A STUDY OF THE STUDENT’S
RELATEONSHIP WITH HIS RESIDENT
ASSISTANT

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. V " ‘ ‘ '

MICHIGAN STATE umvmsm i’
DENNIS-C. RTTTENMEYER ; -
197.0 *

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF THE STUDENT'S RELATIONSHIP
WITH HIS RESIDENT ASSISTANT

BY

Dennis C. Rittenmeyer

Problem

The rapid expansion of higher education in the
last decade has produced an equally rapid expansion of
on-campus housing facilities for students. Colleges and
universities have most frequently relied on undergraduate
students to serve as part-time staff members in these
facilities. This study has been concerned with the re—
lationship between these undergraduate resident assistants
and the students for whom they are responsible.

The relationship of the resident assistant with his
students was examined along three lines of inquiry. First,
differences in four demographic variables were examined be-
tween the students the resident assistant knows best and
other students selected randomly from the same floor.
Secondly, differences in the student's perception of the
resident assistant's areas of job responsibility were in-
vestigated. Finally, differences in the relationship

between a student's perception of his resident assistant's

Dennis C. Rittenmeyer

feelings toward him and the student's perception of himself

were examined.

Methodology

 

The sample for this study was drawn from the eight
residence halls of the South Campus of Michigan State Uni-
versity. First, two resident assistants were randomly
selected from each of the eight halls. These resident
assistants then furnished the identity of the ten students
on the floor whom they felt they knew best. Thus a total
of 160 students were designated to be in the experimental
group. The next step was the random selection of another
ten students from each of the same sixteen floors. Thus
another 160 students were identified and assigned to the
control group.

All 320 students were sent a packet of instruments
during January of 1970. Utilizing personal telephone
calls as a follow-up procedure 260 or 81 per cent of the

questionnaires were returned.

Findings
The various aspects of the problem being investi-
gated generated six directional hypotheses. The results
of this investigation have supported three of the hy-
potheses and yielded the following findings:.
1. Students in the experimental group tend to live
significantly closer to the resident assistant

than do students in the control group.

Dennis C. Rittenmeyer

The resident assistant tends to know best those
students whom he has known longer while other
residents have been known by him for a shorter
period of time.

The students in the experimental group tend to
View the resident assistant as involving him-
self in their academic and personal concerns
while the students in the control group do not

perceive this involvement.

The results do not warrant accepting three of the

hypotheses and thus have yielded the following findings:

1.

The students in the eXperimental group appear
to be no different in class standing than the
students in the control group.

The students in the experimental group appear
to be no older than the students in the control
group.

The self-concept of the students in the experi-
mental group is no more closely related to
their perception of the resident assistant's
feelings toward them than is the self-concept
of the students in the control group related

to their perception of the resident assistant's

feelings toward them.

Dennis C. Rittenmeyer

The data have also indicated that:

1. Among both the experimental and control groups,
as the students grow older or progress in
school, they tend to perceive less of a need
for the resident assistant.

2. Among both the experimental and control groups
the student's perception of the resident
assistant as one who is concerned with their
academic and personal problems is not as great
as the perception of the resident assistant as
an authority figure.

The data indicate that the resident assistant has

a different relationship with the students he knows best
than he does with other students on the floor. If it can
be assumed that the relationship the resident assistant
has with the students he knows best is ideal, then the
structure of that relationship should be examined. The
data provided by this study have helped to analyze that
relationship and compare it with the relationship the

resident assistant has with his other students.

A STUDY OF THE STUDENT'S RELATIONSHIP

WITH HIS RESIDENT ASSISTANT

BY
530*

.0’
Dennis Cf Rittenmeyer

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration and Higher Education

1970

DEDICATION

To my wife Michele and our daughters

Nicole and Kristen

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There is no question but that this research effort

could not have been accomplished without the help of many

people.

I am very grateful for that help and would, there-

fore, like to express my appreciation to the following

people:

To my guidance committee, Dr. Louis Stamatokos,
Dr. Arthur Vener, Dr. Marvin Grandstaff, and

especially, Dr. Walter Johnson

To Gary North and the staff of the Dean of Students
Office for their assistance in helping to implement

the study

To Mr. John Draper and the staff of the Office of
Research Consultation for their help with method-

ology and statistical manipulation

To my wife, Michele, my good friend Alan Coe, and
Rodney Joseph for their much needed assistance in

editing

To Miss Linda King for her help in key-punching
the computer cards and running the computer

program

iii

To Miss Jo Ann King for her help in typing the

many preliminary drafts of this document

To the staff of Owen Graduate Center who have
been so helpful in allowing time for me to com-

plete my research

To those whose encouragement has meant so much in
the last few years, Dr. Donald Davis and Dr.
Richard Pippen of Western Michigan University,

Dr. Donald Adams of Drake University, and last

but certainly not least, Mr. and Mrs. Dale Ritten-

meyer and Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Livovich.

iv

Chapter

I. THE PROBLEM .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .

The Problem and

Hypotheses.
Definitions
Theory . .
Assumptions
Limitations
Overview .

II. RELATED LITERATURE.

Literature Pertaining

Assistants.

Literature Pertaining
the Importance of Others

Summary. .
III. PROCEDURES .

Population.
Sample . .

Instrumentation
Data Collection

Pilot Study.

Sample Study

Hypotheses.
Analyses .

IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Hypothesis
Hypothesis

DNNH

Purpose of the Study . .

to

to

Resident

Self-Concept and

Page

H

17

25
32

34

34
35
37
41

41
45

47
48

52

52
55
58
60

Chapter Page

Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . . . . 62

Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . . . . 70

Comments . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Comments from Experimental Group. . . 74

Comments from Control Group . . . . 75

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . 76

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . 79

Problem and Purpose of the Study . . . 79

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . 81

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . 84

Implications . . . . . . . . . . 89

Implications for Research . . . . . 90

Implications for Programming . . . . 92

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O 95
APPENDICES

Appendix

A. O O O O O O O O O O I O O 100

B. O O O O O O O O O O O O O 104

C. O O O O O O O O O O O O O 105

D. O I O O I O O O O O O I O 113

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Mean Room Distance of Students from Resident
Assistants by Floor and Between Combined
Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

2. Mean Classification of Students by Floor and

Between Combined Groups . . . . . . . 56
3. Percentage Distribution of Students in Resi-
dence Halls by Classification . . . . . 57

4. Mean Chronological Age of Students by Floor
and Between Combined Groups . . . . . . 59

5. Mean Length of Time the Resident Assistant Has
Known Students by Floor and Between Com-
bined Groups . . . . . . . . . . . 6l

6. Mean Scores for Each of the Sociometric
Questions Between Experimental and Control
Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

7. Scores by Area of Job Description Between
Groups 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 66

8. Product Moment Correlations Between Mean
Number of Times the Resident Assistant was
Listed in Section 1 and Selected Demo-
graphic Variables . . . . . . . . . 69

9. Relationship of Student's Perception of His
Resident Assistant's Feelings Toward Him
and Student's Self-Concept Between the
Experimental and Control Groups. . . . . 7l

vii

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

 

In the last decade higher education has experienced
a phenomenal growth rate. In 1960 there were three and
one-half million college students, while currently there
are more than six million students attending institutions
of higher learning in the United States. Projected growth
rates indicate that by 1975 there will be at least eight
million college students and by 1980 as many as ten to
twelve million students will be attending college classes
(42).

The expansion of higher education generally has
been accompanied by an equally great expansion of on campus
housing facilities for students. According to the 1960
figures of the United States Office of Education, public
institutions of higher education housed 33 per cent of
their students in residence hall facilities. Overall, 66
per cent of the total number of institutions at that time
(public and private) had housing facilities for men while

71 per cent had housing facilities for women (34). By

1963 only 13 per cent of the institutions of higher edu-
cation in the United States provided no housing facilities
whatever (3:133).
Since almost every college and university maintains
some type of housing program for its students the demand
for money and personnel to Operate such programs is very
great. In order to help implement the housing program and
assist with its operation most schools tend to use upper
class undergraduate students as part-time staff members
(33:27).1 Such a staffing program maximizes the potential
for the building of relationships among peers while it is
minimal in cost. Riker has stated that, " . . . part-time
students are an indispensable adjunct of the housing staff
--so indispensable they may assume most of its day-to-day
duties while the professional staff concentrates on recruit-
ing and training" (33:27). Feldman and Newcomb state that:
. . . colleges' impacts', insofar as they occur at all,
are in one way or another mediated, enhanced, or
counteracted by peer-group influence. Students' close
association in residences and dining halls would seem,
therefore, to provide a likely setting for influence
upon one another (15:222).

Powell augments this statement with his thought that, "Stu-

dents often perceive the needs of other students more

clearly than do people in the personnel program who are

farther removed from student life" (32:19).

 

1Indiana University is a notable exception since
they use graduate students (33:51).

The title given to such undergraduate assistants
has varied over the years and among institutions. Cur-
rently Michigan State University uses the term resident
assistants to describe these part-time staff members.

During the 1969-70 school year Michigan State Uni-
versity employed 346 resident assistants throughout its 36
undergraduate residence halls.2 These 36 halls house
approximately 18,000 students or 50 per cent of the total
student population. More than 60 per cent of these stu-
dents live in facilities built after 1960.

Resident assistants at Michigan State University
receive a single room in addition to room and board for
their services.3 The cost for maintaining this particular
personnel program amounts to approximately $680,000. By
adding to this amount the salaries and operating expenses
of an additional 100 personnel (head advisors, graduate
advisors, area directors, and others) who have as a major
part of their responsibility the coordination and training
of resident assistants, the actual financial cost of the
program comes closer to one million dollars. The cost in
time and personnel is equally impressive.

Although few universities maintain a residence hall

system as large as the one at Michigan State, similar

 

2A detailed description of the Michigan State Uni-
versity residence hall system can be found in Riker (33:
53-56).

3See Appendix A for the job description of the
resident assistant at Michigan State University.

programs are in effect in most schools throughout the
country. With the resident assistant staffing method being
by far the most predominant, the amount of time, money, and
personnel devoted to the maintenance of such personnel pro-
grams becomes readily apparent.

Traditionally one of the roles of the resident
assistant as well as one of the roles of residence halls

4 The enforcement of

in general was that of control (44).
"quiet hours" and the reporting of drinking in student
rooms as well as other violations tended to be an important
part of the resident assistant's role. "Keeping the lid
on," was perceived by many resident assistants to be their
primary function. The evolution of higher education and
the changing perception about maturity and autonomy of
students has very considerably reduced the emphasis on the
control function of residence halls and their staffs.
Indeed, the philosophical statements of Riker (33:5-9) and
Powell (32:21-29) concerning residence halls and resi-
dence hall staff are typical of the current feelings of
student personnel administrators. There is, however, the
possibility of a "credibility gap." Although student per-
sonnel administrators profess that the role of the resident
assistant has evolved to one of concern with ”student

development" some of the less glamorous duties still

remain (32:10). It is likely also that despite the

 

4The historical development of residence halls can
be found in Rudolph (35:96-101).

training efforts currently being made, some resident
assistants and even some residence hall systems still oper-
ate with a control orientation.

According to Johnson the whole area of student
personnel services, residence halls included, will, despite
current changes toward the "student development" concept,
maintain some of the control and containment responsi-
bilities (22:11). Indeed, the evidence points to the fact
that the responsibility for whatever controlling needs to
be done will fall on the shoulders of the student personnel
worker. However, a reluctance to give up a philosophical
position of "influence by control" could mark the end of
resident assistants specifically and student personnel
services in general as they are evolved. The current trend
of civil court decisions as well as student revolts, is
toward the maximization of personal liberty and individual-
ity (9:133). Such trends are incompatible with the con-
trolling method of operation which has been typical of some
residence hall programs in the past.

Movement from a position of influence by power and
control to a position of influence based on close personal
relationship and identification will entail much thought.
Such a movement will not be made easily and yet, based on
current trends in higher education and in society at large,
it is a necessity. Before such a move can be made, how-
ever, an examination of the existing student-resident

assistant relationship must be undertaken. The strength

of the relationship that resident assistants currently
have with their students must be examined. By virtue of
the resident assistant's existence it is expected that he
will have some form of relationship with his students
which will allow him to influence them. No one has to
date, however, determined what type of relationship resi-
dent assistants have with their students nor the relative
strength of their influence if, indeed, they have any.
Previous studies dealing with the resident assistant
position have been concerned chiefly with an examination of
the qualities that make an "effective RA." The examination
of personality factors associated with effective and in—
effective resident assistants has been the most common
method of investigation. Such methods have, as described
in Chapter II, yielded little in the way of productive
results (9, 25, 31). Degree of effectiveness has been
based on an evaluation of the resident assistant by either
students and/or supervisors. Again, however, what such
designations actually mean in terms of operationally de-
fining the position of the resident assistant, have been
neglected. In view of the significant costs in time,
money, and personnel of maintaining a residence hall pro-
gram an ongoing examination of the roles and functions of
the resident assistant as seen by the students is a

necessity.

The Problem and Purpose of the Study

An investigation of the resident assistant's
relationship with his students has been neglected in
previous research. Information regarding this important
relationship is invaluable as a base from which to build
effective evaluation and training programs for resident
assistants.

It is the purpose of this study to examine the
current relationship of the resident assistant with his
students. First, this investigation will examine the
demographic differences between the students the resident
assistant feels he knows best and students selected ran-
domly from the same floor. Secondly, the functions which
the students perceive the resident assistant as performing
will be examined. Thirdly, since one's self-concept has
been shown to be an important determining factor in be-
havior (41), and since one's self-concept is formed by
one's perception of others' feelings toward self (10) the
relationship between a student's perception of himself and
his perception of his resident assistant's feelings toward
him will be investigated.

This investigation will be helpful in evaluating
the resident assistant's relationship with his students as
well as offering insight into alternative methods of
structuring a residence hall program. Such alternative

methods will hopefully come closer to realizing the goals

of higher education as well as more adequately meeting the

diverse needs of the current college student population.

Hypotheses5
In light of the above comments the following
broadly stated hypotheses will be investigated:

1. Those students whom the resident assistant
designated as knowing best will tend to be:
(a) older in years, (b) farther along in
school, (c) live closer to, and (d) be known
longer by, the resident assistant, than those
students selected at random from the same
floor.

2. Those students whom the resident assistant
designates as knowing best will tend to per-
ceive and utilize the total functioning of the
resident assistant while the randomly selected
students will not.

3. The correlation between the student's per-
ception of himself and his perception of his
resident assistant's feelings toward him will
be higher for those students whom the resident
assistant designates as knowing best.

Definitions
The terms listed below are defined in the way they

are to be used for the purposes of this study.

Resident Assistant (RA).--This term refers to a
male or female undergraduate student who is employed as a
part-time staff member of the Residence Hall Programs

Office at Michigan State University. Each resident

 

5These hypotheses are expanded and stated in re-
search form in Chapter III.

assistant lives on one floor which houses approximately

fifty students.

Residents.--This term refers to an undergraduate

 

student at Michigan State University who lives on a floor
with approximately fifty other students and a resident

assistant.

Experimental Group.--This term refers to the ten
residents on each of the sixteen selected floors whom the
resident assistant of that floor designates as the people

he feels he knows best.

Control Group.--This term refers to the ten people
on each of the selected floors who, excluding the ten
people already designated as eXperimental, were randomly

selected.

Demographic.--This term refers to certain data

 

relevant to this study which are specific to the residence
hall living situation. These data are: room distance,
classification, age, length of time the resident assistant

has known the student.

Room Distance.--This term refers to the numerical
distance away from the resident assistant that a given
resident lives. Distance is computed in units of one

room.

10

Age.--This term refers to the actual age of the
resident at the time of the study. Age is computed in

units of one year.

Classification.--This term refers to the actual

 

classification of the resident at the time of the study.
Classification is computed in the standard units of fresh-

man = l, sophomore = 2, junior = 3, and senior = 4.

Length of Time the Resident Assistant has Known
the Student.--This item refers to the length of time that
the resident assistant has actually been acquainted with
the resident. Length of time is computed in units of one

month.

Self—concept.--This term refers to the resident's

 

perception of himself as recorded on an adjective check
list composed of thirty pairs of adjectives commonly used

in the description of personality characteristics.

Perception of Resident Assistant's Feelings Toward
Self.--This item refers to the resident's perception of
his resident assistant's feelings toward him as measured

on the same adjective check list.

Job Responsibility.--This item refers to the eight
specific areas of responsibility in which a resident

assistant is expected to involve himself in his dealings

11

with the residents on his floor. These eight areas are
described in more detail in the instrumentation section

of Chapter III.

Theory

Cooley takes his original concept of the "looking
glass self" from Alice In The Looking Glass:

Each to each a looking glass
reflect the other that doth pass (10:183-184).

This view of self-concept forms the theoretical base for
virtually all self-concept studies. It is Cooley's con-
tention that the feelings one has about himself are derived
chiefly from the way he Sees others reacting to him. There-
fore, if one feels relatively content and happy with him-
self it is primarily because he views others as being
happy and content with him. Conversely if one does not
particularly like himself it is because he views others as
not liking him. Stated simply, for one to be accepting of
himself he must feel that he is accepted by others.«
Subsequent to Cooley's work George Herbert Mead
developed the concept of the "generalized other" (27).
Mead theorizes that our feelings about ourselves are
indeed gained through the way we perceive others reacting

to us but not on an individual basis. It was Mead's view

 

that the impact one specific person has on another is not
as significant as the combined impact of the group. It

is then, a conglomerate perception formed by the individual

12

perceptions of a number of people, which is actually most
important.

Further refinement in the theory was made with the
development of the idea of "significant others." The
author of this term is generally thought to be Mead; how-
ever in reality, he made no mention of it. The term
apparently was developed during the 1950's and has since
been used quite freely although with little definition.
Bertrand has defined the term "significant other" as
" . . . persons considered worth emulating because of
personal experience which indicates they are to be held
in high esteem" (3:60). To Brookover emulation is not an
all-important aspect of the term. He defines "significant
other" as " . . . real or imagined persons who influence
the individual's beliefs about himself and his world"
(7:66). Brookover uses "significant other" to refer to
the singular individual while the term "reference groups"
is used to refer to a group of persons whose standards one
uses to evaluate or judge himself (7:65).

Although an individual or group may be significant
at one time they may not be significant for all time. In
different areas or in different time periods separate indi-
viduals or groups influence the individual's behavior.
Neither can this influence be expected to last forever.

As one moves on in his life different persons and groups

will move in and out of points of influence. Any

l3

examination of such persons or groups is therefore limited
to that one particular life space in which the subject
finds himself at that particular time. Similarly, differ-
ent expectations held by different but equally significant
persons or groups also impose restrictions on the theory.
Such dichotomous perceptions would tend, in most circum-
stances, to lead to role or identity conflict (7:66).

One's self-concept and the manner in which it is
formed are closely related to one's actual behavior.
Towne states one of the central aspects of the research
on self-concept is that it is, " . . . an important vari-
able for exploring the behavior of individuals" (41).
Brookover, among others, has shown this to be true in
regard to one's academic achievement (8). By enhancing a
student's self-concept he found that the academic achieve-
ment of the student was improved. It remains to be seen
whether similar kinds of self-concept enhancement in
other behavioral areas will have equally encouraging
results.

Man's relationship with his fellow man is becoming
increasingly complicated and impersonal. A facilitation
of such interpersonal relationships, directed toward per-
sonal growth, tends to be a stated purpose of most college
residence hall programs (33:9). The stated purpose and
the degree to which the purpose is fulfilled, however, are

two separate entities. Evaluation of such fulfillment has,

14

as already mentioned been neglected. To the extent that
the resident assistant can facilitate communication and
foster the building of relationships he will be providing
a valuable service. Before this problem can be adequately
analyzed, however, the quality of the relationship between
the resident assistant and his students must be deter-
mined. It is the purpose of this study to examine that

relationship.

Assumptions

The following assumptions were made in the develop-

ment of this study:

1. The students the resident assistant designates
as knowing best (experimental group) personify
the ideal student-resident assistant relation-
ship.

2. It is legitimate to expect that every resident
assistant has at least ten students whom he
knows well.

3. Self-concept does exist and it is measurable.

4. Self-concept need not necessarily be broken
down into separate parts but may instead be
considered as a general overall feeling one
has toward himself.

5. One's perception of reality is more important
than reality itself in determining one's

behavior.

15

Limitations

 

Self-concept is dynamic and very much dependent
on one's current state of mind. Therefore, any attempt at
determining self-concept is limited by the fact that the
measure exists in only one specific time period and is
thus static. To obtain a more realistic measure one should
administer a given instrument many times to the same indi-
vidual and average the results. Although this is the
ideal, such elaborate and time consuming procedures were
not considered feasible for the present study. It was
assumed that by using a large sample such day-to-day
fluctuations in one's perception of himself will be taken

into account.

Overview

In Chapter II the literature which is relevant to
the present study is reviewed. The first section of
Chapter II deals with the literature related to the resi-
dent assistant while in the second section the literature
relevant to self-concept is discussed. In the third
section of the chapter the literature pertaining to the
"impact of others" is presented. The chapter is concluded
with a summary of all the literature related to the present
study.

Chapter III includes a description of the popu-
lation from which the sample for this study was drawn as

well as the sampling procedures. The instruments used in

16

the study are discussed as are the methods used to obtain
the data. The research hypotheses are stated in Chapter III
in both written and symbolic form. The procedures used to
analyze the data are also included.

Chapter IV includes a presentation of the data
obtained in the study as well as its analysis. A summary
of the findings concludes the chapter.

A summary of the entire study, conclusions, and
discussion interpreting the results and drawing impli-
cations from them for further research and programming

constitute the final chapter.

CHAPTER II

RELATED LITERATURE

The literature related to the present study will
be discussed in two sections. The first section will be
devoted to a discussion of articles and studies concerned
with resident assistants while the second section will
focus on research concerned with "self-concept" and the

importance of "others" in self-concept formation.

Literature Pertaining to Resident Assistants

 

Articles and studies concerning resident assistants
have typically discussed either selection and/or evaluation.
Williamson (44), representing a traditional view towards
selection, believes that resident assistants should
possess high intellectual qualifications. To disregard
this quality is to disregard the primary educational
function of the university.

Sifferd (39) has stated that, " . . . a genuine
interest in the problems of others," is the most important
quality to look for in a resident assistant. Without this
quality all others, no matter how outstanding they are,

will never be put to use.

17

18

A sociometric method of analysis was used by Kidd
(24) to determine qualities which residents felt to be most
important in a resident assistant. The residents desired
the resident assistant to be: (1) friendly, (2) responsi-
ble, (3) mature and respected, (4) intellectual and capa-
ble, (5) considerate, (6) moral, and (7) quiet. Conversely,
the residents felt it least desirable for their resident
assistant to be: (1) unfriendly, (2) carefree, (3) im-
mature, (4) incapable, (5) inconsiderate, (6) immoral,

(7) loud, (8) conceited, (9) deviant, and (10) unstable.

Attempts at determining an alternative and more
effective selection process include those by Brady (6), who
used free discussion, and Sheeder (38) who received favor-
able responses from both applicants and staff members when
he used role playing. Such techniques have not, however,
been generally adopted.

Enos (14), in surveying the resident assistant
selection procedures of sixty institutions, found that the
personal interview was considered the most important part
of the selection process. He further found that concern
fOr others, leadership ability, and maturity were con-
sidered to be the most important qualities found in resi-
dent assistants.

Powell has recently stated, "sensitivity, genuine-
ness, empathy, flexibility, maturity and self confidence"
as the qualities most desirable in a resident assistant

(32:158).

l9

Simons (40) attempted to determine the relation-
ship between resident assistant job performance and
selected personality characteristics. He found differences
between resident assistants and residents at large as well
as significant differences between high and low performance
groups of resident assistants on the emotional stability

scale of the Guilford Zimmerman Temperament Survey and on

 

the Religion Value Scale and Theoretical Value Scale of

the Allport Vernon Study of Values. Simons concludes,

 

Since many of these personality differences were not
highly significant the conclusion which seems warranted
is that the two groups were fairly homogeneous with
respect to the personality characteristics as shown
by the personality appraisal instruments (40:125).
The only positive finding, therefore, was that resident
assistants as a whole tend to be a more select group than
the residents at large.
Peterson (31) attempted to determine the relation-

ship between success as resident assistant and scores on

the Kuder Preference Record--Vocational, the Guilford

 

Zimmerman Temperament Survey, the Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory, and the Strong Vocational Interest

 

Blank for Women. Resident assistants were divided into

 

effective and ineffective categories, and correlational
scores were computed between these groups and the scores
on the test instruments. None of these scales provided
any information which could be used effectively in the

Selection of resident assistants.

20

Murphy and Ortenzi (29) found that there was little
correlation between the scores of resident assistants on

the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, the Edwards Personal

 

 

Preference Schedule, and the evaluations of these resident

 

assistants by their students and their immediate super-
visors. Since the correlations between the students and
immediate supervisor's rankings of resident assistant's
effectiveness were rather small (-.121--+.523), it was
inferred that students perceive the resident assistant in
a "somewhat different way" than does the supervisor.
Hefke (19) also found that students and graduate
level advisors differ as to their evaluation of resident
assistant effectiveness. His research further revealed
that no correlation existed between high and low authori-
tarian resident assistants, as measured by the Rokeach

Dogmatism Scale, and resident assistant effectiveness, as

 

determined by the head advisor.

It is important to emphasize that both Murphy and
Ortenzi (29) and Hefke (19) detected differences between
student's and supervisor's evaluations as to what is an
effective resident assistant. Thus it appears that to
some extent a form of role conflict may exist. If a
resident assistant attempts to be effective under the
criterion established by his supervisor, then he risks
being ineffective as described by his students. Conversely,
should he attempt to be effective under the criterion of

his students, he risks incurring the condemnation of his

21

supervisors. Whose needs should the resident assistant
strive to satisfy? It is probably true that the resident
assistant's perception of conflict in role expectation on
the part of his students and his supervisors is directly
related to his performance. Thus a more realistic and
flexible perception of what can be legitimately expected
from a resident assistant, held by both students and super-
visors, could reduce role conflict and improve performance.

In exploring the various ways of evaluating resi-
dent assistant effectiveness, Hoyt and Davidson (21) found
that head advisors and house managers agreed quite closely
in their evaluation of resident assistants. They further
found that scores on the California F Scale, measuring
authoritarianism, were negatively associated with effective-
ness. In terms of playing different roles, the authors
found that there were significant relationships between
effectiveness and tendencies to play the "interest" role
and/or the "competence" role. No significant relationships
were found between effectiveness and a tendency to play
the "buddy" role and/or the "authoritarian" role.

In another study of resident assistant effectiveness,
Madison (25) found the Ohio State Psychological Test, accumu-
lated grade point, length of time served as a resident
assistant, and all but one set of comparisons in the College
Student Questionnaire Part, ineffectual in determining resi-

dent assistant effectiveness. Madison did conclude that the

22

following description of an efficient resident assistant
could be supported. The more effective resident assistants:
(1) are more definite about their major field and vocational
decision, (2) perceive their college teachers and student
personnel deans in a more favorable manner, (3) are more
satisfied with their academic standing in their major

field, (4) own more books, and (5) are more concerned with
achieving a sense of identity.

In 1967 Duncan (13) developed a questionnaire for
the evaluation of resident assistants. The instrument con-
sisted of ninety-six behavioral statements grouped into
thirty-two triads. Each triad consisted of two statements
which discriminated between effective and ineffective
resident assistants and a third statement which did not
discriminate. The behavioral statements were selected by
"expert judges" from a total of over 400 submitted by stu-
dents living in residence halls. Although Duncan used
elaborate procedures to develop and evaluate his instru-
ment, it is, nevertheless, the one used by Hefke (19) in
his study in which it was found that students and staff
differ as to their respective definitions of an effective
resident assistant.

More recently, Schroeder and Douse concluded that,
" . . . neither the Strong (Strong VOcational Inventory),
the Edwards (Edwards Personal Preference Schedule) nor the
CPI (California Personality Inventory) discriminate between

the better and poorer RAs" (37:151). An additional finding

23

of their study was that students, head advisors, deans, and
psychologists all differed as to their perception of the
proper function of the resident assistant. Another im-
portant finding was the determination that, "The less
experienced and less able students ask more of an (RA) and
value her more highly" (37:151).

It is important to comment here on the way in which
the question of resident assistant effectiveness or success
is being approached. Virtually all the studies to date,
Peterson, Simons, Hefke, Murphy and Ortenzi, Madison,
Schroeder and Douse, Bodden and Walsh, have employed the
same technique. Basically these researchers have designated
effective and ineffective resident assistants, administered
some form of instrument, then analyzed the results between
groups. All have failed to produce any usable results.

The cause of this failure is that the instruments
used are primarily psychological instruments developed to
detect deviance from the norm. Enos found that the per-
sonal interview is the most commonly used method of resi-
dent assistant selection (14). It is reasonable to assume,
therefore, that in the interview situation deviations from
the norm, which would be detectable by the psychological
test, are readily observable. Thus, those candidates who
would deviate have been eliminated during the hiring

process.

24

This explanation is supported by Simmons' con-
clusion that resident assistants did not differ among
themselves but did differ from randomly selected students
(40). Further, Bodden and Walsh (5), using an Adjective
Check List measuring personality needs, The F Scale measur-
ing authoritarianism and Overall Agreement Scale measuring
acquiescence found only a .67 correlation between the
twenty best predicting items in all the instruments and
evaluation of resident assistant effectiveness.

It appears that there has been extended research in
the area of resident assistants, but, unfortunately, little
has been contributed to our knowledge about the position.
Generally, this research has provided information on tech-
niques which are not accurate predictors of success as a
resident assistant. However, the indication that resident
assistants are a more select group than students at large
has been supported. It thus becomes evident, that whatever
means have been used to select resident assistants in the
past (generally interviewing), are as good as any of the
testing techniques attempted recently. Perhaps the idea
of examining the personality characteristics of a good
resident assistant for the purpose of selecting people
already possessing those qualities, and thereby increasing
the chances of hiring resident assistants who will be
successful is a fallacy? It is apparent that the past

emphasis on testing should be eliminated and replaced by

25

an increased emphasis on training. Riker (33) has recom-
mended that this emphasis on training be made and Powell's
(32) recent book is indicative of such an effort.
Literature Pertaining to Self-Concept and
the Importance of Others

The idea of self-concept has been studied and
written about many times. A variety of terms have thus
arisen to discuss the topic. The "self," the "real self,"
the "phenomenal self," "self image," "looking glass self,"
and the "social self" are just a few. It is not the pur-
pose of this review to discuss all of these concepts but
rather to mention a few generalizations derived from the
literature in the area most relevant to this proposed study.

These generalizations are:

A. Self-concept is an important variable for ex-

ploring the behavior of individuals.

Although Mead (27) and Cooley (10) developed most
of the theoretical framework of "self-concept" in the
1920's and 30's, little research materialized to verify
their theories. However, in 1949, Ernest Hilgard, then
President of the American Psychological Association, made
a plea to begin an investigation of the "self" and its
impact on behavior and motivation (20). Hilgard suggested
that special laboratories be set up for the purpose of

examining "self-concept" and its impact on the individual.

 

1The stated generalizations have been extracted

from Towne (42).

26

Following Hilgard's statement, a great deal of
research was conducted in the 1950's and has continued
into the 1960's. One of the more significant of these
efforts was Fitts' attempt to determine the effect of one's
"self-concept" on his perception of the world around him
(16). It was Fitts' theory that the way in which one sees
himself provides a framework in which to view and evaluate
others. This theory proved valid and Fitts concluded that,
" . . . the study seems to provide considerable support
for the phenomenological theory that the self-concept
serves as a perceptual frame of reference in social per-
ception."

Fitts' study takes on additional significance,
since in conjunction with his study he develOped an instru-
ment to measure self-concept. The instrument is the
Tennessee Self Concept Scale, and is a thoroughly vali-
dated and often used tool in research pertaining to self-
concept.

Fitts makes the following statement as to the pur-
pose of his scale:

The individual's concept of himself has been demon-
strated to be highly influential in much of his be-
havior and also to be directly related to his general
personality and state of mental health. Those people
who see themselves as undesirable, worthless or 'bad'
tend to act accordingly. Those who have a highly un-
realistic concept of self tend to approach life as
other people in unrealistic ways. This knowledge of
how an individual perceives himself is useful in

attempting to help that individual or in making
evaluations of him (17:1).

27

B. An individual's self rating is significantly

related to "others" ratings of him.

The role of "others" in the formation of one's
self-concept has been extremely well documented. Cooley
was the first to describe this relationship when he
Adeveloped the "looking glass self" (10:183-184):

Each to each a looking glass
Reflects the other that doth pass.

In describing his concept Cooley goes on to say:
A self-idea of this sort seems to have three principal
elements: the imagination of our appearance to the
other person, the imagination of his judgment of that
appearance, and some sort of self-feeling, such as
pride or mortification.
G. H. Mead contributed to Cooley's theory when he
developed the concept of the "generalized other" (27).
To Mead it is in the form of the "generalized other" that
"the community exercises control over the conduct of its
individual members," and "enters as a determining factor
into the individual's thinking" (27:173).
Gordon and Gergen, in summarizing Mead's theory,
state that:
. . . at the core . . . is the proposition that an
individual (a) will conceive of himself much as he
believes significant others conceive of him, and (b)
will tend to act in accord with expectations he
imputes to these significant others concerning the
way "peOple like him" should act (18:34).
Combs and Snygg concur with Mead when, in dis-
cussing the "phenomenal self," they contend "the phenomenal

self may include by identification, persons and objects

entirely outside our physical selves" (11:44).

28

Although Mead speaks of the "generalized other" as
a conglomerate force, he does not emphasize the part played
by individual others. Recently, however, the idea of
"significant others" has arisen and although the actual
author of the term remains anonymous, many people have
offered descriptions of it.

Bertrand defines "significant other" as, " . . .
persons considered worth emulating because of personal
experience which indicates they are to be held in high
esteem" (3:60).

Wilson appears to agree with this View when he
says, "One does not establish his identity without identi-
fiers, and in this process the meaning of self is gradually
revealed through the responses of others" (45:90).

Brookover does not place as much emphasis on the
identification or emulation aspects of the term as do
Wilson and Bertrand. He defines "significant other" simply
as, " . . . real or imaginary persons who influence the
individual's beliefs about himself and his world" (7:66).

The concept of the "generalized other" which Mead
developed, coincides with the "reference group" which,
according to Brookover, is a particular group whose
standards individuals adopt so as to "evaluate or judge
themselves." Such "reference groups" are quite distinct
from "membership groups" which simply represent observable

associations of people and may or may not necessarily be

29

the ones which most directly affect the individual's
behavior (7:65-66).

It can thus be seen that an individual has both
"significant others" and "reference groups" by which to
model himself and judge his behavior. It has been
established that one's immediate peer group tends to form
a "reference group" (15) while both parents (23) and
teachers (30) have thus far been proven to be "significant
others."

The spatial relationship of "significant others"
and "reference groups" deserves some comment. Brookover
and Erickson have said, "In societies with extensive range
of interaction such as we have in the United States, the
significant group or persons may vary greatly from one
situation to another" (7:70). Thus, one may not be a
significant other for all time. An individual or group
may be significant to a person in only one specific situ-
ation or time period and thereafter be relegated to "simple
other" status.

Recently Anderson has stated,

Without significant people or without their pressures
and assumptions and attitudes to cause the self-image
to be formed and have content . . . the growing child,
and later, the adult would have nothing to measure
up to, to rebel against or to stop him (2:9).

She goes on to say that the self structure or self-image

is composed of elements each of which is valued on the

basis of "the acceptability of the trait to the significant

30

people" (2:12). She also comments that,
If there is any discrepancy between these values and
those of the culture in which they live it will be
the standards of the significant people, the child
will structuralize, provided he derives a sense of
security from these significant people (2:7).

C. The self-concept of an individual can change.

One's self-concept is not unalterable. According

to Combs and Snygg:

A changing world requires changes in the organi-
zation of the self if it is to be maintained. Because
we are aware of the future and must maintain ourselves,
in the future as well as in the present, it is neces-

sary to enhance the self against the exigencies of
tomorrow.

To achieve this self-adequacy requires of man that
he seek, not only to maintain his existing organi-
zation, but also that he build up and make more ade-
quate the self of which he is aware. Man seeks both
to maintain and enhance his perceived self (11:45).

The effort of an individual to maintain and enhance
the self is evident. One is continually striving to achieve
his "ideal" self while utilizing the existing self as a
frame of reference. One utilizes the reactions of "signifi-
cant others" and "reference groups" as the feedback by
which to gauge his progress in achieving his "ideal self."

D. Change or stability, in the perceived evalu-

ation of others, is associated with change or
stability in self-concept.

Since self-concept is an important variable in
behavior, and the formation of self-concept is dependent

on the reaction of others, what happens when the reactions

of others are manipulated?

31

Videbeck, in his study of self-concept, concluded
that, "A person will rate himself closer to his ideal self
rating if he receives approval from others and further away
from it if he receives disapproval" (43:354).

Maehr, Mensing, and Nafzger attempted to verify
Videbeck's conclusions by experimentally varying the re-
actions of physical education instructors toward the physi-
cal development of two groups of boys in a physical edu-
cation class. The authors concIuded that,

The disapproving reaction of the "significant others"
resulted in a significant decrease in self regard in
the case of those attributes referred to directly.
Approval also brought about a significant amount of
change in a positive direction (26:356).

Miyamoto and Dornbusch added significantly to the
knowledge of self-concept formation when they determined
that an individual's perception of reality was more im~
portant than reality (28). Therefore, how the "significant
others" react is not as important as how the subject peg-
ceives the "significant others" as reacting to him.

The alteration of self-concept so as to modify
behavior has been examined only slightly. The most note-
worthy work in this area has been that of Brookover (8).

In his study of self-concept of academic ability, Brookover
theorized that by building the student's perception of
himself as a student, an actual alteration in behavior may
result; namely, higher academic achievement. Therefore,

an attempt was made to encourage parents (verified signifi-

cant others) to regard the student, academically, in a

32

higher regard than they had previously. Although origi-

nally the parents were hesitant and even hostile, they

did cooperate. Brookover concludes the study by saying,
After a few months, when improvement was noted in the
children the parents reversed their feelings and became
quite enthusiastic about the meeting and sought further

advice on strategies for eliciting change in their
children's self-concept of academic ability (7:111).

Summary

In concluding this chapter of related literature,
a few salient points are evident. All the studies involving
resident assistants have been concerned with either selec-
tion or effectiveness as their main emphasis. All of
them, however, attempt to draw correlations so as to better
be able to select competent resident assistants in the

future. Simon's study using the Minnesota Multiphasic

 

Personality Inventory and the Allport Vernon Study of Values

 

 

is representative of this effort and he concludes only that
resident assistants are better adjusted than the average
group of students. Thus far then, no known method has been
found to examine students before hiring, so as to insure
the future success as resident assistants.

Regarding self-concept, four important theoretical
generalizations appear to be justified.

1. Self-concept is an important variable for

explaining the behavior of individuals.
2. An individual's self rating is significantly

related to other's ratings of him.

33

3. The self-concept of the individual can change.

4. Change or stability in the perceived evaluation
of others is associated with change or sta-
bility in self-concept.

Finally, Brookover's study of enhancement of self-
concept of academic achievement is extremely significant.
It is the first study which indicates that by altering
self-concept it may be possible to alter behavior. It
remains to be seen whether or not the techniques used by
Brookover and his associates are applicable in other
realms of behavior. Certainly such techniques of behavior

change need to be explored further.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES

Population

 

The South Campus of Michigan State University is
the largest of seven residence hall complexes on campus.
The eight residence halls in this group represent the
finest single grouping of on-campus housing facilities
that Michigan State has to offer its students.

The eight halls in the complex are grouped into
four living-learning centers. Each of the four centers
consists of two halls which are similar in their structure,
population, and staffing arrangement. The structural
arrangement of each center consists of two wings, one for
men and one for women, separated by a central common
facility. Incorporated into the common facility is a
cafeteria, snack shop, lounges, study and game rooms,
television rooms, office space, and classrooms.

The population of each center varies between 1,000
and 1,200 students with the total divided equally between

men and women.

34

35

The staff of each hall consists of one head ad-
visor, two graduate advisors, and twelve resident
assistants.1 Each resident assistant or RA is responsible
for one floor of approximately forty-five students. The
total staff of the complex consists of eight head advisors,
sixteen graduate advisors, and ninety-five resident
assistants.

During the 1969-70 academic year the student popu-
lation of the South Campus totaled 4,280 students. This
student population consisted of 2,090 women and 2,190 men
with a proportional breakdown of 44 per cent freshmen,

34 per cent sophomores, 18 per cent juniors, and 3 per cent

. 2
seniors.

Sample

Two resident assistants were selected from each of
the eight halls of the South Campus using a pre-established
table of random numbers. Resident assistants hired at the
beginning of the winter term were excluded from the selec-
tion process. Since the study was conducted soon after the
beginning of the winter term, inclusion of these resident

assistants in the sample would contaminate the findings.

 

1North and South Case Hall are the exception. Due
to additional demands for space in these two halls, South
Case has only ten resident assistants while North Case has
eleven.

. 2Information based on Fall Housing Report issued by
the Office of the Registrar, Michigan State University.

36

Thus for the sake of control, all the resident assistants
in the sample had fall term and four weeks of winter term
(fourteen weeks total) to form a relationship with their
residents. The floors on which these sixteen resident
assistants lived were then used as the sampling area.
Prior to the selection of the students, the sample
size was determined. The number twenty--ten students in
the experimental group and ten in the control group--
appeared to be sufficiently large and yet still manageable
when examined across sixteen floors. This figure repre-
sents a selection of roughly one-half of the total popu-
lation of each of the selected floors.3 The total of 320
students in the sample represents approximately 8 per cent
of the total student population of the South Campus. I
The students in the experimental group were
selected by having the resident assistant of the floor
indicate the ten students on the floor whom he felt he knew

4 At the same time the resident assistant indicated

best.
the room number, classification, age, and length of time he
had personally known the student. All 160 subjects were I
selected for the experimental group in this manner.

Once the ten students in the experimental group of

each floor were determined, the selection of the ten

 

3The total number of students on each of the six-
teen floors varied from thirty-two to forty-five.

4See Appendix B.

37

students in the control group was undertaken. Using the
housing lists of the head advisor, the first step was to
eliminate all those subjects who could not be considered.
Therefore, in addition to the ten persons already desig-
nated for inclusion in the experimental group, foreign
students and residents who had just recently moved onto
the floor were also excluded. Foreign students compose a
very limited percentage of the students in the overall
population of the South Campus. This fact, plus the chance
that cultural differences may affect the responses of a
foreign student, suggested their elimination from the
sample. Students who had just recently moved onto the
selected floors were also excluded, since the resident
assistant had not had an equal opportunity to form a
relationship with them. Thus only American students who
had lived on the particular floor since the beginning of
fall term were included in the sampling process. Again
using the pre-established table of random numbers, ten
students were selected from each of the participating
floors in the sample. Thus, a total of 160 students
representing sixteen floors were identified as members of

the control group.

.Instrumentation

 

Two different instruments were used to collect
the data needed for the study. The first instrument was

a sociometric questionnaire based on areas of responsibility

38

extracted from the resident assistant's job description.5
In order to develop this instrument, a determination was
made of exactly what the job of the resident assistant at
Michigan State entailed. Although almost everyone in the
area of residence hall programming has his own perception
of the position, it was decided that the job description
of the resident assistant as published by the Residence
Hall Programs Office at Michigan State would be used.
After consultation with the Area Director of the South
Campus and the Assistant Director of Residence Hall Pro-
grams responsible for staff selection, the eight specific
areas of responsibility were selected. These areas were:
(1) dissemination of information, (2) counseling, (3) rule
enforcement, (4) administrative duties, (5) managerial
liaison, (6) providing leadership, (7) handling of crises,
and (8) providing academic assistance. Although each area
of responsibility needed to be represented, not all areas
needed the same number of questions. Through consultation
with the Dean of Students, the Area Director of the South
Campus, and the Assistant Director for Staff Selection,
the total number of questions was finally reduced to
seventeen. Each of these questions represented a particular
area of responsibility or an important variation of it.

It was felt that the utilization of a sociometric

approach in gathering the data was superior to other more

 

5See Appendix C, Section 1.

39

direct methods. By asking the students to list those per-
sons to whom they would go for specific kinds of help,
objective responses were elicited which were unencumbered
by the suggestion of certain specific people. To suggest
to the student a list of names from which he is to choose,
or to ask the question in a declarative manner, predisposes
the student to consider only certain responses rather than
objectively considering all possible responses. The sug-
gestion of certain responses would thus have contaminated
the results.

The second instrument used in the study was a modi-

fied form of the Davidson-Lang Adjective Check List (12).6

 

This instrument was originally used to determine the re-
lationship between a student's self-concept and his per-
ception of his teacher's feelings toward him. Since the
students examined, however, were sixth grade elementary
school pupils, some modifications in the the instrument
were required. These modifications consisted of changing
fifteen of the thirty pairs of terms so that they were
more compatible with the educational level of college stu-
dents. Some alterations in the instructions were also

made.

 

6See Appendix C, Section 2. An explanation of the
adjective check list method of examining self-concept as
well as other methods appears in Sarbin (36).

40

Two different forms of the revised Davidson-Lang

 

Adjective Check List were used in the study (12). The
only difference in form, however, was in the manner in
which the subject was asked to respond. In the first
instance the subject was asked to indicate how he felt
about himself, while in the second instance he was asked
to indicate how he thought his resident assistant felt
about him.7

No instrumentation was needed for obtaining the
demographic data since that information was provided by
the resident assistant.

The validity of the sociometric portion of the
test instrument (Appendix B, Section 1) was not verified.
Such a verification is impossible due to the changes which
necessarily would occur if the subjects were different.
There are no other instruments which could be used in a
validity check of the instrument used in this study.

1“ The reliability of the sociometric portion of the
instrument cannot be determined since due to the nature of
the investigation the responses a subject might make could
vary over a very short time period.

The validity of the adjective check list (Appen-
dix B, Sections 2 and 3) was not verified. Such cross
checking would, by necessity, entail the use of another

instrument which is also used to determine self-concept.

 

7See Appendix C, Sections 2 and 3 respectively.

41

Such a procedure would thus incorporate the weaknesses in
validity of that instrument and, therefore, would only
substantiate the check list with another device for ob-
taining the same information. Since self-concept is
abstract and subject to many variables, a totally valid
determination of it is extremely difficult and cumbersome.
Anastasi states that,
It is only as a measure of a specifically defined
criterion that a test can be objectively validated at
all. . . . To claim that a test measures anything over
and above its criterion is pure speculation (1:67).
Thus, the instrument used in this study to measure self-
concept can be expected to be valid only as a measure of
the subject's evaluation of himself using the pairs of
dichotomous terms provided.

The reliability of the adjective check list was
determined by readministering the check list (Sections 2
and 3) to the fifteen respondents in the original pilot
study. A ten-week time period elapsed between the two
administrations. Reliability coefficients of .79 and .75
were obtained for Sections 2 and 3 respectively. These

coefficients are acceptable given the small number of

observations utilized in the computation.

Data Collection

 

Pilot Study

 

In order to insure accurate collection of the data,

a small pilot study was conducted prior to the sample

42

study. The pilot was run in a residence hall of another
complex so as not to contaminate the actual research area.

All of the procedures which were used in the main
study were incorporated in the pilot study. One floor was
selected from the hall at random. After asking the resi-
dent assistant of the floor to indicate the ten people on
the floor whom he knew best, the ten members of the control
group were selected using a table of random numbers. Those
people previously designated to be in the experimental
group were excluded. Thus one floor was sampled in the
same way that each of the sixteen floors in the actual
study were sampled.

All twenty participants, ten in the experimental
group and ten in the control group, were sent the packet
of instruments through campus mail during the first week
of January, 1970. At the end of five days, 65 per cent of
the participants in the pilot study had responded. At the
end of the seventh day, no additional responses were re-
ceived. The follow-up, therefore, began on the eighth day.

Four of the seven non-respondents were contacted
by telephone during the next three days. These participants
were asked if they were having any problems with the
questionnaire and to please return the completed question-
naire as soon as possible. If they indicated that they
had "misplaced" the instrument, they were sent another.

The remaining three non-respondents could not be contacted

43

during the week of the follow-up. They were, however, sent
messages requesting that they please respond as soon as
possible.

At the end of the second week, a total of seventeen,
or 85 per cent of the participants had returned their
questionnaires. Of these responses fifteen, or 75 per cent
were usable. (The two non-usable questionnaires were
simply not completed.) The follow-up was discontinued at
the end of the second week.

During the third week, a sample of the participants
in the pilot study was contacted both by telephone and in
person. The purpose of these contacts was to discuss the
feelings of the participants regarding the questionnaire
and the procedures used to obtain the data. Seven of the
fifteen participants who returned usable questionnaires
were contacted personally by telephone. These participants
were asked the following questions:

1. Why did you answer the questionnaire and

return it?

2. Were you aware of the intent of the study?

3. Did you encounter any difficulty with any of

the sections of the test instrument?

4. Was there anything in the instrument or the

procedure which alienated or upset you?

The two individuals who returned the non-usable

questionnaires were contacted in person. This was done

44

because these two people both returned blank question-
naires, but with attached notes describing why they did

not participate. Since these two people took the effort

to respond by way of writing their reasons for not partici-
pating, it was felt that they should be personally inter-
viewed so as to more adequately examine their reasoning.
One of the three non—respondents was contacted by phone

and he too was questioned about his failure to respond.

A number of respondents and non-respondents in the
pilot group were concerned about the purpose of the study.
As a result, a revision of the cover letter was made to
minimize this problem in the actual study. Primarily the
revisions which were made were: (1) a clear statement of
the intent of the study, and (2) the assurance that the
responses of individual subjects would be kept confidential.
A total explanation of the purpose of the study was im-
possible, however, due to the aforementioned rationale
for using a sociometric method to obtain some of the data.
Any explanation mentioning the resident assistant specifi-
cally would suggest responses rather than eliciting true
feelings. Thus the explanation in the cover letter had to
exclude any mention of the resident assistant. Information
was, therefore, sacrificed so as to minimize contamination.

To further minimize contamination, subjects were
instructed to answer each part of the instrument separately

and in sequence. Thus when the respondent finally saw a

45

specific reference to the resident assistant (necessary
in Section 3 of the instrument) he had already made his
responses to the sociometric questions (Section 1).

None of the participants contacted in the pilot
study encountered any difficulty with the instruments to
be used. According to the subjects contacted, the in-
structions were clear and the instruments understandable.
Thus no revisions were made in the instruments. Some
criticisms were made which indicated the subject's per-
sonal rejection of the goals and intent of the study.

The possibility of such rejection is understandably
heightened in situations where the respondent is asked to
reveal something personal about himself. A study of self-
concept which asks the subject to describe how he feels
about himself has definite psychological overtones. Such
an emphasis is objectionable to some people and therefore

is a possible contributory cause of non-response.

Sample Study

 

Following the revision of the procedures based on
the evaluation of the pilot study, the 320 questionnaires
for the sample study were distributed. Aften teA days
163 or 54 per cent of the questionnaires had been returned.
Since the return had fallen off to almost zero, the first
telephone follow-up was begun. Allowing additional time
for students to take mid-term exams, two weeks elapsed

before the second follow-up was begun. At this time 231

46

or 72 per cent of the participants in the sample had re-
sponded. By the ninth week of the term responses per day
were again down to zero but exams were to start the next
week and the plans for a third follow-up were discarded.
At the end of the term 260 questionnaires had been re-
turned for a response of 81 per cent. Six of the returned
questionnaires were non-usable due to incomplete second

or third sections. The total usable response was there-
fore 254 or 79 per cent.

Once it became apparent that no more returns could
be expected, a second letter was sent to the resident
assistants of the participating floors.8 The purpose of
this second letter was to secure the demographic data per-
taining to the members of the control group. Such data
had already been furnished on the members of the experi-
mental group when they were selected. Until this time,
the resident assistants had no knowledge as to the identity
of the members of their floor included in the control
group. Thus there was no chance for contamination through
unusual resident assistant-student contact. The subjects
in the experimental group were known by the resident
assistants since they had provided their names. However,
the resident assistants had been encouraged not to mention
to these people that they were to be involved in a study

and further to make no unusual contacts with them. This

 

8See Appendix D.

47

too was an effort to avoid any contamination on the socio—

metric portion of the test instrument.

Hypotheses

 

The six research hypotheses which were tested are

listed below. In each case the directional hypothesis is

stated first, followed by the appropriate symbolic state-

ment.

The mean room distance of students from the
resident assistant will be less in the experi-
mental group than it will be in the control
group.

HA1: Ml < M2

The mean age of students in the experimental
group will be greater than the mean age of
students in the control group.

HA2: M1 > M2

The mean classification of students in the
experimental group will be greater than the
mean classification of students in the control
group.

HA3: Ml > M2

The mean number of months the resident
assistants have known their students will be
greater for the experimental group than it
will be for the control group.

HA4: M1 > M2

48

5. The mean number of times the resident assistant
is mentioned in the sociometric scale by the
experimental group will be greater than the
number of times he is mentioned by the control
group.

HA5: Ml > M2

6. The correlation between the student's per-
ception of his resident assistant's feelings
toward him and the student's perception of
himself will be higher for the experimental
group than it will be for the control group.

H r >r

A6: 1 2

Analyses

Section 1 of the instrument used in the study con-
sists of seventeen sociometric questions based on the
published job description of the resident assistant at
Michigan State University. In this section the subjects
were asked to list at least two but not more than five per-
sons in response to each question.9 A response that in-
cluded the resident assistant indicated that the subject
viewed the resident assistant as an approachable source
for the resolution of the problem as posed in the question.
Although subjects were asked to list at least two persons,
questions were not eliminated if the subject did not re-
spond or made only one response. The questions were de-
signed to determine if the subject listed the resident

assistant as a resource person. By asking for two responses

 

9See Appendix C, Section 1.

49

it was felt that the subject would go beyond an immediate
response to the question. Thus, the chances of the resi-
dent assistant being listed as a secondary source were in-
creased. However, if the respondent left the question
blank or made only one response and the resident assistant
was not listed, the data were still considered usable.

Questions were scored using a scale of 1 through 0.
If the resident assistant was listed the score was 1, if
he was not listed the score was 0. No consideration was
given as to which place the resident assistant occupied in
the student's listing. By totaling the scores for each
question among students in the experimental group and stu-
dents in the control group data were obtained which indi-
cated the proportion of subjects in each group who viewed
the resident assistant as an approachable resource person
for the resolution of the conflict posed in that question.
By grouping the questions into their respective areas of
responsibility, differences between the experimental and
control group in each area were determined. One-tailed
t-tests were computed using the .05 level to determine
significance in each of the eight areas of resident
assistant job responsibility.

The second and third sections of the instrument
consisted of the thirty pairs of terms composing the
adjective check list. The two sections were identical

in structure, the difference being in the way the subjects

50

were asked to respond. In Section 2 the subjects were
asked to respond according to how they felt about them-
selves, while in Section 3 they were asked to respond
according to how they perceived their resident assistant
as feeling about them.10

The scoring of Sections 2 and 3 was accomplished
by attributing points to subject responses. The range of
points ran from 1 (least positive) to 5 (most positive)
for each pair of terms in the check list. The total score
was then computed for each section by adding the individual
scores across all thirty pairs of terms. The totals for
each of the two sections were then divided by 30 so as to
yield a mean self-concept score for Section 2 and a score
indicating the student's perception of his resident
assistant's feelings toward him for Section 3.

Within both the experimental and control groups
correlations were computed between the scores for Sections
2 and 3 of the test instrument. The result was two corre-
lation figures, the difference between which could be
tested for significance. A one-tailed t-test of difference

between r1 and r was computed using the .05 level to

2
determine significance.
In addition to the simple correlation of mean

scores between groups a "canonical correlation" was also

computed. This technique reweights the scores on

 

10See Appendix C, Sections 2 and 3 respectively.

51

individual pairs of terms based on their relative im-
portance within the instrument. Thus, a more accurate
indication of the actual correlation between the variables
could be gained.

The demographic data obtained from the resident
assistants on their students was split according to the
two group designations, i.e., eXperimental and control.
Mean scores for room distance, age, classification, and
length of time the student had been known by the resident
assistant were all computed by using one-tailed t-tests
to determine significance. Again the .05 level was used

to determine significance.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

It will be recalled that the problem statement of
Chapter I generated six research hypotheses which were pre-
sented in Chapter III. The present chapter reports the
data resulting from the implementation of the procedures
which were also described in Chapter III. The data are
presented by hypothesis and each is accompanied by a brief
discussion of the findings. In each case these findings
are analyzed in terms of differences between the students
the resident assistant knows best, the experimental group,
and the students selected randomly from the same floor,
the control group. Written comments which were voluntarily

made by some.of the respondents are also presented.

Hypothesis 1

 

The first hypothesis states that the students the
resident assistant knows best (experimental group) will
live closer to the resident assistant than the students
selected randomly (control group). As Table 1 indicates

the mean room distance for all members of the experimental

52

53

TABLE l.--Mean room distance of students from resident
assistants by floor and between combined groups.a

 

Experimental Control

 

 

Floor Group Group Difference
1 4.0 2.6 -1.4
2 3.0 3.4 .4
3 4.0 3.9 - .l
4 3.3 4.4 1.1
5 2 8 3.5 7
6 3.7 3.3 - .4
7 2 6 4.6 2.0
8 2 5 4.5 2.0
9 2.6 4.7 2.1
10 3.7 4.8 1.1
11 4.2 5.1 .9
12 4.6 4.2 - .4
13 4.1 5.3 1.2
14 3.8 5.6 1.8
15 4.0 5.4 1.4
16 6.0 4.5 -l.5

Overall 3.72 4.31 .59b
N=l33 N=120

 

a O I O 0
Room distance 18 measured in units of one room.

Significant at <.05 level using a one-tailed test.

54

group was 3.72 rooms while the mean room distance for all
members of the control group was 4.31 rooms. The differ-
ence between the two mean scores, .59 rooms, was found to
be significant at the <.05 level of confidence. These
results indicate that generally the students the resident
assistant knows best live significantly closer to him than
students selected randomly from the same floor. Thus,
Hypothesis 1 (HA1) was accepted.

Table 1 presents additional data indicating the
differences between the mean room distance scores of the
experimental and control groups in individual floors. It
can be seen that the differences between the mean scores
of the two groups on some of the floors was as high as 2.1
rooms. Similarly, on some floors, the mean room distance
for the experimental group was as low as 2.5 rooms. These
data indicate that the ten members of the experimental
group on these floors were clustered quite contiguously
to the resident assistant while the members of the control
group lived further away. Indeed, there were enough such
situations so as to give significance to the difference
between the overall mean scores.

A review of Table 1 also indicates that the mean
room distance scores for both groups on floors #1 and #16
are contrary to the scores of all the other floors. Not
only do the control group members on these two floors live
closer to the resident assistant than the members of the

experimental group, but also the differences between the

55

two scores are quite large. Although there is no apparent
cause for this phenomenon there are a variety of possible
explanations. Such possibilities include differences in
the philosophies of the head advisors, differences in the
way in which resident assistants are assigned floors and
even differences in the number of years the resident

assistant has held his position.

Hypothesis 2

 

The second hypothesis states that the students
the resident assistant knows best (experimental group) have
a higher classification in school than the students selected
ramdomly from the same floors (control group).1 As Table 2
indicates the overall mean classification of the students
in the experimental group was 1.92 while the overall mean
classification of the students in the control group was
1.83. The difference between the mean scores of .09 was
not found to be significant at the .05 level of confidence.
These data indicate that the students the resident assistant
knows best are no different in class standing than are the
students selected randomly. Thus Hypothesis 2 (HA2) was
not accepted.

Table 2 presents additional data indicating the
differences between the mean classification scores of the

experimental and control groups on individual floors. It

 

1As stated in Chapter III classification refers to
year in school. Freshman = l, Sophomore = 2, Junior = 3,
and Senior = 4.

56

TABLE 2.--Mean classification of students by floora and
between combined groups.

 

 

 

 

Floor Expgiimgntal CEEEESI Difference

l 1.6 1.90 - .30

2 1 2 1.30 - .10

3 1.2 1.50 - 30

4 l 4 1.50 - .10

5 1.6 1.55 .05

6 2.0 1.60 .40

7 l 7 2.10 - 40

8 2 l 1.90 .20

9 2.8 1.70 1.10

10 2.5 1.70 .80
11 1.8 1.90 - .10
12 2.0 2.00 0.00
13 2.8 2.10 .70
14 1.9 2.00 - .10
15 2.2 2.40 - .20
16 2.0 2.10 - .10
Overall 1.92 1.83 .09

N=l33 N=120
aFreshman = 1, Sophomore = 2, Junior = 3,

Senior = 4.

57

will be noticed that the differences between the mean
classification scores of the two groups on some floors
was as high as 1.10. However, it will be noticed also
that, in general, the differences between the groups for
all the floors was minimal. Indeed, many of the differ-
ences which were reported were negative. In other words
the students the resident assistants knew best were not
as far along in school as were the students selected
randomly.

Some indication of why only a minimal difference
in classification was found between the eXperimental and
control groups can be found in Table 3. By comparing the

TABLE 3.--Percentage distribution of students in residence
halls by classification.

 

 

Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior
Experimental
Group N=l33 37% 38% 21% 4%
Control
Group N=120 39% 42% 17% 2%
South
Campus N=4,280 44% 34% 18% 3%
All Campus
N=16,600 48% 30% 16% 6%

 

classification breakdown of the experimental group, the
control group, and the total population of South Campus it
can be seen that all classes are represented fairly equally

in the three designated groups. It can also be seen that

58

these percentage figures are not unlike those for the
all-campus residence hall population which are also present
in Table 3. Such information is helpful in expanding the
results of the study to all the residence halls at Michi-

gan State.

Hypothesis 3

 

The third hypothesis states that the students the
resident assistant knows best (experimental group) will be
older in chronological age than the students selected
randomly from the same floors (control group). As Table 4
indicates the mean age for the experimental group was 18.94
years while the mean age of the control group was 19.06.
The difference of -.12 years was not found to be signifi-
cant at the .05 level. These data indicate that the age of
the students the resident assistant knows best is no
different than the age of the students selected randomly.

Thus, Hypothesis 3 ) was not accepted.

(HA3
Table 4 also presents additional data indicating

the differences between the mean ages of the experimental
and control groups on each of the sampled floors. It can
be seen that the differences between the mean ages of the
two groups on some floors was as high as 1.7 years, while
on other floors the mean ages of the two groups were
identical. On seven of the sixteen floors the mean age of

the control group was higher than the mean age of the

experimental group. In one instance this negative

59

TABLE 4.--Mean chronological age of students by floor and
between combined groups.

 

Experimental Control

 

 

Floor Group Group Difference

1 18.1 18.1 0

2 18.2 18.6 - .40

3 18.2 18.5 - .30

4 18.4 18.6 - .20

5 18.6 19.4 - .80

6 19.0 18.6 .40

7 18.7 18.5 .20

8 19.1 18.9 .20

9 19.8 19.7 .10

10 19.7 18.7 1.00

11 18.9 17.2 1.70

12 19.0 19.1 .10

13 19.8 19.1 .70

14 19.0 19.9 - .90

15 19.4 19.9 - .50

16 19.0 19.4 - .40

Overall 18.94 19.06 - .12

N=l33

N=120

 

60

difference was almost one full year. Generally, the data
show no consistency while at the same time there is a wide
range of differences between the mean age scores of the
two groups on the sixteen sampled floors. Due to the

high correlation between age and classification it is

not unexpected that since Hypothesis 2 was not accepted

neither was Hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 4

 

The fourth hypothesis states that the students the
resident assistant knows best (experimental group) will
have been known longer by the resident assistant than will
the students selected randomly from the same floors (con-
trol group). As Table 5 indicates the mean number of
months the resident assistant had known the students in
the experimental group was 8.3 while the mean number of
months the resident assistant had known the students in
the control group was 6.3. The difference of 2.0 months
was found to be significant at the .001 level. These
results indicate that the students the resident assistant
knows best have also been known by the resident assistant
for a longer period of time than have other students on
the floor. Thus, Hypothesis 4 (HA4) was accepted.

Since the resident assistant could have known new
students only since the beginning of the year (five months)
the mean scores for the two groups indicate that fewer new

students were in the experimental group than in the control

61

TABLE 5.--Mean length of time the resident assistant has
known students by floor and between combined groups.

 

Experimental

Control

 

 

Floor Group Group Difference
1 10.2 9.8 .4
2 7.4 6.3 1.1
3 5.0 5.0 0.0
4 9.8 6.2 3.6
5 5.0 5.0 0.0
6 15.8 6.2 9.0
7 7.4 5.3 2.1
8 5.0 5.0 0.0
9 9.5 6.2 3.3
10 12.6 6.3 6.3
11 5.9 5.0 .9
12 6.8 5.0 1.8
13 6.4 5.0 1.4
14 13.2 10.8 2.4
15 7.8 5.8 2.0
16 10.5 8.8 1.7
Overall 8.3 6.3 2.0a
N=133 N=120

 

aSignificant at the .05 level using one-tailed

test.

62

group. These results are not necessarily reflected in the
classification data of Table 3 since the new student
designation can mean, in addition to freshmen, transfer
students, and new hall or even new floor residents. Thus,
the students the resident assistant knows best tend to be
known by the resident assistant prior to the beginning of
the school year. The number of new students included in
the experimental group is therefore reduced. It would
appear, therefore, that resident assistants are not expend-
ing much of an effort to get to know those individuals who
are new to their floor. Furthermore, it is also likely
that it is the new residents who have need of the resident

assistant's abilities and services the most.

Hypothesis 5

 

The fifth hypothesis states that the students the
resident assistant knows best (experimental group) will
perceive more of the resident assistant's total functioning
than will the students selected randomly from the same
floor (control group). It will be recalled that scores
were computed indicating the mean number of times the
members of the two groups listed the resident assistant as
one to whom they would go for help in resolving the con-
flicts posed in the seventeen sociometric questions. As
Table 6 indicates the mean number of times the resident
assistant was listed by the students in the experimental

group was 10.07 while the mean number of times the resident

63

TABLE 6.--Mean scores for each of the sociometric questions
between experimental and control groups.

 

 

 

Experimental Control
Question Group Group Difference
N=133 N=120
1 .35 .11 .24C
2 .95 .95 .0
3 .68 .87 —.19C
4 .51 .21 .30C
5 .26 .13 .13b
6 .21 .06 .15C
7 .33 .12 .21c
8 .29 .15 .14b
9 .72 .79 -.07
10 .30 .16 .14a
11 .77 .65 .12a
12 .91 .90 .01
13 .91 .91 .0
14 .84 .79 .05
15 .89 .90 -.01
16 .48 .57 -.09
17 .66 .72 -.06
Overall 10.07 9.0 1.07b

 

aSignificant at .05.
bSignificant at .01.
cSignificant at .001.

64

assistant was listed by the students in the control group
was 9.0. The difference in mean scores of 1.07 was found
to be significant at the .01 level. The results indicate
that generally the students the resident assistant knows
best perceive themselves as utilizing the resident assistant
in a wider variety of situations than do the students
selected at random from the same floors. Hypothesis 5
(HA5) was therefore accepted.
In order to examine which of the questions
accounted for the difference between the mean scores of
the two groups, one-tailed t-tests were computed on the
differences between the mean scores for each of the seven-
teen questions in the test instrument. As Table 6 indicates
the difference between the overall mean scores of the two
groups is attributable to particular questions. Questions
1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 all yielded significant differ-
ences between the mean scores of the experimental and con-
trol groups. Question 3 yielded a significant difference
also, however, the difference was in a negative direction.
It is also important to determine the areas of job
responsibility in which the questions yielding significant
differences between their mean scores are grouped. By
dividing the total number of responses for all of the
questions in a given area by the product of the number of

questions in that area and the number of respondents, a

65

percentage figure for each area was obtained.2 One-tailed
t-tests were then computed on the differences between these
percentage figures for the experimental and control groups.
The results of this investigation are provided in Table 7.

As Table 7 indicates seven of the nine questions
which had significant differences between their means are
grouped in two areas of resident assistant job responsi-
bility: academic and counseling. It can also be seen that
these seven questions encompass the totality of these two
areas. Thus the findings indicate that the students the
resident assistant knows best tend to View him as operat-
ing in the areas of academic and counseling responsibility
to a significant degree beyond that perceived by the stu-
dents selected randomly.

It is important to note that in the academic and
counseling areas of job responsibility the percentage
scores for both the experimental and control groups were
quite low. As can be seen in Table 7 the percentage
scores for both groups in these areas were the lowest of
all the area scores. Table 6 shows similar findings for
the individual questions composing these two areas. Here
it can be seen that the scores for the questions in the
academic and counseling areas are lower than the scores
for any of the questions in the other areas. It appears,

therefore, that although the students whom the resident

 

2
Table 7.

This formula is stated again at the bottom of

66

mucmccommwu noun 0:» CH
mo Hmnfidc Hmuoe x mcoflummdq mo HmQEBZ

mmum CH mmmCOMWmH mo nonfisc Hmuoe

 

u w

.ummulu cmaflmuumco mcfims Hm>ma Hoo. um unmoflmacmflmb
.mmum oawflommm

umcu CH mcoflummsw may mo mquEdc 0>Huommmmu map mumoHUcH mononucmumm cw mnmnfidzm

 

 

hm 6H6 omo.a wmm mmm.a H6669
a- wma km 666 mm Anus
cowumuumHCHEc<
A- was mm was ma Ame mHn606666q
m u 66m so was 66 Away ucmsmm6c6z
0 60m 6mm mom Hem Ama.ma.mav
Hoa>mcmm
6 wan mm 6mm maa ISAC mmmfluo
N mmm mam mom 0mm AHH.m.~V
coameHOmcH
now wma 66 6mm aka 16.6.6.63
mcflammcsou
aka 66H Hm mam HNH 6xoa.m.av
oafimcmod

noncommmm mmmcommmm mmmcommmm noncommmm
w manummom H6uoe am 60 H6609 manflmmom H6uoa «m 60 H6609
s s
mocmummmfio owe m 60 w Hmm m m0 w 6606
omauz Houuaoo mmanz H6ucmsfiummxm

 

.mmconm cmm3umb cowumflnommc bofl mo comm an mmuoumll.n mqmda

67

assistant knows best perceive him as working in the areas
of academic and counseling responsibility to a greater
degree than do the students selected randomly, neither
group perceives these areas on an equal basis with the
other areas of job responsibility. As Table 7 shows both
the experimental and control groups view the resident
assistant as working in the areas of counseling and
academic achievement to a much less degree than they do
the areas of information, crises, behavior, management,
leadership, and administration.

This particular finding has important implications
for the so-called "student development" point of View
mentioned in Chapter I. Those who espouse this View re-
gard it primarily as a philosophy built on interpersonal
relationships; a warm close relationship which then yields
an effective base for communication, understanding, and
impact.

The results of the sociometric portion of the test
instrument are, however, discouraging to student develop-
mentalist philosophy. The data indicate that, as mentioned
above, although there are significant differences between
the responses of the control and experimental groups in
the areas of counseling and academic involvement, the
actual percentage scores in these areas are quite low. A
review of the individual questions which compose the
academic (1,5,10) and the counseling (4,6,7,8) areas pro-

vides a possible explanation for such low scores. A review

68

of these questions suggests that only if the student had a
very close relationship with his resident assistant could
he be expected to list the resident assistant in response
to these questions. The fact that the students in the
experimental group were selected because they had a closer
relationship with the resident assistant than did the meme
bers of the control group is indicated by the differences
between their respective scores on these questions. How-
ever, since the scores for both groups are lower for the
questions in the academic and counseling areas it is
apparent that neither the students in the experimental nor
the control group Visualized the resident assistant as
involving himself in these areas to the degree to which he
involves himself in the other areas of job responsibility.
A review of the percentage scores for the infor-
mation, crises, behavior, management, leadership, and
administration areas of job responsibility and the questions
which compose these areas, provides data which are helpful
in understanding the students' perception of the resident
assistant's position. As can be seen in Table 7 all of
these areas show differences between the percentage scores
of the experimental and control groups which are minimal
while the actual scores are quite high. Generally the data
indicate that the members of both groups would agree as to
the extent of the resident assistant's functioning in these
areas. It is conceivable that the responses of the stu-

dents regarding their perception of the resident assistant's

69

involvement in these areas represents their picture of
the resident assistant as an authority figure.

It is noteworthy to examine the relationship be-
tween the overall tendency to list the resident assistant
in response to the seventeen sociometric questions of
Section 1 of the test instrument and the demographic
variables discussed earlier. Table 8 shows that both
classification and age are negatively correlated with
total scores in the experimental group. Thus as one gets
older or progresses in school he tends to perceive less
TABLE 8.--Product moment correlations between mean number

of times the resident assistant was listed in Section 1
and selected demographic variables.

 

 

. _ Length of
D Room Classifi Age Time Known
istance cation

by RA
Experimental
Group N=133 -.O4 -.31 -.30 -.27
Control
Group N=120 -.17 -.26 -.17 -.02

 

of a need for the resident assistant. Furthermore, it
would appear that as one knows the resident assistant for
a longer period of time he also perceives less of a need
for his services. In the control group none of the corre-
lations are as strongly negative as those in the experi-
mental group. However, room distance, age, and classifi-

cation are all negatively correlated with the total scores

70

of Section 1. It would appear that, for the members of
the control group, as one lives farther away from the
resident assistant, as one gets older, and as one pro-
gresses through school there is a tendency to perceive
less of a need for the services which the resident

assistant is hired to provide.

Hypothesis 6

 

The sixth, and last hypothesis states that the
correlation between the student's perception of himself
and his perception of his resident assistant's feelings
toward him will be higher for the students in the experi-
mental group than it will be for the students in the control
group. As Table 9 shows, the product-moment correlation of
the two mean scores for the experimental group was .70
while the correlation of the two mean scores for the con-
trol group was also .70.

Table 9 also shows that the canonical correlation
technique of re-weighting individual scores based on their
significance within the adjective check list yielded a .90
correlation coefficient for the experimental group and a
.91 correlation coefficient for the control group. It can
be seen, therefore, that neither computation provided a
difference which was statistically significant. These
results indicate that the self-concept of the students in
the experimental group is no more closely related to their

perception of the resident assistant's feelings toward

71

 

mm.m mm.m ONHHZ QDOHU

 

mam. mom.
Houucou
mom. Hon. mm.m 6m.m mmauz msouo
Hmucmefluwmxm
coflumamuuou mcmmz mo mmcflammm n.4m
H60Hcoc6o coflu6amuuoo mo cofludmoumm admocooumamm

ucmEoEIuosponm

cmmz Hamum>o cmwz Hamum>o

 

.mmsoum Houucoo can anacmfiflnmmxw
mmcflammw m.ucmumflmmm ucmbflmmu was

ecu cmmzumb ummocoouwamm m.ucmc5um cam EH: tumzou
mo coaummoumm m.ucmpsum mo mflnmcowumHmmll.m mqmde

72

them than is the self-concept of the students in the con-
trol group related to their perception of the resident
assistant's feelings toward them.

A determination of the relationship between an
individual's self-concept and his perception of others'
feelings toward him was used in the Davidson and Lang
study described in Chapter III. These authors found a
product—moment correlation of .75 between elementary school
students' self—concept and their perception of their
teacher's feelings toward them. The authors concluded that
this correlation was significant. The present study
attempted to examine experimentally this same relationship
between college students and their resident assistants.
Although this relationship, as indicated by the correlation
coefficients in Table 9, is very strong, the similarity of
these coefficients raises the possibility that they may not
be indicative of the actual relationship between the vari-
ables. The similarity of the mean scores as reported in
Table 9 support this possibility also.

Brookover has found in his research on self-
concept of academic ability that both a student's teachers
and parents have an impact on his perception of himself
as a student. However, when the impact of the parent is
statistically partialed out, the effect of the teacher
alone remains as minimal. This does not mean that the
teacher does not have an impact on some students. Indeed,

teachers many times have a very great impact on their

73

students. It does mean, however, that in this type of in-
vestigation the student may attribute to other individuals
the perception of himself which he feels is held by cer-
tain significant others or perhaps his own reference group.
Thus, the resident assistant may, indeed, have a more pro-
found impact on the self-concept of some students than on
others. However, the procedures employed in this section
of the study have allowed a student who does not know how
his resident assistant feels about him to attribute to his
resident assistant feelings about himself which are held
by the student's reference group. Thus the actual impact
of the resident assistant in the present study may not have
been determined. It would appear, therefore, that the
methodology utilized in this study, although previously
employed, contains some deficiencies which possibly negate
the results. Davidson and Lang perhaps would have arrived
at the same conclusions had they, too, utilized an experi-
mental approach rather than one of simply establishing
relationships. In any event, more sophisticated tech-
niques must be developed if this particular aspect of the
resident assistant's relationship with his students is to

be accurately examined.

Comments
Although the format of the test instrument did not
provide an opportunity for the students to make open-

ended written statements, nevertheless some students did

74

make such comments. It was felt that these comments pro-
vide additional insight into the feelings of some of the
participants and thus warrant inclusion in the text of
this chapter. All of the written comments made by the
subjects in the study are reproduced below under the sub-

titles of their respective group.

Comments from Experimental Group

 

I feel this particular survey leaves no room for
particular situations and that this is an irrelevant
survey. The real problem lies in the fact that the
structure of this dorm is not conducive to human
sanity. A much more meaningful study could be done
linking the physical structure to student actions and
problems. RA's and the structure of this dorm are
frustrating and the best way to avoid this frustration
is to by-pass the system or change it. If not, accept
it and laugh.

Random guesses; actually I have no idea on most
of these statements.

Note, your scale is somewhat confusing. Most
people are used to the like & dislike 5 step scale.

You wrote that we all have impressions of how others
look at us. I think that we all have impressions of
how significant others see us. My RA is a member of a
different social group than I am and has a background
very different from mine. As such he is a significant
other for very few of the characteristics in your
questionnaire. I don't know exactly how you plan to
use this data, but I think you had better be very
careful about assuming that the dimensions of per~
sonality you use are significant to people's self-
images, much less their perceptions of others' opinions.
I know that I could not give immediate impressions for
many of these items because I had never before thought
about the dimensions you imposed.

How would I know he's not on the floor very
often!

Note in passing--my RA and I get along famously;
and I think she's one of the best on this campus.

75

Haven't had enough personal interplay to make a
truly valid judgment.

I feel all these traits to various degrees at
different times, therefore, I cannot check the
appropriate columns. I cannot judge my RA because
I do not know her that well.

I really don't give a damn about my RA and
vice versa.

I really have absolutely no idea how my RA feels
about me.

Comments from Control Group

 

She (RA) doesn't really know me.

I'm sure my RA knows me very little. This section
thus indicates the same.

I dislike having to say whg I would approach for
this and that for first I would seek an answer on my-
self and then go to physical references then last of
all to a person. This part of the questionnaire con-
cerning the RA for me should be invalid for I hardly
expect her to be able to evaluate me for she doesn't
really know me.

My RA and I don't know each other very well.

I really don't feel my RA knows (nor should she
need to know) me well enough to have formed such
extensive judgments!

I've tried to indicate that my RA has no idea of
my character to my knowledge. I never see her or
talk to her.

Honestly have no idea how my RA feels about me
concerning the majority of these questions, therefore,
could not fill out this part, without it being com-
pletely meaningless.

I feel she has a neutral opinion of me.

My RA is only a bare acquaintance of mine and I
have absolutely no idea what she knows of me. There-
fore, I have no basis upon which to answer these
questions.

76

I really couldn't answer the above questions
truthfully because the only time I see my RA is at
the hall meetings or if I accidentally run into her.

I don't have any idea how my RA feels toward me!!

I barely know my RAll at least not personally.

 

I feel that I can't answer for my RA.

A review of the above comments of both groups indi-
cates some striking similarities. Although there were a
few more negative comments from the control group than
there were from the experimental group, both have primarily
a negative connotation. Since the experimental group is
supposed to have a closer relationship with the resident
assistant than the control group it is surprising that such
comments were made by subjects in that group. It may be
that the original assumption that a resident assistant
should have at least ten people on his floor whom he knows
well, was incorrect. It is conceivable, though disappoint-
ing, that ten students are perhaps too many for a resident

assistant to know well.

Summary

The results of the present study have supported
certain hypotheses and yielded the following findings:
1. Students whom the resident assistant knows
best tend to live closer to him than do other

residents on the floor.

The

77

The resident assistant tends to know best
those students whom he has known longer while
other residents have been known by him for a
shorter period of time.

The students the resident assistant knows
best tend to view him as involving himself in
their academic and personal concerns, while
other residents on the floor tend not to per-
ceive this involvement.

results do not warrant accepting certain

hypotheses and thus have yielded the following findings:

1.

The

The students the resident assistant knows

best appear to be no different in class stand-
ing than other students on the floor.

The students the resident assistant knows best
appear to be no older than other residents on
his floor.

The self-concept of the students the resident
assistant knows best is no more closely related
to their perception of his feelings toward
them than is the self-concept of other students
on the floor related to their perception of the
resident assistant's feelings toward them.
data have also indicated that:

Among both the experimental and control groups,

as the students grow older or progress in

78

school, they tend to perceive less of a need
for the resident assistant.

2. Among both the experimental and control groups
the perception of the resident assistant as
one who is concerned with the student's
academic and personal problems is not as great
as the perception of the resident assistant
as an authority figure.

From the data it would seem that the resident
assistant has a different relationship with the students
he knows best than he does with other students on the
floor. If it can be assumed that the relationship the
resident assistant has with the students he knows best
is ideal, then the structure of that relationship should
be examined. The data provided by this study have helped
to analyze that relationship and compare it with the
relationship the resident assistant has with his other
students. The implications of the similarities and
differences in this comparison will be discussed in the

following chapter.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Problem and Purpose of the Study

 

The phenomenal growth of higher education has
precipitated an equally impressive expansion of on-campus
housing facilities for students. Most campuses currently
provide some type of residential housing plan for their
students. Although the staffing structure of these resi-
dential units varies from campus to campus, undergraduate
assistants are frequently employed to assist in the hall
programming.

Virtually all of the research involving resident
assistants in the past has been concerned with either
their selection or evaluation. Most of these studies have
had, as their primary purpose, the development of a selec-
tion procedure which would insure a high probability of
resident assistant job success in the future. Generally
these studies have contributed relatively little to the
knowledge about resident assistants and what makes them
effective or ineffective. Those research efforts which
have attempted to determine the effectiveness of resident

assistants have been hindered by differing evaluations of

79

80

effectiveness by students and staff. Thus, depending on
whose criteria are used, a resident assistant could be
considered either effective or ineffective. Previous
research has shown no definite correlation between the
mutual evaluations of resident assistant job performance
by students and staff (19, 29).

The present study has been concerned solely with
the relationship between the undergraduate resident
assistant and his students. Two primary assumptions were
necessarily made regarding the resident assistant's
relationship with his students, prior to the beginning of
the study. First, the relationship between the resident
assistant and the students on his floor whom he knows best
was assumed to personify the ideal resident assistant-
student relationship. Secondly, it was assumed that all
resident assistants had at least ten students on their
floor whom they knew well and with whom they had good
relationships. Given these assumptions a comparison was
then made between (1) the ideal relationship of the resi-
dent assistant and the students he knows best, and (2) the
relationship which the resident assistant has with the
other students on his floor.

There were three primary lines of inquiry along
which the relationship of the resident assistant with his
students, was examined. First, differences in four demo-
graphic variables were examined between the students the

resident assistant knows best and other students selected

81

randomly from the same floor. These demographic variables
were: (1) room distance from the resident assistant, (2)
classification, (3) age, and (4) the length of time the
resident assistant has known the student. Secondly,
differences in the perception of the resident assistant's
areas of job responsibility were investigated. Finally,
differences in the relationship between a student's per-
ception of his resident assistant's feelings toward him

and the student's perception of himself were examined.

Methodology

 

The determination of which resident assistants and
students were to be included in the sample began with the
selection of sixteen resident assistants from a population
of ninety-five in the South Campus of Michigan State Uni-
versity. This sample consisted of two resident assistants
selected at random from each of eight residence halls in
the South Campus. Eight men and eight women resident
assistants were included in the sample. The floors on
which these resident assistants lived then became the
sampling area from which the students in the study were
selected.

The previously designated resident assistants were
asked to indicate the ten students on their floor whom
they felt they knew best. These individuals composed the
experimental group. An additional ten students were

selected randomly from each floor to create a control

82

group. The sample, therefore, consisted of 160 students
in the experimental group and 160 students in the control
group.

All of the students in the sample were sent a
packet of instruments consisting of: (l) seventeen socio-
metric questions extracted from the job description of the
resident assistant, (2) an adjective check list designed
to measure an individual's perception of himself, and (3)

a second copy of the same adjective check list used this
time to determine the student's perception of his resident
assistant's feelings toward him. Utilizing telephone calls
as a follow-up procedure, 260 questionnaires or 81 per cent

were ultimately returned.

Findings
The various aspects of the problem discussed in
Chapter I were stated in terms of directional hypotheses
in Chapter III. While these hypotheses are not restated
here the findings which emanated from them are summarized
below.

1. The students the resident assistant knows best
live closer to him in room distance than do
students selected at random from the same
floor.

2. There is no difference in classification be-

tween the students the resident assistant

83

knows best and students selected at random
from the same floor.

There is no difference in age between the
students the resident assistant knows best

and the students selected at random from the
same floor.

The resident assistant tends to have known

the students he knows best for a longer period
of time than he has known the students selected
at random from the same floor.

The students the resident assistant knows

best tend to perceive more of the total
functioning of the resident assistant than

do the students selected at random.

The students the resident assistant knows best
tend to perceive the resident assistant as
working more in the areas of academic and
personal problems than do students selected

at random.

Generally the students perceive the resident
assistant as involving himself in their
academic and personal problems to a lesser
degree than they perceive him involving him-
self in other areas of job responsibility.
Generally as students grow older and proceed
through school they tend to perceive less of

a need for the resident assistant.

84

9. The self—concept of the students the resident
assistant knows best is no more closely related
to their perception of the resident assistant's
feelings toward them than is the self-concept
of the students selected at random related to
their perception of the resident assistant's

feelings toward them.

Discussion

One aspect of Kidd's 1955 study was the determi-
nation of the qualities which students felt resident
assistants should possess (24). The three most important
of these were: (1) friendliness, (2) responsibleness,
and (3) maturity and respectability. The three least
desirable qualities in a resident assistant were felt to
be: (1) unfriendliness, (2) irresponsibility, and (3)
immaturity. It is doubtful if anyone could take issue
with the three qualities which Kidd found to be most
important in a resident assistant. Even those who contend
the resident assistant's job has changed over the years
‘would have to admit that these qualities, stated fifteen
years ago, are pertinent today.

However, among all the desirable qualities which
Kidd discussed no mention was made of compassion, concern
for, or even interest in, people. Evidently concern for
people was assumed to be a part of one's personality if he

‘was friendly, responsible, and mature.

85

Enos's study, nine years later, showed that concern
for others, leadership ability, and maturity were con-
sidered to be the most important qualities in a resident
assistant (14). Here it can be seen that concern for
others was felt by residence halls staff to be one of the
most desirable qualities in a resident assistant. Thus,
the relationship between the resident assistant and his
students had evidently become important enough to warrant
special consideration. No longer was simply being
"friendly" enough. It was now felt that one actually had
to be concerned for other people and have compassion for
them in order to be a good resident assistant.

The student development point of View is one which
relies heavily on the feelings of mutual concern and com-
passion among people. It is the contention of the student
developmentalists that behavior change can best occur in
situations where strong interpersonal relationships exist.
These relationships are indeed strengthened when a mutual
concern for one another is evident. By hiring student
personnel staff who are concerned and willing to involve
themselves with their students, the chances of achieving
strong interpersonal relationships between students and
staff are increased. If this can be accomplished the im-
pact of the staff member on the student is greatly en-

hanced.

86

The results of this study appear to be a logical
continuation of the findings of Kidd and Enos as well as
supporting the student developmentalist point of view.

The present study determined that the students the resi-
dent assistant knows best perceive a need for the resident
assistant in a wider variety of situations than students
selected randomly. The ideal student-resident assistant
relationship is therefore one which is more comprehensive
in terms of the resident assistant's job responsibilities.
Thus the strength of the resident assistant-student
relationship is to some extent associated with a greater
perceived need for the resident assistant.

It is entirely possible that the ideal relationship
as it has been used in this study is really not resident
assistant-student in nature but rather a relationship
among friends. Friendship does denote mutual concern and
caring for one another. A review of the type of questions
which accounted for the differences between the experi-
.mental and control groups in Section 1 of the test instru-
ment supports the existence of a possible friendship
relationship. However, whatever the cause, it is evident
that more of the students whom the resident assistant
knows best perceive him as functioning in the academic and
counseling areas of job responsibility than do students in
general. Such areas are highly personal in nature and the
dependency of a student on someone to help him with

problems in these areas would indicate a strong

87

interpersonal relationship built on trust. This relation-
ship is further supported by the fact that even though
significantly more of the experimental group members than
the control group members have this relationship with their
resident assistant, fewer members of both groups visualize
their resident assistant involving himself in their academic
and personal concerns than in any of the other areas of job
responsibility. //

The analysis of the demographic variables between
the experimental and control groups showed that the stu-
dents the resident assistant knew best lived significantly
closer to the resident assistant than the other students on
the floor. There are two possible explanations for this
finding. First, the resident assistant will have had in-
creased contact with those immediately around him and thus
may get to know them best. Secondly, the resident assistant
who knows he will be a resident assistant on a specific
floor the following year (common practice in some resi-
dence halls) clusters his friends around him during room
reservation time in the spring. Most likely in any given
situation both explanations are to some degree valid.

The analysis of the demographic variables also
revealed that the students whom the resident assistant
knew best had been known by him for a longer period of time
than students selected randomly. Since these time periods
were 8.2 and 6.2 months for the experimental and control

groups respectively, it would appear that the resident

88

assistant tended to know the students he knew best before

the beginning of the year since that was only five months

prior to the study. Thus students new to the resident
assistant's acquaintance were more prevalent in the control
group than they were in the experimental group.

The age and classification of students evidently
are in no way related to the designations resident
assistants make as to whom they feel they know best. Thus
these variables are not a significant area of concern for
those who have the responsibility of training and evalu-
ating resident assistants.

Theoretically the hypothesis may still be valid
which states that the self-concept of the students the
resident assistant knows best is more closely related to
their perception of the resident assistant's feelings
toward them than is the self-concept of the students
selected randomly related to their perception of the resi-
dent assistant's feelings toward them. This is certainly
possible if, as mentioned earlier, the relationship between
the resident assistant and the students he knows best is
one based on friendship. However, the failure of the
instruments to report a significant difference between the
correlations as well as the strength of the correlations,
indicates the possibility of a methodological failure.

Had there been a difference in the correlations, or if
both correlations had been similar but low, the results

would have been informative. However, the equally high

89

strength of both correlations indicates that the data
possibly did not reflect the actual relationship.

The methodological procedures used in collecting
the data in order to test the sixth hypothesis had been
used previously by Davidson and Lang to establish simple
relationships. However, the procedure had not been tested
experimentally. The results of this experimental investi-
gation bring into question the results of all previous
investigations using simple relationship methodology. Had
this study hypothesized a simple relationship between a
student's self-concept and his perception of his resident
assistant's feelings toward him, very impressive results
could have been reported. However, the insertion of
experimental and control factors failed to bring about any
meaningful distinctions. Therefore, although Hypothesis 6
could not be accepted additional factors appear to be
Operating which qualify the results. A more sophisticated
approach to the examination of this aspect of the study is

therefore needed.

Implications

 

The present study provides information which can
serve as an important base from which to launch further
research efforts. This study has also produced infor-
mation which can be helpful in current efforts in residence

hall programming.

90

Implications for Research

The problem of experimentally altering variables
has always proved to be a significant problem in residence
hall research. The experimental design of the present
study provides a research methodology which can be helpful
in future residence hall research efforts.

The evaluation of resident assistants can now be
approached in a new and different way. Utilizing the stu-
dents the resident assistant knows best as an experimental
group and randomly selected students as a control group,
differences in role definition and evaluation could be
analyzed. The comparison of experimental and control group
membership to a sociometric analysis of floor relationships
could not only verify group membership but also indicate
the extent of intergroup communication. It is possible
that the entire experimental group is a small social system
functioning around the resident assistant. Such infor-
mation could be helpful in both the evaluation and train-
ing of resident assistants.

It is important for this study to be replicated.
The findings which are significant in some of the areas
of investigation need to be substantiated. There are also
some changes in design which, if made, could provide
interesting information. First, if the number of students
in the experimental group were reduced to five, or expanded
to fifteen, with an accompanying number in the control

group, the distinctions between the groups may become

91

clearer. Admittedly, such an alteration increases or
decreases respectively the chances of finding a greater
distinction between the two groups. However, the strength
of the distinctions relative to the number of students in
the groups could provide valuable information.

Secondly, it is possible that the resident
assistant's designation of students whom he knows best may
not be indicative of those students with whom he has the
closest relationship. A preliminary sociometric study of
interpersonal relationships of floor members could furnish
such information. A replication of the present study using
this method of selecting the members of the experimental
group could furnish important supportive data. It could
also negate some of the present study's findings. In
either case the implementation of such methodology would
be an important addition to the central theme of this re-
search effort.

The use of in-depth interviews with both students
and resident assistants could also provide valuable data.
Such interviews could be used in place of some of the
instruments used in this study or in addition to them.

The results of this study have raised certain questions
which only interviews could have resolved. Although these
questions were not an integral part of the study, the
answers to them could have provided important explanatory
information. Such a procedure is thus recommended in any

future study of this type.

92

Implications for Programming

The training of resident assistants is the most
important programming area to which this research effort
can contribute. Since the students the resident assistant
knows best live closer to him than other residents on the
floor, training sessions can concentrate on encouraging
y the resident assistants to move about more and not confine
themselves to one single area or peer group. Furthermore,
the evidence indicates that the students the resident
assistant knows best have been known by the resident
assistant for a longer period of time than have other stu-
dents. Resident assistants should, therefore, be encour-
aged to form relationships with the newer residents on
their floor and concentrate their efforts on them rather
than on their older acquaintances. By encouraging the
resident assistants to seek out and develop relationships
with individuals whom they do not know, it may also be
possible to increase numerically the number of students
who have a more complete relationship with the resident
assistant.

One programming plan which could be implemented is
one which provides for the movement of the resident
assistant within his floor. This plan would allow for
the placement of the resident assistant in a different
room each term. Such placement would allow the resident
assistant to be physically close to all his students at

one time or another during the year. The increased

93

communication and understanding which could result from
such movement might be worth the effort needed to imple-
ment such a potentially confusing plan.

Another alternative staffing arrangement would be
to increase the number of resident assistants on a floor,
from one to three. This increase in resident assistants
would reduce the resident assistant-student ratio from
1-45 to 1-15. Under this plan the training of the resi-
dent assistants would procede in the form of educating
the resident assistants to be counselor-helpers, a role
which this research has shown to be a deficiency in the
resident assistant's functioning. In this capacity the
purpose of the resident assistant would be primarily one
of establishing close relationships with the men around
him and serving as a role model. Since resident assistants
already tend to be upper-classmen they do serve, to some
extent, as one who has "made it."

The important factor in this new arrangement
would be the resident assistant's relationship with his
fifteen men. The reduced resident assistant-student
ratio would provide increased social modeling, an in-
creased chance of working with individual students, and
lastly, increased staff coverage and staff availability
for the floor and hall. Thus, while the area of resident
assistant functioning which previously has been deficient
is being enhanced, the other areas of functioning, per-

ceived by the residents as being important are not reduced.

94

The important factor to de-emphasize, however, is that
these resident assistants are not an expression of the
administration's desire to control students, but rather
an expression of their interest in students and their
desire to have as much personal contact with students as
possible. If this public relations point can be made it
may be possible to revise the residence hall system with

an increased benefit for all concerned.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anastasi, Anne. "The Concept of Validity in the
Interpretation of Test Scores." Educational and
Psychological Measurement, X (1950), 67-78.

 

Anderson, Camilla M. "The Self-Image: A Theory of
the Dynamics of Behavior." The Self and Growth,
Teaching and Learning. Edited by Don E. Hamechek.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965.

 

Ayres, Archie R.; Tripp, Philip A.; and Russell,
John H. Student Services Administration in Higher
Education, Bulletin No. 16. Washington, D.C.:
Office of Education, Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, 1966.

 

 

Bertrand, Alvin L. Basic Sociology: An Introduction
to Theory and Method. New York: Appleton, Century
ahdICrofts, 1967.

 

Bodden, J. L., and Walsh, W. B. "Increasing the
Effectiveness of the Selection of Residence
Counselors." Journal of College Student Personnel,
IX (May, 1968), 193-94.

Brady, Morna V. "Student Counselor Selection."
Personnel and Guidance Journal, XXXIII, No. 5
(January, 1955).

 

Brookover, Wilbur B., and Erickson, Edsel L. Society,
Schools and Learning. New York: Allyn and Bacon,
InCO' 19690

 

Brookover, Wilbur 3.; Patterson, Anne; and Shailer,
Thomas. Improving Academic Achievement Through
Student Self-Concgpt Enhancement. Project No. 845,
United States Office of Education. East Lansing,
Mich.: Bureau of Education Research Services,
College of Education, Michigan State University,
1962.

 

95

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

l8.

19.

20.

96

Chambers, M. M. "The Courts and the Colleges Since
Mid-Century." College Student Personnel. Edited
by Laurine Fitzgerald, Walter Johnson, and Willa
Norris. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1970.

 

Cooley, Charles Horton. Human Nature and the Social
Order. New York: Charles Scribner and Sons,
1902.

 

Combs, Arthur W., and Snygg, Donald. Individual
Behavior. Rev. ed. New York: Harper and Row,
1957.

 

Davidson, Helen H., and Lang, Gerhard. "Children's
Perceptions of Their Teacher's Feelings Toward
Them Related to Self-Perception, School Achievement
and Behavior." Journal of Experimental Education,
XXIX, No. 2 (December, 1960), 107-18.

 

Duncan, James P. "A Rating Scale for Student Evalu-
ation of Residence Hall Counselors." Personnel and
Guidance Journal, XLV, No. 5 (January, 1967), 452-
54.

 

 

Enos, Brian R. "Selection of Residence Hall Counselors
at a Group of Colleges and Universities." Unpub-
lished study, May 23, 1964.

Feldman, Kenneth A., and Newcomb, Theodore M. The
Impact of College on Students. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969.

 

Fitts, William H. "The Role of the Self-Concept in
Social Perception." Dissertation Abstracts, XV
(1955), 463.

 

. Tennessee Self Concept Scale. Nashville,

 

Tenn.: Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1965.

Gordon, Chad, and Gergen, Kenneth J. "The Nature and
Dimensions of the Self." The Self and Social
Interaction. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1968.

 

 

Hefke, Norman E. "A Study of the Relationship Be-
tween Authoritarianism and Resident Assistant
Effectiveness." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1968.

Hilgard, Ernest R. "Human Motives and the Concept of
Self." American Psychologist, IV (1949), 374-82.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

97

Hoyt, Donald B., and Davidson, Alexander. “Evaluating
Residence Hall Advisors." The Journal of College
Student Personnel, VIII, No. 4 (July, 1967).

 

 

Johnson, Walter F. "Student Personnel Work in Higher
Education: Philosophy and Framework." College
Student Personnel. Edited by Laurine E. Fitz-
gerald, Walter F. Johnson, and Willa Norris.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1970.

 

Jourard, S. M., and Remy, R. M. "Perceived Parental
Attitudes, the Self and Security." Journal of
Consulting Psychology, XIX (1955), 364-66.

 

 

Kidd, John W. "Positive and Negative Leadership
Traits in a College Men's Residence Hall." North
Central Associationguarterly, XXIX, No. 4 (April,
1955), 360-62.

 

Madison, Dennis Leroy. "Factors Associated with
Effectiveness as a Male Undergraduate Residence
Hall Counselor." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Ohio University, 1966.

Maehr, Martin C.; Mensing, Josef; and Nafyger, Samuel.
"Concept of Self and the Reaction of Others."
Sociometry, XXV (December, 1962), 353-57.

 

Mead, George H. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1934.

 

Miyamoto, Frank, and Dornbush, Sanford. "A Test of
Interactionist Hypothesis of Self Conception."
American Journal of Sociology, XXI (1956), 399-403.

 

Murphy, R. 0., and Ortenzi, A. "Use of Standardized
Measurements in the Selection of Residence Hall
Staff." Journal of College Student Personnel,
No. 7 (1966), 360-63.

 

Perkins, H. V. "Factors Influencing Change in
Children's Self Concept." Child Development,
XXIX (1956), 221*30.

 

Peterson, Martha E. "An Evaluation of Relationships
Between Test Data and Success as a Residence Hall
Counselor." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of Kansas, Lawrence, 1959.

Powell, John R.; Plyler, Samuel A.; Dickson,
Barbara A.; and McClellan, Stephan D. The Per-
sonnel Assistant in College Residence Halls.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1969.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

98

Riker, Harold C. College Housing and Learning
Centers. Student Personnel Monograph, Series
No. 3. American College Personnel Association.

 

Rork, John B., and D'Amico, Louis A. "How Well Are
Colleges and Universities Equipped to Provide
Residential Accommodations." Educational Record,
XLIII (June, 1962), 57-61.

 

Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and Uni-
versity. New York: Vintage Books, 1962.

 

Sarbin, Theodore R. "Role Theory." Handbook of
Social Psychology. Edited by Gardner Lindzey.
Cambridge, Mass.: Addison Wesley Co., 1954.

 

 

Schroeder, Perl, and Douse, Eunice. "Selection,
Functions and Assessment of Residence Hall
Counselors." Personnel and Guidance Journal
(October, 1968), 151-56.

 

Sheeder, William B. "Role Playing as a Method of
Selecting Dormitory Counselors." Journal of
College Student Personnel, IV (March, 1963),
354-58.

 

Sifferd, Calvin 8. "Evaluation of a Residence Hall
Counseling Program." College and University,
XXV, No. 3 (April, 1950), 445-47.

 

Simons, Wesley S. "The Personality Characteristics
of the Residence Hall Assistant as Related to Job
Performance." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1957.

Towne, Richard C. "Social Psychological Changes
Associated with Special Class Placement for
Educable Mentally Retarded Students." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University,
1966.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census.
Pocket Data Book. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1967.

 

Videbeck, Richard. "Self-Conception and the Reactions
of Others." Sociometry, XXIII (1960), 351-59.

 

Williamson, E. G.‘ "Student Residences: Shelter or
f Education." Personnel and Guidance Journal,
XXXVI (February, 1958), 392-98.

99

45. Wilson, Everett K. Sociology: Rules, Roles and
Relationships. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press,
1966.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

AS-76
THE RESIDENT ASSISTANT

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

The Resident Assistant (RA) is a part-time member
of the Residence Hall staff. He has some degree of re-
sponsibility for the entire residence program with specific
emphasis being given to the approximately fifty students in
his "house." He is a full-time student and may carry a full
schedule of courses depending upon his ability and past per-
formance. It is sometimes recommended that during fall term
he carry three credits less than his normal load. Students
majoring in a variety of academic areas have been selected
for these positions but course work in education, sociology,
psychology, and related areas is particularly helpful. Some
evidence of leadership capability is important and juniors,
seniors, or first year graduate students are preferred.
Since the RA position is reserved for those who can main-
tain a satisfactory level of scholastic achievement and
still fulfill the responsibilities of the position, a mini-
mum 2.6 grade point average is suggested.

Each RA is expected to participate in a Pre-School
Workshop fall term, enroll in the three credit Education 416
course during the first fall term in the position, remain
on the job through the last day of exams every term, and
give priority to this position over all other areas of
activity with the exception of his academic work. The RA
receives remuneration of room and board as payment for the
services rendered.

I. GENERAL STATEMENT

A. As a land-grant institution, Michigan State Uni-
versity is committed to an educational program
which will enable each individual to maximize his
unique potential and contribute economically,
socially, morally, and politically to his society.
The RA and the residence halls contribute to the
realization of these objectives by the programs
and facilities provided and by the relationships
developed.

100

101

The RA position is viewed not only as a means of
supporting one's education but as an educational
opportunity in itself. Few other student positions
on the MSU staff afford a better opportunity for
leadership development or experience in human re-
lations while still providing the opportunity to
participate in the education of other students.

The RA fills many roles on his floor. For many
students, he will be the most important link with
the University administration. He must be help-
ful, sympathetic, and show interest and concern

for each student while at the same time translating
into practice the objectives of MSU and the resi-
dence hall program. He should, by his attitude

and influence, gender a spirit of cooperation among
the residents of this community. As an example for
all students, he has the responsibility of main-
taining his integrity and good character. He
should show an air of confidence and respectability.

It is necessary for the RA to recognize from the
outset that he will encounter difficulty in measur-
ing success or failure! Evaluation of the adminis-
trative part of the position is not difficult. It
is difficult, however, to know whether any change
the RA observes in individuals and in the group is
due to his effort, or is due to maturation of stu-
dents or the efforts of another student or staff
member.

II. STAFF RELATIONSHIPS

A.

The RA works closely with the Graduate Resident
Advisors and other Resident Assistants in program
planning but is directly responsible to the Head
Resident Advisor in his hall. The Head Advisor,
in turn, is responsible to the Office of Student
Affairs and it is his responsibility to administer
and direct the entire student personnel program of
the hall. It is the RA who implements the objec-
tives of Michigan State University and the princi-
ples and procedures of the Head Resident Advisor
as they work toward common educational goals. He
is also accountable to the Head Resident Advisor
for explanation and enforcement of the rules, regu-
lations, and policies of Michigan State University
and the residence hall program.

III.

102

The Head Resident Advisor enjoys a unique coopera-
tive relationship with the hall manager who is
responsible for administering, coordinating, and
directing the feeding and housing arrangements for
students and for the financial and business details
of the hall. It is important to note that the
business operation and the provision of a good
physical facility is under the jurisdiction of the
Manager and the provision of a student personnel
program is primarily the responsibility of the Head
Resident Advisor, but that both will assume re-
sponsibility for the entire residence hall program.
Though each is responsible to separate adminis-
trative channels, certain specific responsibilities
to each other will also be realized in any success-
ful hall operation. The RA obviously becomes in-
volved in this two-part venture, and many of the
specific duties outlined by the Head Resident Ad-
visor relate to this housing and feeding operation.
The Manager will review and approve RA applicants
before appointments are made.

The RA will have occasion to work with campus
agencies and academic departments as he advises
students. The Head Resident Advisor will deter-
mine whether the RA is to communicate directly with
the department or if he is to channel the referral
through the Head Resident Advisor.

RESPONSIBILITIES AND FUNCTIONS

A.

The RA is available to advise and counsel students,
within the limits of training and capability, on
academic, personal, social, and financial matters.

He advises the house government, provides leader-
ship and helps organize educational, social, and
cultural activities among, and for the benefit of,
the house members.

He is responsible for recognizing those students
in need of specialized help and referring them to
the appropriate University agencies (Counseling
Clinic, Health Center, Placement Bureau, academic
department, etc.). In most cases, the Head Resi-
dent Advisor or the Graduate Resident Advisor will
be the chief referral agent for the RA.

He will assist the house in the maintenance of good
study conditions, provide personal stimulus to good
academic work, and assist students in the develop-
ment of good study procedures.

103

He is responsible for supervising student conduct
in the house and within the residence hall as a

whole.

Emphasis will be placed upon the assistance

the RA can give to the student conduct program.

He is responsible for certain administrative tasks
as outlined by the Head Resident Advisor.

1. Evaluation of students.

2. Routine and clerical tasks.

3. Participate in hall policy-making decisions as
requested by the Head Resident Advisor.

4. Performing the many specific responsibilities
which relate to the housing and feeding oper-
ation as illustrated by the following.

a.

Acting as a two-way pipeline for students
and management by passing out information
and bulletins while at the same time feed-
ing back student suggestions and desires
to the Head Resident Advisor.

Supporting, enforcing, and participating

in improvement of Residence Hall policies
developed by the advisory staff and Manager
and outlined in the student room folder.

Assisting in supervision of the dining room
and public areas and assuming primary
responsibility for his "house" so as to
insure proper care and prohibit unauthorized
personnel from use of the facility or
equipment without permission.

Insuring room cleanliness by setting an
example in cleanliness and care, by setting
the proper tone in house meetings, express-
ing concern for room cleanliness, enforcing
established standards, and referring stu-
dents who continually violate policies of
cleanliness to the Head Resident Advisor.

APPENDIX B

January, 1970

Miss Donna L. McFadden
Room 268
North Case Hall

Dear Donna,

We are asking your cooperation in a sociological
study involving residence halls at Michigan State Uni-
versity. If you wish you may feel free to verify the
authenticity of this study through your Head Advisor, Miss

Jennie Loudermilk.

Please list below the ten residents on your floor

whom you feel you know best. These may be close

personal

friends, people with whom you have formed relationships due
to your position as an RA, or people whom you feel you know
well for any reason. We ask also that you please fill out
the accompanying information (room number, class, age, and

length of time you have known them in months).

Naturally strict confidentiality will be
and the information will be used for statistical
only. If you have any questions please fee free
at 3-6440. Please return this completed form to
enclosed envelope through the campus mail. Your
response would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

maintained
purposes
to call me
me in the
immediate

Dennis Rittenmeyer

 

Length of time
you have known

§

Name

Age Class them in months

 

l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

104

APPEND IX C

January l970

Dear

We are asking for your cooperation in a sociological study involving
residence halls at Michigan State University. Due to the nature of the study
if it were completely eXplained to you, your responses to some of the questions
might be affected. Therefore, we ask your indulgence now since most of your
questions will be answered as you complete the questionnaire.

We ask that you please not look ahead. Complete each section as you come to

 

it and g9_ggt_gg_bggk_once you have finished it. The three sections will take
you approximately 10 minutes to complete. Be sure to answer all the questions
and return the completed questionnaire through campus mail in the enclosed
envelope.

Your answers w111_§g kept strictly confidential and used for statistical
purposes only. Everyone participating in the study will receive an explanation
of both the study and the results as soon as it is available. Thank you in
advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Dennis Rittenmeyer

3 ‘ . Q I ‘ ‘ V,) .‘
hf»! E“, ‘ .

\
r‘ . 1‘ l t 1 \ v t . o: ‘ ‘

r " I. . v’ ‘ - . .

. ‘-J ()5. i ’ _I. ;. I ,

N g I\ d L ‘ ‘l 1 (I A ‘ ;f.

I \ .' ’ "L’zl .' I“‘ .tii-{Q 1‘ v t l
’ ' 'u ‘I‘ u 9“. I a
f!" 'U" i W ‘ (i I}: . 1L“.

‘ v" (p l‘ r ,, (Hi I : . ; -‘ ‘ ‘ ’1’, . l.
..‘ i . _.,‘ | x ' I
k ' 1‘ { |J{/ ’ .9 _, ‘

....«. ' . .EJ . ' ‘»-l~f:g ', " _ . ,-‘ ;‘-.r ‘. 3 :1 .17 ‘. . I!‘)j! ‘1’:
‘f/ .?t "‘l l ".‘.' .

(If; 1 “iv (‘

. . . - _ g ,' ,., ‘ 1' __. .11, .. > : .‘ [7"I E; ... “A" ";):{. |-.":
Merarirsja «ti on; 4 . » ms p - ' 33.- . i, .

PART I
You are asked to indicate below by relationship tg_y9g_the [glg_(i.e.
professor, counselor, friend in Room ll5, etc.) of those persons who you would
seek out or you would expect to seek you out in specific situations.

EXAMPLE: Please indicate by role those people who you would seek out if you
needed a loan.

a. . b. c.

 

d. e.
Please answer Ell—the questions and list gt_least two people but not

 

more than five. 00 not spend too much time on any one question. List those

 

people who immediately enter your mind.

 

Please indicate by role those people who:

1. ...you would seek out if you needed help in the selection of courses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(a) (b) (C) (d)
(e)

2. ...you would seek out if you needed information about hall regulations.
(a) (b) (C) (d)
(e)

3. ...you would seek out if you needed information about hall government.
(a) (b) (C) (d)
(e)

 

4. ...you would seek out if you wanted to discuss a personal matter involving

a problem that you were having with your parents.

 

 

 

 

(a) (b) (C) (d)
(e)

5. ...you would seek out if you were having some difficulty with your courses.
(a) (b) (c) (d)

 

 

 

 

(e)

 

'x:

i .55 l Untl'i

4m" - ")p
’1"!"_, .

l i

1.51"

{4. H .T l
l :‘l I“: I

‘;fl" ‘ .
NJ?) "A!

Q‘

J--.,«:.-".
.J (3971?“ 3' 09!”.

. l.‘ ‘-
'~ . a! 1“ pp
!~ 0 ‘.
l

v.1. .
19‘.“-

'(‘\
'l

" .l'
'I

.

1 l”

1‘.

l

d
.’ \
.
ui'I)‘;

l0. ..

ll.

12.

3.

..you would seek out if you wished to talk with someone about your future.

(a) (b) (c) (d)
(e)

 

 

..you would seek out if you wanted to discuss a personal matter involving

a member of the opposite sex.

(a) (b) (C) (d)

 

(e)

 

...you would seek out if you needed some assistance on a personal matter

regarding finances.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(e)

 

..you expect to exhibit some leadership on the floor in regards to the

planning of activities for your house.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(e)

 

 

.you would expect to confront you with the fact that you are not doing so

well in your courses.

(a) (b) (C) (d)

 

(e)

 

...you would seek help from if you wanted to know the location or function

of a certain university agency.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(e)

 

.you feel would approach you if your behavior was not in keeping with the

educational atmosphere of your hall.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(e)

 

 

3ND-

.'\'Y

4‘?

’K
‘ i

\I
‘ I

if”!

.chf

(‘3’:

1.!)

.‘JUV

71'51135.’

0‘.

(l

.l.

\- b
.1. .6,
I»). , c

on

.7..‘.. -

..'~.-——

13. ...

l4. ...

15. ..

16. ..

l7. ..

4.

you feel would approach you if you were encroaching on the freedoms

of other in your hall.

 

 

 

 

 

(a) (b) (c) (d)
(e)
you would seek help from if you found a member of your house seriously

ill or injured, i.e. unconscious, broken leg, epileptic seizure, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(a) (b) (C) (d)

(e)

.you feel would approach you if you were responsible for some damage in
the hall.

(a) (b) (C) (d)

(e)

 

.you would approach if you wished to make some suggestions as to the

improvement of the hall facilities and services, i.e. fOOd service, study
areas, cleanliness, etc.

(a) (b) (C) (d)

(e)

 

 

.you expect to inform you of events in the hall, issues on campus, and

actions which require either your assistance or compliance.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(e)

 

 

BEFORE YOU GO ON PLEASE GO BACK AND MAKE SURE YOU HAVE ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS.
PLEASE DO NOT COME BACK TO THIS SECTION AFTER YOU HAVE COMPLETED IT.

THAHK YOU

pl‘
‘ i
..-
- c
n
.
Q
\ l \v’. I I) . u i
. f I
(it, I .\ I It I.
.
_
. I11 o
. I}
l
.n .
o n I
t; pa- I
V I7
. {4 . .
i _ o
.. ..I} ..
.I l
i (A)
.
v I fl.
.
”I
III .
_
I ..\
I N \\
I). \I.
. .
v I
I II
o.
\
r.
_
n .7
,
\"l r- ..
s)
l..\\
_
r
.
, .
I,
.
u
.
O:
. lII
\l til
0 c (I
I I:
. .
. ~ CI
E).
a
'
.. n.
.i...
:0
I
I]
\'
LO.
.
. .
I. .,
:\
. .
O,
.
t...
\-

i‘"

prim

...c-.q—. . r.

PART II
This part of the study deals with how you feel about yourself.
Please read the following:

Below are pairs of terms. In each pair, one is the opposite of the other.
There are five spaces between each pair as shown below.

If you judge yourself to be very much like the term on the left put an "X" in
the "A" column. If you judge yourself to be very much like the term on the
right, put an "X“ in the "E" column. If you judge yourself to be more like the
term on the left bgt_somewhat like the term on the right, put an "X" in the

"8" column. If you judge yourself to be more like the term on the right but
somewhat like the term on the left, put an "X" in the "0" column. If you'jfidge
yourself to be more or less an equal combination of the two terms, put an "X“
in the "C" column.

Be sure to place an "X" in the middle of the space which describes most nearly
how you feel about yourself. Do not spend too much time on any one term. It
is your immediate feeling that we need. Do not omit any pair of terms. Be as
honest as you can. flg_one else will see your responses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very Some- combi- Some- Very

Much what nation what much

A B C D E
Selfish Unselfish
Sincere Insincere
Intelligent * Unintelligent
Trusting Suspicious
Unhappy Happy
Slow Quick
Clean Dirty
Strong Beak
Submissive Assertive
Honest Dishonest
Calm Nervous
Unfair Fair
Sensitive Insensitive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\

fliilll

. _ ..- .-~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very Some- Combi- Some- Very
much what nation what much
A B ‘ C 0 E

Kind Cruel

Unfriendly Friendly

Wise Foolish

Rude . ' Polite

Alert Oblivious

Passive Active

Reliable Unreliable

Tolerant Intolerant

Unpopular Popular

Concerned Indifferent

Careless Careful

Sympathetic Unsympathetic

Inmature Mature
.Aware ' ‘ Unaware

Disorganized Organized

Ungrateful Grateful

Respectful Disrespectful

 

BEFORE YOU GO ON PLEASE CHECK AND MAKE SURE YOU HAVE ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS.
_EEEASE DO NOT COME BACK TO THIS SECTION AFTER YOU HAVE COMPLETED IT.

, ‘ \, ,
.
,
'.
l
.
i
u
I
. III
II
I
vl‘1'
I

‘r
. nl
.

.

o

l

.. ,‘ ‘
IU'
\.‘.

...-..s

i... ...

a

..- .. .
Q
z
.. .... -—I
I
I
x
l
.
t
t
.
t
i
L-.. - . -. --.

v ...--

PART III 7-
This part of the study deals with the way you think your RA feels toward you.

Please read the following:

Below are pairs of terms. In each pair, one is the opposite of the other.
There are five spaces between each pair as shown below.

If you feel your RA judges you to be very much like the term on the left put
an "X" in the "A“ column. If you feel your RA judges you to be very much like
the term on the right, put an "X" in the "E" column. If you feel your RA
judges you to be more like the term on the left but somewhat like the term on
the right, put an "X" in the "B" column. If you'TEel your RA judges you to be
more like the term on the right bgt_somewhat like the term on the left, put an
"X" in the "0" column. If you feel your RA judges you to be more or less an
equal combination of the two terms, put an “X" in the “C“ column.

Be sure to place an "X" in the middle of the space which describes most nearly
how your RA_feels about ypu. Do not spend too much time on any one tenm. It
is your immediate feeling that we need. Do not omit any pair of terms. Be as
honest as you can. Neither your RA_nor anyone else related §9_him will see
your response .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very Some- Combi- Some- Very

much what nation what much

A B C D E
Selfish Unselfish
Sincere Insincere
Intelligent Unintelligent
Trusting Suspicious
Unhappy Happy
Slow Quick
Clean Dirty
Strong Weak
Submissive Assertive
Honest Dishonest
Calm Nervous
Unfair Fair
Sensitive Insensjtjyg

 

...-u-
-

.—. «...—.1.
.n .-

4:0.Iao. I.I .c IVITI.

..w.

.r z
. .
.
.. , .lu' II.:; I
o
.
.
. fl
.
.
.
_
. .
. .
. .
I. III. 0 IIIF..

..‘..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very Some- Combi- Some- Very
much what nation what much
A B C D E

Kind Cruel
Unfriendly Friendly

Wise ' ' Foolish

Rude Polite

Alert Oblivious
Passive Active
Reliable . Unreliable
Tolerant Intolerant
Unpopular Popular
Concerned Indifferent
Careless Careful
Sympathetic Unsympathetic
vamature Nature

Aware Unaware
Disorganized Organized
Ungrateful Grateful ‘__
Respectful Disrespectful

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLEASE? ' no Moran BACK TO mywpnsvmus Pm or me QuesnouflayiE. 3mm YOU
ARE FINISHED mum THF'COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE" THROUGH mus MIL In THE
ATTACHED ENVELOPE.

P.S. CAMPUS MAIL IS PICKED UP FROH BOTH YOUR RECEPTIONIST AND YOUR MANAGERS
OFFICE.

..
.
«
...
... I .
.
.. . .
o _
(u .
.
.
.
.
«Lt
c
I.
..

.-..

v.--

 

 

APPENDIX D

March 1970

Miss Donna L. McFadden
Room 268
North Case Hall

Dear‘Donna,

As you will remember I requested from you the names
of ten people on your floor whom you felt you knew best.
Subsequent to you furnishing me with that information I
then randomly selected another ten students from your house.
All twenty students were sent questionnaires in late
January.

I have now received all the questionnaires which I
can expect to be returned. The involvement of your resi-
dents, therefore, is finished. I do need your cooperation,
however, on one more item. Would you please furnish the
same information for the students listed below that you
originally furnished concerning those students whom you
felt you knew best? You can return this sheet to me in
the enclosed envelOpe. Thank you again for your cooper-
ation.

Sincerely,

Dennis Rittenmeyer

 

Length of time
you have known
Name Rm # Age Class them in months

 

 

OKDCDQONUWALJNH
O

[..I

113

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
(llllWVIHHII‘”I”WWII”HWI(IIHIHIIIWIWII
31293105715944