.‘r...’ UAW V ‘v~._ — ' _ ‘ THE RELAUONSHIP or CENTRALIIY OF cccupmmm CHGECE m Sax. PARENAL mmmcmou. AND smmwmwc LEVEL m UNIVERSITY QNDERGRAD‘UATE STUDENTS The“: (‘0!- flw Daqtm of pi,“ D. MECHEGAH STRTE UMVEW'E‘Y Gl&dys T. Strahl 19$"? l'thélS I Ll] um; mzuyrgum H" g; @115" H: mm g w This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Relationship of Centrality of Occupational Choice to Sex, Parental Identification, and Socioeconomic Level in University Undergraduate Students presented by Gladys T . Strahl has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD degree in Education Major roies r Date November 17, 1967 0-169 $1 , ((5% ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP OF CENTRALITY OF OCCUPATIONAL CHOICE TO SEX, PARENTAL IDENTIFICATION, AND SOCIOECONOMIC LEVEL IN UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS by Gladys T. Strahl This study was undertaken to investigate the relationship between centrality of occupational choice and sex, parental identification, and socioeconomic level. Psychological centrality or ego-involvement in occupational choice appears to be associated with job satisfaction and the implementation of the self concept in an occupation. Since the in- vestigator was unable to find empirical research that dealt directly with centrality of occupational level, the basis for the study was largely the- oretical . The conceptualization of Stefflre (1966) that centrality of occupational choice will be indicated by congruence among self, self concept, occupational "persona" (job personality), and occupational role expectation, was the theoretical framework for this study. Stefflre (1966) proposed that in general the job will be more central for males than for females and for the middle class than for the lower and upper class. In addition, the study considered the relationship between par- ental identification and centrality of occupational choice. Participants in the study were 84 male and 102 female undergrad- uate students tested at the beginning of their freshman year and at the end of their sOphomore year at Michigan State University. As freshmen, subjects rated themselves and their parents on the Interpersonal Check Gladys Strahl List (ICL). Identification was measured by the discrepancy between self and each parent on the ICL. As sophomores, subjects rated them- selves, their occupational persona, and their occupational role expect- ation on the ICL. Centrality was measured by the deviation between the three concept scores and the average of the scores. As BOphomores, subjects also filled out an occupational choice questionnaire which in- cluded information on the father's occupation. Socioeconomic level was measured by ratings of father's occupation on the basis of a 1963 replic- ation of the 1947 occupational prestige ratings from the National Opin- ion Research Center survey. It was hypothesized that (l) occupational choice is more central for males than for females, (2) centrality of occupational choice is not affected by the kind of identification with parents, and (3) centrality of occupational choice is not'affected by socioeconomic level. To test Hypothesis One as to whether males are more central in occupational choice than females, (1) the Mann-Whitney U Test was used to determine differences on the ICL, and (2) the Student’s t Test was used to compute differences in responses to reasons for occupational choice. The hypothesis was rejected: males were not significantly more central than females on occupational choices, although results approached significance on the first part of the hypothesis. Hypothesis Two was tested by using the Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance. The null hypothesis was rejected for males, suggesting that occupational choice is affected by kind of identification Gladys Strahl with parents. The centrality group means for males showed that males’ centrality is affected most by identification with both parents, second by identification with father, third by identification with mother, and last by identification with neither parent. The null hypothesis was not rejected for females: centrality of occupational choice is not affected by the kind of identification with parents. The third hypothesis was tested by using a Spearman Rank Order Correlation. The null hypothesis was rejected for males since central- ity of occupational choice and socioeconomic level were positively correlated (rs=.22). The males with most centrality of occupational choice were from a lower socioeconomic level. The null hypothesis was not rejected for females: centrality of occupational choice is not affected by socioeconomic level. Evaluation of this study led the investigator to suggest additional research possibilities on centrality of occupational choice with both university students and employed males and females. THE RELATIONSHIP OF CENTRALITY OF OCCUPATIONAL CHOICE TO SEX, PARENTAL IDENTIFICATION, AND SOCIOECONOMIC LEVEL IN UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS BY ,1, \. 0‘ I \(L Gladys T“: Strahl 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 G Lf 8*)‘3’3 Orac~é€ DEDICATION to Maury who walked beside me ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express her deep appreciation to her committee chairman, Dr. Norman Kagan, whose help extended throughout her graduate program to the completion of this thesis, to Dr. William Mueller whose statistical insights and continuing support were of utmost value, to Dr. Buford Stefflre whose writings influenced the idea for this study and whOse advice added necessary reassurance, and to Dr. William Sweetland whose interest and en- couragement meant so much. Thanks to Gerald Musgrave for his assistance with computer procedures. Thanks to my colleagues, Ted Hill and Tony Jabury, for being part of my doctoral experience. Sincere gratitude is felt and expressed to Josephine Morse and Bill Kell for stimulating and sharing my change and growth. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION......................'........ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................iii LISTOFTABLES........................... vi LISTOFAPPENDICES.......................vii Chapter I. NATUREOFTHEPROBLEM..............1 Introduction..................,..... StatementofPurpose................. Theory.......................... Researcthpotheses..-..'............. Delimitations of the Study.............. DefinitionsofTerms................ OrganizationoftheStudy \ONO‘LDUJUOr—n II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . 10 The Concept of Centrality in Occupational History.......................11 Sex Differences in Occupational Choice . . . . 13 Identification and Occupational Choice . . . . . 16 Self Identity and Occupational Choice . . 16 Identification with Parents and Occupational Choice . . . . . . . . . . 20 Socioeconomic Levels and Occupational Choice .. 22 III. HYPOTHESIS DERIVATION, SUB-HYPOTHESES, METHODOLOGY, AND ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . _. . 25 Derivation of the Research Hypotheses . . . . 25 Methodology..................... 28 Subjects.....................28 Procedure....................29 Instrument 33 iv Chapter Page MethOd Of AMIYSis O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 38 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS . . . . . 40 HypothesisOne.................... 40 Test of Hypothesis One . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Discussion of Hypothesis One . . . . . . . 43 HypothesisTwo....................48 Test of Hypothesis Two . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Discussion of Hypothesis Two . . . . . . . 50 HypothesisThree.................. 53 Test of Hypothesis Three . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Discussion of Hypothesis Three . . . . . . 55 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . 58 Summary................ ......... 58 Conclusions ...... . . . . . . . ....... . . . 61 Research Implications . . . . . .......... 63 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..... . ............ . ....... 65 APPENDICES .................... . ...... 7O Table LIST OF TABLES Page Mann-Whitney U Test for Centrality of Stated Occupational Choice of Male and Female Undergraduate Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 A Comparison of Stated Reasons for Occupational Choice Of Male and Female UndergraduateStudents.................. 43 Percentages of Responses to Questions on Certainty of Choice and Wish Choice on the Occupational Choice Questionnaire by Male and Female Undergraduate Students. . . . . 47 Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance for Differences in Centrality of Occupational Choice among Male Undergraduate Students with Different Kinds of Identification with Parents . 49 Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance for Differences in Centrality of Occupational Choice among Female Undergraduate Students with Different Kinds of Identification with Parents............................. 51 Means of Group Ranks for Male and Female Undergraduate Students with Different Kinds of Identification with Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 vi Appendix A. LIST OF APPENDICES Page Interpersonal Check List and Directions 1965Testing...................-7o Cover Letter to Contacted Participants inThiBStudYsosssooosoososososooo00 '75 Cover Letter to Non-Contacted Participants in This Study. 0 O O I O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . 77 General Explanation d Questionnaire and Test. . 79 Interpersonal Check List and Directions 1967Testing.........................81 Occupational Choice Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . .85 Interpersonal Check List Circularcontinuumoossisoooooooooooooo89 Ranks of Centrality for Male and Female Students with Different Kinds of Identification With Parents O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 000000 91 CHAPTER I NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Introduction 1 of his occupation in the life of an individual is The centrality often the basis for his personal investment in that occupation. When a person makes an occupational choice that is psychologically central or ego-involving, he not only is telling others something of his educa- tion, his status, and his future potential but also he may be saying some- thing about how he sees himself on the job, his occupational identity. This concept of identity is important to our present culture, particularly in relation to choices made by young men and women. According to Keniston (1962), many of today's young people are not making the change from a youth culture to an adult world of personal commitment to soci- ety and work but rather continue to involve themselves in a private en- joyment of life and in leisure rather than work activities. Havighur st (1964) states that some of our youth become ego-involved entrepeneurs of society with energy and drive for their work but that a larger number become the maintainers of society whose work is acceptable but not lCentrality means, hereinafter, that an occupation is central to an individual's life. It can be used synonymously with the concept of ego-involvement in an occupation. See Definition of Terms in this chapter for an operationalized definition of centrality. 1 absorbing or central to their lives. However, this author maintains that occupations with the highest prOportions of ego- involvement are claiming an increasing share of the labor market and that young people in college have a growing range of occupational choices by which they can achieve their more complex identity in ego-involved work (Havighurst, 1964, 230-231). The above concept of centrality in occupational choice is of concern to the area of vocational exploration. Researchers theoretically relate ego-involvement in work to job satisfaction and to implementation of the self concept. Havighurst (1964) suggests that a person who wants to serve society as well as himself through his work will be ego-involved and sat- isfied with his occupation. In self concept theory, the inference is that the self concept is implemented in an occupational choice because a per- son's perception of himself influences his occupational decision (Super, 1957). It is assumed that centrality or ego-involvement, or the lack of it, is part of the occupational decision and that the more central an occupa- tion is to an individual the more closely it will satisfy his sense of self. As important as this assumption of centrality is to the field of voca- tional theory, this investigator found little research that attempted to de- termine the variables involved in centrality of occupational choice. Stefflre (1966) introduced theoretical propositions that hypothesize several fac- tors that may be involved in centrality and periphery of choice of occupa- tion. He proposes that in general the job is of more central importance to men than to women in our present culture as well as being more central to the middle class than to the lower class or upper class. These prop- ositions have not been studied empirically. Another variable that has stimulated considerable research is the question or what effect parents have on their children's vocational choices. The concept of centrality and its relationship to identification with parents has not been considered in research. If a relationship can be found between such differentiating variables as the above and centrality of occupational choice, more will be known of the concept of centrality in vocational exploration. If a re- lationship is not found, the importance of these variables to this concept may, with the particular sample used, be questioned. Therefore, the present investigation is designed to learn more about the concept of cen- trality in occupational choice. More specifically, the investigation will attempt to demonstrate empirically that variables of sex, identification with parents, and socioecOnomic status will affect the centrality of occu- pational choice . Statement 3_f_ Purpose The purpose of this investigation is to determine the relationship between the centrality of occupational choice of a group of university undergraduates and their sex, parental identification, and socioeconomic level. Theory The major theoretical basis for this study is the concept formula- tions of Stefflre (1966) who discussed a relationship between society and a person's selection of an "occupational persona" which is percived as the mask an individual wears on his job that reveals some of him and hides some of him. The importance of an occupational persona or "job personality" varies from being psychologically peripheral to being central and itselection will be influenced by congruence among the self, the self concept, the occupational persona, and the occupational role expectation (Stefflre, 1966, 614). This author suggests that sex, socioeconomic level, cultural background, and certain societally limit- ing forces which vary from the essential to the accidental affect the choice of the occupational persona. It is the rare individual who chooses an occupation with complete freedom (Stefflre, 1966, 612). Specifically, Stefflre (1966) names the societally limiting forces affecting choice as philosophical, psychological, sociological, economic, and accidental (situational) and postulates that men more than women and middle class more than the other classes are influenced by forces at the philosophical- psychological end. The kinds of influences on occupational Choice suggested by Stefflre (1966) are supported by Roe (1964) who stated that, although occupational behavior is both conditioned by and expressive of personality, it is also conditioned by the state of the culture, the position of the family, the labor market, wars and depressions. Stefflre's (1966) proposal that there are sex differences in centrality of occupational choice is indirect- ly supported by other researchers who found that vocational life histories of women are characteristically different frari men (Erikson,l964; Roe,1964). Re search Hypothe se 3 The theoretical propositions of Stefflre (1966) as well as research which deals indirectly with the theoretical concept of psychological cen- trality of occupational choice serve as the basis for the research hy- potheses that are developed and tested in this study. Vocational theorists have considered women to be on the periphery of the work world for reasons ranging from ambivalence about their sex role to over-concern with and emphasis on marriage (Borow, 1966; Dourvan 8: Gold, 1966). In a society that has so many women in the la- bor force (Wolfbein, 1964), it is important to know more about women's attitudes toward work. In this respect, Stefflre's (1966) question as to whether or not an occupation is more central to males than to females seems pertinent to consider. Whether this difference between males and females will show up in stated occupational choices is not known. The hypothesis to test this question is: Occupational choice is more central for males than for females. Although the concept of centrality of occupational choice in rela- tion to identification with parents has not been studied specifically, re- search indicates a relationship between identification with parents and problems in vocational choice (Brunkan, 1966) and between identification with parents and vocational interests (Crites, 1962). Since no previous research is available on centrality of occupational choice and parental identification, the following null hypothesis is formulated: Centrality of occupational choice is not affected by the kind of identification with parents. Whether or not centrality of occupational Choice is affected by the socioeconomic level of the home is not known. Previous research has indicated that individuals in the middle class of our society tend to be more motivated toward work than those in the upper or lower classes (Borow, 1966: Zytowski, 1965). Stefflre (1966) suggested there will be differences among social classes with more centrality being evidenced among the middle class persons than in the other classes. In order to determine whether or not a relationship does exist between centrality of occupational choice and socioeconomic level, the following hypothesis is formulated: Centrality of occupational choice is not affected by socioeconomic level. Derivation of the hypotheses given above and hypotheses and sub— hypotheses in restated testable form are presented in Chapter III. De limitations 3_f_ Study This study is dealing with only three variables involved in cen- trality of occupational choice. The investigator makes no claim that these are the only determinants of centrality in occupational choice. This study is limited by its sample. The participants are univ- ersity students and occupational behavior is represented only in terms of stated choices. Conclusions drawn, therefore, may apply only to stated occupational choices at a particular choice point in the occupa- tional development of university students. More specific limitations are that students are from sociologi- cally intact families (both mother and father living in the home) at the time they enter the university and that their first two years of college are spent living away from their parental home. The first of these allows a measure of parental identification with either or both parents; the second controls the consistency of the college environmental factor affecting students . Definition 9_f_ Terms Occupation and vocation are defined, for the purpose of this study, as employed activity, a job that a person holds. Vocational and occupa- tional theorists often differentiate between these terms. Occupation. . . meaning employed activity in which the tasks involved are similar from situation to situation. . . . Vocation . . . connotes a sense of life purpose or mission, a raison d'etre. (Wrenn, 1964, 27). This author also points out that the terms are frequently used inter- changeably. For the purpose of this study, such terms as occupational choice, occupational development, and occupational exploration will be used interchangeably with the terms vocational choice, vocational de- velopment, and vocational exploration. Centrality of occupational or vocational choice is defined, for the purpose of this study, as similarity among self concept (SC) occupation- al persona (OP), and occupational role expectation (ORE) as measured by similar scores on the Interpersonal Check List (ICL). Periphery of occupational or vocational choice is defined, for the purpose of this study, as differences among SC, OP, and ORE as meas- ured by differences of scores on the ICL. 2 Philosophical reasons for choice is defined, for the purpose of this study, as reasons expressive of an individual's humaneness and/ or particular "calling" to a vocational choice. Psychological reasons for choice is defined, for the purpose of this study, as reasons arising from unique traits or needs of the in- dividual. SocioloLical reasons for choice is defined, for the purpose of this study, as reasons originating fromthe sociological context of the family or school, from family tradition, background, or occupational inhe r itanc e . Economic reasons for choice is defined, for the purpose of this study, as those reasons expressive of the economics of the country-- good times or depression. Accidental reasons for choice is defined, for the purpose cf this study, as reasons occurring out of a chance situation or timely oppor- tunity. Identification is defined, for the purpose of this study, as simi- larity of scores of description of self and description of mother and 2 The ”five reasons for choice" were prOposed by Stefflre (1966). father. For example, if a child describes himself similarly to the way he describes his mother, but not similarly to the way he describes his father, as measured by the ICL, it is assumed that he identifies with his mother and does not identify with his father. Four kinds of identif- ication are possible: like-sex, cross-sex, with both parents, or with neither parent. Organization 2f_ the Study The following chapter will include a review of the related litera- ture. Chapter III will contain a derivation of the hypotheses, sub-hy- potheses, a description of the sample, and a report of the methodology employed. The results and discussion of results will be reported in Chapter IV. Chapter V will contain a summary of the study with dis- cussion, implications, and conclusions. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE As was stated in Chapter I, centrality of occupational choice is referred to in research studies in terms of its assumed importance to . job satisfaction and to implementation of the self concept. Investigation of psychological and sociological research does not disclose that this concept has been tested empirically. The variables of concern to this study have been considered in relation to the broader concept of occupa- tional choice (Douvan 8: Adelson, 1966; Heilbrun, 1965) or to specific factors such as problems in vocational choice, vocational interests, and work-value orientatiOn (Brunkan, 1965; Crites, 1962; Kinnane 8: Bannon, 1964). This chapter, therefore, reviews research which is relevant to the study of the variables of sex, identification with parents, and socioeconomic level. as they relate to occupational choice. This chapter is divided into four parts. The first section is a brief historical overview of the concept of centrality in occupations. This is followed by a section considering sex differences in relation to occupational choice. In the third section, identification and occupation- al choice is explored. The last section contains research on the in- fluence of socioeconomic factors in occupational choice. 10 11 The Concept 3_f__ Centrality __i_r_i_ Occupational HistorL Centrality or ego-involvement in an occupation is not a new con- cept. Work as a measure of personal self-value was part of the re- ligious fervor prevalent in the early days of this country's history. Wrenn (1964) suggested that settlers brought with them the ideas of Luther who considered that work was carrying out God's purpose on earth and of Calvin who preached that work had personal virtue because God required it of man. While work as a virtue was inherited from our EurOpean ancestors, "work to survive" was an outcome of the pioneer conditions of life (Wrenn, 1964, 27). These two concepts com- bined to produce hard-working persons who were motivated to work hard and to succeed at their jobs. Work for itself tended to be more important than what the work was. When this country later moved from a pioneer society to an industrial one in which men took mental rather than physical risks and machines did much of the hard work, the term ”work" was replaced by the idea of "occupation" where it was impor- tant what_l_<_in_c_'l_ of work a man did. At that time, according to Wrenn (1964), "occupation" began to have status connotation. The present century, with its shift to industrialization and urban- ization, has inadvertently deemphasized the status of work, according to Wrenn (1964). A job is no longer a private affair in which an indiv- idual gets personal satisfaction from seeing the result of his labor but is more often under the surveillance of others with a decreasing oppor- tunity to see the finished product (Wrenn, 1964, 29-30). The social 12 context in which work is performed, wrote Borow.(l967), is, for so many occupations, increasingly impersonal. Other changes in occupational areas that seem to concern voca- tional theorists are the shorter work week and the lack of intrinsic rewards in work. Borow made several observations about such change. Realization that the work week of the average American worker very probably will continue to decline has led to serious conjectures by social analysts and educators that further shifts may occur in the psychological mean- ing and importance of occupational experience. (Borow, 1966, 380). This author went on to suggest that American youth should be prepared for leisure hours so that such time will be personally rewarding and socially responsible, such as in volunteer "work" or meaningful hob- bies, and not wasted and misused. Goodman (1960) has written that ex- trinsic more than intrinsic work values have become important to adol- escents in that young peOple today consider pay, security, and working conditions before they think of the job's worthiness, honor, or useful- ness to others. With a more optimistic outlook, Havighurst (1964) stated that, even though the meaning of work is changing rapidly, young peOple are needful of and concerned with finding their occupational identity. The relationship of the concept of centrality to this country's his- tory as well as what ego-involvement in an occupation may mean at the present have been briefly considered above. Borow (1966) stressed that it is important to understand not only the history of occupational change and the understanding of the adult worker. but also to investigate the 13 develOpmental stages of young people. He emphasized the need for researchers to look at the processes by which a young person acquires his concept of work, Sex Differences i_r_i_Occupational Choice As important as the developmental stages in occupational choice are to young people, vocational and occupational research on females has been deficient. Considering that the number of female workers is increasing at almost twice the rate of male workers and that nearly one in three workers in the American labor force is a woman, Borow (1966) stressed that there is too little research on women and their occupational choices. Although the evaluation of sex differences has, therefore, been limited, some differentiating factors of importance to this investigation have been studied. The opinion of a number of writers has been that our culture tends to have different occupational expectations for males and females and that children learn these sex stereotypes. Singer and Stefflre (1954) compared the job values and desires of 343 male high school seniors and 416 female high school seniors and found that boys desire jobs offering power, profit, and independence while girls are inclined to select job values characterized by social service and interesting ex- periences. Kagan and Moss (1962) demonstrated that characteristics perceived as feminine (e.g. passivity and dependency) are highly stable from childhood to adulthood for females. Similarly, aggression as a l4 trait of boys is continuous. Such long lasting characteristics decidedly influence the occupational choice in males'and females, they concluded. Concurring with such sex differences, Erikson (1964) suggested that not only is society influential in imprinting stereotypes but also men and women are psychologically drawn to master different areas of liv- ing. Men want to master external space, often nature at large, while women are more comfortable dealing with problems of life that unfold within well-defined space (Erikson, 1964, 315). Certainty, of choice appears to be another factor differentiating males and females. A large sample of 29, 000 seventh graders was studied by Parker (1962) who found that half again as many boys as girls, a significant difference in his study, were definite about voca- tional plans. Borow (1966) suggested that the uncertain contingency of marriage may be an obstacle to early and definate vocational choices in women. In their extensive study of American adolescents, Douvan and Adelson (1966) pointed out that adolescent girls are clearly more vague regarding vocational plans. Their range of choices tended to cluster in the traditional feminine occupations of nurse, teacher, and secretary. Also, these researchers found that much of the identity formation of this age group is oriented toward the future. For the male, the nature of his occupation plays a crucial defining role. The female, depending on marriage for a sense of identity, tends to take her self—definition from the man she marries and the children she raises. Since marriage is often in the undefinable future, a certain amount of 15 ambivalence can be expected. At college age, added Douvan and Gold (1966), where the role of woman student is not clearly defined, the young woman is still ambivalent as she vacillates between being a coed girlfriend heading for marriage and a student. In contrast, a young man identifies both as self-as-worker and as self-as-mate and does not face the conflict that women do. ‘ Differences in the realism of occupational choice tends to be sexually differentiating. At the grade school level, according to O'Hara (1962), girls were found to have a more intimate and concrete contact with the world in that they took care of younger children and often role-played nurse and teacher, highly realistic if limited choices for future careers. Boys tended to be more adventuresome in their choices and often less reality oriented. Later, however, the sexes appear to shift places. Ginzberg, Ginzberg, Axelrad, and Herma (1951) speculated that women's realistic choices in college are com- plicated by their aspirations for marriage. If women do not make a firm commitment to a career, this may be apparent by a fantasy-based choice which defensively keeps them from a real choice. That college level students are closer to their vocational goals than younger groups is indicated by the research on progressive clar- ification of vocational goals. High school seniors were more capable than sophomores and juniors to make reality-based choices (Hall, 1963), and sixteen-year-old boys compared with fourteen-year-old boys in a national survey had more realistic ideas of the preparation necessary 16 in their chosen fields (Douvan 8: Adelson, 1966). It can be assumed, therefore, that the older a person is, the more likely that his occupa- tional goal will be realistic and clarified. As suggested above, research tends to indicate that women do not have as clearly defined a work orientation as men do, even when they have reached a college setting. Yet the number of women workers continues to increase and the average work tenure for women, accord- ing to Wolfbein (1964) is not short because so many women return to working careers when their children are in school. At present,the av- erage age of the American woman worker is estimated at 38 years and a high school girl of today may typically be expected to spend 25 years of her remaining life in the labor force. Because of such statistics, this author stressed the importance of more research on the nature of women's occupational development. Identification ind Occupational Choice For purposes of clarification, this section is separated into a subsection on self identity and occupational choice and a subsection on identification with parents and occupational choice. Self Identity and Occupational Choice In looking at identity formation in adolescents, the constructs of Er ikson (1956) seem relevant. He theorized that the adolescent needs to modify his behavioral roles as he moves from childhood toward adulthood. The term "ego identity" refers to successful modification 17 while "ego diffusion" indicatesethat there has been some failure in his modification, according to Erikson (1956). This author considered that identification takes place through different stages of a child's develOp- ment with the child identifying with the part-aspects of people with whom he comes into contact. Identity diffusion--the lack of a clear sense of self and who one is--was seen by Erikson (1956) to be a characteristic phase in young people which ordinarily ends with adolescence. In our society one of the most clear-cut means by which identity is expressed is through the process :1 making a vocational choice. As considered in the previous section, males and females tend to express their ident- ities differently in their occupational choices. For boys, choosing an occupation is a great determinant of identity while girls tend to keep their identity diffuse because their view of the future is blurred by con- cern about marriage (Douvan 8: Adelson, 1966). Because an occupation in our culture often identifies a person more clearly than any other characteristic, young people are well aware that the question "Who is he? " often means "What does he do. . . what job has he? " Therefore, self identity as perceived through the self concept, as Super (1957) suggested, is central in occupational Choice. He defined the self concept as the way in which an individual sees his aptitu des, interests, and personality. Stefflre (1966) went a step further in pointing out that not only does the person need to per- ceive himself accurately but there needs to be congruence among the self, the self concept, the "job personality", and the occupational role 18 expectation in order for there to be a "fitting" relationship which is the "idealized concept of the selection of an occupation as being the implementation of a self-concept. " (Stefflre, 1966, 614). Before a person enters an occupation, however, he cannot know all about him- self or about the occupation and, therefore, the ideal "fitting" relation- ship does not happen often. According to Stefflre (1966), the person will use what he knows of himself to make his choice and, depending upon how he perceives himself as well as his view of himself on the job and his expectations of his occupational role, he will, in varying de- grees, implement his self concept. Given a person with a particular psychological make-up, how is the self concept translated into occupational choice terms? Although their model has not been tested adequately, according to Holland (1964), this question has been theoretically answered by Super and colleagues (1963) who propose that the self concept consists of all the statements a person makes about himself. For example, if the person conceives of himself as social, verbal, aggressive, and bright and if he thinks of lawyers in the same terms, he may become a lawyer. In contrast, a person may con- ceive of scientists as unsocial, quiet, passive, and intelligent, but since only one of these occupational terms is consistent with his self-concept he will avoid scientific occupations. These simple exam- ples can be elaborated so that complex self-con- cepts can be related to complex occupational con- cepts and to large numbers of occupations. Thus numerous occupations can be revealed as "com- patible',‘ to varying degrees, with a person's self- concept. (Holland, 1964, 262-263). 19 That a person's occupational role can be one representing an avoidance reaction as well as, or instead of, an approach reaction, was considered by Stefflre (1966) who stated this was due to a person wanting a life different from his present one. Other vocational theorists made similar propositions. To Galinsky and Fast (1966), a work ident- ity may be well-formed but blocked from expression by a fear of acting in accordance with it. Forer (1965) called avoidance a "defensive choice" by which important aspects of self, abilities, and needs will be rejected in favor of allaying anxiety or dealing only with the con- flicts of a vocational choice. Suggesting that some individuals today are just not interested in an occupation, Zytowski (1965) stated that these persons avoid the idea of a permanent commitment to the ordin- ary vocational behavior of a career. This approach-avoidance reac- tion, then , suggests another dimension to theory of occupational choice by looking at opposite or denied choices. The assumption can be made, after looking at the above refer- ences, that a young person's ego-identity or concept of self is involved in his occupational choice. Holland (1964) presented a theoretical model to support the idea that this ego-identity, through the concept of self, is a describable concept. Reference was made to researchers who considered that the self concept may affect avoidance as well as commitment to an occupation (Stefflre, 1966; Zytowski, 1965). The self concept appears to be a relevant concept to consider when study- ing choices of occupations. 20 Identification with Parents and Occupational Choice Research on the effect of the familial psychological atmosphere on occupational choice by children at college age suggested a relation-\ ship between identification with parents and particular variables in- volved in occupational choice. Stoke (1951) credited Freud with the introduction of "identification " into psychological writing: . . .and here we have that higher nature, in this ego-ideal, or superego, the representative of our parents. When we were little children we knew these natures, we admired and feared them; and later we took them into ourselves (Freud, 1935, 47). Identification has been effectively measured by means of assumed similarity between the subject's rating of self and parent as he per- ceives them. Some research looked at the degree of identification with same-sexed and with Opposite-sexed parents. Studies of college stu- dents by Heilbrun (1965) and Bieri, Lobeck, and Galinsky (1959) con- firmed that college males tend to see themselves more like their fathers than college females see themselves like their mothers. Heilbrun (1965) found there may be more of a tendency for females than for males to identify both with same-sexed and opposite-nsexed parents. A possible explanation, he stated, is that it is more acceptable for fe- males to try masculine roles than for males to try feminine roles. Also, he found that males tend to identify less with one or both parents than females do . 21 Crites (1962), studying parental identfication and vocational in- terest develOpment in college students, considered that identification encompassed both projection and introjection and should be assessed with a measure of similarity of perceptions. He used methods of "con- cept of self" and "concept of parent" and found, using 350 college under- graduates, that in general identification with both parents influenced the formation of vocational interest patterns but that identification with the father was significantly more important than with the mother. Look- ing at the relationship between parental identification and problems of vocational choice, Brunkan (1966) showed that degree of identification with the father differed signficantly from that with the mother. His hypothesis that problems of indecision about vocational choice were accompanied by a high degree of father identification was not supported. Rather, he found that the (mean of the undecided subjects indicated low rather than high identification with their fathers. Studying females and identification with parents, White (1959) found that career-oriented college women appear to be less satisfied with themselves and to identify less and communicate less with their parents than a comparable group of non-career-oriented women. Studies cited point out the influence of identification with parents on young peOple's choices of occupation. It can be assumed that par- ents are major precipitants in their children's ultimate occupational choices. Burchinal (1962) listed several studies in which male and female subjects named parents most frequently as the persons who had 22. the greatest influence on their occupational plans. Some research has found that this influeme on occupational choice is due to identific- ation with either or both parents. Additional study of this relationship seems appropriate. Socioeconomic Levels and Occupational Choice Psychologists and sociologists studying occupational behavior consistently observe the individual in his social milieu. Among the factors considered to be of importance to occupational development is the social class origin of the individual. Research in this area was compiled by Borow who drew several conclusions. No simple, linear correspondence exists between the social class origins of subjects and their edu- cational-occupational aspiration levels. It appears that relationships between these variables are in- fluenced by factors of age, previous achievement, personal values, and by the reference groups with which subjects are identified (Borow, 1966, 385). However, some research studies reported by Borow and others have made some claims and inferences relative to this study. With young men's occupational choices, Youmans (1956) found that social stratif- ication is more important in the formation of high school senior boys' choices than school, type of community, work experience, or particu- lar factors in the home other than the social level. Studying lower- class homes and middle-class homes, Elder (1963) suggested that the family functions in the development of youth's occupational motives by providing not only learning opportunities but also Opportunities to meet 23 peOple who value achievement. Vocational aspiration, educational plans, and the actual choice of an occupation are, in general, related to the influence of the family, according to Borow (1966). It can be assumed that what parents feel in the way of ego-involvement in their jobs also may affect their children. Kinnane and Bannon (1964) studied intrinsic and extrinsic work-values of college women as they were affected by parental influence and the socioeconomic level of the home. Although their not ion that women of lower socioeconomic status seek extrinsic values in work while those of upper socioeconomic status seek intrinsic values was not supported, they found a significant rela- tionship between perceived parental influence and socioeconomic status of the family, as indicated by the occupational level of the father. Zytowski (1965) commented about the three socioeconomic classes and avoidance behavior in vocational motivation. At the very lowest social-class status, work seems only to satisfy certain biological needs, and psychological satisfaction is gained from other, non-work involvements. The highest social class level may produce individuals whose "vocations" do not include that essence of toil or asceticism which the middle class believes necessary to their work, and for which satisfaction of such inner states as values, needs or personality characteristics seems to compensate (Zytowski, 1965, 750). This author also noted that women tend not to have career motives at the head of their motivational hierarchy and, if they do, they are con- sidered unusual because they do not place their occupations second to those of mother and housewife. Again, as considered in previous sec- 24 tions of this chapter, the stereotype of what a woman's aspiration should be is considered by researchers to be an important factor to her in deciding on her occupation. In summary, there was some research cited above to indicate that socioeconomic factors are worthy of consideration when investigat- ing the occupational choices of young people. The relationship of part- icular variables to vocational choice have been studied but no specific conclusions can be drawn. Rather, it seems pertinent to look further into this area. In this chapter the research considered to be relevant to an in- vestigation of centrality in occupational choice has been reviewed. In the next chapter this literature will be synthesized in order to show how the hypotheses were derived. The methodology used in testing the hypothesis will also be considered. CHAPTER III HYPOTHESES DERIVATION, SUB-HYPOTHESES, METHODOLOGY , AND ANALYSIS In the first section of this chapter, a synthesis of the research discussed in Chapter II is presented along with the derivation of the re- search hypotheses given in Chapter I. The second section describes the methodology used in testing the hypotheses. An explanation of the method of analysis of data is included in the last section. Derivation 33 the Research Hypotheses The hypotheses tested in this study were based more upon their assumed relationship to vocational theory than upon research evidence on the concept of centrality. The research cited in Chapter II pointed out the relationship of the broader concept of occupational choice to the variables considered in this investigation. Evidence cited indicated sex, parental identification, and socioeconomic factors tend to influ- ence vocational choice in young people. It can be assumed that some relationship exists between centrality of occupational choice, which has not been tested empirically, and the variables under investigation. In order to make this assumption, it is also necessary to assume that the theoretical concept of centrality is measurable. Studies cited in Chapter II stated that women may still be clinging 25 26 to a feminine stereotype in spite of the increased number of women in the labor market and the present emphasis on more education for wom- en. The result of such stereotyping means that women tend to have an ego-diffusion and an unrealistic self concept when occupational choice is concerned. That females are more psychologically peripheral in their occupational choices than males is Stefflre's (1966) proposal. Although he conceptualizes centrality and periphery in terms ofactual occupational choice, an investigation of stated occupational choice also seems relevant to the concept. Are college women, at a time of forced choice of occupation- -the end of their sophomore year at a university that forces a final academic major choice at that time--periphera1 in occupational choice when compared to males? To attempt to answer this question, the following hypothesis and operational sub-hypotheses were formulated: H1: Occupational choice is more central for males than for females. H1 : Occupational choice is significantly more central for males a than for females as measured by similarity of scores on the Interpersonal Check List (ICL). Societally limiting forces affecting the choice of an occupational persona were proposed by Stefflre (1966). Centrality was related to these forces in a descending fashion from the essential to the acciden- tal-«from philosophical to psychological to sociological to economic to accidental. Stefflre's (1966) proposition that males have more essential forces affecting their job choices while females have more accidental 27 forces was the basis for the second sub-hypothesis. H1 : Occupational choice is significantly more central for b males than for females as measured by the greater number of philosophical and psychological reasons for occupational choice expressed by males than by females and by the lesser number of economic and accidental reasons for occupational choice expressed by males than by females on the occupational choice questionnaire. Considerable research is available on the effect that different kinds of parental identification have on college students (Bieri _e_t_a_._l., 1959: Heilbrun, 1965), including the effect on vocational interest patterns (Crites, 1962) and problems of vocational choice (Brunkan, 1966). No empirical studies have considered the variable of identifica- tion with parents and its relationship to centrality of occupational choice in young peOple. The following null hypothesis is formulated to deter- mine whether or not there are significant differences among those stu- dents identifying differently with their parents. H2: Centrality of occupational choice is not affected by the kind of identification with parents. Inasmuch as research has found that vocational life histories of women are characteristically different from men, the treatment of males and females is separately hypothesized and tested. H2 : There is no significant relationship between centrality of occupational choice for males and kind of identifica- tion with parents as measured by similarity of scores on the ICL. There is no significant relationship between centrality of occupational choice for females and kind of identif- ication with parents as measured by similarity of scores on the ICL. 28 Socioeconomic level has had an assumed importance in the ego- involvement of occupational choice. Attending to the class system, evidence presented in Chapter II indicated that the middle class, more than the upper or lower classes, is considered to be more motivated toward work and the values affiliated with work. This appears to re- late indirectly to Stefflre's (1966) proposition that the middle class, more than lower or upper classes, will show more centrality of occu- pational choice. Again, males and females are treated separately. The hypothesis and sub-hypotheses of no differences are suggested inas- much as there is no previous research on these two variables. H3: Centrality of occupational choice is not affected by the socioeconomic level of the home. There is no significant difference in the centrality of occupational choice as measured by similarity of scores on the ICL for males from different socio- economic levels as measured by father's occupation. There is no significant difference in the centrality of occupational choice as measured by similarity of scores on the ICL for females from different socioeconomic levels as measured by father's occupation. Methodilogy This section includes a description of the subjects used in the study, an explanation of the procedure used in gathering the data, and information about the instrument chosen for testing the hypotheses. Subj e cts Subjects were 84 males and 102 females in the third term of their 29 sophomore year at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan. The sample is representative of undergraduate students at this univer- sity. The subjects were administered the ICL in October, 1965, the first month of their freshman year at the university. The original sam- ple of freshmen who were selected as representative freshmen of Mich- igan State University included 170 males and 250 females. Of this early sample, drop- outs and transfers to other universities eliminated some subjects between 1965 and 1967. Additional limitations were that stu- dents must be from sociologically intact homes (both mother and father living in the home ) at the time they entered the university and that their first two years of college must be spent living away from their parental home. In all, these limitations dropped out 53 males and 110 females from the original sample. An additional 33 males and 38 fe- males were eliminated when their tests and questionnaires were not completed correctly or were not returned to the researcher. Procedure The research instrument, the ICL (Appendix A) was administered to the subjects during their freshman fall term at Michigan State Univ- ersity in October, 1965.3 The check list asked for ratings of impres- sions of "self", "mother", and "father".4 At this time, the first month 3 This testing was part of a general education development testing program under the direction of the university's evaluation services' re- search program. 4Ratings were also obtained for "impressions about myself I wish to convey to others" and "fears about how I impress others", ratings not used in this investigation. (See Appendix A) 30 of their first term at the university, perception of mother and father was as close in time as possible to when the student lived at home. It was assumed, in using this data, that integrated parental perception would be clearer at this time than after the student had been separated by time and/or space from the parents. Near the end of spring term, 1967, a time when the third term sophomores would have to declare a last academic major Change, the investigator attempted to telephone the early sample subjects remain- ing at MSU, before their departure for the summer months, to explain the research and to ask their cooperation. Of the total remaining sam- ple of 127 males and 140 females, 100 males and 132 females were con- tact ed by telephone. Since all subjects had not been reached, separate cover letters for those contacted (Appendix B) and for those not con- tacted (Appendix C) were included in the research packet. The packet, mailed out to the subjects, included, besides the cover letter, an ex- planation of the test and questionnaire (Appendix D), the ICL5 and its directions (Appendix E), and a questionnaire (Appendix F). Subjects were instructed to answer a separate answer sheet for the three ICL ratings of "self", "impressions about myself on the job I wish to con- vey to others", and "impressions about the kinds of people on the job that I have chosen". These three ratings are representative of self concept (SC), occupational persona (OP) as postulated by Stefflre (1966), and occupational role expectation (ORE). The instructions urged the 5This ICL has deleted non-scoreable filler items included in the first test administration. 31 subjects to answer the check list in the order specified in their direc- tions. The answer sheets were randomly ordered so that they were completed in six different combinations of order: (1) SC-OP-ORE6, (2) SC-ORE-OP, (3) OP-SC-ORE, (4) OP-OREvSC, (5) ORE-SC-OP, and (6) ORE-OP-SC. Subjects were also instructed to fill out a questionnaire asking for information on college major, occupation and specialization plans, certainty of the occupation and specialization plans, preferred " wish" choice of occupation, desire for similarity of home to parent's home, counseling at MSU counseling center (if any), parents' education and occupation, and a rank-order of preferred reasons for occupational choice. After completing the materials, subjects were asked to seal them in an envelope provided in the packet and to mail them to the in- vestigator. After the above materials had been returned, it was necessary to determine for each subject: (1) an identification score with each parent, (2) a centrality score on the basis of the three scores for self concept, occupational persona, and occupational role expectation, (3) a score for the five different reasons for occupational choice, and (4) a rank for father's occupation. An identification score was acquired by deviating each subject's response to his self concept on the summary scores of Love and Dom- inance from his responses for his mother and his father. D-scores were then computed and listed from the smallest to the largest score 6This specific combination in included in Appendix E. 32 for each of the two groups, males and females. A median dichoto- mized the list; the subjects above the median were considered as ident- ifying with the parent, those below the median were considered as not identifying with the parent. Four groups were thus established to in- dicate different kinds of identification with (l) like-e sex parent, (2) cross- sex parent, (3) both parents, and (4) neither parent. In the second case, an average of the three concept scores--SC, OP, and ORE--for both the Dominance and Love dimension, was calcu- lated for each person. A D-score was computed by deviating each con- cept score from this average. The Dzs were summed and a square root of the sum of the D25 for each of the dimensions, Dominance and Love, were totaled to give one score designated as the centrality score. These single scores were then ranked, the smallest rank representing the greatest amount of centrality and the highest rank representing the least amount of centrality. It was also necessary to score the reasons for occupational choice, ranked by the subjects from 1 to 5 in each of four questions on the occupational choice questionnaire. In the ranking, 1 represented a first choice, 2 a second choice, to 5 as a last choice. Procedure was to add up the ranks for each of the five reasons which gave sums of ranks for each subject on each reason. In addition, the questionnaire provided information about socio- economic level as indicated by the father's occupation which was rank- ed according to the National Opinion Research Center's listing of the "Prestige Rankings of 90 Occupations"(NORC, 1947). A recent replication 33 of this survey by Hodge, Siegel, and Rossi (1964) was used to assign ranks to the occupations of the subjects' fathers. These ranks are listed from the lowest rank representing the occupation with the highest pres- tige to the highest rank representative of the lowest-prestige occupation. Instrument This section contains a description of the instrument used in this study, the Interpersonal Check List (ICL). Rationale for its use as well as validity and reliability informationfor the instrument will be stated. Description of ICL The ICL was developed by LaForge and Suczek (1955) to measure self-perception and perception of others. It was developed in conjunc- tion with the Interpersonal System of Personality (ISP) of Leary's (1957). The authors suggest the ICL's usefulness as a separate re- search instrument becauSe it is highly comprehensive and deals with all the interpersonal aspects of personality. The ICL is comprised of 128 items consisting of adjectives or adjective phrases describing different aspects of interpersonal behav- ior and considered either true or false by the respondent. The items are given an alphabetical code designation and are listed in a circular continuum (Appendix G). There are eight items in each of the 16 vari- ables of the circle. The responses to these items are scored on a 4- point scale, increasing in intensity in four steps as they move toward the perimeter of the circle. The range of these items is from 1, re- flecting "a mild or necessary amount of the trait", to 2, " a moderate 34 and/or appropriate amount of the trait", to 3, "a marked or inapprop- riate amount of the trait", to 4, "an extreme amount of the trait". Summary raw scores for the two dimensions, Dominance-Submission (DOM) and Love-Hate (LOV) are extracted by a weighted sum of each set of responses to the 128 items. Rationale for Use of the ICL This instrument was chosen after reviewing the literature to find an appropriate instrument to evaluate other persons as well as self. As Buros' Sixth Measurement Yearbook pointed out, this attribute in the ICL is achieved. The ability to assess the examinee's evaluation of persons other than himself on the same dimen- sions used for describing the self, thus allowing the ICL to be used sociometrically, is a great achievement in view of evidence indicating the lack of agreement between a variety of tests and scales presumably measuring the same con- structs (Bentler, 1965, 127). In the research literature, work was often epitomized in such ex- pressions as "way of life". Social communion or interaction with others, on the job as well as away from the job, appeared to be work- related to a considerable degree. The ICL as an "interpersonal" in- strument was considered to be applicable for rating of "self", "im- pressions about myself on the job I wish to convey to others", and "im— pressions about the kinds of people on the job that I have chosen". In addition, since subjects were asked to rate themselves and others on the check list, the instrument needed to be as free as possible 35 from response set, such as the effects of "social desirablity". Allow- ances for such effects have been both explicitly and implicitly designed into the ICL. Explicitly, social desirability is represented in the scoring of the ICL by the intensity of the items. LaForge and Suczek (1955) pointed out the close equivalence between intensity and social desirabil- ity. Empirical evidence for a sample of 94 university students aver- aged a correlation of -. 73. It was found that the correlation was higher for the items of the ICL lying close to the Love-Hate axis and revisions of the check list have attempted to balance this axis. The authors stated that these revisions have not resulted in different desirabilities for men and women. Scale' values of social desirability assigned the ICL on the basis of college students' responses did not noticeably differ according to the sex of the raters. Implicitly, LaForge (1963) pointed out, social desirability has been balanced for the 16 interpersonal categories and literally "built into" the ICL. . . . items were so chosen that every "intensity" classification is equally represented in every "interpersonal" classification (i. e. , every in- terpersonal category contains eight words or phrases distributed 1:3: 3:1 over the four levels of judged intensity); in this sense the two class- . ifications are orthogonal. . . As a result of the balance given the 16 inter- personal categories with respect to judged inten- sity and endorsement frequencies, the ,tendancy to acquiesce and the tendency to respond in an extreme or a deviant way affect scores on the 16 interpersonal categories with nearly equal 36 force. Moreover, sets to respond in a socially desirable way affect scores on each of the 16 interpersonal categories with roughly equal force (LaForge, 1963, 14- 15). Another factor that entered into the choice of this instrument by the investigator was the facility with which the ICL can be used to measure identification, Research evidence indicated that an adjective check list can qualify similarly to the semantic differential which has been used a great deal for measuring identification. Block (1958) used both the semantic differential and an adjective check list of 79 adjec- tives which he developed for his study, as measures of identification between the concepts "your ideal self" and "your father" and "your mother", employing a group of University of California students as subjects. When corrected for attenuation , he obtained a correlation of . 94 between the two methods. His conclusion was: . . .while the semantic differential is assumed to reveal relationships among concepts of which the subject may be unaware, hence revealing uncon- scious or preconscious material, the adjective check list served just as well as a measure of identification as did the semantic differential (Block, 1958, 84). This researcher also obtained a slightly higher split-half reliability for the check list than for the semantic differential. On the basis of this and further research (Champ 8: Block, 1960), the adjective check list appeared to be an appropriate instrument to use for screening sub- jects into groups of successful and unsuccessful identifiers, those with low difference scores versus those with high difference scores. 37 Reliability of the ICL Leary (1957) reported a test-retest reliability correlation on a clinical sample, with an N of 77 retested after two weeks, which ranges from .64 to .83 on the sixteenths (8 items in each sixteenth) of the circular grid. The average reliability for octants with this sample was .78. Non-clinical samples in five different groups, including three groups of college students, with a total N of 479, showed internal consistency ranging from . 51 to .86 by the communality of each of the raw score measures on the sixteenths of the circular grid. These com- munalities, according to LaForge (1963) are particularly encouraging because the sixteenths are personality scales of only eight items. The summary scores (DOM and LOV) have communalities above . 90. Since the summary scores are based on more items, they are, in a test- retest sense, more reliable than the sixteenth scores. Armstrong (1958) checked reliability cf the ICL in terms of in- ternal consistency of the test. His sample was 50 "normal" males and 50 "alcoholic" males rating self, mother, father, wife, ideal wife, and ideal self. The Kuder-Richardson Formula was applied to these twelve ratings. Each of the rtt's were significant beyond the . 01 level. These correlations ranged from . 953 to . 976. His conclusions were that re- gardless of population or who is rated (e.g. self, father, mother), the ICL yields a significant internal consistency. 38 Validity of the ICL Bieri and Lobeck(l961) studied relationships between parental identification, religious affiliation, and social class and the two fac- tors of self concept, Dominance and Love. Significance was found for the hypothesis that the Dominance Score on the ICL would be more positively weighted on managerial-autocratic and competitive octants of the ICL and the Love score would be more positively weighted on the cooperative-overconventional and docile-dependent octants. Gynther, Miller and Davis (1962) designed a study to investigate the relationship between scores on the Edwards Personal Preference Survey (EPPS) and the ICL, measuring needs andbehaviors respect- ively, with 95 undergraduate student subjects. They found that signif- icant systematic relationships between the two instruments are direct and, to a certain extent, predictable. For example, the ICL Love variable is positively associated with the EPPS needs Affiliation and Nurturance and negatively associated with needs Autonomy and Aggres- sion. Method 21 Analysis The statistics used were the Mann-Whitney U Test, the Kruskal- Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance, the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient, and the Student t Test. It was decided to reject the hy- potheses only when the critical value established at the . 05 level of confidence was not exceeded. Both the one-tailed test and the two- 39 tailed test were used, depending on the hypothesis tested. In summary, this chapter has included the hypothesis deriva- tion, sub-hypotheses, methodology, and the method of analyzing the data. In the next two chapters, results will be described, discussed, and evaluated. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS This chapter, which includes an analysis of the data, a report of results, and a discussion of results is divided into sections according to the hypothesis being tested. Each hypothesis will be stated, a report of the findings will be given, and results will be discussed. Hypothesis One Test of Hypothesis One: Occupational choice is more central for males than for females H1: a) Occupationalchoice is significantly more central for males than for females as measured by similarity of scores on the Interpersonal Check List (ICL). A Mann-Whitney U Test was used to determine whether or not there were differences between centrality ranks for males and females. It can be recalled from Chapter III that centrality ranks are assigned ac- cording to discrepancy scores between each of the three concepts--Self Concept (SC), Occupational Persona (OP), and Occupational Role Expec- taion (ORE)--and the average of these three scores. A low discrepancy score and its corresponding low centrality rank indicate high centrality while a high discrepancy score and matching high centrality rank indicate 40 41 low centrality. The ratings assigned to each of the 186 subjects were totaled for the group of males (N=84) and for the group of females (N= 102). The totals of the ranks appear in Table 1. TABLE 1 Mann-Whitney U Test for Centrality of Stated Occupational Choice of Male and Female Undergraduate Students -—— W Centrality of Choice Grog Rank z Males 7278 1. 58 (N=84) Females 10 1 13 (N: 102) * The one-tailed p of z_2_ 1.58 is p= .0571 As can be seen from Table 1, a z value of l. 58 has a one-tailed p =. 0571 7 which was not of sufficient magnitude to accept the hypothesis although the differences were in the predicted direction. Hypothesis One- a, therefore, was rejected at the .05 level of confidence. H l: b) Occupational choice is significantly more central for males than for females as measured by the greater num- ber of philosophical and psychological reasons for occupational choice expressed by males than by females 7With a< =.05 and p= .0571, the z approaches significance. The p= .0571 is considered p= . 06 by the investigator. 42 and by the lesser number of economic and accidental reasons for occupational choice expressed by males than by females on the occupational choice questionnaire. In testing this hypothesis, a Student t Test was used to determine differences between males and females on their responses to reasons for their occupational choices. The hypothesis that reasons differ in the direction of more philosophical and psychological and fewer econ- omic and accidental reasons being expressed by males was tested. The data in Table 2 indicate that significant differences at the . 05 level occur between men and women on two measures, sociological reasons for choice and economic reasons for choice. With a male sam- ple of 84 and a female sample of 102, the t= 3.00 is signficant beyond the .05 level for sociological reasons for choice. The t= 1.79 is sig- nificant beyond the . 05 level for economic reasons for choice. In both of these comparisons, women state sociological and economic reasons for choice significantly more than men do. The significance for economic reasons is in agreement with the part of the hypothesis that states men will have fewer economic reasons than women. The hypothesis also states that men will have more philosophical and psychological reasons and fewer accidental reasons than women, differences which are not significant at the .05 level. Hypothesis One-b, therefore, was rejected. A further examination of the data in Table 2 reveals that the means can be ranked in the same order for males and females. The smallest mean represents the first choice of reason for occupational choice and 43 TABLE 2 A Comparison of Stated Reasons for Occupational Choice for Male and Female Undergraduate Students Males Females (N=84) (N: 102) Reasons for Occu- .. _. pational Choice X SD X SD t Philosophical 10. 53 3. 38 10. 52 3. 53 . 028 Psychological 7. 58 1.81 7.87 2.06 1.42 at: Sociological 16. 52 2. 3 1 l7. 2 l 2. 30 3. 00 Economic 20.21 4.08 20.61 2.71 1.79* Accidental 18. 7 l 2. 52 18. 78 2. 73 . 026 * For 185 df, p (.05 when t 21.65 for a one-tailed test. the largest mean the fifth or last choice. Both males and females rank (1) psychological, (2) philosophical, (3) sociological, (4) accidental, and (5) economic reasons as their order of choice. The ranking of means does not lend support to the hypothesis that men have more choices in the philosophical or psychological areas than women do. Discussion of Results of Hypothesis One The theoretical basis for the prediction of Hypothesis One, that men show more centrality of occupational choice than women, was Stefflre's (1966) proposition. He stated that in general the job is more important and psychologically central to men than to women in our cul- ture. Empirical research indicated that males are less conflicted re- 44 garding their self role and occupation role than females (Douvan and Adelson, 1966). In contrast, females tend to be diffuse about occupa- tional identity (Erikson, 1956) and conflicted between occupational choice and marriage (Douvan 8: Adelson, 1966). Under the first sub-hypothesis, testing attempted to determine whether scores for Self Concept (SC), Occupational Persona (OP), and Occupational Role Expectation (ORE) differentiated males and females on centrality of occupational choice. It was assumed that the mo re centrality, with its corresponding congruence of SC,OP, and ORE, the closer the subject is to the "fitting" relationship proposed by Stefflre (1966) which he perceived as congruence between self, SC .and OP, the latter having been selected on the basis of an accurate ORE. It was al- so assumed that males' lack of conflict over self-as-worker and self- as-mate would lead to their expressing more centrality or congruence of SC,OP, and ORE. Results approached significance on this sub-hypothesis. However, at the critical level established, males were not more central in occupa- tion choice than females (Table 1). Since review of the literature tends to indicate other kinds of occupational differences between males and fe- males, some speculation on these results seems appropriate. One ex- planatim, relative to the theoretical basis for the hypothesis, is that Stefflre (1966) is proposing differences in actual job choices rather than stated job choices. Another possibility is that females are at the mid- point in their college years and will have made their final choice of 45 academic major. A feeling of involvement in that major may be indica- ted at this stage in college and translated into a centrality score of oc- cupational choice. A second sub-hypothesis of Hypothesis One tested whether males indicate centrality of occupational choice by expressing more philosoph- ical and psychological reasons and fewer economic and accidental reasons for choice than females. The basis for this hypothesis was Stefflre's (1966) proposal that males and females would tend to make particular choices when they look for a job, choices as stated in Hy- pothe sis One-b. Although the significance of economic reasons was in the pre- dicted direction, being expressed mor e by females than males, other reasons did not differentiate males and females as predicted. and the hypothesis was rejected. A comparison of the means (Table 2) showed the same order of ranking for men and women, confirming no different- iation between the sexes. These results suggest that the university environment may be particularly conducive to the development of philosophical and psychological reasons for choice for either sex. It can be recalled that subjects are living away from home in a university atmosphere during their first two years at college. The lowest rank for both males and females on stated reasons for occupational choice is economic reasons. Inasmuch as this age group has not experienced, during their lifetime, "bad times" in the economic life of the nation. this rank may be a realistic one for 46 the sample. Again, it is necessary to point out that actual contact with job choice could mean different responses than those to a questionnaire regarding future jobs. Although incidental to the hypothesis tested, two questions from the occupational choice questionnaire add to our speculation on results of Hypothesis One. Research has suggested males and females differ during childhood and adolescence in respect to certainty of occupation- al choice (Parker, 1962) and fantasy choices (Ginzberg, 1951). If women are indeed peripheral to the world of work, they could be ex- pected to be less certain and more wish-oriented than men. On the questionnaire, subjects, after stating their occupational choices, were asked to respond to a question on their certainty of choice and to a question on what they would do if they had their wish to go into any oc- cupation. To facilitate comparisons, results of these questions appear in tabular form in Table 3. These data are not considered statistically but the percentages suggest that males and females differ minimally in the certainty of their choices. The extensive research study by Douvan and Adelson (1966) suggested that females are more vague than males regarding vo- cational plans. In this study the post-adolescent age of females as well as their mid-point in college may, as suggested earlier, affect the na- ture of their choice. With wish-fulfillment choices, a considerably greater percentage of women than men make "wish" choices. Although no assumptions can be drawn from this limited data, it appears to be 47 in agreement with Ginzberg (1951) who stated that women sometimes have fantasy-based choices when they do not commit themselves to an occupation. No attempt is made in this study to determine whether women with wish choices are committed to an occupation or not. There- fore, it is not known why women differ from men to such an extent on this question. TABLE 3 Percentages of Responses to Questions on Certainty of Choice and Wish Choice on the Occupational Choice Questionnaire by Male and Female Undergraduate Students W , , Males Females Certainty of Ch01ce (N=84) (N =102) Very Certain . 38 . 41 Fairly Certain . 49 . 50 Uncertain . 09 . 07 Very Uncertain . 04 . 02 Wish Fulfillment Choice Wish and Occupation Plan Identical . 47 . 38 (e.g. lawyer vs. lawyer) Wish and Occupation Plan Similar . 20 . 16 (e. g. farmer vs. forester) Wish and Occupation Plan Unrelated . 28 . 42 (e. g. history teacher vs. jet pilot) No Answer . 05 . 04 In summary, on the basis of the test for differences in Hypothesis One, males did not show more centrality in occupational choice than females when measured by an adjective check list although results ap- proached significance. Also, males did not show more centrality in their reasons for occupational choice than females as measured by stat ed reasons on the occupational choice questionnaire. Non-statisti- cal data from the occupational choice questionnaire showed minimal differences in certainty of choice between men and women but propor- tionately more wish choices for women than men. Hypothe sis Two Test of Hypothesis Two: Centrality of. occupational choice is not affected by the kind of identification with parents H 2 : a) There is no significant relationship between centrality of occupational choice for males and kind of identifica- tion with parents as measured by similarity of scores on the ICL. The Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance was used to test for significance of differences in centrality of occupational choice among male subjects identifying in different ways with their parents. As elaborated in Chapter III, the subjects were assigned an identifica- tion score based on discrepancies between their description of self and their description of each parent. From these scores, four groups in- dicative of different ways of identifying with parents were established: 49 like-sex, cross-sex, identfication with both parents, identifcation with neither parent. Table I lists these four groups and their centrality ranks (Appendix H). In the computation of the Kruskal-Wallis test, the sum of the cen- trality ranks in each identification group were compared. The value of H is distributed approximately as chi square with df= k- 1. As indic- ated in Table 4, a x2 of 8. 00 is signficant at the . 05 level of significance with 3 df. Null hypothesis Two-a was rejected. TABLE 4 Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance for Differences in Centrality of Occupational Choice among Male Undergraduate Students with Different Kinds of Identification with Parents Centrality of Choice Group Rank xZ Like-Sex Identification 576.5 8.00 "‘ (N=15) Cross-Sex Identification 650. 5 (N=15) Identification with Both Parents 924. 0 (N= 27) Identfication with Neither Parent 1419. 0 (N=27) *For 3 df, p <.05 that x2 27.82 for a two-tailed test. 50 Hz: b) There is no significant relationship between centrality of occupational choice for females and kind of identifica- tion with parents as measured by similarity of scores on the ICL. The Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance was used to test for significance of differences in cent rality of occupational choice among female subjects identifying in different ways with their parents. Proceeding as with the male sample, four groups indicative of different ways of identifying with parents were established: like-sex, cross-sex, with both parents, and with neither parent. Table II (Appendix H) lists these four groups and their centrality ranks. The value of H, distributed approximately as chi square with df= k— 1, was computed from the sums of the ranks. Results are presented in Table 5. For 3 df, x2 2, 7.82 is significant.for a two-tailed test at the . 05 level. The x2 =4. 00 computed is not significant and Null Hypoth- esis TWO-b cannot be rejected. Discussion of Results of Hypothesis Two Separate but identical hypotheses for males and females were tested to establish whether there was a relationship between indentifi- cation with parents and centrality of occupational choice. It can be recalled that subjects were tested for identification with mother and father during their first month at Michigan State University when, in time and space, they were closest to home and parents. The basis for the hypothesis about the relationship between this identification 51 TABLE 5 Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance for Differences in Centrality of Occupational Choice among Female Undergraduate Students with Different Kinds of Identification with Parents Centrality of Choice Group Rank x2 Like -Sex Identification 1038. 5 4. 00 (N=20) Cross-Sex Identification 1038. 0 (N=20) Identification with Both Parents 1336. 5 (N= 3 1) Identification with Neither Parent 1840. 0 (N= 31.) * For 3 df, p < .05 that x22 7.82 for a two-tailed test. and centrality of occupational choice was a theoretical notion of the in- vestigator. Research indicated the importance of parents in influencing vocational choice for males (Crites, 1962) and for females (White, 1959) and it seemed worthwhile to test whether or not a relationship existed between identification with parents and centrality of occupational Choice. The test for the hypothesis for males was significant and, for fe- males, not significant. These results suggest the identification a young man has with his parents does affect the centrality of his occupational choice but does not affect centrality for females. The different kinds of identification as means are shown in Table 6. Although incidental 52 to Hypothesis Two, these means are comparably meaningful. TABLE 6 Means of Group Ranks for Male and Female Undergraduate Students with Different Kinds of Identification with Parents W Males Females Centrality of Choice Centrality of Choice Kind of - . - Group Grgup Group GLOUP Identification Rank X Rank X Like-Sex Identification (Males: N=15) 576. 5 38. 5 (Females: N=20) 1038. 5 5 l. 9 Cross—Sex Identification (Males: N= 15) 650.5 43.3 1038.0 51.9 (Females: N=20) Identification with Both Parents (Males : N= 27) 924. 0 23.2 (Females: N=31) 1336. 5 43.1 Identification with Neither Parent (Males: N=27) 1419. 0 52. 5 (Females: N=3 1) 1840. 0 59. 3 Table 6 indicates which kind of identification is most meaningful to the subjects. For both males and females, the means show that the most centrality occurs with identification with both parents. For males, there is more centrality with like-sex than with cross-sex identification. For females, no differences in centrality occur with like- and cross-sex identification. The least centrality for both males and females is shown with identification with neither parent. . The significant findings confirm research reviewed previously. Bieri et a1. (1959) stated that college 53 males tend to see themselves more like their fathers than college fe- males see themselves like their mothers. Crites (1962) found that identification with both parents influences vocational choice but that identification with fathers is more important than identification with mothers, for college male undergraduates. In summary, the null hypothesis that there was no significant re- lationship between centrality of occupational choice and kind of identif- ication with parents was rejected for males. On the basis of the data, the null hypothesis that there was no significant difference between cen- trality of occupational choice and kind of identification with parents was not rejected for females. A comparison of the centrality group means indicated that both males and females of this college sample identify more with both parents than with one or neither parent. Males identify more with fathers than mothers but no difference is indicated for females who identify to equal degrees with each parent. These re- sults support other identification research. Added to earlier research is the concept of centrality of occupational choice as a differentiating factor among males identifying in different ways with their parents. Hyppthesis Three Test of Hypothesis Three: Centrality of occupational choice is not affected by the socioeconomic level of the home H 3: a) There is no significant difference in the centrality of occupational choice as measured by similarity of 54 scores on the ICL for males from different socio- economic levels as measured by father's occupation. To test this hypothesis, the Spearman Rank Correlation Coef- ficient was computed between centrality of occupational choice for males and socioeconomic level indicated by father's occupation. It can be recalled from Chapter III that father's occupation was ranked according to a recent replication (Hodge 13:31., 1964) of the National Opinion Research Center's listing of the "Prestige Rankings of 90 Occupations" (NORC, 1947). Inasmuch as there were numerous du- plicates or ties of fathers' occupations, a large proportion of tied ranks occurred. Corrected for ties, the rs= .219, For a sample as large as 84, the significance of an obtained rs under the null hypothesis is determined by computing the t associated with that value. A t of 2. 03 was computed which is significant at the . 05 level for a two- tailed test where the critical value is t= 1. 99. The relationship was of sufficient magnitude that the null hypothesis was rejected. H3: b) There is no significant difference in the centrality of occupational choice as measured by similarity of scores on the ICL for females from different socio- economic levels as measured by father's occupation. The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient was used to test the relationship between centrality of occupational choice for females and socioeconomic level indicated by father's occupation. The same pro- 55 cedure was used for ranking father's occupation and correcting for ties as was used for males. The correlation was computed: rs=. 099. For a sample as large as 102, a t of l. 98 is required for significance at the . 05 level of significance for a two-tailed test. A t of . 99 was computed from the rs which is not of sufficient magnitude to reject the hypothesis. Null Hypothesis Three-b, therefore, cannot be rejected. Discussion of Results of Hypothesis Three Theoretically the hypothesis was based on Stefflre's (1966) pro- posal that there will be a difference in centrality of occupational choice for different social classes. He stated that in general the job is of more central importance to the middle class than to the lower or upper class (Stefflre, 1966, 612). Previous empirical research has found that socioeconomic level affects vocational aspiration, educational de- cisions, and formulation of occupational choices (Borow, 1966; Youmans, 1956). Research is not clear-cut; numerous factors, some related to socioeconomic level and some not, appear to influence occupational choice in young people (Borow, 1966) . Father's occupation, which is often employed as a unidimensional index of classification, is used in the study as a measure of socioecon- omic level. According to the NORC survey replication (Hodge 3_t__a__l_._, 1964), the occupation with the greatest prestige has the lowest rank and the occupation with the lowest prestige has the highest rank. It can be recalled that centrality of occupational choice is also ranked from a low rank with most centrality to a high rank with least centrality. The null 56 hypothesis was formulated to determine whether or not a correlation ex- ists between these variables. This hypothesis was separate but identical for males and females. A positive correlation was found between cen- trality of occupational choice and socioeconomic level indicated by father's occupation for males. Thus, the highest centrality rank correlated with the lower socioeconomic level (the father's occupational level with the lowest prestige). Attention should be paid to the fact that class levels are not specified. No assumption can be made from the data that the lower socioeconomic level is necessarily lower class since the middle Class is highly represented in the sample. However, it is of interest to note the direction of this correlation and what it says of differences in centrality between the two ends of the socioeconomic level which range from physi- cian to janitor. A possible interpretation of these findings is that upward social mobility is functioning in the lower socioeconomic level males to the extent that they are more ego-involved in their occupational choices than other males in the sample. For females, no correlation is found between centrality of occupa- tional choice and socioeconomic level. In conclusion, two of the six Operational hypotheses used to test the three basic hypotheses of this study were supported. A relationship was found between centrality of stated occupational choice and identifica- tion with parents for males. Also, there was a positive correlation be- tween socioeconomic level and males' centrality of occupational choice. No relationship was found between females' centrality of occupational 57 choice and either identification with parents or socioeconomic level. Although the results were in the predicted direction, significance was not found to establish that males' centrality of occupational choice is greater than females as measured by the adjective check list. Testing of the five reasons for occupational choice for males and females showed significant differences between males and females on two of the five reasons, one of which was in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. These data did not support the hypothesis regarding men's reasons for occupational choice. This chapter has presented tests of each of the three hypotheses dealt with in this study as well as a discussion of those results. Chap- ter V will include a summary, conclusions, and research implications of the study . CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS This chapter contains a summary of the study which has been presented in the first five chapters, along with conclusions and im- plications which are drawn from the investigation. Summary The primary purpose of this study was to investigate whether a relationship exists between centrality of occupational choice with male and female university undergraduate students and their sex, parental identification, and socioeconomic level. The basis for the hypotheses that were formulated was largely theoretical since the in- vestigator could find no empirical research that dealt directly with the relationship between centrality of occupational choice and the var- iables of sex, parental identification, and socioeconomic level. Psychological centrality or ego-involvement in one's occupation or occupational choice is of interest and concern to those who theorize about vocational development. Researchers theoretically relate ego- involvement in work to job satisfaction (Havighurst, 1964) and to im- plementation of the self concept (Super, 1957). It is assumed that 58 59 centrality or ego—involvement, or the lack of it, is part of the occupa- tional decision and that the more central an occupation is to an indiv- idua1,the more closely it will satisfy his sense of self. As important as this assumption of centrality is to the field of vocational theory, this investigator found little research that attempted to determine the variables involved in centrality of occupational choice. Stefflre (1966) prOposed that centrality in an occupation will be related to congruence between a person's self, his self concept, his occupational persona or "job personality", and his occupational role expectation. He suggested that sex, socioeconomic factors, and cer- tain societally limiting forces affect the choice of an occupational per- sona. From this framework, the first hypothesis was formulated: occupational choice is more central for males than for females. Since there is considerable evidence that parents have an effect on their children's vocational choices, studying the relationship between identification with parents and centrality of occupational choice seemed pertinent to this investigation. Therefore the second hypothesis was stated: centrality of occupational choice is not affected by the kind of identification with parents. Stefflre (1966) proposed that centrality of occupational choice tends to differ for persons from different socioeconomic levels. To test this theoretical notion of differences, the third hypothesis was pro- posed: centrality of occupational choice is not affected by socioeconomic levels. 60 Participating in this study were 84 male and 102 female under- graduate students tested at the beginning Of their freshman year and at the end of their sophomore year at Michigan State University. As freshmen, subjects rated themselves and their parents on the Inter- personal Check List (ICL). Identification was measured by the discrep- ancy between self and each parent on the ICL. , As sophomores, sub- jects rated themselves, their occupational persona, defined as "im- pressions of themselves on the job of their preferred occupational choice", and occupational role expectation, defined as " impressions about the kinds of peOple on the job they had chosen", on the ICL. Centrality was measured by the deviation between self, occupational persona, and occupational role expectation and the average of these three scores on the ICL. As sophomores, subjects also filled out an occupational choice questionnaire which included information on the father's occupation. Socioeconomic level was measured by ratings of father's occupation on the basis of the 1963 replication of the occupa- tional prestige ratings of the National Opinion Research Center survey (1947). Results did not support the hypotheses that (1) males have more centrality of occupational choice as measured by the ICL than females or that (2) males express more centrality in their reasons for occupa- tional choice on an occupational choice questionnaire than females. The Mann-Whitney U Test was used to test the first part of the hypoth- esis. Results , although not significant, were in the predicted direction. 61 The Student t Test was used to compute differences between males and females on reasons for occupational choice and was significant in two tests out of five in that females indicated more sociological and econ- omic reasons for choice than males. That females would have signif- icantly more economic reasons than males was supported; that females would have significantly more accidental reasons and males more phil- osophical and psychological reasons was not supported. Hypothesis One was rejected. The second hypothesis, in the form of Ho’ was rejected for males and not rejected for females. Using \the Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance, the relationship between identification with par- ents and centrality of occupational choice was significant for males and not significant for females. The acceptance of an alternative hy- pothesis, that centrality of occupational choice is affected by identif- ication with parents, is therefore justified with the male sample. The third hypothesis, testing Ho, was rejected for males and mi rejected for females when a Spearman Rank Order Correlation between centrality of occupational choice and socioeconomic level was com- puted. Since a significant correlation was found for males, an alterna- tive hypothesis stating that centrality of occupational choice is affected by socioeconomic level can be accepted. The positive correlation in- dicated that males from a lower socioeconomic level have more cen- trality of occupational choice than other males in the sample. No sig- nificant correlation was found for females. 62 Conclusions Stefflre (1966) proposed that centrality of occupational choice would be related to congruence between self concept, occupational persona, and occupational role expectation. In this study, an attempt was made to measure these three concepts in order to derive a centrality score. The data seem to provide support for a theoretical relationship between these three concepts. A centrality score was acquired which showed differences among the samples as well as a relationship with other var- iables. Although this is hardly conclusive evidence for the existence of the two newly-proposed theoretical concepts of centrality and occu- pational persona as postulated by Stefflre (1966), it suggests that stud ies specifically designed to test the validity and usefulness of the con cepts should be undertaken. The hypothesis based on Stefflre's (1966) proposal that males are more central than females in occupational choices was not supported. Results approach significance 8 when centrality is measured by the Interpersonal Check List (ICL). The investigator considers these re- sults meaningful because (1) stated occupational choice should be less ego-involving than actual occupational choice and (2), in other areas of this study, females are definite about occupational choices and make similar responses to philosophical and psycholgical reasons for choice to what males do. Therefore, that males were significantly different 8 p=.05 when p (.0571. 63 from females on centrality of occupational choice at the . 10 level of significance seems worthy of consideration. Although results were for the most part significant for males, both identification with parents and socioeconomic level being related to centrality of occupational choice, the same hypotheses and procedure for females showed no significant results. An explanation for this may be that females cannot be compared to males on the same dimensions. Previous research has pointed out that females are conflicted and diffuse about their occupational choices during adolescence. If this investiga- tion goes a step further in suggesting that the lack of ego-involvement and, therefore, the continued conflict and diffusion, is apparent for wom- en at a mid-point in their college years, then it might follow that women are not being tested on dimensions meaningful to them. Women may not want to reveal their occupationl persona, to be perceived as work-or- iented, as men do. Because of their role conflicts regarding marriage and work, it may not be relevant to test women before they enter an oc- cupation. Research Implications One must be cautious in generalizing the findings of this study to other than a university population. That the hypotheses with males were in general supported suggests that the topic of this study is worthy of replication with university males. Since stated rather than actual choices 64 were used as a measure, conclusions drawn may apply only to stated occupational choices at a particular point in the occupational develop- ment of university students. A similar study with employed males would provide meaningful information on centrality of occupational choice for persons at work as well as comparisons with the non-em- ployed university students of this study. Since the results of this investigation with females were inconclu- sive, additional studies of this nature should be carried out in an at- tempt to determine what dimensions are meaningful to women's voca- tional choices. A replication of this study with female students might prove or disprove the non-significance of results. In addition, it would seem particularly pertinent to test employed women to see whether centrality of occupational choice is significant after jobs have been chosen and started. If, as suggested above, it is not relevant to test women before they enter an occupation, the implications of such a finding for future research with women's occupational development could be meaningful. Because the present investigation is a first look at the relation- ship between centrality of occupational choice and the variables of sex, identification with parents, and socioeconomic level, such research as the above is needed to verify the findings of this study. Also, studies of other variables meaningful to centrality of occupational choice would add to the results of this investigation. BIBLIOGRAPHY 65 BIBLIOGRAPHY Armstrong, R. The Leary ICL: A Relationship Study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1958, 14, 393-394. Bentler, P. The Interpersonal Check List, in Buros, 0. (Ed.) Sixth Mental Measurement Yearbook, Gryphon Press, N.J. ,1965,127- 129. Bieri, J. and Lobeck, R. Self-Concept Differences in Relation to Identification, Religion and Social Class, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 94-98. Bieri, J. , Lobeck R. , and Galinsky, M. A Comparison of Direct, Indirect and Fantasy Measures of Identification, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 84, 219-227. Block, J. An Unprofitable Application of the Semantic Differential, Journal of Consulting PsychOIOJy, 1958, 22, 235-240. Borow, H. Development of Occupational Motives and Roles. In Lois W. Hoffman and M. Hoffman (Eds.) Review of Child Development Research, 2, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1966, 373-422. Brunkan, R. Perceived Parental Attitudes and Parental Identification in Relation to Problems in Vocational Choice, Journal of Couns- eling Psychology, 1966, 13, 394-401. Burchinal, L. Differences in Educational and Occupational Aspirations of Farm, Small-Town and City Boys, Rural Sociology, 1961, 26, 107- 12 l. Champ, J. and Block, J. Study of Identification in Male Homosexuals, Journal of Consultigg Psychology, 1960, 24, 307-311. Crites, J. Parental Identification in Relation to Vocational Intere st Development, Journal of Educational Psychology, 1962, 53, 262-270. Douvan, Elizabeth and Adelson, J. The Adolescent Experience. New York: Wiley, 1966. 66 67 Douvan, Elizabeth and Gold, M. Modal Patterns in American Adol- escence, In Lois W. Hoffman and M. Hoffman (Eds. ) Review of Child Research, 2, New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1966, 469-528. Elder, G. , Jr. Achievement Orientation and Career Patterns of Rural Youth, Sociology of Education, 1963, 37, 30-58. Erikson, E. Growth and Crisis of the Healthy Personality. In C. Kluckhom, H. Murray, and D. Schneider (Eds.) Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture. New York: Knopf, 1956, 185-225. Erikson, E. Reflections on Womanhood, Daedalus, 1964, 93, 294- 318. Forer, B. Framework for the Use of Clinical Techniques in Voca- tional Counseling, Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1965, 33, 868-872. Freud, S. The Ego and the Id. London: Hogarth Press, 1935. Galinsky, M. and Fast, Irene. Vocational Choice as a Focus of the Identity Search, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 13, 89-920 Ginzberg, E., Ginzberg, S., Axelrad, S. and Herma, J. Occupational Choice. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951. Goodman, P. Youth in the Organized Society, Commentary, 1960, 29, 95‘1070 Gynther, M.. Miller, F. and Davis, H. Relationship Between Needs and Behavior as Measured by the EPPS and the ICL, Journal of Social Psychology, 1962, 57, 445-451. Hall, D. The Vocational Development Inventory: A Measure of Vocational Maturity in Adolescence, Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1963, 41, 771-774. Havighurst, R. Youth in Exploration and Man Emergent. In H. Borow (Ed.) Man In A World At Work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964, 215-236. Heilbrun, A. Sex Differences in Identification learning, Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1965, 106, 185- 193. 68 Hodge, R. , Siegel, P. and Rossi, P. Occupational Prestige in the United States, 1925-63, American Journal of Sociology, 70, 1964, 286-302. Holland, J. Major Programs of Research on Vocational Behavior. In H. Borow (Ed.)Man In A World At Work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964, 259-284. Kagan, J. and Moss, H. Birth to MaturitL New York: Wiley, 1962. Keniston, K. Social Change and Youth in America, Daedalus, 1962, 91, 145- 171. LaForge, R. Research Use of the ICL. ORI Report: 3, No.4. Oregon Research Institute, 1963. LaForge, R. and Suczek, R. The Interpersonal Dimension of Person- ality, III, An Interpersonal Check List, Journal of Personality, 1955, 24, 94-112. Leary, T. Interpersonal Diignosis of Personality. New York: Ronald Press Co. , 1957. National Opinion Research Center. Jobs and Occupations: A Popular Evaluation, Opinion News, 1947, 9, 3-13. O'Hara, R. The Roots of Career, Elementary SchoolJournal, 1962, 62, 277-280. Parker, H. 29, 000 Seventh Graders Have Made Occupational Choices, Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1962, 11, 54-55. Roe, Anne. Personality Structur e and Occupational Behavior, In H. Borow (Ed.) Man InA World At Work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964, 196-214. Singer, S. and Stefflre, B. Sex Differences in Job Values and Desires, Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1954, 32, 483-484. Stefflre, B. Vocational DeveloPment: Ten Propositions in Search of A Theory, Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 64, 611- 6160 Stoke, S. An Inquiry into the Concept of Identification, Journal of Genetic ngchology1 1950, 76, 163- 189. 69 Super, D. The Psychologyof Careers. New York: Harper, 1957. Super, D., Starishevsky, R.,Matlin, N. and Jordaan, M. Career Development: Self Concept Theory. Princeton: College Entrance Examination Board, 1963. Thomas, L. The Occupational Structure and Education. Englewood. Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1956. White, Becky. The Re lationship of Self Concept and Parental Ident- ification to Woman's Vocational Interests, Journal of Coun- gelirg Psychology, 1959, 6, 202-206. Wolfbein, S. Labor Trends, Manpower, and Automation. In H. Borow. (Ed.) Man In A World At Work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964, 155-173. Wrenn, G. Human Values and Work in American Life. In H. Borow (Ed.) Man In A World At Work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964, 24'4’40 Youmans, E. Occupational Expectations of Twelfth Grade Michigan Boys, Journal of Exp_erimental Education, 1956, 24, 259-271. Zytowski, D. Avoidance Behavior in Vocational Motivation, Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1965, 33, 746-750. APPENDIX A INTERPERSONAL CHECK LIST AND DIRECTIONS 1965 TESTING 70 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE INTERPERSONAL CHECK LIST This folder of inventory materials consists of a set of instructions for completing the interpersonal check list, the check list itself, and five answer sheets. First check to be sure that you have five answer sheets labeled con- secutively SELF, MY MOTHER, MY FATHER, IMPRESSIONS I WISH TO CONVEY TO OTHERS, and FEARS ABOUT HOW I IMPRESS OTHERS. Keep the answer sheets in this order. Note on the answer sheets that the numbers for your responses to the inventory run from left to right rather than in columnar fashion. Now complete the following information on each answer sheet. Name Date Student No. Sex Date of Birth (Fill in under Section) Age (Fill in under Form) Please write your student number in the allotted place and then also fill your number in the special spaces provided by blackening the spaces that correspond to the six digits of your student number. BE SURE TO IDENI'I FY EACH OF YOUR FIVE ANSWERS WITH THIS INFORMATION. Now turn the page and read the directions for the Interpersonal Check List by yourself or with the instructor if he so indicates and proceed through the entire five tasks without waiting for further instructions. THE INTERPERSONAL CHECK LIST Form IV This is a list of words and phrases which describe the way people behave in relation to one another. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) First, on the separate answer sheet marked SELF, mark the item true if the statement is descriptive of you, in your opinion, at the present time. Mark it false if it is not descriptive of you. When you have answered all the items for you, begin with the separate answer sheet marked MY MOTHER and describe her by the same procedure. This will be your opinion of your mother. When you have finished describing your mother, use the answer sheet marked MY FATHER to describe him. Next, use the answer sheet marked IMPRESSIONS ABOUT MYSELF I WISH TO CONVEY TO OTHERS to describe the ways that you want other people to think of you. Here you are describing the ways that you try to impress others to think aboutyou. For ex- ample, if you want to impress others so that they will think that you are "Able to give orders" or that you are "Appreciative" mark the item true. Lastly, use the answer sheet marked FEARS ABOUT HOW I IMPRESS OTHERS to describe the ways that you fear other people may think about you. Here you are describing ygur fears about the kind of impressions you may actually have on others. Your first impression is generally the best, so go through the list as quickly as you can. However, be certain to consider and answer each item. 12. l3. l4. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19, 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. The Interpersonal Check List Form IV Able to give orders 33. Appreciative 34. Apologetic 35. Able to take care of self 36. Accepts advice readily 37. Able to doubt others 38. Affectionate and understanding 39. Acts important 40. Able to criticize self 41. Admires and imitates others 42. Agrees with everyone 43. Always ashamed of self 44. Very anxious to be approved of 45. Always giving advice 46. Bitter 47. Bighearted and unselfish 48. Boastful 49. Businesslike 50. Bossy 51. Can be frank and hone st 52. Clinging vine 53. Can be strict if necessary 54. Considerate 55. Cold and unfeeling 56. Can complain if necessary 57. Cooperative 58. C omplaining 59 . Can be indifferent to others 60. Critical of others 61. Can be obedient 62. Cruel and unkind 63. Dependent 64. Dictatorial ’ Distrusts everybody Dominating Easily embarrassed Eager to get along with others Easily fooled Egotistical Easily led Encouraging to others Enjoys taking care of others Expects everyone to admire him Faithful follower Frequently disappointed Firm but just Fond of everyone Forceful Friendly Forgives anything Frequently angry Friendly all the time Generous to a fault Gives freely of self Good leader Grateful Hard-boiled when necessary Helpful Hard-hearted Hard to convince Hot-tempered Hard to impress Impatient with other s' mi stake 5 Independent 65, Irritable 66. Jealous 67. Kind and reassuring 68. Likes responsibility 69. Lacks self-confidence 70. Likes to compete with others 71. Lets others make decisions 72. Likes everybody ' 73. Likes to be taken care of ‘74. Loves everybody 75. Makes a good impression 76. Manages others 77. Meek 78. Mode st 79. Hardly ever talks back 80. Often admired 81. Obeys too willingly 82. Often gloomy 83. Outspoken 84. Overprotective of others 85. Often unfriendly 86. Oversympathetic 87. Often helped by others 88. Passive and unaggressive 89. Proud and self-satisfied 10 1. Self-respecting 102.Shy 103.Sincere and devoted to friends 104. Selfish 105. Skeptical 106, Sociable and neighborly 107. Slow to forgive a wrong 108. Somewhat snobbish 109. Spineless 110. Stern but fair 111. Spoils people with kindness 112. Straightforward and direct 1 13. Stubborn 114. Suspicious 115. Too easily influenced by friends 116. Thinks only- of self 117. Tender and soft-hearted 118. Timid 119. Too lenient with others 120. Touchy and easily hurt 121. Too willing to give to others 122. Tries to be too successful 123. Trusting and eager to please 124. Tries to comfort everyone 125. Usually gives in 90. Always pleasant and agreeable126. Very respectful to authority 91. Resentful 92. Respected by others 93. Rebels against everything 94. Resents being bossed 95. Self-reliant and assertive 96. Sarcastic 97, Self-punishing 98. Self-confident 99. Self-seeking 100. Shrewd aid calculating 127.Wants everyone's love 128.Well thought of 129.Wants to be led 130.Will confide in anyone 131.Warm 132.Wants everyone to like him 133.Will believe anyone 134. Well-behaved APPENDIX B COVER LETTER TO CONTACTED PARTICIPANTS IN THIS STUDY 75 June 15, 1967 Dear Let me introduce myself as that voice out of the very warm weekend when you were studying for finals. You kindly agreed to answer my questionnaire and test on vocational choice so here it is! Enclosed, along with the questionnaire and test, is a stamped and addressed envelope in which to return them. I appreciate your help and I will be pleased to talk to you next fall about the results of the research. 'Thank you. Sincerely yours, Gladys Strahl Counselor MSU Counseling Center APPENDIX C COVER LETTER TO NON-CONTACTED PARTICIPANTS IN THIS STUDY 77 June 15, 1967 Dear Enclosed are a questionnaire and test which are part of a research project on vocational development in college students. I was not able to reach you before you left for the summer; therefore, would you kindly fill out and return them in the enclosed stamped and addressed envelope. Your assistance will be appreciated. The questionnaire will give you an idea of the research and I will be pleased to talk to you next fall about the results. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Gladys Strahl Counselor MSU Counseling Center APPENDIX D GENERAL EXPLANATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE AND TEST 79 VOCATIONAL CHOICE QUESTIONNAIRE AND TEST This questionnaire and test are designed to obtain information that will help in understanding the process of vocational development. Your responses are confidential; the code number will be used only to identify the different parts of the research project. Please do not fold the test answer sheets. When you have finished, return the completed questionnaire, the test and the completed test asnwer sheets in the enclosed stamped and addressed envelope. Please return by July 15. Thank you very much for your help. APPENDIX E INTERPERSONAL CHECK LIST AND DIRECTIONS 1967 TESTING 81 DIRECTIONS FOR TEST Attached to this page is a list of words and phrases which describe the way people behave in relation to each other. Enclosed also are three answer sheets which are numbered 1, 2, and 3. It is important that you answer them in the order of the directions below. Mark each answer sheet as quickly as you can, then put it aside and do not return to it again. Your first impression is generally the best but be certain to consider and answer each item. Use a soft lead, # Zjencil. 1. On the separate answer sheet marked SELF (# 1), mark the item true if the statement is descriptive of you at the present time. Mark it false if it is not descriptive of you. 2. On the separate answer sheet marked IMPRESSIONS ABOUT MYSELF ON THE JOB I WISH TO CONVEY TO OTHERS (# 2), mark the item either true or false. Here you are describing the way in which you want to express your personality on the job when you enter the job that is your preferred occupational choice. 3. On the separate answer sheet marked IMPRESSIONS ABOUT THE KINDS OF PEOPLE ON THE JOB THAT I HAVE CHOSEN (# 3), mark the item either true or false. Here you are des- cribing the people you will be working with when you enter the job that is your preferred occupational choice. ‘1. .I. III... . - ll: The Interpersonal Check List Form IV This is a list of words and phrases which may be descriptive of you (or the person you are rating). On the separate answer sheet mark the item true if the statement is essentially or most usually descriptive of you (or the other person). usually descriptive. U1r#WNr—I woos-lo 00. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Able to criticize self Able to doubt others Able to give orders Able to take care of self Accepts advice readily Acts important Admires and imitates others Affectionate and understanding Agrees with everyone Always ashamed of self Always giving advice Always pleasant and agreeable Apologetic Appreciative Big—hearted and unselfish Bitter Boastful Bos sy Bus ine s slike Can be frank and hone st Can be indifferent to others Can be obedient Can be strict if necessary Can complain if necessary Clinging vine Cold and unfeeling Complaining Considerate COOperative Critical of others 31. 32'. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. Mark it false if it is not essentially or most Answer all the items as quickly as you can. Cruel and unkind Dependent Dictatorial Distrusts everybody Dominating Eager to get along with others Easily embarrassed Easily fooled Easily led Egotistical and conceited Encourages others Enjoys taking care of others Expects everyone to admire him Firm but just Fond of everyone Forceful Forgives anything Frequently angry Frequently disappointed Friendly Friendly all the time Generous to a fault Gives freely of self Good leader Grateful Hardboiled when necessary Hard-hearted Hardly ever talks back Hard to impress Helpful ill“. ill 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. -2- Impatient with other's mistakes Independent Irritable Jealous Kind and reassuring Lacks self-confidence Lets others make decisions Likes everybody Likes responsibility Likes to be taken care of Likes to compete Loves everyone Makes a good impression Manages others Meek Mode st Obeys too willingly Often admired Often gloomy Often helped by others Often unfriendly Outspoken Ove rprotective of othe r s Over sympathetic Pas sive and unaggre s sive Proud and self- satisfied Rebels against everything Re sentful Resents being bossed Respected by others Sarcastic Self-confident Selfish Self- punishing Self-reliant and assertive 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 12 1. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. Self-re specting Se lf- seeking Shrewd and calculating Shy Skeptical Slow to forgive a wrong Sociable and neighborly Somewhat snobbish Spineless Spoils people with kindness Stern but fair Straightforward and direct Stubborn Tender and soft-hearted Thinks only of himself Timid Too easily influenced by friends Too lenient with others Too willing to give to others Touchy and easily hurt Tries to be too successful Tries to comfort everyone Trusting and eager to please Usually gives in Very anxious to be approved of Very respectful to authority Wants everyone's love Wants everyone to like him Wants to be led Warm Well thought of Will believe anyone Will confide in anyone APPENDIX F OCCUPATIONAL CHOICE QUESTIONNAIRE 85 Code No. QUESTIONNAIRE My college major is The occupation I plan to follow is My specialization in this occupation (if decided upon) is That this occupation is the one for which I really want to prepare I am: Very Fairly Very Certain Certain Uncertain Uncertain IFyou have not answered 2 and 3, please answer 4: 4. 50 What do you think is likely to be your occupation? What specialization? How certain? Very Fairly Very Certain Certain Uncertain Uncertain Finish this sentence: If I had my wish to go into any kind of work I wanted, my choice of occupation would be The occupation I have chosen (or am likely to choose) will permit me to have a home that is: very much like the home I grew up in. somewhat like the home I grew up in. not at all like the home I grew up in. Have you had counseling at MSU's Counseling Center? Yes No If Yes, approximately how many interviews? Go on to next page. . . Questionnaire (2) Code No. 8. Parents' Education (please check for each parent) 10. . athe r Mothe r Junior hLLh school or less Attended high school Graduated from high school Attended business or techhical school Attended collgge Graduated from college Post- college course 8 Father's occupation Mother's occupation Consider that time in the future when you will go into a particular job. What ideas do you have about the major reason or force which will most influence your choice? Different reasons for your job choice are listed below. Please rank them, keeping in mind that they apply to that future time when you will be choosing a particular job. a. b. In considering reasons for your job choice, rank the following from 1 as the most important to 5 as the least important: ___1_ being the most important: ___2__ the next most important; 3 the next; __4_ the next; and __5_ the least important. .— A job as a calling to a life work A job which depends on whether times are good or bad A job in which 1 can be creatively useful A job in which I follow a family tradition _ A job which, above all, is available when I need it In considering reasons for your job choice, rank the following from 1 as the most important to 5 as the least important 'ust as in a abovg). A job where I have prestige and status with my family and friends A job that seems to be a lucky opportunity just when I graduate and need it. A job where I can stand up for what I believe in Go on to next page. . . Questionnaire (3) Code No. A job which depends on the economy of the country at the time I need a job A job most suited to my abilities c. In considering reasons for your job choice, rank the following from 1 as the most important to 5 as the least important (just as in a and b above). A job which is intellectually interesting A job which depends on the availability of jobs in our economy at the time I graduate and need a job A job which I find out about through close friends who know me well A job in which I am of service to others in this world A job in which I can work with pleasant associates. d. In considering reasons for your job choice, rank the followirg from 1 as the most important to 5 as the least important. A job where I can use friends and associates to help me in finding and keeping the right job for me A job where I help to change the world for the better A job where 1 exercise leadership A job like that of a person I admire and respect very much A job dependent on whether the economy is ex- panding or contracting at the time I need a job e. In considering reasons for your job choice, rank the following from 1 as the most important to 5 as the least important. A job dependent on the employment and unemployment rate at the time I get a job A job which gives me a chance for uniqueness and individuality A job which my parents and I agree on A job which comes along by chance at the time I need it most A job where I accomplish something of great signficicance to humanity APPENDIX G INTER PERSONAL CHECK LIST CIRCULAR CONTINUUM 89 FIGURE I INTERPERSONAL CHECK LIST ILLUSTRATING THE CLASSIFICATION OF INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIORS I6 VARIABLE CATEGORIES INTO S R E H 1 0 S E G A N A H 6 m T A N M 0 D ABLE TO GIVE NI; uxh 441 >625: h .8555 3:: .5 as . .6 3.35: no 9.2 5.833. new...» 831:... in on: N? .3 O x a 3 sewn: ”J con 0 amuse 92 3.2953: 9 CAN IE OBEDIENT PASSIVE AND UN- OBEVS 700 IlLLlNGLY “EEK UJO¢:¢K_ nxuxho no .1255 hunts 021 5:53:52me Ch seaweed. Cw «gum auxonmhao Ears 3:538: >402u.1&23 Zuhuo APPENDIX H RANKS OF CENTRALITY FOR MALE AND FEMALE STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENT KINDS OF IDENTIFICATION WITH PARENTS 91 TABLE I Ranks of Centrality for Male Undergraduate Students with Different Kinds of Identification with Parents -—: Parent Parent Both Neither of Like Sex of Cross Sex Parents Parent (N=15) (N=15) (N= 27) (N=27) I.D.* Rank 1. D. Rank 1. D. Rank I.D. Rank 132 l. 5 133 4 208 l. 5 148 3 211 13 103 7 222 5 118 14 116 15 219 16 102 6 130 19 180 18 182 17 213 8 166 23 161 20 178 21 200 9 173 25 108 31 2 10 24 192 10 198 30 195 33 129 40. 5 120 11 112 34 139 37 220 48 169 12 175 36 104 45 159 53 184 22 177 44 203 49 226 61 115 26 212 46 232 50 2 15 66 100 27 101 47 2 18 56 144 68 135 28 150 51 171 67 185 74 143 29 196 54 127 69 186 75 181 32 156 55 110 72 194 76 105 35 190 59 197 38 174 60 179 39 162 62 124 40. 5 125 64 231 42 142 65 107 43 145 70 122 52 114 71 147 57 126 77 183 58 167 80 214 63 131 81 172 73 176 82 160 73 .164 83 111 I 79 233 84 R1: 576. 5 R2= 650. 5 R3: 924 R4: 1419 * I.D. = Identification number for subject. TABLE II R anks of Centrality for Female Undergraduate Students with Different Kinds of Identification with Parents Parent Parent Both Neither of Like Sex of Cross Sex Parents Parent ( N=20) (N=20) (N=3 l) (N=31) I.D. 238 4 21 9 68 2 261 1 l7 5 37 14 247 6 237 3 49 11 32 15 53 7 83 20 268 13 20 18 92 8 284 24 78 16 257 19 7 1 10 240 34 57 26. 5 24 2 1 287 23 19 35 58 28 25 30 249 17 270 37 299 36 86 38 18 22 51 39 ll 47 2 7 1 46 46 23 269 40 276 55 40 48 259 25 30 41 245 60 . 35 52 267 26. 5 23 42 29 6 l 73 59 79 29 252 45 97 62 67 65 262 31 275 49 48 70 251 66 296 32 285 57 82 76 69 69 290 33 294 64 34 86 2 53 83 264 43 298 67 256 89 64 91 239 44 85 68 12 95 95 94 241 50 47 71 14 98 2 97 99 242 51 45 72 28 l 100 22 102 13 53 84 74 255 54 282 78 50 56 42 79 61 58 38 80 63 63 66 84 39 73 96 85 55 75 75 87 62 77 236 88 280 81 254 90 33 82 10 93 263 92 244 96 52 101 65 97 R = 1038.5 R = 1038.0 R = 1336.5 R = 1840.0 1 2 3 4 ST MICHIGAN IIIIIIIIIIIIII 13112 or: UNIV. LIBRARIES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 103563965 533