wfih 65.625: 5&003 ‘, «N mg, ”2“ 05- ; ‘ W0133£§12 Emu.“ 1 z: “'1 MAYO§030172 l E?“ ,5: ' / ABSTRACT COEDUCATIONAL AND SINGLE SEX RESIDENCE HALLS: AN EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON By Lee Edward Jacokes In this study an investigation of two variations of coeduca- tional housing compared to traditional segregated or single sex facili- ties was made to experimentally evaluate the effects of single sex and coeducational housing on various behaviors, perceptions and personality characteristics of freshman men and women during their first year in college. Men and women were housed in each of three housing variations: 1) single sex, 2) wing by wing. 3) levels. A randomly ordered list of residence halls was compiled from which random distribution of freshman men and women to these residence halls was made. Six living units were selected on the basis of similarity of physical facilities. conmon visitation hours. lack of special groups or programming within the living unit and no distinguishing campus or insti- tutional characteristics from the other units in the study. Two hundred sixteen students out of three hundred ninety-seven volunteered for the study by completing a required participation agreement. Three questionnaires were administered over the one year period of the study. The first queStionnaire was administered during the summer of 1973 prior to the students' arrival on campus. the second was administered in November, 1973 and the third was administered in May, l974. Lee Edward Jacokes The questionnaires contained information about the students' background and families, their experience with the university, their residence halls, their social and extracurricular activities, and measures of personality characteristics. Additional information was obtained from student files about academic performance and aptitude. The experimental design consisted of the two independent variables; type of residence hall and sex. A total of seventy single dependent measures or repeated dependent measures were compared among the six experi- mental groups. Statistical analysis involved chi-square, analyses of variance, and cluster analysis. Analysis indicated that there was little support for hypotheses suggesting that coeducational or single sex residence halls differentially affect students in any of the following areas: 1) academic perception and performance, 2) personality characteristics, 3) perception of institu- tional warmth and friendliness, 4) perception of residence hall warmth and friendliness, 5) religious perception and practices and 6) extracurric- ular activities. Evidence was found that dating behavior and satisfaction was differentially affected by coeducational and single sex residence halls. Several specific variables which were used to test the above general areas did produce significant differences. There was evidence that coed environments may help improve grade point averages over time for men, that the more closely integrated coeducational residence halls may have influenced men and women to increasingly view their own sex as more superior over time, that coed environments significantly decreased their residents' ratings of student friendliness over time while single sex residents signi- /’ ficantly increased their ratings and, that men in coeducational environments were involved in significantly less informal conversations with both sexes. Lee Edward Jacokes Students were equally satisfied with their dating opportunities on the campus regardless of residence hall environment. Coed residents dated more non-residents more frequently than they did fellow residents. Evidence suggested that the more closely integrated levels residence hall condition resulted in lower scores on the social dating scale than did the less integrated wings and single sex environments. Coeducational residence hall students were not involved in any greater degree of in- / J / timate dating behavior than single sex students; however, they were more \J intimately involved with fellow residents than with non-residents. Further, evidence suggests that coeducational residence halls influenced women to become significantly less involved in intimate dating behavior than women in single sex residence hall environments. A number of sex differences were found. Women significantly in- creased their non-conformity ratings within the first two months at the university. Women dated significantly more people more often and they dated non-residents more often than did men. Both men and women in coed residence halls dated fellow residents at about the same rate but dated more non-residents more often than fellow residents. Women had a higher social dating behavior rating with non-residents. Women experienced a significant increase in degree of intimate dating be- havior with non-residents over time. Coed residence hall students, re- gardless of sex, experienced significant increases in degree of intimate dating behavior over time. Both men and women experienced a significant decline in strength of belief in church doctrines and monthly church attendance within the first two months of attendance at the university. Women were signifi- cantly more involved in informal conversations with both other women and Lee Edward Jacokes men throughout the year while men were found to be significantly more involved in college organizations. A cluster analysis of the seventy variables in the study produced twelve clusters made up of forty-eight of the variables suggesting possible new scales to be used in future studies of this nature. COEDUCATIONAL AND SINGLE SEX RESIDENCE HALLS: AN EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON By Lee Edward Jacokes A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1975 @ Copyright by LEE EDWARD JACOKES l975 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Advancing age brings with it a clearer appreciation of the many individuals who have had an important influence in one's pro- fessional growth. For this author, many persons played either direct or indirect roles. Although it is not possible to list all of them, a number deserve special mention. George W. Fairweather, Ph.D., Chairman of my Dissertation Com- mittee, spent many hours providing much needed direction. But more than this, he provided a new idea, a new vision of accomplishing the planned change desperately needed in today‘s society. That I should be one of the students privileged to share this vision is deeply appre- ciated. In the early stages of the design of the study, the insights of Louis G. Tornatzky, Ph.D., Robert J. Calsyn, Ph.D., and Charles D. Johnson, Ph.D. were invaluable, as was their assistance with helping me understand the mysteries of the BC TRY program later in the study. A number of other Michigan State University personnel were help- ful. Gary 8. North, Ph.D., Coordinator of Residence Hall Programs, ex- pended considerable supportive effort from the onset by putting me in contact with other Michigan State University personnel, acting as advocate for the study, and providing staff support on several occasions. Mr. Robert Underwood, Manager of Residence Halls and his staff, especially Mr. Jerry Puca, were invaluable in agreeing to and assisting with the random assign- ment of students to residence halls. Gwendolyn Norrel, Ed.D., Assistant iii Director of the Counseling Center, helped by providing access to test information while John Schweitzer, Ed.D., of the Education Department gave assistance with the FINN computer program, Multivariance. Several of my friends and colleagues at Aquinas College assisted. Thomas E. Deschaine, Ed.D. and Jerome P. Heckenmueller, Ph.D. critically read the manuscript, providing several important suggestions incorporated into the study. Marcia Clapp helped to turn my earlier drafts into recog- nizable English with her thorough editing. Finally, Sister Judith Drew, 0.P., provided the all important typing assistance from scribbled notes to final copy. An expression of appreciation is also in order for the Grand Rapids and the Kellogg Foundations which granted funds to partially support the released time needed to complete this study. A final note of appreciation is due three men who have played immensely important roles in my professional development. Although space does not permit a full explanation of their contributions, I express my indebtedness to their influence and example: Norbert J. Hruby, Ph.D., President of Aquinas College; George F. J. LaMountain, M.A., Associate Professor of Psychology, Aquinas College; and Stanley Schneider, M.A., Consulting Psychologist. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................... viii LIST OF FIGURES .......................... ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ......................... l THE PROBLEM ........................ 1 Factors Influencing the Adoption of Coeducational Residence Halls ................... 3 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ..................... 5 The History and Rationale for Establishing Coeduca- tional Residence Halls ............... 6 Coeducational Housing: Effects on the Behavior and Personality of Students ............... 9 Coeducational Housing: Effects on the Interaction of Students with the Opposite Sex .......... l2 Group Living Interaction ............. l2 Dating and Sexual Behavior ............ l5 General Considerations and Problems of Coeducational Residence Halls ................... l7 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ................... 20 11. METHOD ............................ 25 DESIGN OF THE STUDY .................... 25 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND AGREEMENTS ......... 27 SELECTION AND ASSIGNMENT PROCEDURES OF STUDENTS TO RESIDENCE HALL CONDITIONS ............... 28 ASSESSMENT DEVICES .................... 3l III. RESULTS ........................... 37 COMPARABILITY OF SAMPLES ................. 37 ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHESES .................. 42 Analysis of Hypothesis One ............... 43 Analysis of Hypothesis TWo ............... 47 Analysis of Hypothesis Three .............. 49 Analysis of Hypothesis Four .............. 5l Analysis of Hypothesis Five .............. 53 Analysis of Hypothesis Six ............... 57 Analysis of Hypothesis Seven .............. 63 ASSOCIATIVE ANALYSIS ................... 65 IV. DISCUSSION .......................... 74 RESIDENCE HALL CONDITION DIFFERENCES ........... 74 SEX DIFFERENCES ...................... 86 ADDITIONAL FINDINGS .................... 91 SUMMARY .......................... 93 IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ............. 99 APPENDICES A ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT ................... 101 B FORMAL APPROVAL OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS ................... 103 FORMAL APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON RELEASE OF INFORMATION AND APPROVAL OF QUESTIONNAIRES ................ l04 C LETTER OF INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY HOUSING STUDY ................ 106 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY HOUSING STUDY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT .......................... l06 FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO THE LETTER OF INVITATION ......... 107 D QUESTIONNAIRE ONE ....................... 108 FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO QUESTIONNAIRE ONE ............. ll6 E QUESTIONNAIRE TWO AND QUESTIONNAIRE THREE ........... ll7 FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO QUESTIONNAIRE TWO ............. 132 FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO QUESTIONNAIRE THREE ............ l33 F CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF RESIDENCE HALL GROUPS ON QUESTIONNAIRES TWO AND THREE VARIABLES ................... I34 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TWO AND THREE REPEATED MEASURES FOR FORTY-TWO VARIABLES ADMINISTERED IN QUESTIONNAIRES ONE, TWO, AND THREE .................... I35 LIST OF REFERENCES ......................... I40 vii LIST OF TABLES PERCENT OF CAMPUSES HOUSING STUDENTS IN VARIOUS TYPES OF COEDUCATIONAL UNITS .................... 7 2. VARIABLES USED TO EVALUATE THE SEVEN HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY .......................... 22 3. ARRANGEMENT OF RESIDENCE HALL CONDITIONS, SEX AND RESIDENCE HALL GROUPS ......................... 27 4. THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS IN THE ORIGINAL POPULATION WITHIN EACH RESIDENCE HALL GROUP AND THEIR FREQUENCY OF RESPONSE TO EACH QUESTIONNAIRE .................... 32 5. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR QUESTIONNAIRE l (PRETEST-SUMMER, l973) VARIABLES, VERBAL AND MATHEMATICAL APTITUDE AND HIGH SCHOOL GPA ....................... 40 6. CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS FOR QUESTIONNAIRE l (PRETEST-SUMMER, l973) VARIABLES ....................... 42 7. RESULTS OF SIGNIFICANCE TESTS FOR VARIABLES USED TO TEST HYPOTHESIS ONE ..................... 44 8. RESULTS OF SIGNIFICANCE TESTS FOR VARIABLES USED TO TEST HYPOTHESES TWO, THREE AND FOUR ................ 52 9. RESULTS OF SIGNIFICANCE TESTS FOR VARIABLES USED TO TEST HYPOTHESIS FIVE ....................... 62 lo. RESULTS OF SIGNIFICANCE TESTS FOR VARIABLES USED TO TEST HYPOTHESES SIX AND SEVEN ................... 67 ll. THE TWELVE CLUSTERS, THEIR VARIABLE CONSTRUCTION AND VARIABLE FACTOR COEFFICIENTS ................. 69 l2. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EACH OF THE TWELVE CLUSTERS ....... 72 l3. ANALYSIS OF OLDEST VS YOUNGER SIBLINGS 0N HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE GRADE POINT AVERAGES AND VERBAL AND MATHEMA- . TICAL SCHOLASTIC APTITUDE SCORES ............... 94 Appendix F CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF RESIDENCE HALL GROUPS ON QUESTIONNAIRES TWO AND THREE VARIABLES ................... 134 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TWO AND THREE REPEATED MEASURES FOR FORTY-TNO VARIABLES ADMINISTERED IN QUESTIONNAIRES ONE, TWO. AND THREE .g. ................... I35 viii —l-—l—l #00 12. hwwNP LIST OF FIGURES Average study hours per week during each questionnaire period for residence hall conditions ............ Average study hours per week during each questionnaire period for residence hall groups .............. Residence hall scholarship during each questionnaire period for residence hall conditions ............ Residence hall scholarship during each questionnaire period for men and women .................. University academic standards during each questionnaire period for men and women .................. University academic standards during each questionnaire period for residence hall groups .............. Student perception of social, political, intellectual activities during questionnaire periods for men and women ......................... Student perception of social, political, intellectual activities during questionnaire periods for residence hall groups ................... Student cumulative grade point average for Term 1 and Term 3 for residence hall groups .............. Conformity Scale score during questionnaire periods for men and women ....................... Masculinity-Femininity Scale score during questionnaire periods for men and women ................. Masculinity-Femininity Scale score during questionnaire periods for residence hall conditions ........... Attitude toward the opposite sex during questionnaire periods for men and women ................. Attitude toward the opposite sex during questionnaire periods for residence hall groups ............. Student friendliness rating during questionnaire periods for residence hall groups ............. Student friendliness rating during questionnaire periods for residence hall conditions ........... Total number of separate dates during questionnaire periods for men and women ................. Total number of separate dates during questionnaire periods for residence hall groups ............. Total number of individuals dated who were residents of the student's residence hall (coed residence halls only) during questionnaire periods for residence hall groups ........................ Total number of individuals dated who lived outside of the student's residence hall during questionnaire periods for men and women ................. 46 46 46 46 46 46 50 12.2 12.3 13.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 15.1 15.2 16.1 16.2 17.1 17.2 18.1 18.2 18.3 19.0 20.1 Total number of individuals dated who lived outside of the student's residence hall during questionnaire periods for residence hall conditions ................ Total number of individuals dated who lived outside of the student's residence hall during questionnaire periods for residence hall groups .................. Total number of separate dates with residents of the student's residence hall (coed residence halls only) during questionnaire periods for residence hall groups ....... Total number of separate dates with students who lived out- side of the student's residence hall during questionnaire periods for men and women .................. Total number of separate dates with students who lived out- side of the student's residence hall during questionnaire periods for residence hall conditions ............ Total number of separate dates with students who lived out- side of the student's residence hall during questionnaire periods for residence hall groups ......... . . . . . Social dating behavior with non-residence students during questionnaire periods for men and women ........... Social dating behavior with non-residence students during questionnaire periods for residence hall conditions ..... Social dating behavior with residents who lived in the student's residence hall (coed residence halls only) compared to single sex residents' social dating be- havior during questionnaire periods for residence hall conditions ....................... Social dating behavior with residents who lived in the student's residence hall (coed residence halls only) compared to single sex residents' social dating be- havior during questionnaire periods for residence hall groups . . . ...................... Intimate dating behavior with non-residence hall students during questionnaire periods for men and women ............................ Intimate dating behavior with non-residence hall students during questionnaire periods for resi- dence hall conditions .................... Intimate dating behavior with residents of the student's residence hall (coed residence hall students only) compared to single sex intimate dating during questionnaire periods for residence hall conditions ..... Intimate dating behavior with residents of the student's residence hall (coed residence hall students only) during questionnaire periods for men and women ....... Intimate dating behavior with residents of the student's residence hall (coed residence hall students only) compared to single sex residents' intimate dating during questionnaire periods for residence hall groups Self religious perception during questionnaire periods for residence hall conditions ................ Frequency of infbrmal conversation with the same sex during questionnaire periods for men and women X 59 59 59 59 60 60 60 60 60 6O 61 61 61 61 61 61 66 20.2 Frequency of informal conversation with the same sex during questionnaire periods for residence hall conditions ......................... 66 20.3 Frequency of informal conversation with the same sex during questionnaire periods for residence hall groups . . . ................... . . . 55 21.1 Frequency of informal conversation with the opposite sex during questionnaire periods for men and women ....... 65 21.2 Frequency of informal conversation with the opposite sex during questionnaire periods for residence hall groups . . . 65 22.0 Frequency of participation in college organizations during questionnaire periods for men and women ....... 55 xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION THE PROBLEM During their four years of college life, our students would live together, not only under the same roof, but (preselected on the basis of careful psychological tests) heterosexual couples would share the same quarters: a study room, a bath- room, and a bedroom with twin beds. This unconventional living arrangement was the keystone of our proposal . . . this study would provide the blueprint for a new sexually oriented aristocracy of individual men and women who were free of sexual inhibitions, repressions, and hate, and were thoroughly educated into the meaning and the art of love as distinguished from the purely sexual relationship. The Harrad Experiment. Thus began Robert H. Rimmer's novel The Harrad Experiment (1966). In the novel, Harrad College was a four-year liberal arts college with one unique additional component: men and women were expected to sleep together in the residence halls of Harrad College as part of their four- year collegiate experience. Through this “coed" sleeping arrangement and an intensive curriculum component aimed at the psycho-social-sexual development of the student, each Harrad graduate was to become a fully sexually, as well as intellectually, educated individual. Although no present-day educator is openly recommending that the Harrad Experiment be made a reality, those who oppose the presence of coed housing on American campuses might point to the Harrad Experiment as the logical and ultimate consequence of liberal housing policies. It has been said that the "coed" rooming patterns suggested in the Harrad Experiment are 1 in fact a reality in many present-day off campus settings and, although nOt institutionally approved, undoubtedly occur informally within present residence halls. . There are various arrangements which coeducational facilities can take (Crane, 1962, p. 48; 1963, p. 79; Riker & Lopez, 1961, p. 56). Traditional Single-Sex Residence Hall Arrangement. This type of arrange- ment consists of male and female living units which are physically separated from one another on the campus. The coeducational element would be commonly shared eating facilities used by both sexes. If common eating facilities were not available, this would be a truly "single-sex" residence hall. Adjacent Residence Hall Arrangements. In this arrangement separated male and female residence halls are located next to one another, but some types of common service facilities are used by both sexes, e.g., dining hall, laundromat, recreational facilities, etc. Residence Halls Arranged bngings. In this arrangement, one or more wings of a residence hall would house men and another wing(s) would house women. Commonly shared facilities such as dining halls, recreation facilities, laundromats, study facilities, etc. would be found centralized in the area connecting the wings. Alternating Floors or Levels Residence Hall Arrangements. Residence facili- ties of this type involve the same physical structure shared by both men and women. One floor is occupied by men, the next floor by women, etc. In arrangements by levels, a floor may be broken up by corridors connected by either common entrance facilities or only a fire door. Common facili- ties as described above are available; however, other facilities such as floor lounges, study areas, etc. are also used by both sexes. Open access to either the floor or corridor of the opposite sex may be allowed depending on visitation policies. Alternating Rooms or Suites Residence Hall Arrangements. In this arrange- ment, men and women occupy the same floor and are housed by either alter- nating rooms or suites of women in between rooms or suites of men. In addition to the commonly shared house facilities mentioned above, this arrangement virtually allows a 24 hours per day, seven days per week open visitation policy. Factors Influencing The Adoption of Coeducational Residence Halls Colleges and universities have been under rather intense pressure in the last few years to provide some form of coeducational housing. The traditional residence hall has lost its attractiveness and students have been moving off campus to find more intimate and private living arrange- ments. This movement has resulted in loss of revenue to colleges, leaving them with partially empty residence halls and large loans which still must be paid. The attractiveness of "apartment" living to the student is un- deniable; the student has a greater freedom of personal behavior and the opportunity to be more responsible for his own actions. Moreover, in the last few years there has been a rather rapid change in the in loco parentis concept in colleges and universities. Faced with a general social attitude which allows the teenager more indi- vidual freedom and the recently enacted 18-year-old age-of—majority legis- lation, colleges and universities find it difficult to continue to demand that students remain in residence halls. And finally, during the last few years, students, as a group, have demanded and have obtained more say in the governance of colleges and universities. The result is that students now play an important role in the setting of rules and regulations in many colleges and universities. Pressures such as those listed here, have led many colleges and universities to attempt to make the residence hall more attractive to students. This move has resulted in extensive revision of visitation policies, ranging from allowing the opposite sex visitation privileges a few hours a day to 24 hours a day; has set the stage for experimenta- tion with various forms of coeducational living; has given individual residents of a residence hall extensive say in the running and the management of the facility; and has caused officials to remodel the residence halls into environments which more closely resemble the type of living accommodations students can obtain off campus. There are additional pragmatic and theoretical reasons for colleges and universities to provide coed housing on campus. Pragmatically, pro- viding such facilities attracts some students back to the campus and may keep others from leaving campus housing. Thus, residence halls are filled and debt payments can be made. It has also been reported that mixing men and women in the same residence facility results in less destructive male behavior and reduces repair bills. Many educators also believe that coed residence halls contribute to healthier adolescent growth and develop- ment, better academic climate and performance and, it is hoped, more mature individuals later in life. However, many individuals object to coeducational residence halls on campuses. They argue that the basic purpose of the college or univer- sity is to foster academic growth. They believe coed facilities interfere with that growth because of a greater freedom to socialize with and be distracted by the opposite sex. They suggest that such living facilities abnormally force social relationships on late adolescents who may not be ready for such relationships because of their particular emotional and social adjustment. And finally, the largest single objection to coed 5 housing is that it promotes a greater opportunity for promiscuous sexual behavior on the part of the residents. PREVIOUS RESEARCH Educators, especially student personnel workers, have for many years been concerned with the effect of residence halls on the academic and social development of the student. Feldman and Newcomb (1969, p. 196) stated: Since the student hardly spends all of his time either in the classroom or engaged in classroom-associated activities, there are other loci of potential college influences. One of these is the student's living group. If the major field, as one kind of “home" for the college student, has distinctive impacts on the student, it seems hard to imagine that the student's actual residence during college would not. Concern with the effects of the residence hall on the growth of the student has been reflected, over the years, in numerous studies which have dealt with various aspects of residence halls. Only a few studies have been experimental or quasi-experimental in approach. Studies into the physical and social environments of residence halls and their effect upon such diverse processes as social integration, personality formation, academic performance etc., have been conducted. Many institutions have focused on the residence hall as a learning environment and have grouped students by major area of interest, by similar personality and interest patterns and have designed entire curricula to form small collegiate environments within residence halls. Emphasis in these studies has been placed on the developmental stages of the student and the relationship of the student's choice of housing and personality factors to his academic achievement and personal adjustment in college. Most studies about the effects of the living unit on the student and the factors influencing students to select certain types of living units have involved single sex residence halls. Reviews of the literature over the last 40 years can be found in several sources (Alfert, 1968; Biggs & Cowan, 1969; Brown, 1968; Duvall, 1969; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Ferguson, 1967; Hatch, 1968; Marquardt, 1968; Mene & Sinnett, 1971; and Sanford, 1962). The History and Rationale for Establishing Coeducational Residence Halls. The issue of coeducational residence halls in colleges and univer- sities is an extremely emotional one, to say the very least. Placing students, most of whom are between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two, in close living proximity to the opposite sex goes contrary to many of the prevailing religious and ethical mores of American society. Although coeducational residence halls have only recently been publicized in a number of popular magazines (Lear, 1969; Rollins, 1969; Shearer, 1960; Thorsen, 1970), some form of coeducational housing has been present in the United States since the mid-fifties. The Office of Institutional Studies at the University of Southern California (1972) conducted a survey of 33 private and public colleges and universities and found that coeducational residence halls had been introduced as early as 1956 by the University of Minnesota and Purdue University. Greenleaf (1962, p. 108) indicated that Indiana University introduced its first coeduca- tional residence hall in 1957. All of these initial coeducational resi- dence hall facilities were of the coed-by-wing variety. From 1957 to 1965 approximately one-third of the colleges and universities in the country adopted coeducational residence facilities. Riker and DeCoster (1967, p. 2) and Riker (1970, p. 8:360) reported a survey sent to members of the Association of Colleges and University Housing Officers (ACUHO) regarding coeducational housing. Three hundred ninety-two institutions reported; analysis indicated that 51% of ACUHO membership had instituted some form of coeducational residence halls by 1967. These residence halls generally involved separate living quarters for men and women with common areas of joint activities. By 1971, Sievert (1971) indicated that 70% of residential colleges in the United States offered some form of coeducational residence halls and had diversified the physical arrangement of coeducational residence halls. In 1967, three percent of the colleges permitted coeducational housing which placed students on the same floor in separate apartments or suites. By 1971, twenty-two percent of the colleges permitted this arrangement. In 1967, less than 1% permitted coed arrangements with students living in separate rooms on the same floor but by 1971, fifteen percent were allowing this living arrangement. Table 1 indicates the percentages of campuses housing students in various types of coeducational units in 1967 and 1971. TABLE 1 PERCENT OF CAMPUSES HOUSING STUDENTS IN VARIOUS TYPES OF COEDUCATIONAL UNITS ’Iype of Coed Housing__ 1967 1971 Separated Buildings 55% 62% Separated Wings 28% 53% Separate Floors 19% 52% Same Floor, in Separate Apartments or Suites _- 3% 22% Same Floor in Separate Rooms 1% 15% Source: University of Southern California. Coeducational Housing at Colleges and Universities. Office of Institu- tional Studies, 1972. Reaction to coeducational residence halls varied, depending on the particular group questioned. Campus administrators and students were by far the most favorable toward coeducational housing with 48% of campus administrators and 88% of students reporting favorable reactions. The University of Southern California Study (1972, p. 12) further found that 3% of parents and 18% of the state legislators had unfavorable reactions to coeducational residence halls. A number of individuals ranging from 12% of students to 61% of parents had mixed reactions to coeducational housing because they were aware of both the favorable and unfavorable publicity about coeducational residence halls. Parental opinion of coedu- cational residence halls, solicited in a 1971 Gallup Poll (Student Housing, 1972, pp. 11-15), found that 46% of parents interviewed were not opposed to having their daughters live in a coeducational residence hall. As mentioned previously, the move toward establishing coeduca- tional housing occurred because of a number of pragmatic and theoretical reasons. Although it is undeniable that student pressure and the need to fill residence halls were factors in the trend toward coeducational housing, there were also sound theoretical and educational arguments in its favor. Experimentally unsubstantiated reasons ordinarily given for establishing coeducational residence halls were: 1. Attracting students from off campus housing and retaining students already living in residence halls in order to bring in needed revenues. 2. Bringing students into the residence halls in order to provide a more intense academic environment through residence hall programming. 3. Changes in visitation policies over the last few years have become more liberal and have, by and large, been successful. Success with visitation policies has indi- cated that coeducational housing could be of great benefit to the student. 4. Colleges and universities have moved away from parietal rules, changing the in loco parentis concept as previously implemented through university rules and regulations. 5. The emergence of greater autonomy for women and the protest against double sex standards. 6. The belief that intellectual development cannot occur unless psycho-social needs are also developed. Establishing coeducational residence halls is seen as providing more opportunities for the development of the individual during his late adolescent years. 7. Providing additional classroom space and making the integra- tion of educational programming within the residence halls possible, thereby improving both social interaction and the intellectual atmosphere within residence halls. (University of Southern California, 1972, p. l; Blackman, 1966, p. 250; Duncan, 1970, pp. 3-5; Leland 8 Burk-Dietrich, 1970, p. 8). Coeducational Housing: Effects on the Behavior and Personality of Students. Very few studies have focused specifically on the individual be- havior of students and the effects of coeducational housing on personality structure. Schroder and LeMay (1974) examined the differences between students who had selected coeducational residence halls and those students who had selected non coeducational residence halls in order to determine whether there were any initial differences on select scales of the Person— ality Orientation Inventory (POI) between these two groups of students. They were also interested in determining whether coeducational living units had any effect on the development of self-actualization as measured by the six POI scales selected for their study. From a sample of 590 students who were selected by a stratified sampling method to insure representative proportions 0f students from each of the eleven residence halls, they concluded that freshmen who selected coeducational residence \/ . T. ‘0‘?) halls were more psychologically mature, were more flexible in the applica-_.,fif ¢ I V tion of their values, and were better able to develop meaningful inter- personal relationships. They also found that these students had a higher 10 degree of self-actualization which, the authors conclude, helped them to c0pe with the variety of new opportunities, pressures, and tasks presented by coeducational living. In analyzing group differences between the fall pretest and the spring post-test of the personality inventory, an analysis of co-variance revealed that coed residence halls appeared to facilitate further interpersonal growth and development on the part of the students. .,—-— “‘6‘ ~—--—. —...__._ Coed residence halls appeared to influence, particularly, the personal development of men who were classified as medium self-actualizing indi- viduals more than for the other sub groups. These men became more mature, \_ _. -#--—~-.._ _ ‘_fl. ‘Lindependent, flexible anstelf supportive during the course of their \\freshman y;;;:_4»-~ IIID.) f INTI“ The effect of coeducational residence hall living on men has been noted by a number of authors. Stanford Psychologist Joseph Katz hypoth- esized that men are particularly helped by coeducational residence halls because "they learn that masculinity is more than a superficial toughness“ and that "females are more than submissive sex objects." (Rollins, 1969, p. 28). Further, in the coeducational living situation, males have an opportunity to "dispel fears of the women's dominance; a fear that they have acquired because of the dominance of their mothers during their growing up years." Observation of both male and female behavior has suggested that both tend to exhibit more mature behavior when living in coeducational residences. Men tend to exhibit less destructive and boisterous behavior and tend to be less involved in activities which can damage the living unit (University of Southern California, 1972, p. 5). Rollins (1969, p. 27) notes that both males and females improve their ordinary speaking patterns. Men reduced their "pseudo tough talk" and use of obscene language and 11 women spent much less time indulging in "diet and date" talk as compared to those living in a single sex facility. In the student survey conducted at the University of Michigan (1970), men and women residing in coed resi- dence halls believed that they had been affected positively by the experience. Men reported attitude changes, noting that they had become more tolerant \/f and more mature in their behavior and attitudes toward others. Women re- ported they had developed more liberal opinions and, in general, that they were more tolerant of differing opinions. As a result of her three- year observation of men and women in coeducational residence halls Greenleaf (1962, p. 108) indicated that their general social behavior patterns ap- \/ peared to be better than that of those students residing in the typical single sex residence hall. Involvement of students in academic and extracurricular activi- ties has been investigated by a number of authors. In general, they found that men and women in coeducational residence halls tended to parti-‘/ cipate more in campus activities, that the residence halls and campus I atmosphere became more intellectually oriented, and that students engaged in more informal intellectual conversations than those in single sex resi- dence halls. It was noted that there tended to be fewer alienated and lonely students in coed residence halls than in single sex residence halls (Thorsen, 1970, p. 36; University of Southern California, 1972, p. 4). The subject of academic performance of students residing in coedu- cational housing has been studied by a number of researchers. All investi- gators concluded that academic performance as measured by grade point average did not significantly differ when comparing students who lived in coed units to those living in traditional single sex facilities (Blackman, 1966, p. 251; Greenleaf, 1962, p. 108; Imes, 1966; Riker, 1970, p. 8:361; 12 Thorsen, 1970, p. 36; University of Southern California, 1972, p. 5). Similar results have been found in single-sex facilities (Elton 8 Bate, 1966). Thorsen (1970, p. 36) indicated that a tendency toward group study developed within coeducational residence halls. Coeducational Housing: Effects on the Interaction of Students With the Opposite Sex. One of the areas of greatest concern about coeducational housing is the impact which such living arrangements have on students and their interactions with the opposite sex. Proponents and critics alike express great concern about the effects of such living arrangements on the quality of residence hall life, on dating and social behavior between men and women, and on the sexual behavior of the student. This section will report the effects of coed residence halls on the interaction of students with the opposite sex under two main categories: 1) Group living interaction, 2) Dating and sexual behavior. Group Living Interaction. Most institutions with coeducational residence halls report the living environment has markedly improved. Coed resi- dence halls are characterized as environments with a high sense of com- munity and a high level of morale, (University of Southern California, p. 12). One investigator found students had a greater sense of pride in their living unit, exhibited greater respect for their fellow students, and were more involved in student government and extra curricular activi-\, ties than students residing in single sex residence halls (Lynch, 1971, p. 37). Lynch further indicated that in addition to a better spirit with- in the coeducational residence halls, 74% of the students were pleased ._,. 4’ with their living arrangements as compared to 52% of students living in I;T\ single sex residenceflhalls. Other indicators of a healthier living My," "”F 13 environment were given by Jackson (1971) who noted that the frequency of drug usage in coed dorms was lower than in single sex dorms and LeMay (l973)\d who found by placing sound level meters in both coeducational residence halls and single sex residence halls that coed residence halls were much quieter during the usual 7:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. study time than single V/ sex residences. Two investigators found coed residents went home less on weekends in order to "stay home" with friends in their residence halls than did students in single sex residence halls (Greenleaf, 1962, p. 111; Lynch, 1971, p. 37). Students in coeducational residence halls developed "family type" relationships with one another. Students on coeducational floors functioned more as one large friendly community with less small group formation and more interaction as a whole than was found in separate sex residence halls (Corbett & Summer, 1972, p. 216; University of Southern California, 1972, p. 4). One important point often made by supporters of coeducational residence halls is that coed residence halls allowed both dating and non dating relationships to develop between men and women. It was hypothesized that since all contacts with the opposite sex were not dating relationships a more relaxed interpersonal relationship develop between the sexes and a healthier environment resulted (Thorsen, 1970, p. 32). In the University of Michigan's survey (1970) of its residence halls, 87% of the students in coed facilities found their living experience to be valuable because they were able to make more friends with the opposite sex and they were free of competitive tensions often found in single sex halls. Students attributed the change in friendship patterns with the opposite sex to their living in coeducational facilities. Women were particularly affected in establishing more non dating friendships with the opposite sex. The absence of a “need to date in order to meet the 14 opposite sex mentality" resulted in a naturalness of behavior by students in the residence facilities (Currie, 1963, p. 250; Thorsen, 1970, p. 32) and allowed them to relate to one another as friends rather than as sex objects. Greenleaf (1962, p. 107) found these informal relationships resulted in students participating in both cultural, intellectual and social activities which allowed them to get to know the opposite sex in a natural and informal way. Lynch (1971, p. 38) agreed with this assess- ment and further indicated that students were more involved with faculty, ate together, and enjoyed social events and programs to a greater extent than did those students in single sex residence halls. He found that 83% of students living in coeducational residence halls dined together whereas only 37% of students in non coeducational residence halls ate with the opposite sex on a regular basis. This daily, close contact with the opposite sex helped students to gain a better knowledge of their opposite sex friends and to develop an awareness of what behavior the opposite sex expected. Frequent and regular contact helped both sexes to become acquainted with the attitudes and interest of the other (Greenleaf, 1962, p. 109; Riker, 1970, p. 8:344). In the University of Michigan study (1970), 79% of the students in coedu- cational residence halls believed that this experience helped them to learn more about the opposite sex. It provided students with an environment in which they could l) talk with the opposite sex, 2) observe the opposite sex and become friends with them over a period of time, and 3) grow to understand the opposite sex and thus to relate to others in an open and intensive relationship. Schroder and LeMay (1974) provided some statis- tical evidence to support the above claims. They found that freshmen in coeducational residence halls significantly increased their ability to develop meaningful and close associations with others. Scores on the 15 various sub-scales on the Personal Orientation Inventory supported the contention that students in coeducational residence halls develop more interpersonal competencies. They concluded that coeducational living exerted a facilitative effect upon the development of a healthier and a more mature relationship by providing opportunities for diverse associa- tions with the opposite sex. They found that coeducational residence halls seemed to stimulate students toward a greater interpersonal sensi- tivity while sexually segregated residence halls do not facilitate the development of sensitive personal relationships. Dating and Sexual Behavior. Certainly, one of the biggest concerns on the part of all those who are interested in the impact of coeducational housing on the student is the effect which these living units have on the student's dating and sexual behavior. The largest single objection to a coeducational living unit is the possibility of promiscuous sexual behavior on the part of the residents. This concern led a number of investigators to focus on observable changes in sexual and dating behavior and to compare the behavior of students in coeducational and single sex residence halls. Initial observations indicate that some differences in dating be- havior between students in coed residence halls and those in single sex residence halls do exist. Rollins (1969, p. 27) hypothesized that a type of “brother-sister" relationship arises between residents living in the same coed unit. Katz (Rollins, 1969, p. 22) suggested that a type of "incest taboo“ exists in a coeducational unit resulting from the close living together with the opposite sex. Jackson (1971) suggested that women in coed residence halls perceive the men in their living units as surrogate big brothers. This close contact of men and women living in the same unit tended to encourage group dating patterns among the resi- dents. It was theorized that dating within a living unit was replaced 16 by a platonic relationship (Corbett 8 Summer, 1972, p. 217; Leland 8 Burk-Dietrich, 1970, p. 6; University of Michigan, 1970, p. 10). In general, it was suggested that students in coed residence halls relate to one another on a more meaningful and close emotional level rather than a sexual one. Other factors seen as influencing the formation of this type of non sexual relationship are the social pressures within the residence hall and the lack of privacy. Students in coeducational residence halls did, of course, date one another; however, the frequency of dating individuals within their own residence facility was lower than dating persons outside of the resi- dence hall. Brown, Winkworth 8 Braskamp (1973), Jackson (1971) and Lynch (1971, p. 38) found that students did not date those living in their own hall as often as those living outside of their hall. Jackson found only 17% of students living in coed residence halls dated others from their own residence hall; 82% never or rarely dated students in their residence hall. Lynch indicated that men tended to date women living in other residence halls on campus more than women in their own units and that women dated more off campus men than their own residence hall men. The same trend was noted by Rollins (1969, p. 27). He found that indivi- duals typically dated "non-house" individuals rather than people from within their own living unit. Corbett 8 Summer (1972, p. 217) indicated that few floor romances were found in coed residence halls. Attempts to estimate the degree of sexual activity among males and females in coed residence halls were made by a number of investiga- tors. This was a most difficult factor to assess and, in the end, the findings of these investigators were part observation, part reports from students in residence halls, and part expert opinion. Every attempt made 17 to estimate sexual behavior suggested one of two conclusions: 1) that sexual intercourse showed no significant increase for men or women in coeducational residence halls or, 2) that there was an actual decrease in the amount of sexual intercourse taking place in coed residence halls as compared to single sex residence halls. In the University of Southern California's questionnaire (1972, p. 10), eleven institutions indicated the amount of promiscuity in coed residence halls and single sex resi- dence halls was not significantly different. Two institutions indicated that coed halls produced less promiscuity than single sex halls. Katz (Rollins, 1969, p. 22) suggested that the presence of the "incest taboo" resulted in far less sex in coed residence halls and that coed residence living, in effect, de-emphasized sex. Thorsen (1970, p. 36) indicated that sexual activity actually decreased in comparison to that in tradi- tional housing. He went on to say that normal dating was more likely to lead to sexual intercourse than residing within coeducational housing, be- cause both sexes tended to anticipate the sexual aspect of a traditional date and thus, a sexual relationship became a goal for the date. Jackson (1971) also found in his survey that men and women in coed halls engaged in less sexual intercourse in coeducational residence halls than in single sex facilities. General Considerations and Problems of Coeducational Residence Halls. A number of problems have arisen with coeducational residence halls. The major problems which have occurred are: l) a reduction of privacy, 2) pressure to make alliances within the group in the residence hall, 3) reduction in the freedom of dress, particularly in the case of women, 4) frequent disruptions by roommates, 5) in some cases, too much socializing (Thorsen, 1970, p. 36; University of Southern California, 18 1972, p. 14). Leland and Burk-Dietrich (1970, pp. 5-6) indicated that men and women are likely to have different priorities in judging what constitutes an acceptable residence environment. The more intermixed the coed unit becomes the more these differences can be a source of frus- tration. Men tend to place a higher priority on the coeducational living unit than do women. This is reflected in the percentage of men and women requesting coeducational living. For example, at Stanford University, 58% of the women volunteered for coeducational residence hall as compared to 85% for men (Leland and Burk-Dietrich, 1970, p. 7). In the University of Southern California study, (1972, p. 10) researchers asked the 33 institu- tions in their sample about such problems as noise, theft, damage to prop- erty, lack of privacy, unclean rooms, foul language, poor manners, untidy personal appearance, unwanted attempted seduction, increased promiscuity, poor grades, and attrition from dorms. Most of these problems were judged as not significantly different when comparing coeducational residence halls to single sex residence halls. Most of the institutions in this study found privacy improved and foul language decreased in coeducational resi- dence halls. From the research mentioned, it is clear that many believe coeduca- tional residence halls are a major innovation on college campuses. Most investigators suggested the most beneficial impact of coeducational resi- dence halls is upon the day to day psycho-social behavior of students. Wm... M "W“! Although individual academic performance does not appear to be affected significantly, it has been found that the academic climate within the residence hall is significantly improved, resulting in more informal intel- lectual discussions and a general improvement in the intellectual environ- L4.“ ment. Effects on individual student behavior are seen as positiveewith I- \‘ ,,//’“*“~~*"’" _. 6,, , hpggfggf,. , both men and women showing increased maturity, improvement in language, / _’ 4%,..- 4 , a 7...-..- 19 and a general openness toward others. Some evidence suggests that the personality of students may be affected, especially for men, by helping them to become more self-actualizing. Men are further singled out as being helped with their sexual identification by coming to a better under- standing of the meaning of their masculinity in relationship to women. Men and women are seen as developing better competencies at close and meaningful interpersonal relationships with the opposite sex. The quality of life in coed residence halls is believed improved with most students feeling very satisfied with the coed style of life. Perhaps the most significant finding about coeducational residence halls is the impact which these units have in providing a natural and stress- free environment for young men and women to come to know and understand one another's attitudes and behavior. A number of investigators suggest that dating among men and women living in the same residence hall is actually less than dating outside of the residence hall and that fears of increased sexual promiscuity of men and women living in the same resi- dence facility are not supported. In fact, the exact opposite may be true. It is clear that most institutions with coeducational residence hall facilities on their campuses are reasonably pleased with the out- comes. Students, faculty, and adninistration groups appear well satis- fied with the impact which coeducational units have on students. ‘Whether the success of coeducational residence halls is caused by their being ‘ . coeducational or by other important factors is problematic. Leland and Burk-Dietrich (1970, p. 809) suggest that there may be a number of other important factors other than the "coeducationalness" of the living unit. Factors such as the ratio of males to females in the coeducational unit, the type of architecture which encourages interaction, house programs, 20 attractive facilities to encourage leisure dining, individuals within the unit who are committed to the residential unit and give it a kind of esprit de corps, the individual's desire to interact and to communicate with one another may all be factors which make the coeducational resi- dence hall a success. They point out, however, that none of these hypoth- eses has been evaluated because of lack of control groups. The cited research about coeducational residence halls and their advantages and disadvantages over single sex residence halls has been largely descriptive in nature. The studies represent the conclusions of experienced student personnel workers, the reports of students who have lived in these environments and the results of surveys administered to both residents and administrative personnel at numerous colleges and universities. Though these results are valuable and infonnative they were not obtained through careful experimentally controlled procedures and thus, make it difficult to validly infer any causal relationships amongst the numerous variables discussed. That such experimental studies should be made is self-evident. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to experimentally evaluate the effects of single sex and coeducational housing on various behaviors, perceptions, attitudes and personality characteristics of freshman men and women students during their first year in college. These factors were compared for both men and women and differing residence hall living conditions. A unique contribution of this study was the elimination of "self-preference“ as a variable effecting the behavior and adjustment of the students in the various housing arrangements. 21 Previous research cited above suggested seven areas of characteris- tics which should be included in the study. These seven areas were: 1. Academic Perception and Performance 2. Perception of Personality Characteristics 3. Institutional Warmth and Friendliness 4. Residence Hall Warmth and Friendliness 5. Dating Behavior and Satisfaction 6. Religious Practices and Perceptions 7. Extracurricular Activities From these seven selected areas the major hypotheses of the study were generated: Hypothesis One. There is no significant difference in academic perception or performance between residents in single sex resi- dence halls and residents in coeducational residence halls. Hypothesis Two. There is no significant difference in perception of personality characteristics between residents in single sex residence halls and residents in coeducational residence halls. Hypothesis Three. Students living in coeducational residence halls perceive the general university environment as signifi- cantly more warm and friendly than do students living in single sex residence halls. Hypothesis Four. Students living in coeducational residence halls perceive their own residence hall environment as signifi- cantly more warm and friendly than do students living in single sex residence halls. Hypothesis Five. There is no significant difference in dating behavior and satisfaction between residents in single sex resi- dence halls and residents in coeducational residence halls. Hypothesis Six. There is no significant difference in religious perception and practice between residents in single sex residence halls and residents in coeducational residence halls. Hypothesis Seven. Students living in coeducational residence halls are significantly more involved in extracurricular activi- ties than are students living in single sex residence halls. Table 2 lists the variables used to evaluate each of the hypOtheses of the study. 22 TABLE-2 VARIABLES USED TO EVALUATE THE SEVEN HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY H'Y‘FPchHESEs Hypothesis One. There is no signi- ficant difference in academic per- ception or performance between resi- dents in single sex residence halls and residents in coeducational resi- dence halls. Hypothesis Two. There is no signi- ficant difference in perception of personality characteristics between residents in single sex residence halls and residents in coeducational residence halls. Hypothesis Three. Students living in coeducational residence halls perceive the general university environment as significantly more warm and friendly than do students living in single sex residence halls. Hypothesis Four. Students living in coeducational residence halls per- ceive their own residence hall environment as significantly more warm and friendly than do students living in single sex residence halls. Hypothesis Five. There is no signi- ficant difference in dating behavior and satisfaction between residents in single sex residence halls and residents in coeducational resi- dence halls. —-I O wwmwe we 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 23: 24. 25. 27. 28. VARIABLES Summer orientation program attended. Number of term hours carried. Number of hours spent studying each week. Residence Hall scholarship. Student scholarship. University academic standards. Institutional scholarship. Student perception of social, political and intellectual activities on campus. Student grade point average. Social adaptability. Emotional control. Conformity. Masculinity-Femininity. Attitude toward the opposite sex. Faculty friendliness. Student friendliness. University friendliness. Student considered trans- ferring to another college. Residence hall friendliness. Student satisfaction with residence hall living con- ditions. Number of roommate changes. Residence hall transfer rate. Number of weekends spent off campus . Dating opportunity satis- faction. Number of formal dates. Number of informal dates. Total number of separate dates (formal and informal). Total number of persons dated. 23 Table 2 (cont'd.) HYPOTHESES 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. VARIABLES Total number of persons dated who were residents of the student's residence hall (coed residence hall students only). Total number of non-residence hall students dated (all resi- dence hall students included). Total number of separate dates with residents of the student's residence hall (coed residence hall only). Total number of separate dates with non-residence hall student (all residence hall students included). Social dating behavior (with non- residence hall students). Social dating behavior with students who were residents of the student's residence hall (coed residence hall students only). Social dating behavior of respondents who lived in coed residence halls compared to social dating behavior of single sex residence hall respondents with students who were not resi- dents of the respondent's resi- dence hall. Intimate dating behavior (with non-residence hall students). Intimate dating behavior with students who were residents of the student's residence hall (coed residence hall students only). Intimate dating behavior of respondents who lived in coed residence halls compared to intimate dating behavior of single sex residence hall respondents with students who were not residents of thelrespondent's residence hal . 24 Table 2 (cont'd.) HYPOTHESES VARIABLES Hypothesis Six. There is no signi- 39. Strength of belief in church ficant difference in religious per- doctrine. ception and practice between resi- 40. Monthly church attendance. dents in single sex residence halls 41. Consistency of religious and residents in coeducational resi- service attendance. dence halls. 42. Self-religious perception. Hypothesis Seven. Students living 43. Employment hours per week. in co-ducational residence halls 44. Informal conversation with are significantly more involved in the same sex. extracurricular activities than 45. Informal conversation with are students living in single sex the opposite sex. residence halls. 46. Participation in college organizations. CHAPTER II METHOD DESIGN OF THE STUDY This study followed the experimental method outlined in Fairweather's book, Method for Experimental Social Innovation (1967). Fairweather sug- gested the construction of two or more social subsystems in which one or more variables were manipulated and tested for desired outcomes between the several subsystems. According to Fairweather (1966, p. 77) the unit of research in experimental social innovation is a social subsystem which can only be understood in terms of its functional properties. The establish- ment of these social subsystems as an alternate solution to a given social problem is done primarily to view the outcome of that subsystem. The out- come of a subsystem "is the functional relationship between outcome, participants, and social situation that the social innovative experimen- talist uses to operationally define a social subsystem." In this study the innovative social subsystems were defined as the two types of coeduca- tional residence hall settings. These residence hall settings were compared against a traditional residence hall setting, a single sex arrangement. The models or residence hall conditions examined in this study were: _ l. A "traditional" segregated or single sex residence hall con- dition. In this condition all males were housed in one residence hall 25 26 (MSSEX) and all females were in another residence hall (FSSEX). No comnon recreation or dining facilities providing contact with the opposite sex were available in either residence hall facility. 2. A wing-by-wing residence hall condition. In this type of facility, men were housed in one wing (MWINGS) and women in another (FWINGS). This residence facility provided common dining and recreation facilities along with mutually shared lounges, study rooms, laundry facilities and residence hall programs. 3. A residence hall condition housing men and women on the same floor or level within the residence facility. This involved a corridor of men (MLEVELS) and a corridor of women (FLEVELS) connected by a common entrance way and allowing twenty-four-hour access of either men or women to the other's corridor. In addition, the levels residence hall condition made the same facilities available as in the wings residence hall condition. The experimental design of the study was a three by two repeated measurements design similar to that discussed by Edwards (1972, pp. 330- 368). The first independent variable was type of residence hall condition with three levels; single sex residence halls (SSEX), wing-by-wing resi- dence halls (WINGS), and residence halls where students were arranged by levels (LEVELS). The second independent variable was sex with two levels; 1) male and 2) female. Thus from this design six residence hall groups were formed; MSSEX, FSSEX; MWINGS, FWINGS; and MLEVELS, FLEVELS. Table 3 illustrates the arrangements of these conditions and groups. 27 TABLE 3 ARRANGEMENT 0F RESIDENCE HALL CONDITIONS, SEX AND RESIDENCE HALL GROUPS Residence Hall Conditions Single Sex Wings Levels Sex Residence Hall Residence Hall Residence Hall Condition (SSEX), Condition (WINGS) Conditions (LEVELS) Male MSSEX residence MWINGS residence MLEVELS residence hall group hall group hall group Female FSSEX residence FWINGS residence FLEVELS residence hall group hall group hall group The dependent variables were either 1) single dependent measures which were used to establish equality of samples (see Table 4 and Table 5, pp. 32, 40), 2) twice repeated dependent measures which were variables presented in the questionnaires two and three or 3) three repeated depen- dent measures which were variables presented in questionnaires one, two and three. Refer to Table 2 and Appendix F for a detailed listing of each of these variables. Statistical analysis techniques included the following. For comparative analysis, chi-square was used for nominal variables and analysis of variance for either single or repeated measurements designs was used for the remaining variables. The computer program Multivariance (Finn, 1972) was used for all analysis of variance problems. In addition an associative analysis was performed using Tryon and Bailey's (1970) cluster analysis technique and their BC TRY computer program. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND AGREEMENTS Because the nature of the study involved the interaction and the cooperation among a number of various offices and committees of the 28 university, an administrative agreement and several separate approvals were needed to authorize the study. Following Fairweather's suggestion (1967, p. 51) an administrative agreement (Appendix A) was drawn up and approved by the Coordinator of Residence Hall Programs and the Manager ~__flgfl~mww ,W - --'I'.a—u xi... .,. n. of Residence ”Halls. This administrative agreement outlined the responsi- bilities of the researcher and the two offices and indicated the time period of the study, the assistance which each office agreed to give the researcher, the approval to the researcher for access to student housing files. It also outlined the method of random assignment of subjects to residence halls and promised the institution that the researcher would follow university procedure for assuring confidentiality of information. After receiving approval from the researcher's doctoral committee for the design of the study, two additional university committees needed to review various parts of the study. Approval was received from the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects and the Com- mittee on Release of Information and Approval of Questionnaires (Appendix 8). Before receiving approval from these two committees, several sug- gestions for improving the study were incorporated into the design, pro- cedures, and questionnaires. SELECTION AND ASSIGNMENT PROCEDURES OF STUDENTS TO RESIDENCE HALL CONDITIONS In preparation for the assignment of students to the various resi- dence halls a list of residence halls which were to house incoming fresh- men was compiled with the residence halls listed in random order. This list was provided to the Manager of Residence Halls whose office was responsible for room assignments. Assignment of qualified freshmen students to the residence halls was carried out by the manager's staff by starting from the top of the random ordered residence hall list and 29 assigning each student to a residence hall in the order indicated by the list. In this way, all qualified freshmen were randomly distributed to a randomly ordered list of available residence halls. Selection of the residence halls to be used in the study from the randomly ordered list of residence halls was made in consultation with the Coordinator of Residence Halls Programs. The final six living units selected were chosen because: 1. Physical facilities were as similar as possible. 2. Visitation hours were the same for each living unit (24-hour visitation). 3. The living units did not include any special programming or other characteristics which would distinguish the type of student in that residence hall from students in other resi- dence halls. For example, some residence facilities on the university campus tended to house athletes, or included special honors college programming. The residence halls selected did not include any such special groups or programs. 4. On the basis of the judgment of the Coordinator of Residence Hall Programs and his staff none of the residence halls selected for the study had any particular campus or insti- tutional characteristics and/or reputation which would tend to set it apart from other residence hall facilities. The students selected for this study met three criteria. First, they were students who had made housing requests through May, 1973. The housing office staff made the first room assignments of freshman students on the basis of those freshmen who applied for housing through May, 1973. Additional rooming assignments were made later in the summer but these students were not included in the study. Second, only students who had given no indication of preference for type of residence hall assignment were included in the study. This made it possible to place a student in a randomly selected residence hall and eliminated "self-preference" as a variable in the study. Third, only those freshman students who were not involved with any special program or needed to be assigned to any special 30 residence hall because of a particular need, e.g., athlete, honors college student, etc. were used. University housing assignments placed two additional restrictions on the random assignment of students. First, those students who applied earliest were assigned their rooms first. However, since all students who had applied for rooming assignments through May were assigned at the same time for all practical purposes each student had an equal opportunity for selection. Secondly, if a student had specifically requested a particular roommate this request was honored. Thus, a student and any specific roommate he requested were randomly assigned to a residence hall. If later, the roommate's name came up as a randomly selected student to be included in the study, he also became part of the sample. Since all eligible freshman students were randomly distributed to a randomly ordered list of residence halls and thus, to the empirically selected living units included in the study, the students within each of these living units were randomly assigned. After the random assignment of freshman students was completed, the Manager of Residence Halls provided a list of assigned freshman students to the selected residence halls. In the end, 397 students were eligible for inclusion in the study (see Table 4). The final determination of the students who were included in the study proceeded as follows. The university's policy for the inclusion of students in university approved research required prior consent of each subject before the study began. Thus, a procedure for obtaining each student's prior agreement was designed. During the summer of 1973, each of the eligible 397 students were mailed a letter (Appendix C) which briefly explained the nature of the study and informed the prospective participant of the type of information which would be requested. A 31 self-addressed postage-paid participant agreement card was included which the student was asked to sign indicating his willingness or un- willingness to participate in the study and permitting the investigator to have access to his academic and housing files (Appendix C). A follow—up mailing to those students who had not responded to the first letter was made about two weeks later (Appendix C). The two mailings resulted in 216 (54.4%) of the original 397 students agreeing to parti- cipate in the study. Table 4 indicates the number of students within each residence hall group and the response to the questionnaires of these students over the l973-1974 academic year. The table indicates the number of students who completed or did not complete each questionnaire and the number of students who withdrew from college or transferred to another type of residence hall other than the type to which they had been origi- nally assigned prior to the administration of Questionnaires TWo and Three. Table 4 also indicates the number of students included in the final analysis. A student was included in the final analysis if he had completed at least one of the three questionnaires and had attended the university during the first term of the academic year. Thus, all 216 students were included in the final analysis with appropriate values substituted for missing data for each student who missed either a specific question or failed to complete an entire questionnaire at a specific ad- ministration. The values substituted for missing data were the means of the specific subgroup to which the student belonged, e.g., MSSEX, FWINGS, MLEVELS, etc. ASSESSMENT DEVICES Data collection for the study was accomplished through the adminis- tration of three questionnaires and additional information obtained from 32 2N a o e . 3 .2 2 3. m :N 2N NS 1:: 5:5: 8 N p a o N S p 3 o 8 8 8 £26.. 3!: 3.55.5 NN o o o o m 2 N 2 o NN N 8 :23 3.: A325. 5 o o o p N 8 N a p 8 a 3. as; :22 . 553: 3 N N m c N 2 n 8 p .N . 3 9 as: up! ANNNNN. 8 m p p o N 3 n on n 3 8 8 now 29.5 23.8 ”new: 3 a o o o N NN N N o 8 3 3 new a. 5m 2.: N N N N . 9.258338 2.35333 3 Lara Co :2. 85.. 8323.5: P3238 seas—g coco—i8 :3».— ..822: 3:. -3... to a: -2 3 .375 82 63:88 as. 38.98 as. 63398... 2.3» .58.. ,2. 9:3... 5:. 2m» :52; 8 5.2.2:... 65 :2 3. 22 L383: 22 .233 L2 as 42.5 5 92¢ 2... 1:5 :2: 05 5 3:32.95 5.: 9.25.5 n 3.2.8333 N 255.0533 — 8.28333 1.33.5.2, 3:353. 8533: 6832: 383m 2.: 3525 -5; 3583 “2.28388 3 .3832. 2.83m .6 Lois. 3:85 .23.: .3 25 22¢; Swiss; 3:42:35 5532: «5:» 92 mama .35.. 45.528 2:. 2 mi. 55 S 3.53%. no v 32h 5:333 .65 a mwzmoam no «mg: 5: 33 the student's academic file. Information taken from the student's academic file included: 1) the student's grade point average for the first term, 2) the cumulative grade point average for the 1973-1974 academic year, 3) the SAT verbal aptitude test score, 4) the SAT mathe- matical aptitude test score, and 5) the student's high school grade point average. The remainder of the information was obtained from the student's responses to the above three questionnaires. The questionnaire administration took place at three times be- ginning in the summer of 1973 and ending in May, 1974. Questionnaire one (Appendix D) was sent to each student who had agreed to take part in the study during July and August of 1973. This questionnaire, as mentioned earlier, constituted a pretest and gathered demographic and personal information. Two hundred and sixteen questionnaires were mailed with 211 returns (97.7%). A detailed listing of each item in the ques- tionnaire is contained in Appendix D and Tables 3 and 4. Questionnaire two (given in November) and questionnaire three (given in May) (Appendix E) were nearly identical questionnaires which asked for repeated responses from each student. In addition to the religious perception questions, the five perceptual personality scales included in questionnaire one, questionnaires two and three asked for the following information: 1) The orientation program in which the student participated during the summer preceding registration, 2) the number of credit hours for which the student was registered, 3) the student's estimate of the number of hours he actually spent in study during a typical seven-day week, 4) the average number of hours worked per week, 5) the number of college organizations to which he belonged, 6) the student's perception of how hard he studied compared to others in his residence hall, 7) the 34 number of hours spent in conversation with students of the same sex, 8) the number of hours spent in conversation with students of the opposite sex, 9) the student's estimate of the studiousness of the students at the university, 10) the student's estimate of the academic standards at the university, 11) a rating of the degree of openness and friendliness of the faculty, 12) a rating of the friendliness of the students at the university toward one another, 13) a rating of the scholarship of students in the respondent's residence hall, 14) a rating of the friendliness of the students in the respondent's residence hall, 15) the number of roommate changes, 16) the number of weekends spent off campus, 17) an indication of whether the student transferred to another residence hall, 18) the student's satisfaction with dating opportunities at the university, 19) an indication of whether the student has considered transferring to another college or dropping out of college, 20) the number of formal dates which the student had, 21) the number of informal dates which the student had, 22) the type of residence facility in which the respondent's dates lived, 23) for coed residence hall students, the approximate number of individuals the student had dated from his own residence hall, 24) the number of dates the student had had with residents of his own residence hall, 25) for both coed and single sex residence hall students, the number of individuals and the number of dates the student had had with students who were not residents of his own residence hall. In addition to the above questions, questionnaire two and three contained: 1) an institutional scholarship scale which indicated the student's general rating of scholarship at the university, 2) an institu- tional friendliness scale which indicated the student's general rating 35 of the openness and friendliness of both faculty and students at the university, 3) an awareness scale developed from several items of the Awareness Scale found in Pace's (1969) College and Universities Environ- ment Scales, 4) residence social dating and residence intimate dating scales which indicated the degree of involvement of students in coeduca- tional residence halls in social and intimate dating behavior and, 5) social and intimate dating scales which indicated the social and intimate dating behavior with students who did not live within the residence hall. Five perceptual personality and attitude scales were included in all three questionnaires. These five scalestere: A l. Attitude toward the opposite sex. This scale asked the respondent to rate men or women as either superior or equal to one another on a series of personality traits, e.g., intelligence, creativity, moral- ity, etc. Devised for the Mundelein College Self Study (Hruby, 1963), it has~been repeated in a number of other studies and differentiates those respondents who tend to view either men or women as superior from those who tend to view men and women as equal on these traits. Its inclusion in this study was an attempt to measure any changes over time in either men's or women's attitudes toward the opposite sex which might be a function of the effects of the residence hall environment on the student. 2. Social adaptability. This scale was constructed from the Q-sort items developed by Fairweather, et a1 (1960). This scale differentiated individuals who were shy and withdrawn from those who are comfortable in various social situations. Ii 3. Emotional control. ~This scale was constructed from Fairweather's et a1 (1960) Q-sort items which differentiated individuals who had little control over the expression of their feelings from those who controlled their feelings very rigidly. 36 4. Conformity. This scale was constructed from Fairweather's et a1 (1960) Q-sort items which differentiated those individuals who were very rule bound and controlled by outside influences from those who were more independent and relied on their own views and standards. 5. Masculinity-femininity. This scale was constructed with 20 items similar to those in the Gilford Zimmerman Temperament Survey (Gilford 8 Zimmerman, 1955) which most clearly differentiated between male and female interest patterns. Questionnaire two was administered to the students in November, 1973 after they had been students at the university for nearly two months. Two hundred sixteen students received the questionnaire through the campus mail service with an accompanying letter (see Appendix E) and 196 students returned the questionnaire (after one followup letter) representing a 90.7% return. An identical procedure was followed for the administration of questionnaire three in mid May, 1974 when 216 questionnaires with an attached letter were sent (see Appendix E) and 174 were returned (80.6% returned). By this time, seven students had withdrawn from the univer- sity and 13 additional students had transferred from their original resi- dence hall to another type of residence hall different from the one to which they were originally assigned. These students' responses made after moving into a different style of residence hall were not included in the study. Rather, the means for the student's original residence hall group were entered for each of these students (see Table 4 for further breakdown of questionnaire returns). CHAPTER III RESULTS The results of this study are presented in three parts: 1) comparability of samples 2) analysis of hypotheses and 3) analysis of the associative results. COMPARABILITY OF SAMPLES Evidence of the success of the random distribution of students to the various subgroups is found in Table 5 and Table 6. A pretest questionnaire was sent to each student who had previously agreed to take part in the study in order to gather some demographic information about each student and his family and information about the high school from which he graduated, his home community, and his religious preference and belief. Five personality adjustment scales were also included in the questionnaire. The verbal and mathematical aptitude and high school grade point average were obtained from the student's file. Analyses of variance and chi-square analyses are summarized for each variable in Tables 5 and 6. Of the 29 variables compared between each subgroup and the 69 tests of significance performed in analyzing these variables, 12 significant differences were discovered. Six of these significant differences were not surprising as they related to expected sex differences: 37 38 1. Employment hours per week. A significant difference (P .mm4m Amnmp .mmzzzmuhmwhmmav p mmH no m~m>4a_ mo.o ago emeo 666. 6N Nememeeec N_N=aupeeemwm4 opm u Eoummgm we momcmmu .aemu Loseua N u soummgw eo mmmgmmu .mpommmm mazoew ppm: mucmupmmmm P u sovwwge mo mmogmmu .muommem xwmm N u Seamus» we mmmgmmu .meumemm mcowu_ucou ppm: mucmuwmmup mP~.o m¢~.o cmm.o Nmo.o mmm.~ Pum.o ~¢F.P mmmgm>< Ncpoa mange Poogum zap: ccw._oPm «mpo.o oe¢.¢ «Fooo.o mpe.pm mom.o oo~.o Apmmh Nunavua< moppmsmsumz H A.u.pcouV m 6_na» 42 TABLE 6 CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS FOR QUESTIONNAIRE 1 (PRETEST-SUMMER, 1973) VARIABLES VARIABLE DESCRIPTION d_f_ Chi -Square 3 Ethnic background of student 2 1.065 0.50 Present religious affiliation 15 20.560 0.20 Parents' marital status 2 2.769 0.30 Parents presently living 2 0.960 0.70 Student's position in family 10 14.956 0.20 Type of high school last attended 2 2.556 0.30 Attended coed or non-coed high school 2 2.692 0.30 Living arrangements with parents when not attending college 5 2.262 0.90 Consistency of attending religious services 5 3.797 0.70 ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHESES each of were 2 Comparative analysis was made for the dependent variables for the seven major hypotheses in the study. These seven hypotheses Hypothesis One. There is no significant difference in academic perception or performance between residents in single sex residence halls and residents in coeducational residence halls. Hypothesis Two. There is no significant difference in perception of personality characteristics between resi- dents in single sex residence halls and residents in coeducational residence halls. Hypothesis Three. Students living in coeducational residence halls perceive the general university environ- ment as significantly more warm and friendly than do students living in single sex residence halls. 43 Hypothesis Four. Students living in coeducational resi- dence halls perceive their own residence hall environment as significantly more warm and friendly than do students living in single sex residence halls. Hypothesis Five. There is no significant difference in dating behavior and satisfaction between residents in single sex residence halls and residents in coeduca- tional residence halls. Hypothesis Six. There is no significant difference in religious perception and practice between residents in single sex residence halls and residents in coeducational residence halls. Hypothesis Seven. Students living in coeducational residence halls are significantly more involved in extra- curricular activities than are students living in single sex residence halls. The several variables used in testing each hypothesis were analyzed by either analysis of variance or chi-square depending on the nature of the variable. The exact probability values for each test of significance can be found in Appendix F and the means for the variables can be found on each figure illustrating the significant differences. Analysis of Hypothesis One Hypothesis One states that there is no significant difference in academic perception or performance between residents in single sex resi- dence halls and residents in coeducational residence halls. Nine variables were used to test this hypothesis (see Table 2 for detailed listing). Reference to Table 7 shows that for residence hall conditions only one of the nine variables was found to be significantly different. Figure 2.1 illustrates that the students in the WINGS condition rated residence hall scholarship significantly higher (p <:.OOl) than did the students in the SSEX or LEVELS conditions in both November and May. Sakoda's et a1 (1954) charts suggests that one significant difference in a series of nine signi- ficance tests could be expected to occur with a probability of approximately 0.35 at the .05 level. Thus, it is likely this could be a chance difference. 44 TABLE 7 RESULTS OF SIGNIFICANCE TESTS FOR VARIABLES USED TO TEST HYPOTHESIS ONE). 2 Type of Effect Variable Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Main Effects: Residence Hall Conditions NS NS NS S NS NS NS NS NS Sex NS NS NS S S S S S NS Time NS S NS NS S NS NS NS Interaction Effects: Sex by Time NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Residence Hall Conditions by Time NS S NS NS NS NS NS NS Residence Hall Groups (Residence Hall'Conditions by Sex) NS NS S NS NS S NS NS NS Residence Hall Groups by Time NS NS NS NS NS NS 5 S 1Exact probabilities of all significance tests can be found in Appendix F. 2S, significant at p<dz - x m4m>m4u . 4m mozfizz u m4m>m4 n 4 LwnEo>oz v z :wEo: I m m4m>m42 . 4: xmmmu u mmu mwz~3 I 3 LmEE:m . m :0: 1 z mwz~3m - 3m xmmmz 1 mm: xmmm - mm ”mac—Lug mL_Nc:owumu:o ”xmm "mnzosw P—u: wucmu_mm¢ ”mco_u_vcou ._N: mucuv_mom .mnzoga ppm: mucmv .2820: use .coEO: use -mmuc Low cowcma onwaccopumosa sumo newest mucuvccum NNENumuu xuwmem>_== .~.m NL:m_N nowcwa meoccorumoao z 2 III 3: IIIIIIIIIl-Il In N A: or: III mm: .1 . . o.m 34035 paleos Butzeu spJepueas aimapeav KzISJaAIun ueau tn 1", .mcovuwucou ppm: oucmtvmug Lo» vopgwn mgwuccopumuaa some .—.~ «Lam—m uo—Loa uL—occowumuzo : z . . m.~ l O «; axons paleos Buiiea diusueloqos [19H aouapIsau ueau cue Lo» cowcwn mcwmccowumwaa :uum m:_cau mvgnvcuum u_EoumuN Auwmgm>pca .—.m mcam_u vowgma NL_Ncco_umo=c z z .1 1.0 N h. l O «5 33035 paleas Bugieu spuepuezs Stuapeov X:ISJaAIun ueaw L44, It) a; .mnsogm FF»; oucou -wmuc Low newton ug_mccowumm:u comm mercan xmo: Lug mesa; xvzum mmmem>< .~.— 0L:m_m uo—Loa msroccovummao : z m 1 H c.~ I O ('5 34035 paleas xaan Jud sunoH Kpnzs ueau :85 Lou newton ~L_Ncco_ummza zoom acetav n_;meupozom ~_N: oucwuwmmm .~.~ ocam_u newcmn Newmccowummao : z . . m.~ mm D. u \ Mu \ l.D. \ U3 :\ 5N SB all. pl SS 33 ON. Nu A 5 mm m.m .a .mcowu_ucou FF»; uucmu -wmwg Lo; vowgma ugwucco_ummaa some mcrcsu xwu: can mean; Avaum omueo>< nope»; wgwuccovumoao : z W ._.F NL=N_N ‘m o.~ - O ("I 33035 pagans xaan aad sunoH Kpnzs ueau 47 intellectual stimulation of the university between November and May while the other five residence hall groups rated intellectual stimulation by May as nearly equal and significantly higher than MLEVELS (Figure 4.2). Analysis of grade point average revealed that MLEVELS and MWINGS students significantly increased (p <:.014) their G.P.A.'s between November and May (Figure 5). In summary, there was little evidence to support the hypothesis that residence hall conditions influenced academic perception or perfor- mance. Significant sex differences were found; however, the remaining main and interaction effects produced few significant differences over the variables measuring academic perception or performance. Analysis of Hypothesis TWo Hypothesis TWo stated there is no significant difference in per- ception of personality characteristics between residents in single sex residence halls and residents in coeducational residence halls. Five variables were used to test this hypothesis (see Table 2 for detailed listing). Reference to Table 8 shows that for residence hall conditions only one of the five variables was significantly different. The WINGS condition was significantly higher (P< .049) on the masculinity-femininity perceptual personality rating than were the SSEX or LEVELS conditions throughout the duration of the study (Figure 7.2). Sakoda et al (1954) indicates that one significant difference in a series of five significance tests could be expected to occur with a probability of approximately 0.20 at the .05 level, thus it is likely that this difference could be a chance difference. With only one significant difference in five variables, Hypothesis Two appears adequately supported suggesting no significant dif- ference in perception of personality characteristics exist between resi- dents in single sex or coeducational residence halls. 48 Analysis for differences between the sexes revealed that women were significantly different than men on four of the five perceptual personality scales. Men scored significantly higher (p <;.0001) on emo- tional control while women were significantly higher (p (I .0007) on social adaptability. Men and women were significantly different (P oz I 2 case: I u smassm I m so: I z "muowsma NL_Nsso_umoao Axum .msowu_usou ppm; wusouwmms so» muo_Lwn Newessowumoaa mswsau wLoum opaum xursvs_eouI>uwer=umoz .~.n assays uopsoa msvussomumwsc : z m I) . _ Z w a w H .111 Km ._ “1011111) 1111 mm. 3. 111111 am. ‘IIII‘ IO-PFSIL. : III m hm [- 311 pa W SI? 3“ 0...- Ju 3|: .IQ .A I o.¢p .maaosm Ppns uosouvuos so» m snob use — snub so» amaso>a uswon ouacm o>wucpaezu uswusum .m weam_m uowsum ospassovumosa m ecu» — stow 1111114. q m.~ \\ \\ I\\I\I \\ I\\ on A 3: \ \\ a: AGINR \\ N mm: I \ 3 zuiod apeug anizelnung ueau m4m>m4u I an mozhzz I 3: m4m>m42 I 4: xummm I mmu mwznsm I 3L xmmmz I mm: “masocw FFu: wusouwmmm .soEoz use sue so» muo_sma NEFNssorummua aspczu msoum m4m>mq I 4 mosz I 3 xmmm I mm “msowuwusou PF»: museummox .smeoz use sue Low muo_sua oL_usso*umu=c upmum au'sws_emuIAuwsm—:uwuz .F.~ assay; msvssu «Loom u—aum xuwssossou .o usza_u uo_smm oswmsso_umw=o uo_sma acwmssopumuao z z m z z m 114 _ . o.m N _ _ _ «.m— \|I\ m a w w .3 N om S Nu nm S“ l 5;me .2me m1... 3H sN I \\\/ II 3|: ||\ I “S OH Z / 3 all. / o a u [I u ‘1), N.“- / S‘11 II, +. AA L o u. v.m~ .masoLm FFms ousmuwmus sow muowsma vaussopummaa mswsau mm.» I_>*uum pnauuumeNs_ .pmumuwpon ._N_u .sanz use see so» muowcun acrossowumoaa mswcsu new» -258 238:3... .8528 .25 Ion mo so'unuuswa uswusum .~.¢ mgamwu Ian mo sONNQouson «sausum .~.< usamem uowsma oL—ussowumuaa uovsma usvmcsoFNNoso z z z z _ _ NIMV fl _ «NW 42/ mw nw / ”Hm Mm // \ 3.. HS m3 / \ Wm» 5n 0. \ p A \ mm: nae \ WW \ X Irauw \\\ Imam: \\\\ / nut“. z \ mm \\ SN 3” flaw u 2.0 .m an flu. pm PW S S E mm; mm. mm: ITS.» 4.43 51 May and became nearly equal in their low rating of student friendliness (Figure 9.1). In conclusion, residence hall conditions apparently did not dif- ferentially effect their residents' perception of the warmth and friendli- ness of the general university environment. Additionally, few differences in perception were found between men and women, over time or for interaction effects among these main effects. Analysis of Hypothesis Four Hypothesis Four stated that students living in coeducational resi- dence halls perceive their own residence hall environment as significantly more warm and friendly than do students living in single sex residence halls. Five variables were selected to test this hypothesis (see Table 2 for detailed listing). For residence hall conditions, none of the five variables were found to be significantly different (see Table 8). Hypoth- esis Four is therefore rejected. Analysis by sex also failed to produce any significant differences; however, time analysis did indicate two variables to be significantly different. All students significantly in- creased (p < .0001) the nunber of roommate changes made between November and May while they significantly decreased (p <:.0001) the number of weekends spent off-campus in the same time period. There were no significant interaction effects for residence hall conditions by time, residence hall groups or residence hall groups by time. However, one significant difference for sex by time was found. Men became significantly (p < .032) more satisfied with their residence hall living conditions between November and May while women showed no significant change in satisfaction. 52 .8. Va No 226:; 228.553 No: .2 N39 a Na 28:2um .mN .m xwusmaq< s? usaoe ma ssu mummp museuwasmwm FFN so mmwuwpwnmnosn pumxmp mz mz mz mz mz mz mz m mz mz mz mz NE?» NE manoeu .FN: 66=6u_mmm mz mz mz mz mz mz mz m mz m2 mz mz mz mz macawNmmmwxmmanmumflmwnwwumwu”MM” mz mz mz m2 mz m mz mz mz mz mz mz me_e Na meowpsueoo _Fe: muemuwmmm mz mz m mz mz mz mz mz mz m mz m2 mesh Na New ”muumuum sowuumsmusH m mz m mz mz mz mz mz mz mz mz mz mz mz mete mz mz mz m2 mz mz mz mz mz m m mz m m Now mz m2 mz mz mz mz mz mz mz mz m m2 mz mz accepsueou AFN: mucauwmmm "muumccu ewe: NN NN FN 0N mp NF NP op ms N_ m. N. PP o_ smassz mrnmwsm> sacs mwmmcuoazz smaszz mpnm_cm> mouse mwmmsummxm smnmuz,mrnmem> oz» mwmmsuqu: Numccu so maze N .pmzok oz< mmmxh .ozh mummzhoa>x hmmh w m4m mom mhmmh muzu4 I 4 moz~3 I z xmmm I mm ”msowo_usou __o: ousou_moa .mcoso_ocou _.~; oosou_mog Loo muopsoo ocvossovomooo ospcou oswuoc moosw—usorso Nsouaum .~.m atom“; uowsoo oswosso_umoao z z Til) an: I z mou>moo I so mozazz I 3: Looeo>oz I z soeoz I u m4w>uoz I N: xmmmu I mm; 3.5.3 I m 5: I z 35...: I 3... .33: I 3: "mucosa; oLNNsso.Nmooo ”xom "mooosu _Po: ousouvmoa .mososo Ppos .soEoz ousoupmoc Lo» muovsoo Novossowumooo osNEou uso cos Loo muoNLoo Novossopumooo os—oou mouou mongooom oo cones: —ouo» .~.op moon's mouou ouosooom oo gonzo: pouch .~.o_ ocompu uo.coo ogwossoNNmoao uovsoo os_osso_umooo r z z z .1 :zNIII.II 4111 o.N mm II . ..o.N mm az.lll_ll.ll.plr W m ///l mm. mm II «4.4 1414 xi Now Iw IN. IQNIO Immfla mmu / ”.1. p1. \\ No. a mm... mmz\\ mm. 11 u% N N a m. o m. ~.m d d j m o M 34095 P3l93S 501198 ssautlpuatdg zuapnas ueau h m .sosoz use so: sou muowsoo os_osso_umo:o oswssu xom 3383 us» 226» 8332 x N t \ ._.m osompm uovsoo ogwossopuuooo z m N a 0.0— )I' IIIIIIIIIII 1 m.m— “| 34005 paleos adoos xas aatsoddo 391 PJPMOI 3003111V "99W g If. P N 59 >m: I z m4m>m4u I Am muz.3: I 2: m4m>m4 I A Leesm>ez I : ceEe: I u m4m>m4z I A: xmmmu I mmu mozH: I 3 seesaw I m cu: I z mwz~3u I z; xmmmz I mm: xmmm I mm ”mwewgee eg_ecce_emo:o ”xem "manage FFm: mesme_mem ”mcewuweceu Pym: mucuu_mmm .meaegm .cese: ecu cos Lem ppm: eeceewmeg Lew meewgme eg_e::e_umu:a .mnaegm F_e; eucwewmmg Lew mue_gmq meewgee egweccewumeze mc_gae ppm: wuceewmeg mcwgae Axpce mFFe; uucwe_mee ewer _Pe; mg_e::e_umeac mc_gae —_m; oucee_mmL m.u:ee=um as» we mewmuae ee>r~ ex: mucoeaum new: eucee_meg m.ucee:um ecu me muceevmog new: m.u=eeaum we» we mewmuze em>_F es: eoeme mouse meageeem we genes: Pouch .p.v~ o;=m_u mwune euegeemm we goose: _eueh .n— mg=m_m m~e=ew>we:_ we Longs: _eeo» .m.~_ ogzm_u eewgee os_e=:ewuue=c eevgme oLFeccewemezo eo_gem eL_e=:e_umeao z z nu z z x z w I q < . menu . . m.p numm . . N._ u : an 4: I up 3: // um II / em / Mm. mm / mm /// mm sun / smII / mm n W N l/ N muN new I ll.l| llIll ll m.wum. // \\\ m.5 m 4: fl.3 I .299 \/ I . 9mm l. Im._WI l3 \ PNSBJ 0 x.DHJ 3m \\ 3 u 3L a; 5.3 O a 0 0 n m. |\.\\I\I m N NW.) IE N mm“. \ [0 as SS \ 3U a \ 2a a: p. u. IIIIIIII. mm :2 Wm Sm. n J 3 J 3 5 pp. U9. 0|! 3 g . an n.» m.m .4 Km lm.N m... S a .maaegm _Fen .mcewuvecee ppm; oecoe_mog Lem .cmEe: ecu ewe Lem wucee_meg Lee mee_gme egvecce_umese mcwgze meepgue ug_eccewume:a m:*L=e Ppe; wuceewmeg meewgee egweccevumeae mcwgse Fpec meceewmeg Axpce mF—e; eucee_meg euouV F_e; oucee_mug m.u:oe:um mg» we oewmuae eu>wp es: euuee m.ucmesem use we ee_ma=e em>w~ es: emuee m.u=oe:um men we mucmewmmg use: on: eouev upoae.>_e:w we Lanes: —eueh .~.~— ogamwm m—e=e_>.e:w we Lease: —mue» ._.~— ogem_u upe=e_>ve:_ we geese: —eueh .FF egam_u eevgoe og—accewumoao eevgma unweccerumoao verge; eg_e:cevemu:o : z x z z z l d < NIP DW- + - .N._. N la q HIP mun 0'", U a M.W I! II III]! 011 II 011 ._ III wm. wow / mm IIIIIIII. .4 1.2 3; // «.mu mm m mm d / . mm m... Jew.“ 3mm / N .mm 0 (.4 \\ (.J “on: 30 \\ 30 NW NJ \\\ “J U a an WW. We a. I .we S I.- ‘- mw m» m» . J D. m.~m w M w m we m a ~.~ a a 6() >0: I z m4w>u4u I am moZ~3z I 32 mam>m4 I A goesm>ez I z cmEe: I u m4m>mez I A: xmmmm I mmm mozuz I 3 began I m E... I a 32:: - 3 $3: I 3: $3 I 8 "meowsoa ogwucceeumezo "new ”mneegc ppm: euceepmmm uncewupeceu Fpe: oucuuwmom .ueeegm P—e; eecee_mmg Lew meeweee eg_eccewemmaa mcwgse gep>egen acpuee Peweem .meceewmmg xem epmcem e» vegan IEeu Ax—co mppe; meceepmmg eeeuv ——e; eucme Ivan; m.e:me=um ecu cw ee>wp es: mucee_meg 5:. 3:23 958 3.68 .3: 85m: eepgoe ug_eccewumeao : z 1 q o.~ l O a; 34035 paleas JO;APH33 6u;19a [egaos ueau L O V .cese: ecu cue so; meewgoe n._accewummae mcvgae mesmeaum oucmewmog Ice: sue: gev>e=ue eaveee —e_eem .p.mp exam?“ eevsoa usveccewumoeo z 2 1| G d “‘ Q N ‘I‘. n O "I 34035 paleas JO}APH38 Bug1na [2;305 ueaw _'¥ 0 M .mcepu_eceu Ppe; mecee_meg Le» mee_gea eewecce_emeec mc_e:e Lew>egee mepeee Fevuem .muceewmeg xmm upmc_m 0» vegan Ieequpce mPFe: euceewmeg eeeev p_eg eucee Iwmeg m.u:meaum use :. ee>rp oz: mecmewmos zuvz Lew>egen mcwuee pevuem ._.op «snow; eevgem «sveece_ame=o : z u 1 o.~ _J 34035 paleog Jogneqag fiugzea [9;305 ueaw 3 .l llllll ' 5.. .meaegm Pym; ouceevmeg Lew meepgee neweccewemmaa mcvgae ppm; oucmepmeg m.ucoe Izem we» we eewmeee ee>+p ex: meceeeum zew: mauee meageaem me guess: pane» .m.ep «gnaw; eewgea «Leecceyummaa z z 3: Al . V P l “a N was palms sauapnzs aauapgsaa-uou ungn $3190 expandas ;o Jaqmnu [9301 ueaw Q 0‘) .mce?e_ecee _pm; eecee_meg Le» mee_gme mg'eccewumeee mcvgae mecmeaem mesme_mmsIcec 5.; 3:23 9.2% :33 .~.2 23: eewgee ogpeccewummeo z w. d d VIN .l/I I\\\\ III \\I bx» \\\\\\ II II .1: 1|\ 3 4 l O «6 aJoos paleos J0}A2H38 6u;1ea [2;305 ueau .III 4 e.n .mco_e_ecou ppm; mucou_meg Le» meewgoe ugweccewu Imuse mcpgee ppm: ouceewmug m.ucoe:um as» me germane ee>wp es: mucouaum cur: mauoe cyanogen we geese: peach .~.¢— «snow; newsea ugpaccevumoac : z I! q d v.p 0 Id aJoos paleas szuapnzs 3303Pt538-UON “I!" sauna azoJedas 5o Jaqmnu [9301 ueau I a.” 6] an: I z m4u>meu I Am mezuzz I swaem>ez I 2 case: I m m4m>m4z I A: xummu I mmu Luesam I m co:.I z muzmzm I 3m xmmmz I mm: "nee—gum ogpeecepameao uxmm ”mqeegu .pe: muceeymom .meaeem ppm; eucmermme Le» meewgea especcevemoau m:_g:e .mcepuveceu ppm; oucee_meg so» meevgee aspeccevumeaa nave-e euueeucw .mueeewmeg xmm epmcwm e» eoguaeeu Ache muceeeum ppm; euceewmos eeeuv ppm; eucoewmeg m.e:ee=um egg we meeoewmee oevgae eepueuugee m=e_o,_og epem .m_ mesa,“ . gee: Low>mgan maveae mecewe=_ .m.e_ og=m_m ee.goe egweccepumeao eepgue «evoccevemeac : z m z z T fl u @.N W q \ FIN N 2 II.II m _\ a III! C. u III mu m. I/ I: 5.4 . I S 3 l. , II n m. m.m II IIII meI III...) LmonoIDIH I. m.Msa 4 IIIIII II.II x.m m M” III m S N u. IO 6 m .4 mm /\ .quv m. JNIM W L oé m. Incevuveceu ppo; eeceepmog so» mee_eoe «ewe: Icevumeae mcmgee mcvuee muesvucw xem epocvm e» eugeeeeu Axpce maceeaem ”Fog oecoeemug eueev Frag oucoepmog m.acoe=em use ee mucuepmog .mcepu’ecee __e; moceevmug Le» mee_gme unwec Icevumoae m:.g=e muceeeum ppm; eecoewmogIce: =e_z so.>.=ma o=_e.e ue~s.u=~ .F.m_ ogaa.e :e.z Io_>.gon a=.e.u mu.s_u=~ .~.~, ugan+e ee'gee ne'eccevumoaa ee_goa mu—eccevumoea : z z 2 III I . .m.~ . . ~.~ . u . H ‘ \\ m I\.I\I\I m M. \\\ SW. uuvx . wmmw 3 I\ n m. [.11 I. ._ \\ Imam“ $.an 3 I\. mmmm IIIII..II II.IIIIII mmmw 3 mm 4 am a L . u. mm M. s e m eo.m m gu_z Lop>ozon m=_eou meme_e=~ ;»_: so.>~gon m=.e.u oeue_u=_ m4m>m4 I 4 maze: I 3 xumm I mm unco_e_u=oe ._~: mucouwmax .cose; ece cue Lee mee_gme eg_ecce_ume:e mcpgae A>_ce meceezem Fpe: euceevmos eoeuv ppeg eucmevmog m.ecmeaum ege we mecoewmog .~.ep us=m_e eepgea ee_o==eweme=c z z I 4‘ n.~ - l m «; aaoas paleas Jogavqaa fiquea anemgzux ueau .emsez ecu cue gee evergoe osweecev» Imoee m:_g:e mucoeeum .peg oueoeemesIee: .p.~— «530.; ee—gue expecce_emm:a : z a a KIN ‘ “I “ : [III 1 M «5 auoas palpas JoIqoqaa BuIzea a:am;1h1 ueau 62 .8. V a pm 228:.” 228.52? B: .mz so. v a e... 28:29; .3 .m xwecmee< cw ecsee we see mummy museu?ewcmwm FFe me wepuwppnenege eeexu_ m m mz m m mz mz m m m mz mz m2 mz mz wewh an mazegw ppm: mocmuwmmm mz mz mz mz mz mz m mz mz m2 m2 m mz mz mz mucmuwmmmwxwmawmmeMWflwwuwwuwwwn mz mz mz mz mz mz mz mz mz mz mz mz m2 mz mz mswh An mcowuwucou —pm: mucmuwmma mz m m mz mz mz mz wz mz mz m mz m mz mz mark he xmm "mueeymm cewuuegmecH m m mz mz mz mz mz mz mz m mz mz mz mz mz meh mz mz mz mz mz m mz m m mz m m m m mz xmm m mz m m m m m mz m mz mz mz mz mz mz mcowuwucou ppm: mucmcwmmm "maummwm ewe: mm mm mm mm em mm mm —m cm mm mm mm mm mm em geassz upemwge> eumeem Io waxy N.Fm>Hm mummzhom>x hmwh op cum: mm4m mom mhmmh mozceu peELewcw we xucoaeecu .~._~ ewzmwm neweoa neweecewumeeo eeweea uewmccewumezo x z x z I I 3 . . I w e./ i 2 II II //. me u 1 II a u ._ \I\\\\II mm //\ saw Sln \ / at. 333 \\ xmm Efiu \ S 3 Man \ 3Mu P00 \ WIND \ CZNI: 32 IOINWUIO \ I. OIPWWIO SnuIII: \ WHIP 33] \ Pu \ 0 W3 \ mum... \ NWO \\ mm 8: I E Mm. \ m we Iaiiilillll ; a t m.— u m.m .mcewuwecee ppm; eeceewmew gew meewgwe ocweccewemoaa newcee xmm esnm on» new: :ewe Iemwe>cee peggewcw we xucuaaacw .~.o~ wwamww eewLue ogwuccewemoao : z .maeecm ppm; eeceewmow Lew nee—Lee vs—eccewumuao mcwgae xem esem oz» sew: cewu Iemso>ceu FeELewcw we Aecmaeogw .n.o~ mean—m eewwoa uL—eccowumeao : z Ila?! . new. i) . 2m I, n“ AW If, I, M“ an. I I. JU “u I, “I... 9.1 I 11 11 II Kmm :II/ xmw Pun II EU" [.3 I la aHu / ”mu In: In E IvmsqrA IQIMXIUIO m3” 4/ 0.41. U u 3“. \ Km. um... Iivil e e a \ 3 mm! \\ ~.¢ x —.v x .cmee: use see Lew meewwon meme: Icewumwau mcwwee xem euwmeene ecu new: cowu Iemgo>ceu pe=Cewcw we hocoeameu .—.—~ ewemww eewwwe ewweccewumeso : z 1 ‘ (I! I ,— 2 IlllllII‘\ ‘0 ~‘ 34035 paleas xas ‘aaisoddo aux uJIM uoIzesuaAUOJ [auuogux Io Kauanbaug ueau \ m a; .ceee: ecu cue Lew meewgoe mews: Icewumaac mcwcae xum esem an» new: coweom Igu>ceu —n=:ew:w we suceacugw .~.o~ ucamww eewsua egweccewumezo : z u d K (N II II : II II II.II l V M OJODS paleas xas ewes an; HIIH UOLJESJEAUOJ [em403u1 go Kauanbaxj ueau w \ ,— V 67 TABLE )0 RESULTS OF SIGNIFICANCE TESTS FOR VARIABLES USED TO TEST HYPOTHESES SIX AND SEVEN ’ Type of Effect Hypothesis Six Hypothesis Seven Variable Number Variable Number 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Main Effects: Residence Hall Conditions NS NS NS S NS S NS NS Sex S NS NS NS S S S 5 Time S S NS NS S NS NS S Interaction Effects: Sex by Time NS NS NS NS NS NS S Residence Hall Conditions by Time NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Residence Hall Groups (Residence Hall Conditions by Sex) NS NS NS NS NS S S NS Residence Hall Groups by Time NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 1Exact probabilities of all significance tests can be found in Appendix F. 25, significant at p< .05; NS, not significantly different at p < .05. 68 Cluster Seven. Parental Education and Socio-economic Status Cluster Eight. Male/Female Differences Cluster Nine. Parental Marital Stability Cluster Ten. 6 High School Characteristics Cluster Eleven. Religious Perception and Practice Cluster Twelve. Study Habits and Perception Table ll shows the internal variable make-up of each cluster and the factor coefficient of each variable with its cluster. Table 12 gives the correlations between the clusters given above and illustrates the degree of relationship between each of the oblique cluster domains. Table ll indicates that twelve factors appear to underly the seventy variables used in the associative analysis. Many of the demo- graphic variables of questionnaire one are found in Cluster One - Family Sibling Structure, Cluster Seven - Parental Education and Socio-economic Status, Cluter Nine - Parental Marital Stability, and Cluster Ten - High School Characteristics. Cluster One, as illustrated in Table 12 is virtually uncorrelated with any other cluster. Clusters Seven and Nine have their highest intercorrelations with each other (r = .24) while .Cluster Ten correlates highest with Cluster Three - External Residence Hall Dating and Behavior (r = -.24). This correlation suggests a slight interrelationship with students who came from smaller non-public high schools tending to score lower on the external residence hall dating and behavior dimensions. Cluster Two - Environmental Friendliness is most correlated with Cluster Four - Environmental Scholarship (r = .20) and Cluster Six - In- ternal Residence Hall Dating and Behavior (r = .24). Cluster Four - 69 TABLE )1 THE TWELVE CLUSTERS, THEIR VARIABLE CONSTRUCTION AND VARIABLE FACTOR COEFFICIENTS CLUSTER VARIABLE'S FACTOR VARIABLE DESCRIPTION COEFFICIENT WITH CLUSTER Cluster One - Family Sibling Structure l. Tends to be an older or middle child in the family 2. Has a larger number of sisters in the family 3. Has a larger number of brothers in the family Cluster Two - Environmental Friendliness 1. Rates students as more friendly 2. Rates both students and faculty as more friendly 3. Rates students in own residence hall as more friendly 4. Rates faculty of university as more friendly Cluster Three - External Residence Hall Dating and Behavior l. Has a larger number of separate dates with students who are not residents of his residence hall Dates a larger number of individuals who are not residents of his residence hall Tends to have a larger number of formal dates Tends to have a larger number of informal dates Tends to rate dating opportunities at the University as satisfactory Tends to Spend more hours in conversation with the opposite sex ' Tends to be more open in expression of emotions and exerts less rigid controls on feelings Tends to be more socially adaptive in behavior Tends to be involved in higher degree of social dating behavior tom \1 03 014300 [\3 Cluster Four - Environmental Scholarship l. Rates academic standards of the university higher 2. Rates students of the university as more highly devoted to scholarship 3. Rates students in his own residence hall as more highly devoted to scholarship Cluster Five - Academic Performance l. Has a higher First Term grade point average 2. Has a higher cumulative first year grade point average 3. Had a higher cumulative high school grade point average .95 .62 .49 .48 .39 .33 .32 .29 .57 .57 .53 .93 .87 .51 70 "Table ll (cont'd.)“ CLUSTER VARIABLE DESCRIPTION VARIABLE'S FACTOR COEFFICIENT WITH CLUSTER Cluster Six - Internal Residence Hall Dating and Behavior 1. Tends to have more separate dates with residents in his own residence hall 1.00 2. Tends to date more individuals who are residents of his own residence hall .75 3. Tends to have dated a larger number of individuals .57 4. Tends to have had a larger number of separate dates .39 5. Tends to have dated individuals who were on-campus students and/or lived in his own residence hall .33 6. Tends to have transferred into a coed residence hall .30 Cluster Seven - Parental Education and Socio-Economic Status l. Father has higher educational attainment .9l 2. Father has higher socio-economic status rating .74 3. Mother has higher educational attainment .59 Cluster Eight - Male/Female Differentiation 1. Respondents tend to be men .76 2. Has higher mathematical aptitude .72 3. Tend toward masculine interest patterns .70 4. Has higher verbal aptitude .60 5. Has higher degree of intimate dating behavior with residents of own residence hall .34 6. Tends to view men as more superior to women .32 Cluster Nine - Parental Marital Stability l. Lives with one or more parents .81 2. Parents are married .77 3. Parents are living together .39 Cluster Ten - High School Characteristics 1. Attended a non coed high school .82 2. Attended a private or parochial high school .74 3. Attended a high school with a smaller size student body .30 Cluster Eleven - Religious Perception and Practice l. Tended to perceive self as a religious person .76 2. Tended to attend more church services per month .69 3. Tended to believe more strongly the religious doctrines of his church .67 71 "Table ll (cont'd.)" CLUSTER VARIABLE'S FACTOR VARIABLE DESCRIPTION COEFFICIENT WITH CLUSTER Cluster Twelve - Study Habits and Perception l. Tended to study more hours each week .84 2. Rated self as working harder at studying than others .81 Environmental Scholarship shows notable correlation with Cluster Eight - Male/Female Differentiation (r = -.30), Cluster Eleven - Religious Per- ception and Practice (r = .22) and Cluster Twelve - Study Habits and Per- ception (r = .36). Cluster Five - Academic Performance correlates strongest (r = .36) with Cluster Twelve - Study Habits and Perception. There is a ‘negative correlation (r = -.20) between Cluster Six - Internal Residence Hall Dating and Behavior and Cluster Eleven - Religious Perception and Practice. Cluster Eleven also correlates higher with Cluster Four - Environmental Scholarship (r = .22), Cluster Eight - Male/Female Differen- tiation (r = -.24) and highest with Cluster Twelve - Study Habits and Perception (r = .34). In the comparative analysis, seven areas were investigated: 1) academic performance and perception, 2) personality characteristics, 3) institutional warmth and friendliness 4) residence hall warmth and friendliness, 5) dating behavior and satisfaction, 6) religious practices and perception and 7) extracurricular activities. Comparison of these seven intuitively defined areas with the twelve clusters found in the associative analysis shows some degree of correspondence. l. Academic Perception and Performance is made up of variables found in a) Cluster Four - Environmental Scholarship 72 am. 00.- 0F. 0F.- 00. 00.- .mm. 00. 00. 00. 00.- =0w0000t0a 000 Iowan: s0000 .0_ .mm. 00.- _0.- .mm.- 00.- 00.- 00. .MM. 00. m_. 00. 00000000 000 coweaautaa 000000F00 .__ 00.- 00.. 0F. 0P. “0.- 00. 00. “0.- .mm.- 00. 00. mowemwtaeuataee _00;00 00.: .0_ 0_. 20.- 0F. “0.- .mm. 00. P0. 00.- 00. 0_.- 0,. 000,00000 Paewaaz _I000L0a .0 0..- .wm.- 0_. N0.- 0F. 0_.I 0,. .mm.- NP.I 00.- N0. 00w00w00atmwww0 Ipasaa\a_az .0 00. 00.- 20.- .mm. 0_. N0. 00. 0P.I mp. 00.- N0. 000000 00500000 Ieweem use coweeeeem Pepcmwem .n 00.- .mm.- 00. 00. 0_.- N0. __.I _0. 0,. .mm. 00. 0000a0 FFII 00000wmmm>mummamum .0 .mm. 00. 00. P0. 0,. 00. PP.. 0_.- 00.- __.- w0.- aucestowtma uwsneaue .0 .mm. .MM. “0.- 00.- .mm.- 0F.I P0. 0P.- 00. 00. 00.- awgmtapoeum Paecmscotwscm .0 00. 00. .mm.- 0.. NP.I 00. 0F. 00.- 00. 0_. 0_.I Lowsaeam 000 mcwpeo ppm: eeceewmem ~02Lmexm .m 00. 0_. 00. 0F.- 00.- 00.- .mm. _F.- .mw. 0P. 0_.- 00000_0000LL _000Is0otw>00 .N 00.- 00. 00. 0.. N0. N0. 00. N0.. N0.- 0P.- 0_.- 0L0000L00 000,000 0F_EIL .P N. FF 0. 0 m w 0 0 0 0 N P mt00m0_0 mgeumepu mmmhmzqo m>4m3h mzh mo zum, mo. asp pm sceu_cecmem so: .sz m2 mom amp._ mm_ m.mm m.e¢m mmceenem Lamaze» me P.N~ N.oom mmeepnem ummu_o mgoum muzgwua,‘ uzmmpozum quzmsmcpwz mz mom omF.F mm_ o.mop e.mm¢ mm=w_awm Lamaze» om o.m~. o.o_m mm=__nem “mmu_o «Loom muzuwuqfis ovummponum anLm> mz mom Nm©.o _m_ mum.o oem.N mm:_paem me==o> mm mmm.o ooo.m _ magepaem “mmupo mmmcm>< pcvom mumgu mmmppou mz NON oeo.o mm_ ooe.o NmN.m mmcwpnem me==o> _m 0mm.o mmN.m mm=P_nem ammupo mmmgm>< “upon mumgo Poocum now: Ppm>m4 cowumw>mn mucsu_cecmem we oepac p emaasz atmnemum new: m4m mmmoum mosthm< omhm oz< mmw< hzmoa mn m> hmmo40 no mHm>4C%t£§/ ’j//'S//7::' Robert Underwood, Manager of Residence Halls Dafig APPENDIX 8 Formal Approval of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects Formal Approval of the Committee on Release of Information and Approval of Questionnaires 103 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY -- East Lansing, Michigan, 48823 To Lee B . Iacokes The project entitled A study of coeducational residence hall éfiVfififififiEfif§TT whose principal investigator will be Lee Iacokes has been reviewed by our institutional committee for the use of human subjects. This application does not include activities involving human subjects. X This application includes activities involving human subjects. Our committee has reviewed and ' approved it on 6/19/73 Asst. Coordinator for Health ograms Title 5119/73 Date 104 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - MIcHIciAx 48823 OFFICE OF INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH ' 351 jOHN A. HANNAH ADMINISTRATION BUILDING May 11, 1973 Mr. Lee E. Jacobs Aquinas College Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506 Dear Mr. Jacobs: RE: Your request for approval on an Administration Agreement and dissertation proposal. Your Administrative Agreement and dissertation proposal has been reviewed by the Committee on Release of Information and Approval of Questionnaires. The dissertation proposal was approved as written, but there were several questions raised on the Administrative Proposal. The members of the Committee point out that you cannot represent yourself as a member of the staff or use the official letterhead, (re: items 2 6 3, paragraph 1, Administrative Agreement.) I am sure if you refer to yourself as a graduate student in Ecological Psychology, conducting research in residence halls with the approval of the Coordinator of Residence Halls Programs, there will be no problem. If you have further questions, please advise. Sincerely, 1’/'/';{[5( G ' I" “‘f/‘(o/lr" I :,/‘#/Z c. ‘1‘.“ 1.....r William.S. Gunn Administrative Assistant APPENDIX C Letter of Invitation to Participate in the Michigan State University Housing Study Michigan State University Housing Study Participation Agreement Follow-up Letter to the Letter of Invitation 105 July 1973 Dear Student: Over the years, Michigan State University has continually reviewed and studied its housing conditions in an attempt to provide better housing environments for its students. During the 1973-74 academic year an in-depth study of housing environments at Michigan State University will be made with the permission of Dr. Cary North, Coordinator of Residence Hall Programs. I would like to ask for your assistance with this study. The study will involve approximately 400 students and will attempt to determine their satisfaction with residence hall living and how these living environments effect their college experience during the first year. Information obtained from each participant will include: personality characteristics, study habits, dating behavior, educational background, academic performance, religious preference, ethnic back- ground, perception of residence hall environments, etc. This data will be analyzed to see how these factors relate to the student's adjustment to residence hall living. Each participant will agree to complete three questionnaires which would involve about three hours of time distributed over the academic year. At Michigan State University, agreement must be obtained from each participant prior to the beginning of such a study. Enclosed is a self-addressed postage-paid card on which you can indicate your willingness/unwillingness to participate. Please read it carefully, indicate your preference, sign the card and return it immediately. I encourage you to take part in the study. The results will be helpful in continually improving housing at Michigan State University. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Lee E. Jacokes Graduate Student in Ecological Psychology ”Enclosures 106 1 , MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY HOUSING sruov . ‘ " . . J, , , . _ . 1 _ mmcmnow AGREEMENT - ‘ _ ‘ . i5 _ I_ agree to participate in the usu Housing Study for the 1973-74 academic year. I understand . , ‘ I; ' the sum involves the determination of the, effects ofhousing environments on the student and ,, ; his satisfaction with housing at MSU. I further understand that: * . g4 . The names of participants in the study will be held confidential. 1 i I - 2. Only group results will be reported. no identification of individuals will be .- 37 I; 3 I agree to allow the principle investigator. Mr. Lee E. Jacokes. access to in- I I . . fl ' Ifornution pertinent to the study from my academic and housing files. I I ‘ ' ' ' . 4. Information obtained from any participant by means of questionnaire results. I ' , 9' ‘ ' ' academic files. housing files. etc. will be heldconfidentiai and will be known 1 -' 3.. 3‘ , j .. ‘- only DY the principle investigator. Mr. Lee E. Jacokes. ‘ ‘ f I I. - 5.. I am free to discontinue participation in the study at any time. , - i I- .. ' I agree to participate in the Michigan State University Housing Study (1) [:1 Yes (2) (E) No “ . I I“ 1 Student Signature ' ' 7 - Student Number Name of Resident Hell .' ’3 3.- 0‘. f X .3443 b ‘5'" “" _.': .‘ .13‘7.“ “V?" “17.?!” ‘. . [7“ I) ”I“ -1--M'U.'..:.'/-' ' I ‘t . '\ ‘.--' . -"«—/“ «v . ' ‘. , I ‘. ‘ ‘ L.” ’QM. "I'. "l- - , , -o-' O"' “I‘.;.£J“flnw’ .| -. ‘0 m t D ‘ I. ‘_:’-::-> I. .ui- 1| .flw . A- ' , ' ' I ' ' \a . _ —,, .~ ‘ '. ‘i \ DID YOU FORGET? I DIDN'T! Several weeks ago, you received the enclosed letter and card explaining the Michigan State University Housing Study to be conducted during the 1973—74 academic year. We invited you to participate but, alas, we have not yet heard of your decision. Would you please look over the enclosed material and return the card TODAY. We need to know your decision immediately in order to plan for those students who will be participating. Besides, I am getting tired of the string on my trunk - I think I am going to SNEE. . . . . . . . Thank you. 107 APPENDIX D Questionnaire One Follow-up Letter to Questionnaire One 108 August 1973 Dear Student: Thank you for agreeing to participate in the Michigan State University Housing Study. Enclosed is the first of three questionnaires you will be asked to complete between now and May 1974. We are asking that you complete the questionnaire and return it in the enclosed envelope Egg, so that with your arrival on the MSU Campus this fall, you may give full attention to your initial adjustment to college life. You will be contacted in mid-November and again in May 1974 and asked to give your Opinion on a variety of subjects related to your experience in MSU Residence Halls. The information which you and the 400 other participants provide will be invaluable in helping to improve housing at MSU. Instructions for Completing Questionnaire: The attached questionnaire is simple and quick to complete. Read each question carefully and write in the information requested or check the gag Option which best fits your situation. The enclosed questions ask for background information about you and your family, your high school, home community, work hours, religious preference and attitude and on the last few pages, a short personal preference scale is presented. Before you begin the questionnaire, I would like to point out that any information which you provide is confidential and will be known only by the principle investigator, Mr. Lee E. Jacokes. If you do not wish to answer a specific question, just skip over it and continue on to the remaining questions. Thank you for your OOOperation. Sincerely yours, Lee E. Jacokes Graduate Student in Ecological Psychology MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY - HOUSING QUESTIONNAIRE 1 Please indicate your Name: Last First Middle Initial What is your Michigan State University Student Number? ______ [3:] Please indicate your sex: E3 El Please indicate your age: Female Male Which of the following best describes your ethnic background or nationality (not citizenship). Caucasion Black American Oriental American American Indian Spanish American Other lLlHLI Indicate your present religious affiliation: (l) __ Agnostic (2) _‘ Atheist (3) F- Catholic 4 __ Eastern Orthodox (5; Jewish (6) :1 Protestant (7) Non-denominational Christian (8) C: Other (Specify) Please indicate the marital status of your parents: (3; Married (2 Separated (l) Divorced (3; (2 (1 Which of the Indicate which Of the following is true of your parents: Both Of my parents are living One of my parents is deceased, the other is living Both of my parents are deceased following best describes your father's highest educational attainment: (1) _fl Eighth grade or less (2 _‘ Part high school 3 High school graduate (4 E: Attended college but did not graduate (5 F“ College graduate (6; __ M.A., M.S., or equivalent (7 __l M.D., LL.B., J.D., D.D.S., Ph.D., or equivalent Which of the attainment: FIJHIJI ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ~0Cfi\n£?b3h)k‘ 110 following best describes your mother's highest educational Eighth grade or less Part high school High school graduate Attended college but did not graduate College graduate M.A., M.S., or equivalent M.D., LL.B., J.D., D.D.S., Ph.D., or equivalent Please indicate the number of brothers and sisters which you have in your family: (1) E Indicate t (1) $33373 W I H I J [J3 O“J\CWJIV vvvvv rlIll Indicate t 3' m Willi] /\/\r\/\r\/\ CfiKRITbJRDFJ Indicate your 0 1 2 3 L: 5 or more number Of brothers you have in your family: 0 l 2 ' 3 L: 5 or more number of sisters you have in your family: or more 0 l 2 3 Li 5 position in the family in regard to your brothers and sisters: am a middle child the oldest child am the youngest child am an only child hikihiki m S In what occupation has your father spent the most time in the past 5 years? Please give a short description Of his typical duties in this job (e.g. he assembles motors on an auto assembly line; he is president,of his own manufacturing firm which makes conveyor systems; he is an Office manager for X company and is responsible for supervising secretaries, sales person- nel, etc.) Job Title and description H] Indicate the type of high school you last attended: ) Public High School ) Private - Non Parochial High School ) Parochial High School ( ( ( mm:— Indicate whether the Hi; gh School you la st attended was coeducational or not: (1) The high school I last attended was not coeducational 2) The high school I last attended was coeducational What was the size of the student body at the last high school you attended? Under 500 students 500 - }Q9 1000 - 1&9? 1500 - EJQQ 2000 - 2399 2500 or more AAAAAA OK.“ «{7me VVVVVV l I ] Uhen collegt is not in session indicate which of the living arrangements applies to you: I live at home with both my parents I live at home with only one of my parents I do not live with either of my parents (3) <2) (1) Indicate the approximate size of the pOpulation of the city or community in which your home , located: We live on a farm We live in a community of less than 2,500 population We live in a community or city with a population between 2,500 and 500,000 people We live in a large metrOpolitan area with a pOpulation exceeding 500,000 people AAA WNW DUI] ) ) ) (A) Not counting the time in class, about how many hours do you spend in actual study during a typical seven-day week? (i) :1 Under 5 hours (2) e~ 5 - 10 hours (3) __ 10 - 15 hours (u) __ 15 - 20 hours ( ) L... 20 - 30 hours ( ) __ More than 30 hours Indicate the approximate average amount of hours per week you have been employed during the last 2 months: I have not been employed 1 - 10 hours per week ll- 20 hours per week 21 - 29 hours per week 30 hours or more per week Ullll 112 How firmly do you believe in the major doctrines of the church in which you were reared? I question many 0 the doctrines of my church and tend to disbelievc some 0 them (3) 1:] I question some 0 the doctrines of my church but believe in most of them (M) [:. I strongly tclieve in most or all of the doctrines of my chu‘ch (1) E3! I disbelieve most of the doctrines of my church (2) H) H) H) How many times have you attended a church service in the last 4 weeks? None One or two s“rvices ThTEE’TAU five :mnnxiccs NUTG thbfi ich JFerCES -:\orore Is the answer which you gave to the question above reasonably representative of the number of times you attend church scrviccs during an average month? (1) (P) \I _) No U) 13:] How religious a person do you consider yourself? U\ Considerably more religious than average Slightly more religious than average About average Slightly less religious than average Considerahly less than average \— +— ITTJLJ F4TOKQ Of the men and women of your age and education, how would you rate them in comparison to one anothcr on the following traits? Circle the number in the apprOpriate column. Women superior Homen equal Men superior to men to men to women Intelligence “ l 2 3 Creativity 1 9 Morality l q Courage Dcyrnrhihility Flexibility I‘Iumanitarizinisn Internal Strength Sense of humor Industriousncss f—u 1V k0 \J \0 KO \J K» \O \O k0 H3 The following statements are to be answered by circling either T (True) or F (False). Read each statement and indicate whether it is true or false for you. It is probably best to give your first reaction to each statement, so do not srend a great amount of time on any one statement. T T I make friends rather quickly and feel at ease in a few minutes. It is necessary to obey mest rules in order to live together. I can express my anger without losing friends or making enemies. I pay little attention to styles in clothing. I am too easily influenced. I am shy. When a parent, teacher, or boss scolds me, I feel like weeping. I don't show my real feelings. I am an aloof, reserved person. When I become emotional I come to the point of tears. I often have uncontrollable rages. I listen to others but try to make up my own mind. Odors of perspiration disgust me. I have extreme loves and hates. There are certain standards one must live by. I always have perfect control over my emotions. I get mad whenever anyone disagrees with me. Usually in a mob of people I feel a little bit alone. I would rather be a building contractor than a nurse. I am really self-centered. I don't let anybody tell me what to do. I can get mad without "losing my head." I like the love scenes in a movie or play. I am tolerant. I can take orders from the boss without feeling small. I think before I act. I do not follow rules and regulations which limit my freedom. b-J 114 I accept social invitations rather than stay home alone. I have feelings but don't lose control over them. The sight of blood frightens me. I am different from others. I don't care about the opinions of others. I can show emotion. I feel badly if someone does not approve of what I am wearing. I can put my affairs aside to aid others. I cannot accept peeple with bad manners. Nothing ever bothers me. I especially dislike to get my hands dirty or greasy. I obey rules which are meaningful. I can live comfortably with the people around me. The sound of foul language disgusts me. I have my likes and dislikes. I am self-reliant. I would like to go hunting with a rifle for wild game. I have a warm emotional relationship with others. All you have to do with me is to insist and I give in. I tend to be on my guard with people who are more friendly than I expect. I do as I pl=ase. I am very excitable. I would rather be an interior decorator than an architectural engineer. I am liked by most peeple who know me. 1 can tolerate disagreement. I am a responsible person. I feel sorry for a fish that is caught on a hook. Sometimes people do things which bother me. T F I T F I T F I T F I T F I T F I T F I 115 cry rather easily. am impulsive. usually like people. obey all rules. am spontaneous. would rather be a forest ranger than a dress designer. will do anything rather than suffer the company of tiresome and uninteresting prople. T F The sight of r: god or soiled fingernails is repulsive to me. T F I T F I T F I T F I T F I T F I T F I T F I can show my emotion when the occasion demands it. live by 0th r peoples' standar‘s. enjoy myself at parties or other social gatheri gs. feel uncomfortable while talking with someone. am inhibited. feel strongly against miscinw a friend of my own age or sex. try to please others. am a good mixer. T F If I think 1 am right I will stand up for my views. T F I T F I T F I T F I T F I T F l have some periods when I am very blue and some when I am very happy. would rather be a miner than a florist. nCVer let peeple know when I am mad. would rather go to an athletic event than to a dance. am an independent person. an very choosy about whom I accept as a friend. have my emotional ups and downs but don't go to extremes. like to read stories about love and romance. Please do [I] CC] not write in this space. [3:] [3:1 _J 116 September 18, 1973 Dear Student: Two or three weeks ago a c0py of the enclosed questionnaire for the MSU housing study was sent to your home address. As of this date, we have not received your completed questionnaire. Perhaps in the rush of preparing to come to college it was overlooked. Please read the attached letter for further explanation of the questionnaire. We ask that you complete the enclosed questionnaire immediately. We must receive this information by this Friday, September 21, 1973 in order to include it in the results of the initial questionnaire returns. Simply seal it in the return envelOpe and give it to your floor resident advisor and ask him/her to put it in the inter- college mail service (no postage necessary). Thanks for your help. Sincerely yours, 9253/ . ‘flee E. Jatokes Graduate Student in Ecological Psychology APPENDIX E Questionnaire Two and Questionnaire Three Follow-up Letter to Questionnaire Two Follow-up Letter to Questionnaire Three 117 November 1973 Dear Student: Hello again. I h0pe your first two months at MSU have been enjoyable and productive. You probably remember the MSU Housing Study which you kindly agreed to take part in during your freshman year at MSU. Your response to the first questionnaire distributed just prior to your arrival on campus was overwhelming with nearly 100% of all students in the study completing the questionnaire. Enclosed you will find the second of the three questionnaires which are being administered for this study. (Remember, the third questionnaire will be distributed in May 1974.) Your continued participation in this study is essential and will provide invaluable help in our attempt to continually improve housing at MSU. Instructions for Completing Questionnaires The attached questionnaire is simple and quick to complete. Read each question carefully and check the Options which best fit your situation. The questions ask you to note various experiences you have had at MSU, your impression of the university and residence hall environments, and the various types of extra-curricular activities in which you have become active. In addition, a few questions have been repeated from the previous questionnaire in order to see if you have changed your opinions on these issues and characteristics. I am sure you will find this questionnaire interesting, enjoyable and thought provoking. Before you begin the questionnaire, I would like to point out that any information which you provide is confidential and will be known only to the principle investigator, Mr. Lee E. Jacokes. If you do not wish to answer a specific question, just skip over it and continue on to the remaining question. ’"' When you have completed the questionnaire, seal it in the enclosed addressed envelope and place it in the Campus Mail Service at the main reception area in your residence hall, no postage necessary. Thank you for your continued assistance. Sincerel yours, . (Cf/WA, flEe E. Ja fikes Graduat tudent in Ecological Psychology 118 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY - HOUSING QUESTIONNAIRE 2 Please indicate your Name: Last First Middle Initial What is your MSU Student Number? In what Residence Hall do you live? Name of Residence Hall 3::I::] (Please leave Blank) Over the summer, Michigan State University had several orientation program options in which the incoming student could participate. In which of those programs did you participate? (1)[:] I participated in the "mail in“ orientation in which I completed my class schedule at home and sent in my schedule to MSU (2; B I came to the MSU campus for the one day orientation (3 I came to the MSU campus for the 1% to 2 day orientation program staying overnight on campus (4) [:1 I came for the one week long orientation program which preceded Welcome Week Indicate the number of credit hours you are taking this term: (1) O - 5 hours (2 6 - 11 hours (3 12 - 17 hours (h 18 or more hours Not counting the time in class, about how many hours do you spend in actual study during a typical seven-day week? l __ Under 5 hours 2 __ 5 - 10 hours 3 _fi 10 - 15 hours (h 7‘ 15 - 20 hours £5 20 - 30 hours 6 C: More than 30 hours Indicate the approximate average amount of hours per week you have been employed during the last two months: (l __ I have not been employed (2 _q l - 10 hours per week (3 ll - 20 hours per week (4 :1 21 - 29 hours per week (5 b4 30 hours or more per week In how many college organizations are you a participant? Include all academic clubs, societies, athletic teams, musical organizations, student government, etc. (1 None 2 l - 2 3 3 ' 4 h 5 - 6 5 7 or more 119 May 1974 Dear Student: We are back once again to ask for your help with the MSU Housing Study. It is hard to believe but the end of your first year at MSU is fast approaching and the end of this study is also near. All that is needed are your responses to the attached questionnaire. As you probably remember, two previous questionnaires were administered, the first prior to your arrival on campus in the fall and the second in November. As with the first questionnaire, responses to the November questionnaire were near 100%, a truly remarkable demonstration of your follow-through to your initial agreement to take part in the study. I wish to thank you for the time and effort you have given to this study. I know that it must be an imposition on your busy schedule. Since you have spent time completing the questionnaires, a space is provided for you to indicate if you wish a summary of the results. Certainly, you deserve to know what conclusions are reached. Please return your completed questionnaire as soon as possible. Final exams are on the horizon and we would not want to interfere with your studying. Instructions for Completing Questionnaire: The attached questionnaire is simple and quick to complete. Read each question carefully and check the options which best fit your situation. The questions ask you to note various experiences you have had at MSU, your impression of the university and residence hall environments, and the various types of extra-curricular activities in which you have become active. In addition, a number of questions have been repeated from the previous question- naires in order to see if as a result of your year at MSU you have changed your opinions on these issues and characteristics. I am sure you will find this questionnaire interesting, enjoyable and thought provoking. Before you begin the questionnaire, I would like to point out that any information which you provide is confidential and will be known only to the principle investigator, Mr. Lee E. Jacokes. If you do not wish to answer a specific question, just skip over it and continue on to the remaining questions. When you have completed the questionnaire, seal it in the enclosed addressed envelope and place it in the Campus Mail Service at the main reception area in your residence hall, no postage necessary. Thanks again for your assistance. Sincerely yours, Lee E. Jacokgs Graduate Student in Ecological Psychology 120 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY — HOUSING QUESTIONNAIRES 2 AND 3 Please indicate your Name: Last First Middle Initial What is your MSU Student Number? In what Residence Hall do you live? Name of Residence Hall [::[::J (Please leave Blank) Please indicate if you would_like a summary of the results of the MSU Housing Study sent to you. __ Yes ‘__ No. If Yes, indicate your home address. Number Street City State Zip Code Indicate the number of credit hours you are taking this term: (1) 0 - 5 hours (2) 6 - 11 hours (3) 12 - 17 hours (4) 18 or more hours Not counting the time in class, about how many hours do you spend in actual study during a typical seven-day week? (1)-+ Under 5 hours (2)____1 5 - 10 hours (3) 10 - 15 hours (4) :: 15 - 20 hours (5) 20 - 30 hours (6) I More than 30 hours Indicate the approximate average amount of hours per week you have been employed during the last two months: (1) __ I have not been employed (2) l - 10 hours per week (3) :1 ll - 20 hours per week (4) _d 21 - 29 hours per week (5) L4 30 hours or more per week In how many college organizations are you a participant? Include all academic clubs, societies, athletic teams, musical organizations, student government, etc. (1)P_- None (2):1-2 (3) __ 3 - 4 (4) r_ 5 - 6 (5) _d 7 or more 121 Compared to the students in your Residence Hall, how hard would you say that you work in your studies? 3 [11111 Considerably harder than the average student Somewhat harder than the average student About average Somewhat less than the average student Considerably less than the average student About how much of your non-class time per average school week would you say you have spent in informal but somewhat serious conversations with friends and acquaintances of the same sex? (1) I E3; - (u "l (5; :1 (6 _ (7 .1 Under 2 hours 2 - 5 hours 5 - 10 hours 10 - 15 hours 15 - 20 hours 20 - 30 hours More than 30 hours About how much of your non-class time per average school week would you say you have spent in informal but somewhat serious conversations with friends and acquaintances of the Opposite sex? A g...) v J [71111] Under 2 hours 2 - 5 hours 5 - 10 hours 10 - 15 hours 15 - 20 hours 20 - 30 hours More than 30 hours How would you rate the devotion to overall scholarship and study of the students at MSU? (Choose one only) (1) [:1 Students have very little interest and involvement in their studies (2) D (3) D (u) D (5) E] and spend a great amount of time in non—academic activities Students show some interest in their studies but spend more time in non-academic activities than in preparing for their courses Students are moderately interested in their studies and spend an equal amount of time in both preparing for their courses and non-academic activities . Students show above average interest in their studies and spend more time preparing for their courses than in non-academic activities Students are very interested in their studies and spend a great amount of time preparing for their courses with very little time devoted to non-academic activities 122 How would you rate the academic standards for study and scholarship at MSU? (Choose one only) (1)121 (2) C1 (3) [j (u) [:1 (5) D The academic standards are very low - it is very easy to pass a course with little effort The academic standards are somewhat low - it is not extremely difficult to pass a course but some effort is required The academic standards are moderately high - it is somewhat difficult to pass a course if only a moderate amount of effort is extended by the student The academic standards are high — it is difficult to pass a course if only a moderate amount of effort is extended by the student The academic standards are very high - it is very difficult to pass a course unless a great deal of effort is extended by the student D 1:] (Please leave Blank) How would you rate the d~érce of friendliness of the faculty toward the students at MSU? (1) C1 (2)1:1 (3) (It (u) [:1 (Choose one onl ) Faculty members are very distant with students - they relate to students on strictly a teacher-student relationship and allow little contact with students on an informal basis Faculty members tend to be somewhat distant with students ~ they tend to over-emphasize the student-teacher relationship but do allow a few informal contacts with students Faculty members tend to be somewhat close with students - they tend to de-emphasize the student-teacher relationship and allow frequent informal contacts with students Faculty members are very close with students - they emphasize a co-equal relationship between students and teacher and have many informal contacts with students outside of the classroom How would you rate the friendliness of the students toward one another at MSU? (Choose one only) L—JCI (1)4] (2) D (3) D (a) [:1 (5) E] The students are very unfriendly and cold toward other students - it is very difficult to make friends outside of your immediate group The students are somewhat unfriendly and cold toward other students - it takes persistent effort on your part to make friends outside of your immediate group The students are neither overly friendly or unfriendly - although it takes some effort on your part to make friends outside of your own group, it is not unusual to occasionally have students unknown to you try to make friends with you on their own initiative The students are friendly and warm toward one another - many students will attempt to make friends with you even if you are not an immediate member of their group. You do not have to exert much effort to make friends on this campus The students are exceptionally friendly and warm toward one another - most students make sincere efforts to make friends outside of their own immediate group. Very little effort is needed to make friends on this campus (Please leave Blank) 123 Please answer the following statements True or False (circle the appropriate answer) T F T F T F T F T F T F T F Constructive criticism of rules, regulations and teacher effectiveness is encouraged by the college. The college encourages involvement by students in social and political activities. Controversial speakers are invited on campus frequently. Students are actively concerned on this campus with national and international problems. Diverse points of view are actively discussed among the students. Many faculty members are known for their active involvement in national and local politics. Concerts, art exhibits, and plays typically draw large crowds of students. 1:] (Please leave Blank) How would you rate the devotion to overall scholarship and study of the students who live in (1) D (2) D (3) 1:1 (4) E] (5) E] your residence hall? (Choose one only) The StUantS in my residence hall have very little interest and involve- ment in their studies and spend a great amount of time in non- academic activities. The students in my residence hall show some interest in their studies but spend more time in non-academic activities than in preparing for their courses. The students in my residence hall are moderately interested in their studies and spend an equal amount of time in both preparing for their courses and non-academic activities. The students in my residence hall show above average interest in their studies and spend more time preparing for their courses than in non-academic activities. Students in my residence hall are very interested in their studies and spend a great amount of time preparing for their courses with very little time devoted to non-academic activities. How would you rate the friendliness of the students who live in your residence hall toward one another? (Choose one only) (1) II) (2) El (3) D (a) El (5) 1:] The students in my residence hall are very unfriendly and cold toward other students - it is very difficult to make friends outside of your immediate group. . The students in my residence hall are somewhat unfriendly and cold toward other students - it takes persistent effort on your part to make friends outside of your immediate group. . The students in my residence hall are neither friendly or unfriendly although it takes some effort on your part to make friends outside of your own group, it is not unusual to have students unknown to you try to make friends with you on their own initiative. The students in my residence hall are friendly and warm toward one another - most students will attempt to make friends with you even if you are not an immediate member of their group. The students in my residence hall are exceptionally friendly and warm toward one another - most students make sincere efforts to make friends outside of their own immediate group. How many times F I I 1 1 ] HHHHH 124 have you changed roommates so far this year? have not made any roommate changes. made one roommate change. made two roommate changes. made three roommate changes. made more than three changes. How many weekends have you spent off campus so far this term, e.g., went home for the weekends, spent the weekend at a friend's home, etc. Have you 83 (3 (1+) (5) Overall, E3 E3 Isl I 1 I it] ve not spent any weekend off campus this term. ave spent one weekend off campus this term. ve spent two weekends off campus this term. ave spent three weekends off campus this term. ave spent four weekends off campus this term. ave spent more than four weekends off campus this term. transferred from one residence hall to another this year, thus far? 1 Jail] 1 I 1 J .‘3‘ O W 1;I"1 1 l I No, I have not transferred to another residence hall. Yes, I have transferred into a single-sex residence hall. Yes, I have transferred into a coed residence hall with separate wings for men and separate wings for women. Yes, I transferred into a coed residence hall with alternating floors of men and women. Yes, I transferred into a coed residence hall arranged with men and women on the same level in separated wings/corridors of the residence hall. satisfied are you with living conditions in your residence hall so far? HHHHH am am am am am How satisfied are (l) (2 (3; (L. Very Moderately dissatisfied. Moderately satisfied. Very satisfied. very unsatisfied. somewhat unsatisfied. neutral - I neither feel greatly satisfied or unsatisfied. reasonably satisfied. very satisfied. you with the dating Opportunities you have had so far at MSU? dissatisfied. Have you considered transferring to another college or university during the term? EB B Yes. No. Have you considered leaving college and discontinuing your collegiate studies during this term? EB B Yes. No. 125 Approximately how many formal dates have you had this term? (A formal date would include any pre-planned date, e.g., going to a dance, movies, party, etc.) £1) :: None 2 l - 2 egg“: (5 : 7-8 (6) L‘ 9 or more Approximately how many informal dates have you had this term? (An informal date would include any "spontaneous" get together, e.g., I meet a friend in the resi- dence hall, lounge, or a class and we decide to have supper together, study to- gether, talk together, go to a show, etc.) l —1 None i2 :fl 1 - 2 3 3 - 4 EuEs-é 5h6'7 (6 7-8 (7 E: 9 or more With whom do you have dates? (Choose the one option below which is closest to your situation.) (1 (2; (3 (4) (5) So far, I have not dated anyone this school year. I have mainly dated individual(s; who do not attend MSU. I have mainly dated individual(s who live in off campus residences but attend MSU. I have mainly dated individual(s) who live in some other residence hall at MSU other than my own. I have mainly dated individual(s) who live in my residence hall (Coed Residence halls only). ITLlllll SECTION I This section should be answered by STUDENTS WHO LIVE IN COED RESIDENCE HALLS ONLY. If you do not live in a Coed Residence Hall, skip this section and go to Section II, Page 7. How many individual(s) have you dated this term who were residents in your residence hall? (I; :: None £2 __ 1-2 3 3 - 4 4;: 5-6 (5,—47-8 (6) .4 9 or more How many dates have you had this term with individual(s) who were residentb in your residence hall? 1 r_ None 2 C 1-2 3 3 - 4 (4)?“ 5-6 (53E 7-8 (6 __ 9 or more 126 Indicate by checking the statements below what type of dating activities you engaged in with individual(s) who were residents of your residence hall. Indicate an activity even if it took place only once. (Choose all applicable.) stayed in the residence hall by ourselves and studied together in my room or a common area. stayed in the residence hall by ourselves and stayed in the residence hall by ourselves and played went to a movie, drama production, sports event or other such activities by ourselves. spend time with other peOple in common group activities such as a party, group rap session, card game, etc. went with other people to a movie, drama production, or other such activities. held hands with one another. kissed one another one or two times. put our arms around one another for a brief period kissed one another many times over an extended time made love to one another (e.g., petting, any other type of sexual activity except intercourse). (1) : My date(s) and I (2) :2 My date(s) and I watched television. (3) :1 My date(s) and I r__ cards, talked, etc. (4) __ My date(s) and I (5) :2 My date(s) and I (6) Z: My date(s) and I sports activity, (1 P1 My date(s) and I 2 P4 My date(s) and I (3 _q My date(s) and I _‘ of time. (4) _fi My date(s) and I T“ period. (5) r_ My date(s) and I (6) Z: My date(s) and I (Please leave Blank) had sexual intercourse with one another. SECTION II This section should be answered by BOTH STUDENTS WHO LIVE IN SINGLE SEX RESIDENCE HALLS and by STUDENTS WHO LIVE IN COED RESIDENCE HALLS. How manyindividual(s) have you dated this term who were not residents in your residence hall? (1) :: None (2 T“ 1-2 3 3 - 4 (u:5-6 5 7 - 8 (6 :1 9 or more How many_dates have you had this term with individual(s) who were not residents in your residence hall? l r— None E23: 1-2 3 3 ' 4 a: 5-6 5 7 ‘ 8 (6 t: 9 or more L_L_l Indicate by checking the statements below what type of dating activities you engaged in with individual(s) who were not residents of your residence hall. Indicate an acrivity even if it took place only once. (1) D (2) [j (3) E; (4) D (5) [I <6) [3 <1) (2) (3) <4) [:1 (5) CI (6) [:1 (Choose all applicable.) My date(s) and I stayed in the residence hall by ourselves and studied together. My date(s) and I stayed in the residence hall by ourselves and watched television. My date(s) and I stayed in the residence hall by ourselves and played cards, talked, etc. My date(s) and I went to a movie, drama production, sports activity or other such activities by ourselves. My date(s) and I spent time with other peOple in common group activities such as a party, group rap session, card game, etc. My date(s) and I went with other peOple to a movie, drama production, sports activity, or other such activities. My date(s) and I held hands with one another. My date(s) and I kissed one another one or two times. My date(s) and I put our arms around one another for a brief period of time. My date(s) and I kissed one another many times over an extended time period. My date(s) and I made love to one another (e.g. petting, any other type of sexual activity except intercourse). My date(s) and I had sexual intercourse with one another. [E3 (Please leave Blank) 0f the men and women of your age and education, how would you rate them in comparison to one another on the following traits? Circle the number in the apprOpriate column. Women superior Women equal Men superior to men to men to women Intelligence 1 2 3 Creativity P. l 2 3 Morality I 1 2 3 Courage 'r-“-“-—3. L 2 3 Dependability l 2 3 Flexibility l 2 3 Humanitarianism 1.. I 2 3 Internal Strength)-.. 1 ~ 2 3 Sense of Humor "" 1 ~.—_-__---2;— 3 Industriousness l _— 3 ‘—_ 3 f... 128 How firmly do you believe in the major doctrines of the church in which you were reared? (l) (2) (3) (4) lfllljl I disbelieve most of the doctrines of my church. I question many of the doctrines of my church and tend to dis- believe some of them. I question some of the doctrines of my church but believe in most of them. I strongly believe in most or all of the doctrines of my church. times have you attended a church service in the last 4 weeks? None One or two services Three to five services More than five services Is the answer which you gave to the question above reasonably representative of the number of times you attend church services during an average month? 222 El Yes. No. How religious a person do you consider yourself? FIIWIJ Considerably more religious than average. Slightly more religious than average. About average. Slightly less religious than average. Considerably less than average. The following statements are to be answered by circling either T (True) or F (False). sad each statement and indicate whether it is true or false for you. It is probably best to give your first reaction to each statement, so do not spend a great amount of time on any one statement. T T 0-3 I make friends rather quickly and feel at ease in a few minutes. It is necessary to obey most rules in order to live together. I can express my anger without losing friends or making enemies. I pay little attention to styles in clothing. I am too easily influenced. I am shy. When a parent, teacher, or boss scolds me, I feel like weeping. I don't show my real feelings. I am an aloof, reserved person. When I become tqotional I come to the point of tears. I often have uncontrollable rages. I listen to others but try to make up my own mind. Odors of perspiration disgust me. I have extreme loves and hates. There are certain standards one must live by. I always have perfect control over my emotions. I get mad whenever anyone disagrees with me. Usually in a mob of people I feel a little bit alone. I would rather be a building contractor than a nurse. I am really self-centered. I don't let anybody tell me what to do. I can get mad without ”losing my head." I like the love scenes in a movie or play. I am tolerant. I can take orders from the boss without feeling small. I think before I act. I do not follow rules and regulations which limit my freedom. P3 P3 ’3') ’21 130 I accept social invitations rather than stay home alone. I have feelings but don't lose control over them. The sight of blood frightens me. I am different from others. I don't care about the Opinions of others. I can show emotion. P—I feel badly if someone does not approve of what I am wearing. I can put my affairs aside to aid others. I cannot accept people with bad manners. Nothing ever bothers me. I especially dislike to get my hands dirty or greasy. I obey rules which are meaningful. I can live comfortably with the people around me. The sound of foul language disgusts me. I have my likes and dislikes. I am self-reliant. I would like to go hunting with a rifle for wild game. I have a warm emotional relationship with others. All you have to do with me is to insist and I give in. I tend to be on my guard with people who are more friendly than I expect. I do as I please. I am very excitable. I would rather be an interior decorator than an architectural engineer. I am liked by most peeple who know me. p—a can tolerate disagreement. I am a responsible person. I feel sorry for a fish that is caught on a hook. Sometimes people do things which bother me. T F I T F I T F I T F I T F I 131 cry rather easil‘. am impulsive. usually like people. obey all rules. am spontaneous. would rather be a forest ranger than a dress designer. will do anything rather than s ffer the company of tiresome and uninteresting people. T F The sight of ragged or soiled fingernails is repulsive to me. T F I T F I T F I can show my emotion when the occasion demands it. live by other peeples' standards. enjoy myself at parties or other social gatherings. feel uncomfortable while talking with someone. am inhibited. feel strongly against kissing a friend of my own age or sex. try to please others. am a good mixer. If I think I am right I will stand up for my views. have some periods when I am very blue and some when I am very happy. would rather go to an athletic event than to a dance. am very choosy about whom I accept as a friend. have my emotional ups 'nd downs but don't go to extremes. like to read stories about love and romance. T F T F I T F I would rather be a miner than a florist. T F I never let peeple know when I am mad. T F I T F I am an independent person. T F I T F I T F I Please do not write in this space. CE] CED CE] [III] 132 H youRTWAE I T R E A L L Y \5 RUNNNG) With final exams upon us and Christmas Vacation afterwards, your time is truly running out. And, if you don't sit down right now and complete the enclosed questionnaire for the MSU Housing Study, you probably won't have time to complete it before the end of the term. 80, if you have not already sent in the questionnaire you received last week, please try to get it in immediately or at least before you leave for the term break. Thanks! Lee E. Jacokes Graduate Student in Ecological Psychology 1mm Mil.“ Y , ‘ . . .‘ ‘..- k "1h“ ki‘fi “LL “L; MI? /I .,I’iI£II.».~'IIIII/I.~""”’/-" ' - , . z .- ' (“w H '1'.) ‘ ’/ 1’ ' May 1974 After enduring the battles of this academic year we are fast approaching the end. This IMPORTANT MESSAGE is to remind you that we still have need of your completing the enclosed MSU Housing Study Questionnaire in order to bring our study to a close. Please, won't you take the time to complete the questionnaire now? We don't want to interfere with your studying for exams which are coming ever closer. Be sure cover letter for instructions. Thanks again!! 7 Lee Jacokes Grggygte Student in Ecological sychology _ I 133 APPENDIX F Chi-square Analysis of Residence Hall Groups on Questionnaire Two and Three Variables. Analysis of Variance of Two and Three Repeated Measures for Forty-two variables Administered in Questionnaires One, Two, and Three. 134 APPENDIX F CHI-SQUARE ANALYSIS OF RESIDENCE HALL GROUPS 0N QUESTIONNAIRE TWO AND THREE VARIABLES VARIABLE DESCRIPTION ___ Chi-Square p_ Academic Perception and Performance Summer orientation program attended by student 5 5.694 0.50 Residence Hall Warmth and Friendliness Student transferred from original residence hall to another during: a) the first term 2 1.024 0.95 b) the second term 2 0.137 0.99 Institutional Warmth and Friendliness Student considered transfering to another college during: a) the first term 5 2.010 0.90 b) the second term 5 3.579 0.70 Student considered discontinuing collegiate studies during: a) the first term 5 3.459 0.70 b) the second term 5 2.231 0.90 Religious Practices and Perceptions Consistency of Religious Service attendance 1. the previous summer 5 3.797 0.70 2. the first term 5 4.963 0.50 3. the second term 5 6.801 0.30 135 ~26 0.. 3—6 a: .36 as «$6 «9. 0:6 as 30.— 280. 08.3 33. 306 £30 3398 ~283qu 0606 m: 036 0.. 636 85. S6 30. 026 an: Sn.“ :38. 03.3 8:. ~36 33.... 5333.33 138 «mag a A a 0066 .38. 63.0 03. 084 Su. Rn.“ 30. $06 38. 036 8:. 206 33. £06 3826 032. can: use—Bum 036 «08. 2:6 08. RNA n00. ~36 «an. 036 960. 0606 «83. 63.0 88. 2M6 2313 so .3333. 1933103 J3 43.—on .1000. Mo scuunouuua unassuu 986 02. 23.— 000. ~36 03. En.— oou. SN." 23. 08.— 568. 6:6." 020. $06 mug-.3350 «acuuauuugun 2N6 000. ~26 63. 3a..” Rm. 136 .58. ~86 .628. 036 Loco. 80.: Run. 3...; .3353- 330 in: you-«03.5 ~36 «an. 206 man. 036 606. 036 :0. 0006 60:. «36 336. «S6 32. 03.“ 53319.00 03130 and a. no"; 08. 0:." as. 30.0 .8". =0; 8:. a: .88. $3, .28. 0.0.. £6338 =8. 8.33:- 026 can. ~36 03. and :08. 03.3 «as. 306 race. 35.03 name. 286 03.6. 0906 3:3»- ucovauo no, u!— uusoa Mo :3 036 «2. 08.0 03. on“... as. 2.3 m3. 3...... Son. «3.. 83. «an... 83. an." 03.33 0.3 I: no .31.: g a; M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 3.8:.»30 . .55. 8.8305— I showman HIHH nhuuuhu HIHH an xwmv B «.503 0.82:. an ments.-do touch. 23% 1.2—tn . .35— Nuzunnmud an. M5 N8 a Banana .35— mozmaumuu gang aphasia as gm 33.55.35 Egan—In _ .Buubénuzn 80:95."..th 959:» at: «Hons a a 3.33»: :55» mg 92 .02. .g mgéanmuao a gamma: m 592??? magi) 03—. whack 80h uaaguz magnum mud—F 92 oz to moans, 8 «an»; 136 03.0 006.0 000. 000.~ «~00. 000.0 03. 000.~ 000. 0006 0000. 206 00000. 50.0 0000. 0006 03005 no «in . . . . 0 . 0. .0 0 0. ~36 000 . 0~0.0 .5000. 000.0 00 0. 000. 0300 000 0 000 000 6 00.— 0 0 6 00 000 0 0 0 0 ion 00 hit 0~0.0 000. 000.0 ~00. 000.0 060. 000.0 000. 0006 000~. 0006 0000. ~006 0000. 000.0 0300-06000 nuuusuuoaao aqua-0 3 no > 0 0» 0 060 .0 060. 00—6 000. 0006 0-. 0006 ~00. 0006 0000. 00~6 000~. 0066 0000. 0:6 :00 -333...— 03:25.5 00~6 0~0. 000.0 000. 000.0 #03. 000.0 0000. 006.0 00~0. 000. 0000. 00~6 0000. 0~0.0 38:003.: 00.030 00~6 000. 0006 000. 0~0.0 000. 0606 000. 000.0 0000. 000.0 0000. 0006 0000. «3.0 00006003.; 065th 00330003.- 03 5 3 0 0 ~26 000. 0006 0~0. 00~6 ~00. 000.0 000. 00~6 1000. 00~.00 0000. 006.0 0000. ~006 0:80-000 2300 0008—003 00. no.1!- 0-6 000. ~006 000. 0~0.0 00~. 00~6 000. ~006 1000. 000.00 0000. 00~ .0 0000. ~00.0 0000000 dual-nu no .3030 000.0 ~00. 006.0 «~00. 000.0 00~. 0~06 060. 000.0 000~. 0066 0000. 0006 0000. 006.0 0033008 033.— 300 00003:: 50.— 0060000-0u00 00-0900 0006 000. 0~0.0 ~0~. 0006 000. 000.0 000. 0~0.0 0000. 000.~ 000—. 0066 0060. 0066 0.2.6003: :0: 3003.00 c 60: -0 0 0 0006 .03. 000.0 00 000.0 0.. 0006 00~. 0006 00 000.~ 1000. 00060 000~. 0006 6-90 .30 36.0000 05 0.3.8.0 003304 000.~ 0: 0000.0 0: 000.~ 00 00~6 060. 000.0 0000. 000.0 06000. ~00.00~ 0.0000. 600.0 630 033330 006060903- 6006 0: 026 000. 00~.0 0: 0006 000. 000.0 00 000.~ 000~. 0006 0000. ~36 630 033380 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 00.80.0003 .350 00300005— 000000» 050 0.000.000 0:: an 0000 00 00800 0.0005 »0 080.5980 0.000000 0.5000 .0005 .35. 00200005— 3000. 00 000 .35. 00200000- 065. 00200000.- 0003 lug :03. 00000 000.005.0020 000.55.00.20 3.0.005.th 355N020 0.000.000 05.0 - b.0005 000 .13. 00300000- 53:» Ae.ucou0 u nave-000 137 8.: .. «3 «~5.u ado.» mn~.~ c~e.0 nc~.o oou.o ow5.o can. no~.~ woo. non.N .~oc. $50.0 «ego. O¢n.q c5~o. ono.n ooo. nnn.~ and. ¢5o.~ «~5. 5-.° Noe. on—.o «co. moo.o #we. noa.o nmn. non.o .Noo. con.o coo. oooc.o aNN. oc¢.~ 55m. ~nm.° ~50. owo.o «on. n~o.o can. moo.o «Na. 500." Nan. 5an.o non. 500.0 non.n «one. «@5. ~¢o.o oqn. mac." 5nd. ~e~.~ 50m. 060.— cnoo. non.n «no. mac. «#0. «no. cano. 55a. moo. «no.0 owo.o 5-.o o~c.n «a5.e Nun.c oc~.o *NOOO. O5o~. coono. cnOo. aco~o. *cooo. nao.5 on~.a~ -o.~ ooN.c nuo.o u~0.n n50."— «Nooo. ouon. taboo. coon. 05(0. coma. non.~‘ n aon.o 5nn.o uoa.o can.o :3 .8... .fiou- o.uuovaoL-u- use a nun-vanes you on.) 3.. 3832.. 5:. «>28 9.3.5 13..» Avocadoaa nuuqm dun-v canon aauv nunuuaum dun: aucovanuu-coz can: coy-a ou-u-nuu uo uoaasz unuOH 3.5 352;... Sam ucoua-om vooov flan: oocuvauud -.ucov:um egg «0 nucovu-uu sud: sou-n «gnu-now no unnauz «duck “coonauuu nun-a oucuvuuuu dunv van-a nudes .aum flan: oucovanuu one: we Hones: uuuoh Amuse unavauu dun: yucca-on vuouv gas: oucov genus -.ucooaum as» we queued-om «us: on: nay-a accouou uo unnasz unuow gonna nab-nun mo ~35: ~33. AaQIuOuna + ~1- uuonv non-a cyan-sou no. .35.. ~38 95E. .85.... O“ 54 that» 85 .8 353 .35. 858mm,. zofiuéfifi 3“ id OHUflhhfl 2h .un Nun zo~au<¢mHzH Id “4 that» 5.2 .8 2989.8 .35. 3.353. 2285.”:5 94 "4 32359.8 .35. 853mm.— >n xumv tout”. 28.8 is. 82855. 820585 |l “d #4 9“ Id magma. $5 Av.accuv m xuvcoaa< NHUNhhn Rum “pug «8233 43. .8533: IDHHQHIUQHH an [Eldfillhflrufllrrlllhflfic ~1.Irfl.!uu.~ul In I, « .uLth-u. huh. I Ln‘. .21... un....l.1fl....:,.|u1.... .. h -2...- a 1"...- nh..- - ski-h.“ £31 .p.u..-..-lu1lh .l PL... 1 ski. Iii! . r N . .04.. A is ....u ... I: \ .6 ......\.,41.. 138 Ann I uvv non.~ 50cm I uvv emu.— c05.~ Ann I «av o—~.~ A" I uvv Iona. n¢fl.a 99—. nae.— on¢.n ceno. Ad I ufiv Iago. o5a.n Inuo. onn.n Iowa. ono.n don. ono.o oo~. one.— Ad I new «no. a5o.n 05o. cao.~ 5_ I may O4N. mo¢.~ A. u .9. can. 050.— Inca. one. n~5.o and. 00°. n~5.~ ”no. A. I uvv and. ~0~.N nnu. 500.0“ on5.~ Ono.n dee.~ goo. no~.n non. oon.n coma. a... T. cone. guano. ad I uvv nco.o ooo.no 5-.ua An I may no. aoc.¢ A..ao .ucoaaua ...u ouuovuouu voouv dun: ouuovuoux -.uuusaonu II. In» no oucouuocu can: oz: .ucovsua an“: odd-z ounovunuu coco cu vo>uu 9:: uuauucoaoux «a nod fi-gan us..-n .uqa.u=~ nun: ouaov VII: -.u=Iuaoa-I¢ as» ‘o gunned-Ix no: III: was nucovaum sud: uoq (use. ou...n c.9I..c~ ~aI: ouaouuuuu .quovcoaa -I- Ina «0 nuance-I- o: In.) on) cucovauu hu.a .uauoao...x ...= oucovuuuu no» came.» «0 uo«>-gon wean-n unuuom cu sou-n nluo n-I= Ioaovuuuu quu 6. vo>ua 0&3 oucuvconnos «a nod .sus.n ua.u.n -.ooa Aunao nun-v vaua --: ocean...- vooov u-Iz cocci nan-u I.u:-v:onnuu Isa «0 canon...- IuII as: nun-vauu an“: Ida's ounce...- oIou a“ 005.4 on: ouncucoAII- no nod .>.:.n us...n ~q.uou 5Huuhhu HZHH an unsouu 34¢: uuzudnmuu Danna Ian-u zu~uuI no: 03~I> a noun. .~I>IM no. u. unnuuuucuun no: .mzo voquMVCM onuahozuo one—c: N van-ouvcu Inaauunuo Iguana o- I at .Iuoh kahuna non-outed oouauosuo gauge: a I an .uuouuu «luv u .o .uo...» «1.. an .co...ucoo ...z ooeou...-n tau-uuvuu «IMIuIAuo Iguanaw N u .o .A.co.u.ucoo ..-a ouc...... an no“. you... oaaouu _..a ounce...-c n u n .e .uuo... uoa~ ova-ouocu oauauosuo gnome: u I an .uuouuu claw 5: Insane add: Iocovuuuu5 vaunuava. quash-sue gauge: a I «v .uuouuu «Ian an acne vououunaa Iauauusuo u-I~:= « I as .uuouuu occuuauaou nun: accuse-Ina no~.o ~nu. ~54.“ aduo. ~n¢.n cad. ~no.~ nae. «on.a flocno. non.¢ auooo. o~n.¢~ o5on. 5oo.~ rucoduauuanuuo uuouaou nu coda-nuuuuunm coo.“ u5n. 55a.o coo. 5o~.o an“. 5n¢.~ Iuno. c~a.n 05c”. n~o.~ «cage. 50¢.ou cane. 5o5.o new quuoaao on» sud: coauIIuI>cou unluouan ooo.~ can. ann.o enn. ann.o 5no. c~o.~ «moo. oo~.o anon. nnn.o cacao. noo.n IOOnc. ~nn.n new «Inn on» sud: , nodun-uo>coo Muauounu mu... m: onn.o as ch... mz noo.o eon. ..~.o ruooo. oo..oon .oaoo. n.n.o o.... as... a..: uI~ Inna: uauaao~olu madman. -«qmaluqdauquumuqmmum. ooe.o a: one.~ a: ooo.a a: an... new. nea.o a: an... came. «a... .on.o. -e.o ao....o -uom uaouuuduu uaou .o~.o m: an... oo.. can.” as on... .e.. n~o.o cage. as... coca. noo.o oeoo. a...u .uauva...¢ guusgu ..auaoz o-.c mz n~5.o a2 ouo.c m: can.o new. uue.u InNo. nao.o «onus. mon.n cae5. oo~.o oauuuooa noussu nu moan-n u a v a 0. aon.~ «deco. can.n~ coo. no5.~ vooo. 5~¢.e Inna. o~a.n yucca. no~.~c ode. 5no.o INNMO. oo¢.n «MI: Iocovuuou n.uccv¢ono -uu «a. .0 .ucou..ou an: Inn: on: nucovaum and) nucdvcon-ux Mun: oucoouuod xom ouusdm Mo uo«>nson Mada-n Iunnaucn ou wanna .Iou .-I= oucuvuoox coco a. uo>u~ on: nucnvconuou uo uo«>~a -In acuunn ouqaauuu M M. M M M M. M M M M M M M. M Aazoruunlau 4u<= nuaunuuuu snowman many maven.» uzgu an nun. an mmboxu unhhu an uonHanou caveman annexe uncannu 44