THE BIFEERENTSAL EFFECE 0F HOUSING 0N COLLEGE FRESHMiN "firesis fer the Degree of Ph. D; MICHMN STME UNSVERSE‘W SQRRELL E CHESIH 1.9262? u g um; 1112"»;qu Lu! (lfll 11w 12ml 11111111! [HJI This is to certify that the thesis entitled The differential effects of housing on college freshmen presented by Sorrell E. Chesin has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Education Date “‘1 5: 196? 0-169 “" ‘ ABSTRACT THE DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF HOUSING ON COLLEGE FRESHMEN By Sorrell E. Chesin The intensive interaction which takes place between students who live in the same residence unit has major implications for deveIOping housing policies for resident students, particularly freshmen. The question of whether freshmen should be housed with upperclassmen or with fellow freshmen remains unanswered. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of varying contact with upperclassmen on the attitudes, values, and selected academic and social behavioral characteristics of male college freshmen. A sample of male college freshmen, first-time en— rolled, and living in University—operated residence units was delineated. The experimental group consisted of those freshmen residing in a number of selected, representative Upperclass residence units. The experimental group was, thus, exposed to an upperclass environment. Two control groups were designated. One group was comprised of fresh- men living in predominantly or solely freshman residence units; the other group consisted of freshmen who lived in residence units which were neither predominantly freshman Sorrell E. CHEEin nor upperclass. Thus, the freshmen in the first control group were exposed to a predominantly freshmen environ- ment, while those in the latter control group were ex- posed to an environment which was neither freshman-like nor upperclass-like. It reflected the total-university residence ratio of freshmen to upperclassmen. Both the Inventorngf Beliefs, which was used to measure student attitudes and beliefs, and the Differ- ential Values Inventory, which was used to determine student value orientation along a traditional-emergent continuum, were administered in the Fall to a pre-test sample of seven hundred twenty students. The inventor- ies were re—administered in the following Spring to a post—test sample of four hundred sixty-seven students. Additional information of an academic and social nature was collected during the intervening period. Of the two hundred fifty-three non—participants, one hundred ninety had moved from their residence unit and were, therefore, ineligible to participate in the total study. The results indicated that the post-test attitudes and values of the freshmen who were living in Upperclass residence units were not different from those who were living in freshman or University-ratio residence units. In other words, it appeared that living in close proximity to upperclassmen, in itself, was not a major factor in Sorrell E. Chesin affecting attitudes and values. In general, all fresh— men tended to become more mature, flexible, and less stereotypic in attitudes and beliefs, and more emergent (i.e. less traditional) in their value orientation as their collegiate experience progressed. Freshman academic performance, as measured by grade point average, and number of students placed on academic probation and Dean's List, did not seem to be related to degree of contact with upperclassmen. A greater number of freshmen in upperclass residence units withdrew from the University during the academic year than freshmen in freshman of University-ratio res- idence units. The small number of students involved in major disciplinary action did not allow for an analysis of this variable. And finally, although a greater number of freshmen in upperclass residence units perceived their unit to be quiet and conducive to study than in freshman or University-ratio units, there appeared to be no differ- ence in the number of freshmen expressing a degree of overall satisfaction with their residence experience. Seemingly, the very presence of upperclassmen in a residence unit is not, in itself, a significant deter- minant in affecting freshman attitudes, values, or be— havior. THE DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF HOUSING ON COLLEGE FRESHMEN By Sorrell EllChesin A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology 1967 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his sincerest appre- ciation to Dr. Buford Stefflre, who served as thesis director and Chairman of the doctoral Guidance Committee. His guidance and counsel were vital to the development and completion of the study. The author is grateful to Dr. John Jamrich, Dr. Willa Norris, and Dr. Donald Olmstead, for their ad— vice, suggestions, and encouragement during the progress of the study. The use of the Inventory of Beliefs and the Differ- ential Values Inventory as testing instruments was made possible by Dr. Paul Dressel and Dr. Irvin J. Lehmann. A special word of thanks to Dr. Richard Prince, who deveIOped the Differential Values Inventory and to Dr. Willard G. Warrington whose suggestions, together with Dr. Lehmann's, on research methodology were most use- ful. The author is indebted to Dr. Donald Adams, Director of Residence Hall Programs, and his staff for their in- valuable assistance in the selection, testing, and re- testing of the participants in the study. My colleagues, the Head Advisors, willingly gave their time, effort, and assistance. And thanks-go to Mr. Lyle Thorburn and his staff of residence hall managers for providing ample facilities for the many testing sessions. A final note of appreciation is due to the staff of the Computer Center at Michigan State University for their expert advice and assistance in completing the many analyses. In particular, Mrs. Margaret Wright spent many hours preparing the data for analysis. A debt is acknowledged to Miss Bernadette DeMarco who assisted in preparing the preliminary drafts and to Mrs. Dorothy Bruno who completed the final copy. S. E. C. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 1 Introduction 1 Background of the Problem 3 Purpose of the Study 6 Theoretical Framework 7 Research Questions ll Limitations of the Study 12 Organization of the Study 13 II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 15 Introduction 15 Attitudes and Values 17 Summary 34 Housing 35 Summary 39 Social Interaction 40 Summary 45 Conclusion 45 III POPULATION AND METHODOLOGY 48 Introduction 48 Living Arrangements 48 Sample 49 Instrumentation 57 Inventory of Beliefs 57 Differential Values Inventory 61 Hypotheses 64 Procedure 66 Analysis of the Data 69 Statistical Methodology 71 Summary 72 iii Chapter Page IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 74 Introduction 74 Analysis of Initial Data 75 Freshman Groups 75 Upperclass Groups 78 Freshmen vs. Upperclassmen 83 Discussion 85 Analysis of Hypotheses 88 Discussion 99 Ancillary Analyses 103 Discussion 103 Summary 105 V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 107 Statement of the Problem 107 Design of the Study 109 Conclusions and Discussion 111 Implications for Further Research 119 BIBLIOGRAPHY 123 iv Table 3.1 LIST OF TABLES Number of residence units, upperclass- men, and freshmen in potential study sample Number of residence units, upperclass— men, and freshmen in pre-test study sample Number of residence units, upperclass- men, and freshmen in actual study sample Changes in study sample size Mean CQT score of freshman sample in each of three residence unit groups Analysis of variance of mean CQT scores of freshman sample in each of three re- sidence unit groups Pre-Test attitudes of freshman sample in each of three residence unit groups Analysis of variance of pre-test atti- tudes of freshman sample in each of three residence unit groups Pre-test values of freshman sample in each of three residence unit groups Analysis of variance of pre—test values of freshman sample in each of three re- sidence unit groups Chi square test of significance of fresh- man sample in three types of residence units on anticipated hall experience Pre-test attitudes of upperclassmen in each of three residence unit groups Analysis of variance of pre-test atti- tudes of upperclassmen in each of three residence unit groups Pre-test values of upperclassmen in each of three residence unit groups 54 55 56 76 76 77 77 79 79 81 81 82 82 Table 4.ll 4.12 Analysis of variance of pre-test values of upperclassmen in each of three residence unit groups Mean pre—test attitudes of freshmen and upperclassmen Analysis of variance of pre—test atti- tudes of freshmen and upperclassmen Mean pre-test values of freshmen and upperclassmen Analysis of variance of pre—test values of freshmen and upperclassmen Post—test attitudes of freshman sample in each of three residence unit groups Analysis of variance of post-test atti- tudes of freshman sample in each of three residence unit groups Post—test values of freshman sample in each of three residence unit groups Analysis of variance of post-test values of freshman sample in each of three re- sidence unit groups Mean grade point average of freshman sample in each of three residence unit groups Analysis of variance of mean grade point average of freshman sample in each of three residence unit groups Chi square test of significance of fresh- man sample in three types of residence units on number of freshmen placed on academic probation Chi square test of significance of fresh- man sample in three types of residence units on number of freshmen withdrawn during the academic year vi 84 84 86 86 89 89 91 91 93 93 94 94 96 Table 4.24 Chi square test of significance of freshman sample in three types of residence units on number of freshmen placed on Dean's List Chi square test of significance of freshman sample in three types of residence units on perception of a unit which is quiet and conducive to study Chi square test of significance of freshman sample in three types of re— sidence units on satisfaction with residence experience Pre-test attitudes of freshmen who com— pleted pre- and post-tests vs. freshmen who completed pre-test only Analysis of variance of pre-test atti- tudes of freshmen who completed pre— and post-tests vs. freshmen who com- pleted pre-test only Pre—test values of freshmen who com- pleted pre- and post—tests vs. freshmen who completed pre—test only Analysis of variance of pre-test values of freshmen who completed pre- and post- tests vs. freshmen who completed pre-test only Pre-test attitudes of upperclassmen who completed pre— and post-tests vs. upper- classmen who completed pre-test only Analysis of variance of pre-test atti— tudes of upperclassmen who completed pre- and post—tests vs. upperclassmen who com- pleted pre-test only Pre-test values of upperclassmen who com- pleted pre- and post-tests vs. upperclass- men who completed pre-test only vii Page 96 98 98 135 135 136 136 138 138 139 Table 4.34 4.35 4.36 4.37 Analysis of variance of pre—test values of upperclassmen who completed pre- and post-tests vs. upperclassmen who com- pleted pre-test only Pre-test attitudes of freshmen who com— pleted pre—test only vs. upperclassmen who completed pre-test only Analysis of variance of pre-test atti— tudes of freshmen who completed pre-test only vs. upperclassmen who completed pre— test only Pre—test values of freshmen who com- pleted pre—test only vs. upperclassmen who completed pre-test only Analysis of variance of pre-test values of freshmen who completed pre-test only vs. upperclassmen who completed pre-test only viii 139 140 140 142 142 Appendix LIST OF APPENDICES Personal Data Questionnaire Residence Experience Survey Ancillary Analyses ix Page 132 133 134 CHAPTER I Nature_gf the Problem Introduction The post-World War II boom in higher education has brought with it problems of a magnitude never be- fore seen in American education. Burgeoning enrollments have caused a rapid expansion of collegiate facilities, faculties, programs, and services. The federal government early recognized the need for expanded housing facilities to keep pace with the growing student pOpulation. In fact, the housing of stu— dents has become one of the broadest and most expensive undertakings on the collegiate scene. The federal govern— ment alone had extended more than $2.8 billion in loans to colleges and universities by the end of the 1965 fis- cal year. In 1951, the College Housing Program authorized loans total ing $16.8 million. By 1964, loans were run- ning at a rate of more than $300 million a year.1 And reports from the U. S. Office of Education note that institutional bonds sold through private channels for —— 1Robert C. Weaver, ”The New Look of Campus Living," American Education, Vol. 1 (No. 1), Jan. 1965; p- 17- contruction of residential facilities may be in excess of the government monies available.2 Of a student enrollment of four million in 1961, approximately twenty-five percent were housed in college— owned facilities. By 1970, with an estimated enrollment of six million, colleges will need housing for as many as forty percent of the students, or 3.6 million.3 The growth of residential facilities has been ac- companied by a broadened concept of the residence hall as an integral part of the educational program. The residence hall has progressively become a laboratory for the intellectual and social deveIOpment of college stu- dents.LL And researchers have been focusing attention on the effects of housing upon the collegiate experience. Eddy, among others, has noted ...that colleges have failed to realize the potentiality of the living unit both in sup- plementing the academic program and in con- tributing to the character of the student.5 2U. S. Office of Education, "Education and the Bond Market," American Education, Vol. 1 (No. 5, May, 1965) and (No. 6:7Ju1y—Au ust, 1965), p. 22. Reports indicate that approximately 51.6 million per month was raised for residential facilities through the sale of bond issues. 3Harold C. Riker, College Students Live Here, New York: Educational Facilities Laboratories, 1961, p. 6. “W. Max Wise, "Residence Halls and Higher Learning," gersonnel and Guidance Journal, 36, Feb. 1958, pp. 398- OI. 5Edward D. Eddy, Jr., The College Influence on Stu— dent Character, Washington, D. C., American COuncII on EducatIOn, 1959, p. 152. Current research suggests that the residence unit, particularly in larger universities, may well be con- sidered as a unique social milieu, the members of which form a peer group.6 Studies by Coleman, Newcomb, and others have clearly demonstrated the importance of the peer group on the attitudes, values, and behavior of the members of the group.7 It is thus apparent that the residence unit as a peer group exerts a significant in- fluence may be a crucial factor in collegiate success or failure. Background 2: the Problem American colleges and universities traditionally house their students in residence units administered by the institution. As freshman students arrive on the college campus they are housed in one of two fashions. They may be assigned to living units which solely or 6Theodore M. Newcomb, ”Student Peer-Group Influence,” The American College, Nevitt Sanford (ed.), New York: JOHn Wiley and Sens, 1962, p. 486. Jonathan King, ”Campus Cultures and the Cultured Campus,” The Study 2f Campus Cultures, Terry F. Luns- ford (ed.), Boulder, Colo.: WICHE, 1963, p. 134. Harold Taylor, ”Freedom and Authority on the Campus,” The American College, Nevitt Sanford (ed.), New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962, p. 790. 7James Coleman, The Adolescent Society, New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961, 368 pp. Newcomb, 2p, cit., pp. 471—2. predominantly house other freshmen or they may be as- signed to residence units which are mixed-class or pre— dominantly upperclass. In either instance, the freshman will be confronted by a unique student group—-the other residents of the living unit.‘ But does it make any dif- ference to which group the freshmen are exposed? Will attitudes, values, and behavior be affected differently if freshmen live with and come into frequent contact with upperclassmen rather than fellow freshmen? Housing policies at many colleges and universities provide for separate facilities for freshman students. Fairchild8 and others recommend segregated housing as good practice based upon the differences in needs and maturity of freshmen. Other institutions mix freshmen and upperclassmen in residence units. The contact with upperclassmen, they assert, assists freshmen in their adjustment to college and benefit their social education. It appears that many institutions are going to great lengths to provide either freshman or mixed-class resi- dence units. It is equally evident that the bases for their housing policies have been developed less on re- search directed toward the effects of differential hous- ing upon freshmen than upon what they evidently consider 8Ellen Fairchild, ”Current Problems and Programs in Residence Halls," Journal 2: National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, 24I(No. 3), April, 1961, pp. 146-147. to be common sense guidelines.9 There has been little research directed to answer the question: What are the effects of differential housing upon the attitudes, values, and behavior of freshman students? In order to understand the kind and degree of in- fluence that may be exerted upon the freshman, a closer examination of the characteristics of the group to which he comes into contact is necessary. Bushnell poignantly states that ...the peer group is of fundamental significance in determining the course of events in the coll- ege experience.lo Trow, Gottlieb, and numerous researchers suggest that the college student pOpulation is not monolithic but rather contains a number of sub-societies (or sub- cultures). Each of these sub-groups exhibit a unique attitude and value structure and behavioral pattern.ll Surely there are many similarities among college students 9Abel F. DeWitt, ”Survey of Freshmen Residence Halls in 86 American Colleges and Universities,” Wash- ington State College (mimeographed), 1948, 7 pp. lOJohn H. Bushnell, ”Student Culture at vassar," The American College, Nevitt Sanford (ed.), New York: John Wiley and SOns, 1962, p. 510. 11Martin A. Trow, "Administrative Implications of Analysis of Campus Cultures,” The Study 2: Campus Cul- tures, Terry F. Lunsford (ed.), Boulder, Colo., WICHE, 1953, pp- 95-111- David Gottlieb and Benjamin Hodgkins, ”College Student Sub—Cultures: Their Structure and Characteris- tics in Relation to Student Attitude Change," School Review, 71 (#3), Autumn 1963, pp. 267-270. which allow the researcher to examine the total student culture as it relates to the institutional environment. Yet there appear to be obvious differences between var- ious segments of the student body which necessitate con- sideration of the effects of these sub—groups upon each other and upon the students, both individually and as a total student body. It is to this consideration that attention will be directed. Research on college students suggest that the char- acteristics of freshmen and upperclassmen (sophomores, juniors, and seniors) are so unique that they may be considered as two distinguishable groups. The upper- classmen have experienced collegiate life and have met with at least a minimal degree of academic success. The freshmen, on the other hand, are striving initiates on the collegiate scene. They seek to become upper- classmen but have yet to prove themselves as college students. When they become involved, accepted,and ab- sorbed into the mainstream of the collegiate experience they will take on the characteristics of upperclassmen. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this investigation is to study the attitudes, values, and behavioral patterns which develop when male college freshmen are exposed to two different types of residence situations: one, predominantly fresh- man, the other, predominantly upperclass. Will different attitude, value, and behavioral patterns develop? If they do, what are the implica— tions of these differential patterns in view of the purposes of the institution? Is it possible that fresh— men should be housed in one of the two previously men- tioned manners but not in the other if attitudes, values, and behavior are to be affected? Theoretical Framework In order to examine the interaction between groups, e.g. freshmen and upperclassmen, several elements of sociological theory must be considered. Those freshmen who are assigned to upperclass residence units are ex- posed to the upperclass sub—culture with its established patterns of attitudes, values, and behavior. In the eyes of the freshmen, the upperclassmen hold higher status--the status that they, as freshmen, seek to achieve. The upperclassmen represent the dominant sub-culture. When the freshmen interact with upperclass— men, a process of socialization and acculturation takes place. The upperclassmen, as the socializers, have a profound effect on what type of behavior is learned.12 lBIrvin L. Child, "Socialization," Handbook 93 Social Psychology, Vol. II, Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1954, pp. 686-687. In fact, there will be a "greater cultural flow from the dominant (upperclass) group to the subordinate (freshman) group."13 If this be so, then one might ex- pect that the freshmen who are exposed to the upperclass culture will begin to take on the characteristics of that culture. Festinger and Kelley note that "the low status person tends to take over many of the high-status group's values.” They further report studies which ...demonstrate a tendency to feel closer to, and to name more often as friends, those per- sons at higher educational and socio—economic levels than those at one's own position or lower levels. These data indicate a stronger desire to associate with persons at higher status levels than at lower levels which, in turn, probably reflects the desifie to move upward in the status hierarchy.l PrOpinquity plays an important role in the formu- lation of friendship groups and in the degree of influ- ence exerted upon individuals.15 Those that interact frequently tend toward a commonality.l6 Thus, it may l3Bushnell, 2p, cit., pp. 510-511. luLeon Festinger and Harold H. Kelley, Changing Attitudes through Social_Contact, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, September 1951, pp. 3—4. l5Theodore M. Newcomb, ”The Prediction of Interper- sonal Attraction,” American Psychologist, 11, 1956, PP. 575-586. 16Robert F. Bales, A. Paul Hare, and Edgar F. Bor- gatta, "Structure and Dynamics of Small Groups: a re— view of four variables," in Joseph B. Gittler (ed.), Review of Sociology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, i557j"p57'402:403. Theodore Brameld, "An Inductive Approach to In- tercultural Values," Journal 2f_Edu£ational Sociology, 21, 1947, pp. 4—11. be expected that freshmen who come into frequent contact with upperclassmen will more likely take on the charac- teristics of upperclassmen. As the freshman enters college he finds himself in a somewhat "foreign” environment. Festinger suggests that ”...if a person is subjected to a sudden change in his way of life, some cognitive dissonance will result."17 This uncomfortable imbalance will motivate the person to seek a state of consonance through those changes of opinion or values necessary to bring himself into harmony with those around him. In fact, Brehm prOposes that "when dissonance occurs, it is sometimes easier for the person to change his affects and beliefs than it is for him to change his perceptions of his own behavior or of physical reality."18 A very similar theory is espoused by Osgood and Tannenbaum and concerns itself with the "principle of congruity."19 Both theories document the thesis that an organism will seek a balance with its environment. 17Leon Festinger, A Theory g£_Cognitive Dissonance, Evanston, I11.: Row, Peterson and Co., 1957, p. 271. 18Mi1ton Rosenberg, Carl I. Hovland, William J. McGuire, Robert P. Abelson, and Jack W. Brehm, Attitude Organization and Change, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960, p. 210. 190. E. Osgood and P. Tannenbaum, "The Principle of Congruity and the Prediction of Attitude Change,” _P§ychological Review, 62, 1955, p. 43. 10 The subject, thus, moves toward conformity within the prevailing social milieu. Research on conformity has verified "...a definite tendency for members (of a social system) to change toward the point of view held by the majority, and this tendency seems to vary directly with the size of the majority.”20 Thus, one might expect that freshmen inter- acting within a primarily upperclass environment would tend to conform to that environment, while freshmen in- teracting within an all-freshmen environment are more likely to absorb the freshman—like sub—culture. In summary, there are several sociological consid- erations which will affect the attitudes, values, and behavioral posture of the freshmen. First, the freshmen will tend to emulate those with higher status--the upper- classmen. Those freshmen who do not come into frequent contact with upperclassmen are less likely to have an upperclass model after which to pattern themselves and will continue to think and behave as freshmen. Second, the freshmen will tend to conform to the char- acteristics of the dominant group or the majority. Thus, the freshmen are more likely to accept the upperclass 20Harold H. Kelley and John W. Thibaut, "Experi- mental Studies of Group Problem Solving and Process," ,Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. II, Cambridge: Addison-WEEley Publishing Co., 1954, p. 767. 11 behavioral pattern where the dominant group is upperclass. And, a freshman-like pattern will be encouraged in a pre— dominantly freshman environment. Third, the freshmen in dissonance with their surround- ings will make those changes necessary to alleviate the dissonance. Thus, change might be expected within those freshmen who are reacting within a dissonant upperclass environ. The motivation to change, however, would not be present where the freshman is in consonance with a freshman-like environment.* Research Questions The present study will attempt to answer several questions relative to the attitudes, values, and behavior of resident male college freshmen. What effect will the presence of upperclassmen have upon the attitudes, values, and behavior of resident male *Note: Although the sample will be discussed and de- fined in Chapter III, it may be of assistance, at this point, to clarify the meaning of "upperclass environment” vs. ”freshman-like environment." The value structure of upperclassmen may be measured through their reSponses to a particular value inventory. The total of these reSponses would form a value—profile for upperclassmen. Similar measurements may be obtained of upperclass attitudes and behavior. The total of these measurements may be con- sidered the ”upperclass environ." Similar measurements would be descriptive of a "freshman-like environ.” If the individual‘s reSponse pattern is consistent with the pattern of the group in which he is interacting, he may be considered to be in consonance with his environment. If his responses are at variance with his group, he may be considered to be at dissonance with his environment. 12 freshmen? If we may assume that upperclassmen are more mature than freshmen, would those freshmen who live in an upperclass environment tend to become more mature in their attitudes and beliefs than their fellow students who are not in contact, and thus under the influence of, upperclassmen? If we may assume that upperclassmen are less traditional in their value orientation than fresh- men, would we expect to find a similar tendency within those freshmen who react within the upperclass environ? If we may assume that upperclassmen are more academically- oriented (i.e. have achieved a higher grade point average than freshmen, are less likely than freshmen to be on academic probation, and are more study-conscious than freshmen) than freshmen, will those freshmen under the influence of upperclassmen pattern themselves after the upperclass model? To answer these questions, a series of hypotheses will be developed and presented in Chapter III. Limitations_g£ the_§tudy There will be several limitations to the present study. First, the investigation will be restricted to an examination of the attitudes, values, and behavior of male college freshmen who are in attendance at a des- ignated mid—western state university during the 1964—65 academic year. 13 Secondly, the attitudes and values of the freshmen to be studied will be those as measured by their reSponses to specific items on both an attitudes inventory, the Ig— ventory g: Beliefs, and a values inventory, the Differ— ential Values Inventory. A description of the instruments to be used may be found in Chapter III. Thirdly, selected academic and social behavioral characteristics will be examined. These characteristics were selected by the researcher and are assumed to be somewhat representative of the behavior under consider- ation. It is recognized, however, that other behavioral characteristics may be equally useful in understanding the academic and social behavior of the students under investigation. The subjects under study will be viewed for one academic year. Whether similar results would be evident over a longer period of time, say four years, remains Open to question. .Qrganization_gf the Study In the chapter that follows, pertinent literature will be reviewed in an effort to clarify and place the present study in a proper perspective. A detailed descrip- tion of the sample, instrumentation, and methodology in collecting and analyzing the data will be presented in Chapter III. In addition, the hypotheses to be tested 14 will be stated in apprOpriate form. The results of the investigation will be presented and examined in Chapter IV. The findings will be con- sidered in light of the hypotheses suggested in the pre- vious chapter. In Chapter V, the study will be summarized and a number of conclusions will be drawn based upon the collected data. The implications of the results will be presented for consideration. CHAPTER II Review 2: the Literature Introduction The study of student attitudes and values is in- creasingly engrossing the attention of researchers on the college campus. It was not until the mid-Fifties that the reader was able to find comprehensive studies of the college student culture. Newcomb’s work at Bennington College was one of the few probing analyses of American higher education prior to the end of the Second World War.1 Since then the Jacob report, for example, gave wideSpread publicity to student inter— action in the collegiate environ and has served as a motivating force for further study.2 Kroepsch has noted the ”Research on campus cultures is one of the youngest and fastest-growing fields within the study of higher education."3 Testimony to the re- cency of the extensive examination of the college lTheodore Newcomb, Personality and Social Change, New York: Dryden Press, 1943. 2Philip E. Jacob, Changing values_£g College, New Haven: Edward Hazen FoundatIOn, 1956, 178 pp. 3Robert H. Kroepsch in The Study 9: Cam us Cultures, Terry F. lunsford (ed.), Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1963, p. 1. ..‘- 7“ ---A 16 student was Miller's report that A five—year listing of research projects supported by the COOperative Research pro- gram (U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1962) re- flected limited interest in investigation of college society and culture. For example, of the 416 projects listed, only 12 were stu— dies of college environments or of attitudes and values of college students. With the inception of Centers for the Study of Higher Education, e.g. University of California at Berkeley, University of Michigan, investigations of the college campus are becoming more systematic and are broadening in SCOpe. In 1960, Sprague edited_Rg- search gg College Students, a series of papers pre- sented at the second annual Institute of College Self Study, Sponsored jointly by the Center at Berkeley and the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.5 Two years later, The Study 2f Campus Cultures was pub- lished for the 1962 Institute.6 Anticipating a growing number of similar projects, Newcomb has outlined a pro- gram for administering studies of campus cultures.7 4Carroll H. Miller, ”Foundations," Review of Edu- cationgl Research 33: 143, April 1963. "" ' 5Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Research 93 College Students, Hall T. Sprague (ed.) Boulder, Colorado: The Commission, 1960, 180 pp. 6 , The Study of Campus Cultures, Boulder, Colorado: The Commission, 1962, 190 pp. 7Theodore Newcomb, "Administering Studies of Campus Cultures,” The Stud '2: Cam us Cultures, Boulder, Colo- rado: WICHE, 1 , pp. 91-54. l7 Concurrently, Trow has pointed to the administrative implications of analyses of such studies.8 Thus, the pace of research on the college student society has been quickening. The following review of the literature will focus upon the college student in his campus environment--his attitudes, values, and behavioral patterns. Sections include studies related to "Attitudes and Values," ll ”Housing, and ”Social Interaction.” Attitudes and Values In 1951, Gustad reviewed the literature related to attitude change in college. He concluded that attitudes were subject to change for a wide variety of reasons in— cluding both course work in school and the general uni- versity environment.9 Subsequent to Gustad‘s summary, Jacob reported that the collegiate experience had little effect on changing student attitudes and values. He found no significant changes in student values which could be attributed to either ”the character of the curriculum” or the instructors.10 The method of 8Martin Trow, ”Administrative Implications of Analy- sis of Campus Cultures," The Study_gf Campus Cultures, Boulder, Colorado: WICHE, 1962, pp. 95-112. 9John W. Gustad, "Changes in Social Attitudes and Behavior: A review of the literature,” Educational and Psychological Measurement 11: 87—102, 1951. lOJacob, 9p, cit., pp. 7-9. l8 instruction seemed to have only a minor influence. How— ever, Jacob noted the creation of a "community of values" in some institutions. This created "climate" had a dis- tinct effect on the value orientation of the students. Discussing studies of changing beliefs at Vassar, Antioch, Colgate, and Michigan State, he concluded In general these attitudinal changes re- sulted at the institutions concerned in a well- defined upperclass ”model" of beliefs which emphasized (a) a free market place for ideas, based on reSpect for intelligence and acceptance of a wide diversity of opinions and beliefs, (b) a free melting pot of peoples and cultures, rejecting racial and ethnic stereotypes and discriminatory social barriers... Focusing on the Michigan State study, Jacob observed: Most freshmen tended l) to keep their views if they coincided with the prevailing sentiment of upperclassmen. 2) to change their views if they did not so coincide. The net result was to encourage greater uniformity of outlook as the students progressed through college. In general, the evidence pointed toward "more homogeniety and greater consistency of values among students at the end of their four years" than when they began. Fewer seniors deviated from the accepted norms than did fresh- men. Thus, Jacob concluded that value changes "for most students at most institutions" were not very great and did not support the assumption that a college education had a liberalizing effect. Rather, the impact of higher education was social in nature. In Barton's critique of the Jacob report he ques- tioned both the instrumentation and the conclusions l9 drawn from the data. For example, in analyzing Jacob’s use of the Inventorngf Beliefs, Barton suggested that the Inventory is a measure of "conservatism, fundamental- ism, and prejudice" rather than a measure of values.11 He concluded that: The most reasonable verdict which can now be drawn on Jacob’s overall conclusions of American higher education is one of ”not proven.” (Jacob’s) conclusions are best taken as a set of challenging “hypotheses.” Freedman studied consecutive classes at Vassar College from 1952 to 1956. "Five freshman classes with N's ranging from 430 to 441" were tested in September of the academic year, and ”four senior classes, with N's of 280 on the average” were tested prior to Spring grad- uation. The primary test battery included six hundred seventy—nine true-false items from a variety of personal- ity schedules and scales for measuring ethnocentrism and authoritarianism. Freedman observed a distinguishable student culture on the campus and contended ...that this culture is the prime educational force at work in the college, for...assimila- tion into the student society is the foremost concern of most new students...the scholastic aims and processes of the college are in large measure transmitted to incoming students or mediated for them by the predominant student culture. llAllen H. Barton, Studying the Effects_g£ College Education, New Haven: Hazen Foundation, 1959, p. 39. 13Mervin B. Freedman, ”The Passage Through College," Journal_gf Social Issues 12: 14, 1956. 20 Upon close examination of the initial impact of college upon the student, he prOposed that the freshman year determined the basic orientation of the student to the college and played a major role in developing a pattern of values. Further, he posited The forces of socialization within the student culture have in a sense achieved their maximum effect in the junior year, and it is the juniors who seem to be the chief heirs and transmitters of student culture. They are the torchbearers in this process, the individuals who serve as the chief models upon which lower— classmen will pattern themselves. Moreover, Freedman suggested that the differences in values and general outlook between seniors and freshmen already existed by the junior year. In his opinion, both juniors and seniors shared the value system of the faculty and administration but due to "the imminence of graduation” and a futuristic orientation, the effect of the seniors on the student culture was diminished. Freed- man recommended that a college environment should not shield students from "the necessity for making meaning- ful decisions." Infact, he urged that the predominant student culture be challenged so that students could not get along well by being simply what "they have always been.” He envisioned a parallel between the strong in- fluence of the peer culture upon the student and a sim- ilarly reacting force within the American society as a whole. Goldsen substantiated Freedman's observation 13Ibid., p. 23. 21 based on evidence from the Cornell values Study. She found, for example, that students were "politically disinterested, apathetic, and conservative.”14 In the Fall of 1958, a battery of cognitive and affective tests were administered to freshmen entering Michigan State University. Usable data were obtained from 2,746 students (1,436 males and 1,310 females). Using the Inventory 9: Beliefs and the Differential Values Inventory, the researchers investigated freshman attitudes of stereotypy and value orientation, as well as the factors associated with attitude and value change. In summary, their pertinent findings were: 1) Attitude and value differences were related to religion, rural- urban background, and several familial variables, e.g. father's occupation, educational level of parents; 2) Major changes in attitudes and values appeared to take place during the first two years of college, par— ticularly during the freshman year; 3) There was greater homogeniety of attitudes and values at the end of the senior year than at the beginning of the freshman year; 4) The most significant collegiate experience had been the interaction with peers in the living unit. This interaction was "a potent factor in shaping the attitudes and values of these college students." 5) The peer luRose Goldsen and others, What College Students Think, Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1960, p. 196. 22 group was particularly influential during the first two years of college.15 Thus, Lehmann and Dressel found changing attitudes and values over the four—year period. For the most part, the changes were in a common direc- tion—~1ess stereotypic, more emergent. Moreover, there were differences within various college sub—groups. Payne analyzed Lehmann and Dressel's data and found significant relationships between types of attitude change and father‘s educational level, mother's educa— tional level, and father’s occupational status. She found no significant relationships between change in attitudes and size of home community, religion, size of high school graduating class, or type of secondary school attended. Value changes appeared to be related to parent's educational level and religious preference. Payne concluded that students became less stereotypic and less traditional during their freshman year in college.16 Thus, her findings substantiated those of Lehmann and Dressel. Twomey administered the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Stud of Values to two-hundred eighty randomly selected ____jL________._ 15Irvin J. Lehmann and Paul L. Dressel, Critical Thinking, Attitudes, and Values lg Higher Education, Final Report of Cooperative Research Project No. 590, East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1962, pp. 265-269. l6Isabel K. Payne, The Relationship Between Atti- tudes and values and Selected Background Characteris: tics, unpublished doctor’s thesis, East—LanSIng: fiMIch- igan State University, 1961, pp. 58-59. ..-um- 23 undergraduates at Colorado State College. A comparison of mean scores indicated significant differences between the academic classes. Major changes seemed to take place between the freshman year and the beginning of the junior year.17 Krick used the Inventory_gf Beliefs and the Differ— ential Values Inventory to measure attitudes and values of students at Indiana Central College. Ninety-one senior students were matched with an equal number of freshmen according to sex, place of residence while attending college, size of home community, father’s occupational group, and church affiliation. Scores on the Inventory 2: Beliefs distinguished between groups of students according to size of home community, father's occupation, and church affiliation. No relationships were found between total score and IQ, grade point average, or academic major. The Differential Values Inventory did not differ- entiate between groups. Krick prOposed that differences in value structure may not lend themselves to classifi- cation into the traditional vs. emergent value orientation 17Alfred Eugent Twomey, ,9, Stud 9; Values pi; a Select Grou of Undergraduate Students (Research Study NOT 1 . UnpublIEhed doctor's thesis, Colorado State College, 1962, Abstract: Dissertation Apstracts 23: 3700. 24 as intended by the Differential Values Inventory.18 Using the traditional-emergent continuum, Bidwell found no relationship between value commitment and father's occupation. Religious preference, however, did serve as a differential variable. The Traditionals tended to derive from the "Protestant ethic" while the Emergents fell into the ”Other” religious category, which included atheists, agnostics, humanists, and "members of fringe religious groups other than funda— mentalist sects.”19 Butner submitted a structured questionnaire to three hundred fifty—seven students representative of the stu- dent population at the State University of Iowa. From the values expressed, she concluded that a "value—system” was apparent which tended to coincide with assumed "tra- ditional" values. Moreover, the value-pattern seemed to be changing toward meeting immediate needs (i.e. be- coming more "emergent"). There were no clear value dif— ferences when students were considered according to var- iables such as sex, residence, age, and socio-economic 18Blanche L. Fugate Krick, A Study of Certain values and Attitudes 9; Students _i_n_ _a_._ Liberal Arts College, Unpublishedfidoctor's thesis, Indiana University, 1963, p. 87. 19Charles E. Bidwell and others, "Undergraduate Careers: Alternatives and Determinants,” School_ngiew 71: 302-303, Autumn 1963. ll ll|lll|ltlll I 25 status.20 Arsenian studied college student attitudes and values more than twenty-five years ago and noted that the value patterns of students were affected during their four-year experience. However, the direction of the change was not in complete harmony with the contemporary culture but depended upon the academic ”environment or sub- culture." Arsenian administered the Allport—Vernon EEEQX.2£ values to three successive freshman classes. Although there was a similar value hierarchy for the three consecutive classes, significant changes in value posture took place from the freshman year to the senior year. Students became more liberal, objective, and scientific in their religious attitudes.21 Cantey and Mull substantiated and broadened Ar- senian's conclusions in a study during the same period. They found distinct differences between freshmen and seniors on a questionnaire concerning social issues. Seniors were more "liberal, progressive, (and) democratic” 2OIrma N. Butner, Valuation Expressed Ry College Students Relative 29 Education, Work, Family Life, and Leisure, unpublished doctor's thesis, State UnivErsity o: Iowa,6l956, 443 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 1 : 195 . '77 21Seth Arsenian, "Change in Evaluative Attitudes During Four Years of College," Journal_g£.Applied Psy— chology 27: 347, 1943. 26 in their attitudes than freshmen.22 The results of a recent three-year study of the student body at Bennington College supported the hy— pothesis that the major directions of reported change of values correSpond to ”the predominant themes in the culture pattern of the community.”23 A number of researchers have noted differential patterns of attitudes and values in college. Boldt and Stroud used Harper's test of Social Beliefs and Attitudes and found significant differences between freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors with an ad- vancing trend toward greater liberalism.24 Fox observed differences in attitudes between freshman and upperclass- men at Indiana University (N2 438). 25 Webster found 22Evelyn Cantey and Helen K. Mull, ”A Comparison of Freshmen and Seniors in a Liberal Arts College in ReSpect of Their Understanding of Social Issues, Journal of Social Psyghology 16: 335- -339, 1942. 23Donald Philip Warwick, Socialization and Value Change in a College Community, unpublished doctor’ s thesis, University of Michigan 1963, 301 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 25. M8 21W. J. Boldt and J. B. Stroud, ”Changes in the Attitudes of College Students, " Journal of Educational Psy_hology 25: 611- 619, 1934. ""' 25James Walker Fox, Analysis Of University Image Projection to the Student Public as —Inf1uenced.py Certain Student Characteristics, unpublished doctor' 8 thesis, Indiana University, 1961, 128 pp. Abstract. Disserta- tigp_Abstracts 22: 3039. 1‘ — ‘._. _" n _1 ,_._, .——‘ H m “7+-H ‘1 1H m __1._- A - “k ‘ _~—_ ,fi_ ‘ 27 26 similar differences using the Developmental Scale. Rust and Davie studied differences in reported be— havior of college students by means of a mailed inven- tory. The twenty-three page questionnaire (Reported Behavigr Inventory) was sent to a random sample of eight hundred thirty-three Yale undergraduates. The authors concluded that the greatest differences on the Rgported Behavior Inventory_scales were between fresh— men and seniors. In addition, they found that classes two years apart differed more than adjacent classes. SOphomores and juniors showed the least difference.27 Raab used the Stern Activities Index and the College Characteristics Index and found significant differences in the mean scores of freshmen and juniors on both in- struments.28 Webster observed that seniors scored sig- nificantly lower than freshmen on scales that measured ethnocentrism, authoritarianism, and fundamental re- ligious beliefs.29 Plant also found differences in 26Harold Webster, ”Changes in Attitudes During Coléege,” Journal 2: Educational Psychology 49: 116, 195 . 27Ralph Rust and James S. Davie, "Differences in Behavior Among College Classes," Psychological Reports 12: 419, 1963. 28William Edwin Raab, Congruence and Dissonance Be- tween Need and Press 1p Determining Satisfaction OE—DESL satisfaction la the University EnvironmenthunpubIISHEd' doctor's thesis, Colorado State University, 1963, 156 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 24: 1923. 29Harold Webster, "Some Quantitative Results," Journal 9: Social Issues 12: 30, 1956. ll ll ‘llll'l'l ___~_‘ —-——‘ 28 ethnocentrism between freshmen and seniors. He noted that students became less ethnocentric as they pro- gressed through college.30 Miller administered a questionnaire concerning attitudes toward civil rights, organized labor, and political—economic issues to forty-five hundred eighty- five male students from eleven colleges. Differences were found on a number of dimensions including religion, socio—economic class, political affiliation, type of college attended, and academic class standing.31 Other investigations have found significant differences be- tween academic classes on scales that measure: world- mindedness,32 preference for particular types of coun— seling procedure,33 academic performance,34 and degree 3OWalter T. Plant, "Changes in Ethnocentrism Asso- ciated with a Four-Year College Education," Journal of Educational Psychology 49: 162- 165, 1958. 31Norman Miller, Social Class and value Differences Among American CollegeIStudents, unpublished doctor' 8 thesis, Columbia University, 1958, 251 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 19:593. 32Kar1 C. Garrison, "Worldminded Attitudes of College Students in a Southern University," Journal of Social Psyphology 54: 147-153, June 1961 33Sister Mary Elaine Rogers, The Attitude of Colle e Sophomores and Seniors Toward Counseling Procedures witg Reference to Certain‘Personality Factors afldFPersonal PrOblem Fre uency, unpubliShed doctor' 5 thesis, St. Louis University, 1957, 165 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 18: 503. 34H. L. Roy, ”A Comparison of the Performance of Freshmen and SOphomores in General Psychology,” Psycho- logical Bulletin 42: 371- ~375, 1945 29 of participation in campus activities.35 Hennessey studied fifteen hundred students at twelve mid-western Catholic colleges for women. Three attitude scales were constructed according to the Likert method of summated ratings and the total questionnaire was ad- ministered to the sample. The results indicated signif- icant differences in attitudes between freshmen and seniors toward inter—religious, inter-racial, and socio- economic problems. Significant differences were found between students when grouped according to major, re- ligion, father's occupational level, and home location.36 Studies by Jones37 and Hunter38 both noted liberalization of attitudes as students moved from the first to the fourth year. Howard and Warrington discerned signifi- cant gains in score on the Inventory_gf_Beliefs over 35George Arthur Hyry, Factors Associated With Par- ticipation By Men.;p_Campus Activities 33 g MideeSFEEn College, unpfibIIShed doctor's thesis, University—OP'MIEh- igan, 1957, 205 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 1 : 1302. 36Sister Mary Agnes Hennessey, A Study of the Atti- tudes of College Women Toward SelectEd IntergPOEE—Prob- lems and heir Relation §2_Certain Background Factors; unpublished doctor's thesis, St. Louis University 1958, 234 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 19: 2807. 37Vernon Jones, ”Attitudes of College Students and the Changes in Such Attitudes During Four Years in Col- lege,” Journal of Educational Psyghology 29: 14—25, ll4-l34,‘19387"‘ 38E. 0. Hunter, "Changes in General Attitudes of Women Students During Four Years of College," Journal .2: Social Psychology 16: 283-257, 1942. 30 the four-year collegiate experience.39 Investigations by Siegel}LO Fritz,41 and Plant,42 all found changing attitudes in college. Some researchers have been noticeably cautious in generalizing from their results. Miller used the Allport- Vernon-Lindzey Spugy_g£_Va1ues, the Wechsler-Bellevue Scale (Form II), Rorschach, and some TAT cards to ex- amine changes in college students. Although value changes were evident from the freshman to the senior year, the author concluded that the changes were highly individual and no significant group tendencies were apparent.43 Wright and Scarborough noticed shifts in mean scores on the Kuder Preference Record as students 39Victor Howard and Willard Warrington, "The In- ventory of Beliefs: Changes in Beliefs and Attitudes and Academic Success Prediction,” Personnel and Guidance Journal 37: 299-302, 1958. ’“""“"“‘ uOAlberta Engvall Siegel and Sidney Siegel, "Ref- erence Groups, Membership Groups, and Attitude Change," Journal g£_Abnorma1 and Social Psychology 55: 364, 1957. 41Roger Jay Fritz, A Compgrison of Attitude Differ- ences and Changes of ColIege Freshmen—Men Living In VariouS—Types of HOEsing, unpubliShed doctor's thESis, University of WISconsin, 1956, 125 pp. AEWalter Thomas Plant, Attitude Changes Associated With 3 Two—Year College Egperience, unpublished doctor's thesis,_SIanford University, 1956, 60 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 16: 1232. 43Eleanor 0. Miller, "Non-academic Changes in College Students,” Educgtional Record 40: 118-122, 1959. 31 moved from their freshman to senior year. They cau- tioned, however, that interpretation of the changes was difficult.44 Campbell, in fact, used the Allport-Vernon Scale to study two hundred college students representing various class levels and found no change in mean score from college year to college year.45 Similarly, Ross found no change in attitudes and values of entering college freshmen after their first quarter of resi- dency.46 A number of studies have failed to uncover attitude and value differences between academic classes. Gruen examined differences in self-concept and attitudes of two hundred three commuting students. Only three of eleven scales were able to differentiate between stu- dents grouped according to class standing.47 Smith ouohn C. Wright and Barron B. Scarborough, ”Re— lationship of the Interests of College Freshmen to their Interests as Sophomores and as Seniors," Educational and Psychological Measurement 18: 153-158, 1 5 . 45Doris Klein Campbell, Differences 2: values Among Collegg_Students at Different Class Levels, unpublished dOOLOI'SItheSiS, Ufiiversity of Florida, 1962, 73 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 23: 3809. 45Billy Eugene Ross, g Study of Attitude and Value Ipueterminacy 3p Entering-College'FFeshmen, unpublished doEtorws thesis, University of Tennessee, 1962, 109 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 23: 3262. uIRichard Edouard Gruen, A Study'gg Attitude Change and Change 32 Self-Concept Among Liberal Arts College Students, unpubIIShed doctor‘s thesis, New York Univer- sify, 1963, 172 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 2 : 107 . II— I - M - . a . --.k .__.._._‘ I . .___.‘ _ ~___‘ I ~ ‘ I ' 5. M“ -- ‘ -——-——‘__.___ A! r-_! u o - . - - ‘ _ *‘W M . , fl —V~ ’7 , I ._..‘ . 1 A_‘ ‘ _ l h m- —- ‘ " —._ —‘-‘._~ - ‘ __._‘ w ' i , - t_.._ a I ">H - 'H rh‘A- NH 32 found no differences between classes in attitudes toward the treatment of criminals.”8 Mull was unable to dis— tinguish between classes through use of the Watson Test _g£ Religious Thinking, He suggested, however, that the religious thinking of seniors was more advanced than that of freshmen.49 Sprinthall found no differences between amounts of inner—direction and other-direction when SOphomore, junior, and senior fraternity members were studied.5O Thurstone found no class differences in attitude toward church but cautioned that the research groups ”may not be large enough and our scale may not be sufficiently perfected to make these conclusions final.”51 Gottlieb found relationships between religious preference and various student sub-cultures: academic, vocational, non—conformist, and collegiate.52 Religious 48M. Smith, "Change of Attitude Toward Punishment of Criminals," School and Sopiepy_6l: 236-238, 1945. u9Helen K. Mull, "A Comparison of Religious Think- ing of Freshmen and Seniors in a Liberal Arts College,” Journal 9; §pcial Regeargh 26: 121-123, 1947. SORichard Clark Sprinthall, Social Conformipy in a College Fraternity, unpublished doctor‘s theSIs, BdSLdH University Graduate School, 1958, 86 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 19: 3015. 51L. L. Thurstone and E. J. Chave, The Measurement _g£.Attitude, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929, p. 9. 52David Gottlieb and Benjamin Hodgkins, "College Student Subcultures: Their Structure and Characteris- tics in Relation to Student Attitude Change," School Review 71: 279, Autumn 1963. ‘ ‘ '—‘ ~_ . ' “,l_._‘,_ _ 7‘ - " - - M—_ -‘_‘ 33 groups have also been characterized through measures of motivation53 and achievement.521L Warnath and Fordyce administered the Poe Inventory _9£ Values to two hundred five freshmen and found sig- nificant differences on six of eight scales between students grouped according to academic major.55 Regan reported similar results using the Omnibus Personaligy Inventory_(0PI). Six hundred twenty freshmen at the University of California at Davis responded to the_OPI and could be categorized by academic major.56 Ramirez- Lopez compared scores on the Allport—Vernon-Lindzey Spugy_2£_values of public school teachers, freshmen and senior education majors, and other freshmen express- ing no major. His results showed differences between the freshman groups and similarities between freshman 53Fred Strodtbeck, ”Family Interaction, Values and Achievement,” Talent and Society, David McClelland (ed.), Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1959, p. 151. 54J. Veroff, S. Feld, and G. Gurin, "Achievement Motivation and Religious Background," American Socio- logical Revigw 27: 205-217, 1962. 55Char1es Warnath and Hugh R. Fordyce, "Inventories Values of Entering College Freshmen,” Personnel and Guidance Journal 40: 280, 1961. 56Mary C. Re an, ”Personality Characteristics of College Freshmen,‘ University of California, Davis (mimeographed), 1965, p. 2. 34 and senior education students.57 Hood has noted rela- tionships between differential attrition rates and age as well as father's occupational and educational level.58 And Ramsey observed relationships between academic achieve— ment and several familial variables of nine hundred thirty- eight first-year Harvard Law students.59 Summary In summary, research seems to indicate that attitudes and values are subject to change as a student progresses through college. A number of studies have found differ- ential patterns of attitudes and values when students were viewed according to academic class, religious pref- erence, and a number of familial variables. Further, there is reason to believe that the student sub-culture itself plays a key role in the formulation of the atti- tudes and values of its members. 57Ramon Ramirez—Lopez, A Comparative Study of the Values 33 Teachers, StudentSEp: Education, and OEEe?__ University Students in Puerto Rico, unpublished dodtor‘s thesis, University Of_Texas, 1957, 242 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 17: 2503. 58A1bert Bullard Hood, Certain Non-intellectual Factors Related pp_Student Attrition §E_Cornell Univer— sity, unpublished doctor’s thesis, Cornell UniVersity, 195 , 171 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 17: 2919. 59R. Ramsey, "A Subcultural Approach to Academic Behavior," Journal 2: Educational Sociology 35: 355- 375, 1962. 35 Most investigations have been cross—sectional in nature. The few longitudinal studies have, however, captured a developmental trend in attitude and value formation. Since research has generally focused upon specific campuses, broader generalizations must be considered with caution, particularly when "elite" college populations were used as sample. The use of "paper and pencil” inventories to measure attitudes and values requires close examination of the reliabil— ity and validity of the instruments. The effects of selective retention in measuring the "change” in attitudes and values have not been adequately investigated. There is reason to believe that students become more ”homogeneous" in their attitude and value pattern because the deviant students withdraw before completing the four—year program. Summerskill noted In general...the attrition problems that predominate in the colleges involve the stu- dents' failure to meet the psychological, sociological, or economic demands of the college environment. (p. 637)60 Housing Several studies have focused upon the effects of varied housing experiences on college students. Nasitir 6OJohn Summerskill, "DrOpouts from College," The American College, Nevitt Sanford (ed.) New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962,;p. 627-657. 36 examined the social milieu of the 1959 entering class at the University of California at Berkeley and its effect on academic failure. Total sample size was 2,782. Dormitories were divided into Academic or Non-academic categories by the mean reSponse score of their residents to a question concerning the "purpose of a college edu- cation” scored along an academic to non-academic con- tinuum. Individual students were similarly categorized. Nasitir found that the relation of an individual to his environ was an essential ingredient in the process of failure-—the greater the harmony, the less the failure. He stated that The extent to which the informal life of the individual is spent with other members of his group partaking of their interpretations of life, affects his risk of failure. He shares with his colleagues patterns of expec- tation and behavior-—expectations of scholarly judgment, patterns of preparing for classes-- elements central to academic failure and success. variation in the degree to which individuals are truly a part of the residen- tial context should effect some variation in the relation of individua orientation, con- text and rate of failure. Selvin tested seven hundred eighty—two freshmen at Berkeley to determine the effects of diverse housing on occupational choice. He noted that "the kind of group in which a student lives thus has a decided effect on 61David Nasitir, "A Contextual Analysis of Academic Failure,” School Review 71: 295, Autumn 1963. 37 changes in his career plans as he goes through college.”62 In 1948, DeWitt surveyed eighty-six colleges and universities to determine institutional housing policies. More than two-thirds of the reSpondents favored all— freshmen residence halls rather than mixed-class dormi— tories. Their reSponses were based upon the assumption that freshmen required different treatment by the insti- tution. They felt that separate housing fostered an espirit pp ppppp, stimulated interaction with peers, and protected freshmen from the poor example set by "upperclassmen's tendencies to drink and carouse." Those opposing the all-freshman residence hall sug- gested that mixing the classes helped in the orienta- tion and assimilation of freshmen to the campus cul- ture and believed, moreover, that the upperclassmen served as a good example.63 A recent report of residence halls at Rutgers University noted that freshmen and upperclassmen were housed separately at the institution. With the excep- tion of parking offenses, freshmen were involved in more disciplinary offenses, absences, withdrawals, in— firmary consultations, and psychological consultations than were upperclassmen. The freshmen required closer 62Hanan C. Selvin, "The Impact of University Ex- periences on Occupational Plans,” School Review 71: 328, Autumn 1963. 63Abel F. DeWitt, "Survey of Freshmen Residence Halls in 86 American Colleges and Universities,” Wash— ington State College (mimeographed), 1948, 7 pp. 38 supervision and participated in a more active social program.64 Fairchild also pointed to the need for dif- ferent programs in upperclass and freshman halls.65 Evans and Wilson studied one hundred forty—eight women students in a residence hall at Indiana Univer— sity. They found that roommates and those living close were most named as friendship choices. Freshmen women more often selected other freshmen as friends (78 per- cent of the time) and juniors and seniors tended to select other upperclassmen (82 percent of the time). However, students of similar class standing were gen- erally assigned as roommates. The researchers noted that ...only 12 freshmen had upperclass roommates, but these mixed class assignments had been fairly successful. All but one of these fresh- men and three of the upperclassmen included their roommates in their list of friends. Only one of the sixteen known room changes of the year had involved an original assignment of freshman and upperclassman. 61‘LRutgers, The State University "Report of Resi- dence Hall Committee,” (mimeographed), 1964, 8 pp. plus appendices and tabled. 65Ellen Fairchild, "Current Problems and Programs in Residence Halls,” Journa1_p£ National Association 9: Women Deans and Counselors 24: 148, April 1961. 66M. Catherine Evans and Margaret Wilson, "Friend- ship Choices of University Women Students,” Educational and Psychological Measurement 9: 309, Autumn 1949. 39 They prOposed that The success of most of the mixed—class roommates assignments illustrates that friend- ships do develop between freshmen and upper- classmen when they are thrown in close contact and proximity to each other. However, class in the university was a significant factor in the formation of friendships. It was interesting to note that more than ninety percent of the freshmen who roomed with upperclassmen (11 of 12) selected them as friendship choices compared with seventy— eight percent of the freshmen who roomed with and selec- ted other freshmen. The authors suggested that class was an important factor in friendship choices. However, where students were not housed by class, they selected as friends those with whom they lived, disregarding class standing. Summary Although research on housing, pg; pp, is Sparse, the few probing investigations indicate that type of residence plays an important role in determining the type of exper- ience to which a student will be exposed. The housing assignment, in a residential college, places a student in direct contact with a particular group of other students. The role of proximity in the formulation of peer groups has been clearly shown by Newcomb and others.67 Thus, 67Theodore Newcomb, The Acquaintance Process, New York: Holt, Reinhardt and Winston, 1961. 40 the attitudes and values of a student will be affected by the attitudes and values of those students with whom he comes into contact. Considering different needs of freshmen and of upperclassmen, many institutions house students accord- ing to their class standing. There is, however, little evidence to support either a policy of separate housing or mixed housing. Before there can be any understanding of the real effects of housing upon the student, more extensive, longitudinal research is necessary. Social Interaction Several studies have recognized the strong influence of the peer group on the behavior of the individual mem- ber. The widespread effect and strength of this influ- ence in the face of other considerations is poignantly presented in Coleman's The Agplescent Society. Pressures from the school, the family, and the community were sub- ordinated to those from the student society.68 Fes- tinger69 and Newcomb,7O among others, have confirmed 68James Coleman, The Adolescent Society, New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961, 368 pp. 69Leon Festinger, Stanley Schachter, and Kurt Back, Social Pressures in Informal Groups, Stanford University Press, 1963, 197'pp., p. 7. 7OTheodore Newcomb, ”Student Peer—Group Influence," The American College, Nevitt Sanford (ed.), New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962, 471—472. 41 the existence of these group influences. Evidence from one hundred fifty-one undergraduates studied in isolation and in social context supported the hypothesis that ”the higher a person perceives the competence of others to be in relation to his own, the greater the likelihood that he will conform.” In this study, students were asked to solve a number of problems and were mis-informed of the competence of others in their group. To measure the degree of conformity, their responses in isolation were compared with their reSponses in the social context. Reductions in accuracy from the former to the latter situation resulted due to their apparent willingness to agree with incorrect others. The writer concluded that ”knowledge of the relation of others to (one’s) own competence is of critical im- portance in predicting and understanding conformity be— havior and is far more valuable than knowledge about either one's own or other's level of competence."71 Similar results were found in research reported by Kelley and Thibaut.72 71Stanley Alan Fagen, Conformity and the Relations Between Others' Competence and Own COmpeIence, unpubliShed dodtOr’s thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1963, 187 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 24: 1729. 72Harold H. Kelley and John W. Thibaut, ”Experi- mental Studies of Group Problem Solving and Process,” Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 11, Cambridge: Addison—Wesley Publishing Co., 1954, 767. 42 Dittes and Kelley studied one hundred three Yale freshmen and found differences in conformity based upon varying degrees of motivation. Those most adhering to group norms actively sought acceptance by the group.73 Strickland and Crowne obtained like results and con— cluded that individuals seeking social approval will distort their judgments in response to group pressures.74 Cross administered an Opinion questionnaire con- cerning local campus and sorority affairs to eight hun— dred members of twenty-Six national sororities. A per— cent—agreement score was obtained for each subject by comparing the individual's reSponses with the responses of the group. Four months later, the questionnaire was readministered after the students were informed of the modal Opinions of the first administration. A conformity index was Obtained on the second testing which measured the extent to which individuals accepted the indicated Opinions of the group on the earlier administration. Cross concluded that when norms are made known, conformity 73James E. Dittes, and Harold H. Kelley, ”Effects Of Different Conditions Of Acceptance Upon Conformity to Group Norms, " Journal Of Abnormal and Social Psychol- pgy_53:107, 1955 74Bonnie R. Strickland and Douglas P. Crowne, "Con- formity Under Conditions of Simulated Group Pressure as a Function of the Need for Social Approval, ” Journal Of Social Psychology 58: 171—181,1962. 43 does occur in real social groups.75 Torrance closely examined the effects Of exper- ienced members of small groups on inexperienced mem- bers was exerted when there existed either a majority of experienced members with favorable reactions or an individual leader or high status member with expressed favorable experiences. Torrance further suggested that "under the latter condition those with previous unfavor- able experiences may markedly modify their own reactions in a more favorable direction.”76 Heinicke and Bales agreed with Torrance. In their study, group members with unchallenged high status played a major role in setting the acceptable standard.77 Eddy has proposed that ...students adopt their habits of thought and action from that group which happens to be closest to them. They ”take on” the attitudes Of those with whom they live and with whom they spend their social hours. In a residential college this happens to be the peer group...7 75Kathryn Patricia Cross, A Field Study Of Individual Conformity pp Groupgpinion, unpublished doctOP's thesis, University Of Illinois, 1958, 106 pp. Abstract: Disser- tation Abstracpp 19: 1133. 76E. Paul Torrance, "The Influence of Experienced Members of Small Groups on the Behavior of the Inexper— ienced,” Journal 2: Social Ppychology 49: 255, May 1959. 77C. Heinicke and R. F. Bales, "Developmental Trends in the Structure Of Small Groups,” Sociometry 16: 7-38, 1953- 78Edward D. Eddy, Jr., The College Influence pp Student Character, Washington, D. 0.: American Council on Educafion, 1959, p. 137. 44 Focusing on student interaction in a residential setting, King has suggested that in larger dormitories it is the size of the dormitory 2213 rather than the entire dormitory that effects the size of friendship groups.79 Thus, both Eddy and King concurred with Newcomb's thesis concerning the role of propinquity in fostering affective relationships. Byrne and Buehler found that students occupying neighboring seats were more likely to become acquainted than classmates in general.80 Schallenberg collected sociometric data and inventoried personal values of thirty-four college men. The results supported the hypothesis that social choice was related to Similarity of personal values.81 Hollander and Webb concluded that peer nominations on leadership were not totally related to friendship. In fact, they noted that friend- ship played a minor role in the selection of leaders.82 79Jonathan King, "Campus Cultures and the Cultured Campus,” The Study 93 Campus Cultures, Terry F. Lunsford (ed.) Boulder, Colorado: WICHE, 1962, p. 134. 80Donn Byrne and John A. Buehler, ”A Note on the Influence Of PrOpinquity Upon Acquaintanceships,” Journal p£_Abnorma1 and Social Psychology 51: 147—148, 1955. 81James A. Schallenberg, "Social Choice and Similar- ity of Personal Values,” Sociology_and Social Research 41: 270-273: 1957- 82E. P. Hollander and Wilse B. Webb, ”Leadership, Followership, and Friendship: An Analysis of Peer Nom- inations," Journal of Abnormal and Social Ppyphology 50: 163-1673'1955.’"' 45 Summary The several studies noted in this section consider the effects of the interaction between groups and in- dividuals. The evidence supports the thesis that in- dividuals are particularly influenced through their relationships with peers. It seems clear that in social situations students will tend to conform to the prevailing environment. Research dealing with group interaction and conforming behavior has been quite extensive and, to a great degree, longitudinal. Conclusion The study of campus cultures is relatively new in the study of higher education. Evidence seems to support the thesis that a distinct student culture (or several sub—cultures) exists and that it has a profound effect on shaping the attitudes and values of its members. New students are most affected by the dominant student society through frequent interaction with experienced members. The attitudes and values that they bring with them to college soon undergo change,particular1y during the first year. Thus, those with whom the freshmen interact are influential in determining their future attitude and value pattern. 46 In general, the freshmen become more liberal in their attitudes and less traditional in their values. They become more alike as they proceed through the college experience. But is this because they accept initiation into the student culture and thus willingly conform to a campus pervading standard? A number of familial, religious, and rural—urban differences appear to have diverse effects upon attitude and value formation. Further, there is some evidence that students who do not follow the dominant group develop a different behavioral pattern. Several stu- dies have shown that the composition Of the group with which a student lives and interacts influence his poten- tial rate of academic failure and his career plans. And the size Of the group and the physical location of the members are influential in determining friend- ship choices. The lack Of understanding of the real effects Of housing on student behavior, attitudes, and values suggest the need for extensive longitudinal research. The tendency for students to conform to the dominant milieu further emphasizes the need to understand the process Of interaction between individual and group. The present study is an investigation of the effects Of differential housing, and thus the effects of different 47 sub—groups, upon the attitudes and values of freshmen students. A description of the sample and the methodol- ogy employed will be given in the following chapter. CHAPTER III ngulation and Methodology Introduction This investigation took place at a large mid-western state university during the 1964-65 academic year. The institution is primarily a residential university with the majority Of the students living in university—owned and Operated residence halls. Living Arrangements The living arrangements of the resident students varied, depending upon the structure of the residence unit. On some residence corridors, there were rows of double or triple rooms with a central bathroom area for general use. On other corridors, there were series of double or triple rooms which shared bathroom facilities, i.e. two rooms would be separated by and share a bath— room. Freshman students not residing within commuting distance of the University were required to live in a residence hall. They were ordinarily assigned to resi- dence halls on a random, rotating basis. Some freshmen were assigned to residence hall A, some to B, to C, and 49 so on, until additional assignments were made to hall A and the cycle continued. Once assigned to a particular hall, freshmen were assigned to Specific corridors (floors) on a random basis. Efforts were generally made to house freshman students in rooms with other freshmen, although it was quite common to find both freshmen and upperclass- men (sophomores, juniors, and seniors) living on the same corridor. The corridors are commonly referred to as Houses or Precincts. The Houses or Precincts within the residence hall represented the basic living unit. Activities, student government, social interaction, and primary friendship choices usually originated at this living unit level. Sample The pOpulation under study had the following three male college freshmen first-time enrolled living in University residence halls (as delineated below) 2 3 characteristics in common: (1 During the period Of the study, the University Operated fourteen undergraduate residence halls for men. The halls were grouped in five different locations on campus. Each group was considered to be a separate resi- dence complex. The housing arrangements in each complex varied slightly due to structural differences. Although freshmen were assigned to each of the residence halls, 50 some halls had a greater (or lesser) number of fresh— men than others based upon the availability Of space for new students.1 Two residence halls were omitted from the investi— gation because plans to occupy these buildings were formulated after testing procedures and samples were delineated.2 A third residence hall was omitted from the study because it housed a large number of students enrolled in a Special short—course program which, it was assumed, might have an extraneous effect on the study sample.3 In the early summer preceding the academic year which represented the investigation period, housing assignment rosters were examined to delineate the study sample. Each of the eleven residence halls which housed the population under study (with the exceptions noted above) were divided into House or Precinct units.l1L Depending upon the physical structure of the residence hall, there were between eight and twelve residence lReturning upperclassmen were given housing priority in the residence halls. Remaining Spaces were assigned to freshmen. 2Abbot and Snyder Halls. The two represented a residence complex. 3Armstrong Hall. 4Akers, East; Bailey; Case, South; Emmons; Fee, West; McDonald, West; Shaw, East; Shaw, West. 51 units (Houses or Precincts) in each residence hall. Since the residence unit was considered to represent the fundamental interaction environ for the subjects, it was designated as the functional housing unit for research purposes. In other words, in delineating the study sample, consideration was given to each residence unit within those residence halls designated as repre- sentative of the study population. Student assignments to the one hundred sixteen residence units within the eleven residence halls were examined in an effort to secure a representative study sample. In each unit there were a number of upperclass- men together with a specified number of newly assigned freshmen, with two exceptions. In these latter instances, two units were solely used for housing freshmen (i.e. no upperclassmen were present). Altogether, approximately forty-eight percent of the University’s resident popu- lation were upperclassmen and fifty—two percent were freshmen. From the residence units under consideration, three study groups were identified. Those residence units which had a prOportion of upperclassmen greater than the total University proportion were considered to be Upperclass units (Houses or Precincts). Those residence units which housed a greater number of fresh- men than the total University proportion were designated 52 as Freshman units. And those residence units which housed both upperclassmen and freshmen in a prOportion equal to the total University ratio were designated University-ratio units. Inasmuch as the purpose of the study was to examine the attitudes, values, and selected behavioral charac— teristics that develOp when freshmen are exposed to a predominantly upperclass environment as Opposed to a predominantly freshman environment, the selection Of residence units which adequately reflected these en- vironments became a crucial but most difficult task.5 Those residence units which had the greatest num- ber Of upperclassmen interacting with the freshmen re— siding within the unit were considered to be most repre- sentative Of an upperclass environment. They were then selected as the sample Upperclass units. Those residence units which had the fewest number Of upperclassmen interacting with the freshmen in the unit were considered to be most representative of a freshman environment. They were then selected as the sample Freshman units. Those residence units in which the number of upper— classmen and freshmen most closely approximated the 5In this instance, the term "environment” is used synonymously with "sub—culture." 53 total-University residence ratio were considered to reflect neither an upperclass nor a freshman environ- ment. They were then selected as the sample University— ratio units. In the selection of the sample units, one otherlac- tor was considered. Sample residence units were drawn from each residence complex. The purpose Of this con- sideration was to attempt to randomize the effects of those variables which might be related to differences between residence complexes upon the total study sample, e.g. location, living arrangement, residence hall facil- ities, etc. Based upon the conditions outlined, eleven ypperclass residence units were identified, six Fresh— man units, and two University-ratio units. The Experimental Group was composed Of those fresh- men residing within Upperclass residence units. Thus, the freshmen in the Experimental Group were exposed to a predominantly upperclass environment (sub-culture). The Control Group consisted of those freshmen residing within freshman residence units. Hence, the freshmen in the Control Group were not exposed to the prevailing upperclass environment but rather to a predominantly freshman environment. A secondary Control Group consisted of those fresh— men who were living in the University-ratio residence units. These students were considered to be subjected 54 to neither a predominantly upperclass nor a predominantly freshman environment. Table 3.1 outlines the potential study sample. Table 3.1 Number of Residence Units, Upperclassmen, and Freshmen in Potential Study Sample Residence Unit Ngnigg Upperclassmen Freshmen Total Upperclass 11 418 155 573 Freshman 6 26 304 330 University-ratio 2 43 47 90 Total I9. 95?. Eag- .5§§ Of the nine hundred ninety—three students who resided within the selected residence units, seven hundred twenty actually participated in the pre—testing program. The pre-test sample is summarized in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 Number of Residence Units, Upperclassmen, and Freshmen in Pre-test Study Sample NO. Of Residence Unit Units Upperclassmen Freshmen Total Upperclass 11 261 129 390 Freshman 6 37 226 263 University-ratio 2 36 31 67 * Total 19 .334 .386 720 Hfi -‘. 55 Of the seven hundred twenty students who parti- cipated in the pre-testing, four hundred sixty—seven also completed the post-tests. This latter group was considered to be the actual study sample. The make-up Of the actual study sample is presented in Table 3.3. Table 3.3 Number Of Residence Units, Upperclassmen, and Freshmen in Actual Study Sample No. of Residence Unit Units Upperclassmen Freshmen Total Upperclass 11 171 71 242 Freshman 6 26 152 178 University-ratio 2 23 24 47 Total 19 220 247 467 A detailed description of the study sample size and the changes that took place is presented in Table 3.4. Approximately seventy-three percent (N=720) of the potential study Sample participated in the pre-testing. However, there were two hundred fifty-eight students who did not participate in the pre-testing program. A number of reasons may account for this non-participation, in- cluding: 1. The University schedules both day and eve- ning classes. It is possible that the test- ing session was in conflict with a scheduled class, library assignment, or study schedule. 56 2. Many residence hall students work during the evening hours, thus, a conflict with a work-schedule may have occurred. 3. Participation in the study was voluntary Therefore, some students may have simply preferred not to participate. Table 3.4 Changes in Study Sample Size Potential Study Sample 993 Students withdrawn from University before classes began 8 Short Course Agricultural Students living in Sample Units 7 Non—participants (Pre-test) 258 — 273 Pre-test Sample 720 Left school prior to post—test 116 Moved to different Residence Unit 74 — 190 Students Available for Post-test 530 Non-participants (Post-test) - 48 Participants in Pre- and Post-tests 482 Incomplete reSponses - voided - 15 Actual Study Sample 467 Approximately twenty-six percent (N-190) of the pre-test sample were not available to even participate in the post-test. The frequent changes in residence which occur between residence units, combined with the large numbers of students who left school prior to the completion of the academic year, reduced to five hun- dred-thirty the number Of subjects who were available and eligible (i.e. had taken the pre—test) to participate 57 in the second testing. Of those available and eligible, approximately ninety-one percent (N2482) did participate. Those who did not participate may not have done so be- cause Of reasons similar to those already stated, above. A small number Of incomplete reSponses could not be used (N215) and were voided, thus bringing the final sample Size to four hundred sixty-seven, or eighty-eight per- cent of the available and eligible subjects. Instrumentation Two testing instruments were utilized in the study. The Inventory 23 Beliefs (IB) was used to measure the attitude structure Of the subjects, while the Differen- tial Values Inventory (DVI) served to measure the sub— jects' values pattern. Both inventories are easily administered within a total period of one hour (IB in approximately thirty minutes; DVI in twenty to thirty minutes). In addition, the instructions, format, and scoring of these instru— ments are notably simple. Both instruments have been used in similar studies Of college students and, on occasion, they have been used together to determine attitudes and values patterns. Ipventory pf_Beliefs The Inventory p§_Beliefs was developed by the 58 Inter-College Committee on Attitudes, Values, and Per- sonal Adjustment Of the Cooperative Study Of Evaluation in General Education. The members Of the Committee |"were interested in the total impact of college on students rather than with the outcomes of Specific courses." The fundamental assumption underlying the Inventory pp Beliefs is that the objectives of general education can serve as a base from which may be inferred the model organization charac— terizing the personalities of those most agapt- able to the purposes Of general education. The IB consists Of one hundred-twenty ”pseudo— rational, cliche—like statements (which reflect) ex- pressions of ideas, concepts, notions, etc." which are regarded as at variance with the Objectives Of teach- ing, such as: "(a) the solution to today‘s problems will all be found in the lessons of history. (b) Sci- ence has brought society to the brink of disaster. (c) Most artists are effeminate. (d) Children should be seen and not heard." Approximately one thousand statements of this kind were collected from faculty members in the twenty par- ticipating colleges and universities. Additional state- ments were secured from published questionnaires, inven— tories, and personality tests. These items were then sorted, classified, and screened in order to secure those 6American Council on Education, Inventory_p§_Beliefs, Instructor's Manual, 1953, p. 4. 59 items included in the present form. The subject is asked to reSpond to each statement in the Inventopy, as follows: strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree. The instrument is scored by giving one point to each ”dis- agree" or ”strongly disagree” reSponse. In commenting upon this technique of measuring atti— tudes, Thurstone noted that the ”statement” scale was not as sensitive as the paired-comparison procedure. Al- beit, he felt that ”for rough survey purposes, the atti- tude (statement) scales are useful."7 The IB expands upon the statement technique of eliciting the subjects' reSponse of acceptance or rejection by allowing for de— grees of acceptance or rejection. In general, the IB is a measure of student tenden- cies toward ideocentrism, ethnocentrism, sociocentrism, and egocentrism. The instrument is designed to distin— guish those students who tend toward accepting stereotypes and who are dependent and rigid in their attitudes and be- liefs, from those who are more mature in their vieWpOints and more flexible in their beliefs and attitudes. Thus, with a possible score ranging from 0-120, a high score denotes maturity, flexibility, and a democratic manner in relationships with others. A low score reflects im- maturity, rigidity in outlook, and a tendency toward 7L. L. Thurstone, "The measurement Of values,“ Psychological Review, 61, #1, 1954, p, 52, 6O compulsive and authoritarian relationships with others. The authors of the IB suggest that it ...can be used to Show the impact of college experience upon students if the test is ad— ministered at the beginning of an academic year and repeated after any desired period of time. The difference between pre- and post-test scores will then reflect major changes in students' attitudes... Indeed, there is much reason to believe that many non—curricular aspects of the college en- vironment (dormitory living, out-Of-class activities, participation in organized stu— dent groups) may affect the total pattern of a student's attitudes and beliefs as much as anything to which he is exposed in the classroom. Thirty reliability studies yielded coefficients ranging from .68 to .95 with a median of .86. All but one of the studies utilized college freshmen. The ex- ception involved college seniors. The study groups ranged from eighteen to three hundred seventy students, with most involving groups in excess Of one hundred. In discussing the IB, Barton noted that it "... must be considered as measuring the extent to which people adhere to a certain American pattern of 'small- town' conservatism, fundamentalism, and prejudice, rather than as a broad value—measuring instrument."9 8American Council on Education, pp, cit. 9Allen H. Barton, Studying the Effects 93 College Education, New Haven: Hazen Foundation, I959, p. 85. 61 Several studies, most notably those of Lehmann and Dressel, and Howard and Warrington, used the IE to mea- sure student attitudes and found it to be a useful re- search instrument.lo Differential Values Inventory The Differential Values Inventory is based upon Spindler's prOposition that the American value system is a dichotomy of traditional values versus emergent values.11 In developing the DVI, Prince prOposed that a subjects' reSponses to the sixty—four paired state- ments in the Inventory would determine his value orien- tation along a traditional-emergent continuum. The in— strument itself forces the reSpondent to choose between a traditional and an emergent alternative on each of lOIrvin J. Lehmann and Paul L. Dressel, Critical Thinking, Attitudes and values 1p Higher Education, Final Report of Cooperative Research Project No. 590, East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1962. Victor Howard and Willard Warrington, "The In- ventory Of Beliefs: Changes in beliefs and attitudes and academic success prediction," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1958, 37, 299-302. Blanche L. Fugate Krick, ”A Study Of Certain Values and Attitudes of Students in a Liberal Arts Col— lege," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana Uni- versity, June, 1963. 11George Spindler, ”Education in a Transforming American Culture,” Haryapd Educational Review, XXV,-#3 (Summer, 1955), 156. 62 the items.12 The value score is obtained by totaling the number of "traditional" reSponses. Thus, a high scorer is considered to be more traditional in his value orientation than a low scorer. Conversely, the low scorer is considered to be more emergent in his value orientation than a high scorer. The scores may range from 0 to 64. Prince combined some Of Spindler's categories and Obtained four traditional and four emergent values as shown on page 63. The reliability of the traditional—value score is .75. The test-retest reliability is .7O.13 Several investigations have used the DVI to determine value patterns. In their extensive study, Lehmann and Dressel found that the DVI was able to distinguish dif- ferences in the value orientation of their subjects. 0n the other hand, Krick noted that although no differ— ences could be identified within her study sample, using the DVI, values might not lend themselves to a tradi— tional—emergent classification. l2Thurstone recommended the use of the paired-com- parison method in measuring attitudes and values through subject reSponseS. He used a paired-statement question- naire in his study Of moral values. See: Thurstone, 22- cit-, pp. 52-53. 13Lehmann and Dressel, 92: cit., p. 29. fioosom swmaoonom esp mmsoaamno medam> wsflwsmno: «maonpow pooch whoa mp «msgp a mom QOHpmpmcflmQOo: .mQAImm .Asmma .msesamv >xq .zoesom "mew .Uocfloh ma HSMOms mflwoz use UMpmHmn mammoao ohms :msosw map Op thSsOMQOQ: one :msmnpo I m Sam> pzm swam m>HM esp no 03p wasp comOQOHQ m: «handHHSHm soo on games moss page ceases se amassed on ones .eosas :nsOHpmpsmfiso pcoso>oflgo HsQOHpHUmpp o>a% .msmacsflam Mo 03p pmnp powwomem mammpowsa .an wsfl>ms can memos wcflcsmam CO mwmmsmso azosw use thHmQOmsmm coosmamn UmcssosIHHms use no mpflsfla CSP Qflnpfls Istmmmsm oSp SOwco UHSOSm CEO wosommsmnp .UHOQ HHMS oasesn esp pens damp smo oco 02 I soapmpoofiso CEHpIpsOmopngmHsocmm .wwcfldmo% samnp use msonpo p09 csmwos Spas econ on UHSOSm meow oco wsfinphso>m .Hmom owns IHpHS ogp mfi hfloEpms Qsosw .Qsosm esp Op o>HpmHms ma wgflgphsm>m I moflssomsoo .ssmes ma mxsflnp msosw one pass mH mpflamsoz .mHQmQOHpmmsu mam wcoss use Mummy cm mopsaomp< I oUSPprm aspos OHpmH>Hpmfimm .sOfiOfimmSm Qpflz moms cmeOH one mmflpfl>flpom hump Inflow .smsp spas Hams wsoam pow Use oedema oxen easose one I seeaeoeeoom mosam> psowhmsm .mASpsp map as cosflmw on Op msOHposnmflpmm sop common an puss memos psommsm .psmpSOdsH pmos mm spoomopm esp Qo>o so mpmmm mflp pom «mazesm one I COHPmPQCAHO meapICMSPSM .zpflamsfimflso can mocopsommcsfl mQOflp Iosmm msam> esp Egon sofinpamog mpfl CH .mpsmfla m.mHQOOQ ponpo pom csmwmsmflc use whosoflcmaxo napHOHspsmoowo mQOHpocmm mSHm> mane anon msospxm oso CH .dSosw esp camp psmppomsfl egos massam use cmsomm mH Hmscfl>flcqfl one I Emflamscfl>HOQH .npsos samsp mo mo>aomso£p moqfi>soo Op hamSOHpsmo Use hampmsoammo x903 pmse mamomm .moHSOHw when so wcflpmos on ma whose .Hmow psmpquO m mH mmtooSm .nmsoso can: moans on ma non esp Op pow smo os0%Q< .Om msooop on when Mp0: oaaooa stmmmoosm I Ofinpo mmmouSmesoz .paazm mo mwsflaomp «msmcao pom poommmm «psflmspmsoo Hmsxom namflcocImaoMIMpaflsnp .aseeessneoanem I soeeesoz steeped nonfim> HmQOHpflnmnB #fi 63 64 Nejedlo, in a thorough analysis Of the DVI, noted that the items did attempt to measure traditional versus emergent values. He concluded, however, that the instru- ment did not have the same structure as the authors had hypothesized. In particular, Nejedlo found that some of the DVI items were not clearly related to a Single category but appeared to overlap to a degree. He cau- tioned that it was " ...very likely that we have not yet isolated all those factors which are components of our value systems.”15 In another item analysis of the DVI, Abbot found that nineteen items failed to discriminate at the five percent level. He noted, however, that none of these items had yielded a negative coefficient and implied that ”each item on the original inventory had actually made a positive contribution to the total score.”16 Hypptheses A series of hypotheses have been develOped from the 15Robert John Nejedlo, "value orientations and school counselor role expectations—~A comparative study Of school counselors and their administrators," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1964, p. 149. 16M. G. Abbot, "values and value perceptions of school superintendents and board members,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1960, pp. 19-20, as noted in Nejedlo, Op. cit., p. 66 65 research questions raised in Chapter I. These hypotheses will be tested and the results will be presented in Chap- ter IV. 1. The attitudes and beliefs of the freshmen in the Upperclass residence units will be more mature and adaptable than the fresh- men in the Freshman residence units or in the University-ratio residence units, as measured by the Inventory 2: Beliefs. The values Of the freshmen in the Upperclass residence units will be more emergent (thus, less traditional) than the values of the freshmen in the Freshman residence units or in the University-ratio residence units, as measured by the Differential Values Inven- tory. Freshmen in the Upperclass residence units will have a higher grade point average at the end of the Treatment period than will freshmen in the Freshman residence units or in the University—ratio residence units.l7 Fewer freshmen in the Upperclass residence units will be placed on academic probation than in the Freshman residence units or in the University-ratio residence units. Fewer freshmen in the Upperclass residence units will leave school (voluntarily or be- cause of dismissal) during the Treatment period than in the Freshman residence units or in the University-ratio residence units. Fewer freshmen in the Upperclass residence units will achieve high academic honors (Dean's List) than in the Freshman residence units or in the University-ratio residence units. 17The Treatment, as noted earlier, is considered to be exposure to a primarily upperclass residence environ- ment for a period of one academic year. 66 7. Fewer freshmen in the Upperclass residence units will be involved in major disciplinary actions than in the Freshman residence units or in the University-ratio residence units. 8. Freshmen in the Upperclass residence units will perceive their units as quieter and more conducive to study than will freshmen in the Freshman residence units or in the University— ratio residence units. 9. Freshmen in the Upperclass residence units will indicate to a greater degree overall satisfaction with their residence unit ex- perience than will freshmen in the Freshman residence units or in the University-ratio residence units. Procedure At the beginning Of the first term of the academic year, the students residing within the selected residence units were asked to participate in a study of student attitudes and values.18 The two questionnaires were 18An initial contact was made through the Office Of the Dean Of Students in order to secure the assistance and support Of the Office of Residence Hall Programs. The latter Office was reSponsible for the administration of all non-academic and non—business aspects of residence halls. Through this Office, communications concerning the purpose and format of the study were transmitted to the directors (Head Resident Advisors) Of the several residence halls which contained the units (Houses or Precincts) included in the study. Several direct con- tacts were made with the Head Resident Advisors and, through them, with the Resident Assistants (the reSpon— sible administrative person within the residence unit) in order to explain the design of the study and to form- ulate a procedure to secure the necessary data. Subse- quently, at a residence unit meeting, The Resident Assist- ant informed the students about the study and requested their assistance in completing the attitudes and values inventories. A Specific "testing” period was designated. Sometime after the unit meeting but before the testing 57 administered together with a form which requested some personal data from each subject (see Appendix A). After a general, introductory comment about the study, the students were asked to complete the DVI first, then the IB, and finally the personal data form. The students reSponded to the IB and the DVI on standard IBM-type answer sheets, using special scoring pencils. Each stu- dent could leave the "testing" room when the three forms were completed. Although a few students were able to complete the forms in thirty minutes, and some required abOut ninety minutes, the modal time required ranged between sixty and seventy minutes. In addition to the reSponses to the three questionnaires, the total score on the CQT (College Qualification Test) was Obtained for each subject in the sample. The IB and DVI answer Sheets were machine scored and the scores were placed on separate punched cards together with the students' identification number. These scores, together with the total CQT score were then transferred to a "pre-test" master deck. The personal information collected was period, a form letter was directed to each student re- questing his participation in the study and reminding him Of the time and location. The pre—test period was sche- duled to be held during a specific evening in each Of the eight residence halls. Although this necessitated several‘testing'periods and locations, it was assumed that the ease of participation would encourage a greater number of subjects to participate. A "make-up” testing session was held several days after the initial session to allow for further participation. 68 coded and then punched into the "pre-test” master deck. Each card in the deck represented the scores and responses of a single student and identified him by his student number. At the end of the last term of the academic year, similar arrangements were made for a second administra- tion of the IB and DVI. Additionally, the subjects were asked to reSpond to four questions on a supplementary form (see Appendix B). A "post-test" master deck was Obtained in the same manner as the ”pre—test" deck. The following information concerning the subjects was secured, coded, and punched into the ”post-test” master deck: 1 Each students' cumulative grade point average; 2) number Of freshmen placed on academic proba- tion, by residence unit group; 3) number Of freshmen leaving school before the end Of the academic year, by residence group; 4) number of freshmen placed on Dean's List, by residence unit group; 5) number of freshmen involved in major disci- plinary actions, by residence unit group.l9 Finally, the ”pre—test" and the "post—test" master decks were merged into one combined (total) master deck. Thus, each subject was characterized by two punched cards. 19Major disciplinary action was defined by the Uni- versity as: expulsion, suSpension, and strict discipli- nary probation. 69 Analyses p£_the Data In order to analyze the data in a reasonably logical manner and to establish an orderly sequence of analyses leading to the statistical testing Of the hypotheses, five groups Of analyses were outlined, as follows: 1. The sample freshmen were compared and equated at the beginning of the Treatment period in order to determine whether initial differences existed. The comparisons were made on the following variables: (a) Total CQT score; b Initial responses to the attitude scale (IB pre-test); (c) Initial reSponses to the values scale (DVI pre—test); (d) ReSponses relating to the quality Of the anticipated residence experience; The upperclass groups were compared and equated at the beginning of the Treatment period in order to determine whether initial differences existed. These comparisons were made on the following variables: a) Initial responses to the attitude scale (IB pre—test); (b) Initial responses to the values scale (DVI pre-test); The sample freshmen were compared with the upperclassmen at the beginning of the Treat- ment period in order to determine whether initial differences existed between the groups. The comparisons were made on the following variables: (a) Initial reSponses to the attitude scale (IB pre—test); (b) Initial reSponses to the values scale (DVI pre—test; The sample freshman groups were compared at the end of the Treatmepp period to determine whethe‘? the hypothesized changes and dlffer- ences had, in fact, occurred. The analyses 70 were performed so that they would allow for a statistical consideration of each Of the hypotheses, as follows: (a) The sample freshman groups were compared on relative attitudes, as measured by post-test scores on the Inventory of Be- liefs. (Hypothesis 1) "‘ “"— (b) The sample freshman groups were compared on relative values, as measured by post- test scores on the Differential Values Inventory. (Hypothesis 2) (c) The sample freshman groups were compared on the following characteristics: 1 grade point average (Hypothesis 3) ii number placed on academic probation (Hypothesis 4) iii) number leaving school prior to end of academic year (Hypothesis 5) iv) number placed on Dean's List (Hypothe- sis 6) v) number involved in major discipli— nary action (Hypothesis 7) (d) The sample freshman groups were compared on their responses to inquiries regarding: i) how quiet and conducive to study they viewed their residence unit (Hypothe- sis 8) ii) their satisfaction with their overall residence experience (Hypothesis 9) The freshmen who completed both the pre- and post-tests were compared with the freshmen who completed the pre-tests only, to determlne whether any initial differences existed between the groups. Similarly, the upperclassmen who completed the pre- and post—tests were compared with the upperclassmen who completed the pre- tests only. The comparisons were made on the following variables: (a) Initial responses to the attitude scale (IB pre-test); (b) Initial reSponses to the values scale (DVI pre-test). 71 Statistical Methodology In general, two statistical methods were used to analyze the data: analysis of variance and chi square test Of Significance. In View of the directional nature of several of the statistical hypotheses presented, and in keeping with appropriate statistical methodology, one- way analyses Of variance were used. Saupe has emphasized that the one-tailed or directional test of hypotheses is more powerful and more precise than the two-tailed or non-directional test.20 The Chi Square Test of Significance was considered to be the appropriate statistical method Of analysis for some of the hypotheses, primarily because of the cate- gorization of the data related to these hypotheses. A five percent (.05) level of significance was con- sidered to be suitable for testing the hypotheses. All analyses and computations were programed for and executed by a CDC 3600 computer. Descriptive data, such as mean IB and DVI scores for the various sample groups, called upon the CORE program (Correlation and/or Regression Analysis). The analyses of variance called upon the computer's UNEQ l routine, while the chi square analyses were completed through the use of the ACT 2 program. 20Joe L. Saupe, ”Testing Hypotheses: A Plea for Order in Educational Research,” Michlgan State Unlver- sity, mimeographed, undated, 11 pp. 72 Summary Sample residence units housing first-time enrolled male college freshmen at a large mid—western state uni- versity were selected for the study. The freshmen were randomly assigned to the residence units on a rotating basis. Freshman residence units, Upperclass residence units, and University-ratio residence units were identified de- pending upon whether the unit housed a greater propor- tion Of freshmen (thus reflecting a freshman-like en- vironment), a greater prOportion of upperclassmen (hence reflecting an upperclass environment), or a proportion of freshmen to upperclassmen similar to the total-Uni- versity residence ratio (thus exhibiting neither a fresh- manlike environment nor an upperclass-like environment). The Experimental group consisted of those freshmen residing in Upperclass residence units. The control groups were composed of those freshmen living in the Freshman residence units or in the University—ratio residence units. The Inventory g: Beliefs (IB) and the Differential Values Inventory (DVI) were selected as instruments to measure student attitudes and values, respectively. A series Of nine hypotheses were developed in order to determine what effect, if any, the presence or ab— sence Of upperclassmen had upon the attitudes, values, 73 and selected behavioral characteristics Of the freshmen. The Inventopy p: Beliefs and the Differential Values Inventory were administered in the Fall, and again in the following Spring. The pre-test and post—test scores were analyzed together with other pertinent data and personal information on each subject. Analyses of variance and chi square techniques were employed in testing the hypotheses. CHAPTER IV Results and Discussion Introduction The findings of the study will be presented in three parts. The first part will include initial com- parisons and analyses of several variables for the following: (1) freshmen groups (freshmen in Freshman units, in Upperclass units, and in University-ratio units), (2) upperclass units (upperclassmen in Freshman units, in Upperclass units, and in University-ratio units), and (3) freshmen (group 1) versus upperclassmen (group 2). The second part will be comprised of the analyses relat- ing to the research hypotheses presented in the previous chapter. The third part will include a number Of an- cillary analyses. Each part will be followed by a section devoted to a discussion Of the findings. A summary Of the results will be presented at the end Of the chapter.1 lSlight differences in N will appear in several tables to be presented in this chapter. Complete data on all subjects were not available. Thus, pre—test attitude scores were available for 248 freshmen while total CQT scores were available for 234 freshmen. 75 Analyses p: the Initial Data Freshman Groups At the beginning of the Treatment period, the three freshman groups were compared on four variables to deter- mine whether any initial differences existed relative to these variables. The first comparison of the freshman groups was made on mean CQT score. In Table 4.1, the mean CQT scores of the sample freshmen in each of the residence unit groups are outlined. The results of an analysis of variance comparing the freshman groups on their CQT scores are summarized in Table 4.2. The F value of 2.63 is not statistically Significant.2 Therefore, the observed differences in the mean CQT scores Of each Of the three residence groups may be attributed to random sampling from the freshman population. A second comparison of the freshman groups was made on pre-test attitudes, as measured by the Inventory 2: Beliefs. Comparisons on this variable are presented in Table 4.3. The results Of the analysis of variance comparing the freshman groups on their pre-test attitudes are shown in Table 4.4. The F value of 1.25 is not statistically significant. Thus, Observed differences in pre-test 2The level of Significance has been set at .05. See Chapter III. 76 TABLE 4.1 Mean CQT Score of Freshman Sample in Each of Three Residence Unit Groups Residence Units N Mean Sgiggiign Freshman 154 144.04 23.97 Upperclass 58 137.93 25.89 University-ratio 22 133.23 27.42 TOTAL 234 141.51 24.96 TABLE 4.2 Analysis of Variance of Mean CQT Scores Of Freshman Sample in Each of Three Residence Unit Groups Source Of Sum of Mean Variance Squares df Square F Between Groups 3,237.13 2 1,618.56 2.63 Within Groups 141,923.35 231 614.39 TOTAL 145,160.48 233 77 TABLE 4.3 Pre-Test Attitudes Of Freshman Sample in Each Of Three Residence Unit Groups, as Measured by the Inventory_g£ Beliefs Standard Residence Units N Mean Deviation Freshman 155 65.33 15.43 Upperclass 70 62.86 15.48 University—ratio 23 60.57 19.31 TOTAL 248 64.19 15.86 TABLE 4.4 Analysis Of Variance of Pre-Test Attitudes Of Freshman Sample in Each of Three Residence Unit Groups Source Of Sum Of Mean Variance Squares df Square F Between Groups 627.65 2 313.82 1.25 Within Groups 61,390.44 245 250.57 TOTAL 62,018.09 247 78 attitude scores of each of the three residence groups may be considered to be due to random sampling from the freshman pOpulation. The pre—test values of the freshman groups, as measured by the Differential Values Inventory, were compared. The comparisons are shown in Table 4.5. The results Of the analysis of variance comparing the freshman groups on their pre-test values are presented in Table 4.6. Since the F value Of .70 is not statis- tically significant, the observed differences in pre— test value scores Of each of the three residence groups may be considered to be attributable to random sampling. The fourth comparison Of freshman groups equated their reSponses relating to the quality Of their anti— cipated residence experience. The results of a Chi Square Test Of Significance are outlined in Table 4.7. Since a Chi Square value of 2.88 is not statistically Significant, it may be assumed that observed differences in reSponse occurred through random sampling and were not due to initial differences between the freshman groups. Upperclass Groups At the beginning of the Treatment period, the three upperclass groups were compared on their attitudes and values to determine whether any initial differences 79 TABLE 4.5 Pre-Test Values of Freshman Sample in Each of Three Residence Unit Groups, as Measured by the Differential value§_Inventory Standard Residence Units N Mean Deviation Freshman 155 33.85 7.63 Upperclass 70 35.09 7.55 University—ratio 23 33.70 7.33 TOTAL 248 34.18 7.58 TABLE 4.6 Analysis of variance Of Pre-Test Values Of Freshman Sample in Each Of Three Residence Unit Groups Source of Sum of Mean Variance Squares df Square F Between Groups 80.20 2 40.10 .70 Within Groups 14,096.64 245 57.54 TOTAL 14,176.84 247 80 existed relative to these variables. The pre-test attitudes Of the upperclass groups, as measured by the Inventory_g£_Beliefs, are presented in Table 4.8. The results of an analysis Of variance comparing the upperclass groups on their pre-test atti- tudes are shown in Table 4.9. The F value of .65 is not statistically significant, therefore, observed differences in pre-test attitude scores may be attributed to random sampling. The pre-test values of the upperclass groups, as measured by the Differential Values Inventory, are shown in Table 4.10. The results Of an analysis of variance comparing the upperclass groups on their pre- test values are outlined in Table 4.11. The F value Of 3.047 is statistically Significant at the 5 percent level (although it is not Significant at the 1 percent level of confidence).3 Thus, the observed differences in pre—test value scores of upperclassmen may be attri— buted to actual differences between the groups rather than to random sampling. The upperclassmen in the Freshman units appear to be more traditionally-oriented in their value pattern than the upperclassmen in either the Upperclass or Uni- versity-ratio units. The upperclassmen in the University- ratio units seem to be the most emergent in their values, 3F = 3.04 at 5 percent level; F = 4.71 at 1 percent level. 81 TABLE 4.7 Chi Square Test Of Significance Of Freshman Sample in Three Types of Residence Units on Anticipated Residence Hall Experience Residence Unit N Favorable Unfavorable Total Freshman Observed 72.00 80.00 152.00 Expected 73.81 78.19 Upperclass Observed 31.00 37.00 68.00 Expected 33.02 34.98 University- Observed 15.00 8.00 23.00 ratio Expected 11.17 11.83 TOTAL 118.00 125.00 243.00 Chi Square = 2.882 df = 2 TABLE 4.8 Pre-Test Attitudes Of Upperclassmen in Each of Three Residence Unit Groups, as Measured by the Inventony g: Beliefs Standard Residence Units N Mean Deviation Freshman 23 69.74 14-59 Upperclass 172 70.49 15-89 University-ratio 24 66.58 15.75 TOTAL 219 69.98 15.72 82 TABLE 4.9 Analysis of Variance of Pre—Test Attitudes of Upperclassmen in Each of Three Residence Unit Groups Source of Sum of Mean Variance Squares df Square F Between Groups 322.68 2 161.34 .65 Within Groups 53,573.24 216 248.02 TOTAL 53,895.93 218 TABLE 4.10 Pre-Test values of Upperclassmen in Each of Three Residence Unit Groups, as Measured by the Differential Values Inventory Standard Residence Units N Mean Deviation Freshman 23 38.35 6.25 Upperclass 172 34.76 7.70 University-Ratio 24 33.33 6.16 TOTAL 219 34.98 7.48 83 i.e. least traditional. With this in mind, it becomes apparent that the upperclass sub-culture cannot be char— acterized by a common value structure, at least not as measured by the DVI. Freshmen XE: Upperclassmen At the beginning of the Treatment period, the fresh- men and upperclassmen were compared on their attitudes and values to determine whether any initial differences existed relative to these variables. The pre-test atti- tudes of both groups, as measured by the Inventory of Beliefs, are presented in Table 4.12. The results of an analysis of variance comparing the freshmen and upperclassmen on their pre—test atti- tudes are summarized in Table 4.13. The F value of 15.65 is statistically significant, therefore, it may be concluded that the freshmen were initially different from the upperclassmen in their pre—test attitudes. The upperclassmen were more mature, flexible, adap- tive, and less stereotypic than the freshmen, as measured by the 1B. Since the two groups are different, it will be possible to see what effects the presence or absence of one group (upperclassmen), with its mature, less ster- eotypic pattern, has upon the other (freshman), with its less mature, authoritarian, stereotypic belief structure. 84 TABLE 4.11 Analysis of Variance of Pre—Test Values of Upperclassmen in Each of Three Residence Unit Groups Source of Sum of Mean Variance Squares df Square F Between Groups 334.59 2 167.30 3.047 Within Groups 11,860.29 216 54.91 TOTAL 12,194.88 218 F = 3.04 at 5 percent level; F = 4.71 at 1 percent level. TABLE 4.12 Mean Pre-Test Attitudes of Freshmen and Upperclassmen, as Measured by the Inventony_qf Beliefs Standard Residence Units N Mean Deviation Freshman 248 64.19 15.85 Upperclass 219 69.98 15-72 TOTAL 467 66.91 16.03 85 The pre—test values of the freshman and upperclass groups, as measured by the BET, are presented in Table 4.14. The results of an analysis of variance comparing the freshmen and upperclassmen on their pre—test values are outlined in Table 4.15. The F value of 1.30 is;not statistically significant. Thus, the observed differ— ences in pre—test value scores may be attributed to random sampling. There are no significant differences between the freshmen and upperclassmen in their initial measured values. Discussion The assumed random assignment of freshmen to Univer— sity residence halls appeared to be verified by the several initial comparisons of freshmen groups. The evidence, as presented, supported the thesis that there were no initial differences in the freshman groups re- lated to CQT score, attitudes, values,or the quality of their anticipated residence hall experience. Thus, it may be assumed that any differences which might occur at the end of the Treatment period were due to variables outside of the freshmen themselves, i.e. variables re- lated to the Treatment. The comparisons of the three upperclass groups on their initial attitudes confirmed that the groups were equated relative to this variable. It was assumed that 86 TABLE 4.13 Analysis of Variance of Pre-Test Attitudes of Freshmen and Upperclassmen Source of Sum of Mean Variance Squares df Square F Between Groups 3,901.83 1 3,901.83 15.65 Within Groups 115,914.02 465 249.28 TOTAL 119,815.85 466 TABLE 4.14 Mean Pre—Test values of Freshmen and Upperclassmen, as Measured by the Differential Vahxs Inventony Standard Residence Units N Mean Deviation Freshman 248 34.18 7.58 Upperclass 219 34.98 7.48 TOTAL 467 34.55 7.53 87 a number of other common factors and characteristics were already present by virtue of their status as upper- classmen. These attributes included: at least a min- imal degree of academic success, a desire to live in a University residence hall,“ and a relatively positive degree of personal and social adjustment to the environ- ment. However, the values of the upperclassmen were not similar in structure. The differences between the three upperclass groups, although small, were significant at the 5 percent level (see Table 4.11). Thus, it may be considered that the Treatment, as it related to the com- munication of values, presented a different exposure to each of the freshman groups. But, the number and thus effect, of upperclassmen in the Freshman residence units was considered to be negligible.5 Therefore, the prOpo- sition that the freshmen were submitted to distinctly different environments, particularly as it related to values, remained valid. However, it is important to note that a differential value pattern existed within the upperclass sub-culture. “University housing policy required students to live in residence halls for one year only. Returning students had the option of living off—campus if they desired. 5Freshmen outnumbered upperclassmen by a ratio of approximately 6 to l in the Freshman residence units. This ratio was assumed to be substantial enough to lessen the effect of upperclassmen in the freshman environment. See Chapter III, Table 3.3. 88 The derivation of this differential pattern is vital to an understanding of the varying effects of the collegiate experience or portions of that experience on the develop— ment of the student. The comparisons of the freshmen, as a group, with the upperclassmen, as a group, supported the contention that the groups were different in their initial attitudes. This, then, allowed for an examination of the effects of interaction with upperclassmen upon freshman attitudes. However, the initial values of the freshmen and the upper- classmen were not different. Hence, the presumption that any changes in values which might occur were due to con- tact with upperclassmen was distinctly questionable. Analyses of Hypotheses The hypotheses presented in the previous chapter will be restated in this section in gpll_form, together with the presentation of the apprOpriately related analysis. Hypothesis 1: There will be no differences in maturity and adaptability of the attitudes and beliefs of the freshmen residing in Upperclass, Freshmen, and University- ratio residence units, as measured by the Inventory 9: Beliefs. The attitudes of the freshmen, as measured at the end of the Treatment period are summarized in Table 4.16. The results of an analysis of variance comparing the 89 TABLE 4.15 Analysis of Variance of Pre—Test Values of Freshmen and Upperclassmen Source of Sum of Mean Variance Squares df Square F Between Groups 73.64 1 73.64 1.30 Within Groups 26,371.72 465 56.71 TOTAL 26,445.36 466 TABLE 4.16 Post—Test Attitudes of Freshman Sample in Each of Three Residence Unit Groups, as Measured by the Inventory gf_Beliefs Standard Residence Units N Mean Deviation Freshman 152 70.23 16.64 Upperclass 71 66.44 18.36 University-ratio 24 65.17 11.03 TOTAL 247 68.65 16.78 9O freshman groups on their post-test attitudes are shown in Table 4.17. The F value of 1.82 is not statistically significant. Thus, the null hypothesis is not rejected and it may be assumed that observed differences in post— test attitudes occurred through random samplings of a single pOpulation rather than as a result of the exper- imental treatment. Hypothesis 2: There will be no difference in the value orientation of the freshmen re— siding in Upperclass, Freshman, and University—ratio residence units, as measured by the Differential Values Inventory. The values of the freshmen, as measured at the end of the Treatment period, are outlined in Table 4.18. The results of an analysis of variance comparing the freshman groups on their post—test values are shown in Table 4.19. The F value of 2.58 is not statistically significant. Hence, the null hypothesis is not rejected and observed differences in post—test values may be attributed to random samplings of a single population rather than as a result of the experimental treatment. Hypothesis 3: There will be no difference in grade point average among the freshmen re- siding in the Upperclass, Freshman, and University-ratio residence units, at the end of the Treatment period. The grade point averages of the freshmen, as mea- sured at the end of the Treatment period, are presented 91 TABLE 4.17 Analysis of Variance of Post-Test Attitudes of Freshman Sample in Each of Three Residence Unit Groups Source of Sum of Mean Variance Squares df Square F Between Groups 1,018.62 2 509.31 1.82 Within Groups 68,219.74 244 279.59 TOTAL 69,238.36 246 TABLE 4.18 Post-Test Values of Freshman Sample in Each of Three Residence Unit Groups, as Measured by the Differential Values Inventory Standard Residence Units N Mean Deviation Freshman 152 30.71 8.31 Upperclass 71 33.15 7.29 University—ratio 24 32.71 6.81 TOTAL 247 31.61 7.95 92 in Table 4.20. The results of an analysis of variance comparing the freshman groups on their cumulative grade point average are summarized in Table 4.21. The F value of 2.72 is not statistically significant. Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected and the observed differences in mean grade point average occurred through random sampling of a single pOpulation rather than as a result of the experimental treatment. Hypothesis 4: There will be no difference in the num— ber of freshmen placed on academic pro— bation in Upperclass, Freshman, and University-ratio residence units. The results of a Chi Square analysis of the fresh- man groups in relation to the number of freshmen placed on academic probation are presented in Table 4.22. Since a Chi Square value of .99 is not statistically signifi- cant, the null hypothesis is not rejected and it may be assumed that observed differences in the numbers of freshmen placed on academic probation in each of the unit groups occurred through random samplings of a single population rather than as a result of the experimental treatment. Hypothesis 5: There will be no difference in the num— ber of freshmen who leave school (vol- untarily or because of dismissal) in Upperclass, Freshman, and University- ratio residence units during the Treat- ment period. Note: Level of significance for Chi Square Tests 2 -05. 93 TABLE 4.19 Analysis of Variance of Post-Test Values of Freshman Sample in Each of Three Residence Unit Groups Source of Sum of Mean Variance Squares df Square F Between Groups 321.39 2 160.69 2.58 Within Groups 15,209.52 244 62.33 TOTAL 15,530.91 246 TABLE 4.20 Mean Grade Point Average of Freshman Sample in Each of Three Residence Unit Groups Standard Residence Units N Mean Deviation Freshman 140 2.53 .27 Upperclass 48 2.46 .26 University—ratio 20 2.62 .23 TOTAL 208 2.53 .26 94 TABLE 4.21 Analysis of Variance of Mean Grade Point Average of Freshman Sample in Each of Three Residence Unit Groups Source of Sum of Mean Variance Squares df Square F Between Groups 3,702.56 2 1,851.28 2.72 Within Groups 139,390.67 205 679.95 TOTAL 143,093.23 207 TABLE 4.22 Chi Square Test of Significance of Freshman Sample in Three Types of Residence Unitg on Number of Freshmen Placed on Academic Probation On Not on Residence Unit N Probation Probation Total Freshman Observed 166 592 758 Expected 169 589 Upperclass Observed 100 323 423 Expected 94 329 University—ratio Observed 24 95 119 Expected 27 92 TOTAL 290 1,010 1,300 Chi Square = .99 df = 2 6Each time a student was placed on academic proba— tion he was included in the tabulation. Thus, a student on probation for two terms was counted twice. This pro- cedure was used in subsequent tables as well. 95 The results of a Chi Square analysis of the fresh- man groups in relation to the number of freshmen who withdrew from school are presented in Table 4.23. Since a Chi Square value of 31.1 is statistically significant, the null hypothesis i§_rejected. Consequently, it may be assumed that observed differences in the number of freshmen who withdrew from the University during the Treatment period did not occur by chance but rather were related to the experimental variable. Hypothesis 6: There will be no differences in the num— ber of freshmen who will achieve high academic honors (Dean‘s List) in Upper- class, Freshman, and University-ratio residence units. The results of a Chi Square analysis of the fresh- man groups in relation to the number of freshmen placed on Dean's List are presented in Table 4.24. The Chi Square value of 1.39 is not statistically significant. The null hypothesis is not rejected. Thus, it may be assumed that observed differences in the numbers of freshmen placed on Dean's List occurred through random samplings of a single population rather than as a result of the experimental treatment. Hypothesis 7: There will be no difference in the num- ber of freshmen involved in major dis- ciplinary actions in Upperclass, Fresh- man, and University—ratio residence units. 96 TABLE 4.23 Chi Square Test of Significance of Freshman Sample in Three Types of Residence Units on Number of Freshmen Withdrawn During the Academic Year Not Residence Unit N Withdrawn Withdrawn Total Freshman Observed 38 352 390 Expected 63 327 Upperclass Observed 68 195 263 Expected 42 221 University-ratio Observed 10 57 67 Expected ll 56 TOTAL 116 604 720 Chi Square = 31.1 df = 2 TABLE 4.24 Chi Square Test of Significance of Freshman Sample in Three Types of Residence Units on Number of Freshman Placed on Dean's List Not on Residence Unit N Dean's List Dean's List Total Freshman Observed 57 701 758 Expected 54 704 Upperclass Observed 30 393 423 Expected 30 393 University- Observed 5 114 119 ratio Expected 8 111 TOTAL 92 1,208 1.300 Chi Square = 1.39 df = 2 97 The data gathered to test the hypothesis was not adequate in size, thus, no analysis could be completed. Six freshmen in Freshman residence units, three freshmen in Upperclass units, and two freshmen in University—ratio units were involved in major disciplinary actions by the University. Hypothesis 8: There will be no difference in the num- ber of freshmen who perceive their unit to be quiet and conducive to study in Upperclass, Freshman, and University- ratio residence units. The results of a Chi Square analysis of the fresh- man groups in relation to the number who perceive their unit to be quiet and conducive to study is outlined in Table 4.25. The Chi Square value of 7.54 is statistic- ally significant. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected and it may be assumed that observed differences in the number of freshmen who perceive their unit to be quiet and conducive to study did not occur by chance but rather were related to the experimental variable. Hypothesis 9: There will be no difference in the number of freshmen who will indicate a degree of overall satisfaction with their residence unit experience in Upperclass, Freshman, and University—ratio residence units. The results of a Chi Square analysis of the fresh- man groups comparing the number of freshmen indicating a degree of overall satisfaction with their residence unit experience is shown in Table 4.26. 98 TABLE 4.25 Chi Square Test of Significance of Freshman Sample in Three Types of Residence Units on Perception of a Unit Which is Quiet and Conducive to Study Residence Unit N Quiet Not Quiet Total Freshman Observed 85 67 152 Expected 95 57 Upperclass Observed 50 21 71 Expected 44 27 University- Observed 19 5 24 ratio Expected 15 9 TOTAL 154 93 247 Chi Square 2 7.54 df = 2 TABLE 4.26 Chi Square Test of Significance of Freshman Sample in Three Types of Residence Units on Satisfaction with Residence Experience Residence Unit N Satisfied Unsatisfied Total Freshman Observed 123 29 152 Expected 124 28 Upperclass Observed 55 16 71 Expected 58 13 University— Observed 23 1 24 ratio Expected l9 5 TOTAL 201 46 247 Chi Square = 4.05 df = 2 99 Since the Chi Square value of 4.05 is not statis— tically significant, the null hypothesis is not rejected. Observed differences in the number of freshmen indicating a degree of overall satisfaction with their residence unit experience may, thus, be attributed to random sam- plings of a single population rather than as a result of the experimental treatment. Discussion In general, the results of the various analyses of the hypotheses presented in this section appeared to support the contention that there were no differences in the freshman groups at the end of the Treatment period. All but two of the analyses failed to yield significant results. The findings did not support the assumption that freshmen who came into close contact with upperclassmen would be more likely to conform to the upperclass atti- tude and value patterns. In fact, based on evidence presented in the previous section, there were no initial differences in freshman and upperclass values. So, no change toward conformity could have been expected. A conformity or uniformity already existed, as far as values were concerned. Further, there appeared to be no differences in maturity and adaptability between the freshman groups. Nor were the value patterns of 100 any of the groups more emergent in nature. As documented by previous research, the attitudes of all of the fresh— men became more mature and adaptable and less stereotypic with the passage of the academic year. This occurred regardless of residence unit affiliation. In addition, freshman values tended to become more emergent as the year concluded. Both of these tendencies were general- ized, i.e. all students, freshman and upperclassmen, changed in similar directions. The mean grade point average of the freshmen in the Upperclass residence units was not higher than those in the other units. With total CQT scores constant (used as a measure of academic ability), it appeared that the freshmen performed equally well regardless of their re- sidence unit assignment. The data suggested that fresh- man academic performance as measured by grade point average, was not significantly related to degree of contact with upperclassmen. There also appeared to be no relationship between residence unit and the number of freshmen placed on academic probation. As above, the data suggested that academic performance was more closely related to level of ability and variables other than residence unit ex- perience. Previous research has suggested that the academic context within which a student interacts will effect 101 his academic performance. This contextual framework may be formulated without regard to freshman or upper- class status, but rather relating to academic motivation and/or other variables. The number of students who left the University before the end of the year appeared to be related to residence unit environment. However, this relation— ship was not in the direction initially hypothesized. It was apparent that fewer freshmen residing in Fresh— man residence units, rather than Upperclass residence units, withdrew from school. Initially, it was assumed that freshmen living in Upperclass units would be ex— posed to a settled, academically-motivated environment which would serve as a model and thus encourage their continuance and success in college. The fact that this did not occur suggests that the freshmen in the Upper— class units may have been exposed to a somewhat dissonant environment and, thus, withdrew from the University, while the freshmen in the Freshman units were in con- sonance with their fellow freshmen and, thus, remained to complete the year. The number of students achieving high academic honors was not related to residence unit. As indicated above, the academic performance of the freshmen was probably related to otheriactors. It was not possible to determine whether any relationship existed between 102 residence unit and the number of students involved in major disciplinary action. The number of students in- volved in major disciplinary action was so small that a meaningful analysis could not be attempted. It should be noted, however, that since so few freshmen were in- volved in incidents severe enough to warrant major action, it might be more apprOpriate to view freshman social be- havior through studying the number of freshmen involved in minor disciplinary incidents. Perhaps the latter are more indicative of a pervasive, non-academic environ- ment. A greater prOportion of freshmen in the Upperclass units did, as initially hypothesized, perceive their unit to be quiet and conducive to study. The freshmen in the Freshman units were least likely to perceive their unit in this fashion. The freshmen in the University- ratio units responded more like their fellows in the Upperclass situation. From all indications it seems that the presence of upperclassmen had a quieting effect on their younger colleagues. In general, residence hall administrators tend to concur with the findings and suggest that the noise level in dormitories is often kept to a minimum by outSpoken and serious upperclass— men. Apparently, this control mechanism may be in effect even when the upperclassmen represent less than a majority of the residents. Undoubtedly, their status in the 103 collegiate environment gives sufficient force to their desires, while freshmen are likely to view themselves and their behavior in a subordinate fashion. Despite the fact that differences between the fresh- man groups appeared, as noted above, there were no dif- ferences in overall satisfaction with total residence experience. Evidently, the degree of overall satisfac- tion that the freshmen felt was not related to how quiet and conducive to study they viewed their residence unit to be. It seems reasonable to anticipate that overall satisfaction is affected by a number of factors and ex- periences. Ancillary Analyses The results of a number of subsidiary but pertinent analyses are presented in Appendix C. Discussion The ancillary analyses compared the attitudes and values of those who completed the pre—tests only with those who participated in both the pre- and post-testing. Table 3.4 outlined the changes that took place in the sample size and noted the number of students who could not (were not eligible because they had moved from the residence unit) or did not participate in the total study. 104 Since the analyses verified that the freshmen who participated in the pre-test only were similar in atti— tudes and values to the freshmen who completed both testings, it may be assumed that non-participation was related to factors other than initial attitudes and values. The same situation held for upperclassmen. The large majority of students who completed the pre-tests only did not participate in the post-testing because they were not available. They had, as noted, either moved from the unit or had left school. The other non—par- ticipants either had other obligations at the time of the post-testing or may simply have not been interested in participating. The comparisons of the pre-test attitudes of the freshmen who took the pre-test only with the pre—test attitudes of the upperclassmen who took the pre—test only verified the differences between the groups as had been expected. Similar comparisons between the pre-test only groups on values showed no differences between fresh- men and upperclassmen. Albeit, this was consistent with the findings as outlined in the section dealing with Analysis of Initial Data. The evidence gave strong support to the proposition that those who initially participated in the study (pre- test only) were similar to those who represented the final study sample (pre- and post—test). 105 Summary Initial analyses of the data supported the assump- tion that the three freshmen groups were drawn from the same population. Although the pre-test attitudes of the upperclass groups were similar in nature, thus sug— gesting that they were selected from a common population, the pre—test value patterns of the upperclassmen were different. As proposed, the pre-test attitudes of the fres pre- not hmen and upperclassmen were diverse. However, the test values of the freshmen and upperclassmen were different. The following table summarizes the testing of the hypotheses. The level of significance had been set at .05. Hypothesis Analysis There will be no differences in ma— turing and adaptability of the atti- Not rejected tudes and beliefs of the freshmen residing in Upperclass, Freshman, and University—ratio residence units, as measured by the Inventory 2f Beliefs. There will be no difference in the value orientation of the freshmen re- Not rejected siding in Upperclass, Freshman, and University—ratio residence units, as measured by the Differential Values Inventory. There will be no difference in grade point average among the freshmen re- Not rejected siding in Upperclass, Freshman, and University-ratio residence units, at the end of the Treatment period. 106 4. There will be no difference in the number of freshmen placed on academic Not rejected probation in Upperclass, Freshman, and University-ratio residence units. 5. There will be no difference in the Rejected number of freshmen who leave school (voluntarily or because of dismissal) in Upperclass, Freshman, and University— ratio residence units during the Treat— ment period. 6. There will be no differences in the number of freshmen who will achieve high academic honors (Dean‘s List) in Upper— Not rejected class, Freshman, and University—ratio residence units. 7. There will be no difference in the num- ber of freshmen involved in major dis- Unable to com— ciplinary actions in Upperclass, Fresh— plete man, and University-ratio residence units. 8. There will be no difference in the num- ber of freshmen who perceive their unit Rejected to be quiet and conducive to study in Upperclass, Freshman, and University— ratio residence units. 9. There will be no difference in the num— ber of freshmen who will indicate a degree of overall satisfaction with Not rejected their residence unit experience in Upperclass, Freshman, and University- ratio residence units. A series of ancillary analyses compared the attitudes and values of the freshmen who completed the pre—test only with those who completed both the pre— and the post— tests. The findings were consistent with the results of the analyses of initial data and verified the proposition that the attitude and value patterns of the students who took the pre—test only were similar to those who completed both the pre- and post-tests. CHAPTER V Summary and Conclusions In this concluding chapter, the study will be summarized, several conclusions will be discussed, and some suggestions for further research will be presented. Statement 2f the Problem The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of varying contact with upperclassmen on the attitudes, values, and selected behavioral character— istics of male college freshmen. Studies of the effects of the collegiate experience on the attitudes, values, and behavior of college students have been somewhat in- conclusive. There is some evidence, however, that sug— gests that the student sub—culture, itself, may have a strong influence on some of its members. In fact, a 1 clearly identifies the influence recent study by Wallace exerted upon new students by members of the established student body. The existence of an identifiable student sub-culture with established patterns of attitudes, values, and 1Walter L. Wallace, Student Culture, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1966, 236 pp. 108 behavior has important implications for the transmission of these patterns to new members of the student body. Sociological research supports the theory that groups in contact with each other have a significant effect on each other. Further, the dominant, high-status group will have the greater effect in modifying, socializing, or in some definite way serving as a model for the sub- ordinate, lower-status group. Thus, one would expect that freshmen would be influenced by upperclassmen and would tend to adopt to the upperclass image by accepting the existing patterns of attitudes, values, and behavior. American colleges and universities have traditionally housed freshmen in one of two fashions. Either the fresh- men are housed in Freshman residence halls or in mixed— class residence halls. For all practical purposes, the degree of interaction with upperclassmen is somewhat negligible in the former instance and considerably more intensive in the latter. However, may it be assumed that those freshmen who live and interact with upperclass- men will be affected differently than freshmen who are not in direct contact with the upperclass environment? Will freshmen who are in direct contact with upperclass- men become more like them in their attitudes, values, and behavior, than freshmen who are not in contact with upper— classmen? Finally, if it may be assumed that the charac- teristics of the upperclass sub-culture are acceptable 109 and consistent with the purposes of the university, and that freshmen are more likely to adopt the characteris— tics of the dominant group if they are in contact with that group, then, what are the differential effects of housing freshmen in a freshman-like environment versus an upperclass-like environment? Design 2: the Study A sample of male college freshmen, first-time en- rolled, and living in University—operated residence units was delineated. The experimental group consisted of those freshmen residing in a number of selected, representative Upperclass residence units. The experimental group was, thus, exposed to an upperclass environment. Two control groups were designated. One group was comprised of fresh— men living in predominantly or solely Freshman residence units, the other group consisted of freshmen who lived in residence units which were neither predominantly fresh- man nor upperclass. Thus, the freshmen in the first control group were exposed to a predominantly Freshman environment, while those in the latter control group were exposed to an environment which was neither freshman— like nor upperclass—like. It reflected the total—uni— versity residence ratio of freshmen to upperclassmen. Two testing instruments were used to measure student attitudes and values. The Inventory gf_Beliefs was used 110 to distinguish those students who tend toward accepting stereotypes and who are dependent and rigid in their attitudes and beliefs, from those who are more mature in their vieWpoints and more flexible in their beliefs and atti- tudes.2 The Differential Values Inventory was used to determine the students' value orientation along a traditional- emergent continuum. Both instruments were administered to a pre—test sample of seven hundred—twenty students (three hundred thirty-four upperclassmen and three hundred eighty-six freshmen). At the end of the academic year, the inven- tories were re—administered to a sample of four hundred sixty-seven (two hundred—twenty upperclassman and two hundred forty—seven freshmen). 0f the two hundred fifty—three non—participants, one hundred-ninety had moved from their residence unit and were, therefore, ineligible to participate in the total study. The re- maining sixty—three did not participate for a variety of reasons. In addition to examining freshman attitudes and values, several behavioral variables were considered: 1. cumulative grade point average, by residence group; 2. number of freshmen placed on academic probation, by residence unit group; 3. number of freshmen leaving school be— fore the end of the academic year, by residence group; 4. number of freshmen placed on Dean's List, by residence unit group; 2American Council on Education, Inventory pf Beliefs, Instructor's Manual, 1953, p. 4. ‘nlll ‘1' 111 5. number of freshmen involved in major disciplinary actions, by residence unit group; . 6. number of freshmen who viewed their residence unit as quiet and conducive to study, by residence unit group, 7. number of freshmen indicating satisfac— tion with their overall residence ex— perience, by residence unit group. A series of hypotheses were developed and tested to determine the effects of contact with upperclassmen on freshman attitudes, values, and behavior, as noted above. Conclusions and Discussion The pre-test data supported the contention that the freshman groups3 were initially similar in their atti- tude and value patterns. Further, as proposed, the fresh— men and upperclassmen differed on their pre-test atti— tudies. However, there were initial differences among the upperclass groups which suggest the existence of, perhaps, several differing value orientations rather than one common upperclass value structure. This finding supports Clark and Trow'su‘proposal that the student culture is not monolithic but rather encompasses several 3Freshmen in Freshman, Upperclass, and University— ratio residence units. 4B. Clark and M. Trow, "Determinants of College Stu— dent Subculture," in ”The Study of College Peer Groups: Problems and Prospects for Research," (Mimeographed). Noted in: Gottlieb and Hodgkins. 112 distinguishable sub-cultural groups with varying value orientations. The fact that the freshmen, as a group, did not differ from the upperclassmen, as a group, in pre-test values may be attributed to the testing instrument it- self. Several researchers have suggested that values may not be measurable along a traditional—emergent con- tinuum. However, this approach appears to be a reason- able method of viewing values. It is more likely that the Dyl_is unable to delineate differences than to con- clude that differences do not exist. There were no statistically significant differences in attitude change over the Treatment period among the freshman groups. Thus, the post-test attitudes of the freshmen were not significantly different (Hypothesis 1). The findings were consistent with those of Lehmann and Dressel and others.5 In general, all students tended to become more mature, flexible, and less stereotypic in attitudes and beliefs as their collegiate experience continued. It would appear that living in close proximity to upperclassmen, in itself, is not a major factor in 5Irvin J. Lehmann and Paul L. Dressel, Critical Thinking, Attitudes, and Values lg Higher Education, Final Report of Cooperative Research Project No. 590, East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1962. 113 affecting attitudes. The nature of the large University tends to afford all students a diversity of experience. Numerous events, activities, and programs may serve to minimize the effect of any one experience in the total develOpment and maturity of the student. It is quite possible that the measuring instrument is not, in itself, sufficiently sensitive to disclose significant differences. The manner in which it re- flects attitudes and beliefs may not be appropriate for comparative measurement. Considering the amazing degree of interaction and communication on the large university campus, it is likely that no group is so isolated that it is not affected by even ”distant” groups or events. Yet, it is distinctly possible that when a group of freshmen are in close contact with a group of upperclassmen, as in both Upper- class and University—ratio units, the freshmen tend to isolate or insulate themselves from the upperclass press. In this way, they may continue to interact in a freshman- 1ike environment with negligible influence from upper- classmen. The fact that there were no statistically significant differences in value change over the Treatment period may be accounted for by two variables. First, there appeared to be no initial difference between the fresh— man and upperclass groups, as measured by the DVI. Thus, 114 the expectation that freshman values would become more like upperclass values if both groups were brought into close contact with each other was untenable because both groups held initially similar values. Second, the test- ing instrument, which measured values along a traditional- emergent continuum, may not have been sufficiently sensi— tive to distinguish differences between the groups. The post-test values of the three freshman groups were not significantly different (Hypothesis 2). The grade point averages of the three freshman groups at the end of the Treatment period were not sig- nificantly different, despite differences in residence environment (Hypothesis 3). It seems quite apparent that academic performance, as measured by cumulative grade point average, was not affected by varying degrees of contact with upperclass— men. Rather, it would seem reasonable to expect that academic performance is apt to be affected by such things as personal goals, individual motivation, and previous performance. Interestingly, Wallace found that6 ...the more contact a freshman had with stu— dents in the own-sex nonfreshman status cate— gory (i.e. upperclassmen), the more his grades orientation changed toward congruence with theirs, and the more contact he had with stu- dents in the own-sex freshman category, the more his grades orientation remained congruent with these students'. 6Walter L. Wallace, pp, cit., p.52. 115 Thus, although the findings do not suggest a relation- ship between academic performance and contact with upper- classmen, there continues to be substantial evidence that attitudes toward grades (i.e. grades orientation) are affected by this contact. The number of freshmen placed on academic probation appeared not to be related to residence environment (Hypothesis 4). As noted in the discussion on grade point average, it is likely that academic performance is affected more so by individual motivation than by degree of contact with upperclassmen. Nasitir has noted, for example, that academically—motivated individuals exhibited lowest failure rates when they were in harmony with an academically-motivated environment.7 Those who were out of harmony with their surroundings exhibited the highest failure rate. Since Gottlieb and Hodgkins found four student sub-cultures with varying orienta- tions, it is likely that freshmen in contact with upper- classmen are exposed to more than one upperclass—like 8 model. Thus, upperclassmen may have varying effects 7David Nasitir, "A Contextual Analysis of Academic Failure,” School Review 71, Autumn 1963. 8David Gottlieb and Benjamin Hodgkins, "College Student Sub-Cultures: Their Structure and Characteris- tics in Relation to Student Attitude Change," School Review, 71 (#3), Autumn 1963. " " 116 upon freshmen depending upon their (upperclassmen) own attitude and value orientation. The number of freshmen who withdrew from the Uni- versity during the Treatment period seemed to be related to residence environment, although not in the originally hypothesized direction. The number of students who left school was greater in the Upperclass residence units, not fewer (Hypothesis 5). Once again, Nasitir helps to shed some light on the possible reasons for these findings. If it may be assumed that freshmen are in a congruent state in an all—freshmen context (i.e. in harmony with their environment), and in a dissonant state in an upperclass context (i.e. dis- cordant with their environment), we would expect to find fewer freshmen withdrawing in the former situation and a greater number withdrawing in the latter. The number of freshmen placed on Dean's list was not related to residence environment (Hypothesis 6). Once again, the data does not suggest a relationship be- tween academic performance and degree of contact with upperclassmen. It is quite possible that freshman aca- demic performance was affected by contact with upperclass- men but not visible when viewing the extremes of perform— ance: probation versus Dean's List. The effort to determine what effect, if any, the presence of upperclassmen had on the number of freshmen 117 involved in major disciplinary action was unsuccessful due to the small number of subjects in the sample (Hypothesis 7). From all indications, major disci- plinary action is generally taken for violation of specific rules or regulations which are held to be particularly important. A greater number of freshmen seemed to be involved in more minor disciplinary situ- ations. As noted earlier, it is likely that measure- ments of extreme behavior are not easily obtained to distinguish the characteristics of a particular group of subjects. The groups' characteristics tend to be more moderate in nature. As hypothesized, a greater number of freshmen in Upperclass residence units perceived their unit to be quiet and conducive to study than in Freshman or Uni- versity-ratio units (Hypothesis 8). This finding veri— fies much practical experience in residence halls. Freshmen are more likely to be involved in "horseplay" and in exhibiting loud and boisterous behavior while upperclass resident students are less likely to condone such behavior. The data supports the thesis that the presence of upperclassmen may serve to deter the fresh- men from exhibiting disturbing behavior. Considering the varying mixture of freshmen and upperclassmen in the several residence units, there seemed to be no significant difference in overall 118 satisfaction with the residence experience (Hypothesis 9). When viewed by degree of contact with upperclassmen, freshmen expressed similar feelings of satisfaction, regardless of the degree of contact. Approximately eighty percent were satisfied with their overall resi- dence experience. Since the residence hall has become a center for numerous out-of—class activities of a social, educational, cultural, and recreational nature, it is likely that degree of satisfaction with residence experience is more closely aligned with feelings about the pertinence and success of these activities and programs than with the degree of contact with upperclassmen.per.§e. The effect of upperclassmen on freshman satisfaction with residence is probably related to the degree of upperclass influence on the total residence program of activities, as noted. Seemingly, the very presence 9f upperclassmen.i§_not, .ig itself, a significant determinant in freshman atti- tudes, values, gr behavior. The impact of upperclass influence is felt only when the ”influential field” is of significant pertinence to the freshman‘s collegiate existence. The data gives strong support to the contention that those students who participated in the pre-testing only were quite similar to those who completed both the pre- and post-testing, at least as attitudes and values were 119 concerned. Since the large majority of non—participants in the post-testing actually moved from the sample unit under study, no real conclusions can be drawn other than that both groups were similar in their initial attitudes and values. Needless to say, it would have been most in- teresting and pertinent to measure and compare the atti- tudes and values of those who were not in the post—test group at the end of the academic year with the study sam— ple despite the fact that they had moved from the experi- mental situation. In any event, it is quite possible to assume that their attitudes and values, and possibly their behavior, would have been similar to the subjects in the study sample had they remained in the sample unit for the complete year. Implications for Further Research The present study of freshman attitudes, values, and behavior attempted to examine these variables to determine the effects of upperclassmen upon them. The data pre— sented in the investigation is generally inconclusive. If anything, it suggests little relationship between freshman attitudes, values, and behavior and contact with upperclassmen. Nevertheless, numerous studies verify the existence of an ”upperclass student subculture” and underscore the influence of the upperclassmen upon the freshman student. The recent study by Wallace seems to 120 leave little doubt that under Specific conditions upper- class influence is a significant factor in freshman ori- entation. Further study of the effects of upperclassmen on the attitudes, values, and behavior of freshmen may wish to focus more on a comprehensive description of the upper- class environment. Can it be assumed that freshmen are exposed to a single upperclass sub—culture when consider— able research points to the existence of several groups with divergent orientations? The use of several testing instruments should be seriously considered in future studies of attitudes and values. The selection of an apprOpriate and powerful instrument is a particularly difficult task, and often ease of administration can become the determining factor. The administration of an attitudes and values pre-test should be completed at the very beginning of the academic year for freshmen and, if possible, during the summer months, if a summer orientation program for freshmen is available. Further, the study of attitudes and values should continue beyond one academic year. Although changes in attitudes and values seem to be most prevalent during the freshman year, changes continue to take place during the entire college experience. Measures of changes in academic and social behavior of freshmen need to be more sensitive. From all indications Ii... A~ . 121 the measurement of extreme behavior, e.g., students on academic probation, Dean’s List, involved in major dis- ciplinary action, etc., does not reflect the character- istics of the group as well as measurement of more natural or general, but significant behavior. Thus, it might be more useful to know the number of freshmen who improved 1 their grade point average or the movement (plus or minus) of grade point average in attempting to understand the factors affecting this average. Finally, freshman contact with upperclassmen was considered to mean proximity to upperclassmen. In other words, several freshmen lived together in a room which was located in close proximity to a room of upperclass— men. Considering the possibility that freshmen may have been able to isolate or insulate themselves from the in- fluence of the upperclassmen, it would be particularly important to view the effects of an upperclassmen on a freshman who was his roommate. In this way, it is possible to clearly study the close interpersonal rela- tionships as well as the developing pattern of attitudes, values, and behavior. There can be no question that higher education in- volves more than an academic experience. The continuing study to understand what else is happening is both diffi— cult and frustrating. Each researcher is challenged to make a significant contribution to this understanding. 122 Yet those who attack the problem must be prepared to accept something less than "earth shattering" results. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbot, M. G., "Values and value perceptions of school superintendents and board members,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1960. American Council on Education, Inventory of Beliefs, Instructor s Manual, 1963. Arsenian, Seth, "Change in Evaluative Attitudes During Four Years of College," Journal pf Applied Ppychol- _pgy 27, 1943. Bales, Robert F., Hare, A. Paul, and Borgatta, Edgar F., ”Structure and Dynamics of Small Groups: a review of four variables,” in Joseph B. Gittler (ed.), Review of Sociology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957. '__ Barton, Allen H., Studying_the Effects of College Educa— tion, New Haven: Hazen Foundation, 1959. Bidwell, Charles E. and others, “Undergraduate Careers. Alternatives and Determinants,” School Review 71, Autumn 1963. Boldt, W. J. and Stroud, J. B. ”Changes in the Attitudes of College Students,” Journal of Educational Psy- chology 25, 1931Jr Brameld, Theodore, ”An Inductive Approach to Intercul- tural Values," Journal pf Educational Sociology, 21, 1947. Butner, Irma N. Valuation Egpressedipy College Students Relative to Education, Work, Family Life, and Leisure, unpublished doctor’s thesis, Sfate Univer— sity of Iowa, 1956, 443 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstpgcts 16:1956. Bushnell, John H. ”Student Culture at vassar,” The American Col1ege, Nevitt Sanford (ed. ). New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Byrne, Donn and Buehler, John A. "A Note on the Influence of PrOpinquity Upon Acquaintanceships, ” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51,1955. 124 Campbell, Doris Klein, Differences of Values Among Collegg Students at Different Class Levels, unpublished doctor's thesis, University of Florida, 1962,73 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 23: 3809. Cantey, Evelyn and Mull, Helen K., ”A Comparison of Fresh- men and Seniors in a Liberal Arts College in Respect of Their Understanding of Social Issues," Journal pf Social Psychology 16, 1942. Child, Irvin L., "Socialization,” Handbook pf Social Ppychology, Vol. 11, Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1954. Clark, B. and Trow, M., "Determinants of College Student Subculture,” in "The Study of College Peer Groups: Problems and Prospects for Research. (Mimeographed) Coleman, James, The Adolescent Society, New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961, 368Epp. Cross, Kathryn Patricia, A Field Study of Individual Conformity to Group Opinion, unpublished doctor' s thesis, University of Illinois, 1958,106 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 19:1133. DeWitt, Abel F., ”Survey of Freshmen Residence Halls in 86 American Colleges and Universities,” Washington State College (Mimeographed), 1948, 7 pp. Dittes, James E. and Kelley, Harold H., "Effects of Dif- ferent Conditions of Acceptance Upon Conformity to Group Norms,” Journal pf_Abpprmal and Social Psyg chology 53, 195 Eddy, Edward D., Jr. , The Collgge Influence on Student Character, Washington, D. C.: American” Council on Education, 1959. Evans, M. Catherine and Wilson, Margaret, ”Friendship Choices of University Women Students," Educational and Psychological Measurement, Autumn 1949. Fagen, Stanley Alan, Conformity and the Relations Between Others' Competence and Own Competence, unpublished doctor's thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1963, 187 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 24: 1729. Fairchild, Ellen, "Current Problems and Programs in Re— sidence Halls,” Journal pf Nationgl_Association of Women Deans and Counselors, 24 (No. 3), April 19611 I'll" II "lllllll'll‘l 125 Festinger, Leon, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Company, 1957 Festinger, Leon and Kelley, Harold H., Changing Atti- tudes through Social Contact, Ann Arbor: Univer— sity of Michigan, September, 1951. Festinger, Leon, Schachter, Stanley, and Back, Kurt, Social Prespures in Infprmal Groups, Stanford Uni- versity Press, 1963, 197 pp. Fox, James Walker, Analysis of University Image Projec- tion to the Student Public as Influenced by Certain Student Characteristics, unpublished doctor's thesis, Indiana University, 1961,128 pp. Abstract: Disser- tation Abstracts 22: 3039. Freedman, Mervin B. ”The Passage Through College," Journal of Social Issues 12,1956. Fritz, Roger Jay, A Comparison of Attitude and Changes of College Freshmen Men Livipg in Various Types of Housing, unpublished doctor's thesis, University* of Wisconsin, 1956,125 pp. Garrison, Karl C."Wor1dminded Attitudes of College Students in a Southern University," Journal of Social Psychology_54, June 1961. Goldsen, Rose and others, What College Students Think, Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1960. Gottlieb, David and Hodgkins, Benjamin, ”College Student Sub— Cultures: Their Structure and Characteristics in Relation to Student Attitude Change,” School Review, (#3), Autumn 1963. Gruen, Richard Edouard, A Study of Attitude Change and Change in Self— Concept Among *Liberal Arts Coll_ge tudents, unpublished doctor' s thesis, New York University, 1963, 172 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 24: 1074. Gustad, John W., ”Changes in Social Attitudes and Be- havior: A review of the literature," Educatipnal and Psychological Measurement 11, 1951. Heinicke, C. and Bales, R. F., ”DevelOpmental Trends in Structure of Small Groups," Sociometry 16, 1953. 126 Hennessey, Sister Mary Agnes, A Studyfl of the Attitudes of College Women Toward Selected Intergroup Prob- lems and Their Relation to Certain Background Fac— tors, unpublished doctor? s thesis. St. Louis Uni- versity, 1958, 234 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 19: 2807. Hollander, E. P. and Webb, Wilse B., "Leadership, Follow- ership, and Friendship: An Analysis of Peer Nomina- tions, ' Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 50 1955 Hood, Albert Bullard, Certain Non— intellectual Factors Related to Student tAttrition at Cornell University, unpublished doctor' s thesis, Cornell University, 1957, 171 pp. Abstract. Dissertation Abstracts 17: 2919. Howard, Victor and Warrington, Willard, ”The Inventory of Beliefs: Changes in Beliefs and Attitudes and Academic Success Prediction,” Personnel and Guidance Journal 37, 1958. Hunter, E. 0., ”Changes in General Attitudes of Women Students During Four Years of College," Journal .gf Social Psychology 16, 1942. Hyry, George Arthur, Factors Associated With Partic_pa- tion._yw Men in Campus Activities in a Mid— Western College, unpublished doctor' 8 thesis, University of Michigan, 1957, 205 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 18: 1302. Jacob, Philip E., Changing Values in College, New Haven: Edward Hazen Foundation, 1956, 178*pp. Jones, Vernon, ”Attitudes of College Students and the Changes in Such Attitudes During Four Years in College, " Journal of Educational Psychology 29, 1938. Kelley, Harold H. and Thibaut, John W. "Experimental Studies of Group Problem Solving and Process," Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. II, Cambridge. Addison- Wesley Publishing Co. ., 1954. King, Jonathan, "Campus Cultures and the Cultured Campus,” The Study of Campus Cultures, Terry Lunsford (ed. ). Boulder, Colorado: WICHE,1962. 127 Krick, Blanche L. Fugate, "A Study of Certain Values and Attitudes of Students in a Liberal Arts College,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, June, 1963. Kroepsch, Robert H. in The Study of Campus Cultures, Terry F. Lunsford Ted .7, Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1963. Lehmann, Irvin J. and Dressel, Paul L. Critical Think- _£gg,.Attitudes, and Values in Higher Education, Final Report of Cooperative Research Project No. 590, East Iansing: Michigan State University, 1962. Miller, Carroll H., "Foundations," Review 9: Educational Research 33, April 1963. Miller, Eleanor 0., ”Non—academic Changes in College Students,” Educational Record 40, 1959. Miller, Norman, Social Class and Value Differences Among American College Students, unpublished doctor's thesis, Columbia University, 1958, 251 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 19: 593. Mull, Helen K. ”A Comparison of Religious Thinking of Freshmen and Seniors in a Liberal Arts College," Journal of Social Research 26,1947. Nasitir, David, "A Contextual Analysis of Academic Failure,” School Review 71, Autumn l963. Nejedlo, Robert John, ”Value orientations and school counselor role expectations ——- A comparative study of school counselors and their administrators,’ unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1964. Newcomb, Theodore, The Acquaintance Process, New York: Holt, Reinhardt and Winston, 1961. Newcomb, Theodore, "Administering Studies of Campus Cul- tures, " The Study of Campus Cultures, Boulder, Col— orado: WICHE,1962. Newcomb, Theodore, Personality and Social Change, New York: Dryden Press, 1943. Newcomb, Theodore M. "The Prediction of Interpersonal Attraction,” American Psychologist, ll, 1956. 128 Newcomb, Theodore, ”Student Peer-Group Influence," The American College, Nevitt Sanford (ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Osgood, C. E. and Tannenbaum, P., "The Principle of Con— gruity and the Prediction of Attitude Change," Psychological Review, 62, 1955. Payne, Isabel K., The Relationship Between Attitudes and Values and Selected Background Characteristics, unpublishEd doctor's thesis, East Lansing: Michi- gan State University, 1961. Plant, Walter Thomas, Attitude Changes Associated With E Two—Year College Experience, unpublished doctor's thesis, Stanford University, 1956, 60 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts I6: 1232. Plant, Walter T., "Changes in Ethnocentrism Associated With a Four—Year College Education," Journal gf Educational Psychology 49, 1958. Raab, William Edwin, Congruence and Dissonance Between Need and Press in Determining_Satisfaction 9; Dis- satisfaction in the University Environment, uanbL lished doctorTs thesis, Colorado State University, 1963, 156 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 24: 1923. '— Ramirez-LOpez, Ramon, A Comparative Study of the Values _g£ Teachers, StudEntsIQf Education, and Other Uni- versity Students lg Puerto Rico, unpublished doc- tor's thesis, University of Texas, 1957, 242 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstractg 17: 2503. Ramsey, R., "A Subcultural Approach to Academic Behavior,” Journal 2f Educational Sociology 35, 1962. Regan, Mary C., "Personality Characteristics of College Freshmen," University of California, Davis (mimeo— graphed), l965. Riker, Harold C., College Students Live Here, New York: Educational Facilities Laboratories, l96l. Rogers, Sister Mary Elaine, The Attitude 2: College Soph- omores and Seniors Toward Counseling Procedures With Reference_tg Certain Personality Factors and Personal ’Problem Frequency, unpublished doctor's thesis, St. Louis University, 1957, 165 pp. Abstract: Disserta— tion Abstracts 18: 503. 129 Rosenberg, Milton; Hovland, Carl I.; McGuire, William J.; Abelson, Robert P. and Brehm, Jack W., Attitude Organization and Change, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960. Ross, Billy Eugene, A Study gf Attitude and Value Inde- terminacy in Entering-College Freshmen, unpublished doctor’s thEsis, University of Tennessee, 1962, 102 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 23: 32 2. Roy, H. L., "A Comparison of the Performance of Freshmen and Sophomores in General Psychology,” ngchological Bulletin 42, l945. Rust, Ralph and Davie, James S., "Differences in Behavior Among College Classes," Psychological Reports 12, 1963. Rutgers, The State University, "Report of Residence Hall Committee," (Mimeographed), 1964, 8 pp. plus appen- dices and tabled. Saupe, Joe L., "Testing — Hypotheses: A Plea for Order in Educational Research,” Michigan State University, mimeographed, undated. Schallenberg, James A., ”Social Choice and Similarity of Personal Values,” Sociology and Social Research 41, 1957. Selvin, Hanan C., "The Impact of University Experiences on Occupational Plans,” School Review 71, Autumn 1963. Siegel, Alberta Engvall and Siegel, Sidney, "Reference Groups, Membership Groups, and Attitude Change,” Journal pf Abnormgl and Social Psychology 55, 1957. Smith, M., ”Change of Attitude Toward Punishment of Criminals,” School and Society 61, 1945. Spindler, George, "Education in a Transforming American Culture," Harvard Educational Review, XXV, #3 (Summer, 1955). Sprague, Hall T. (ed.), Research 2g College Students, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Boulder, Colorado: The Commission, 1960, 180 pp. 130 Sprinthall, Richard Clark, Social Conformity_ig.§_College Fraternity, unpublished doctor's thesis, Boston University Graduate School, 1958, 86 pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 19: 3015. Strickland, Bonnie R. and Crowne, Douglas P., ”Conformity Under Conditions of Simulated Group Pressure as a Function of the Need for Social Approval,” Journal _g£ Social Psychology 58, 1962. Strodtbeck, Fred, "Family Interaction, Values, and Achieve— ment,‘ Talent and Society, David McClelland (ed.), Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1959. Summerskill, John, “DrOpouts from College,” The American College, Nevitt Sanford (ed.), New York: John Wiley 'and San, 1962. Taylor, Harold, "Freedom and Authority on the Campus,” The American College, Nevitt Sanford (ed.), New York: John Wiley and Sons, l962. Thurstone, L. L., "The measurement of values,” Psycho- logical Revigw, 6l #1, 1954. Thurstone, L. L. and Chave, E. J., The Measurement_gf Attitude, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929. Torrance, E. Paul, ”The Influence of Experienced Members of Small Groups on the Behavior of the Inexperienced,” Journal g£_Social Psychology 49, May 1959. Trow, Martin, ”Administrative Implications of Analysis of Campus Cultures,” The Study 2: Campus Cultures, Boulder, Colorado: WICHE, l962. Twomey, Alfred Eugene, A Study 9f_Values of a Select Group gf Undergraduate Students {Researgh Study No. l), unpublished doctor's thesis, Colorado State College, 1962, Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts: 23: 3700. U. S. Office of Education, ”Education and the Bond Market," American Education, Vol. 1 (No. 5, May 1965) and No. 6, July—August 1965). Veroff, J., Feld, S., and Gurin, G., "Achievement Motiva- tion and Religious Background," American Sociologi— cal Review 27, 1962. "“ 131 Wallace, Walter L., Student Culture, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, l966. Warwick, Donald Philip, Socialization and Value Change in a College Community, unpublished doctor' s thesis, University of Michigan, l963, 30l pp. Abstract: Dissertation Abstracts 25: 2088. Warnath, Charles and Fordyce, Hugh R. ”Inventories Values of Entering College Freshmen,” Personnel and Guidance Journal 40, l96l. Weaver, Robert 0., "The New Look of Campus Living,” Ameri— can Education, Vol. I (No. 1), January l965. Webster, Harold, "Changes in Attitudes During College," Journal pf Educational Psychology 49, l958. Webster, Harold, ”Some Quantitative Results," Journal _gf Social Issues 12, 1956. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, The Study of Campus Cultures, Boulder, Colorado: The Commission, l962, l90 pp. Wise, W. Max, "Residence Halls and Higher Learning,” Personnel and Guidance Journal, 36, February 1958. Wright, John C. and Scarborough, Barron B., "Relation- ship of the Interests of College Freshmen to their Interests as Sophomores and as Seniors, " Educational and Psychological Measurement l8, l958. APPENDIX A Personal Data Questionnaire Name Student number last first Hall House/Precinct Class Major Age (nearest birthday) Religious preference: Catholic Protestant Jewish Cther Father's occupation (be specific) Parents' educational level: (please check highest level completed) Father - 1 elem. sch. high sch. college Mother elem. sch. high sch. college Please check size of home community: under 5,000 5,000 - 24,999 # 25,000 - 100,000 over 100,000 w In the past four (4) years have you attended any of the following types of cultural activities: concerts, operas, ballets, plays? (please check) Yes No * * If Yes, how often? Once or twice Several times Very often What magazines, if any, do you read on a regular basis (weekly or monthly)? If none, write NONE. What kind of residence hall eXperiences are you anticipating for the coming year? (please check) .— very favorable favorable unfavorable very unfavorabfg SEC/10-1-64 132 APPENDIX B Supplementary Residence Questionnaire STUDENT ATTITUDES AND VALUES STUDY Hall House/Precinct Number Please respond to the following four (h) questions on the red IBM answer sheet by filling in the proper spaces on the last line of the IBM sheet (items 169 through 172). 169. Class standing, Fall term - l96h: (A) Freshman (B) Spohomore (C) Junior (D) Senior (E) Grad or Special 170. Do you feel that your House/Precinct is quiet enough and conducive to study? (A) Yes (B) No 171. Have you been satisfied with your overall experience in your House/Precinct? (A) Yes (B) No 172. Have you been satisfied with your overall experience in your Hall? (A) Yes (B) No What magazines, if any, do you read on a regular basis (weekly or monthly)? If none, write NONE. (Please answer this question below.) SEC/5-3-65 133 rev. - 2 APPENDIX C The attitudes and values of the freshmen who par- ticipated in the total study (i.e. completed pre- and post—tests) were compared with the attitudes and values of those freshmen who completed the pre-tests only. In Table 4.27, the pre-test attitudes of both groups are outlined. The results of an analysis of variance comparing both freshman groups on their pre-test attitudes are presented in Table 4.28. The F value of .57 is not statistically significant. Hence, it may be assumed that the groups were not significantly different in their pre-test attitudes. In Table 4.29, the pre—test values of both fresh— man groups are summarized. The results of an analysis of variance comparing both freshman groups on their pre-test values are pre- sented in Table 4.30. The F value of 2.48 is not sta- tistically significant. Thus, the groups were not significantly different in their pre-test values. The attitudes and values of the upperclassmen who participated in the total study (completed pre- and post-tests) were compared with the attitudes and values of the upperclassmen who completed the pre-tests only. The pre-test attitudes of both upperclass groups are shown in Table 4.31. 134 135 TABLE 4.27 Pre-Test Attitudes of Freshmen Who Completed Pre— and Post-Tests vs. Freshmen Who Completed Pre-test Only As Measured by the Inventory pg Beliefs Standard Group N Mean Deviation Pre-test Only l38 62.97 l4.l0 Pre- and Post—test 248 64.19 15.85 TOTAL 386 63.75 15.24 TABLE 4.28 Analysis of Variance of Pre-Test Attitudes of Freshmen Who Completed Pre- and Post-Tests Freshmen Who Completed Pbmktest Only vs. Source of Sum of Mean Variance Squares df Square F Between Groups 131.64 1 131.64 .57 Within Groups 89,247.97 384 232.42 TOTAL 89,379.97 385 136 TABLE 4.29 Pre-test values of Freshmen Who Completed Pre- and Post-tests vs. Freshmen Who Completed Pre-test Only as Measured by the Differential Values Inventory Standard Group N Mean Deviation Pre—test Only 138 35.45 7.58 Pre- and Post-test 248 34.18 7.58 TOTAL 386 34.63 7.59 TABLE 4.30 Analysis of Variance of Pre—Test Values of Freshmen Who Completed Pre— and Post—Tests vs. Freshmen Who Completed Pre—Test Only Source of Sum of Mean Variance Squares df Square F Between Groups 142.52 1 142.52 2.48 Within Groups 22,052.98 384 57.43 TOTAL 22,195.49 385 137 The results of an analysis of variance comparing both upperclass groups on their pre-test attitudes are outlined in Table 4.32. The F value of .26 is not sta- tistically significant. Therefore, it may be assumed that the groups were not significantly different in their pre—test attitudes. The pre-test values of both upperclass groups are presented in Table 4.33. The results of an analysis of variance comparing both upperclass groups on their pre-test values are outlined in Table 4.34. The F value of 2.31 is not statistically significant. Consequently, the upperclass groups did not significantly differ in their pre-test values. The attitudes and values of the freshmen who com- pleted the pre-tests only were compared with the atti- tudes and values of the upperclassmen who completed the pre-tests only. The pre-test attitudes of both groups are presented in Table 4.35. The results of an analysis of variance comparing the freshmen and upperclassmen on their pre-test attitudes are outlined in Table 4.36. The F value of 8.56 is sta— tistically significant. Thus, it appeared that freshmen who completed the pre—test only were significantly differ- ent from upperclassmen who completed the pre-test only, in attitudes. 138 TABLE 4.31 Pre-test Attitudes of Upperclassmen Who Completed Pre- and Post-tests vs. Upperclassmen Who Completed Pre-test only, As Measured by the Inventory'gf_Be1iefs Standard Group N Mean Deviation Pre-test Only 115 69.05 16.14 Pre— and Post-test 219 69.98 15.72 TOTAL 334 69.66 15.85 TABLE 4.32 Analysis of Variance of Pre-Test Attitudes of Upperclassmen Who Completed Pre— and Post-Tests vs. Upperclassmen Who Completed Post-Test Only Source of Sum of Mean Variance Squares df Square F Between Groups 65.16 1 65.16 .26 Within Groups 83,585.61 332 251.76 TOTAL 83,650.77 333 139 TABLE 4.33 Pre-test Values of Upperclassmen Who Completed Pre- and Post-tests vs. Upperclassmen Who Completed Pre-test only, as Measured by the Differential Values Inventory Standard Group N Mean Deviation Pre—test Only 115 33.63 8.01 Pre— and Post—test 219 34.98 7.48 TOTAL 334 34.51 7.68 TABLE 4.34 Analysis of Variance of Pre—Test Values of Upperclassmen Who Completed Pre- and Post—Tests vs. Upperclassmen Who Completed Pre—Test Only Source of Sum of Mean Variance Squares df Square F Between Groups 135.88 1 135.88 2.31 Within Groups 19,507.55 332 58.76 TOTAL 19,643.43 333 140 TABLE 4.35 Pre-Test Attitudes of Freshmen Who Completed Pre-Test Only vs. Upperclassmen Who Completed Pre-Test Only as Measured by the Inventory_gf_Beliefs . Standard Res1dence Units N Mean Deviation Freshman 134 63.51 13.73 Upperclass 115 69.05 16.14 TOTAL 249 66.07 15.11 TABLE 4.36 Analysis of Variance of Pre—Test Attitudes of Freshmen Who Completed Pre—Test Only vs. Upperclassmen Who Completed Pre-Test Only Source of Sum of Mean Variance Squares df Square F Between Groups 1,897.54 1 1,897.54 8.56 Within Groups 54,761.16 247 221.71 TOTAL 56,658.70 248 141 The pre-test values of both the freshmen and upper- classmen who completed the pre-test only are summarized in Table 4.37. The results of an analysis of variance comparing the freshmen and upperclassmen on their pre-test values are shown in Table 4.38. The F value of 2.73 is not statistically significant. Therefore, it appeared that there were no significant differences between the fresh— men who took the pre—test only and the upperclassmen who took the pre-test only, in values. 142 TABLE 4.37 Pre-Test Values of Freshmen Who Completed Pre—Test Only vs. Upperclassmen Who Completed Pre-Test Only, as Measured by the Differential Values Inventory Residence Units N Mean ggiggiign Freshman 134 35.25 7.44 Upperclass 115 33.63 8.01 TOTAL 249 34.51 7.74 TABLE 4.38 Analysis of Variance of Pre-Test Values of Freshmen Who Completed Pre—Test Only vs. Upperclassmen Who Completed Pre—Test Only Source of Sum of Mean Variance Squares df Square F Between Groups 162.21 1 162.21 2.73 Within Groups 14,676.03 247 59.42 TOTAL 14,838.24 248 HIC HI W 3 INIIIHIIIU WNWfllllHllllllllWHlllHiHl 129 101024564 ll 3