educators to make
advantageous use of peer groups in directions congruent with educational
objectives.

Finally, while the "future of fraternities" has apparently
always been "in doubt" according to many critics and some proponents, today
on large multiversity campuses like Michigan State university, the
question of their immediate future may be far more pertinent than
it has been in previous years. If social fraternities do have an
observable impact related to desired educational outcomes, information
about that impact and its direction should be available to those agencies
of the University responsible for student development. This study, viewed
in perspective with previous fraternity studies on this campus and with
studies now in progress on present undergraduate students, can help

provide such information for fraternities at Michigan State University.

11

SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to describe differences, if
any, among fraternity and non-fraternity groups on selected psychological
variables and attributes of personality at the beginning, at the end of

one year, and at the end of four years of undergraduate study at Michigan

State University.

CHAPTER 2
RELATED RESEARCH

This study dealt with (1) the college social fraternity and
(2) its relationship to change on selected personality variables
after four years of undergraduate study.

As Feldman and Newcomb stated in their excellent review, The-

Impact of College On Students (1969, p. 222) there are relatively few

 

longitudinal studies treating the interrelationship of students'group

or residential arrangements and change in personality dimensions.

For the purpose of this study an examination of available literature was
required to determine the impact of the college social fraternity and

the influence of residential or group association on individual personality
develOpment in college.

Research on the
College Fraternity_‘

 

 

Fraternity research has focused primarily on academic potential
and achievement, and less often on personal and social attributes of
fraternity versus non-fraternity students. Most research has been of a
cross-sectional or survey nature done at one point in time. In his review
of such literature, Eberly (1965, pp. 38-41), reported that sufficient
work had been completed in order to describe "typical" fraternity members
as pledges and members as coming from.a wealthy, urban, Protestant,
Republican background and with an anti-intellectual, social orientation

toward higher education. Surveys reported since Eberly's review lend some

12

13
support to his description. At the University of Vermont in 1964 (p. 31)
fraternity members were more likely to be urban and wealthy , but they also
had slightly higher grade averages and more often planned to attend graduate
school. Higher grade averages , however, may be related to academic require-
ments for pledging fraternities. At Florida State University in 1965
(Widmar, p. 315) males planning to join fraternities did not differ from
other males in family characteristics, but more often planned to participate
in extracurricular activities and to attend graduate school . At the Uni-
versity of Wisconsin there were no differences found among the 19 64 Fresh-
man men who rushed and pledged, rushed and did not pledge, or did not
rush on scales of conservatism,po]_itj‘_cal liberalism, or authoritarianism.
However, freshmen who pledged did appear less religious than non-pledges
(Bohrnstedt, 1969) . In this study the two sociological variables that
correlated most highly with whether a student pledged a fraternity were

whether he was Jewish and wealthy (Bohrnstedt, 1966, pp. 144-145).

Apparently differences between fraternity and non-fraternity
students are stable enough that a paper-and—pencil instrument can
differentiate between them successfully. At least at the University of
North Dakota, North Dakota State University and Kansas State University,
differences in selected attitudes between those who joined fraternities
and those who did not were such that a 36-item personality inventory
type scale differentiated fraternity from Ion-fraternity males with "an
84 per cent correct classification rate. . ." using the discriminate analysis

technique (Stone , Skurdal, and Skeen, 1968) .

1n
Investigations of Impact

Surveys may point to initial differences in students who join
fraternities, but they can only allude indirectly or not at all to the
impact of fraternities themselves. Longitudinal designs are far better
suited to search for such effects, but there are few longitudinal studies
which treat developmental change in the same group of students (Feldman
and Newcomb, 1969, p. 222). Some effects on personality-related variables
the fraternity.may have had on the individual as he progressed through
college have been investigated.

One means of inferring impact or change from a survey is to
administer it cross-sectionally to groups at different stages of develop-
ment. The underlying assumption is that all groups, regardless of when
they started, began at the same point and are making the same relative
changes on the attribute(s) under investigation. Such an assumption is
often without support.

Some cross-sectional research reviewed by Newcomb and Feldman
(1969, p. 211) indicated an increase in initial differences between
fraternity and non-fraternity students with year in school toward greater
political and economic conservatism.among "greeks" than independents.
HOwever, not all studies showed initial difference or increasing change
among fraternity and non-fraternity groups, and a few studies showed
convergence. Variables measured by these were "authoritarianism" (Plant,
1966, no difference), "ethnocentrism? (Lozoff, 1967, no change), and
"libertarianismv (Selvin and Hagstrom, 1960, convergence).

A recent study using the cross—sectional approach ended with
the statement "...that a college student develops an enhanced self-concept

and greater self-acceptance and reaches toward higher goals during his

15
affiliation with a fraternity'group on the campus." Hountras and Pederson

administered the Bills Index of Adjustment and Values to fOur'groups of 2H

 

randomly selected students: (1) fraternity freshmen pledges, (2) residence
hall freshmen, (3) fraternity seniors, and (u) residence hall seniors.

Using twoaway analysis of variance and Dunn's 9 test where significant E
ratios were found, they reported no difference between the freshmen groups,
and no difference between residence hall freshmen and seniors on the
instrument's three scales: Selfeconcept, Acceptance of Self, and Ideal
Selfeconcept. Fraternity seniors did have a significantly higher Self-
concept and Ideal Self-Concept than fraternity freshmen, and they were also
significantly higher on all three scales than residence hall seniors. How-
ever, these results may have been "programmed" into the study by the very
fact of selecting senior residence hall students. At Stanford, Lozoff
(1968, pp. 302-310) reported that fOur-year residence hall seniors indicated
least change in themsleves, were least socially confident and needed help
"...in gaining respect fOr themselves as persons," in comparison to
fraternity, offecampus, and "eating club" students. She also reported

that many students left the dormitories as soon as possible (1968, p. 258).
If Lozoff's results may also be applied to students at the University of
North Dakota, self-selection of students out of residence halls would leave,
at the end of fOur years, only those comfortable with what can be called
"...the most dependent and institutionalized.fbrm.of undergraduate living..."
(Lozoff, 1968, p. 298). Such a group surely does not represent all
students not members of fraternities. This clearly limits the global
statement with.which HOuntras and Pederson end their report. A more
appropriate statement would be that after four years, in comparison to

student development in residence halls at the University of North Dakota,

16

student development in fraternities appears to promote an enhanced
self-concept and greater selféacceptance.

TWO cross-sectional studies have employed "The Decalog of
Fraternity Policy," an official statement of fraternity objectives under—
written by all member fraternities of the National Interfraternity
Conference, as a criterion against which to assess the success (impact)
of the college fraternity. At The Pennsylvania State University, Wise
(1963, p. 11) compared the responses of 75 SOphomore and senior fraternity
nembers, and 75 sophomore and senior residence hall students never
formally associated with fraternities, in six areas. He hypothesized
that if fraternities achieved their stated goals, seniors should score
higher than sophomores on measures of social usage, knowledge of cultural
material, social behavior, loyalty to the university, scholarship, and
civic responsibility. He concluded that fraternities had a positive
influence on university loyalty, a negative influence on scholarship, and
no differentiating influence on attitudes about conduct situations,
knowledge of cultural material, and civic responsibility (Wise, 1963,
pp. 119-125). Since Wise computed over 100 t—tests to determine significant
differences between pairs of means, it was not possible to tell which
differences were really significant and which.were not. On the average,
five of his "significant differences" were significant by chance alone.

At Midhigan State University, Henderson (1958) asked 332 fraterb
nity-affiliated graduates of three classes, 19u0-u1, 1950-51, and 1955-56,
to report on a locally developed 86-item questionnaire what they perceived
as the impacts of their college fraternity experience. Responses were
analyzed by year of graduation and degree of involvement in Chapter

operation ("major office holders, minor office holders, and non-office

l7

holders") using Chi Square test of independence (Henderson, 1958, pp. 38-
41). General areas based on Decalog statements Henderson selected to assess
were (1) personal health practices, (2) cultural interests, (3) religious
activities, (4) citizenship participation, and (5) loyalty to the University.
Henderson's data suggested fraternity alumni did maintain a regular
recreational and personal health program and they were slightly more loyal
to the university than to their fraternity as measured by such items as
amount of financial support and attendance at alumni functions. There
appeared to be no relationship between Decalog goals and alumni behavior
in the areas of cultural interests, religious participation (other than
Churdh attendance), and little manifestation of civic responsibilities other
than voting in elections (Henderson, 1958, pp. 123-126). Answers of only
five alumni indicated they knew the content of "The Decalog of Fraternity
Policy."

Conclusions inferring impact of fraternities from.this study
would be hazardous at best since there was no comparison group of non-
fraternity graduates, and well over 100 individual Chi Square statistics
were computed. It was again not possible to tell Which data were significant
since on the average five of Henderson's comparisons were significant by
Chance alone.

Lehmann and Dressel's fOur—year study of student development
at Midhigan State University (1962, pp. 189—218) used a cross-sectional
approach to some aspects of institutional impact. At the end of the senior
year all students were asked to indicate the relative impact of a set of
courses, events, activities, and personal experiences considered a part of
college life. At the end of the freshman, SOphomore and junior years,

random samples of students from.the study population were asked similar

18

questions. Freshman students (N = 253) ranked fraternities 11.5 out of
20 experiences; sophomores (N:= 197) ranked fraternities third, juniors
(N = 291) fifth, and seniors (N = 590) fourth<mrt of a list of fifty
possible experiences (Lehmann and Dressel, 1962, pp. 190, 205, 215, 221).
Lehmann and Dressel did not say how many students in their pOpulation
joined fraternities. Since the samples were random, the best estimate is
that about 20 per cent were affiliated members (Lehmann and Dressel, 1962,
pp. 200-201). If it is reasonable to think that fraternities would not
have muCh of an impact on students not a part of them, two alternative
explanations fOr the above might be that (1) fraternity members almost
always reported their'membership had a major impact on them, or (2) the list
of 50 courses, events and experiences were such that relatively few had any
consequence as students viewed their development. Fraternity impact, as
inferred from.the above data, was apparently a subtle phenomenon. Lehmann
and Dressel (1962, p. 105) state that among both their sophomore and
junior year'interview samples:

...there was no perceptible evidence that fraternity or sorority

membership had any impact upon student personality except that

it might have resulted in those students conforming to a greater

degree than unaffiliated students......either the students

interviewed were not influenced in their behavior by this type

of association, or'they were unaware of any change which could

be attributed to these experiences, or they did not wish to admit

that any changes which came about in them.might have been the

result of their membership in these organizations.

Regardless of defects in design and analysis of data, these

studies may mask effects due not to the system, but to individual chapters
within the system of campus fraternities. At the University of Kansas in

1955, Butler (1959) employed content analysis of #6 in-depth interviews

with students from three high-adhieving and three low-achieving fraternities

19

to look for differences in their level of academic achievement. He
concluded there were differences in attitude and behavior which he hypothe-
sized nay have some salience in explaining differences in achievement.
Essentially, his hypotheses centered in a positive relationship between
high achievement and an atmosphere where active member behavior is congruent
with expectations held for pledges.

Attempts by Elton and Rose (1968) at the University of Kentucky
111 1965 and again in 1966 to differentiate between ".. .the pledges of one
f mternity from the pledges of another fraternity, or the actives of one
fraternity from the actives of another fraternity, or the pledges from the
actives in any individual fraternity," were unsuccessful. Using multiple
discriminate analysis on five scales of the Omnibus Personality Inventory,
C IL) Tolerance and Autonomy, (2) Suppression-Repression, (3) Masculine Role,
C 1+) Scholarly Orientation, and (5) Social Introversion, they twice failed
to distinguish between and within pledges and nembers of eight fraternities.
Since only the eight largest of 16 campus fraternities were included, this
Study nay suffer from attenuation in the range of fraternities studied. It
is possible differences nay have been found if the entire fraternity system
had been sampled. On the other hand, the scales of the OPT nay not be

appropriate to distinguish between and within fraternity groups .

Longitudinal Studies

 

Some longitudinal studies have been completed which consider
in‘qmacts or attributes of fraternities.
At Ohio University a four-year study of freshman scholastic honor
Society initiates from 1957 to 1960 indicates those who joined social
fraternities had a higher initial grade point average, but dropped signifi—

cantly the semester they pledged fraternities and remained lower on overall

20

cumulative average in comparison to a group of non-social fraternity
honor society initiates (Bradshaw and Kahoe, 1967). The authors conclude,
in agreement with Butler's hypotheses, ". . .that a factor of academic
negativism may be Operating more predominately among the fraternity men."
Similar differences between sorority and independent women were not found.

A study by Schmidt (1969) from 1961} to 1968 at the University of
Iowa "indicated that many stereotypes about sororities are a function of
selective factors [input] rather than group influence." Using analysis of
variance and multiple discriminant analysis, there were no differences which
could be attributed to group membership after four years on the Holland

Vocational Preference Inventory, Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, the Trow

 

 

Typologies, or a measure of "interpersonal competency." However, at the
end of the four years, sorority women were more likely to be pinned or
engaged. Since there is really no established custom comparable to pinning
among non-fraternity students, this result does not seem too surprising.

A year- long longitudinal study at the University of Colorado
by Scott (1965) attempted to discover relationships between students'
personal values and fraternity organizational processes. Participants in
the study were six of 23 campus fraternities (N = l+18), four of 17 sororities
(N = 3H2), a random sample of independent students (77 males, 31 females),
and a "solicited" sample of non-pledging residence hall freshmen taken after
fall rush (103 males, 79 females). Pre—test data were gathered during
October and November, 1957, and post-test data were gathered during November,
1958 (Scott, 1965, pp. 107-118, 138-139). A scale developed for the study
was designed to measure "innerbdirected" and "outer-directed" values.
Inner-directed values were independence, intellectualism and creativity.
Outer-directed values were loyalty, social skills, kindness, status, physical

development, self-control and religiousness. Other uncategorized values

21

examined were academic achievement and honesty. Scott concluded (1965 ,
pp. flit-2'4”) ttat (1) both freshmen and fraternities tended to select each
other on the basis of similar value orientations , (2) the normative
pressures of older members were unrelated to the values of newer members,
(3) membership attractiveness was higher for underclas smen than upper»
classmen, (u) membership attractiveness was positively related to a
person's valuation of group loyalty , (5) membership attractiveness and
persoral status within the organization were positively related , (6)
satisfied members tended to have values congruent with perceived function
of the group (high on loyalty and social skills , low on independence)
while dissatisfied members tended to have the reverse, (7) the degree of
attractiveness of the organization was unrelated to the values of the new
member, (8) individual status correlated positively with perceived contri-
bution to the organization, (9) group consensus was low about how well a
given individual was liked, and (10) means of ctapter presidents' values
were not significantly different from other members' or other organiza-
tions' value means. Changes in pledges ' values compared with changes in
non-pledges ' values over the year' s time were such trat they were unrelated
to influences other than the general university environment (Scott , 1965 ,
pp. 203-213). One year may not be enough time for a fraternity to
influence an individual ' 5 personal values .

A four-year longitudinal study by Lozoff (1968, pp. 255-317)
from 1961 to 1965 among residence groupings at Stanford University used
"1+2 men who were interviewed twice a year during their four undergraduate
years," and a sample of 236 men with "clearly defined residence histories,"
who responded to a "Senior Questionnaire." It was concluded that (1) frater—

nity men were more physically attractive and more active than other students

22

in.high Sohool leadership and athletic activities, (2) fraternity values
appeared to reinfOrce family social values, (3) off-campus fraternity men
were more autonomous than onecampus members, and more likely to have
had heterosexual relationships Which influenced their attitudes and behavior,
(4) fraternity men were more likely to acquiesce anti-social behavior, but
(5) they were more likely to expect to assume leadership positions after
graduation and to become family men sooner than non-fraternity men;
(6) fraternity men were more likely to drink to excess, and (7) to be
intolerant toward minority groups than non-fraternity men; (8) fraternity
men "rarely complained to feelings of alienation or diffusion," but (9) they
also experimented much less "with new ideas or new experiences." Finally,
Lozoff reported that (10) fraternity men.were more likely to help and
depend on others within their own group, and (11) that the fraternity experu
ience "offers informal training in leadership," apparently not found among
non-fraternity men. Change reported.among the fraternity men during their
fOur years indicated that in comparison to their freshman scores, they earned
"higher scores on scales of psychological tests dealing with social maturity
and developmental status, and lower scores on the Ethnocentrism and
Authoritarianism scales..." (Lozoff, 1968, p. 275). Specific data.were
not listed comparing these scores to nonsfraternity scores. It may be that
sudh group change is only a correlate of maturation over the four years
of college.

A.yearelong longitudinal study by Wallace (1966, pp. 163-176)
at a selective Midwestern liberal arts college inferred that fraternity
affiliation depressed student orientation toward earning high grades. In
a comparison of questionnaire data collected in September and November, 1959,

and April of the following year, freshmen pledging fraternities were much

23

more likely to lower their desire fOr high grades than were freshmen

not pledging fraternities. High aptitude "specialist" fraternity members,
however, were socially rewarded fer high achievement. Student admiration
of faculty members showed a higher relationship to grades orientation
among independents than fraternity members, and friendship satisfaction
was higher among fraternity men than independents.

Another longitudinal study by Goldsen, §t_al. (1960, pp. 119-123),
found that fraternity men tended to become more politically and economically
conservative with length of time in college in comparison to non—fraternity
men. The authors concluded that fraternities "...insulate their con-
servative members against change and socialize their liberal members away
from.1iberalism."

A dissertation by Matson (1961) used a longitudinal design
comparing scholarship of 1,181 male students in the 195M Indiana University
entering class by five residence groupings. Matson's data indicated that
place of residence on campus was not associated.with achievement when
"potential" was controlled by placing students in high, high-average, low-
average, and low academic categories "on the basis of five aspects of the
student's academic performance in high school and three tested ability scores."
Matson reported that "high-prestige" fraternities ranked first in achieve-
ment over the freshman, sophomore, and junior years, while those in "mediums
prestige" fraternities and dormitories ranked second, and "low-prestige"
fraternities and off-campus students ranked last (Matson, 1961, pp. 129-128).
Contrary to these findings, Hartnett (1963, p. 139) at Michigan State .
University concluded, in his research comparing scholastic performance
changes of 1,0Hl students over their sophomore, junior, and senior years,
that "negatively changing" students were more likely to live in fraternity

and sorority houses, while "positively changing" students were more likely

24

to live in residence halls. Since Hartnett used a.regression technique

to determine "performance Changers" , the influence of the regression

effect on the data must be considered in weighing the results. Differences
among fraternity groups may also be masked in his analysis.

In summary, the literature cited on change in student development
at least infers the college fraternity has an effect on the people who join
it, but evidence is conflicting. First, there appears to be variation
across campuses on which demographic and personality attributes fraternity
members differ from other students. Second, influence attributed to the
college fraternity by some studies appears refuted by others, regardless
of the original input characteristics of students. Over the one year period
of his study, Scott found little effect which could not be attributed to
the larger campus environment. Schmidt found similar results for his study
over four’years. Lozoff's findings suggest the function of the fraternity
may be more reinforcement of prior attitudes and experiences than develop-
ment of new ones. wallace's research primarily supports previous findings
that fraternity membership appears to lower interest in high academic
achievement and encourage a high level of interpersonal interaction.
Differences among individual Chapters of campus fraternity systems in
attitude and behavior may occury but the actuality of such differences has

yet to be proved.

Residential Impact

 

Lack of congruence in the effects of particular residential
settings appears not to be limited to fraternities (and sororities) alone.
In their comprehensive review of literature, Feldman and Newcomb (1969,
Ch. VII) suggest that most studies of residential impact compare fraternities

and sororities with other types of campus living units. In fact, most of

25

their chapter, "The Impacts of Residence Groupings," is devoted to
comparisons of fraternities and sororities with alternative living
arrangements. In the few studies mentioned where students are assigned

to living units by curriculum.or ability level (Feldman and Newcomb, 1969,
pp. 211-213) results suggest that in comparison to control groups, such
students fOund their living units more desirable. Even in the few studies
mentioned, there was no agreement as to whether suCh selectively assigned
students made differential grade point averages, or made differential
scores over time on various personality instruments, suCh as the Omnibus
Personality Inventory.

Brown (1968) investigated the effects of alternating the ratio
of science to humanities students on a four to one basis on two floors each
of a freshman residence hall. At the end of the year, spring 1965,
significantly more of the students in minority majors had changed their
major to one of the majority, or were less certain of their Choice. Minority
group students also had fewer friends on their floor, and fewer friends
with "the same or similar vocational goals." They were less satisfied than
majority students with residence hall life and with their total college
experience. However, analysis of covariance indicated there was no difference
between the majority and minority gIOUpS in direction and amount of change
on the Thinking Introversion and Theoretical Orientation scales of the

Omnibus Personality Inventory.

 

A study by Merishima (1966) at the University of Washington in
1963 was contrary to the above findings. One experimental group defined
by academic major (N = 28) was assigned to a wing of a newly-opened co-
educational hall with an equal number of controls spread randomly through—

out the hall, and the other experimental group was assigned to a men's

26
hall, with control students placed randomly throughout the men's halls.

The experimental groups defined by major had "greater positive change over

a two—year period" on both the Omnibus Personality Inventory_Thinking

 

Introversion and Theoretical Orientation scales than students in control
groups. However, no differences were found on other behavioral and
attitudinal measures, nor in grade point average.

Beal and Williams (1968) found that fOr freshman men, but not for
freshmen.women at the University of Oregon, mixed Class housing (fresh-
men housed with upperclassmen) seemed to result in student feelings of
greater satisfaction with their college experience. On the other hand there
was some indication upperclass women were more satisfied with "segregated"
living units (freshmen housed separately from.upperc1assmen). The type
of living unit a student was assigned appeared not to affect his academic
achievement.

.A study dealing with effects of mixed class housing on freshman
attitudes and values was conducted.by Chesin (1969) at Michigan State

University in 196”. He administered the Inventory of Beliefs and the

 

Differential Values Inventogy_at the beginning and end of the year to three
groups: (1) freshmen and upperclassmen in eleven residence units with "...a
greater proportion of upperclassmen than the total university residence
ratio of upperclassmen to freshmen," (2) six residence units with a greater
number of freshmen than the university residence ratio, and (3) two units
at the university residence ratio. Data were obtained from H67 of the 720
students originally tested. Those moving during the year were dropped from
the study. It was hypothesized that freshman attitudes and values would
show differential Change during the year depending on the amount of contact

with upperclassmen. Using analysis of variance, results indicated that

27
amount of freshmeneupperclass mix did not differentially affect the

fermation of freshman attitudes and values. All freshmen regardless
of assignment became equally more emergent and less stereotypic during
the year.

At the University of Florida (DeCoster, 1966; 1968), groups
of high ability students have been assigned to residence halls in 25, 50,
and 100 per cent concentrations from.l963—BH to 1965-66. Control groups
were assigned to identical facilities or on a random basis to other halls.
For all three years, high ability students had better academic success in
the homogeneously assigned units than those assigned on a random basis.

By contrast there was some evidence the second year that students of
lesser ability living among high ability experimental groups did less
well academically.

High ability students living together were more likely to request
assignment to the same unit the next year. On a six-item inventory
administered the second week of the second trimester in 1966, homogeneously
assigned high ability students "reported that their living units were more
conducive to study, that informal 'talk sessions' had more educational
value, and that they were more often influenced by fellow residents
to do better in their studies" (DeCoster, 1968).

During the 1967-68 academic year, DeCoster (1969) collected
data from 127 freshmen students on two other variables -- (l) freshman
Logic faculty who both taught and had the same students as advisees (a
teacher-counselor) and (2) coordinated classroom.and housing assignments
such that students Who lived together attended class together. Four groups
were fermed: students with one of the experimental conditions, students
with both, and students with none. There were no significant differences

between the groups on academic achievement or attrition. However, students

28
in all three experimental groups were more likely to list their LOgic

instructor as someone to whom they would take "an academic or personal
problem." DeCoster regarded this as indication that a closer relationship
was formed with at least one faculty member. Furthermore, "men who were
teacher—counselor instructed and women who had coordinated assignments
established a greater number of peer friendships than did students in the
respective comparison groups." Experimental group students were also

more satisfied with their overall college experience.

TWO other studies employed common courses and faculty-student
contact to stimulate academic environment. .At Ohio State University, Walsh
and McKinnon (1969) observed the perceptions of 250 1966 freshman students
tested at the beginning of the year (expectation) and again after five

months (perception) on the College and University Environment Scales.

 

Experimental students (N = 110) had coordinated room and class assignments,
and a special residence hall program; control students "interacted in
the environment generally encountered by new students." Results were
opposite from those hypothesized. Analysis of variance indicated that
after five months "the subjects in the experimental groups perceived and
reported an environment that was less friendly, less conventional, less
academically oriented, and less concerned with self-understanding...".
Perceptions were less than expectations for all students. There was no
mention of any difference in academic achievement between the experimental
and control groups.

.A similar experiment at Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh
in summer, 1966, had more encouraging results (Eberly and Cech, 1968).
All 39 on-campus male freshmen were randomly assigned to two wings of a

residence hall constructed in such a way that two separate hall programs

29

could be administered. Students were primarily marginal admittees.

The experimental program included faculty contact with and advising by
classroom instructors, and special services and programs within the hall.
Control wing students received only infermation about campus activities
and social events.

The College Characteristics Index was used to measure student

 

expectation of environment on the first day of classes and again three days
prior to the end of the eight week session. Experimental group perceptions
remained at the level of original control.and experimental group expecta-
tions, but control group perceptions were significantly lower on the Academic
AChievement, SelfeExpression and Academic Organization scales. When post-
session data only were compared, control students had significantly lower
perceptions on Academic Achievement, Self-Expression and Aspiration Level
scales (all differences at the .05 level or lower). Eberly and Cech
suggested "that type of residence hall programlcan affect student perception

of overall university environment."
SUMMARY

The literature on residential arrangements, which are in effect
alternatives to fraternity and sorority organizations, is also incomplete
and ambiguous. Student attitudes in DeCoster's most recently reported
study were positive; in earlier ones they were not. In other studies
mentioned above student attitudes again were not always in hoped-for direc—
tions. While most of the studies treated some aspect of student attitudes,
none considered the kind of values which are among the variables in the

present study--critical thinking and value orientations. Almost all of

the studies used academic criteria to determine success of experimental

3O
arrangements, but it would seem that alternative living arrangements
would not so much immediately affect the quality of student performance
as they would the quality of student life. Six of seven studies considering
academic criteria had no significant differences or negative results, while
three of eight considering various attitudinal criteria had similar
findings. Since it appears these experimental living arrangements may have
had some impact on students, it would have been interesting to know in
all of them if there were associated changes in values and attributes such
as stereotypy and critical thinking. It is true that Chesin's study would
suggest there is no difference among groups on such variables, but it is
also true that Michigan State University's living-learning residence
halls are rather unique in comparison to residence halls at most other
campuses.

Feldman and Newcomb believe, and the studies reported in this
chapter appear to suggest, there is impact over and above initial selection
into residence groupings. They also state, as the omissions in the above
studies suggest, that it is an "inadequately studied" phenomenon. What
appears true on one campus appears inapplicable on another campus. They
suggest that across campuses (Feldman and Newcomb, 1969, p. 233):

the fOrmal arrangements and environmental pressures of different
residences vary considerably--less perhaps, for fraternities

and sororities than for other settings. Types of living
arrangements are not always directly comparable on different
campuses; indeed, they may be so heterogeneous that they cannot
be meaningfully compared with one another. Even.within a campus,
the Characteristics of the many residential settings vary widely,
so that lumping them.into a few conventional categories may well
Obscure distinctive and distinguishable differences. The
differences among members in the several types of living quarters
that have been discovered are in large part consequences of the
fOrces of self-selection and group recruitment.

The lack of research on groups or groupings and their relationship

to change in political, economic, social and religious beliefs in college

31
is surprising in view of our American "youth culture" and its apparent
impact on society. Wilson (1966, pp. 75—77) states that while colleges
collect vast amounts of data on entering students, little is collected
when they leave the institution, with the result that little is known
about "...when change occurred, and who or What the responsible agents

were. Both publically and professionally these are important questions."

CHAPTER 3
MEIHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the sample of students that were
studied, the instrumentation used, the research design and statistical

methods employed to analyze the data.

Definition of the Population

 

Data used for this study were originally collected by Irvin

J. Lehmann and Paul L. Dressel for their reports, Critical Thinking,

 

Attitudes and Values InAHigher Education (1962) , and Critical Thinking,

 

 

Attitudes and Values Associated With College Attendance (1963) . From an

 

original population of 1,1436 males who entered college for the first time
in fall, 1958, 966 attended Michigan State University ". . .for at least
nine of the next eleven terms (fall, winter, and spring) and were
registered as students during spring term, 1962." Of these, 650 yielded
a set of usable test score data (Lehmann and Dressel, 1963, p. 31-33).
Only nativeborn Americans and students entering college for the first time
in fall, 1958, were included in the Lehmann-Dressel studies.

In addition to test score data, it was decided by the experimenter
that a complete data record for the present study should also include
responses to the 263-item Senior-Year Experience Inventory developed by
Lehmann and Dressel (Lehmann and Dressel, 1963, p. 30-31). In this way
Inventory responses considered in the study were from exactly the same
subjects as published test score data. Applying the criterion, l+77 complete

data records were available for analysis. The study population of L477
32

33
students was then separated into four groups based on an individual's

fraternity affiliation status as of spring term, 1962: (1) 9.533115. (N = 133)
were those students in the population listed on a fraternity membership
roll compiled spring term, 1962, and supplied by Dr. Lehmann, (2) 2302-
93131 (N = 52) were students who indicated they had become "active"
fraternity members at some point in their college career on the 83113332:

Year Experience Inventgy, but who were not listed on the spring, 1962 ,

 

membership roll, (3) Pledgeouts (N = #6) were students who reported they

 

had pledged but never became active in a fraternity, and (1+) Stayouts
(N = 26) were students with no apparent formal connection to a social
fraternity. Fraternity membership status was also checked against data
available in the Office of Student Affairs and the Michigan State
University Alumni Office.

The sample of interest for this study was determined by the
size of the smallest group above since the statistical analysis, discussed
in a later section of this chapter, required a fully balanced design with
equal numbers in the groups of interest. Random samples of 1+6 subjects
were drawn from the Greek and Stayout groups using a Fortran program on the
CDC 6500. The Dropout group was reduced to L+6 subjects by discarding
every eighth student record until the desired number was reached. Thus ,

a total of 184 students separated into four equal groups of 1+6 comprised
the sample used for this study.

The majority of students in all three groups which were
associated with fraternities pledged during their freshman year (Table 3. l) .
Pledgeouts would probably have ended their association about the same term
they pledged. It is not known when Dropouts severed their affiliation.

Dropouts are recognized as a problem by fraternity groups (Scott, 1967) ,

31+

but a search of the literature did not reveal any concrete data on
dropout rates nor were data available for this University.
TABLE 3.1

YEAR AND TERM OF FIRST ASSOCIATION WITH
FRATERNITIEIS FOR GREEKS, DROPOUTS, AND PLEDGEOUI‘S

 

 

 

 

Year and Term Greeks Dropouts Pledgeouts
Pledged Activated Pledged Activated Pledged

Freshman l 12 0 15 0 1%
Freshman 2 8 10 H 10 5
Freshman 3 7 8 6 6 9
Sophomore l u 6 u 7 1+
Sophomore 2 6 6 2 2 u
Sophomore 3 5 6 8 3 7
Junior 1 2 H 1+ 8 1
Junior 2 l 1+ 0 5 2
Junior 3 l l 0 2 0
Senior Year 0 l 3 3 0

Total 176' T56- W 176' 7+6
Generalizability

 

At worst the sample of interest drawn for the study is generaliz-
able to a single Michigan State University class group, specifically to a
sample of students from Michigan State University who left the university
with a complete data record as defined by this study. Based on the
argument that "...there were no significant differences in initial (1958)
critical thinking ability, attitudes , and values between those who responded
and those who did not respond," Lehmann and Dressel (1963, p. 37) asserted
their findings were generalizable to the entire group of students who
entered Michigan State University for the first time in fall, 1958. No
statistical tests comparing the sample of 18% students used in this study
to the M77 possible subjects or to the origiral study population were
made. Based on the size of the sample in relation to the study population

and its random selection from that population, it seems defensible to

35
conclude it is representative of those students who attended at least

nine of eleven terms at the University by spring term, 1962, and Who left
a complete data record.

Since a University should apprise itself of the attitudes and
values of students at regular intervals, generalization to what is
essentially the Senior Class of 1962 should be adequate for the purposes of
this study. It fills a gap in knowledge about two particular groups of
students-—those Who join social fraternities, and those who do not. It
would be unwise to generalize the results to another university or to
another period of time at the same university. What is true about one
university may not be true about another. It is clear that at MiChigan State
University there has been a Change over time among entering classes on
variables of interest to this study. Lehmann and Hill (1969) report that
freshmen in 1967 were both brighter academically and more relativistic
in their'moral outlook than freshmen entering Michigan State University in

1958.

Instrumentation

 

The feur~groups described above were compared on the basis of

their pattern of scores on seven instruments: The College Qualification

 

Tests, The MSU Reading Test, A Test of Critical Thinking, The Inventory

 

 

of Beliefs, RokeaCh's Dogmatism.Scale, Prince's Differential Values

 

 

 

Invento , and The Senior—Year Experience Invento .
._____£Z 1:!

 

The College Qualification Test (CQT) consists of three sub—

 

tests, Verbal (75 items), Informational (75 items) and Numerical (50 items),
which together are designed to measure general academic aptitude. The
composite score alone was used for this study. Lehmann and Dressel (1963,

p. 30) reported a split-half reliability of .93 for the original 1958

36
population of students. The test manual reports validity coefficients

of .35 to .68 when early college grades are used as the criterion
(Bennett, 1957, p. 26).

The MSU Reading Test (MSUR) is a locally developed HS-item

 

instrument designed to measure understanding of thoughts expressed in

reading passages. Reliability of this instrument on the 1958 study population
was .79 (Lehmann and Dressel, 1963, p. 30). Hartnett (1963, p. 62)

reports validity coefficients of .35 to .65 fOr males using academic

performance (grades) as the criterion.

A Test of Critical Thinking, Form G (CT) was developed by the

 

Cooperative Study of Evaluation in General Education of the American
Council on Education (Dressel and Mayhew, 195%, Ch. 7). Fifty—two objective
items were designed and tested to measure five abilities considered

aspects of critical thinking: (1) defining problems, (2) selecting relevant
infOrmation, (3) recognizing assumptions, (u) fbrmulating and selecting
appr0priate hypotheses, and (5) judging and.diawing valid conclusions.

The Kndethichardson formula 20 reliability of the test on the 1958 study
population.was .79; its correlation.with the COT was .60. Lehmann and
Dressel (1963, p. 27) describe the Test of Critical Thinking as "...more

a test of ability in the processes involved in critical thinking than a
measure of critical or creative thinking, per se."

The Inventory_of Beliefs, ftmmtII(IBJ, was also developed for

 

the Cooperative Study of Evaluation in General Education (Dressel and
Mayhew, 1954, Ch. 8). It was designed to measure stereotypic beliefs in
four areas: (1) ideocentrism, (2) ethnocentrism, (3) sociocentrism, and
(H) egocentrismm Its 120 items are pseudorational cliches suCh as "A
lot otheaChers these days have radical ideas Which need to be carefully

watched," and "Each man is on his own in life and must determine his own

37

destiny." Students are asked to respond by means of a four-element

key: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. According
to the goals of general education in a free society defined in the
cooperative study, students should disaggee with all items.

Scores can range from 0 to 120. High scores are taken to
indicate a mature, flexible, adaptive, democratically—oriented individual.
Low scores are taken to indicate a rigid, immature, authoritarian and
compulsive individual who is stereotypic in his belief system. The test
manual reports reliability coefficients ranging from .68 to .95, with a
median reliability of .86 (Dressel, 1953, p. 5). Lehmann and Dressel
(1963, p. 28) report a correlation between the IB and CQI‘ of .30, and a
correlation with freshman grade point average of . 20 .

Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form E (D-Scale), is a measure of

 

general authoritarianism which Rokeach (1960) maintains is relatively

free from contamination by political conservatism, ethnocentrism, or anti—
Semitism. High scorers are considered dogratic and not Open to new ideas.
Low scorers are considered adaptive and receptive to new ideas and
experiences. The MO dogratic statements have a six element key ranging
from "agree very much" to "disagree very much," with a possible score range
from 0 to 280. The Kuder-Richardson formula 20 reliability for the 1958
freshman population was .76; correlation with the CQI‘ was .17, and with
freshman-year GPA, .15. Lehmann and Dressel (1963, p. 28) state the

Dogwatism Scale "is a relatively stable instrument which is not influenced

 

by general academic aptitude to a great extent . "

The Inventory of Beliefs and the Dogratism Scale were both

 

 

desigied to measure aspects of rigidity in personality orientation. It

it difficult to establish the validity of such instruments. Hartnett

38
(1963, pp. 63-64) has reported a concurrent validity coefficient of

-.63 between the IB and the Dggmatism Scale. He concluded that "...since

 

these two scales were constructed independently to measure theoretically
related phenomena and are correlated to such a degree, the coefficient
tends to support claims for validity for both measures.

Prince's Differential Values Inventory (DVI) provides a.measure

 

of the "traditional" and "emergen " values postulated by Spindler (1953).
The instrument yields four emergent values scores: sociability, relativismu
present-time orientation, and confermity, and four traditional value scores:
Puritan morality, future-time orientation, individualism, and work-success
ethic. The scale consists of 64 pairs of ferced-Choice items; each item
with a traditional-value and an emergent-value statement. The subjeCt
must Choose one or the other statement from each pair, with one point
scored eaCh time a traditional statement is chosen. A.high-scoring
sUbject is considered to place greater value on the traditional values

of personal respectability, thrift, self-denial, and feelings of guilt.

.A low-scoring subject is considered to place more weight on emergent
values, that is, getting along with others, group morality, present-

time orientation, and.what might be called situation ethics. Scores on
the traditional values scale can.range from 0 to 64. Lehmann and Dressel
(1963, p. 28) reported a Kuder-Richardson formula 20 coefficient of .75,
and Hartnett (1963, p. 65) reported test-retest stability coefficients of
.60 and .61. Lehmann and Dressel also indicated there was very little
correlation between the DVI and the COT.

The Senior-Year Experience Inventory (SRI), was developed

 

by Lehmann and Dressel (1963, p. 30) for their 1962 report, and used

again in their 1963 report. The 263 items were separated into twenty

39
sections, and asked respondents' reactions to college expectations

and experiences, and attitudes about current events such as adndssion of
Red China to the United Nations. On some sections respondents were asked
to report via.retrospection how much they thought their views, attitudes
and values had changed during their college experience. Lehmann and
Dressel (1963, p. 31) did not develop total scores, or sub—scores for
sections of the instrument. They were content with "...an intensive item
analysis of the data."

In order to reduce the number of statistical tests of significance
performed on the data, items were scaled for this study using a scaling
technique described in a later section of the chapter. Items which.were
not part of reliable scales were discarded. Some items not amenable to
scaling, such as responses to the Clark-Trow Student Typology, were

treated individually.

Research Design

 

The objective of this study was to deterndne if any influence
on aspects of student development above that of the general college
environment could be attributed to the college social fraternity. Four
groups (treatments) were defined based upon the degree of exposure
students in them did or did not have to the fraternity experience. Three
groups were randomly selected from.the study population. All students
from the population comprising a fourth group were included for study.
The assumption.was made, however, that subjects in all four groups
represented a random sample of students who might be included for study.
Dependent variables were scores on the six published instruments and
scaled items from.the Experience Inventory.

Depending on the particular hypothesis being tested, a Two-way

1+0
or FwWay Analysis of Variance, Mixed Effects Model, Repeated Measures
Design was employed to test for overall significance in the score patterns

of the four groups (Illustration 3.1) .

ILLUSTRATION 3 . 1
RESEARCH DESIG‘IS

 

A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. : Four-Way Analysis of Variance B.: Three-Way Analysis of Variance
Tr
Tl . . . Tn '
V1 0 I O vn v1 0 O O vn v1 0 I O vn
(.31 S} 4 61 81
S“6 Sis
G Su7 G Su7
2 3 2 i
892 S92
S93 G S93
G I 3 I
3 O S o
138 L 138 -
G S139 G 3139
L} 2 l} 2
Sieu Slaui

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T = Time V = Variables G = Groups S = Subjects

 

The design was chosen in order to reduce as much as possible
the number of statistical tests of significance performed on the data.
Consider the alpha level for a study set at .05. This means that for
every hundred tests of significance, on the average, five indicate signifi-
cance by chance alone where in truth there is not significance. In the 1963
LelunaIm—Dressel report, which most closely resenbles the present study,
212 individual Chi—Square tests of goodness of fit were computed on the

41
Experience Inventory data alone. In the present study, using scaling

techniques and Greenhouse and Geisser's (1959) approach to the analysis
of profile data, two tests of significance sufficed for the same sections
of the Inventory.

The Greenhouse and Geisser approach enables one to analyze
a group of Observations, a battery of test scores or a set of items,
on the same individuals by use of analysis of variance. Their technique
employs a conservative fiftest, and is robust to violation of statistical
assumptions normally associated with analysis of profile data. Variables
need not be independent of each other, or at least, have equal correla—
tions with each other. Furthermore, variables need not be normally
distributed or have equal variances. Questions answerable by profile
analysis are (1) "...do the groups arise from.populations having the
same group means...", and (2) "...do the groups arise from.populations
having parallel.group profiles" (Greenhouse and Geisser, 1959, p. 98).
The saving in statistical tests is clear. Instead of performing
individual analysis of variance on scores fOr eaCh instrument, a
single analysis of variance is computed. A.significant result indicates
that groups do not arise fronlthe same population, or have parallel group
profiles. Post-hoc comparisons can then be carried out to locate points

of difference.

Statistical Hypotheses

 

Statistical Hypotheses posed for this study not only treat
differences or similarities in overall group means, but also consider
the problem of variation within group means. It surely means something
different in terns of interpretation to know the relative agreement of

subjects within a group on a given variable or set of variables.

42
Since the review of previous research reported in Chapter II

indicated few or conflicting results associated with variables included

in this study, all hypotheses are phrased in a non-directional, null

form:

1.

Upon initial enrollment in college, there is no difference

on selected cognitive and affective variables among individuals
who eventually join and remain in fraternities, join and

later drop out of fraternities, pledge and never formally

join fraternities, and never formally associate with
fraternities.

One year after initial enrollment in college, there is no
difference on selected affective variables among individuals
who eventually join and remain in fraternities, join and
later drop out of fraternities, pledge but never formally
join fraternities, and never formally associate with
fraternities.

One year after initial enrollment in college, there is

no difference in degree and direction of change over time on
selected affective variables among individuals who
eventually join and remain in fraternities, join and

later drop out of fraternities , pledge but never formally
associate with fraternities, and never formally associate
with fraternities.

Four years after initial enrollment in college, there is
no difference in degree and direction of change over time
on selected affective variables among individuals who
joined and remained in fraternities , joined and later
dropped out of fraternities, pledged but never formally
associated with fraternities, and never formally associated
with fraternities.

Four years after initial enrollment in college, there is
no difference on selected affective variables among
individuals who eventually joined and remained in
fraternities , joined and later dropped out of
fraternities , pledged but never formally associated with
fraternities , and never formale associated with
fraternities .

There is no difference in the dispersion of test scores
among individuals who eventually join and remain in
fraternities , join and later drop out of fraternities ,
pledge but never formally associate with fraternities ,
and never formally associate with fraternities (1) upon
initial entrance in college, (2) one year after initial
enrollment in college, and (3) four years after initial
enrollment in college.

1+3

7. There is no difference in the dispersion of test scores over
time within groups (1) one year after initial enrollment in
college, and (2) four years after initial enrollment in
college.

8. Four years after initial enrollment in college, there is
no difference in degree and direction of self-reported
change , or in attitudes and values among individuals
who eventually joined and remained in fraternities ,
joined and later dropped out of fraternities , pledged
but never formally associated with fraternities , and
never formally associated with fraternities.

 

9. Four years after initial enrollment in college, there
is no difference in the dispersion of self-reported
change, or in dispersion of attitudes and values , among
individuals who eventually joined and remained in
fraternities , joined and later dropped out of fraternities ,
pledged but never formally associated with fraternities ,
and never formally associated with fraternities.

 

Data Collection

 

Data for this study were collected at three points in time
(1) upon initial enrollment in college during Orientation Week, Fall,
1958, (2) at the end of one year after initial enrollment, and
(3) four years after initial enrollment in college in May, 1962.
Data collected at the beginning of the freshman year of interest
to the present study were scores on The College Qualification Test,
The MSU Reading Test, A Test of Critical Thinking, the Inventor__y

of Beliefs, The Differential Values Inventory, and Rokeach's Dogmatism

 

Scale. Data collected at the end of the freshman year, May, 1959, were
scores on the Inventory of Beliefs , The Differential Values Inventory,

and A Test of Critical Thinking. Data collected at the end of most

 

students' senior year in May, 1962, included responses to the Senior-

Year Experience Inventory , and scores on Rokeach' s Dogmatism Scale ,

 

 

A Test of Critical W, the Inventory of Beliefs, and The

 

Differential Values Inventory .

 

nu

Analysis of Data

 

Statistical techniques used in this study included three—way
and four-way analysis of variance, with Scheffe' Post-Hoc Multiple
Comparisons where significant _F_ ratios were found, Levene's Test of
Homogeneity of Variance, factor analysis , the method of reciprocal
averages for maximizing the internal consistency of items on a scale,
Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance for ranked data, Hay's Omega
Squared for strength of statistical relationship, and Chi Square test
of independence. The . 05 level of confidence for accepting or rejecting
hypotheses was used in all computations . Data were analyzed where
appropriate on the Michigan State University CDC 3600 and CDC 6500
computers.

Analysis of Variance.--The analysis of variance computer

 

program was originally developed at the University of Wisconsin
(Jannrich, 1961), and adapted for use on the Michigan State University
CDC 3600 by Andrew C. Porter. The routine was designed to perform
calculations necessary for any balanced fully replicated or tested
design, such as those employed in profile analysis.

Scheffe' Post-Hoc Comparisons.--Scheffe’ post-hoc comparisons

 

are one means of partitioning the sums of squares making up a significant
E test to determine which linear combination of means contributed to
the significance of the overall E test (Hays, 1963, pp. l+83--u85). The
Scheffe' test is generally used when no prior assumptions are made as
to which treatments or groups are most likely to contribute to an
overall significant E ratio.

Levene's Test of Homogeneity of Variance.--The Levene Test is es-

sentially an analysis of variance of variance (Glass, 1966). The technique

us

uses analysis of variance ". . .on the absolute values of the differences
between each observation and the mean of its group." A strength of the
Levene Test is that no particular assumptions about the shapes of
distributions underlying the samples analyzed need be made. Previously ,
tests for homogeneity of variance were very sensitive to non-normality
in the underlying distributions of samples (Glass, 1966, p. 187).

Factor Analysis . --Factor analysis using the principal components

 

solution with a varimax rotation was employed in analysis of the Senior-

Year Experience Inventory . The program used was provided by the Computer

 

Institute for Social Science Research (Peterson, Fuster and Paul, 1969) .
The method of reciprocal averages described below assumes that items to
be weighted are all part of a single underlying variable . In order to
meet this assumption as closely as practicable , it was considered reason-
able to factor analyze all available data (N = l+77) on SRI sections

where a content analysis appeared to suggest more than one underlying
variable was present.

Reciprocal Averages . —-Data obtained from the SRI were primarily

 

of a qualitative nature . The method of reciprocal averages is a means of
quantifying qualitative data so scales constructed from individual items
have item responses weighted to maximize the internal consistency of the
resulting scale (Wright and Porter, 1958, pp. 13-1'4). First an 3 pLi._c_>_r_i;
set of item response weights are assigned. After computation, the final
weights determined yield the maximum possible internal consistency as
measured by the Hoyt analysis of variance. Final assigned weights are
very informative. An item not relating to the scale will receive equal
weights for all responses. Items with a high discriminating ability

will receive weights with the largest range of response values .

46
Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance.--Kendall's Coefficient

 

of Concordance is a means by which the degree of agreement across several
groups of judges may be determined on items which are ranked according
to their value or importance (Hays, 1968, pp. 656-658). The statistic
is closely associated with the average pair-wise correlations among the
several rank orderings . If there is low agreement, sums of ranks across
items ordered are about the same. If high agreement exists, sums of
ranks are very different. The SRI included a series of items which asked
students to indicate what "courses , personnel , activities , and organiza—
tions" had either strengthened or modified beliefs held upon entrance to
college. These data were grouped and ranked, and the Coefficient of
Concordance applied to assess degree of agreement within the groups of
interest.

Hay's Omega Squared.--'I\«o possible explanations exist if

 

Kendall's Concordance is low. There may be low agreement among groups,
or, there may be low agreement among individuals within groups such

that many ranks are tied. Hay's Omega Squared is a means of estimating
the strength of a statistical relation between an independent and
dependent variable , such as items (independent variable) and responses

to items (dependent variable) (Hays, 1963, pp. 381—385). Where the
Kendall Coefficient of Concordance was low, Omega Squareds were calculated
for each of the four groups in order to learn if the reason for low
concordance was the result of low agreement among groups , or within
individuals in groups . A low Omega Squared value was indication that

low concordance was more a function of low agreement of individuals w_____it_1_n_i_n_
groups than low agreement between groups .

Chi-Square.--Scme data obtained from the SRI were not amenable

 

47

to analysis either by reciprocal averages or by Kendall's Coefficient

of Concordance. These were descriptive items of a dichotomous nature
considering choice among the Clark-Trow student typologies . These

items were individually treated by use of the chi—square goodness of fit

statistic (Hays, 1963, pp. 589-592).

Scale Development

 

Lehmann and Dressel' s Senior-Year Experience Inventory

 

consisted of 263 items grouped into 20 parts or sections (Appendix A).
They did not scale the instrument, but preferred instead to use Chi
Square and analyze similarity of group responses to individual items
(Lehmann and Dressel, 1963, p. 31). Their method was acceptable for
an exploratory study as a means of locating differences among groups which
might merit further study. While the present research was also
exploratory, limitations of Lemarm and Dressel' 5 method for it were
(1) that assumptions for use of the Chi Square statistic would not be met
in many cases due to the number of item keys in relation to individual
group size, and (2) the sheer number of statistics to be computed did
not seem the most efficient means of treating the data.

Instead, items within parts were grouped into scales where
parts themselves appeared upon inspection to have more than one underly-
ing variable among items. All items in six parts (I, II, IV, VII, XV, and
XVII) appeared to form single scales and were treated as such. Items
in five parts (III, V, VIII, IX, X) were grouped into scales on the
basis of a content analysis. Factor analyses were then performed on
each part as a check on the content analysis. Scales were adjusted
accordingly. Items in the remaining parts of the SRI were of an

informational or demographic nature which were not scalable.

48
Factor analyses of the several parts were considered advisable

because a major assumption of the reciprocal averages scaling technique
applied to the data was that all items in a given scale were assumed
to have a single variable underlying them (White and Porter, 1968) .
While the content analysis was an attempt to objectively group items
into logical categories, it still seemed that factor analysis would
add additional rigor and objectivity to the selection of items for
scales .

Names and definitions were assigned each scale, with an
interpretation given for a high and low score. _A_ m weights were
then attached to each item key based on the directionality of the item
in relation to other items in its scale. The reciprocal averages
program (RAVE) was then applied to the a priori weighted scales using
the CDC 3600 computer. In order to avoid the problem of sampling
fluctuation in computation of scale weights used for the final profile
analysis, the entire population of 477 data records on the SRI were
used. The Hoyt analysis of variance approach to reliability, analogous
to Kuder—Richardson' 3 Reliability 20 formula for internal consistency,
was computed by RAVE for each scale (Hoyt, 1967, p. 111). Scales
attaining a reliability coefficient which rounded to . 5 or higher were
included _a_ pr;i_o_r_i_ in the final profile analysis on the groups of interest
to this study. This implied that at the minimum approximately 50 per
cent of common variance was explained by responses to the scale items ,

and up to 50 per cent of common variance was due to measurement error.

49

Definitions

 

Definitions of 16 scales meeting the criteria are listed
below. Definitions of 13 scales not meeting the criteria are listed in
Appendix EL RAVE operations were performed on a total of 36 scales.
Academic Satisfaction.--All six items of Part II appeared to
measure a single underlying variable. A.student responded to statements
about his academic experiences in college on a four—response item key
from strongly agree to strongly disagree. High scores reflected high
academic interest and enthusiasm. Low scores reflected general dissatisfac—
tion with college academic experiences. Hoyt reliability of this scale
was .52. Scores could range from.8 to 24.

Anti-Communism.--Part III appeared to contain items with

 

several underlying variables. Items 12, l3, 14, 21, and 22 were designed
to obtain opinions on a five-response item key from strongly agree to
strongly disagree about the threat of communist influence. Should known
communists be in the country or on the campus; how free were faculty to
subscribe to or teadh a specific ideology? High scores indicated an
anti-communist viewpoint; low scores indicated a politically liberal view-
point. The theoretical score range was from 5 to 24. Hoyt reliability
on this scale for seniors answering as seniors was .69. Students were
also to react to this scale as they thought they would have as entering
freshmen. Since it was considered that present reactions would likely

be more reliable than perceptions of past reactions, final scale weights
assigned to senior responses were used to compute freshman scale scores
for use in the profile analysis of scale score data. Perception of
freshman opinions were fOund about as reliable as senior responses when

computations were performed (rt = .65), but weights assigned to items

t

50
were differential .

Other scales formed from items in Part III were below the
criterion level of reliability and were listed in Appendix B-

Anticigated Community Activity. «Part IV contained nine

 

items . Students were asked how active a role they anticipated

playing in nine categories of civic activities after graduation using a
five-response item key from "very active" to "none". A high score meant
the individual planned high involverent in community affairs , while a low
score indicated little or no involvement was anticipated at this time .
Scores could range from 12 to 43. Hoyt reliability was .65.

Student-Centered Teachers .--Part V contained fifteen items

 

about student perception of good college teachers. Seven items (41, 42 ,

43, 44, 46, 51, and 52) asked students to rate the degree to which a good
college teacher was student—centered in his teaching on a four position
scale from strongly agree to strongly diSagree. A high score indicated

a good teacher will "give and take" with students in considering course
objectives, student problems and achievement. A low score indicated that

a good teacher will give students little choice in course direction and will
be neutral if not aloof toward student contact out of class . The
theoretical score range was from 8 to 26. Hoyt reliability was .50.

Teacher-Community Involvement.--Three items (30, 40 and 45) asked

 

students to rate the good college teacher as an active participant in
areas outside his discipline (academic role). A high score on this scale
indicated the good college teacher should be active in civic, campus and
religious affairs . A low score reflected the opinion that he should not be
so involved. Scores could range from 3 to 12. Hoyt reliability was .64.

The remaining items in Part V did not form reliable scales.

51
Part VI requested written responses and was not scalable.

Religious Concepts.--Part VIII (Items 55 to 60) consisted of six

 

religious concepts: The Bible, Prayer, Man, God, Sin, and Eternity. Students
were instructed to attaCh one of seven definitions to the concepts, which
ranged from.strongly fundamentalist to very liberal in interpretation.
The higher the score the more fundamentalist were the definitions assigned
the concepts. Scores could range from.9 to 41. HOyt reliability for
this scale was .87.

Items in Part VIII were originally constructed by Kidd, §t_al3
(1954), to assess the relative value placed on general as opposed to
vocational education. Originally two scores were obtained from.the
instrument. However, three scales emerged when the instrument was factor
analyzed using the data from.this study. Two scales, Personal Development
and.weltanschauung, were associated with general education objectives,
and one scale, Scholarly Achievement, with vocational objectives. On these
scales students were asked to report the importance to them of achieving
the goals (very, average or little) and then to say how well they had
been adhieved (very well, moderately or not). Weights determined for the
importance of adhieving goals were used to compute scale values for the
degree of adhievement.

Personal Development.-—Eight of the 26 items (65, 66, 68, 71,

 

80, 81, 84 and 86) asked students to indicate the importance of achieving
certain intrarpersonal goals of higher education which purport to lead to

a richer, more satisfying personal life. Items related to the quality

of relationships with other people, one's family, and one's personal well- .
being. A.high score indicated these were important goals, while a low

score meant these were not so important to achieve or realize. Scores could

range from 10 to 14. The Hoyt reliability was .70.

52
Weltanschauugg.--The German word, Weltanschauung, was most

 

descriptive of the meaning of eight other items which asked students to
consider the importance of achieving (realizing) certain educational goals
related to a broad, liberal world outlook. Whereas the Personal Develop-
ment scale appeared to treat intrapersonal goals of general education,

this scale appeared.to consider what might be termed outer—directed goals
of general educations-an understanding of the world one lives in as opposed
to one' s immediate interpersonal environment . A high score was evidence
that achieving a.broad worldview was important. A.low score was evidence
of little interest in.achieving such an outlook. Scores could range from

8 to 24. The Hoyt reliability coefficient was .73.

Scholarly.Adhievement.--Ten items related to purely professional

 

or vocational goals of education. These included such goals as acquiring
expertness in a field and mastering techniques applicable to one's special
interest. Students were asked to assess the importance of making such
scholarly-professional achievements. In effect they were to quantify‘

the importance placed on Objectives of specialized education. A.high
score on this scale signified such objectives were of great value, While
a low score was a sign they were not highly valued. The theoretical

score range was from.l2 to 30. The Hoyt reliability was .77.

Personal Confidence/FUture Orientation.-—Part IX included 39

 

’items describing behavior traits which may or may not have changed during
the college experience. Students were asked to report whether at the
end of their college experience they possessed more, less, or the same
amount of these traits. Seven items considered personal confidence

and optimism for the future (101, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, and 125). A

high score indicated students were confident in themselves, aware of their

53
goals, and optimistic about their future. A low score suggested low

self confidence and little optimism for the future. Scores could range
from.7 to 21. Hoyt reliability was .72.

Religiosity.--Fbur items (106, 107, 123 and 124) asked students

 

to report if they had.more, less, or the same amount of religious attachment
to a faith or set of beliefs as seniors than as freshmen. Scores could
range from.4 to 12. .A low score denoted greater religiosity as a senior
and a.high score less religiosity. This four item.scale had a Hoyt
reliability of .87. Its correlation with the religious concepts scale was
.63. This would suggest both scales are measures of related traits, but
that some measured by one are not measured by the other.

Respect for Authority,—-Students were asked to respond to a three

 

item scale (108, 109, and 110) which attempted to assess their respect
fer formal authority. Did they have more, the same or less respect
fer law, rules and regulations and persons in positions of authority as
seniors than as students entering college? A low score was evidence of
more respect while a high score suggested less respect. The theoretical
score range was frtm13 to 9. The Heyt reliability coefficient was .78.
Tolerance.--Scores could range from.4 to 14 on a five item scale
(87 to 91) which purported to measure aspects of tolerance in behavior.
Students were asked to say if they had more, less, or the same amount of
tolerance toward other people, opinions or behavior as seniors than they
did when they entered college. A high score signified greater tolerance;
a low score was indicative of less tolerance. Hoyt reliability for this
scale (rtt = .48) was just within the a priori criterion level.

Range of Interests.--One desired individual outcome of higher

 

education might be an increased range of interests across intellectual,

54
social, scientific, political and cultural affairs. Six items (93 to 97 and

100) attexpted to measure students' self-reported level of change in such
interests. A high score (up to 18) expressed a greater range of interests
as seniors than as entering freshmen. A low score (down to 6) deronstrated
a constricted range of interests as seniors. Hoyt reliability was . 58

for this scale.

Vocationalism.--One motivation students may have for higher

 

education is the increased earning power of a specific vocation or profession.
Five items (111 to 115) asked students to report if they had more , the

same or less interest in money and vocational preparation as educational
rewards. A high score was indicative of such interest. A low score
expressed the idea that other job satisfactions , along with an education
emphasizing the liberal arts, were of greater personal importance. Scores

on this scale could range from 5 to 15. Its Hoyt reliability, .46, was

just within the lower bound of the 3 priori criterion level .

Resourcefulness . —-Another desired personal outcome of higher

 

education might be the ability to "get up after a knock down,"--to adjust
to adverse situations and accept disappointments. A two item scale (98 and 99)
with a Hoyt reliability of .60 was designed to assess such resourcefulness.
Scores could range from 2 to 6 . A high score evinced greater adaptiveness
while a low score evidenced lesser flexibility.

Other itere in Part IX formed scales below the criterion level
of reliability and are described in Appendix 2 . TWO other parts contained
potentially scalable data using the RAVE program. Part XV considered the
effect of various others on career plans, and Part XVII considered the effect
of losing various activities or resources associated with a University

community. Neither part formed a usable scale, however, and they are

55
also described in Appendix B .

Additional Item (houps

 

The fifty items in Part X were not scalable by means of the
RAVE program. These were descriptors of courses, personnel, activities
and organizations which may have strengthened or modified beliefs students
had when they were freshmen. These items were separated by content analysis
into seven groups and analyzed using Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance
and Hays' Omega Squared. Item responses were first transformed into a new
scale containing five response keys from "most reinforcing" to "most
modifying." Item groups analyzed were (1) Courses, (2) Instructors, (3)
Peers, (4) Student Organizations, (5) Student Activities, (6) University
Facilities, and (7) Other influences not classified in the first six

categories .

Student Typologies

Five items of Part XII asked students to choose among four types
of student subcultures: (W) Vocational, (X) Intellectual, (Y) Non-Conformist,
and (Z) Collegiate (Appendix 1). These subcultures were defined by
Clark and Trow (1966) not as specific descriptors of groups of people,
but rather as related attitudes , norms and modes) of behavior. Chi Square

was used to test for differences in response to the items among the four

groups .
SUMMARY

Students selected for this study were drawn from the population
of students who had attended Michigan State University for at least nine

of the eleven terms since their initial entrance to college in fall, 1958.

56
FOur groups were included in the sample: (1) students who joined and

remained in social fraternities, (2) students who joined and later dropped
out of social fraternities, (3) students who pledged.but were never fOrmally
initiated into social fraternities, and (4) students with no record of
any fOrmal association with a social fraternity.

Instruments used in the study were described and techniques
of analysis outlined. Data were collected at (l) entrance to college,
fall, 1958, (2) after one year, May, 1959, and (3) after fOur years, May,
1962. Results were generalizable to a single MiChigan State University

class group.

CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA

Data gathered for this study were analyzed in a number of ways
depending on the nature of the data. The purpose of this chapter is
to present a detailed account of the data analysis. The account will
be presented in two parts: (1) data associated with published instruments,

and (2) data associated with the Senior-Year Bperience Inventory.
Published Instruments

The first seven hypotheses stated in Chapter III were associated
with data collected on published instruments . Hypotheses are treated in
the order they were stated, using Greenhouse and Geisser' 3 method of
profile analysis. Two _F_‘ ratios will be of particular interest: (1) the
group-test mean square which is a test of whether the group profiles are
parallel, i.e., have the same shape, and (2) the group mean square which
is a test of whether the groups arise from the same population. In almost
all cases, the _F_‘ ratio for variables should be significant, since the instru-
ments used have widely varying score ranges and standard deviations . This
violates statistical assumptions usually associated with profile analysis .
The Greenhouse and Geisser metrod (1959, p. 96) however, is robust to

such a violation.

57

58

Hypothesis 1

 

Cognitive and affective variables measured by the Inventory

of Beliefs, A Test of Critical Thinking, The Differential Values Inventory,

 

Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, The College Qualification Test, and the MSU

 

Reading Test were included in the two-way analysis of variance (Table 4.1)

 

performed to test the first hypothesis:

1. Upon initial enrollment in college, there is no difference on
selected cognitive and affective variables among individuals
who eventually join and remain in fraternities, join and later
drop out of fraternities, pledge but never fOrmally associate
with fraternities, and never fOrmally associate with fraternities.

TABLE 4.1
VARIANCE ANALYSIS FOR HYPOTHESIS 1

 

 

 

Source SS df MS F
Groups 2309.974 3 769.991 3. 037”
Subjects within

Groups 45631.931 180 253.511
Variables 33l3889.342 5 662777.868 229.540“
Variables by

Groups 4811.923 15 320.795 1.111
Variables by

Subjects within

Groups 259856.569 900 288.729

 

*Significant at the .05 level of_confidence or beyond

TWO §_ratios were significant when the variance analysis for
Hypothesis l.was completed. It was expected that variance for variables
would be significant. The second significant E_ratio was for Groups.

The non-significance of the variables by groups interaction indicated there

was parallelismlof scores among the feur groups.

59
The significant §.ratio fhfl‘groups would indicate that the

groups arose from.populations having differential group means. On this
basis Hypothesis 1 was tentatively rejected.

However, a significant §_ratio only indicates that somewhere
in the data analyzed there is a significant difference; it does not indicate
where it is (Hays, 1963, pp. 459-460). To locate points of difference, it
was necessary to make individual contrasts between pairs of means. Since
no hypotheses were stated beforehand indicating where differences might
be found, Scheffe's Post-Hoe Contrasts were computed for this purpose
(Table 4.2).

TABLE 4.2
POST-HOC CONTRASTS: HYPOTHESIS l VARIANCE ANALYSIS

 

 

 

 

Groups Compared Mean Difference Conf. Int. Sig.
1 versus 75.326
2 78.746 3.420 :3.766 NS
1 versus 75.326
3 76.065 0.739 :3.766 NS
1 versus 75.326
4 78.301 2.975 13.766 NS
2 versus 78.746
3 76.065 2.681 :3.766 NS
2 versus 78.746
4 78.301 0.445 :3.766 NS
3 versus 76.065
4 78.301 2.236 :3.766 NS
1 versus 75.326
2,3, and 4 77.704 2.378 :3.069 NS
1 and 2 vs. 77.036
3 and 4 77.183 0.147 :2.651 NS
1 and 3 vs. 75.696
2 and 4 78.524 2.828 12.651 .05
1= Greeks, 2: DrOpouts, 3: Pledgeouts, 4= Stayouts

60
The only post-hoc contrast which appeared to contribute to the

overall significance of the F ratio for groups in Hypothesis 1 was a complex
contrast involving the mean of Groups 1 and 3 (Greeks and Pledgeouts) versus
the mean of Groups 2 and 4 (Dropouts and Stayouts). This contrast is

very difficult to interpret. Other, simple contrasts of greater interest

to the study were not significant. Since the simple contrasts among the
groups were not significant despite overall significance in the §_ratio

for groups, it seemed reasonable to state that fer the purposes of this
,study the four groups were not significantly different from.each other on
initial test scores. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was qualifiedly accepted; there

was no simple difference among the groups on selected cognitive and

affective variables upon initial entrance to college.

Hypothesis 2

 

Affective variables measured by the Inventory of Beliefs, A Test

 

of Critical Thinkin , and The Differential Values Inventory were included

 

 

in the twoaway analysis of variance (Table 4.3) computed to test the
second hypothesis:

2. One year after initial enrollment in college, there is no
difference on selected affective variables among individuals
who eventually join and remain in fraternities, join and
later drop out of fraternities, pledge but never formally
associate with fraternities, and never fOrmally associate
with fraternities.

The variables by groups interaction in the §_table for
Hypothesis 2 was not significant. At the end of one year in college, the
test profiles of the four groups remained parallel. The E ratio for
Groups, however, was significant at the .05 level. While test profiles

may be parallel, the groups themselves would appear to arise from different

61

TABLE 4.3
VARIANCE ANALYSIS FOR HYPOTHESIS 2

 

 

Source 83 df MS F
Gr°UPS 1144.558 3 381.519 3.180*
Subjects by

Groups 21592.275 180 119.957
Variables 120767.576 2 60383.788 563.67l*
Variables by

Groups 343.496 6 57.249 0.534
Variables by

Subjects within

Groups 38565.594 360 107.127

 

*Significant at the . 05 level of confidence or beyond

populations . The post-hoc contrast which contributed to the overall
significance of the 3 ratio was Group I (Greeks) versus Group 4 (Stayouts)
(Table 4.4). On the basis of the 3 ratio and this contrast, Hypothesis 2
was rejected. One year after initial enrollment in college , there was
sufficient difference among IB, CI' and DVI test scores of Greeks and
Stayouts to say with confidence that they arose from different parent
populations. In all cases, Greek test scores were lower than Stayout ,
Dropout, and Pledgeout test scores (Illustration 4 . 1) although they were
significantly different only from Stayout test scores . Restated in terms
of the variables measured by the instruments, Greek-affiliated students
dexonstrated less critical thinking ability, were more immature, and
more likely to think in terms of stereotypes in comparison with

students who never affiliated with fraternities .

62

TABLE 4.4
POST-HOG CONTRASTS: HYPOTHESIS 2 VARIANCE ANALYSIS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Groups Compared Mean Difference Con. Int. Sig.
1 versus 43.862
2 45.696 1.834 :3.677 NS
1 versus 43.862
3 45.529 1.667 ‘13.677 NS
1 versus 43.862
4 47.913 4.051 i3.677 .05
2 versus 45.696
3 45.529 0.167 13.677 NS
2 versus 45.696
4 47.913 2.217 13.677 NS
3 versus 45.529
4 47.913 2.384 :3.677 NS
1 versus 43.862
2, 3 and 4 46.379 2.517 19.002 NS
1 and 2 versus 44.779
3 and 4 46.721 1.942 +2.592 NS
ILLUSTRATION 4.1
GROUP MEAN SCORE PROFILE, SPRING, 1959
Mean
Score Group 1 _____
Group IB DVI 75 2 __ __
. 3 H
1 63.6 36.2 31.8 70 q 4 - -
2 65.3 38.0 33.7 65 j
3 67.6 37.2 31.8 23 -
4 69.5 39.5 34.7 50 :
45
40 j
35 d
30 d
25 .

 

 

63

Hypotheses 3 and 4

 

Hypotheses 3 and 4 regarding the degree and direction of
change among the fOur groups one year and four years after initial
enrollment in college were tested together. .A fourhway analysis of
variance with Time as the additional factor provided the necessary infor-

mation for both hypotheses. Scores on the Inventory of Beliefs, A Test

 

of Critical Thinking_and The Differential Values Inventory were included

 

 

in this computation. (Table 4.5).

TABLE 4.5
VARIANCE ANALYSIS FOR.HYPOTHESES 3 AND 4

 

 

Source SS df ‘ MS F
Groups 3123.393 3 1041.131 3.451"
Subjects within

Groups 54301.321 180 301.674
Times 4942.351 2 2471.176 73.088“
Variables 390339.859 2 195169.929 646.956“
Times with *

Variables 5816.159 4 1454.040 39.788
Groups with

Times 97.967 6 16.327 0.483
GroupS‘with

Variables 2411.866 6 401.978 1.647
Groups with Times

with Variables 505.116 12 42.093
Times by Subjects

within Groups 12171.903 360 33.811
Variables by

Subjects within

Groups 87883.831 360 244.122
Times by Variables

by Subjects

within Groups 26311.836 720 36.544

 

*Significant at the .0571eve1 of confidence or beyond

64

There were three siglificant 3 ratios of interest to the study
when the variance analysis for Hypotheses 3 and 4 was carried out . The
F ratio for Groups was significant . Post-Hoe contrasts indicated the
contrast contributing to the overall significance of this _F_‘_ ratio was
between Greeks and Stayouts (Table 4. 6). The second significant 3
ratio of major interest to Hypotheses 3 and 4 was the main effect of Times.
As the contrasts signified, the change in test scores over time was
great enough so that all possible simple contrasts contributed to the
overall significance of the Times F ratio. This was interpreted to mean
that change in test score levels for all groups across time was
sufficient to say that different parent p0pulations of responses
underlaid the groups at the three points in time. The third siglificant
_F_'_ ratio was associated with the Times and Variables interaction. This
suggested that groups may have changed differentially on variables
across time (Table 4.6), or that instruments may have been measuring
different constructs at different times. The non-siglificance of the
Groups by Variables interaction was taken as evidence that test score
profiles remained parallel within time . The non-significance of the
Groups by Variables by Times interaction was taken as evidence that
not only the direction of change , but also the degree of change among
the four groups was not significantly different across time.

On the basis of these results Hypotheses 3 and 4 were not
rejected. The parallelism of the score profiles would argue that
there was no difference among groups in the direction of change, and
the lack of a significant Groups by Variables by Times interaction

would suggest there was no difference in the degree of change .

65

TABLE 4.6
POSTBHDC CONTRASTS: HYPOTHESBS 3 AND 4 VARIANCE ANALYSIS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Groups Compared ’ Mean Difference Conf. Int. . Sig.
Groups Pyratio°
1 versus* 43.978
2 45.749 1.771 13.376 NS
1 versus 43.978
3 45.901 1.923 13.376 NS
1 versus 43.978
4 47.857 3.879 13.376 .05
2 versus 45.749
3 45.901 0.152 19.376 NS
2 versus 45.749
4 47.857 2.108 13.376 NS
3 versus 45.901
4 47.857 1.956 13.376 NS
1 versus 43.978
2,3 and 4 46.502 2.524 12.709 NS
1 and 2 versus 44.864
3 abd 4 46.879 2.015 12.371 NS
Times F Ratio:
Ti versus** 43.319
T2 45.750 1.931 10.855 .05
T1 versus 43.819
T3 48.045 4.226 10.855 .05
T2 versus 45.750
T3 48.045 2.295 10.855 .05
Times by variables
Interaction:
«wsus 132* 63.951
66.489 2.538 13.629 NS
.us I83 63.951
72.060 8.109 ‘13.629 .05

66

TABLE 4.6-Continued

 

 

 

 

Groups Compared Mean Difference Conf. Int. Sig.
IB2 versus 1B3 66.489
72.060 5.571 13.629 .05
CTl versus CT2 32.984
37.745 4.761 13.629 .05
CTl versus CT3 32.984
39.391 6.407 13.629 .05
CT2 versus CT3 37.745
39.391 1.646 13.629 NS
DVIl versus DVI2 34.522
33.016 1.506 13.629 NS
DVIl versus DVI3 34.522
32.685 1.837 .13.629 NS
DVI2 versus DVI3 33.016
32.685 0.331 13.629 NS
*
**l = Greeks, 2 = DrOpouts, 3 = Pledgeouts, 4 = Stayouts
1 = beginning of freshman year, 2 = end of freshman year, and

3 end of senior year

Students in all four groups apparently changed in the same direction
and to approximately the same degree on the instruments considered in
this analysis.

Since the flratio for Groups was significant, an interpreta-
tion.of these data might be that groups (input) were differential,
but that Change for the groups on the intervening variables was
approximately the same. After four years (output) group means on the
variables were substantially in the same relative position as at
entrance to college (input).

This result conflicts with the conclusion drawn for Hypothesis

1 of no simple difference among the groups in level of test scores.

67

The Hypothesis 1 analysis was perfOrmed on data from.six instruments,
but the Hypothesis 3 analysis was perfbrmed on data from.cnly three
instruments. The Hypothesis 1 analysis may contain a Type II statis-
tical error, accepting a hypothesis when indeed it should be rejected.
The additional data included in the first analysis frontthe three
instruments not included in the later analyses may have masked differ—
ences at Time 1 which.mdght have occurred if only data for the three
instruments treated in Hypotheses 3 and 4 had been analyzed in the
Hypothesis 1 analysis.

Restated in.terms of variables measured, at all three times
data were analyzed, Greeks displayed less critical thinking ability,
were consistently the most stereotypic in.their perceptions of all four
groups, and as Lel'marm and Dressel (1962, p. 200) suggested but never
tested in their research, Greeks were the most other directed, i.e.,
most likely to have an emergent value orientation. It was true, however,
that the contrasts listed above fer the DVI showed no change for all
students as a single group for the entire college experience. Clearly,
this does not preclude the possibility of change within sub-groups.

It is most important to note that the significant difference
fbund in test score level between Greeks (l) and Stayouts (4) was not
because of differential group development associated with collegiate
experiences, but rather was one of initial position on.measures of the

variables in question.

68
Additional data were collected which were related to Hypothesis 4

but not Hypothesis 3. Scores on Rokeach's DogEtism Scale were obtained
at initial entrance into college and at the end of four years. While
scores across times were sigrificant (Table 4.7), the main effect for
Groups and the Times by Groups interaction were not significant. Change
in the scores from freshman to senior years was significant and toward

decreasing dogmatism in all groups (Illustration 4. 2).

TABLE 4.7
DOGMATISM VARIANCE ANALYSIS

 

 

 

Source SS df MS F
Groups 5951.465 3 1983.822 1.974
Subjects within

Groups 180938.576 180 1005.214

9:

Times 16457.938 1 16457.938 55.841
Times by

Groups 1348.769 3 449.590 1.525
Times by Subjects

within Groups 53050.793 180 294.727

 

*Siguficant at the . 05 level of confidence or Eeyond

ILLUSTRATION 4. 2
mGMATISM MEAN SCORE PROFILES

 

 

 

Mean
Score
Groups Pr. Sr. 175 -
1 170.2 161.2 170 _
2 173.4 163.3
3 168.9 151.8 165 ‘
4 166.9 149.6 160 _ ..
155 _ ‘-'\-.__
150 ‘3;
145

 

 

69
Viewing Dogratism scores alone, Hypothesis 4 was not rejected.

The degree and direction of change on this instrument was not differential

among the groups studied after four years .

Hypothesis 5

Having determined that group levels but not profiles were
different upon entrance to college and at the end of one year of
college experience , it was logical to ask if group levels and profiles
were similar at the end of four years of college. The data indicated
that group levels were similar, but that group profiles were indeed
different after four years (Table 4.8). Variables included in this
analysis were scores on the Inventory of Beliefs, A Test of Critical
Thinking, The Differential Values Inventory, and Rokeach's
Dogratism Scale.

 

TABLE 4.8
HYPOTHESIS 5 VARIANCE ANAYISIS

 

 

 

Source SS df MS F
Groups 619.870 '3 206.623 1.859
Subjects within

Groups 20007.087 180 111.150
Variables 1785707.207 3 595235.736 6821.30003"
Variables by

Groups 8421.315 9 935.702 3.5748
Variables by

Subjects within

Groups 141363.478 540 261.784

 

*5 . . .
Siguf 1cant at the . 0 5 level of confidence or beyond

70
Results showed there was no difference among the four groups

in level, but there was a sigrificant difference in score profiles. The
interaction of variables by groups , which is an indicator of parallelism
in score profiles, was sigiificant. When the method for the interpretation
of sigmificant interaction effects recommended by Levin and Marascuilo
(1970) was carried out, results indicated that no simple combination of
variables and groups was solely responsible for the significant 1: ratio
(Table 4.9) . Furthermore, neither were any pairs of interaction parameters
responsible for the significant interaction E ratio. Scheffe's Theorem
states that if an _P_‘ ratio is sigrificant, there is at least one set of
contrasts which is also siinficant. Apparently, a complex interaction
involving two or more groups and two or more variables was responsible
for the siglificant 3 ratio. The large number of possible complex
interactions which might be tested seemed unreasonable to carry out because
of the difficulties anticipated in computation and in interpretation .
Knowledge that no simple interaction contributed to the E ratio seemed
sufficient for this study.

TABLE 4.9
ESTII‘M'ES OF THE INTERACTION PARAMETERS: HYPOTHESIS 5 ANALYSIS

 

 

IB CT DVI D-S Rows
G1 -4.126 -0.805 -0.207 5.135 -0.456
92 -3.875 -l.576 0.217 5.234 1.576
G3 3.114 0.652 0.141 -3.908 —0.717
G” 4.885 1.728 0.402 -6.462 -0.402
Columns -3.092 -35.761 -42.467 81.321
A A
3% 2':
2‘ij =Kij1 7.358 V718 = ‘PAB 1 12.042

 

therefij is a simple interaction between a variable and a
group, and YAB is an interaction between any pair of variables or groups.

71
It was possible to say that while the groups may have arisen

from populations having similar test responses, they did arise from
populations having differing score profiles, i.e. , overall interpretation
of the profiles for each group was differential in some way.

Hypothesis 6

Whether group means change over time or not , another kind of
change may still occur among individuals within a group. Surely different
interpretations are attached to a group of scores on an instrument which
are widely dispersed along the entire scale, and a group of scores which
cluster relatively close to the mean. In the first case the interpre-
tation would likely be that there was little agreement within the group
of scores on the variable measured (heterogeneity). In the second case
the interpretation would probably indicate there was considerable
agreement within the group of scores (homogeneity). Change over time
from little agreement to considerable agreement, or vice-verse, would seem
to imply an impact at least as meaningful as a change in mean score.
Furthermore, differential dispersion of scores across groups at a given
time would also suggest alternate explanations. Hypotheses 6 and 7
considered the possibility of change in group variability between and
within the groups of this study.

For each variance analysis computed to test the first five
hypotheses, a parallel analysis of variance of the test score profiles
was computed. Levene's Test for Homogeneity of Variance is a straight-
forward test which is robust to the assumption that the samples tested
come from normal populations. Data needed for the test were "...the
absolute values of the differences between each observation and the mean

of its group" (Glass, 1966). These were obtained after each of the

72
original analyses of variance were computed by using the resultant group

means in a Fortran sub-routine on the CDC 6500 computer, and punching a
new deck of cards with the required values.

Hypothesis 6 considered change in dispersion of group scores
across groups independent of time. It was parallel to Hypotheses 1, 2, and
5:

6. There is no difference in the dispersion of test scores among
individuals who eventually join and remain in fraternities,
join and later drop out of fraternities, pledge but never
fOrmally associate with fraternities, and never formally
associate with fraternities (1) upon initial enrollment in
college, (2) one year after initial enrollment in college,
and (3) four years after initial enrollment in college.
The 5 ratios of interest parallel to Hypothesis 1 for Fall, 1958, entering
freshman score profiles were not significant (Table 4.10). On this
basis part 1 of Hypothesis 6 was not rejected; dispersion of test scores

fOr the groups of interest were not different upon initial enrollment in

 

 

 

college.
TABLE 4.10
LEVENE VARIANCE ANALYSIS, FALL, 1958

Source SS df MS F
Gkoups 183.603 3 61.201 0.382
Subjects within 1

Groups 28782. 845 180 159.905
Variables 52811.036 5 1052.207 123.165"
Variables by -

Groups 555.821 15 37.055 0.432
Variables by

Subjects with-

in Groups 77180.312 900 85.765

 

’gRecall that, due to the nature of the test scores, the F ratio for
Variables was expected to be significant. As a result it was not of
great interest to the study.

73
Non-significant _}_‘_ ratios simply mean that statistically the

dispersion of profile scores for the groups were uniformly heterogeneous
or homogeneous. Alone they yield no indication of which is the case in a
set of data. Graphing individual group score dispersions appeared the
most practical solution to finding what kind of score dispersion was
present. In order to provide a means of comparison, score dispersions

of instruments common to all three times were graphed together (Illustra-
tion 4.3). Since 3 ratios in the analysis of end of freshman year scores
(Table 4.11) and the analysis of senior year scores (Table 4.12) were all
non-sigfificant, it seemed redundant to graph test scores not in common
across all three times. The E tests in these analyses indicated the
dispersion of test scores between the groups at all three times was the
same or similar. Hypotheses 6 and 7 were not rejected; there was no
statistically sigxificant difference in dispersion.

ILLUSTRATION 4. 3
TEST DISPERSIONS COMNDN TO ALL TIMES

 

 

Inventogg of Beliefs Dispersions

30 1 26

15 16

10 -

5 _' .—

0 s-

5 _ 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
10 _.
15 16

20
25
30 - 26

 

6: 15.3 15.2 13.7 16.4 16.5 15.7 15.3 15.7 17.1 15.0 15.0 17.6
Time I Time II Time III

74
ILLUSTRATION 4 . 3 —-Oontinued

 

 

Critical ThinkiniDispers iOns
15 .J 25
10

521‘] I I a 1
I I -~ I
5413.1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 12 3 4

10- w ' j l

15j2¢$

6:6.7 6.8 6.6 7.0 5.3 6.2 6.8 5.4 6.0 6.1 6.1 4.8
TimeI Time II Time III

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Differential Values Inventory Dispersions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20
15] 23
10 .4 l
5 .. 1 , ' ‘
0 d-— '1—- ——1 —-4 --—: .7 b—q h—-4 —-i '—
s_1234 1234 1234
10 1 l l * I l ' [
15 j 23
20 -
6:6.6 6.6 6.8 7.8 6.4 7.2 6.4 8.0 7.1 7.3 6.7 6.9
TimeI Time II Time III
---r

1 = Greeks , 2 = Dropouts , 3 = Pledgeouts , 4 = Stayouts

The graphs clearly showed lack of disagreement in dispersion among the

four groups . Considering the theoretical range of scores for the instru-
ments involved, it would seem reasonable to say these results were relatively
homogeneous . Stated another way , individuals were in fairly close agree-

ment on the variables measured.

75

TABLE 4. 11

LEVENE VARIANCE ANALYSIS, SPRING, 1959

 

 

 

Source SS df MS F
Groups 6.615 3 2.205 0.053
Subjects withe

in Groups 7557.047 180 41.984

f

Variables 6898.479 2 3449.240 912.208“
Variables by

Groups 180.577 6 30.096 0.796
Variables by

Subjects

within

Groups 13612. 202 360 37. 812

 

"*SIgnificant at the .05 level of confidence or7beyond

TABLE 4.12

LEVENE VARIANCE ANALYSIS, SPRING, 1962

 

 

 

Source SS df MS F
Groups 61.642 3 20.547 0.163
Subjects withe

in Groups 22588.213 180 125.490
Variables 22918.253 3 7639.418 113.802"
Variables by

Groups 682.845 9 75.872 1.130
Variables by

SUbjects

within

Groups 36249.464 540 67.129

 

*Significant at the

.05 level of confidence or beyond

76

Iypothesis 7

 

Hypothesis 7 considered change in dispersion of goup scores
within groups across time. It was stated to be parallel to Hypotheses
3 and 4.

7. There is no difference in the dispersion of test score profiles
over time within groups (1) one year after initial enrollment in
college, and (2) four years after initial enrollment in college.

The _F_ ratios of interest parallel to those in Hypotheses 3 and 4 in the
four-way analysis of variance for Hypothesis 7 were not siinficant

(Table 4.13). On these results Hypothesis 7 was not rejected. Dispersion
of test score profiles within groups across time were rot differential.

In terms of variables measured, dispersion was rot sigmificantly different

in a statistical sense among the groups on the Inventory of Beliefs, A

 

Test of Critical Thinking, and The Differential Values Inventory.

 

 

When dogmatism scores collected at the beginning and end of
college were considered, Hypothesis 7 , part 2 could not be accepted.
While there was re difference in group level or profile, in this case the
sigfificant 3 ratio for times was evidence that for all groups there was a
difference in dispersion over times (Table 4.14) . When actual total group
deviations were checked , the students had become more Iomogeneous from
their freshman to their senior year on Rokeach's Dogratism Scale (Fresh-
man = 27.2; Senior = 24.0). Using t-tests on freshen-senior variances
in their population, Lehmann and Dressel (1962, pp. 52-54) found greater
heterogeneity among males on the DVI and greater homogereity on the

Roguatism Scale. The use of multiple t-tests on the same population may

 

account for the additional significant difference in the Lelmann-Dressel

data.

77

 

 

 

TABLE 4.13
LEVENE VARIANCE ANALYSIS: HYPOTHESIS 7
Source SS df MS F
Groups 67.299 3 22.433 0.254
Subjects with-
in Groups 15922.826 180 88.460
Times 4.667 2 2.333 0.110
5':
Variables 19288.222 2 9644.111 109.022
Times with
Variables 166.135 4 41.534 1.911
Groups with
Times 76.054 6 12.676 0.599
Groups with
Variables 180.459 6 30.076 0.437
Groups and Times
with
Variables 232.137 12 19.345
Times by
Subject
within
Groups 7616.840 360 21.158
Variables by
Subjects
within
Groups 24777.822 360 68.827
Times and Var-
iables by
Subjects
within
Groups 15657.401 720 21.733

 

*SignifiCant at the .05 leveI'of confidence or beyond

78

TABLE 4.14
LEVENE DOQ’IATISM DISPERSION ANALYSIS

 

 

Source SS df MS F
Groups 343.686 3 114.562 0.344
Subjects with-

in Groups 59832.891 180 332.405

:8
Times 961.591 1 961.591 6.400
Times
by

Q'oups 438.450 3 146.150 0.972
Variables by

Subjects

within

Groups 27043 . 742 180 150 . 243

 

*Significant at the .05 level of confidence

Senior Year Experience Inventory

 

The remaining two hypotheses (8 and 9) formed for the study

treated data collected on Lehmann and Dressel' 5 Senior Year Experience

 

Inventory (SRI) . Additional data considering self-reports of factors
which reinforced or undified beliefs , and student response to the Clark-

Tnow student typologies were also analyzed.

Mothesis 8

 

Hypothesis 8 was formed to consider mean score data from
scales developed out of items from the SRI . Sixteen scales were developed
from SRI items which had an internal consistency reliability coefficient
considered a prior} to be sufficient for further analysis. Definitions of
these scales were listed in Chapter III. The hypothesis formed to consider

than was:

79

8. Four years after- initial enrollment in college, there is no
difference in degree or direction of 'Selfareporrted change,
or in attitudes and values anong individuals who eventually
joined and remained in fraternities , joined and later dropped
out of fraternities , pledged but never formally associated
with fraternities , and never formally associated with
fraternities .

 

The test of the hypothesis was a three-way analysis of variance using the
aeenhouse and Geisser profile analysis method (Table 4.15) . There was
a significant 3 ratio for the Groups, but no significant E ratio for

the Groups and Variables interaction. Groups had parallel profiles , but
profiles were not all at the same level. Apparently there was difference

in self-perceived degree of change, but not in direction of change. Other-

 

wise both 3 ratios would have been non-significant. Hypothesis 8 was thus

not rejected in terms of direction of change , but was not accepted in

terms of defie of change.

TABLE 4.15
RAVE SCALES VARIANCE ANALYSIS

 

.........

 

 

Source SS df MS F
Groups 196.218 3 65.406 3.126*
subjects with-

in Groups 3766.002 180 20.922

8:

Variables 186797. 121 19 9831. 427 835 . 721
Variables by

Groups 817.695 57 14.345 1.219
Variables by

Subjects

within

Groups 40234.085 3420 11.764

 

Significant at the . 05 level of confidence or beyond

80

A set of Scheffe' contrasts were computed to determine where
differences in level might be found (Table 4.16). While it would seem
nost interesting to ask about differences among groups on individual scales ,
the non-significance of the groups by variables interaction would suggest
that what is true for one scale is true for another. The contrasts listed
thus looked across the entire profile of scale scores for groups , and asked
if there were simple differences in level between pairs of groups which
might provide evidence to show differential degree of change .

TABLE 4.16
POST-HOC CDNTRASI‘S: SRI RAVE ANALYSIS

 

 

 

 

Groups Compared JMean Difference Conf. Int. Sig.
1 versus* 15.004
2 15.442 0.438 10.592' NS
1 versus 15.004
3 15.103 0.099 :0.592 NS
1 versus 15.004
4 14.804 0.200 10.592 NS
2 versus 15.442
3 15.103 0.339 [:0.592 NS
2 versus 15.442
4 14.804 0.638 ‘:0.592 .05
3 versus 15.103
4 14.804 0.299 :0.592 NS
3:?

1 = Greeks; 2 = Dropouts; 3 = Pledgeouts; 4 = Stayouts

The contrast involving Dropouts (2) and Stayouts (4) proved to
be the only simple contrast contributing to the overall significance of the
Groups _I_'_ ratio anong those tested. The data indicated that in comparison
to Dropouts, Stayouts had a significantly lower overall scale score profile.
An effort was made when the scales were constructed to have higher scores

represent more of various described qualities . Compared only with the

_ 81
DrOpouts, Stayouts had less of these described qualities in their group

profile. There was no significant difference in profiles when Stayouts

were compared with other groups .

Hypothesis 9

 

A.question of equal interest to that of differences in mean

scores on the SRI scales was whether scale score dispersion was differential
among the groups. Hypothesis 9 treated that aspect of the data analysis.

It was tested using Levene's Test of HOmogeneity (Table 4.17). Results
indicated that neither levels nor profiles of dispersion were different.

The significant §_ratio due to variance of variables was not of interest

to the study. Based on these data, Hypothesis 9 was not rejected. There
were no statistical differences in the scales of self-reported change or

in scales of attitudes and values for the four'groups on the Senior Year

 

Experience Inventory.

 

TABLE 4.17
LEVENE VARIANCE ANALYSIS: SRI SCALES

 

 

 

Source SS df MS F
Groups 11.490 3 3.830 0. 684
Subjects with-

in Groups 1007.342 180 5.597
Variables 7810. 330 19 411. 070 126. 661“
Variables by

Groups 242.121 57 4. 248 1.185
Variables by

Subjects

within

Groups 12264.421 3420 3. 586

 

7*Significant at the .05”1eve1 of_confidence or beyond

82

Additional Data

 

Fifty items in Part X of the SRI were not scalable by
means of the reciprocal averages program. These items provided students
with the opportunity to mark those among the fifty which in their
Opinion had modified or reinforced their beliefs since they entered
college. Seven groups of items were formed by content analysis: (1)
Courses, (2) Instructors, (3) Peers, (4) Student Organizations, (5)
Student Activities , (6) University Facilities , and (7) Other influences
not classified in the previous six categories . As explained in
Chapter III, data were analyzed using Kendall's Coefficient of Con-
cordance and Hays' Omega Squared. Group scores were determined by
sunming across individual responses. Data for this analyses were
transformed from the original instrument such that a single scale
was formed with a response of 5 meaning "nost modifying" and a
response of 1 meaning "nest reinforcing."

Courses.-'IWelve items listed specific courses in University
College of Michigan State University, other courses and courses in one' 3
major (Table 4.18) . The intent of these items was to ascertain if students
perceived an impact on their beliefs as a result of the general
education courses in their academic program: Natural Science , Social
Science, Humanities and Commnication Skills . Kendall's Coefficient
of Concordance (KCC) anong the four groups on these data was 0.51,
or 51 percent ofthe maximum possible variance which could theoretically
be achieved. This was interpreted to be a moderately high degree
of concordance among the groups. The two courses listed as most
modifying were Social Science 231 and Social Science 232. Courses
listed as nost reinforcing beliefs were "a course in your major" and

(tied) "any other course" and Humanities 241.

83

TABLE 4.18
SELF-PERCEIVED IMPACT OF VARIOUS COURSES ON ATTITUDES AND VALUES

 

 

 

Greeks Dropouts Pledgeouts Stayouts Total
Course Score (Rank) Score (Rank) Score (Rank) Score (Rank) (Rank)
(kmnmmication *
Skills 111 132 ( 5.5) 129 ( 8) 131 ( 8.5) 140 ( l) 3.5
Communication
Skills 112 133 ( 3.5) 126 (10) 130 (10.5) 136 ( 2) 6
Communication
Skills 113 113 ( 3.5) 125 (12) 132 ( 7) 134 ( 6) 7
Natural
Science 181 132 ( 5.5) 136 ( 5) 131 ( 8.5) 135 ( 4) 3.5
Natural
Science 182 129 ( 8.5) 141 ( 2) 128 (12) 137 ( 7) 8
Natural
Science 183 126 (11.5) 133 ( 7) 130 (10.5) 128 ( 9) 11
Social
Science 231 141 ( 1) 143 ( l) 136 ( 2) 135 ( 4) 1
Social
Science 232 131 ( 7) 139 ( 3) 137 ( l) 135 ( 4) 2
Social
Science 233 129 ( 8.5) 138 ( 4) 134 ( 5) ‘129 ( 8) 5
Humanities
241 119 (13) 126 (10) 133 ( 6) 125 (11) 12.5
Humanities
242 126 (11.5) 135 ( 6) 135 ( 3.5) 126 (10) 9
Humanities
243 128 (10) 126 (10) 135 ( 3.5) 117 (14) 10
A course in
my'najor 116 (14) 117 (14) 121 (14) 122 (13) 14
Any other
course 137 ( 2) 124 (13) 124 (13) 122 (13) 12.5

 

*KCC"for these data.was 0.51

Instructors.--Parallel to the items about courses, 10 items asked

 

students to say which of various university instructors and other personnel

had most influenced their beliefs (Table 4.19).

84

TABLE 4. 19
SELF-PERCEIVED IMPACT OF VARIOUS INSTRUCTORS ON ATTITUDES AND VALUES

 

 

 

Greeks Dropouts Pledgeouts Stayouts Total
Instructors Score (Rank) Score (Rank) Score (Rank) Score (Rank) (Rank)
Social *
Science 138 ( l) 137 ( 5) 143 ( 2) 136 ( 3) l
Humanities 129 ( 5.5) 129 ( 7.5) 127 ( 9) 131 ( 7) 9
Natural
Science 130 ( 3) 136 ( 6) 134 ( 4) 129 ( 9) 7
Camumication
Skills 131 ( 2) 130 (9.5) 147 ( 1) 133 ( 4.5) 2
Instructor in
major 113 (10) 130 ( 9.5) 124 (10) 138 ( 1) 10
Any other
instructor 129 (5.5) 138 (4) 129 (8) 122 (10) 8
Housemother 128 ( 8.5) 129 ( 7.5) 135 ( 3) 137 ( 2) 5.5
R.A. or Head
R.A. 129 ( 5.5) 140 ( 2.5) 130 ( 6.5) 132 ( 6) 3.5
Conduct
patterns of
Faculty 129 ( 5.5) 140 ( 2.5) 133 ( 6) 130 ( 8) 5.5
Academic
Adviser 128 ( 8.5) 143 ( l) 130 ( 6.5) 133 ( 4.5) 3.5

 

a"RC0 fwThese @ta was 0 . 24

The KCC value for these data was 0 . 24—-a low degree of concordance among
the groups . When a low degree of concordance is computed , the question
arises whether there is low agreement between the groups or low agree-
ment among subjects BEE-“.. the groups. The latter tends to cause ties in
rank order which weakens the robustness of the KCC . One way to determine
whether there is low agreement between or within groups when a low KCC is
found is to calculate Hays' measure of statistical association, Omega
Squared, for each individual group (Hays, 1963, pp. 381-385). None of the
Omega Squared for the four groups accounted for more than one per cent

of the variance in the dependent variable , responses to items about

instructors. Apparently the reason for the low KCC value was very little

85

agreement among subjects within the several groups. The value of
Omega Squared for Greeks was 0.009; Dropouts, 0.000; Pledgeouts,
0.001; and Stayouts, 0.000. Regardless of low overall agreement, it
seemed defensible that agreement among the subjects within a group
would be greatest on items with the most extreme scores. Considering only
those items with the highest and lowest group scores, Greeks reported
Social Science instructors most modifying and major instructors most
reinforcing. An academic advisor was most modifying for Dropouts, and
a Communication Skills or major instructor most reinforcing. Pledgeouts
said a Communication Skills instructor was most modifying and a major
instructor most reinforcing. Stayouts reported a major instructor most
modifying and any other instructor most reinforcing.

ww-There is much in the literature on student development
about the impact of peers on attitudes and values. Six items treated the
impact of various peer group situations. KCC for these data was 058 , a
moderate degree of concordance which indicated general agreement among
the groups as to the rank order of peer influences. The generalized
statement, "conforming to campus mores," was considered the most modifying
peer group influence, and close friends were the most reinforcing
influence among the students in the groups (Table 4. 20).

Student Organizations.--Another source of influence on student

 

development closely related to peers were student organizations. A set of
six items listed various student organizations , and asked students to report
which of them had had an impact on their beliefs. The KCC was 0.19

(Table 4.21). There was no agreement among the groups as to which of the
six types of student organizations were most influential on individual

attitudes and values. Hays' Omega Squared tests showed that lack of

86

TABLE 4.20
SELFLPERCEIVED IMPACT OF PEERS ON ATTITUDES AND VALUES

 

 

 

Greeks Dropouts Pledgeouts Stayouts Total
Peers Score (Rank) Score (Rank) Score (Rank) Score (Rank) (Rank)
Close *
Eriend(s) 128 ( 6) 131 ( 5) 130 ( 5) 113 ( 6) 6
Roommate 130 ( 5) 135 ( 4) 129 ( 6) 134 ( 4) 5
Discussions
of "bull-
sessions" 131 ( 3.5) 144 ( l) 131 ( 3.5) 128 ( 5) 3
A.perscn
I dated 131 ( 3.5) 127 ( 6) 131 ( 3.5) 140 ( 1) 4
Conduct
patterns of
students 136 ( 2) 142 ( 3) 144 ( l) 137 ( 2.5) 2
(kmfitmmdng to
Campus
Mores 137 ( l) 143 ( 2) 140 ( 2) 137 ( 2.5) l

 

I‘RCC for these data was 0.58

agreement was associated.with disagreement among individuals within groups,
as none of the statistics accounted for more than 4.5 per cent of total
variance. The values were Greeks, 0.002; Dropouts, 0.000; Pledgeouts,
0.045; and Stayouts, 0.007. Greeks marked the Honors College most modify-
ing and their fraternity or sorority most reinfOrcing. Both Dropouts

and Pledgeouts viewed ROTC as most modifying and their living quarters as
most reinforcing, although tied in rank with Extra-Curricular Clubs for
Dropouts and Honorary Societies for Pledgeouts. Stayouts considered their
living quarters most modifying, and Extra-curricular Clubs most reinforcing.

Student Activities.--A.third source of student impact on student

 

development associated.with peer interaction and student organizations was
student activities. Five items mentioned various all-campus activities

which students might choose to do (Table 4.22). The KCC was 0.47.

87

TABLE 4.21
SELF-PERCEIVED IMPACT OF STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS ON ATTITUDES AND VALUES

 

 

Student Greeks Dropout Pledgeouts Stayouts Total
Organizations Score (Rank) Score (Rank) Score (Rank) Score (Rank) (Rank)

 

Extra-curb

ricular *

clubs 124 (5) 132 (5.5) 134 (4) 130 (6) 6
Fraternity

or Sorority 113 (6) 136 (3.5) 144 (2) 137 (2) 3
Living

Quarters 134 (3.5) 132 (5.5) 129 (5.5) 138 (1) 4
ROTC 134 (3.5) 137 (l) 148 (l) 135 (3) l
Honors

College 140 (l) 136 (3.5) 137 (3) 133 (4.5) 2
Honorary

Societies 135 (2) 136 (3) 129 (5.5) 133 (4.5) 5

 

‘*RCC for these data was 0.19

TABLE 4.22
SELF-PERCEIVED IMPACT OF STUDENT ACTIVITIES ON ATTITUDES AND VALUES

 

 

 

Student Greek Dropout Pledgeouts Stayouts Total
Activities Score (Rank) Score (Rank) Score (Rank) Score (Rank) (Rank)
Social Events 117 (3)} 130 (3) 127 (3) 122 (5) 3.5
Athletic

Events 116 (4.5) 131 (1.5) 125 (4) 123 (4) 3.5
Lecture-

Concert

Series 135 (l) 129 (4) 132 (2) 126 (3) 2
Participation

in Athletics 116 (4.5) 127 (5) 124 (5) 131 (2) 5
Physical

Education 127 (2) 131 (1.5) 133 (l) 134 (1) l

 

*KCC fOr these data was 0.47

88
This was considered within the range of moderate agreement among the four

groups. The activity regarded.as most modifying was physical education.
The.most reinforcing activity was participation in athletics. At first
glance, this seemed somewhat uninterpretable. However, physical education
was a required activity in Which students were asked to take part in
activities they might not otherwise choose to do. Participation in
athletics, on the other hand, would seem to relate strongly to those
activities students knew and enjoyed doing. If this interpretation is
correct, the difference between What was most modifying and most reins
forcing may be exposure to new experiences.

university Facilities.-2A.sixth source of potential impact on

 

student attitudes and values was University facilities Which the student
might use to his advantage. There was a.moderately high degree of agreement
among the groups on the impacts of the various University facilities listed
on the inventory (Table 4.23). The KCC was 0.73. Tied for first rank as

the most modifying influences were the Mental Hygiene Clinic and the
Improvement Services. The Church, if the campus ministries may be considered
a University facility, was the most reinforcing influence on student beliefs
in this set of items.

Other Influences.--Four items which did not appear to logically
fit into the previous six categories of potential student impacts were
listed together. Interestingly, the highest degree of concordance was
registered fOr this group, 0.76 (Table 4.24). Campus regulations were
considered the most modifying of these potential influences, and Family
the most reinfOrcing of previously held attitudes and values. Again it
would appear that adapting to new experiences (regulations) was modifying,

while continuing familiar experiences (Family) was reinforcing.

89

TABLE 4.23
SELF—PERCEIVED IMPACT OF UNIVERSITY FACILITIES ON ATTITUDES AND VALUES

 

 

University Greeks Dropouts Pledgeouts Stayouts Total
Facilities Score (Rank) Score (Rank) Score (Rank) Score (Rank) (Rank)

 

 

 

 

 

Counseling g.
Center 139 (l) 130 (4) 135 (3) 130 (3) 3
Library 126 (5) 131 (3) 127 (u) 128 (u) u
Mental
Hygiene 135 (2) 134 (2) 139 (l) 136 (2) 1.5
Clinic 134 (3) 138 (l) 138 (2) 139 (l) 1.5
Improvement
Services
Church 128 (4) 124 (5) 124 (5) 122 (5) 5
*KCC for these data was 0.73
TABLE 4.24
SELF-PERCEIVED IMPACT OF OTHER INFLUENCES ON ATTITUDES AND VALUES
Other Greeks Dropouts Pledgeouts Stayouts Total
Influences Score (Rank) Score (Rank) Score (Rank) Score (Rank) (Rank)
4?
Employment 130' (3) 144 (3) 143 (1.5) 128 (3) 3
Family 114 (4) 125 (4) 125 (4) 127 (4) 4
Campus
regulations 151 (l) 145 (2) 143 (1.5) 145 (1) 1
Being away
fromhome 136 (2) 149 (l) 133 (3) 141 (2) 2

 

*RCC for these data was 0.76

Student Typologies

 

The final section of data from the Senior-Year Egberience Inventory

 

analyzed for this research was student responses to the four Clark-Trow
student typologies: (W) Vocational, (X) Academic, (Y) Non-Conformist , and
(Z) Collegiate. Students were asked to select the typology which most

closely described them as Seniors and when they entered college as

90
Freshmen. They also indicated that typology least like themselves as
Seniors, the type they would like to be if they could, and the type
they considered the typical MSU student (Table 4 . 25) .

The four groups were statistically different in their
description of their present typology. In decreasing order, the
fraternity-associated groups (1,2 and 3) were most likely to choose the
non-conformist category, while Stayouts were most likely to choose the
vocational typology. Two-thirds of the students who chose the collegiate
typoloy were Greeks .

Groups were also statistically different in their selection
of the typology £215.13 descriptive of themselves. Greeks were most likely
to say the academic type was least descriptive and least likely to
report the collegiate orientation as least descriptive. In contrast ,

a majority in the remaining three groups (2, 3, and 4) considered the
collegiage orientation least descriptive of then.

There was considerable change in the typology selected by sub-
jects in the groups from 1958 to 1962. In 1962, students in all groups
were less concerned with vocatioral proparation and more involved in a
desire for balanced academic and social activity. Two other points
seered noteworthy. Stayouts retained the most vocationally oriented
after four years , and all other groups except Greeks declined in the
percentage selecting the collegiate orientation .

The third item on which the groups were statistically different
had to do with the kind of person they would like to be if they had a
choice. All groups had a majority of subjects Opting for the non-
conformist description, but more Greeks than other group members still
indicated they wanted to be collegiate . Greeks were least likely , and

Dropouts most likely to say their ideal type was Academic. A comparison

91

woommro m on:

nos .3 8 mm 83

odooz.oo> c0mhwo mo

coax mew meanwhommo

room.ma Amv Aav AoV Asav Ammo Ammo Ammv Ammo Army Ammv Ammv Amav AHHV AHHV Amv AHHV 0p promoao mmeoo
. H m o m am am am mm ma NH we a m m a m o>oom mew mo coacz

Sm: 8. memo

pmfim 30% con:

mpm3_:o> cemnoo mo

Unfix mew mcaoflnommo

Hoa.m Amv Aomv Asav Aomv Ammv Aowv Aawv Ammv Aomv Amv Aeav Aav Aomv Ammv Aaav Aomv ow vmmmoao mmeoo
: m w m 0H m Ha we m a m m mm am we mm m>oom one no coflc3

~30: on

0p maomnoo> hooflm

1:00 30> cowhmo mo

coax mop mo o>Hu

cmas.mm Ammo Azmv Ammo Aomv Amv Aav Aav AQV nomv Away Aamv Away Amv Ammv Aomv Ammv loanommo pmmwa we
4 mm mm :m :H a m m o m m Ha mm a He m OH m>ocm may mo moan:
~30:

mo ow mammmoo> mm

nofimcoo so» screen

.6 3.2 was. an

noehommo ow pmmmoao

 

mz

 

 

 

 

 

ammm.mm on “so Aav Ammo Ammo Aaav Arno Azmv Ammo Ammo Aomv Arc Ammo Aomv Aomv Aomv mmaoo AN.w.x.3V
. o m m OH NH ma Hm mm we 0H m m ma :H :H m m>oom mew Mo cowcz
a m a H a m N a a m N H a m a a 528me
x memflwofioo pogomcoolcoz "Jeanna @0383
m mcfloooowmm ozone comm :H Ammouomonmmv com zocoooonm moMH

 

 

 

 

m<mw mOHzmm OH z<zmmmmm 20mm mmwz<mo wwoqomwh Qm>Hmommmlmqmm
mm.: mqm<H

92

m2

mnm.m AHmV Asav

Remarks 883%8 mo Home mo. of a... password. mm

3333 35 38 33 8.3 AC 2.; A5 A5

9:836 pm: Baas.
omv wcwflpommo 0p

38 so 88 83 p886 mma8 8%

 

NN N S N a as 3 N m N N N S a 2 N 96% mfi .66 fine
a m N a a m N N a m . N H a m N a pamfiuflm
x opflwmfloo profiooaoousoz 3682

 

 

 

dmcowumog .

 

mowocomwmm moose comm aw Amwmvomonmmv mam. encamoowfim when.

 

 

 

 

omscflpCCOIlmm.: mum<H

93
of items 1 and 4 suggests the difference between self-perceived and
ideal traits for these students.

There was no statistical difference among the groups in
their description of the person they were when they entered college.
Students in all groups were most likely to consider themselves
vocationally oriented.

Despite the data on self-perceptions to the contrary above,
a stereotype apparently existed among these students which perpetuated
the "typical MSU college joe" as a collegiate--one who would try to
get by with the least amount of effort. Apparently, Greeks were the
most likely to view themselves as typical MSU students, whereas the
other groups were mnch.more likely to see themselves as being different

from.the "average" student at the University.
SUMMARY

. This chapter has presented the results of the statistical
analyses performed on the data collected for the study. Results indicated
that there were differences on both published instruments and the
Senior Year Experience Inventory among the four'groups. Differences on
variables measured by published instruments were more interpretable than
differences among groups on the SRI scales. Most statistically significant
differences were between Greeks and Stayouts or Dropouts and Stayouts.
Experiences reinfOrcing attitudes and beliefs appeared associated with
vocational preparation, while experiences modifying attitudes and beliefs
seemed associated.with more general educational development. At entrance
to college students were most likely to be vocationally oriented, but

after four years they were:much more interested in a balance of academic

and social affairs.

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter presents an overview of the research reported.
Conclusions are made and interpretations of the results given in terms of
the groups and instruments involved in the study . Limitations of this

study are described and suggestions for further research are made.

Purpose and ProCeduIe

The purpose of this study was to determine if apparent degree
of association with a college social fraternity appeared to have an
influence on the development of critical thinking , attitudes and values
as measmred by published instruments , and whether persons with varying

lengths of membership differed in ‘self-perceiVed attitudes and values

 

after four years of college.

The sample of students selected for study were from the population
of male students who entered Michigan State University in fall, 1958 , for
the first time, and who attended the University for at least nine of the
next eleven terms . Subjects were grouped according to length of fraternity
membership as determined by research records and individual responses on

the SeniOr-Year Experience Inventory. The groups were (1) those who joined

 

and remained in fraternities, (2) those who joined but later dropped out of
fraternities, (3) those who pledged but never formally joined fraternities ,
and (4) those who reported no formal association with fraternities.

Groups were compared at three points in time: (1) at the beginning

91+

95
of the freshman year, (2) at the end of the freshman year, and (3) at

the end of the senior year. Instruments used in the study were The College

 

Qualification Test, The MSU Readipg Test, A Test of Critical Thinking,

The Inventory of Beliefs, Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, The Differential

 

Values Inventory, and 16 scales developed from items in The Senior Year

 

 

Experience Inventory; Cognitive instruments were administered only at
the beginning of the freshman year. Affective instruments were administered
at all three points in time. The Senior Year Experience Inventory was
administered at the end of the senior year.

The major statistical tool used to analyze the data was
analysis of variance employing the method of profile analysis suggested
by Greenhouse and Geisser (1959). In all analyses the .05 level of

confidence was used to determine statistical significance.

Ping gs

Nine hypotheses were tested with the data collected for the
study. Not only were mean differences in group data considered, but
also dispersion of the data about the mean.

Hypothesis l.--The first hypothesis considered the equality
of group test score profiles at entrance to college, fall, 1958. Results
indicated that there was no simple, pairwise difference among the group
score profiles in level or parallelism. This was interpreted to mean
that at entrance to college, all four groups of interest to this study
arose from the same general population of students .

Hypothesis 2.--'Ihe second hypothesis treated equality of

 

group score profiles at the end of the freshman year. In this case
test profiles remained parallel, but there was a significant difference

in level between Greeks and Stayouts. In all cases, Greek test scores

96

were lower than Stayout , Pledgeout or Dropout scores , although they
were significantly different only from Stayout test scores . Restated
in terms of the variables measured by the instruments , at the end of
one year in college , Greek-affiliated students deronstrated less critical
thinking ability, were more immature, and more likely to think and per-3
ceive in terms of stereotypes in comparison with students who never
affiliated with fraternities .

hypothesis 3 .--The third hypothesis approached the problem of
degree and direction of change over time in score profiles among the
groups after one year in college . In this analysis data from both the
beginning of the freshman year and the end of the freshman year were
considered together. The two groups differing significantly from each
other in profile level were Greeks and Stayouts . There was no significant
difference in degee or direction of change since the Groups by Times by
Variables interaction was not significant. All groups became relatively
better thinkers, more matme , and less stereotypic after one year.

Hypothesis 4.--The fourth hypothesis was treated with the third

 

in a fomway analysis of variance. It considered the degree and direction
of change over time after four years of college experience . Results were
as above for Hypothesis 3. There was a significant difference between
Greeks and Stayouts in profile level, but no significant difference in

the general direction or degree of change on the variables measured.

Taking the groups as an entity, there was significant change
from the beginning to the end of the freshman year, and from the end of
the freshman year to the end of the senior year on the affective variables
measured. Stated in terms of variable concepts , students in general
became more mature , less apt to perceive in absolute categories , and

more likely to think through problems and situations in a critical manner.

97

From the beginning of the freshman year through the senior year, students
were also more likely to be less dogratic in their thinking behavior.
When profiles Of the goups were considered, Greeks at the beginning and
end Of one year and at the end of four years of college experience were
consistently the most stereotypic and otherbdirected in interpersonal
relationships , as well as the poorest critical thinkers of the four groups
studied. They were statistically different , however, only when compared
to Stayouts . Congr'uent with holding fever stereotypes , Stayouts were
least dogmatic and most Open to new ideas and experiences .

The result in Hypothesis 3 that Greeks were statistically
different in test score level from Stayouts at the beginning of the
freshman year may seem conflicting with the results of Hypothesis 1,
where no simple difference among profile level was found for the groups
at the beginning of their college experience. The Hypothesis 1 analysis
contained data from all six published insmments used in the study.

The Hypothesis 3 analysis contained data from the three instruments

which formed what was the actual longitudinal study: The Inventory Of

 

Beliefs, A Test of Critical Thinking, and The Differential Values

 

Inventory. If all six instruments had been administered at all three
points in time, it might indeed be that no sigdficant simple difference
between pairs of groups would occur. On the other hand, given only
three test scores over time , it may well be that the additional instru-
ments treated in the Hypothesis 1 analysis clouded the results and
masked what otherwise would have been a sigfificant difference in level
between Greeks and Stayouts at entrance to college . Based on the results
Of Hypothesis 3 and the somewhat difficult to interpret results of
Hypothesis 1, the possibility of a Type II statistical error in the

Hypothesis 1 analysis would appear likely.

98

Hypothesis 5.-—The fifth hypothesis appraised data for the

 

senior year alone. Group levels on the instruments were the same , but
group profiles were different . Apparently there was a complex interaction
of several groups and several instruments. There was no significant
interaction between simple combinations of individual groups and variables ,
or pairs of groups and variables. Given the significant difference in
level between Greeks and Stayouts at the end of the freshman year , one
might have expected a similar difference at the end of the senior year if
change on the variables for both groups remained relatively constant .
Apparently it did not , and may have been a factor in the significant
complex interaction mentioned above but never located. Stated in terms

of the variables measured, at the end of the senior year all groups were
similar in their critical thinking ability, stereotypy, dogIatism, and
differential values , but the interpretation placed on each groups' profile
was in some way differential. It was difficult to interpret this result
in light of the results described for Hypothesis 4. It may mean that by
the senior year, Greeks were just managing to "catch up" to the other
youps on the variables measured, but they still did not quite match
overall goup score profiles across four years. On the other hand this
result may have been a Type II statistical error, accepting a hypothesis
when in tmth it should have been rejected.

Hypotheses 6 and 7.--Both Hypotheses 6 and 7 considered the

 

possibility of differential dispersion in group scores. Results indicated

that there was none except for greater houmgeneity from the freshman to

 

senior years for all students on Rokeach' s mtism Scale . Whether
analyzed from within points of time or across points of time, all groups

displayed about the same degree of variation about test score means .

99

Hypothesis 8.--The eighth hypothesis dealt with mean scores on

 

the sixteen scales developed from the Senioer ‘Btperience 'InVentory.

 

Results showed that across the scale score profiles there was a signifi-
cant difference in level between Dropouts and Stayouts , but that there
was no difference among the groups in general scale score profile.
Stayouts scored lower on the scales tIan did dropouts .

typothesis 9 .--The firal hypothesis formed for the study

 

related to differential dispersion on the SRI scale scores for the four
groups . Results demonstrated no difference in dispersion; groups were
in general agreement in the variability of their responses to the scales.

Additional Data. "Fifty items on the SRI were analyzed which

 

provided students with the opportunity to indicate which of the fifty
had been most modifying or most reinforcing to their beliefs during
their college years . The groups were in general agreement about the
impact of courses, peers , student activities , university facilities ,
and other selected impacts. All groups agreed that two University
College Social Science courses , "conforming to campus mores , " physical
education, the Mental Hygiene Clinic and the Improvement Services ,
and campus regulations were most modifying to attitudes and beliefs
held at college entrance . Those items thought most reinforcing to
origiral attitudes and beliefs were "a course in your major," close
friends , participationin athletics , the Church, and family. There
was no agreement among the groups about the relative impact of in-
structors or student organizations .

Student Typologi_§_s_. --Students' perceptions of themselves on
the Clark-Trow typologies were statistically different for the groups
on items requesting present time perception, least descriptive perception ,

and ideal student type. They were similar when student type at college

100
entrance and the "typical" MSU student were considered. The majority of
Greeks and the plurality of'tropouts and Pledgeouts viewed themselves as
Irmrrxmutmmfists. The plurality of Stayouts perceived themselves as
vocationally oriented. When the collegiate typology alone was considered,
Greeks were most likely to indicate preference fer it. They also had
least interest in the academic typology in comparison with other groups.
From 1958 to 1962, students in all groups tended to shift from a
vocationally motivated perception of higher education to one Which had
a.more balanced.approach to both social and academic life (monsoon?
formist) . A majority of students in all groups viewed the non-
oonfOrmist as the ideal student type and a plurality regarded the
collegiate type as the "typical" MSU student. The attractiveness of
the monsoonformist typological description (Appendix A) may have
disproportionately influenced student response. Greeks appeared to
be the most consistent in their’peroeption.of themselves across all

five items.

Discussion And Conclusions

 

These data are interpretable in several alternative ways
depending in part on the interpreter's biases about fraternities
and student development. TWo plausible interpretations are
suggested here.

The purpose of this study was to ascertain if differences
in the affective development and critical thinking ability of students
mfight be associatedwwith.the degree of fraternity memberShip they
had experienced. These data demonstrate that the fraternity experience
had no discernable effect on student development over and above that

101

of the general college experience on the variables under
investigation. This conclusion, drawn over four years ‘ time, agrees
with that of Scott' s (1965) drawn over one year on related variables.
These data again show empirically what is often argued and often
found in fact, that students who join fraternities are different

in the first place .

In this study students joining fraternities were initially
statistically lower on tests of critical thinking , stereotypy , and
other-directedness than students never bothering with fraternities .
They remained so after one year and four years on the tests of stereotypy
and critical thinking. For all students across the four years of
the study, developmental growth as measured by the instruments was
approximately the same . Haternity members appeared to have the same
rate of growth as other students , but they never made up their origiral
deficit, if indeed their lower mean scores can be interpreted as a
deficit. Since all groups appeared to develop at approximately the
same rate across time on the instruments , one interpretation of the
data is that fraternities do not hinder the development of critical
thinking and flexibility . It would also appear that neither do
fraternities promote the development of critical thinking or
flexibility if indeed they should be reasonably expected to do so .

It would seem from these data that the fraternity experience , contrary
to what is claimed for it by proponents (NIC, 1959) , added little

to the personal gmwth of the Greeks in this study on the variables
considered if the instruments used were actually reasonable measures
of stereotypy and critical thinking processes. Movement on the

third variable , other-directedness , by other groups was toward the

102

Greeks' original other-directed orientation.

In one sense these results may seem critical toward fra-
ternities because they appeared not to contribute anything to student
development over and above the, general college experience . Viewed
from a more fraternity—oriented point of view, the results might seem
more encouraging. Greeks selected fraternity, family, and Church
as three of their most reinforcing influences on original attitudes
and beliefs during college . These three factors , among others , might
be taken to represent "traditional American values , " to be honored and
preserved from a fraternity point of view. It then might follow
that fraternity group selection and self-selection into fraternities
should be such that those selected are the most likely, throughout
their college experience , to honor those values .

It is appropriate to ask what these data suggest not about
fraternity group experience but group experience in general . Since
nothing was said about the possible group experiences Stayouts and
others might lave fed (and probably did have) as alterratives to fraternity
group experiences, it may well be that what has been compared in this
research were alternative group experiences. If students with a minimum
of group experience could be found and compared with students having
fraternity and other group experiences , it might easily be that any
kind of group experience would be superior in affective and critical
thinking development to little or no group experience . It appears
logical to assume that students rave differential need for group
support as a facilitator for their persoral development. A variety
of student groups may be necessary to fulfill the various levels of

group support students may desire. Fraternities are one of those

103

student groups. It is possible tlat for students such as the Greeks in
this study, fraternity membership may be the best means to encourage
change toward clearer thinking and flexibility .

Limitations

 

There were several serious limitations to this study. First,
the qualitative categories differentiating the various groups were some-.-
what melear. It was not loown how much relative exposure in actual time
any of the subjects had with fraternity experiences. It was assumed that
some had more tl'an others. Second, the instruments used in the study had
widely differing means and variances . The method of profile analysis was
considered robust to differential variance in a set of variables, but it
has been recently learned that it is apparently not as robust as pre-
viously considered (Draper, 1970). An analysis controlling for differen-
tial variance might have been more appropriate to the data. Third, the
analysis of variance method employed meant data were "lost" since the
study was fit to the statistical model, when it is preferable that the
statistical model be fit to the study. A multivariate analysis of
variance would have helped to counteract this limitation, if statistically
it is a limitation. It is true that the sampling procedures used were
employed to ensure the representativeness of the subjects selected for
analysis to the several samples of subjects and the entire population of
senior males at Michigan State University. Fourth , it was assmred
subjects were representative on the basis of pre-test, 1958, test data.
This was not to say that on the basis of post-test, 1962, data, subjects
who did and who did not respond to the instruments were from the same
population. Fifth, at best, the instruments used may only be a

101+

caricature of the psychological constructs they purport to measure .

While their validity and reliability was described , the lack of good
criterion measures for psychological constructs makes it difficult to say
that what one actually measured is what one purported to measure . Sixth ,
if there are differences in critical thinking and other variables among
groups of students, it would be most meaningful to know what effects
alternative situations to fraternities have on students by their amount
of exposure to them. Alternatives to fraternities on a campus usually
imply different housing arrangements; such housing arrangements may have
more effect on students tran fraternity membership. This study treated
only one aspect of a very complex system. Seventh, it should be roted
that there was no absolute standard against which to measure change. All
subjects in all groups were changing at all points in time. An aralysis
of Greek members' development can only be done in reference to the
development of other groups of students whose lifestyles are in and of

themselves kinds of educational "‘treatments. "
Mastions For Rmther Research

This study was completed from data collected for two larger
studies by Lehmann and Dressel published in 1962 and 1963. Times and
universities have changed and the data are clearly anchored to the time
in which they were collected. It is still important to krow how change
across time has occurred, but practical "action" applications of these
data are no longer relevant to the present University which is Michigan
State. It seems reasonable and necessary, if one is to know more about
how and when change occurs in students at Michigan State University , that

105
the entire set of studies envisioned by Lehmann and Dressel be improved

in design and replicated. This thesis would specifically suggest a
careful study of the effects of different living styles on student
develOpment. Different living styles include not only different housing
arrangements on a campus, but also different fraternity organizational

alternatives across campuses and fraternities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beal, Philip E., and Williams, Daniel A., 1968. "An Experiment With
Mixed-Class-Housing Assignments At The University Of Oregon,"
StUdent'Housinijesearch.(ACHUO Research and Information
Committee).

Bennett, George, e£_al., 1957. The College Qualification Test Manual.
New Ybrk: The Psychological Corporation.

Blackwell, Thomas E., 1966. "HOW Civil Rights Act Affects Fraternities,"
College And University Business, #1, 53-5u.

Bohrnstedt, George W;, 1966. "Processes of Seeking Membership In.And
Recruitment By Voluntary Social Organizations," Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin.

Bohrnstedt, George W}, 1969. "Conservatism, Authoritarianism.And
Religiositerf Fraternity Pledges," Journal Of College
Student Personnel, 10, 36-H3.

 

 

Bradshaw, Homer L, and Kahoe, Richard, 1967. "Differential Effects Of
Fraternity.And Sororitvaembership Upon Academically Promising
Students," Journal Of Educational Research, 61, 62-6M.

 

Brown, Robert D., 1968. "Manipulation Of The Environmental Press In A
College Residence Hall," ‘Personnel And GuidanCe'JOurnal,
H6, 555-560.

 

Butler, William R., 1959. "Factors Associated With Scholastic Achievement
In HithAnd.Low'Achieving Fraternities," PerSonnel and Guidance

 

Chesin, Sorrell E., 1969. "Effects Of Differential Housing On.Attitudes
And Values," College Student SurVey, 3, 62-66.

 

Clark, Burton R., and Trow, Martin, 1966. The Organizational Context.
In Theodore M; Newcomb and Everett K. Wilson (Eds.), College
Peer Groups: Problems And ProspeCts For Research. Chicago:
Aldine. pp. 17-70 .

 

DeCoster, David.A., 1966. "Housing Assignments For High Ability
Students," JOurnal Of College Student PerSOnnel, 7, 10-22.

106

107

DeCoster, David Am, 1968. "Effects Of Homogeneous Housing Assignments For
High Ability Students," Journal Of College Student Personnel,
9, 75-78.

 

DeCoster, David.A., 1969. "Some Effects Of Coordinating Classroom And
Residence Hall Assignments For College Freshmen: A Pilot
Project," Paper read at American.Personnel And Guidance
Association, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Draper, JOhn, 1970. Personal Communication. Office of Research
Consultation, Michigan State University.

Dressel, Paul L., and Mayhew, Lewis B., 19SH. General EduCation:
'Explorations In EValuation. washington, D. C.: American
Council On Education.

 

Dressel, Paul L., Director, 1953. 'Instructor's Manual For The Inventory
Of Beliefs. washington, D. C.: American CounCil On Education,
Committee On Measurement And EValuation.

 

Eberly, Charles G., and Cech, Eugene J., 1968. "Residence Hall Program
And Perception Of University Environment," College Student
survey, 2, 65-700

Eberly, Charles G., 1965. "Attitudinal Differences Between The National
Officers And TWO Chapters Of A National Fraternity," Unpublished
Master's Thesis: Syracuse university.

Elton, Charles F., and Rose, Harriett A,, 1968. "Brothers Under The Pin,"
Personnel And Guidance J0urnal, H6, 79u-796.

 

Feldman, Kenneth.A., and Newcomb, Theodore M., l969."The Impact Of
College On Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Glass, Gene V., 1966. "Testing HOmogeneity Of Variance," American
Educational Research Journal, 3, 187-190.

Goldsen, Rose K., at a1,,-l960. What College Students Think. New York:
D. Van Nestrand.

Greenhouse, Samuel W;, and Geisser, Seymour., 1959. "On Methods In The
Analysis Of Profile Data,"'Psych0metrika, 2H, 95-112.

Hartnett, Rodney T., 1963. "An Analysis Of Factors Associated With
Changes In Scholastic Performance Patterns," Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Hays, Williamtlu, 1963. 'Statistic ‘For PsychologiSts. New Yerk:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Henderson, JOhn wayne, 1958. "A FolloweUp Study Of The Members Of Greek-
Letter Social Fraternities At Michigan State University,".
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State UniverSity.

108

Hountras, Peter T. , and Pederson, Lawrence M. , 1970. "Self—Concept Of
Fraternity Members And Independents," 'JOurnal Of COllege
Student Personnel, 11, I+6-Ll9.

 

 

Howe, Stuart 8. , 1967.. "Fraternity Folk In The 90th Congress," Banta's
Greek EXChange, 55, 121-123.

 

Howe, Stuart 8., 1969. "Greeks Predominate New Congress," Sigma Phi
EjLsilon Alumni Heartbeat, l2, 2.

Hoyt, Cyril J. , 1967. "Test Reliability Estimated By Analysis Of
Variance," InWil-liam A. Mehrens and Robert L. Ebel (Eds.),
Principles 'Of ‘EduCational And 'PsyChOlo'gical Measurement .
Chicago: Rand McNally.

 

Jannrich, Robert I., 1961. "1601+ Analysis Of Variance," Numerical
Analysis Deparment Laboratory Bulletin , University of
Wisconsin.

Kidd, John W. , Warrington, Willard G. , and Jackson, Robert A. , 1951+.
"Student Attitudes Toward General Education , " ' Journal Of
Higher Education, 25, 209-213.

 

 

Lehmann, Irvin J., and Dressel, Paul L., 1962. critical Thinking,
Attitudes and Values In Higher Education. Cooperative
Research Project No. 590, Office of Education, U. S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare . East Lansing:
Michigan State University .

 

 

Lehmann, Irvin J., and Dressel, Paul L., 1963. Critical Thinking,
Attitudes And Values Associated With College Attendance.
Cooperative Research PrcTJect No. 16%, Office of Education,
U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. East
Lansing: Michigan State University.

 

 

Lehmann, Irvin J., and Hill, walker H., 1969. 'Michigan State 1958 And
1967 F‘reShmen: A Contrast In Profile. Office of Evaluation
Services Research Reports , Michigan State University .

 

Levin, Joel R. , and Marascuilo, Leonard A. , 1970. "Where The Interaction
Is: An Introduction To Type IV Errors," Paper read at American
Educational Research Association , Minneapolis .

Lozoff, Marjorie M. , 1967. Personality Differences And Residential
Choice. In J. Katz (Bd.),' Grthh And ConStraint In‘CoIlege
Stilde‘n‘ts: ‘A Study Of The Varieties 'Of ‘PSyCI’oIOgical Development.
Research Project No. 5-0799, Office of Education, U. S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Stanford, Calif. ,
Stanford University. pp. 29Ll-372.

Lozoff, Marjorie M. , 1968. "Residential Groups And Individual Development."
In Joseph Katz and Associates, ”No Time Fer Youth. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp. 255-317.

 

109

Lurding, Carroll L., 1965. —.."1-'~‘raternity Folk In The 89th Congress,"
"Banta'sGreek'EXChange, 53, 112-113.

 

Matson, Robert E. , 1961. "A Study Of Academic Potential And Achievement
In Prestige Rated Fraternity Groups As Compared With Dormitory
Residents And Off -Campus Students ," Unpublished doctoral
dissertation , Indiana University.

Morishima, James K., 1966. "Effects On Student Achievement Of Residence
Hall Groupings Based On Academic Majors," In Clarence Bagley
(Ed.), Research On Academic anut. Office Of Institutional
Planning , State UniversTty Of New York At Cortland .

 

National Interfraternity Conference, 19 59. Enduring Values In The
' College Fraternity. New York: National Interfraternity
Conference .

 

 

Peterson, James; Foster, Glenn; and Paul, Robert, 1969. Factor AA.
Technical Report No. 31+.l, Computer Institute For 55ml
Science Research, Michigan State University.

Plant, W. T. , 1966. "Changes In Intolerance And Authoritarianism For
Sorority And Nonsorority Women Enrolled In College For Two
Years," JOurnal 'Of Social PsycholOgy, 68, 79-83.

 

Robson, John (Ed.), 1963. Baird's Manual Of American College Fraternities
(17th Edition). Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Co.

Rokeach, Milton, 1960. ' The Open And Closed Mind. Glencoe, Illinois:
The Free Press.

 

Schmidt , Marlin, 1969 . "Relationship Between Sorority Membership And
Changes In Selected Personality Variables , Goals and Attitudes ,"
Paper read at American Personnel and Guidance Association ,
Las Vegas .

Scott, William A. , 1965. ' Values 'And OrganizatiOns: A Study Of Fraternities
And Sororities . —Chicago: Rand lfiially.

 

Scott, William A. , 1967. "Retaining Interest Among Aging Members,"
Fraternity Month, 35, lH-lS.

 

Selvin, H. C., and Hagstrom, W. O., 1960. "Determinents Of Support For
Civil Liberties," BritiSh JOurnal ‘Of Sociolo’gr, 11, 51-73.

Spindler, George, 1953. "Education In A Transforming American Culture,"
Harvard EducatiOnal Review, 25, 156-163.

 

Stone, LeRoy A., Skurdal, Marlo A., and Skeen, DavidR., 1968. "Hellenic
Affiliation Scale," Journal ’Of College Student Personnel,
9, 332-333.

University of Vermont, 1965. Fraternity Self “Study: Preliminary Report.
Burlington , Vermont , University of Vermont .

llO

Wallace, Walter L., 1966. ' Student CUItUIe. Chicago: Aldine.

 

Walsh, W. Bruce, and McKinnon, Richard D., 1969. "Impact Of An Exper-
imental. Program- .On Student Environmental Perceptions ,"
'JOUrnal'Of College Student Personnel, 10, 310-316.

 

Widmar, Gary E. , 1967. "A Comparative Study Of Fraternity And Sorority
Membership Aspirations Of Entering Freshmen At The Florida
State University , " Unpublished doctoral dissertation , Florida
State University.

Wilson, Everett K. , 1966. "The Entering Student: Attributes And Agents
Of Change. "- In Theodore M. Newcomb and Everett K. Wilson
(Eds.), 'oonege Peer Groups: 'Pro' 'blems' ‘ ‘ ‘And 'Pro' spears For
Research. Chicago: Aldine. pp. 71-106.

Wise, Wilmer E. , 1963. "The Influence Of The Greek-Letter Social
Fraternity System At The Pennsylvania State University On
Certain Student Attitudes , Achievements , and Knowledge . "
Unpublished doctoral dissertation , The Pennsylvania State
University.

Wright, David J. , and Porter, Andrew C. , 1968. "An Adaptation Of Frank
B. Baker's Test Analysis Package For Use On The Michigan State
University CDC 3600 Computer," Occasional Paper No. 1,
College of Education Office of Research Consultation , Michigan
State University.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

THE SENIOR-YEAR EXPERIENCE INVENTORY

Cooperative Study on Attitudes and Values of College Students

SENIOR -YEAR EXPERIENCE INVENTORY

It is highly desirable that institutions of higher learning attempt to ascertain the
opinions and observations of members of its student body in regard to those aspects
of the university experiences which are felt to be of importance.

This inventory consists of various sections--some consist of your reactions to the
objectives of college; some require an appraisal of the effectiveness of your college
experiences; and some require your views on a variety of different topics. It is
hoped that you will feel free to give frank and sincere responses. Your cooperation
in this endeavor will insure that your institution will have a more accurate perspec-
tive regarding its programs and their effectiveness. All information will be treated
as confidential and will be used for research purposes only.

Before beginning work please record your (1) Name, (2) Date, (3) Name of school,
(4) Student Number, and (5) Academic class i.e., (Freshman, Sophomore, etc.) in

the appropriate spaces below.

Name

 

Last ‘First Fiddle

Student Number Academic Class School

 

Date

 

—]_1]_.. APPENDIX “F" 3':

 

General Directions: Each of the questions on this inventory can be responded to by means of a coded
key. For each question, write the code number of the answer appropriate to you

in the code column blank at the right.

make sure that you are using the appropriate code. Answer all items.

Part I: Questions 1 - 5

Compare how you thought your four years of college
would go with how you actually found it according
to the following code:

Code
lore than I thought . . . . . . . 1
Same as I thought . . . . . . . . 2
Less than I thought . . . . . . . 3
ID!
Code No.
1. Time spent on studies. . . . . . ____ (7)
2. Contact with faculty . . . . . . .___. (8)
3. Participation in school activities ____ (9)
4. “ting O O O O I O I O C O 0 O O —— (10)
5. Prejudice because of social or
religious background ____ (11)

3 * t i t i t I t

* Removed from Lehmann and Dressel
(1962).

Part II: Questions 6 - 11

Please read each question carefully and

Below are a number of statements. Please rate
each of them in terms ofgyour own esperIences

 

using the following code:

Code
Strongly agree . . . . . . 1
Agree . . . . . . . . 2
Disagree 0 O O O O O O O O 3
Strongly disagre . . . . 4

Code

 

6. Generally, I found my classes

pretty interesting. _____
7. lost of my instructors were

enthusiastic about their

teaching. ____
8. College is not as tough as I

thought it would be. ____
9. Generally, I spent less time on

my studies than I thought I

would. .____
10. Getting good grades does not seem

as important now as it once did. .____
11. This is the kind of school a

person should go to if he really

wants a good education. .____

t s t a a s s a

-293-

ID!
No.

 

(12)

(13)
(14)

(15)
(16)

(17)

-n2-
Part III: Questions 12 - 29

The following questions refer to some general reactions that you might have about a variety of
Please react to each question using the following code and mark your answer in Code Column A.

 

 

issues.

IBM
No.

(36)

(37)

(38)

(39)
(4o)
(41)
(42)
(43)
(44)

(45)
(46)
(47)
(48)

(49)

(50)

(51)

(52)

Code
Strongly agree ................................ 1
Agree ........................................ 2
Disagree ...................................... ~3
Strongly disagree ......................... .... 4
No opinion.... ................................ 5. .
Code IBM Code
A No. B
12. Red China should be admitted to the U.N.... .____ (18)
13. College professors should be allowed to subscribe to any ideological
or political belief they wish . . . . . . . . . . . . ____ (l9)
14. College professors should be required to take a loyalty oath. . . . . (20)
15. ly friends have had more impact on my views and beliefs than have
courses or instructors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21)
16. A student should report another student cheating on an examination. . (22)
17. College teachers, on the average, tend to be conservative . . . . . . (23)
'18. College tends to liberalize one's views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (24)
19. I am satisfied with my grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25)
20. I know exactly what I will be doing in the immediate future . . . . . (26) .____
21. The United States should prevent known communists from entering or
visiting this country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (27)
22. Communists should not be permitted to speak on our campus . . . . . . (28) ____
23. ledical care for the aged should be provided by the Federal government (29) ____
24. The United States should continue nuclear testing in the atmosphere . (30) ____
25. Petting and deep-kissing are appropriate sex outlets for unmarried
college students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (31)
.26. All college students should be required to take a series of general
education courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (32)
27. I wouldn't hesitate to take a towel as a souvenir from a hotel in
which I stayed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (33)
28. A college education should place equal emphasis on academic and
8x 131 develoment O O I O I O O O O I O O O I I l I O 0 I I O O I O O (34)
29. A person in a skilled trade is worth as much to society as one in a
profession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (35)

we would also like to know how you would have reacted to each of the above statements (12-29) if we

(53)

were to have asked these questions when you were a freshman. Please reread the questions and try to
answer them this time, reacting as a freshman. Use the same code, but place your responses in Code

Column 8.
a s a a a s a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

Part IV: Questions 30 - 38

People engage in activities in varying degrees. We would like to know how active a role you think you
will want to play in each of the following. once your formal education is completed Please rate each

 

 

 

 

of the activities using the following code: Code

Very active ............... 1

Active ..................... 2

Not very active ............ 3

None ....................... 4

No idea ..................... 5

IBI

Code No Code
30. Local politics . . . . . . . . (54) 34. Chamber of Commerce
31. Church activities . . . . . . . (55) 35- len's or Women's clubs .
32. PTA . . (56) 36. Charitable civic groups
33. Scouting (57) 37. Country club . . . . . . .

38. Cultural groups (Art. flusic.etc.)____
-29h-

IBM
No

(58)
(59)
(60)
(61)
(62)

-:L:L3-
Part V : Questions 39 — 54

These sixteen questions refer to your conception of a good college teacher.

The characteristics of a good teacher are many and varied. Listed below are a
number of statements which might be used to describe different faculty members.
We are interested in learning your feelings regarding the characteristics of a
good college teacher. Rate each of the characteristics listed below according
to the following code: (Please rate each statement.)

 

Code: 1. Strongly agree
2. Agree
3. Disagree
4. Strongly disagree

 

 

 

 

 

IBI IBI
Code No. Code No.
A good college teacher 48. is willing to help students
decide on how theylsbould stand
39. is active in civic affairs. (1) (63) on things like politics and
‘—'-' religion. (10) (72)
40. is active in campus activi-
ties. (2) (64) 49. is someone who Judges a student
on his work and not on how he
41. is willing to discuss a stu- dresses or looksT—Tll) (73)
dent's career plans. (3) (65)
50. is someone who really makes
42. is willing to discuss a student's students produce. (12) (74)
personal problems. (4) (66)
51. is someone who is willing to
43. is a person who can teach in an give the student a break when
entertaining manner. (5) (67) the student doesn't do his
work. (13) (75)
44. is someone who sticks to teaching
and does not act as a "buddy" to 52. permits students to take part
students. (6) (68) in deciding the course
“__—_' objectives. (14) (76)
45. is active in religious
affairs. (7) (69) 53. does not attempt to indoctrinate
his students in a particular
46. is someone who really knows his political, religious, or ideo-
' field. (8) (70) logical belief. (15) (77)
47. does not give out a lot of read- 54. Of the 15 characteristics listed
ing assignments. (9) (71) above, which one do you feel is
the most important characteristic (78)
for a godd—college teacher. (79)

Part VI 2 Questions 54a -— 54c

This is the only section that requires some writing. waever, this is necessitated by the fact that
the information needed can only be obtained in this way. Since there are no right or wrong answers,
do not spend too much time trying to conjure one up.

54(a) The most important (or significant) thing that I have learned at college is

 

 

 

54(b) The experience or activity which has been most profitable to me. (what and why)

 

 

 

54(c) What impact has this university had on you?

 

 

 

-295-

Part VII :

-11u—

Questions 55 — 60

Listed below are six religious concepts.
your definition for each of the major concepts.

In this section, we would like to know
Read the 7 statements under each

concept and select the statement that most nearly agrees with your attitude regard-

ing that concept.

Record the number of the statement in the code blank at the

 

right of the major concept.

 

 

IBI IBI
Code No. Code No.
55.TheBible............ (7) 58.933.............. (10)

1. The Bible is inconsistent, 1. God is our creator and judge
contradictory and exaggerated who observes everything that
in value. we do.

. The Bible is a collection of 2. God exists as a divine being.
myths. 3. God exists as a supernatural

3. The Bible is a great literary power beyond man's comprehen-
work expressing religious sion.
philosophy. 4. God probably exists but no one

4. The Bible is valuable because knows what he is like.
of its inspirational effect. 5. The concept of God is a means

5. The Bible is an account of of explaining the unknown.
man's experiences with God. 6. God is a projection of man's

6. The Bible is God's revelation unconscious mind.
written by inspired men. 7. There is no supernatural being.

7. The Bible was dictated by God
through the hand of man and is
infallible. 59._S_i_n.............. (11)

1. Sin is a religious concept
56. Prayer. . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 8) used to create guilt feelings
in man.

1. Prayer is a direct approach 2. Sin consists of behavior which
to God which will always is not culturally approved.
bring results if there is 3. Sin consists of a violation of
enough faith. the rights of others.

2. Prayer is communication with 4. Sin is a violation of one's
God. conscience.

3. Prayer is a means of bringing 5. Sin is a denial of our best
man into a proper relationship nature.
with God. 6. Sin consists of any thought,

4. Prayer may be communion with word or deed that interferes
God but how it is effected is with a proper relationship to
not understood. God.

5. Prayer is a means of relieving 7. Sin consists of a wilful parti-
anxiety. cipation in worldly acts that

6. Prayer can be equated with transgress Divine Law.
strong wishes or desires.

7. Prayer is only a superstitious
practice. 60. Eternity . . . . . . . . . . (12)

1. After physical death there
57._la__n............... (9) willbeajudgmentinwhich
each man is sent to heaven

1. Ian represents no more than or hell.
the highest order of evolution. 2. All men will some day be

2. Ian is a biological organism responsible for their rela-
with distinctive powers of tionship to God.
memory and rational thought. 3. Heaven and hell are symbols

3. Ian is a psychological organ- of our relationship to God
ism with spiritual needs. after physical death.

4. The nature and significance of 4. Probably man does not have a
man are not determinable. separate identity after death,

5. Ian has both a body and a soul yet he participates in a kind
with the soul being the more of immortality.
essential. 5. Ian's immortality consists

6. Ian is the created object of in the influence that he leaves
God's love. behind him at death.

7. Ian is a descendant of Adam who 6. The concept of eternity is a

was created from the dust of
the earth.

manifestation of man's fear of
death.

7. Our present life constitutes
the whole of our existence.

-];15-

Part VIII: Questions 61 - 86

Below is a list of objectives which may apply to various courses and experiences in

college. You are to rate them as to their importance of being achieved. Use the

following code and mark your answer in Code Column A.

 

 

Code A. 1. Very important (Essential that this be achieved)
2

Average importance (Desirable that this be achieved)

3. EIttIe importance (Not important that this be achieved)

 

61. To master a classification of knowledge in a field

62. To master certain techniques applicable to one' s vocation or field of
special interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63. To acquire specific information and techniques in preparation for
further study in a particular field. . . . . .

Code
A

 

 

13!

No.

(l3)

(14)

(15)

(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)

(25)
(26)

(27)

(28)
(29)
(30)
(31)
(32)
(33)

(34)

(35)
(36)
(37)
(38)

Code

 

 

IBM

No.

(39)

(40)

(41)

(42)
(43)
(44)
(45)
(46)
(47)
(48)
(49)

(50)

(51)
(52)

(53)

(54)
(55)
(56)
(57)
(58)

(59)

(60)

(61)
(62)
(63)
(64)

listed above was realized.

64. To acquire and use the skills and habits involved in critical and con-
structive thinking .

65. To develop a code of behavior based on democratic and ethical principles

66. To express one's thoughts effectively.

67. To recognize the fact of world interdependence

68.-To learn to get along with people.

69. To acquire a degree of expertness in a special field

70. To experience a realistic sampling of one's chosen vocation.

71.vTo attain a satisfactory emotional and social adjustment

72. To understand other cultures and people.

73. To know the major developments in a vocational field or field of special
interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74. To understand the ideas of others

75. To habitually apply scientific thought to the discovery of facts

76. To bring up to date one' 8 knowledge in a special field of interest or
a vocational field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77. To become proficient in one's chosen field of work

78. To understand and enjoy literature, art and music

79. To understand one's physical and social environment.

80. To develop certain manual skills

81. To move smoothly from high school to adult independence.

82. To develop a broad general outlook and familiarity with a variety of
subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83. To develop knowledge and understanding making possible a more effective
choice of one's life work. . . . . . . . .

84. To acquire knowledge and attitudes basic to a satisfying family life .

85s To develop the ability to do significant independent research

86. To maintain and improve one's own health . . . . . .

We are also interest in learning the degree to which each of the objectives

Please rate each of the objectives in Code Column 8, using the following code:

 

Code B: 1. Very well achieved
2. Ioderately achieved
3. Not achieved

-297-

Part Ix:Questions 87-125

-116-

College affects or influences people in different ways; e.g., some peeple change in one way, others

change in another way, and still others may not change at all.

effect on one person is ineffectual on another.

In this section, a variety of behavior traits is presented.

An experience which might have some

Although all of them may not apply to

you, we are interested in learning those which you feel describe changes that have come about in you

while you have been at college.

were like when you entered as a freshman?

Read each of the statements below and give your frank opinion.

In other words,

in what ways are you different now from what you

Since there are 22 right 2; wrong

answers, do not spend too much time on any one of the statements. ‘22 not skip any items. React to
each statement according to the following code:

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93

95

96.
97.
98.

99
100

10]

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

Code: 1. More (i.e.,
2. Less (i.e.,

I tend to possess more of this quality.)
I tend to possess less of this quality.)

3. Same (i.e., I am not conscious of any change.)

Tolerance of people differing in
race, creed, color, or religion...

Respect for the views and opinion
of other people...................

Respect for views and Opinions
opposite to minGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOO.

Tolerance of unconventional dress,
behavior, and manners.............

Insight into the behavior of other
peopleoOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIO.

Ability to get along with other
WoplelOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOIOOO.

Interest in political matters.....

.Interest in social issues.........

Interest in intellectual and
cultural matters..................

Code

_—————

Interest in scientific developments

Interest in world affairs.........

Ability to adjust to conditions
not to my likingOOIOOOOOOIOIOCOIO.

Ability to accept disappointment..

Ability to change my views in the
presence of facts.................

.Confidence in my ability to deal

with new problems.................
Responsibility for my own behavior

Dependence on class attendance
for1°“rn1n80000000OOOOOOOOOOOOIOO

Feeling that the quality of one's
education depends on the institu-
tion rather than the individual...

Dependence on my age group for
behavior patterns.................

Acceptance of the Bible as a
guide to modern living............

IBM
re...
(65)
(as)
(67)
(68)

(69)

(70)
(71)

(72)

(73)
(74)
(75)

(76)
(77)

(78)

(79)
(80)

( 7)

( 8)

( 9)

(10)

107.

108.
109.

110.

115.

116

117.
118.

119.

120.
121

122.

123.

124.

125

.298-

Attachment to a religious sect or

denomination that I can believe in
and defend.’.IOOIOOIOOOOOOOOOOOCOOO
Respect for law....................
Respect for rules and regulations..

Respect for persons in positions
Of anthorityOOOOOOOOOOO06......so.e

.Feeling that money is of primary

importance.........................

.Desire to accept a job for the

satisfaction it has to offer rather
than the salary it pays............

(.Drive to get ahead as quickly as

possibIOOIOOOCOOCOOOOIC00.0.00...-

Feeling that a major aim of college
is to prepare one for a vocation or
profession.........................

Feeling that a college should also
stress a liberal-arts type of
educatioDCOOOOIOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOO

Feeling that a college education
is necessary to succeed in the

 

“..—.-

._..__———

world.OOOOOOOCUOOCOOOOOIOOIOO0.000.——

Importance of grades as measures
of achievement.....................

Confusion as to what I want out
or lifeOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOIOIOO

Optimistic outlook for my future...

Pessimistic outlook for my future..

.Optimistic outlook for future of

01V1lization0000OOIOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO

Pessimistic outlook for the future
or c1v1112‘tionofl0.0.0.000000000000

Feeling of the necessity for reli-
gious faith for living in modern

times...OOOOOOOOOCOIOCOOOOOOO0.0...

Commitment to a set of religious
beliefseeOeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeaeeeo-

Awareness of my goals in life......

 

a......-——

__

w

IBM

(11)
(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)
(23)
(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

Part

x :

Questions 126 - 175

-ll7-

Listed below are courses, personnel, activities, and organizations which probably have strengthened or

reinforced, modified or altered the beliefs that you had when you came as a freshman.

in knowing which of these have influenced you the most.

We are interested

Place a 5’ before those which you feel have served to strengthen or reinforce your attitudes, values,
Place a // before the THREE you feel had the most reinforcing

opinions, Beliefs, and interests.
influence.

Place an X before those which you feel have modified or altered some of your attitudes,

opinions,_beliefs, and interests.

values,

Place an E! before the THREE you feel had the most influence.

 

 

126. Communication Skills 111*143.A Communication Skills 160. Church
instructor
127. Communication Skills 112 161. Housemother
144. An instructor in your ‘
128. Communication Skills 113 major 162. R.A. or Head R.A.
129. Natural Science 181 145. Any other instructor 163. Employment
130. Natural Science 182 _ 146. Social events 164. A person I dated
131. Natural Science 183 _ ___l47. Athletic events 165. Family
132. Social Science 231 148. Lecture-Concert Series 166. Conduct patterns of
”-_' faculty
133. Social Science 232 149. Extra-curricular clubs
—”_- 167. Conduct patterns of
134. Social Science 233 150. Participation 11 students
athletics
135. Humanities 241 168. Academic adviser
151. Fraternity or sirority
136. Humanities 242 169. Campus regulations
152. Close friend(s)
137. Humanities 243 170. Being away from home
_ ., 153 . Roommate
138. A course in your major 171 ROTC
154. Discussions or ”bull-
139. Any other course sessions" 172. Physical Education
140. A Social Science 155. Counseling Center 173. Honors College lembership
instructor
156. Library 174. Conforming to campus
141. A Humanities instructor mores
157. Mental Hygiene Clinic
142. A Natural Science 175. Honorary Societies
instructor 158. Improvement Services
159. Living quarters
a a a a a a a a e a a a e a
IBM
Part XI : Questions 176 - 182 Code No.
In every college that we know of, some students 176. As a freshman, which of these
seem to have a very high standing, and some seem facto?§_ald_you feel gave a
to have a low standing. But the reasons seem student prestige with the
different in the different colleges and universities. faculty? . . . ____ (30)
Listed below are nine factors which might lead to 177- "0' th‘t You have nearly “0"
high prestige. We would like to know those factors pleted 0011986. 'h1Ch 0‘ these
which you feel to be important to students, to factors do You 1991 gives 9
faculty, and to both students and faculty. The student prestige '1th the
factors are as follows: faculty? - __._. (3])
178. Which single factor do you feel
1. Being crisinal and creative is the-Ea§t_important. with the
2. Having a pleasing personality faculty7. . . (32)
3. Demonstrating scholarly capacity -__—.
4, Being active in campus activities 179. Which single factor do you think
5. Dedicating yourself to your studies Should 5° “09‘ important ‘0
6. Not being too critical faculty? - ____ (33)
7. Coming from the right social background 130. Which factors do you feel give
8. Being active in varsity athletics a student prestige with his
9. Being a member of a fraternity or sorority {9110' students? . . . (34)
181. Which single factor do you
think Is most important to
students?. . . . . (35)
182. Which single factor do you
think should be most important
to students? . ____ (36)

.25”)-

-118-

Part XII:Questions 176 - 180

In every college that we know of, there are different kinds of students who enjoy doing different kinds
of things. Listed below are some comments or descriptions about the kinds of students you might find
in any American college. Read each of these over and then answer the questions which follow as best

as you can. We know that it is difficult to "peg" yourself in some slot but please make a choice for
each of the five questions. Place the LETTER of the TYPE which most accurately describes you in the
blank column at the ri ht

 

176.

177.

178.

179.

TYPE W: This kind of person is interested in education, but primarily to the point of
- preparation for his occupational future. He is not particularly interested in

the social or purely intellectual phases of campus life, although he might
participate in these activities on some limited basis. This person does his
homework so that grades can be maintained, but otherwise restricts his reading
to the light, general entertainment variety. For the most part, this person' 5
primary reason for being in college is to obtain vocatiénal or occupational
training.

 

 

TYPE X: This person is interested in learning about life in general, but in a manner
—_—.__ of his own choosing. He is very interested in the world of ideas and books,
and eagerly seeks out these things. Outside of the classroom. this person
would attend such activities as the lecture-concert series, Provost lectures.
foreign films, etc. This person wants to go beyond the mere course require-
ments and will frequently do extra readings in order to obtain a more complete
understanding of the world in which he lives. From a social point-of—view, this
persons tends to reject fraternities, sororities, and the social events that are
a part of campus life. When this person does join, it will usually be one of
the political or more academic campus organizations. For the most part, y'his
person would consider himself to be someone who is primarily mfiiiviie
ififellectual curioSity.

     

 

 

TYPE Y: This person is in many respects like Type X noted above. He is concerned with
books and the pursuit of knowledge, but is also the kind of person who does
not cut himself off from the more sdEiEl phases of campus life. He is inter-
ested in getting good grades and usually tries to maintain a fairly high grade-
point-average. He is the kind of person who will work with student government.
the campus U.N. and activities of this type. He is the kind of person who feels
that the social side of college life is not the most important but'is certainly
significant for his general developmenf.

 

 

 

TYPE Z: This is the kind of person who is very much concerned with the social phases of
college life. He identifies closely with the college and tries to attend as
many of the campus social and athletic events as possible. This person may be
interested in intellectual kinds of things but will, for the most part, iifid
greater satisfaction in parties, dances, football games, etc. He is concerned
about his education, but feels that the development of his social skills is
certainly important. His college years are centered about fraternity and
sorority activities even though he might not be a member. This person attempts
to "make grades" but will rarely go out of his way to do extra or non-assigned

 

 

 

rea _dings.
Now that you have read each of the four descriptions, answer the following questions:
IBM
9299 H2..-

Which of the above (W, x ,Y, Z) comes closest to describing the kind of person you
consider yourself to be? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .____ (37 )
Which of the above is least descriptive of the kind of person you consider yourself
to be? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ___- (38 )
Which of the above comes closest to describing the kind of person you were when you
first came to college? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .____ (39 )
Which of the above types comes closest to describing the kind of person you would
like to be if you had a choice? . . . . . . . . . . . .____ (40 )
Which of the above types comes closest to describing the typical ISU student?. . . . ___. (41 )

180.

181.

182

183.

184.

t 9 9 t I t t t #

What type of job, position, vocation, or profession, do you plan to engage in after graduation?
e.g. medical doctor, elementary school teacher, civil engineer, etc.

 

 

If this is any different from the plans you had when you entered as a freshman, answer questions
183 and 184. If NO, skip to question 185.

What job or profession or type of work did you plan to engage in when you were a freshman?

 

Why did you change your plans?

 

-300-

-119-

Part XIII:Questions 185 - 187

The following questions are designed to learn how you feel about your future.

185' Regarding your immediate career plans upon graduation, which of the following is

most likely to occur? . . . . .

1. Working full-time at a type of Job which I expect to be my long-run
career field

Non-career military service

Working full-time at a civilian Job which will not be my career field
Being a full- time housewife

Begin graduate study in a professional field (law, medicine, engineering,
social work, etc.)

No idea

Other (specify)

~16) (”#0010

 

186. Which of the following will most likely be your employer when you begin work in

187.

your anticipated career field? .

1. Private company with 100 or more employees

2. Private company with fewer than 100 employees

3 Family business

4. self-employed

5. Research organization

6 College, University, or Junior College

7. School system (elementary or secondary)

8. Other educational institutions (Technical or Vocational school)
9. Federal Government

10. State or Local Government

11. Hospital, Church, Clinic, Welfare Organization, etc.
12. Other (specify)

 

Listed below are three different Jobs. If you had your choice, which would you
pick? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

l. A Job which pays a moderate income but which you are sure of keeping

2. A Job which pays a good Income but which you had a 50-50 chance of
losing

3. A Job which pays extremely well if you make the grade, but which you
lose almost everything If you'don't make the grade

 

# t i l i t l t It

Part XIV: Questions 188 - 191

A variety of factors enter into a person's decision for choosing one job or career over another.

The factors are as follows:

188.

189.

190.

191.

l. flaking a lot of money

2. Opportunities to be original and creative

3. Opportunities to be helpful to others or useful to society

4. Avoiding a high pressure job which takes too much out of you

5. Living and working in a world of ideas

6. Freedom from supervision in my work

7. Opportunities for moderate but steady progress rather than the
chance of extreme success or failure

8. Opportunities to exercise leadership

9. Remaining in the city or area in which I grew up

10. Opportunities to work with people rather than with things

11. None of the above (specify)

 

 

Which of these factors do you now feel is important in choosing a career or Job?
(You may choose more than one) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9222

 

Which of these factors did you feel to be important when you were a freshman?
(You may choose more than —one) . . . . . . . . .

 

 

Of the 11 factors listed above, which ONE do you consider is the most important
factor to be considered in picking a Job or career? . . .

Which single factor do you think is most important to the average college student?
(Choose onIy ONE). . . . . . .

‘ $ t t t t t O t

-301-

IBM
No.

 

(42 )

(43 )

(44 )

(45 )

(46 )

(47 )

(48 )

-120-

Part XV: Questions 192 — 199

Please rate each of the following factors in
terms of their effect or impact on your career
plans or decisions during college according to
the following code:
Code
Very important.... .....
Fairly important.......
Unimportant............
Never received any.....

honor-a

IBM
Code No.

 

192. Vocational or similar psycho-

logical tests. ( 49)
193 Discussions with academic
adviser. ( 50)
194. Discussions with other faculty
members.

( 51)

195. Vocational/Guidance counsellor ( 52)

196. Advice from parents. ( 53)

197. Advice from family other than
parents. ( 54)

198- Peers. ( 55)

199- Of the six factors listed above,
which one do you consider played
the most—important part in your
career déEiSions during college?

 

(56)

 

* a a a a a a t
Part XVI: Questions 200 - 202

200. If you had to register in the
next election, how do you think
you would register?. ( 57)

1. Republican

2. Democrat

3. Socialist

4. Independent

201. The following activities cut
across a number of specific Jobs.
lhich ONE do you anticipate will
be the most important part of

your long-run career work? . ( 58)

Teaching

Research

. Administration

. Service to patients and
clients

5. None of these

fishnet-t

202. Did you do all your college work

at this school?. . . . . . ( 59)

1. YES, full-time

2. YES, part-time

3 NO, started here, attended
another college, then
returned

4. NO, started here, was out of
college, then returned

5. NO, started here, transferred
to another college or univer-
sity

* * fi 0 I i t *

‘gart XVII: Questions

For some people,

203 - 212

upon such factors as cultural activities,

schools,

proximity to church and shopping,

the choice of a community depends
type of
etc.

If you did not have an opportunity to have ready
access to the activities or resources listed“Bclow.
fiow dissatisfied would you be with the community?

Rate the degree of your dissatisfaction according

to the following code:

203.

204.

205.

206.
207.
208.

209.

210.

211.
212.

 

2’33
Extremely dissatisfied ..... l
Quite dissatisfied ......... 2
Somewhat dissatisfied ...... 3
Wouldn't bother me... ...... 4

Code

Opportunities to hear live
performances of serious music

Opportunities to see serious
drama .

Opportunities to see professional
or college athletic events.

A good local art museum .

An excellent local bookstore.
Opportunities to engage in seri-
ous discussion of the basic
problems and issues which con-
front our country . .

A theatre which shows foreign
and art films . . . . .

Opportunities for an active
social life .

A good local library.

Excellent public schools.

i i Q t t * t It

Eiit XVIII: Questions 213 - 216

213.

214.

215.

216.

-302-

Since you entered college, how
have your political views
changed?. . . . . . . .
1. From liberal to more
conservative
2. From conservative to more
liberal
3. From liberal to more liberal
4. From conservative to more
conservative
5. Not at all

If your political views have
changed since you entered col-
lege, what factor/s have influ—
enced you?. . . . . . . . . . .

_..

1. Lecture and/or assigned

course readings
Influence of riends
Personal contact with
faculty members
Increased independent
reading

Inde endence from paren-
tal deas

Increased thinking about

political questions

65010010

If your religious views have
changed since on entered college
what factor/s isted above have
influenced you? . . . . .

If your moral or ethical views
have changed since you entered
college, what factor/s listed
above have influenced you?.

IBM
N0.

( 60)

( 61)

(62

V

(63)

(54)

(70)

(71)

(72)

(73 )

Part XIX: Questions 1 - 30

-121-

Listed below is a series of questions or statements dealing with various aspects of your out-of—class

activities while attending Iichigan State University.
terms) they applied to you, and the term (or terms) when changes, if any occurred.

answers according to the following code:

Code
Before attending MSU ......... .... 0 Junior, first term ............
Freshman, first term ............. 1 Junior, second term ...........
Freshman, second term ............ 2 Junior, third term ............
Freshman, third term..... ........ 3 Senior year ...... . ............
Sophomore, first term ............ 4 Does not apply to me ..........
Sophomore, second term.. ......... 5
Sophomore, third term............ 6

Code §g¥

”'1. lade first choice of major field..

‘2. Changed major field...............

’3. Pledged a fraternity or sorority..

or sorority.....

Became engaged..

Got married.....

Was divorced....

m m 4 Q m

In this group of items, we are interested in the kinds of participation,

Broke my engagement ...... . ........

las separated from spouse. ........

4. Became an 'active' in a fraternity

( 7) 10. Informally engaged or "pinned"...

( 8) ll. Broke informal engagement. .......
( 9) 12. Began "going steady".. ...........

13. Stopped "going steady" ...........
(10)

14. Lived in the residence halls .....
(11)

15. Lived in a fraternity or
(12) sorority house........... ........
(13) 16. Lived in a co-op.... ...... . ......
(l4) l7. Lived in married housing .........
(15) 18. Lived in off-campus housing ......

 

.. Y

We are primarily interested in the term (or
Please record your

 

Code

 

.. 7
.. 8

9
X

Code

 

(21)
(22)
(23)

(24)

the term of participation, and

the position you may have held in the various extra—curricular activities while a student at I.S.U.

Using the code above,
code on space at right.

function performed.

19.

 

20.

 

21.

 

22.

 

23.

 

24.

 

25.

 

26.

 

27.

 

28.

 

29.

 

30.

 

All University Student Government ..............

Other governing groups (I.F.C, Pan Bel, I.H.A.,
l.I.C., I.C.C., P.I.C., C.R.L.U., S.O.C.) .....

Residence Halls (excluding I.H.A.).. ...........

Other living units (fraternities, sororities,
co—ops, reIigious living units) ...............

Honorary Organizations .........................
Publications ....... . ...........................

College or department clubs and organizations
(i.e., Marketing Club, Botany Club, etc.) ......

Class Councils (i.e., officer, J-Hop Committee,
etc.) .................. . ......................

Varsity athletics........ ...... . ...............
Intramural athletics ...........................
Religious clubs and organizations ..............

Other clubs and organizations.. ......... . ......

*0fitttfittfittttfilttt#tttfitititltfitfittfitfiit#0.

-303-

Code

 

indicate the term of your participation in the activities listed, by marking the
In the space at the left, write in the specific position, responsibility. or

IBM
No.

(25)

 

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)
(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)
(34)
(35)

(36)

-122-

Part XX: Questions 31 - 40

[any college students hold either part-time or full-time Jobs to help support or finance their college
education. we are interested in learning the extent of your employment while at I.S.U. Please exclude
summer employment in answering this question. Use the following check list and place a CHEEE’TI77“”"M’
wherever appropriate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amount of Time
30-40 hours 20-30 hours 10-20 hours Less than 10
Term Full-time per week per week per week hours per week None
31. Freshman, first term
32. Freshman, second term -—
33. Freshman, third term -—
34. Sophomore, first term _
35. Sophomore, second term
36. Sophomore, third term
37. Junior, first term
38. Junior, second term
39. Junior, third term
40. Senior year
IBM
Code No
41. To what extent have you financed your own college education? . . . . . . . . . . . . (47)
1. Completely 2. lost of it (over 75%) 3. About one-half
' 4. Part of it (less than 25%) 5. None of it
42. How would you describe your parents' feelings about the importance of a college
education? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (48)
1. Very important 2. Important 3. Don't care
4. Opposed to it 5. Very opposed to it
43. (For men only) Extent of military service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (49)
1. None 2. Six months or less 3. Twelve months or more
If you were married or became engaged since you entered as a freshman, please answer
Question 45.
45. What do you think has happened to your views, opinions. and beliefs as a result
of being married or engaged? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (50)
1. My views and beliefs have stabilized.
2. My views and beliefs have been reinforced.
3. My views and beliefs have been altered or modified.
4. No change in my views and beliefs as a result of being married or engaged.
46. Compared to your first year of college'whiéh of the following would you say comes
closest to your current religious attitude? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (51)
l. I was never really a religious person and I feel the same way now.
2. I was a fairly religious person when I came to college and I feel the same
way now.
3. I was much more religious when I came to college than I am now.
4. I am much more religious now than I was when I first came to college.
47. Compared to your first year of college which of the following would you say comes
closest to your current political attitude? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (52)

l. I was pretty much a political conservative and I still am.

2. I was pretty much a political liberal and I still am.

3. I am much more a political liberal than I was when I first came to college.

4. I am much more political conservative than I was when I first came to college.

-3ou-

APPENDIX B

SENIORFYEAR EXPERIENCE INVENTORY SCALES WITH LOW RELIABILITY

APPENDIX B

SENIOR-YEAR EXPERIENCE INVENTORY
SCALES WITH LOW RELIABILITY

College SatisfaCtion.-'Ihe five items of Part I asked students

 

to ". . .compare how you 't’fl ' ’g‘ht your four years of college would go with
how you actually found it . . . " . Students were to report whether they
experienced Imre , the same or less than they thought of contact with
faculty, dating, study, student activities, and prejudice. The theoretical
score range was 5 to 15, with a high score indicating greater satisfaction.
The scale was completely unreliable (rtt = .00).
Six of the seven scales formed from items in Part III were
found below minimum reliability. The five response choices on the items
of these scales ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree .
Referenm/Nom‘GrOupm-‘I'hree items (16, 25 and 27) related to
moral choices a student may likely confront in college , i. e . , academic
and material dishonesty and sexual behavior. Students holding a mare
"traditional" viewpoint received higher scores than those holding a less
traditional position. Scores on this scale could range from 3 to 15 .
Reliability was .21.

Personal Confidence—Items 19 and 20 elicited a student's

 

satisfaction with his academic achievement and general confidence in

the future . Scores could range from 3 to 10 with higher scores

123

124
indicating greater confidence. Reliability was . 20.

Liberal-General Viewpoint.--Items 18 and 26 asked a student' 5

 

opinion about the liberalizing influence of higher education and the
need for a general education for all students. Scores could range from
2 to 10. A high score demonstrated belief that education was liberaliz-
ing and that general education was necessary. Hoyt reliability was

.20.

Peers vs. Professors.--Items 15 and 17 attempted to assess

 

the relative personal impact of peers and professors on the student.
A high score indicated peers had greater impact, and that professors
were viewed as conservative. The theoretical score range was 2 to 10.
Scale reliability was .16.

Current Issues.--Two items (23 and 21+) with a reliability

 

of .08 and a possible score range from 2 to 10 requested student
opinion on issues current at the time the questionnaire was administ-
ered, Spring, 1962. A high score indicated the student was for a
Federal Medicare program and atmospheric nuclear testing . A low
score demonstrated his opposition to these issues.

£2galitarianism.--A high score on items 28 and 29 emphasized

 

what might be called egalitarianism, or the equality of people .

What was the importance of academic and social development in education ,
and the value of a skilled tradesman in relation to a professional?

The theoretical scale range was 2 to 10. Reliability was .33.

Tea¢a~8cholar.--Three of the fifteen items in Part V

 

(H8, H9 and 53) asked student perception of the good college teacher
as an objective scholar in his approach to teaching. Items were scaled

from strongly agree to strongly disagree with no neutral posit ion.

125
Scores could range from 2 to 11. A high score signified a professor

should be objectively neutral; a low score that he entertain subjective/
personal factors in his teaching as well. Reliability was .35.

Teacher Bxpectation.--The remaining items in Part V (1+7 and

 

50) yielded a measure of the amount of classwork the good teacher should
expect of his students. Scale scores could range from 2 to 8. A
high score meant the good teacher asked students to read a number of
assignments and really made them produce. A low score meant students
should not have to do or produce a great deal of work. Hoyt reliability
was .15.

Reliabilities of two scales in Part IX fell below the
minimum criterion level. In this section, students were asked to say
if they had more, less, or the same anount of the attribute in question
as Seniors than they had as Preshnen.

Education Need-Adfievenent.--'IWO items (116 and 117) asked

 

students the relative importance of grades as measures of achievement
and the importance of a college education to achieve "success." A
high score was evidence that grades and formal education had become
more important after four years. A low score indicated they had ceased
to be as important a criterion of personal success . The theoretical
score range was 2 to 6. The reliability was .26.

Personal Accountability.--Five items (92, and 102 to 105)

 

yielded a measure of whether students were more personally accountable
for their behavior as Seniors than as Heshmen. A high score was
interpreted to mean greater willingness to be responsible for one's own
behavior. A low score meant personal accountability was not considered

an important individual value. Scores could range from 5 to 15. The

126
reliability was . 21.

Attempts were made to scale two other parts of the Senior-

Year Merience Inventog. Part XV contained seven items which

 

considered the relative impact of various others such as peers ,
counselors and parents on career plans. A missing response line on
the questionnaire invalidated item 195 for sealing. Weighting was
attempted without the item, but an error— free reciprocal averages
program was not obtained even after cards were sorted for illegal
punches, all knovm aspects of the program, and other sources of error
were checked.

The sane result was true for Part XVIII, which would have
yielded a neasure of the personal loss associated with not having
easy access to various activities or resources of a University
conmunity. All possible known sources of error were checked, but an
error-free print-out was never obtained.

For both parts it was not considered justifiable to continue
computer runs after eight runs each had been attempted. This was true
especially in view of the number of runs necessary to obtain error-

free print-outs for the other 34 scales.

APPENDIX C

SRI FACTOR ANALYSES

127

 

 

00. 50. 00.: 00.: 30. 00. Ho. 30.: dd. 00.: 00. 00.: 30.: 50. 00.: 30. 00.: mm
00. 0H. 00. 00.: 00. 00. NH. H0.: 00.: 00. No. 00.: 3H. 0H. 00.: HH.: 00

H0.: 0H. 50. 00. H0.: 00. 30.: 00. 0a.: 50.: 00.: 50. 00.: 30. 00. mm

00.: 30.: H0. 00.: 00.: 00. 00. AH. 00. 00. 30.: 00. 00.: 00.: mm

00. H0. NH.: 0H.: 0H. 00. 00. 0a.:. 30.: 30.: 00.: 30. 00. mm

30.: HH. 00. 00. 30.0 00.: 00.: 00. 30. 3H. HH.: 0H.: 30

00.: H0.: 00. 00. 50. 50. 0a.: 00.: HH.: 00. 00. mm

00. 00. 30.: 30.: 00. 50. 00. 50. 00.: 00.: mm

00. 00.: 00.: 00. 00. 50. 00. 00.: 30.: Hm

NH. 00.: H0. 00.: H0.: 00. H0. 00.: 00

00.: 00.: H0. 00.: 00.: 30.: 00.: 0H

00.: H0.: 50.: 00. 30. 00. 0a

00.: 00. 00.: 00. 00.: 5H

00.: mo. 00.: 00.: 0H

50. H0. 00.: 00

H0.: «0.: 3H

mm. 0H

mm mm 00 mm 30 mm mm Hm om 0H 0H 5H 0H 0H 3H 0H Na _EmPH

 

 

E ”182% .mmufi mesa .Em .HHH bra .xgaz 28.3.5508st
ad gamma/e

128

 

 

 

APPENDIX C.2
ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS, PART III, SRI,
ITEMS 12-29, SENIOR YEAR
Factors
Items 1 2 3 0 5 6 Communality
12 .098* -.105 .066 -.l05 .075 -.231 .353
13 .638* .153 -.062 —.052 .092 .056 .008
10 -.650* .109 .088 -.006 -.107 .107 .065
15 —.059 .081* -.295 -.016 .378 -.031 .066
16 -.083 -.229 .111 -.275 .017 .070* .372
17 -.006 -.008 -.658* .037 .116 —.130 .065
18 .022 —.016 .089 -.103 -.681* -.058 .086
19 -.008 -.255 -.022 .653* .020 -.115 .506
20 -.068 .200 .086 .728* .013 .191 .620
21 —.736* .006 -.060 -.052 .186 -.050 .585
22 -.781* .000 -.085 -.051 .120 -.017 .635
23 .021 -.091 -.068 -.129 -.161 —.735* .596
20 -.268 .057 .012* -.176 .260 .130 .361
25 .121 .012 .609* .216 .077 -.198 .077
26 -.031 .106 -.126 .070 -.570* .012 .368
27 .020 .160 .328 -.063 .321 -.095* .086
28 -.186 .653* -.032 -.116 -.252 -.l03 .559
29 .070 .607* .151 .057 -.015 .013 .050
Hi Lead -.781 .653 —.658 .728 -.681 -.735
Prop.
Var. .132 .075 .070 .066 .071 .068
Cum.
P.V. .132 .207 .277 .305 .015 .083

 

* denotes highest- loadinEby item

129

 

 

oo. oo. No. oH. sH.- so. so. so. No. oo. oo. oo. oH. oH. mo
oH. so.- NH. No. so. so.- No. oN.- so. oo. oo. oo. so. No

oo.- oo.: oH. NH. oo.- oo. oH.: No. oH. oo. No. oo. Ho

HN. so. oo.: oN. oH. Ho. NH. Ho. NH. Ho. oo. om

oo.- oo.: HH. oo.- oo. oo. No.- oH. oo. oo. os

oo.: No.- NH. oH.- No. HN. so. No. oo. os

oo.- oH. so. oH. oo. oo. oH. oH. as

Ho. No. HH. oo. oH. No. Ho.- os

oo. NH. oH. oH. sN. Nm. ms

Ho.: NH.: oo.: oo. HH. ss

oN. oH. oH. so. ms

oo. HH. oo. Ns

sN. oN. Hs

os. os

om

No Ho om os os as os ms ss. os. Ns Hs os om msuHH

 

 

oo1oo mzmsH .> seam .xHaHazuonsaammmoomMBZH

0.0 xHszmm/w

130

APPENDIX C.0
ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS, PART V , ITEMS 39-53

 

 

 

Factors

Items 1 2 3 0 5 Communality
39 .828* .080 -.059 -.009 .028 .697
00 .750* .089 .063 .020 -.052 .599
01 .305 —.055 .071* -.277 -.195 .058
02 .185 -.377 .250 -.313 -.395* .096
03 .033 .000 .375 -.026 -.606* .509
00 .150 .283 .012 .530* -.085 .511
05 .5753: -.257 .027 .071 -.230 .056
05 .086 .002 .612* .105 -.121 .019
07 .110 .133 .207 .052 -.711* .582
08 .115 -.553* .088 -.190 -.009 .085
09 .000 .087* .086 -.187 .237 .555
50 .028 -.059 .661* .088 .125 .050
51 .015 -.075 .219 -.039* -.350 .378
52 .038 .220 .000 -.727* -.002 .580
53 .159 .525 .077 -.132 -.168 .071
Hi. Load. .828 -.553 .551 -.727 -.711

Prop.Var. .123 .095 .105 .095 .092

Cum. P.V. .123 .219 .325 .020 .511

 

7“denotes highest loading by item

131

mHQMH mHeH co omHHHso mHmsHoums

 

 

3m 30 mm 0H H0 00 30 0H mm mm 0H 0H 0m 5H 00 mm mm 00 HH mm 00 0H Hm mm 0m 00
mm mm 0H Hm Hm mm mm 00 00 00 mm 30 00 Hm 00 H0 0H 0H 0m 5H 0H H0 mm mm 00
03 0m mm mm 00 0m mm mm 0H H0 0H mm 00 0H 5H mm 0m 0m 30 5H Hm Hm mm 30

mm 0m 0m 00 Hm 00 00 5H 30 00 mm mm 00 mm 3m mm mm mm mm H0 00 mm 00

0H 0H H0 0m 50 0H HH 00 00 00 mm HH 30 0H 0m 0m 0H mm mH 00 00 mm

mm mm 0H 0H 0m 5H mm 0m mH mm Hm 0m 00 mm 0m 0m 0H 3m 5H 0m H0

mm 5H 0m 00 mm 5H m0 0H 0m 00 m0 0m 5H 0H 0m 0H 3m 0m 0m 00

H0 mm mm mm 50 mm 00 00 0m mm mm 00 H0 50 mm mm 0H mm mm

Hm Hm 0H mm 0H 30 3H mH mm HH mm mm 3m 3m 0H 0H 5H mm

Hm mm mm 03 0H mm 00 00 0H 00 mm 5H 0H m3 mm 03 mm

H0 mm mm 0m mm 30 H3 0H HH 0m 0H 0H 00 33 H3 mm

0m 3m 0H HH 0H 0m 00 Hm 5H mm mm mm mm mm mm

mm H3 30 0H Hm H0 0m 0m mm mm mm mm mm 35

mm 0m >0 H3 0H mH mm 0H Hm H3 00 03 mm

00 0H 0m 0m 00 0m mm mm 0H 3H mm mm

mm mm mm 0m 00 00 0H 0H 5H 0m H5

00 0H -0H 0H 0H 0H mm 00 0m 0m

0H 0H 0m 5H 0H 00 03 03 00

00 m0 m0 0H mH 0H 0H 00

mm 00 0H 0H 00 mH 50

00 mm 5H 0H Hm 00

3m 0H 0H 0H 00

mm 0H mm 30

03 H3 00

30 mm

mm 30 00 m0 H0 00 mm mm mm 05 mm 35 05 mm Hm 05 00 00 mm 00 00 30 00 m0 H0 mewPH

 

 

soouHo mzmsH .Hmm .HHH> exam .meaaz 20HH<HmmmoommszH
o.o xHazmmm<

132

APPENDIX C.6

ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS, PART VIII, SRI, ITEMS 61-86

 

 

 

Factors

Items 1 2 3 0 Communality
61 .677* -.098 .111 .197 .519
62 .706* -.070 .053 .017 .565
63 .588* -.080 .176 .187 .018
60 .166 -.071 .019* .375 .309
65 .027 -.501* .205 .363 .067
66 .162 -.030* .279 .155 .316
67 .056 -.329 .008* .310 .370
68 .053 -.702* .187 -.112 .503
69 .690* -.128 .009 .163 .521
70 .536* -.295 .063 -.120 .393
71 .175 -.680* .263 -.158 .592
72 .161 -.079 .700* .081 .530
73 .691* -.133 .165 .060 .526
70 .216 -.227 .616* .055 .082
75 .030 -.008 .109 .681* .581
76 .682* -.l73 .100 .069 .510
77 .778* -.120 .083 .070 .633
78 .118 -.006 .537* .313 .002
79 .150 —.381 .060* .280 .065
80 .308 -.011* .070 .363 .026
81 .109 -.572* .001 .192 .388
82 .010 -.200 .608* -.092 .069
83 .380 -.300 .029* -.160 .073
80 .180 -.523* .331 -.025 .016
85 .019* -.106 .271 .279 .338
86 .203 -.599* .012 .151 .001
Hi. Lead. .778 -.702 .700 .681

Prop.Var. .170 .125 .110 .058

Cum. P.V. .170 .299 .009 .067

 

133

 

 

00 00 0H HH 0H >0 HH 00 HH 0H 00 HH m0: H0: H0: 00 H0: HH: 0H HH 0H 0HH
m0: m0: >0: 00 H0 H0: 00 00 00 H0 0m m0: 3m 0H 3H H0 30 mo 00 00 0H 0HH
0H 00 0H 00 00 00 >0 00 30 >0 30: 0H 00: m0: H0: 30 30: 0H: m0: H0 00: 3HH
mo 30: 30 30 00 HH 0H 00 00 00 00 mH 00: 00 00: 0H 00 >0: >0 >0 H0 0HH
30: 00 0H: 00: 00 3H 00 0H H0 00 HH 0H Hm 0H HH 0H 30 00 00: >0 0H mHH
00: 00: mm 00 30 0H: 00 00: >0 30 mH: m0: 0H: 30: 00: m0: 3H: 00: 00: >0: 30: HHH
0H HH 00 00: mm HH 30 00 >0 00 0H 00 H0: HH 00 mH 30: 00: 00 0H 00 0HH
HH HH 00 00 mm 3H 00 mo 00 00 m0 H0 mH: 00 H0 >0 00: 00: H0 0H 00 00H
00 30 00: mo: 00 mH 00 0H 00 >0 mH H0 H0: HH 00 00 30: >0: 00 00 >0 00H
m0 H0 00 00 00 00 00 m0 H0 30 >0 H0: H0 00 00 H0 0H: 30 00 H0: >0H
30 00 HH >0 00 mo: 00 00 H0: 00 m0: mo: 00 HH 00 00: H0: H0 00 00H
Hm 0H H0: 00: 30: 00 mo 30: H0: 00: 30 m0: H0: 00: 00: 00: >0: 00: 00H
>H H0: mo 00 30: 00: 00 30 mo 00: 30: 00: 00: mo: 00: 0H: 00 30H
0H >0 >0 00 00 >0 00 30: 30: mo: 00 00 0H: H0: 0H HH 00H
0H mH HH 0H 0H 00 m0 HH m0 Hm mH H0: 3H 0H 00 m0H
>H 0H HH mm mH 00 >0 H0: mm mH 30 00 0H m0 HOH
mH 0H 0H mH 0H H0: 00: 0H >H H0 mm 0H 3H 00H

03 >H >0 00: 30 00 00 00 00 30 00 00 00

0H 3H 00: m0: H0 00 HH 30: 00 00 >0 00

Hm 0H >m 00 3H mo 00 0H 00 >0 >0

mo 00 0H 30: 00 0H HH 00 0HH >m 30: HH 0H >0 30: >0 >0 00 00
0H: 0H: HH >0: mo 00: 00 0HH 0m 0m 30 00 H0 00 H0 00 m0

3m 00: mm HH mH 00 3HH mm 3H 0H 00 0H >0 00 30

>0: 0H >0 >0 30 0HH 0H 00 H0 0H 00 00 00

H0: HH 00 00 mHH >0 00: 00 0H 0H m0

00 00: HHH 00 00 0H 00 H0

30 03 0HH 0H 0H 0H 00

00 00H 00 mH 00

MHH 3HH 0HH mHH HHH 0HH 00H 00H mEmPH Hm 00
>0H 00H 00H 30H 00H m0H HOH 00H 00 00 >0 00 00 30 00 m0 H0 00 00 00 >0 mEGHH

 

 

Hmm .0mH:>0 mZMHH .XH Hm¢m aXHmH<z ZOHHEHmmmOUMMBzH

>.o mezmmm<

130

mHHB 9.010 so 8806 080qu

 

 

3H 00 00: 00 00: 00 H3: 00 00 H0 00 00 >H HH: mH HH 00 0mH
00 00: 00 00: >0 0H: 00 00 m0: mH 00: >0 0H: mH 0H 0H 3mH
00: 0H 30: 00 mH: 00 0H 00: HH 00 00 00: HH 3H 00 0mH
30: H0 0m: 0H 00 0H: m0 m0: 00: 00: 00 0H: 0H: 0H: mmH
0m: 0m 00: 00 >H mo: 00 00 00 00 0m 0m 0H HmH
>>: 00 mo 00: 30: 00: HH: 0H: 0H >0: 00: 0H: 0mH
0m: 00: 00 30 00 0H 3H 00: 00 00 0H 0HH
>0 00: mo 00: mo: 00: HH 00: 0H: 3H: 0HH
0H 00: mm mo 00: 0H 00 0H 00 >HH
0mH 3mH 0mH mmH HmH 0mH 0HH 0HH >HH 0HH 0HH 3HH 0HH mHH HHH 0HH 00H 00H mewHH
mH 0H >0: 00 00 mH 0m HH mo 00 3H HH 00 00 H0 >H 00 0H: 00 3H 30: 0mH
>0 mm 30: m0 0H mo 00 mo 00 00: H0: 00 H0: 30: mo 00 30 >0: m0 H0: 00 3mH
00 H0 H0 00 00 00 00 00 00 >0 00: mH H0: 00: 00: 0H 00 >0:. 00 >0 m0 0mH
00: 00: 0H H0 00: 00: 00: 00: 00: m0 m0: 0H: mo 00: 00: HH: H0: 0H: 00: 0H: 0H: mmH
00 00 30: 00 3H HH 0H 0H mo 00 >0 0H 00: 00 30 HH 30 0H HH 3H 3H HmH
30: 00: 00 mH 00 00: >m: HH: H0: H0: 0H: H0: 00: 00: 00: 0m:. HH: H0: 00: 0H: 00: 0mH
>0 00 00: 00: 00 HH 0m HH 00 m0 0H 00 00 3H 00 mm 00 00: 00 0H 00 0HH
0H: HH: 0H 00 mo 00: >H: 3H: HH: 00 >0: >0: 00: 00: 00: 3H: 00: H0: 00: 00: 00 0HH
00 00 >0 00 0H H0 H0 00: H0: >0: 30: H0 00: 30: H0: H0: 00: >0: 00: mm: H0: >HH
>0H 00H 00H 30H 00H m0H HOH 00H 00 00 >0 00 00 30 00 m0 H0 00 00 00 >0 mEmvH

 

 

Hmm .0mH:>0 mZMHH axH Hm<m "XHMHEE onHaqmmmOOMMBZH
omDCHHcoo::>.o xHszmm<

135

 

300. 0>H. 330. e0H3.: 00m. 00H. 0mm.: 0m0. 000. 0>H.: mH0.: 000. 0H0. 000. mHH
0H0. 000.: mmm.: mmm. «>33.: 000. 0Hm. 3m0.: 3>H.: 0m0. 000.: ,00m.: HHH. HOH.: HHH
0m0. 030.: m0H.: >00.: m00.: m30.: mm0. 000.: HHO.: «00>.: 300.: HOH. H>0.: 300. 0HH
m3>. 000.: m00.: m>0. 000.: H00.: H00. >00.: 3m0.: «m00.: 000. H00. 300.: >30. 00H
000. 0H0.: 3m0.: 0H0.: >H0. 000.: H>0.: 000.: «000.: «300.: 300.: >H0.: >m0.: 0HH. 00H
>m>. 000.: mm0.: 000. 030.: 0m0.: 0m0. 000.: 0H0. m00.: 000.: 000. «030.: 030. >0H
>0>. 000. 000.: 000. mm0. 030. m00. 0H0.: 000. 0H0.: H00. 000. «0m0.: 000. 00H
>00. 0Hm. H00.: m0H. 00m.: 03H. «300. m0H. H30.: m30.: 000.: 0H0.: m00.: >>0.: 00H
000. 00H.: H00.: m0H.: >30. 300. «m0>. 0m0.: 000. 0H0. 000. >m0. 030.: m00.: 30H
330. 000.: 0H3.: 0m0.: 00H. Hm0.: 00m. 000.: 0m0. 00H.: 000. «003. 000.: m00.: 00H
330. 000. 000. 0m0. >>0.: 00H. 0H0. mH0.: 000.: 00H.: 330.: «000. 0m0.: 0H0. m0H
m03. 0HH.: 000. >0H.: 0>0.: 000.: 30H. 000.: 30m.: 00H. mm0.: 0H0. >H0. e003. HOH
0H0. 0mm. 3HH. «303.: 3H0. 0m0.: 00H. 000.: 00H.: 0HH.: 00H. 0>0. Hm0. m>H. 00H
H>0. m00. >H0.: m00. 000. 0m0. Hm0. m00.: «m00.: 000.: 000.: 300. 000.: 000. 00
H00. 000. >H0. 300.: 3>0.: 000.0 000.: mm0. «00>.: 000.: 0300 H>0. 000.: 030.: 00
>00. H30.: 000. 00m.: m0H. >HH.: 000. 3m0.: 00m.: >00.: «Hm0.: 00m. 0H0. 00H. >0
>m0. >mH.: 0>0.: «m0>.: 00m.: 0m0.: 0H0. m>H.: 00H.: 0>0. H00.: H00. 000.: 3H0.: 00
030. 00H. m00.: «000.: >3H. 000. 300.: 0>0. 00H. 000. >00.: HOH.: 0m0. 000. 00
300. 00H. 000. 300. >H0. 000.: 000. 0H0.: H00. 30H.: «>0>.: H00. 000. 000. 30
00>. 0m0.: 000. 00H.: H00. 0m0.: 0>0.: H00.: m00.: 0m0.: «0m0.: 0m0. 000.: 0m0.: 00
m>0. 000. 000.: 300.: HOH.: 300.: 030.: m>0.: 0HH.: 000. >0H.: «003. 000.: 00m. m0
033. #000. 00H. 0mH.: 000.: 0HH.: H00.: 0m0. 03H.: 000. 000.: 30H. m>0.: >30. H0
003. >0m. «m00. 00H. >HH. HHO.: 00H. mHm.: 030. 000. 030.: 30H.: 000. 000.: 00
000. 030.: 0H0. 000.: 030.: «0>>.: 000.: 0H0.: HHO.: >00.: 00H.: 000.: >00.: >00. 00
000. 00H. 000.: 0H0. 000.: «000.: 00H.: 000.: 0m0. 000.: 0H0. m>m. H00.: 000. 00
H03. «300. 3H0.: 000.: 00m. 3H0.: >00. HOH.: 000.: >H0. 0m0.: 0H0. 000.: 000.: >0
.EOO 0H mH HH 0H 0 0 > 0 0 3 0 m H mEMPH
mHovomm

 

 

Hem .oNHéo mg .on Head .0598 ”6.85 @251

0.0 XHszmm<

136

 

>00. >>0. 030. 000. >03. 0H3. H00. 000. >0m. H0m. HOH. H3H. 000. .>.m

£50

000. >00. 030. 030. m30. 000. H00. 030. 000. 000. 030. 0>0. 000. Whm>

..9bw

000. 000.: m0>.: 000.: 0>>.: m0>. 0HH. m00.: m00.: 0m0.: 000. >00.: >00. .omoq

.Hm

m>0. m>H.: 0H0.: 00H.: 0m0.: 000.: mH0. 03H. 30. 00H.: 0m0. 00H. 0HH.: «000. 0mH

00>. >H0. HHO.: 3m0.: 000. >m0. 000.: 000.: 300. 000.: Hm0. H00.: «>00.: 000. 3mH

>H>. 000. 300.: m00.: 000.: H0:.: 0H0.: 000.: 000.: 000.: 000. 030. «0m0.: 0H0. 0mH

000. 000. mm0.: 3m0. 000. 000. H30. «0H0. 0m0.: 0mH. 0m0. 0H0.: H30. 0mH.: mmH

3>0. .000. 030.: 000.: 300.: 0>0.: H00. «000.: H00.: 03H.: >H0.: 000. 030.: 000. HmH

000. >mm.: m00. 000.: m00.0 00H.: 00H. 33m. 000. 000. 0>0. 000.: 000.: «>00.: 0mH

33>. m0m. 00H.: 000. H00.: 000.: 0HH.: 30H.: H00. 3H0.: >HH.: 0mH. 3H0.: «00>. 0HH

300. 00H. m>H.: 00H. >H0.: 0HH. 0m0.: H00.: 030. >0H. mm0.: 30H. 00H. 0000.: 0HH

033. 000.: «000.: >00. >Hm.: >00. 000.: 0m0. m0H. 00H.: m00.: 0m0.: 000. 000.: >HH

>>3. 0>0.: «000.: 3>0.: 000. m3m.: m>H. 3HH.: m0H.: 300.: 0>0. HHO.: H00.: 000. 0HH

003. 000. mmm.: 000.: «030. m00. 000. 000. >3H.: 030. m>m.0 m00.: 000. >00. 0HH

000. 03H. 00H.: 00H.: «000.: 0>0. 300. 000. >0:.: mHH.: 300.: 0H0. 000.: 000. 3HH

000. 00H.: >0H.: 0>0.: «Hm0.: >0H.0 000. 030.: 03H.: 000. 000.: 0mH. >00. 03H. 0HH

.EUO 0H mH HH 0H 0 0 > 0 0 3 0 m H mePH
gowomm

 

 

omscHHCOOII0.o xHszmm<

APPENDIX D

ITEM WEIGHTS FOR SENIOR-YEAR EXPERIENCE INVENTORY SCALES

APPENDIX I)

ITEM.WEIGHTS FOR SENIOReYEAR EXPERIENCE INVENTORY SCALES

 

 

SRI Weights Assigned To
r Item Response Positions
Name tt Number 1 2 3 0 5 6 7
College Satisfaction .00 l 3 2 1
2 3 2 1
3 3 2 1
0 3 2 1
5 3 2 1
Academic Satisfaction . 52 6 0 3 l l
7 0 3 2 1
8 2 2 3 0
9 2 2 3 0
10 1 2 3 0
11 0 3 l l
Anti-Communism.(8r.) .69 12 1 2 3 3 0*
13 1 2 3 0 5
10 5 0 3 2 1
21 5 0 0 2 1
22 5 5 3 2 l
Reference/Norm Group (Sr.) .21 16 5 3 2 1*
25 1 3 0 0 5
27 1 2 2 3 5
Personal Confidence (Sr.) . 20 19 5 0 1 3 1*
20 5 0 3 2 2
Liberal-General Viewpoint . 20 18 5 0 3 2 1*
(Sr.) 26 5 0 3 2 1
Peers vs. Professors (Sr.) .16 15 5 0 3 2 1*
17 5 0 3 2 1
Current Issues (Sr.) .08 23 5 0 3 2 1*
20 5 0 3 2 1

137

13 8
APPENDIX D -- (Continued)

 

 

 

SRI Weights Assigned To

r Item Response Positions

Nane tt Number 1 2 3 0 5 6 7
Egalitarianism (Sr.) .33 28 5 0 3 2 1*
29 5 0 3 2 1
Anti-Communism (Pr.) .65 12 l 2 3 0 5*
13 1 2 3 0 5
l0 5 0 3 2 l
21 5 0 3 2 1
22 5 0 3 2 l
Reference/Norm Group (En) .35 16 5 0 3 2 1*
25 l 2 3 0 5
27 1 2 3 0 5
Personal Confidence (Fr.) .21 19 5 0 3 2 1*
20 5 0 3 2 l
Liberal—General Viewpoint (£00.25 18 5 0 3 2 1*
' 26 5 0 3 2 1
Peers vs. Professors (Frs.) .12 15 5 0 3 2 1*
l7 5 0 3 2 1
Current Issues (Pr.) .05 23 5 0 3 2 1*
20 5 0 3 2 l
Egalitarianism (Em) .28 28 5 0 3 2 1*
29 5 0 3 2 1
Anticipated Community .55 30 5 0 3 1 2
Activity 31 3 0 3 2 2
32 0 0 3 1 1
33 5 0 3 2 1
30 5 5 3 1 2
35 5 0 3 1 l
36 5 5 3 1 l
37 5 0 3 2 2
38 5 0 0 2 2

139

APPENDIX D -- (Continued)

 

 

 

SRI Weights Assigned To
r Item Response Positions
Nane tt Number 1 2 3 0 5 6 7
Tolerance . 0 8 87 3 2 1*
8 8 3 3 1
8 9 3 2 l
9 0 2 2 l
91 3 2 1
Range of Interests . 58 93 3 2 1*
9 0 3 2 1
9 5 3 2 l
9 6 3 2 l
9 7 3 2 1
10 0 3 2 1
Vocationalism . 0 6 111 3 2 1*
112 1 2 3
113 3 2 1
110 3 2 l
115 l 2 3
Education Need-Achievement . 26 116 3 2 1*
117 3 2 1
Personal Accountability . 21 92 3 2 1*
10 2 3 2 1
10 3 1 2 3
100 1 2 3
10 5 1 2 3
Resourcefulness . 60 9 8 3 2 1*
99 3 2 1
Scholarly Achievement . 77 61 3 2 1
6 2 3 1 1
6 3 3 2 1
6 9 3 2 1
70 3 2 l
7 3 3 2 l
7 5 3 2 2
7 6 3 2 1
7 7 3 1 l
8 5 3 2 2

100
APPENDIX D—- (Continued)

 

 

SRI Weights Assigned To
Item Response Positions
Name tt Number 1 2 3 0 5 6 7

 

Student= Centered Teachers . 50 01
02
03
00
06
51
52

Steam-134300
wwMNMMH
NwHwHI—JH

Teacher— Community . 60 3 9
Involvement 00
0 5

N
HHH HH:—150450

4:473:
cocoon
NM

Teacher-Scholar . 35 08
09
53

4:004
HNG—J
H00
H04:

(A)

Teacher Expectation . 15 07
50

4::—'
COM
N

:44:

Religious Concepts . 87 5 5
5 6
5 7
5 8
5 9
6 0

\INQWQN
03:001me
01:01-me
4:4:0053
wml—Jmmm
MOMQHCD
:—'0:-'\n-J\J

3!-

Personal Confidence/ . 72 101
Future Orientation 118
119
120
121
12 2
12 5

our-10:40:40
NNNNMNM
le—‘wl-‘wl-J

X-

Religiosity . 87 106
107
123
120

MNNM
wwww

3!-

Respect for Authority . 78 108
l 0 9
110

HH:—- b—‘i—‘t—‘l—J

NNN
wooed

101

APPENDIX EL-(Continued)

 

 

 

SRI Weights Assigned To
r Item Response Positions
Name tt Number 1 2 3 0 5 6 7
Personal Development .70 65 3 2 1
66 3 1 1
68 3 1 1
71 3 2 l
80 3 2 2
81 3 2 2
80 3 2 1
86 3 2 1
Weltansdhauung .73 60 3 2 l
67 3 2 l
72 3 2 1
70 3 2 1
78 3 2 1
79 3 2 l
82 3 2 1
83 3 2 1
Significant Others Unknown 192 "error free"
193 weights not
190 obtained for
195 this scale
196
197
198
Less of University Unknown 203 "error free"
Resources 200 weights not
205 obtained for
206 this scale
207
208
209
210
211
212

 

*Original SRI response order altered to f0rm.scalab1e items