uV~t£

 

-..,...,.. ..,..

 

 

secmuerION or. STUDENT ._..
:N A CHURCH RELATED UMGE

 

 

     
 

 

 

*' ... x ‘ . J
. , '.. .V _.- , .. ‘ ._-‘ ‘ '

 

Elissa? aatéan forthe Eegtee of Ph. D. f v . . . _
RE CH3 3AM STATE UNIVERSITY
EESTER DE 806R
1975- ‘ - , E j

  

.5 R ‘ a, 3
E§g§ih . ' - k‘ -

   

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSI TV

I9 I II99I II III9II9IIIIIIII

4

II9III9II9IIIII

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
Socialization of Student Values
in a Church—Related College

presented by
Lester De Boer
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph' D- degree in Social Science

my W7

Major professor

MILE, We

0-7 539

  

a! "If?! “‘1'
“AL-HA 3hr

ki‘(U: :53?‘ Scott

amenity

 

LIBRA DRE
IPIIIGPDII locum.
W

F
i

i

  

     

ARYBI

   

  

BIND

 

 

 

 

 

‘flw
~<
-

 

 

 

 

 

DC \‘5

. a,
:3: WE de9e‘~

L.‘ n" wgv
00‘ AV. ‘9'...
oo-qA “"99 Y
4:: LN“. 99

ca'..~ 1 "9.9999
Sun“, “99.9
.29.

"‘ v.
:“5 V‘

cue

{.9 ‘ 9
D- . “
‘Qb I‘g‘ r,
'N
'II

S
.“S

H I
N 9
u 1“999‘ 79‘
J
‘A" a . .
"ms: .9

~-9-"l‘fl c
M" P- A 9
§i_ 4‘ C\
§
1
~ Q
”.35 S" 99939
5“
b,-
.. ~ 9 9
s. ‘ ’9 ~
‘ '-
‘s‘d‘.°.“:
«
I
§.-.
“.U‘ a P:
b “L

ABSTRACT

SOCIALIZATION OF STUDENT VALUES IN A
CHURCH-RELATED COLLEGE

BY

Lester De Boer

Do values determine certain kinds of behavior and
can we deve10p certain kinds of values when they are help-
ful for a particular kind of performance? To answer
these inquiries we used a survey of three instruments and
gave it to 340 college and seminary students at an evan-
gelical, church-related college. These instruments were
Part of the Roe-Siegelman Parent-Child Relations Question-
Esigg, a measurement of religious orientation prepared by
the author, and the Rokeach Value Survey. Comparing
various classes in the school gave us an indication con-
cerning the influence of the school upon the student.
Comparing ministerial with nonministerial students gave
some indication of the relationship between values and
duflce of curriculum. Comparing the value systems of
these students to a national sample indicated the
relationship between the values of a student and his

ChOiCe of a college.

 

 

e
”I. f. s
‘5‘ Us!

' ' 'nr
.9. .I’:Q'9
,. .Cdul AV. 0

. . ‘ 9

I- o... .

u

-... -538 \a-.
' .

'O“‘--. Hr 0‘

:nac:uus :1-e- \

' I a

conga. :.‘.,‘ ll
I

:....... .. .... ..

' o
o:v-:9 .HRQ"
uv..‘. "H‘...

 

Inn-1"... "A

 

4-1
«ulna. 9.99
' V
H“ 9‘
Only u
'1 " : '7‘.-
..‘yg. ...e
I u
. 9 ‘9
i!

91
u: ‘9‘ a“ n
w ....,:e 9

3465 35 the

n

\.‘l“

'v. ‘ .Vflv ‘9
e... ”y‘a‘

O
:9; ‘A" 9‘
h '9‘.e9‘e
. I

\‘q; Q
b- n '
'-~.-.~'-.cra‘

-

.Q I
c ‘ ‘-
s A 9
u §¢. ‘V the
h
‘9 .
«i. 6. ‘ 9
b ‘ 9
"“1 5 I

o
'0.

u
I '5‘

Lester De Boer

The data indicate that values do influence choices
ct'behavior. The secular college student had different
vahuasystems than the church-related college student.
Amitmese values took on certain patterns so that secular
students preferred Competence values more while church-
scmxfl.students preferred Social-Moral values. Minis-
terial students preferred Social-Moral values more than
mxmunisterial students in the church-related college.

The data also indicate that choices influence
values. The strong emphasis on academic excellence by
the college caused students to slightly prefer Competence
values as they progressed through college. As students
became more committed to the ministry, they preferred
Social-Moral‘Values more. But as they progressed through
the college, they did not progress in preferring the
Social-Moral values even in the strongly conservative:
evangelical college. This would indicate that perhaps
Values are not easily changed by the college unless they
fit into the student's previous value system. Thus it is
Imm.that the college changes the values of the student so
Hmch as it strengthens the values to which he is alreadY
Committed.

This earlier commitment can be viewed as a product
CIfchild rearing. We found that rewarding parents tended
toproduce children who had precriptive orientations

tow3rd religion while punitive parents tended to produce

 

 

 

»-'-'*e:: filth

'0‘.“

'no . I; ' R
'5 35C 3-1.1 b

.00‘

-o--'arv~ an H;
I.:.:.bbll‘ v“.

J
o-n- yr fin W
1-
to o b. Von D-
6 b
‘
'v‘;uoe~
"ovu- U.
I Q
F, A .4
5“ “-4

.‘ ; " ‘FO‘ ‘nvvr
" ‘8'35Jd ‘5‘! h-
. .

;.A~""“ 0"- A H a
h"“" butt. C
."I‘. ya 0.
lune. , S

"A. .H.

:fi 0-' -
olvolc “VI 5::

I. .
L. 3"”335 ‘ s A;-
b—u .

ru‘ . By

0..
u

-. values whi

0A .

-« 42a social

Lester De Boer

cflfildren with proscriptive orientations. And these cor-
related with certain value systems: prescriptive persons
;ueferring values that were social-oriented and proscrip-
tive persons preferring values that were more self-
oriented.

The data we collected and analyzed also led us
undeveIOp hypotheses concerning what should be taken into
account when an institution is selecting and training
ndnisters. Stress on academic standards may not be con-
ducive for the training of future ministers in that such
anlemphasis could change their value systems, weakening
the values which seem important to vocations which minister

to the social and spiritual needs of humanity.

 

 

SOCIALIZATION OF STUDENT VALUES IN A

CHURCH-RELATED COLLEGE

BY

Lester De Boer

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Social Science

1975

Fm:—

 

 

r.:-.:'

unnu '5.
u

’ -vu- --

i. V ~
‘I ‘Mu o .
0.

0.. .u.‘ 9".-
... “I‘-,.R
..‘. f...."‘,_::
T
*0
'7
Li.
Ty,
1...
TI,
‘ 0
V.
Yyy
I
41.
'9’?
l‘-.
Vs.-’
I
“L.
Y-.
ll
I}.
Y“!
Q'. 9l\‘1“9
hi..~:
'V
'0 ca'l‘a.
V-I'V“
'9‘
2-2:.
«‘9941
5“
§.. :‘u:
AU“‘I:
I“
.::h“\~9

\
I.
“0 25..
b)
t 9 -‘R
\-
Q
‘
“ A
~‘ "'\'
O J v»
v“ ,9
'~.
3‘-
‘ >-
‘a

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
I 0 THE PROBLEM o o o o o o o o O O O O 1
II. THE METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
III. ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . 32
I. Hypothesis One--Values of Competence . 36
II. Hypothesis Two--Social-Moral Values. . 44
III. Hypothesis Three-—Evangelical vs.
Secular Students . . . . . . . 51
IV. Hypothesis Four--Trend in Values of
Competence . . . . . . . . . 58
V. Hypothesis Five--Trend in Social-
Moral Values. . . . . . . . . 60
VI. Hypothesis Six--Prescriptive
Religious Orientations . . . . . 61
VII. Hypothesis Seven—-Proscriptive
Religious Orientation. . . . . . 64
VIII. Hypothesis Eight--Trends in Religious
Orientation . . . . . . . . . 65
IX. Hypothesis Nine--Inf1uence of
Parent-Child Relations . . . . . 68
IV. ANALYSIS OF OTHER DATA . . . . . . . . 75
V. CONCLUSIONS FROM THIS STUDY. . . . . . . 94

VI. APPLICATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . 102
VII. FURTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR STUDY . . . . . . 108
APPENDICES
A£)Pendix

A. PRE-TEST OF RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION. . . . . 113

13. SURVEY GIVEN TO STUDENT BODY OF THE GRAND
RAPIDS BAPTIST COLLEGE AND SEMINARY . . . 119

ii

 

 

o
‘OII.-‘

l’g:-A‘.
VII

II!

but“.

A ."'F“
~ .

do .0 Hub“

.-‘O~- ~
..v..n ,
apt-unn‘yuy .

 

Appendix Page

C. A LIST OF INTENDED OCCUPATIONS GIVEN BY THE
STUDENTS AT GRAND RAPIDS BAPTIST COLLEGE

AND SEMINAR WHICH WE CODED INTO MINIS-
TERIAL AND NONMINISTERIAL CATEGORIES . . . 130

D. TABLES USED IN ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . 133

REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O l 3 5

iii

 

“:1"!

I nu a. «4 «TC «3 «1. .C Ct :- E at
v. e v. ~..Vl .~& ~u. ”Y. r. ~...~u O.
. .. a» 4‘ .d v. a,» .d r. e .«u a u. 3.3.3.
u . ... an v. 8 Au v. a t. .u v. a. D»
u u. p. . a a. G. cu e an {H a D» Q» 1 A.
J; nu n- ‘ nv
5U lu-u \hu H.U inn.
IQ” Iii. ' I.

 
 

Graze
and c

H
‘I

1“

I

Q.

Table

3L0.

3L1.

 

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Average Scores of Ministerial and Nonminis-
terial Students on the College Level for
Values Measuring Competence . . . . . . 38

Average Scores of College Students and Semi—
nary Students on Values Measuring Com-
petence . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Differences in the Average Scores on Tables 1
and 2 on Values Measuring Competence . . . 43

Average Scores of Ministerial and Nonminis-
terial Students on the College Level on
Social-Moral Values. . . . . . . . . 45

Average Scores of College Students and Semi-
nary Students on Values Measuring Morality . 48

Differences in the Average Scores on Tables 4
and 5 on Social-Moral Values. . . . . . 50

Average Scores on Social-Moral Values Between
Students at the Grand Rapids Baptist Col-
lege and the National Average Published by
Rokeach in 1973 . . . . . . . . . . 52

Terminal Values and Instrumental Values. . . 56

Average Scores Between Freshmen, Seniors, and
Seminarians on Values of Competence . . . 59

Average Scores Between Freshmen, Seniors,
and Seminarians on Social-Moral Values . . 60

Average Scores of Certain Values Between Stu-

dents with Proscriptive and Prescriptive
Religious Orientations. . . . . . . . 62

iv

 

"'a

u

.‘g'
II “An-'-
S.» -

b

.ul
5 0‘
ha 5‘
I q_
.. :.cc':‘
.1. only. ‘

.
.nq
:lo‘
" : .- .
‘ n'p'l‘
OJ. on...‘
Q.-
vote
'; ‘ "A~v

 

as. n \'__.:

.
“N
0“
I
Q \ an--.
' ° 5 y-..
4
.91

06.]
l

0:.
but».
ET

 

'-
. :. ~._.
bi. .‘ LV.‘
:r-I
no.“
:9”
UL...
V.
'0 I
Q “
OJ. 'a“
H‘-
L).
'-
: ‘ p
, A“
.'. n ‘vv...
3‘4
d..‘
‘1

“' A CC:

‘i' Pfi‘n-
VV. .4
.‘I‘
h u
"C.
11"
7! ‘
I} F
o A_
“x-..
‘a‘..
h."
‘-
_-~
t.’ p“
I A].
.yvv‘
F .
HA'.
‘IU3‘
.-
4’. 1

 

Table

12.

13.
14.

15.
l6.

17.

18.

19.
£20.
221.
:22.
123.
124.
125.

326.

A Comparison of Proscriptive Religious Orien-
tation on the Value Designated "Pleasure" .

Average Prescriptive Scores . . . . . .

Average Prescriptive Scores of Ministerial
and Nonministerial Students. . . . . .

Average Scores with Different Classes in
the College . . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison Between Child-Rearing Practices
and Religious Orientation . . . . . .

A Comparison Between Parent-Child Relation-
ships and the Student's Religious Orien-
tation I O O O O O I O O O I O

A Comparison Between Religious Orientation
and Values Among College and Seminary
Students in a Church-Related School . . .

Values Preferred by Proscriptive and Pre-
scriptive Students. . . . . . . . .

A Comparison Between Child-Rearing Practices
and Religious Orientation . . . . . .

A Comparison of Prescriptive and Proscriptive
Values with Socio-Economic Status. . . .

Comparison of Values of Mental Competence
with Grade Point Average. . . . . . .

Comparison of Grade Point Average with
Religious Orientation. . . . . . . .

A Comparison of Prescriptive and Proscrip-
tive Values with G.P.A. . . . . . . .

A Comparison of the Average Scores on
Rokeach Value Study to G.P.A. . . . . .

A Comparison of Grade Point Averages with
Parent-Child Relationships . . . . . .

Page

64
66

67

67

69

72

76

79

84

86

88

89

90

91

93

 

{M P

 

'
'.o p

".'

. 0

ll

oil

.‘L

”F..-

UUU I-'
~

 

Table

27.

28.

Page

The Average Score Given to the Rokeach Values

by Various Classes in the Grand Rapids
Baptist College and Seminary . . . . . . 133

Comparison Between the Average Scores and

Composite Rank Orders Given to Rokeach

Values by Students from a National Sample

and Students from an Evangelical

Religious College . . . . . . . . . 134

vi

{1 L-“Jujlm — _. -..—__

 

1
ES...“ _

I4'

 

 

R929?“ ‘

.u‘vtl . "

s ‘ ‘V
.oh'own : PH 1
..u.-ueu' “u ‘ "‘

‘

s;:;::, canscmus

 

GISC'. SEES Of 3:
t vza ' '
'w‘=e I belle‘ie

attitude is a reel:

:UA- _' '
...:.: an otgect

q

'A D

p Q

'v“E: S'JQ .-

lvyem'

. .
I ='1
“v

3-: some e

2.5

1"!-

t.bu..ll:c (22
J

I

 

 

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Rokeach (22) distinguishes between Beliefs,

Attitudes, and Values. "A belief is any simple propo-

sition, conscious or unconscious, inferred from what a

 

person says or does, capable of being preceded by the

phrase 'I believe that . . . ' (22, p. 113)." "An

attitude is a relatively enduring organization of beliefs

iiround an object or situation predisposing one to respond

111 some preferential manner (22, p. 112)." He sees a

‘Lalue "to be a diSposition of a person just like an

attitude, but more basic than an attitude." It is a

"“type of belief, centrally located within one's total
belief system, about how one ought or ought not to behave,

<31: about some end-state of existence worth or not worth

attaining (22, p. 124)." Thus attitudes and values,

Eaccording to the definitions, are both beliefs, but values

eIre more basic. "An adult probably has tens or hundreds

<3f thousands of beliefs, thousands of attitudes, but

<L‘>l:'11y dozens of values (22, p. 124)."
Therefore it can readily be seen that values are

111(33t important in influencing behavior. Attitudes are, by

l

 

 

" "i Au C
2:12.31, pm“-

CC 1:11.338 S

a.

0060' I
a. 1 u ‘ V

..0 ....q R F. ‘.

H‘o‘touv denea I 10. |

.o....-‘;A- A ‘ .

;-ooh-\ncb. n \— u|

Q < q

"" s "q u RF ,.

00- : v:.ue Vol 00::

u .
;..-....p l" ..
‘Ioo-bub .“‘u .‘v‘

 

I... .A‘."Q

V
Wt: v::ab.d‘, .U ‘

IQ': ' ‘r'fl'.
~g. ‘ .

 

.. l

0. me vl“: ' ‘ '
Jaue‘ 1113C

 

definition, predispositions to behavior and values are

basic to attitudes. Attitude changes will necessarily

influence behavior and values will necessarily influence

attitudes. An attitude change may change a few behaviors,

but a value change will change several attitudes, each

attitude influencing several behaviors. Thus, a value is

more central, more resistant to change, and eliciting

nwre repercussions when it is changed.

It would seem that a wide range of research on
values is long overdue in understanding human behavior,

personality structures, and interactions between indi-

viduals. It is my desire that this project will add to

tflae research already done and further our understanding

<>f the underlying motives of human behavior.

Certain questions are relevant to our study. Is

tJIere a difference in the value profiles of students

atztending a conservative, evangelical, church-related

<2<>llege when ministerial students are compared with those

erl liberal arts programs? Does this difference continue

(Drl into the seminary students of the same school? Are
tll‘le three groups any different in their proscriptive or
IDJrescriptive orientation toward religion, and does their

ITGEIigious orientation reflect their child-rearing

eJutperiences?

By prescriptive and proscriptive orientation, we

13<lelow McKinney's designation in which he refers to their

 

 

 

 

Me's tows:

!;".;::.e3' States'

. ' v‘
5" ;,“1‘\" 7 cat ‘
"a "“93 5 4

, ' I" 1
.. "NW ”A? we ‘
1,: “Viv ‘5'1
O

. L '
. H ““n S
v-“"‘ F

= ‘6‘-
.:.:9‘ .‘u r

I
...- :AV "C.'~ :1:
.u "5 ugAuj
.

:;:::, cr tic-es :~.e
v- :r'

, . . ‘
7:“ 6V. retralnln

:5 Student: 8‘9

ob

:;;:.:e:r.'sr.ess , or

.:e Earner is the

 

 

 

tie the latter

v
I
2.....-

-...... We assur.

‘v
'o
.

:s::;pti‘:e or c

. .
. muse emphas

.J.‘._
Q
“:Octs 5

prescrip‘

1:: vice-versa .

~ .
F“ N!
~"Vu

reflects

'3
- I
S ‘ firson' S ‘J
.y A
e‘ ‘7‘ n
‘ "“3179
O 5 or:
‘B“
\“15 TV.
Jslentatio,

orientations toward positive and negative behavior.

McKinney states, "Prescriptively, one can be rewarded

for doing right or punished for not doing right while on
the proscriptive side, wrong-doing is emphasized in both

rewards and punishments (19, p. 71)." Does God reward

you for doing right and punish you when you don't do

right, or does He punish you for doing wrong and reward

you for refraining from sin? Which is valued more by

the student: the performance vs. the failure to perform

righteousness, or the yielding to vs. resisting of sin?

 

The former is the positive or prescriptive orientation,
‘while the latter is the negative or proscriptive orien-

‘tation. We assume that any one person is not completely

Erroscriptive or completely prescriptive, but that it is

a: relative emphasis of the individual. A person with the

llighest prescriptive score will have proscriptive aspects

61nd vice-versa. We fully expect to find that this orien-

ization reflects the way in which a child has been brought
IKE. We also suspect that the prescriptive and proscrip-

1Live religious orientations may indicate the sources for

‘ihe differences in value systems. One of the influences

‘CDf'a person's value system may be his prescriptive or
Proscriptive orientation, and one of the influences of

1tJnat orientation is the socialization context in which

1tdhe child was brought up by his parents.

 

 

TL“. fcll "'

'1'?
II; QAP'Re of 8“
_,:.uvbv

"2.5 1: appears t

6.: h-A‘ a

.: vocvfibe ls :-a-4'

RCA} 6330‘

Q
lu-‘

P“: ”5»-¢.ar to C:
:55 in; were 5;

is 151' a ..ai e s-

p; a C ‘
.03.€Cerates

-a
\
"v

:l3..3ab01t an

l.’::‘ cvq‘
.‘I‘dLESI
.It :15:th hO‘n'
L ‘I
we '

 

'5
1 I
.‘ edef 15
A. '
v“ I“ v ‘
U‘Ve tnan C
::‘Vn '
I» 13 rare‘
s-m -
mane» o.
7’u.‘ , 4 s
ELM} .
.qsfiarlty O:
.4; 2,”,
““95 true
V2, 7Q? '
Uu£lef Sv',s
'V‘s;e.fl

The following research indicates that a student's
value system influences his choice of curriculum and also
the choice of curriculum influences his value system.

Thus it appears that choices which are made depend upon
one's value system, but the events which happen after
the choice is made will also influence one's value system.

Rokeach (22) had students choose between those who
were similar to or different from them in beliefs and
those who were similar to or different from them in race.
He had a naive subject engage four strangers, all of which
were confederates of the experimenter, in a group dis-
<:ussion about an important or situationally relevant tOpic.
Gino of the confederates were white and two were negro.

Clue white and one negro agreed with the subject while one

Vflhite and one negro disagreed with him. The subject was

tflnen asked to state his preference for two of the four

Confederates .

No matter how one chooses to state the differences
between the subjects in the campus and field studies,
it is clear that in all three experiments similarity
of belief is a considerably more frequent basis of
choice than dissimilarity of belief; similarity of
race is rarely a basis of choice--considerab1y less
often than chance, and no more frequently than dis-
similarity of race; and similarity of belief is a
considerably more frequent basis of choice than
similarity of race. (22, p. 73)

71311is proved true with both white and Negro subjects.
fljllus, belief systems, which include values, seem to
influence our choices of relationships to be developed

more than the outward appearance or membership in a race.

‘b‘z,

.-

 

P-xrser‘. an (
' |
“"55 at a 3.83 S
“ ' ' t ‘ ‘ ~.
.:.“a“ A; ‘38::

r
Va. ‘ 7"

:le; oi: T‘e 7‘4.-
,....u an: 5“ ‘ "

. .
no . ‘R n 7" ‘F -
u..o=u»ed U 5“:

.
'0.

I." a. ‘u‘ --
I. ....C.eD- Dene :
"; ‘9‘" w MF‘ .y
-u UVQQbVIe. ‘OcUm

:“TEL‘;ati'.'e a‘ *4 ‘ ‘-

55A.“

:riteria in

I a .
N V
-. suses fig Sar:
c H
.I .
“e:‘ C?

 

 

 

.::.. Inc. highe"
-: lie aesthetl"
$332151 sca‘ec
“seinal scalg
:

 

Arsenian (4), using the Allport-Vernon Study of
Values at a men's professional school in New England, con-
cluded that colleges select their students from the point
of View of their basic interests and attitudes. He also
found that the retention of students in a college is
influenced by the agreement or disagreement of the patterns
Of interests the student has with that which is held by
the college. Thus, the "philosophical orientation and
professional objectives of a college expressed in terms of
evaluative attitudes," Arsenian maintains, "act as selec-
tive criteria in the admission and retention of students
(4, p. 338 ff)."
Elizabeth Duffy (8, p. 599) reports a study which
She and Crissy did with the Study of Values on 108 fresh-
Inen entering Sarah Lawrence College. These students are
cihiefly from wealthy and socially prominent families and
Sicore much higher on the Political scale, slightly higher
(In the Aesthetic scale, slightly lower on the Economic
Etnd Social scales, and much lower on the Religious and
Theoretical scales than do the 1592 women represented in
the Cantril and Allport norms. This would indicate that
Values reflect status or culture, but it also implies
‘tflhat our present contention is right; that a student's
‘913lue system determines his choice of curriculum, or in

1:his case, his choice of school.

 

 

.— f" I"‘» '

 

 

I
"- 0'" r (
.' a.“ ‘

."l D'W‘Hing '-

t
.3 'nOQU‘. ‘

~'ers "an-pr

.
o. ago-ad Us A‘ I \r

533.331 5 va-

1.3

(:(' :: :LEi: s:.._
.1361. C"!". V3-

"U-
u

xii 0f the $3..

"a... v“

"P n A .
" P AH}
41.!- 5.:a‘ b 1::

‘1»

t" ‘:‘A

----- ES and Sci

In the F r~

en

[.2179 ' CA... 1
c ~v§ 9.4:", Of
‘

in: IntrCihct-CI':
'13.". we" '- ' 1
be “(Alan‘
3:24;“ .
uyubs here Q“?

4
:‘n ‘

 

I
uvsbeso ‘H‘.
A“h
u.’ y. 3;
U s
I. ‘
“1 ”HO :

~

Feather (10) asked first-year undergraduate stu-
dents enrolling in Humanities, Social Science, and Sciences
at Flinders University to complete the Rokeach Value Survey.
One group ranked their own values and another group ranked

the school's value (how they thought students completing

work in their school would rank them). His hypothesis

that their own values would resemble the perceived value

system of the schools they selected more than the schools

they rejected was generally confirmed. This trend was

more clear cut in the Humanities than in the Social

Sciences and Sciences.

In the Fall of 1972, we gave the Allport-Vernon-
IQindzey Study of Values and the Rokeach Value Survey to

1:he Introductory classes in Sociology and Psychology,

Vihich were mainly freshmen in their composition. These

Estudents were enrolled at the Grand Rapids Baptist College

Etnd 122 completed both tests. One hundred three (84%)

le these students scored the highest on the Religious

Scale of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey. On the average,

‘tflhey scored above the national college norm by 14 points

ifcu'the males and 11 points for the females. On the

Rokeach survey, 100% of the students chose "Salvation"

ESimong the top 3 choices, 42% chose "Forgiving" among the
jsfiirst 3 choices, and 55% chose "Pleasure" among the last
359;

:3 choices. This is in keeping with Rokeach (33, p.

23' p. 36) who found that those who participate in

 

#205" CSOCSe E I

J." .U“

.

r...
~

1".

choices a:

J-

5'; t thee s

I
4

_
.,,....v

eg because t?-

a)

1...
.
fl , ~. -..5
I
.I...../‘ O
I

3.1 these

-»-vv-~"."— H *H
vhoovlfi‘“. .‘ 5..

1e: value 515539

“'nhnffifi '
.- ‘ V
.......‘,.... s ' P‘a‘r‘

i...; 5'...‘ WiI‘ l:
J

"nu bob: \- La

 

-
O

A
cove

wv“ '
2 2081's: ‘

O
~q~~6

. ,
. ...:.10r.al SC
in x. ‘ '
u. 3.512955; :1:

2e highest vale

:g, and Teachin;
lair. the Rel‘gi
Zeéesthetic val
:azsmaefer 'fc

3"
a
.:.~I t .’

Iields of

--:.';a:1ve attitL

:‘RE‘G‘A ‘

. "“3 0n the C
:‘y’;p\. .I

Ԥ\"

 

religion choose "Salvation" and "Forgiving" among the
first 4 choices and "Pleasure" as the last. It seems
evident that the students chose the Grand Rapids Baptist
College because their value orientation was strongly
religious.

All these data suggest that students choose their
curriculum on the basis of their value system. That is,
their value system influences their choice of curriculum.
Furthermore, Harris, reported in Duffy (8, pp. 601-602),
found that with 338 Lehigh University students and 62
faculty members, their value scores differed according
to vocational choices. "The highest value score for Law,
for Business, and for Engineering was Policical, while
the highest value score for Medicine, Chemical Engineer-
ing, and Teaching was Theoretical. Law and Medicine were
low in the Religious value, and Engineering was low in
the Aesthetic value." Duffy (8, p. 602) also reports
that Schaefer "found that Reed College students in dif-
ferent fields of major study had different patterns of
evaluative attitude." Both the Harris and Schaefer
reports could indicate either the influence of value
Systems on the choice of curriculum or the influence of
CFurriculum on value systems, or both.

Sternberg (32) found that "groups of college
Eitudents majoring in different subjects were significantly

C1::ifferent from each other in interests, values, and

 

V"

_ I fly

 

o-v‘..2. ‘ “" .
. .

”.'.I‘-‘ -

=12 scales we

' --- nr: #963
7:. D...’ “and be.
‘

V“ .

:..e: 1:18 00“

o n V

J -l: 'ce.sa.
“p‘-‘ '-

“"b be.

::.;er.:e fine 1

. ~ . '
H..‘ an. H“ ‘ v- ‘
o‘...§‘ - ‘..‘

L‘s lill'ili'da .

‘
.. use G: r.: t
. . .
.5... c .2." l S 1
-'.
5

‘ ‘ I
\\ VJ.‘-lfis‘ep:
a.“ H
v
.‘ A ‘
.- A ‘
‘N ‘
~
J
sn'.

personality. . . . Raw score differences on interest and
value scales were greater than on personality scales."

The basis of his studies were the Kuder, the Allport-
Vernon, and the MMPI. Again, this study could indicate
either the influence of values on the choice of curriculum
or vice versa.

Not only does data indicate that value patterns
influence the choice of curriculum, but the choice of
curriculum influences in turn the pattern of values which
the individual develops. In April of 1972, we gave the

Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values to a chapel session

 

of the Grand Rapids Baptist College which the entire stu-
dent body is required to attend, being allowed so many
cuts per semester. We received 296 correctly filled-out
booklets. The data showed that our students scored
higher than the collegiate norms on the Religious scale,
and continued to climb throughout their cOllege career.
The Collegiate norm is 40.51, while the students at the
college scored 50.8, 51.4, 50.9, and 53.1 respectively
from freshmen to seniors. The change was more noticeable
for males than females: 49.6, 50.4, 50.3, 53.6, and 51.5,
52.1, 52.1, and 52.6 respectively. The difference between
male and female is not great in their averages over the
four years, but becomes accentuated when we note that

the Collegiate norm for males is 37.88 and for females

is 43.13. At the same time that the Religious scores

I" '- --__

 

 

 

‘ V ' ‘ “nan"
2,1363, U13 Lbs“...-
“""O r‘ ‘pr 9
o:'o:v\v an 0V 5

:let
a

scared 38.8.
3:: freshen to e

‘ .
”:0 u- ,Afinw a? ‘
.m- "‘ VUAA‘ out.

::.:er.c upon t:.

n‘.

...is $87.63

""~ 5;- 1“
h , FINVQ _
blag: II. n‘..'v‘ k

;:::essi::r.al 5""

\pcu‘s.

Etta" . -' ' ~
”.55 O-aJcrlnld

I|\

 

- .
‘..' V

H 2 I. I
went and Aestr‘e

:‘a..‘ v
'1'.:‘ SCIEFNe 51'“

.1»
...:eese in the S

cue-J signifiCah ‘

6“

3f w

E It"...
““453 .
CL? t;
‘A
~.M‘S "‘5 ,
‘
much .,
Herc
hi;
"a?"
“-3. ’7“,
MES:
~.‘ ~'.
‘ H‘a "

climbed, the Economic scores declined. While the Col-
legiate norm for the Economic scale is 39.45, our stu-
dents scored 38.8, 36.4, 35.5, and 33.1 respectively
from freshmen to seniors. Both of these trends indicate
that the conventional values of the school had an
influence upon the values of the students.

This same implication was found by Arsenian (4),

using the Allport-Vernon Study of Values. At a men's

 

professional school in New England, he found that those
students majoring in Health and Physical Education had a
decrease in the Religious and an increase in both the
Social and Aesthetic Scales, and students majoring in
Social Science showed a decrease in the Economic and an
increase in the Social scale. All these were statisti-
cally significant. Todd (34) gave the Allport-Vernon
Study of Values to 94 seniors in high school and then
gave it to them again in college during their sophomore
year. They attended various colleges. He concluded that
there was a change in the direction of "contemporary
American cultural norms" which include an increase in
the Theoretical, Political, and Economic scales and a
decrease in the Social, Religious, and Aesthetic scales.
He points out that the colleges were reflecting cultural
norms which were reflected in the value changes of their
students. These changes in the students' values were

in the direction of the philosophy, curriculum, and

 

 

 

c-esis of the c:

:ezazses these c1".

‘V‘

zerzzar. ct. ural

.'.:. 13?. V8.38 pa:

;";:v: a‘ C’“ 1e},-

-"v-.u u. U.‘

:"' ‘Itn .
I"
“I 0.: e‘ollrcrufvt.

Bender (5

a. a“.

" “THE Stuier.‘
‘3: .._.
"O .slls test

”:30. ,
Inuites In ‘ 9:6
‘ a

 

‘.
D ‘
“9e" '7 ‘ ,
“a! oglcner ‘
' t
1': ,, _
so ‘br'al’kab1 " S
n: .‘.a
‘ u.» 19.“
\ 1
‘d $7.38.—
a
.2.

10

emphasis of the college which they attended. In some
instances these changes were not toward "contemporary
American cultural norms." Thus Arsenian (4) concludes
that the value patterns of the students change during the
4 years of college, and that these changes are not neces-
sarily in the direction of the contemporary American
culture, but depends rather on the curriculum and extra-
curricular activities provided in the particular school
and its environment.

Bender (5) gave the Allport-Vernon Study of Values

 

to college students in 1940 and retested them in 1955 and
1956. This test was also given to a group of under-
graduates in 1956. He reports the changes in the
Religious value scores and finds a significant increase.
The Religious value scores of undergraduates in 1956 were
reliably higher than those college students of 1940 and
were remarkably similar to the 1955 and 1956 responses
of the 1940 undergraduates. This indicates that the
value patterns in our situation do determine the value
patterns which we develop, and the college curriculum
could have an active part in that change by reflecting
the dominant values of that particular period.

A study by Schaefer, reported by Duffy (8, p. 598),
found that seniors scored higher on the Theoretic and

Aesthetic scales than sophomores, reflecting the values

 

 

 

.; on. an. .858 (RE.
u ”t 'V“ \d‘ ‘
.--' _.;::.'::-:atior.al

Rckeach (2

- - Q
'7-\: I’v'y. apc .r‘
.‘ano‘v: H L 4
no .- II-fi A ‘.
----- : ;f‘e- -\Its :3 L -

a... ‘ '
”"“Si .e:Cies k

L- :zealit'“ C“
:III 1.. v‘ ‘ a
M J mutns "G

 

files also 10:01".

0...". , C
5.3 3‘ PeaCe'

p...
. 5:";k‘ '
3: ..»w. Life

“' ' In
IIZCV .' y . “V
n «e r ..

9... ‘
K9: :3 m an n “a

4“,

etISCrT , ~.

.
2..“

“WM-:68, “Sth

 

 

 

ll

of the college (Reed College) which emphasizes scholarship
and nonvocational subjects.

Rokeach (28, p. 24) found that the values of
"Equality" and "Freedom" predicted attitudes toward civil
rights demonstrations. But with some he found inconsis-
tencies (28, p. 26). It was found that when these
inconsistencies were pointed out, the values of "Freedom"
and "Equality" changed and remained that way 3 weeks later
and 3-5 months later (28, p. 27). An increase in these
values also brought changes in other values (an increase in
"World of Peace" and "National Security" and a decrease in
"Comfortable Life," "Meaningful Life," "Maturity," "Sal-
vation," "True Friendship," and "Wisdom"). He interprets
this to be an increase in social values and a decrease in
personal values (28, p. 28). "All these results," Rokeach
concludes, "show that a necessary condition for change is
a state of cognitive inconsistency (28, p. 31)." Dis-
sonance was measured at the end of the experiment by
asking the individual whether he was satisfied or dis-
satisfied and to what extent. He found that the state
of dissonance significantly predicted the changes in
values observed 3 weeks and 3 months after the experi-
mental condition. Later research (24, p. 456) showed
that such changes were evident 15 to 17 months later.
These statistics seem to indicate that values can be

changed by pointing up inconsistencies and that such

 

1L I

 

 

5..
.a‘
::

21:35 affect tr.-
1:; axis ed ove

-- UA Of ‘L‘e C

bot
0-: AU.

' R‘ ir-
ucu’. fi-I. -! r1 ‘
a...» nun. 5.4». ~

0-:Aa‘uopq'n‘n snn
".3.» 'IA‘VI‘ 50A»

on .I.

~ cue Surfa: e.

...the

“‘v I; n‘
‘;Vu a.“ g“ 1‘5

31-9; ZSCCE C ‘

:uaracte: i

_ 'gv‘ A H
'I—«b..\'

 

nan-.-
n V. .

w, :‘ r "A“ {I
:§:: He .H.‘ ‘

9.13 Of fo”r
_.e CICCESS

.. ..A‘ F‘r
“tiangv. .er. ‘.-

(n “f

 

'a‘.

Twat to SC:
{5353:13'5‘ e T-
tie 33119 e e!
"uluence in
““1 a (3014.8
5;».9 $9193:
S's-EJLS who
:C:‘_ire the
”3:19: :e graa.

N.

 

12

changes affect the system of values causing a reshuffling
which existed over a long-range period of time. Perhaps
one role of the college upon student value systems is to
point out such inconsistencies, and the changes made
reflect which inconsistencies the college tends to bring

to the surface.
A study by Jacob (14, p. 6) concludes that:

. . . the main overall effect of higher education
upon student values is to bring about general
acceptance of a body of standards and attitudes
characteristic of college-bred men and women in the
American community. There is more homogeneity and
greater consistency of values among students at the
end of four years than when they begin. . . . To call
the process a Liberalization of student values is a
misnomer. The impact of the college experience is
rather to socialize the individual. . . . It seems
reasonable to credit these differences in value to
the college experience, partly to its positive
influence in bringing students' outlook into line
with a college "standard," partly to an even more
subtle selective process which ferrets out the
students who are not sufficiently adaptive to
acquire the distinctive value-patterns of the
college graduate.

 

 

He goes on to record that the influence of the
curriculum, the teacher, or the methods are minimal in
changing student values. It is the philosophy and the
orientation of the institution as a whole that has an
impact upon students' values. Some colleges have a
peculiar potency.

Similar as the patterns of student values appear on
the mass view, the intellectual, cultural or moral
"climate" of some institutions stands out from the
crowd. The response of students to education

within the atmosphere of these institutions is
strikingly different from the national pattern.

 

‘t-

 

.. . Thev dc
ex;e:: n: of
ever, is cans
3.5: ‘1"ti02‘.

here there i
stgi ..:s see”
Stani: is, e'.'-
Stairs pre" *‘

“v\.~ Iv
qr vvq‘
U~e'3L.A. .u -

56:”."35 as a 2

8
531”! 3'6 as a

‘ ' 9"
.~. cntate Ia.
amars me:

3:65: EurOll

...'; . .
lur..:az.e to C"?

 

 

. Q
.4
u.:: l “and dew
.' flat I K
;:e: S.“;' ls ‘._1

From the

...:.L, to def} Ops:

‘. v.
."‘::t st“dents

._1 -.

‘:o;:;".‘\s '
“V“ I and t

.
' N,
v .A s.‘ “Id? 0" r
' ‘ u‘
I
.;~.
uh‘F;V..
u“

13

. . . They do seem to have in common a high level of
expectancy of their students. . . . Everyone, how-
ever, is conscious of the mission to which the
institution stands dedicated. . . . (14, p. 10)
Where there is such unity and vigor of expectations,
students seem drawn to live up to the college
standards, even if it means quite a wrench from
their previous ways of thought, or a break with the
prevailing values of students elsewhere. The college
serves as a cocoon in which a new value-orientation
can mature and solidify until it is strong enough to
survive as a maverick in the conventional world.

A climate favorable to a redirection of values
appears more frequently at private colleges of
modest enrollment. (14, p. 11)

These quotations from Jacob are particularly
applicable to our study and will help us predict the
direction and degree of influence that the institution
under study is having on its students.

From the foregoing body of literature, we have
sought to demonstrate first, that students choose a par-
ticular college or curriculum in keeping with their value
systems, and second, that student values are influenced
by the particular college or curriculum in which they
participate. Thus, a private religious college would
attract students with value systems that are distinctly
religious, and these religious value systems will be
strengthened by the college. These religious value
systems ought to be more noticeable among students who
are anticipating ministries in their religious order,

{becoming more predominant as they move from college to

seminary .

 

 

 

 

Research '
:f students-film:
snark-should '
s::;;ti':e orient

‘ V‘— *‘
a I H '0 A - .
.6. ‘e He‘IE¢V:I.n . 5

2.; 3'3 dimension.
1:;ezzation. 553-
2:a'.'ic-ral orient
-:;f.asiz;ng wrong
52;:categsries a
i:;:.; and (2) re»:
trzeztaticns whil
Paste: for n:-
iiiitxs. In cox;
Pilaticns Questi:

I.

‘5
\. A
'u. .u‘h

u...e Complet;

 

 

 

..; 1
I
S” ‘i‘ '
«8' ’e Orlen‘

 

14

Research would also suggest that the three groups
of students--1ibera1 arts, ministerial college, and
seminary--shou1d vary in their proscriptive and pre-
scriptive orientation. A typology of two dimensions of
value development were formed by McKinney (19, p. 72),
the two dimensions being Reinforcement and Behavioral
Orientation. Each has a positive and negative expression
so that reinforcement can be punishment or reward and the
behavioral orientation can be proscriptive or prescriptive,
emphasizing wrong-doing or right-doing respectively. Thus,
four categories are delineated: (l) punishment for wrong-
doing and (2) reward for not doing wrong are proscriptive
orientations while (3) reward for doing right and (4)
punishment for not doing right are prescriptive orien-
tations. In comparing the scores of the Parent Child
Relations Questionnaire (Roe and Sigelman, 1963) with a
sentence completion test which contained stems dealing
with negative and positive reinforcement to which they
would complete the sentence with a proscriptive or pre-
scriptive orientation, McKinney found from his subjects
of 67 university students that:

. . . as predicted, the data support the hypothesis
that a prescriptive orientation is related to one's
perception of his parents as being more rewarding,
while a proscriptive orientation is related to
one's perception of his parents as being more
punitive. . . . One of the implications of this
finding is that by punishing their children parents
are drawing attention to wrong-doing and thereby
establishing a proscriptive orientation which gen-

eralizes to both positive and negative reinforcement.
(19, p. 79)

 

 

v'.‘

hiiiians
Ivan cities t

!
Lao: buat me C
u-ouh b“

.‘IICES 'I' .0 acre:

I‘ J; :
“:23 vi '11 “3-5 .

c; ,
If? 39".81'51

“9:6"8 for:
LStar-‘Ce tC'n'
321123 tend ;
:5 ‘ '11 Of
prefers a c'
.38: 'ea ESt
wise person.

'f‘

in , Stealer.
SE are“ 5"“ l5

:1a:e.le‘.:s C

'Ciw'lS old

: ll'bl'e
;::;3‘F‘t

0*... A . ..
baye‘laiti :
In

‘46, pp. le

 

n? . ‘ §~
u :‘Vl‘“ '-
. ““3‘5, “uh
.3'

15

Williams (36) and his collaborators studied four
American cities to determine ethnic relations. They
found that the "data from Southport show that it is those
Negroes who advocate severe punishment for moral trans-
gressors and who condemn young people for sexual laxity
who are most likely to express distaste for social con-
tacts with whites (36, p. 278).“ This agrees with his
more general findings concerning Authoritarianism. Under
the heading of "Correlates of Authoritarianism," Williams
summarizes:

We have found, then, that persons who express social
distance toward ethnic, racial, or religious out-
groups tend rather consistently toward a meaningful
pattern of personality characteristics--or, if one
prefers, a consistent pattern of beliefs and values.
The greatest likelihood of prejudice attaches to
those persons who (I) believe in strict and unquestion-
ing obedience of children to parents; (2) advocate
severe punishment of sex criminals; (3) acquiesce in
statements oflmoralistic condemnation concerning
youths, old people, or people Who "do not live
upright lives"; (4) manifest a generalized distrust
of other people; (5) report feeling uncomfortable
about meeting strangers; (6) indicate feelings of
personal frustration and lack of secure group
belongingness. Although Quantitative measures of
the relative importance of these several items are
not feasible with the data at hand, the statistical
relationships among the various attitudes and
beliefs are such that they suggest that a primary
dimension of the most highly prejudiced personalities
is moralistic punitiveness toward other people,
especially toward impulslve or deviant behavior.
(36, pp. 109-110)

 

 

 

 

Thus, prejudice is linked to a proscriptive orientation
by Williams, which seems to be a characteristic of the

Authoritarian Personality. Prejudice is an attitude,

. .qu-w.'-Cm— "

 

 

4;
one s and L
L
«1:::~ .
~-A. 5 field tr
u.
:::;~.i‘,
“"9 arena
5
....
“'4: 1
a Is, p. 9}
\v
1.: M-
‘& V‘lentat"p
‘v
."‘
r|.:“‘ '
uce‘utlnye 0,.
4
«He dls:

' ';:5:. .1: {913 .ed f

3.5233315 $88.”

:55: :e .rre ..i..e:'

""“V‘FO‘ n
"' 'Vfifiybile a..:

:"Ia

w. v 019::‘Oi:

9338:5351 tv 3'
" n

no. 4' '1 "A...
"...“. at u».-

therview ta
313:9 tier:
'-'.s agi‘i'fist.
3: ienta‘iCn

lie: the Va;

'i'3-35e "a ..e
L91 Who t8“
tation of t“
3:.31'fZed 50:
1.31.133 6‘9
:Le

 

16

closely related, and perhaps determined by, underlying-
values (22). Therefore, our proscriptive and prescriptive
orientations seem to be either the expressions of, or one
of the determiners of our value system, or both.
Significant differences in generosity between
proscriptive and prescriptive value orientations were
found by Olejnik and McKinney (21).
Generosity was measured by the number of M&M candies
children donated to a fictitious "needy child." An
interview technique was used to measure the value
orientation of the children, while a questionnaire
was administered to the parents to measure value
orientation and discipline emphasis. (21, abstract)
When the value orientations of the parents of the
givers and non-givers were analyzed for the reward
items all comparisons were significant. . . .
Parents whose value orientation was prescriptive
had children who tended to be givers, while parents
whose value orientation was proscriptive had chil-
dren who tended not to give. When the value orien-
tation of the-parents of givers and non-givers was
analyzed for the punishment items, the same general
findings emerged. . . . The relationship between
the value orientation of the parents and the child's
generosity was therefore consistent for both reward
items and punishment items. (21, p. 8)
The same held true with the child's value orientation,
for "there were significantly more givers in the pre-
scriptive group and non-givers in the proscriptive
group (21, p. 9)." Thus, "children with a prescriptive
value orientation are more generous than those with a
proscriptive orientation (21, p. 9)."
The discipline emphasis of the parents in the
Olejnik and McKinney study did not relate to generosity

in the children when the value orientation was controlled.

fill

 

:ZTS. huetnr

'.. L-....€..C€ gem:

3.! value CI 167.
...ese 5....

'w a}. .y

:m-wuu e CI..t
:.:'. 35 DIE‘JCLCL’

2::fzre they ¢

7':-:: ..S w‘uenr

 

niat pre

'AA
\

...,e 35 researc.

s. I
....

-.... tat stude

T"mes as “Free";

' "EAAL' “or

 

 

 

Jysa .
'“‘ pics Ba:
5'1 . .

‘ : nan
Ma‘s.‘ at... ng t}:
E‘s: found ‘

u that
{In

‘lte'. and u ,-

"(1

<22)

 

1‘36: 5e Of ACCv

. .
"- I.

u‘jical ll 1.

17

Thus, the important thing seems to be rather the parents
stress wrong-doing or right-doing; their value orien-
tations. Whether or not they reward or punish seems not
to influence generosity, but rather how they punish:
their value orientation.

These studies indicate that proscriptive and
prescriptive orientations are reflected in attitudes,
such as prejudice, and in behavior, such as generosity.
Therefore, they ought to be reflected in the value

patterns when measured by the Rokeach Value Survey.

 

What predictions can be made from the entire
scope of research as presented thus far? Feather (11)
found that students in state schools scored higher such
values as "Freedom," "Exciting Life," "Sense of Accom-
plishment,” "World of Beauty," "Intellectual," and
"Imagination" than did church school students. In our
own research, reported earlier, the students at the
Grand Rapids Baptist College tended to score such values
as "Imaginative," "Intellectual," "Logical," and "Broad-
minded" among the bottom three choices. Feather (ll)
also found that church school students tended to value
"Mature Love," "Family Security," "Salvation,” "Loving,"
"Polite," and "Obedient" more than state school students.
Rokeach (23) more specifically found that Baptists ranked
"A Sense of Accomplishment," "Broadminded," "Capable,"

and "Logical" lower than other religious groups which

—1

 

i2-»-

 

 

 

‘ ‘
2......"-
I‘ .

3
mat—nu, u.

.
n.~.~o.0h
I —

- I‘dbon'a'

1 H;
M "An
:00:: U.

‘ n

""l .P‘
.‘ " 4
‘00-: ......

.'I-I . A‘.
vs."- ......

‘
fl
:"' ’ “~n ‘
. l
‘0‘ HUI U ‘
§

...
.1
.-

.b V!
S M‘ a

"5 vv‘.:

amt; -
.r- a...
ui'.‘-~‘

18

were generally less conservative, and the Baptists tended
to score "Salvation," "Clean," "Forgiving," and "Obedient"
higher.

Putting the findings of our previous research, of
Rokeach, and of Feather together, it seems that Religious
students, particularly of the conservative type, prefer
values of a Social or Moral nature and tend to discount
values that have to do with Competence. We will dis-
tinguish these two groups by the terms Social-Moral Values
and Competence Values.

Therefore, we hypothesize that in any class in
the college, values which have to do with Competence:
specifically "A Sense of Accomplishment," "Broadminded,"
"Capable," "Logical," "Intellectual," and "Imaginative"
will be scored higher by the liberal arts students in
the college than by the ministerial students. Further,
these values will be scored higher by college students
as a whole than by seminary students.

For the same reasons, we believe that items which
denote Social-Moral Values: specifically "Salvation,"
"Clean," "Forgiving," "Obedient," "Mature Love,"
”Loving," and "Polite" will be scored lower by college
liberal arts students than by college ministerial stu-
dents and should also be scored lower by college students

as a whole than by seminarians. If these two hypotheses

 

2;: true 1

0"”; r
.40 .5

 

'"va 3.; ..'..
uviav OILHAA

{9- n b'nn
vi: bobh‘vol

-.-.. out; ,-
\
no. ...g.‘\-

a ..
‘
l-‘I~-~..

m..I.““

.
"ie :5 ~-
uu ‘ u.

‘9":

"...-4‘, .
a

   

’f"
.-
'n.‘.
\ ,. _ o v-
"".\v be.
'n

an:

Iifi.“~ .
1

.._- . ~
a
PA
I. .
~“.‘

.. ‘

._V: A h;
"n

gt.

.
a
.
"AV-
4" \
‘u
I

19

hold true it would indicate that value systems do deter-
mine their choice of curriculum and future vocation.
Further, we would also expect our students to
score higher on the so-called Social-Moral values than
the national averages, indicating that the choice of
institution is influenced by the value system of the
individual. Feather (11) has already found this to be
true as did our former studies at the Grand Rapids Baptist
College. This may explain why we found that male students
tended to increase on the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Religious
scale more than females as they continued through the
college. While freshmen males had a mean score of 49.6 in
comparison with the senior males' 53.6 for an increase of
3 points, freshmen females had a mean score of 51.5 in
comparison to the senior female mean score of 52.6 for an
increase of only 1.1. In our American culture, males
would be making vocational choices, and in this case
committing themselves to a religious ministry and/or they
were being influenced by the values of the college, while
females would be more concerned about being wives, leaving
this commitment up to the males. These trends could
reflect the fact that those who are committed to a liberal
arts program dropped out after a year or two to go on to
other colleges while those who were committed to a
religious ministry remained for their junior and senior

Years. This is one reason why the college became a

 

(.3: LIN-h

'-._.‘ r

 

 

 

 

' 9
PF. Ova-'-

“V- ...UI-

mp;

'.
"a. " :
vo- "

" 'V. us

.
;":? bPe

”6., s u

u
Inc».

“A
Eva:

.
bl.

a ’:A‘
‘1' .‘v'.
C'-

'V‘ a..'

.k“"“.‘

I n

Y
‘
"an ‘
‘4. n ‘c
I ‘ -‘
.-
‘\ .q‘

I

l
(l
(I)
o

‘A
I
'4"
3“

i“...
5‘ \

20

liberal arts college since this earlier study was made.
However, the biggest increase in the Religious score came
between the junior and senior classes. For males, the
mean scores were 49.6, 50.4, 50.3, and 53.6 respectively
from freshmen to seniors, and for females the mean scores
were 51.5, 52.1, 52.1, and 52.6 respectively. It was
after the sophomore year that many students left to go to
other colleges leaving the junior and senior classes much
smaller. This would indicate that the score trends would
reflect the school's influence upon values as well as

the fact that the student's value system determines his
curriculum.

If these values are thus influenced by the school
they attend, then these differences should be accentuated
as the student progresses through college, commits himself
to a religious ministry, or enters seminary. Therefore,
we predict that values which have to do with Competence:
specifically "A Sense of Accomplishment," "Broadminded,"
"Capable," "Logical," "Intellectual," and "Imaginative”
will be scored highest among freshmen, lower by seniors,
and lowest by seminarians.

From the same set of statistics, we would
hypothesize that Social-Moral values: Specifically
"Salvation," "Clean," "Forgiving," "Obedient," "Mature
Love," "Loving," and "Polite" will be scored lowest

anmong freshmen, higher by seniors, and highest by semi-

narians .

 

 

‘ Q
r'.

Vlgd

.m; 5"; pfi‘

‘1. ¢.bugo‘

...-"fl"‘fl
’ ,
Luv-o: bob

 

 

. "‘7‘ Ogv
~-0~."u‘

Ole vog‘.....
F l t‘

I... u‘.. .-
lI

.:. :1“ I-

"-"‘"“F‘ r
"_~"‘tu~:
‘. .
NV” 6
.u‘u .‘
.-x n
‘ ‘I‘ .' .
. ,e‘ .A
‘ v
.
.':Iq H‘
’,
.“nl' :_:b
O
";v~.

‘I In
.
u. : n:
i. v‘
.y. ,
. On ‘

21

Williams (36) links authoritarianism with a puni-
tive orientation, which McKinney (19) found to be a char-
acteristic of a proscriptive orientation and Tate and
Miller (33) find the Intrinsic religious person to be
less self-centered, which seems incompatible with an
Authoritarian Personality. Rokeach (27) has shown that
the values of "Salvation," "Forgiving," and "Equality"
reflect regular church attendance and lack of prejudice,
components of the Intrinsic Personality (2). These
persons tended to score "Pleasure" last. Our previous
survey found this pattern existing among the students at
Grand Rapids Baptist College. Thus, we hypothesize that
persons with prescriptive orientations will score higher
on "Salvation,“ "Forgiveness," and "Equality" than those
with a proscriptive orientation.

For the same reasons, we predict that proscriptive
students will score higher on "Pleasure" than those of a
prescriptive orientation.

Another question remains, the outcome of which
seems harder to predict. Does commitment to religious
ministries or the continuance in a conservative, evan-
gelical college correlate with a proscriptive or pre-
scriptive value orientation? Since Williams' findings
(36) suggest to us that a high value on "Obedience" is
a proscriptive trait, and since Rokeach (23) found that

"Obedience" was scored high by Baptists, it would

l"1 'W (- “VI". LL ml“!

 

 

-
. A O P
:.." .9
.....U. 5‘

”...-Ra.

'p‘-..vaab

 

,
" '“fi '0‘
:0 F‘: ....l
t.

‘ :nn :3
3 Idol! no.
': : “or e
0' d L5“.-

‘

v .
I ~.
:' 1": F .
I“ .. b
a
':I~A

‘A 1
'-

'- "fu- ‘.,A
'Ql"‘

MW

 

p.
I
\ A

A

‘n_::“ I

‘fii

‘
IN
6 n V
‘I‘ ‘.

.I n 1

22

suggest there would be a negative correlation between
commitment to religious ministry or continued study at

the college to a prescriptive orientation. However,
Rokeach (23) found "Forgiving" and "Salvation" to be

high for Baptists and these values are also characteristic
of the Intrinsic religious individuals according to Rokeach
(27) and Allport and Ross (2). This would indicate there
is a positive correlation between a prescriptive orien-
tation and commitment to a religious ministry or continued
study in the religious college. Since increased atten-
dance seems to correlate with the Intrinsic religious
person who is less self-centered and thus supposedly more
generous and prescriptive in orientation, we will predict
that liberal arts freshmen will be least prescriptive,
ministerial seniors will be more prescriptive, and semi-
narians will be most prescriptive.

In keeping with McKinney's findings (19) that a
prescriptive or proscriptive orientation is related to
one's perception of his parents as being more rewarding
or punitive, we expect to find that our students' religious
orientation will reflect their perception concerning the
orientation of their child training by their parents.
Thus we predict that students who see their parents as
punitive will be more proscriptive in their religious
(orientation than those who see their parents as reward-

:ing, and students who see their parents as rewarding will

1....

- I" l1?‘,;‘.'-7L ..

 

 

 

A
n I‘V: HY:
:p'wyoi' r.

n "In ¢
"E: .uv .
”I

Q
“bl “-nh

Vvl ~h .,
0.0- .

.
.
.R.“"

 

coo Anti-I

 

:' ‘J-Ds '
'p-eb.._ ‘

.. ‘
u:.. ...
l ...‘
a
.. _
'\
'. u

 

A
n.‘ a
u g.
... ..-;
U’ ‘3. D
o 'v....‘

c

.

:‘. u A

ii..c

I .y .
‘ .

'.' .—
D“‘

"' u
u .‘
'V
A...
n. f- :
._““
:‘II_~ ‘.
‘
\“ua
'\
d" A A
‘1 n '
‘."‘°’
l-h.
“ O
‘0.“

 

.“
‘-fi~.§

\ .
-

23

be more prescriptive in their religious orientation than
those who see their parents as punitive.

To summarize, we have proposed nine hypotheses:
(l) in any class in the college, values which have to do
with Competence: specifically "A Sense of Accomplishment,"
"Broadminded," "Capable," "Logical," "Intellectual," and
"Imaginative" will be scored higher by the liberal arts '
students in the college than by ministerial students, and
they will also be scored higher by the college students
as a whole than by seminary students; (2) items which
denote Social-Moral values: specifically "Salvation,"
"Clean," "Forgiving," "Obedient," "Mature Love," "Loving,"
and "Polite" will be scored lower by college liberal arts
students than by college ministerial students and should
also be scored lower by college students as a whole than
by seminarians; (3) our students will score higher on the
so-called Social-Moral values than the national averages;
(4) values which have to do with Competence: "A Sense of
Accomplishment," "Broadminded," "Capable," "Logical,"
"Intellectual," and "Imaginative" will be scored highest
among freshmen, lower for seniors, and lowest for semi-
narians; (5) values which we have designated as Social-
Moral: "Salvation," "Clean," "Forgiving," "Obedient,"
"Mature Love," "Loving," and "Polite" will be scored
lowest among freshmen, higher by seniors, and highest

.by seminarians; (6) persons with prescriptive orientations

.33.:

 

N u )5.
I

 

9.. -n“r
' ‘

.0. 'V".

'- ......

c"

...... t
n

6

 

 

I A. . '
'_,‘~v F,‘ Q

.'"'-..p .*
a

c
’0
I

' IV A”
......V ‘S
-

Iv . '
‘ “H,- n
.-

a
“'--.I.

l".-. .
' u :i‘

""‘ .-\

24

will score higher on "Salvation," "Forgiveness," and
"Equality" than those with proscriptive orientations;

(7) proscriptive students will score higher on "Pleasure"
than those of a prescriptive orientation; (8) liberal arts
freshmen will be least prescriptive, ministerial seniors
will be more prescriptive, and seminarians will be most
prescriptive; and (9) students with a proscriptive
religious orientation will see their parents as more
punitive and that students with a prescriptive religious

orientation will see their parents as more rewarding.

 

{3 IT

CHAPTER II

THE METHOD

To test our hypotheses, we took a survey of the
student body at the Grand Rapids Baptist College and
Seminary on October 3 during the fall semester of 1973.
In the college, the survey was given during a required
chapel service. Because the survey took longer than the
chapel session, the students were asked to finish it in
the next class session where the teachers collected them.
Those who had no class following the chapel session were
asked to turn them into the office of the academic dean
upon completion. There were 624 enrolled in the college
as full-time students and 38 part-time students. We
received 307 completed surveys for a return of 46.4%.
However, the 38 part-time students would not be required
to attend chapel, some students are excused because of
employment, and others would be taking their normal cuts,
so the number of students present would be much less than
624, making the percentage of return considerably higher.
Broken down into classes, number of returns in comparison

to the enrollment is as follows:

25

 

 

I .

-~P- v
"—~ 9
vgvlen bl

_ .
‘hv-u-Awf“

..u...'..-\,.
c

an”:

V‘AQU. -

I .
II‘A a
‘u '\
Dbla.'.U

I ' C
‘I-A-A
"' a
U'vV- .
5

'01.. UV...‘
6... ‘ .
4, " o...
. I
" vA..
..
...
..-
-.. “ ""1
V‘-.,g,,_-I
.
.
.
. I»...
.. "vb a

 

if

 

-.
v;- .
‘: " :‘(.

‘5

n3“:

I

in. '

“‘1 H‘
I V“

.

A

.‘e

*3

 

.
.. Q
u.‘ {‘5 V

u“

.
5::

 

I .‘
'1

26

 

 

Enrollment Returns Percentage
Freshmen 254 123 48.4
Sophomores 179 96 53.6
Juniors 104 53 51.0
Seniors 87 27 31.0
Special --- 6 ----

It is noticeable that the percentage of returns
from seniors is lower than the rest. The reasons for this
may be that more seniors are working, are married, and live
off campus and thus they would tend to take the full amount
of cuts and would be more likely excused for employment
reasons.

In the seminary, the survey was handed out at the
conclusion of their chapel session and the seminarians
were asked to turn them in to a box provided in the semi-
nary lounge. The seminary enrollment of full-time stu-
dents was 57 and we received 33 completed surveys for a
59.6% return. This gave us a total of 340 surveys from
the college and seminary to study.

Our survey consisted of four sections: (1) per-
sonal data, (2) a parent-child relationship questionnaire,
(3) a study of religious orientation, and (4) a study
of values. A complete copy of the survey is supplied
in Appendix B.

The first section of the survey covers the per-

sonal information such as the class in school, sex, date

\' mtr -—

 

 

 

 

" 2323, 3

,
....aeb ‘ RF
A
”...-«...Vul
0

 

.‘
uI‘FIV G ~
-
ov-voltto‘
-

u-Il'fl u
Q
...4.U .5

"O‘KQ- a 0A
.

 

’0 u. ' ...

 

c «
o;p-,.aq ‘
u-v.. ‘bfl

' p
"O A. ‘.
0... V. ‘1

'9...
t ..:RA
""v vvv

 

c
. ‘.~ ‘-
I"'uue‘

 

 

-.
. .-
u‘~:.
‘ .
...
'a: ' F.
s. ”C
S
.
In".

'0
‘~ 2.?
'5
.
n“. A .
‘u. ,‘
I U
‘I § '-
v. I o,
‘o
I.’
C
.
\“ 4

27

of birth, majors and minors in school, their prospective
occupation, amount of attendance at church, their grade
point average, and their socio-economic status. When
recording the data, we took the first two majors and
minors listed when more than two were listed. The occu-
pations we divided into ministerial and nonministerial
students. When more than one occupation was listed, we
recorded the first one listed. Appendix C provides a
list of intended occupations in each category. The
socio-economic status was determined by simply asking
them to check which one of six categories they felt they
belonged in.

The second section of the survey was a study of
parent-child relationships. We selected four of the
scales included in the Roe-Siegelman PCR questionnaire:
symbolic-punishment, symbolic-reward, direct-punishment,
and direct-reward. There were 10 items in each of these
scales for each of the parents, making a total of 80
items. The method used was to have the student evaluate
their parent on each item, checking the space under
"very untrue," "tended to be untrue," "tended to be true,"
or "very true." They could also'place a check in between
any of the four so that we could score each item from 1
to 7 from "very untrue" to "very true" respectively.

The third section of the survey was a study of

religious orientation. We developed this section by

 

 

"r" 3 3
O

on a
-) on
J ‘

o

A
n- “. w
p; 'O ' v

 

”......“
fib-
t-‘uvu \l

-°.‘."'A

 

..' '0
‘v- :5.
9..

~ ~‘I

'0 8“
I. ‘ ‘
.4 a.
a...
\ T‘v-
\._
:3:
l
‘0.
t - ‘.
......a
‘
.'~. I
i._

 

 

.
I!)
l

. .

.
.e.

5
.
'1

‘\

28

asking a question and giving the subject the choice of
one of two answers. The question contained either a
negative or positive stem, and the student had a choice
between a negative or positive answer. A negative answer
to a negative stem or a positive answer to a positive
stem was considered a prescriptive orientation, while a
positive answer to a negative stem or a negative answer
to a positive stem was considered a proscriptive orien-
tation. We developed a pre-test of 24 items (Appendix A),
7 of which were filler questions, and gave it to a class
of 56 students attending a course in Adolescent Psychology
at Michigan State University during the summer quarter

of 1973. The Kuder Richardson Reliability was .5571 on
this pre-test. Since these were questions on religious
orientation, we would expect a higher reliability at a
church-related college where the students have made a
religious commitment. On the final form used in the
survey, we omitted the 3 questions with the lowest
biserial correlation and dropped 5 of the filler questions,
giving us a final test of 16 questions with 7 negative
stems, 7 positive stems, and 2 filler questions. In the
final test included in our survey, items 1 and 4 were
fillers, items 3, 5, 6, 9, ll, 13, and 16 were positive
stems, and items 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 15 were

negative stems.

29

The final section of the survey was the Rokeach
Value Study where the students were asked to read a list
of 18 instrumental values listed in alphabetical order,
which they were to number from 1 to 18 in order of
preference. Then they read a list of terminal values
and repeated the process.

Some corrections were made by the researcher on
the survey. In one case (case 99), too many blanks
occurred, so we threw it out. Several blanks were left
on the section asking for personal information and in
each case these were left blank and omitted when the
averages were calculated on that item. A few students
listed their year of birth at 1973, and we changed it
to the most popular year of that class in the school.

In a few cases there were blanks left on the Religious
Orientation section and these too were left blank and
not included in the averages calculated for that section.

In the section of values (Rokeach Value Study),

 

some corrections were necessary. In 14 cases a particular
number was used twice and in each case we randomly assigned
the following number to one of them and renumbered the

rest of the values where necessary to give a consecutive
numbering from 1 to 18. In two cases, two numbers were
used twice, and in one case three numbers were used twice,
and in each case the above procedure was followed. In

four cases there were blanks left. In these cases, if

 

, ..-!3' h

: ...u- "

.n nwcfia'

., ..-.ay.

' .
.n v I-'-l
.‘ C

..- ...O‘fi‘

...-..‘pn
.-

"-...ut a.

. ‘ ‘
"‘V 'R!

’ A
v.... ......

 

.- "' win:
In. ‘
I 0
-~ '
u. u“ .‘
...: .
N...“
.-
m: ’Ico
' .nv .,
~“‘!

h. I
..-. :-

 

 

30

a number was omitted, we put it in the blank, but where
no number was missing, we assigned the blank a number 10
and renumbered when necessary. In two cases there was a
combination of a number being used twice and a blank.

One case had a blank and two nines, so we assigned 10

to the blank and 11 to one of the nines at random. The
other had a blank and 3 twelves and there we assigned

12 to the blank and randomly assigned 13, 14, and 15 to
the 3 twelves, and renumbered from there. On one survey
the value section was not completed, and on five surveys,
the instrumental scale of the value study was not com-
pleted. Some numbers were difficult to read, but by a
comparison of numbers on the page we have very little
doubt that the numbers we assigned were the ones intended
by the subject.

More questionable, perhaps, were the corrections
made on the parent-child relations section. In one case
(case 239), the subject sometimes made two marks for one
answer, in which case we took an average. In one case
both parents were gone and so the section was left com-
pletely blank, and was not used when figuring averages.
In 10 cases, the father was not at home and those cases
also were omitted when averages were calculated. In 58
cases, one question per scale or less, was left blank,
in which case we averaged the other 9 items in that

particular scale and assigned it that value. Usually

 

 

 

D Q.
" :’ :'~'
.. ¢n UII'

n r
~-.OJN ‘1'
“.09“ -‘

in A0; bfin
...: '10-‘55.

mun
~- 2'. ..v
.

 

-
' 9 ‘P A

.:\:\ c

V‘O'U no:

' i
la,- n a. ‘
a 4“ "
a». 44,...”

o

‘I(: .-

.-;>~b~ ‘

.
' A
-
U

 

’?:‘n~p.

"“hteua
.

- 1
'::"' a
.-'.‘u u

31

if an answer was left blank for one parent it was also
omitted for the other parent, although several times it
was omitted in just one case. In a few cases, there was
an answer missing in more than one scale. In eight

cases there were two answers missing per column or less
and again the remaining eight items were averaged and the
blanks were assigned that number. In two cases, four
answers were missing per column or less and again the
remaining six items were averaged and each blank was

assigned that value.

 

 

LA

 

‘ h
..
. .’:V \
"“‘bs _

()

 

u‘. a.
t "V

\.

w l

"31"
8“»

CHAPTER III

ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHESES

It is well to indicate some of the weaknesses in
this study. The two categories of Competence and Social-
Moral may be subjected to two criticisms. The first is
a methodoloqical problem. It is difficult to define
either Social-Moral or Competence. Perhaps the values
I have chosen do not really measure a Social-Moral or
a Competence component, or maybe these categories should
be given different titles. At any rate, the worth of
these categories has not been confirmed. We arrived at
these categories by combining the findings of Feather (11)
and Rokeach (23) with a previous study we made and then
we attached to these sets of values titles we felt were
appropriate. Secondly, it is possible that the outcome
could pose a substantive problem. The Grand Rapids
Baptist College students may have characteristics
Peculiar to themselves. This college has put great
Stress on academic excellence which may have influenced
their value systems either through the influence of the

ClSlrr'iculum, through the process of selection, or through

32

 

 

 

 

H, g;. V:
-: qycabofl
a

 

 

. .
o- -.-a a
u

' r
u.- ...: V

7‘..A~ N
.' ""- v

 

«u. '
0 ~" .

...

..

 

 

 

 

0‘.‘
.fl
1'.‘
'-
In
~
mh v.~
. \
a

33

the general philosophy of the school. This stress on
academics could be in conflict with the religious purpose
of the college, the conjunction of these two presenting
special problems for this college and other church-
related colleges which have a similar emphasis.

The Rokeach Value Survey has been subjected to
some criticism because of its method of ordering the
values according to preference. It does not really tell
us whether or not a particular item is in the value
system of a person. It simply indicates that if he has
that value he would place it in a particular spot. And
even if he does think an item is important, he may not
have included it in his value system. So, I may give
Freedom high priority in a general sense and yet not
extend freedom to my neighbor. The ordering system does
not allow you to give weights of worth to any one value
so that two people may give Intelligence a "5," because
it is the fifth preference for them, but for one it is
very important and for another it is far less important.
One person may have a highly developed value system while
another has a very shallow value system and both could
(possibly give the same order to all the values. So it
EBays little about how well a value system is developed.
Flor will it tell you how much a person values one item
aLbove another. The interval between 1 and 2 is always

t;he same on paper but may be radically different in

 

 

 

 

 

-.~- nzb<
1.3: ......

 

" ‘-A
U \
is _

u
to» v,”

““i

 

I
O I

be

 

u...

'0

 

 

H

34

actual preference. One person could like both mustard
and catsup while another continually craves mustard and
hates catsup, and both persons would give them a "l" and
a "2" respectively. Then too, some of the values may
simply be duplicates on the Rokeach scale and there may
be some very important values missing from that scale.
Somewhat the same criticisms could be leveled

toward the Religious Orientation section of the survey

 

because each item had just two choices so that an indi-
vidual was forced to choose one. Every once in a while
an individual would go against the specific instructions
and mark "both" or "either," indicating that they liked
both choices or disliked both. So the test does not
really tell us how proscriptive or prescriptive a person
really is. Two individuals may make the same choices and
receive a high prescriptive score, but for one the
choices were hard to make: he was just a little more
prescriptive than proscriptive; while the other person
had no difficulty: he was prescriptive to a much greater
degree. 80 a person with a prescriptive score of 7 could
possibly be more prescriptive than a person who scores 9.
The test also assumes that if you receive a prescriptive
score of 13, you have a proscriptive score of 1. Maybe

a religious orientation has not developed and the indi-
vidual is neither prescriptive nor proscriptive. In

another person it may be highly developed so that he

 

way—...,L.

| ‘ ‘
.... p. ”A.”
- b’v rd.

. P
I." on» "NY‘

. a
:Q’" q
"'0'. UV

‘!
~§IW.§ ‘
' \~4"

...-«dob.

flI'

u

an

 

q
" 5A a.
.
‘V v.
"“ ... ~
I ~‘ I
" u.‘. 1
‘. ‘
‘ I.I.:. .
..‘b
.I
.
--.. 1...};

nun». "v‘.

... v

b 54
.“
I
t. u.“
ks.‘:.‘

 

:‘~ .
.“ ...R‘
u" u
‘ b
‘-
R Q
N
-. ~'
-: “a:

...: "
‘r. "a.
..5
.
.;~~'- r
c ‘
o“
-3
‘-

35

may be both highly prescriptive and highly proscriptive.
But the forced choice causes them to receive the same
score. So the test only says that the individual tends
to prefer one orientation above another, but it does not
necessarily say how great that preference is.

The Parent-Child Relations Scale overcomes these

 

difficulties by letting the student give weights from 1
to 7 to each item. However, this scale only tells us
how that student viewed the parents. It does not tell
us what the actual behavior of the parents was.

We should also note that this survey was not a
longitudinal study. In comparing various classes in the
college with each other, conclusions are made to the
effect that differences between classes indicate the
influence of the college upon the student. When consis-
tent trends are found, it would seem to be a safe
assumption since the age span is not that great from
one class to another, but it must remain an assumption
until one can actually follow the same students through
the institution and measure the changes.

We did not use tests of statistical significance.
Such rank-ordering instruments as Rokeach's are difficult
to submit to tests of statistical significance. Although
statistical tests might indicate the reliability of
differences, the problem of realistically defining the

universe about which one would generalize would remain.

 

‘ IA; .Vt

 

 

 

 

II‘

I‘- i
A.
'0‘.

 

‘:- ‘H I!
...._ by ‘

 

in. ~“ '
" \
N~ v.‘
u
:5 :N;
-.." It...
. .
\."~ ‘A
u

‘. Q'e
use. ”my
.

.
‘ - ‘I'.

Q.‘

 

. I

. 'A

'v' h
4. ..

 

~

36

So we sought to look for several indicators which pointed
in the same direction or for trends which might appear,
believing that when this happened the data took on mean-
ing. But the absence of such tests may be considered as
a weakness by some.

With these weaknesses noted, we go to the par-
ticular hypotheses and analyze the data concerning them.

I. Hypothesis One-~Values
of Competence

 

 

Our first hypothesis proposes that values which
have to do with Competence will be scored higher by
liberal arts students in the college than by ministerial
students. That direction was obtained in only three of
the six values which were measured, and none of these
three scored to a great degree above the ministerial
students by the liberal arts students. The two values
that showed the greatest difference were in the opposite
direction from that predicted. Therefore this hypothesis
was not confirmed.

When we say that liberal arts students will
score higher, we mean that they will prefer these values
and thus assign to them a lower number.

Competence was measured by the following values
from the Rokeach Value Study: (1) A Sense of Accomplish-
ment, (2) Broadminded, (3) Capable, (4) Logical, (5)

Intellectual, and (6) Imaginative.

 

 

,ua :""'i
no“ '

I

 

'n- cyan -
u .- u-
Urea-nvbi—

'° DA on

on uv ..

V
v‘o-‘

v1
‘:"SQ-
. " ...

O
“‘ O.

“' r...

N.— "
'5

37

Because the majors which the students listed on
the survey were so varied, and because they did not cor-
respond to the major fields in the catalog of the college,
and because many students who are in various social
sciences are really planning on going into seminary and
on to the ministry, we divided the students according
to their intended occupations, a list of which is found f—
in Appendix C.

With only one of the values measured was the dif- E

ference of the average scores between those planning on

 

the ministry and those who were not planning on the min-
istry more than 1.00. This highest difference was scored
on "A Sense of Accomplishment," where the difference was
1.23 in the opposite direction from our prediction. With
the value, "Logical," the difference was .61, also in the
opposite direction of our prediction. The difference
scored on "Intelligent" was .32 in the predicted direction.
With the three other values, the difference was .15 or
less. "Broadminded" scored opposite the predicted
direction while "Capable" and "Imaginative" scored in

the predicted direction.

In analyzing the meaning of the values, the two
that really measure competence are "Intelligent" and
"Capable.” Both of these tended to follow the predicted
<1irection by a difference in the average score of .32

311d .13 respectively. When the composite rank score is

1 F

.":v:-' ~

'4".“ \-
.

ml 5'!- e
in. “a

\
-.~. A

. \_, \
.. unuu .,
.
.

~ “I.-

‘ v
'enuus..;v..
.

. . ‘
’fl‘
' .T-‘I-n

"'-u..“._‘

2“" a

‘
v-v‘~ OH
.

 

.:~‘ p a ‘
"“jauc _

”"n'lae
‘

I flu r
‘0‘ \

Q.
. A
'v.~ ‘ s
. ~ .
“

38

Table 1

Average Scores of Ministerial and Nonministerial Students
on the College Level for Values Measuring Competence

 

 

Value Nonministerial Ministerial Difference

A Sense of Accom-

plishment 9.48(10)a 8.25(9) -l.23b(-l)b
Broadminded 12.02(15) ll.87(13) - .15b(-2)b
Capable 10.50(10) 10.63(12) .13(2)
Logical 12.96(l7) 12.35(15) -.61b(-2)b
Intelligent 12.28(l6) 12.60(l6) .32
Imaginative 13.96(18) 13.98(18) .02

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of the difference in average scores of all

six values -l.52b
Average difference (-l.52 % 6) - .25b
Sum of difference in composite rank order -lb

 

aThe numbers in the parentheses stand for the
composite rank order of that value by the group.

bThe minus sign indicates that the difference was
Opposite the predicted direction.

39

compared, "Intelligent" remained the same for both groups
while that of "Capable" went from 10 to 12 in the direction
predicted. None of these differences are great, but they
are in the predicted direction. The average score for

both groups for "Imaginative" was virtually the same

and the composite rank order was identical.

"Broadminded" and "Logical“ were scored in the
opposite direction of our prediction and the composite
rank order showed the same direction. Neither of these
probably have as much to do with Competence as "Intelli—
gence" and "Capability." The one that scored markedly
different in the average score had a composite rank order
difference of only one. This was in "A Sense of Accom-
plishment," which seems to be a desire for Competence
rather than values which would determine Competence.

When the total differences in the average scores
are added up, one gets a difference of 1.52 in the oppo-
site direction of the prediction, or an average dif—
ference for each of the values of .25 in the Opposite
direction of the prediction.

Because the predicted direction was accomplished
.in only three of the six values, and because the pre-

ciicted direction was obtained in the values that are
nnore closely related to Competence, and yet because the
clifference between the two groups of students was small

aJId the total difference was in the opposite direction,

1

"J “I." .‘h “I fiu'awn .-

 

Il'

40

the prediction that liberal arts students would prefer
values of Competence to a greater degree than ministerial
students in the college was not confirmed.

Our first hypothesis also proposes that values of
Competence would be preferred by college students to a
greater degree than by seminarians. The predicted
direction was obtained in half of the six values measur-
ing Competence. The strongest trend in the predicted
direction was scored on "Broadminded" with a difference
of 2.93 between the average scores of collegians and semi-
narians. The difference in the composite rank order
scored for this value was four. "Imaginative" had a
difference of 1.17 in the predicted direction. "A Sense
of Accomplishment" scored in the opposite direction of
our prediction with a difference in the average score of
1.78 and a difference in the composite rank order score
of 2. The two values that we defined as having more
relevance to Competence were mixed. "Capable" was scored‘
virtually the same by the two groups and the composite
rank order was identical. "Intelligent" went in the
opposite direction of our prediction by a difference in
the average score of .73 and in the composite rank order
of 3.

When the difference between the average scores of
the collegians and the seminarians on each of the values

are added, it yields a .91 difference in the predicted

~va

 

41

direction with an average difference of .15 in the pre-
dicted direction. However, when the total difference in
the composite rank orders are added, it yields a dif-
ference of 4 in the opposite direction for an average
difference in composite rank ordering of .67.

Because the difference in the average score was
in the predicted direction while the difference in the
composite rank order was in the opposite direction,
because the two values most closely related to Competence
were mixed in direction and favoring the opposite direction
of the prediction, and because as many values went oppo-
site the predicted direction as for it, we conclude that
the hypothesis stating that college students will prefer
Competence values to a greater degree than seminarians
was not confirmed.

If the hypothesis as a whole is true, then the
differences found between liberal arts students and min-
isterial students in the college should continue in the
same direction when comparing college students with
seminarians. A comparison of the differences in the
average scores and the composite rank orders between the
two tables (1 and 2) shows that this is not so. The
trends started in the college carried over into the
seminary in four of the six values, but for two of them
(the two with the largest consistent differences) it

was opposite the predicted direction. The value

Fifi-a] III-r: ‘1"

In 0 M .A.."..'.

 

42

Table 2

Average Scores of College Students and Seminary Students
on Values Measuring Competence

 

 

 

Value College Seminary Difference

A Sense of Accom-

plishment 9.ll(9)a 7.33(7) -l.78b(-2)b
Broadminded ll.51(13) l4.44(l7) 2.93(4)
Capable 10.53(10) 10.56(10) .03
Logical 12.83(l7) 12.12(l4) - .7lb(-3)b
Intellectual 12.48(l6) ll.75(l3) - .73b(-3)b
Imaginative 13.52(18) l4.69(18) 1.17

 

 

 

 

Sum of the difference of average scores for

all six values .91
Average difference (.91 t 6) .15
Sum of difference in composite rank order —4b

 

aThe numbers in the parentheses stand for the
composite rank order of that value by that group.

bThe minus sign indicates that the difference
was Opposite the predicted direction.

43

Table 3

Differences in the Average Scores on Tables 1 and 2 on
Values Measuring Competence

 

 

Value Table 1 Table 2
A Sense of Accomplishment -l.23a(--1)a'b -l.78a(-2)a
Broadminded - .lSa(-2)a 2.93(4)
Capable .l3(2) .03
Logical - .6la(-2)a - .7la(-3)a
Intellectual .32 - .73a(-3)a
Imaginative .02 1.17

u" «V l'-_‘L

 

 

aThe minus sign indicates that the difference was
opposite the predicted direction.

bThe numbers in the parentheses stand for the
composite rank order for that value by that group.

‘Wi-a-q. .‘

 

 

 

 

‘
u.""l"

-
~v ~ao .DI '
A .

0
'4 n“ A

I
v‘ '80.!

u'-' v:

 

.1 .
o-Lh.
:: : I:

 

 

 

‘~
-
‘~
_-.:.
‘V
‘4.

 

44

designated "Broadminded" is interesting because the
trend started in the college is reversed noticeably when
comparing the seminarians with collegians. While the
two college groups were virtually the same for "Imagina-
tive," the seminarians seemed to prefer it over col-
legians, although the composite rank order stayed the
same.

The comparison of the data on these three tables
leads us to conclude that the first hypothesis as a whole
was not confirmed. In fact, the weight of all the evi-
dence seems to lean in the opposite direction of the
hypothesis, meaning that ministerial students tend to
slightly prefer values of Competence over nonministerial
students, and seminarians seem to very slightly prefer
values of Competence over college students.

II. Hypothesis Two--Social-Moral
Values

 

Our second hypothesis proposes that Social-Moral

values from the Rokeach Value Study will be preferred

 

to a greater degree by ministerial students in the col-
lege than by liberal arts students. As shown in Table 4
this prediction is upheld in five of the seven scales
measuring the Social-Moral values. The values used to
measure the Social-Moral component were: (1) Salvation,
(2) Clean, (3) Forgiving, (4) Obedient, (5) Mature Love,

(6) Loving, and (7) Polite.

 

45

Table 4

Average Scores of Ministerial and Nonministerial Students
on the College Level on Social-Moral Values

 

 

Value Nonministerial Ministerial Difference
Salvation 1.15ma l.06(l) .09
Clean ll.26(13) 12.21(14) -.95b(-l)b
Forgiving 6.46(4) 6.31(4) .15
Obedient 8.87(8) 7.04(6) l.83(2)
Mature Love 6.42(6) 5.92(4) .50(2)
Loving 4.ll(1) 4.43(l) --.32b
Polite 10.62(11) 10.34(10) .28(1)

 

 

 

 

K ‘, ...-

 

 

Sum of difference of average scores for all

seven values 1.58
Average difference (1.58 i 7) .23
Sum of difference for composite rank order 4

 

aThe numbers in the parentheses stand for the
composite rank order for that value by that group.

bThe minus sign indicates that the difference
xdas opposite the predicted direction.

 

 

I-I- :O"
...... .:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-._

 

 

§‘ §
5“ V
‘a
.,
t‘ .
a. a.
o
4‘
.-
o
«.c Zn,‘
4,”
'C

46

The nonministerial students preferred the value
designated "Clean" by an average score of .95 over the
ministerial students. This goes in the opposite
direction of what we predicted. "Loving" was also
preferred by the nonministerial students by .32. How-
ever, the composite rank order for this value stayed the
same. The greatest difference in the average score
between the two college groups was 1.83 for "Obedient,"
and this was in the direction predicted. "Mature Love"
was preferred in the predicted direction by .50, "Polite"
by .28, "Forgiving" by .15, and "Salvation" by .09.

When the difference of the average scores are
totaled, we get a total of 1.58 with an average dif-

ference for each value of .23 in the direction of our

prediction. This is not great, but it is in the direction

predicted. Also, the composite rank order is in the pre-
dicted direction with a total difference of four.

Looking over the different values designated as
Social-Moral, the one which seems least relevant to the
Social-Moral component is "Clean" since that relates
primarily to the physical. The adjectives on the test
used to help describe it are "tidy" and "neat." If that
Value were omitted because of its physical connotation,
then the predicted direction would be obtained in five
out of the six categories with a total difference in

the average scores of 2.53 and with an average difference

 

‘34. ..iv"

 

   

 

u... “H
—

>0. in

"D:. a

u ... I

'O;'v\‘

‘va. -‘

 

 

_ .
';a.
.

. U
. u .

 

 

-
6
N.
I
:--
.. .
u
'u
I
a,

 

47

of .42 for each of the remaining six values. The total
composite rank order difference would then increase to
five, leaving no value going in the opposite direction of
the prediction with their composite rank order.

Because the predicted direction was obtained in
five out of the seven values measured, and because the
total difference was in the predicted direction, we
interpret the data to confirm the fact that ministerial
students prefer Social-Moral values to a greater degree
than nonministerial students.

Our second hypothesis also proposes that semi-
narians would prefer Social-Moral values to a greater
degree than college students. Table 5 shows that this
predicted trend was obtained in five of the seven values.
The most decisive trend was found for the value desig-
nated as "Obedient" where we obtained a difference in
the average scores of 3.34 in the direction predicted.
The difference in the composite rank order was also 3
in the predicted direction. The second highest dif-
ference between the average scores was .97 for "Clean"
in the opposite direction of our prediction. "Loving,"
”Forgiving," and "Mature Love" had substantial dif-
ferences of .77, .67, and .58 respectively, all in the
direction predicted. However, the composite rank order

for "Forgiving" went in the opposite direction by 2.

v - 036'. hid.“ it“

 

48

Table 5

Average Scores of College Students and Seminary Students
on Values Measuring Morality

 

 

Value College Seminary Difference
Salvation 1.09(l)a l.24(l) - .15b
Clean ll.69(l4) 12.66(15) - .97b(-l)b
Forgiving 6.45(3) 5.78(5) .67(-2)b
Obedient 8.53(7) 5.l9(4) 3.34(3)
Mature Love 6.37(5) 5.79(4) .58(1)
Loving 4.46(l) 3.69(l) .77
Polite 10.64(ll) lO.59(ll) .05

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of differences of average scores for all

seven values 4.29
Average difference (4.29 % 7) .61
Sum of difference of composite rank order 1

 

aThe numbers in the parentheses stand for the
composite rank order for that value by that group.

bThe minus sign indicates that the difference
was opposite the predicted direction.

49

When the differences between the average scores
of the seven values are totalled, we obtain a total dif-
ference of the average scores of 4.29 with an average
difference for each of the seven values of .61.

Again, the value which seems to be more physical
than Social-Moral had a difference in the average scores
of .97 in the opposite direction from that predicted.
That value was designated as "Clean (neat, tidy)."

Because the predicted direction was obtained in
five of the seven values measuring the Social-Moral, and
because the total difference was in the predicted
direction, we interpret the data to confirm the hypothe-
sis that seminary students prefer Social-Moral values to
a greater degree than college students.

If the hypothesis as a whole is true, then the

differences in average scores found between nonministerial

and ministerial students in the college should continue
in the same direction when comparing college students
with seminarians. A comparison of the differences in
the average soores (see Table 6) between Tables 4 and 5
shows that this is generally true. The trends started
on the college level continued on into the level of
comparing seminarians with collegians in five out of
the seven Social-Moral values. One of these, "Clean,“
was in the direction opposite the prediction. In three

of the seven values ("Forgiving," "Obedient," and

 

In 0 cur.-

50

"Mature Love"), not only was the direction continued but
the degree of difference rose when moving from the col-
lege level to the seminary level. These data tend to
confirm the findings of Feather (11) and Rokeach (23).
The most noticeable difference in the direction predicted
and degree is for the value designated "Obedient." This
seems to suggest that as one grows in his commitment
toward the Christian ministry, he also values "Obedience"

more.

Table 6

Differences in the Average Scores on Tables 4
and 5 on Social-Moral Values

 

 

Value Table 4 Table 5
Salvation .09 -.15a
Clean -.95a —.97a
Forgiving .15 .67
Obedient 1.83 3.34
Mature Love .50 .58
Loving -.BZa .77
Polite .28 .05

 

aThe minus sign indicates that the difference was
opposite the predicted direction.

Because the direction predicted is shown on both
tables, we conclude that the second hypothesis as a whole

has been substantiated by the data.

 

m-m... nun“

51

III. Hypothesis Three--Evangelical
vs. Secular Students

 

 

Our third hypothesis proposes that the so-called
Social-Moral values will be preferred to a greater degree
by the students of a church-related college than by the
national average college student. Table 7 shows that

this is true.

 

For the national average, we used Milton Rokeach's F.“
chart (26, pp. 64, 65) for those who had some college
rather than the chart for students who had completed
college since our students were still in college. In _
l J

every case except one (Mature Love), those who had com-
pleted college preferred these values less than those who
had some college, which would only increase the dif-
ference. In the case of "Mature Love," those who had
completed college still preferred it less than the stu-
dents at the Grand Rapids Baptist College by 10.5 to 6.37
for a difference of 4.13 in the predicted direction.
Only in one case (Clean) did the national average prefer
the value to the students we studied, but those who had
completed college on the national sample preferred it
less than our students by 13.2 to 11.69 for a difference
of 1.51.

When adding up the differences between the
national average and the average given by the students
in our study, the difference is 28.57 in the predicted

direction, or an average of 4.08 for each of the seven

52

Table 7

Average Scores on Social-Moral Values Between Students at
the Grand Rapids Baptist College and the National

Average Published by Rokeach in 1973

 

National

 

 

 

 

 

Value Religious Students Averagea Difference
Salvation 1.09mb 10.3(11) 9.21(10)
Clean 11.69(14) 10.6(13) -l.09C(-l)c
Forgiving 6.45(3) 8.8(6) 2.35(3)
Obedient 8.53(7) 14.7(18) 6.l7(11)
Mature Love 6.37(5) 12.1(14) 5.73(9)
Loving 4.46(l) 9.6(10) 5.l4(9)
Polite 10.64(ll) 11.6(15) .96(4)
Sum of difference of all seven values 28.57
Average difference (28.57 % 7) 4.08
Sum of difference of composite rank order 45

 

aThese statistics were taken from Rokeach, M. The
Nature of Human Values, New York, New York, Free Press,

 

1973.
b

The numbers in the parentheses stand for the

composite rank order for that value by that group.

cThe minus sign indicates that the difference was
opposite the predicted direction.

 

53

values measured. The total difference in composite rank
order is 45 with an average difference in the composite
rank order for each value of 6.43 in the predicted
direction.

Therefore, we interpret the data to mean that
this hypothesis, which states that students in a religious
college will prefer Social-Moral values to a greater
degree than a national sample, has been firmly estab-
lished, and tends to confirm the findings of Rokeach (23)
and Feather (11). The only value not confirming the
findings of Rokeach is the one designated "Clean." He
found it to be preferred by Baptists over those who were
less conservative. The students in our study preferred
it less, and the more committed they became toward the
ministry, the less they preferred it. Perhaps it shows
that the students in our study were more concerned with
inner or spiritual virtues such as Salvation, Obedience,
Mature Love, and Loving, rather than outward or physical
virtues.

The highest difference is found for the value
designated "Salvation," which is to be expected, espe-
cially since the students we studied were in an evangel-
ical college which strongly believes in eternity con-
sisting of either Heaven or Hell. The second highest
difference was obtained for "Obedient." Evidently,

evangelical Christian students feel that obedience is

 

54

much more important than do other students. And the
more committed they become toward the ministry, the more
important it seems to become. The two descriptive words
which follow "Obedient" on the value survey are "dutiful"
and "respectful." Whether or not students saw this value

in relationship to parents or to the state, we do not

 

know. It would be an interesting study to see if evan- rm;
gelical Christians are more law abiding than others.

This finding would suggest that perhaps this might be

true. Obedience could be motivated by either fear or

love. It might be that the two groups defined it dif- .- 7

ferently.

Both "Loving," which Rokeach describes as
"affectionate" and "tender," and "Mature Love," which
he describes as "sexual and spiritual intimacy," are
significantly preferred by the Religious Student over
the National Average. This would indicate that intimacy,
affection, and tenderness are preferred to a greater
degree by evangelical Christian students. If this be
so, evangelical students should prefer selfish values to
a lesser degree. But "Pleasure" is preferred by the
evangelical students to a greater degree than the National
Average by an average score of 13.6 to 14.8 for a 1.2
difference. However, the composite rank order for both

groups was 16.

55

"Social Recognition" was preferred by the evan-
gelicals by 13.4 to 15.1 for a difference of 1.7. How-
ever, the national sample did prefer "A Comfortable Life"
to a greater degree on the average than the evangelicals
by 11.2 to 13.1 for a difference of 1.9. They also
preferred "Freedom" by 5.4 to 9.4 for a difference of
4.0. So while evangelicals prefer intimacy, tenderness,
and affection, they do not necessarily seem to be more
or less selfish.

Table 8 reveals that other values which seem to
measure Social-Moral values might be "Helpful," "Honest,"
and "Self Control." Both "Helpful" and "Self Control"
were preferred by the evangelicals over the national
sample by an average score of 8.2 to 9.5 and 6.7 to 9.2
respectively, for an average difference of 1.3 and 2.5
respectively. "Honest" was preferred, however, by the
national sample by an average score of 3.4 to 4.7 for a
1.3 difference. This is partially explained by the fact
that the evangelicals gave a preference to "Loving" over
”Honest." In composite rank order, evangelicals ranked
"Loving“ as number 1 and "Honest" as number 2, while the
national sample ranked "Loving" as 10 and "Honest" as 1.
So the evangelical's slight preference for "Loving" over
"Honest" (4.46 to 4.66) would naturally cause them to
give a higher number (show less preference) for "Honest."

With these considerations noted, we can say that these

.3 Puma

 

 

l‘

56

Table 8

Terminal Values
(Using the Composite Rank Order of the National Sample from
Rokeach to list the values in order, the graph compares
Rokeach's National Average scores with the average scores
of our Evangelical students.)

 

Family Security
A werld of Peace
Freedom

iisdom

Self Respect

A Sense of Accomp
Happiness
Equality

Inner Harmony
National Security
Salvation

True Friendship
A Comfortable Lif
Mature Love

A world of Beauty
Pleasure

Social Reoogni
An Exciting Life

National Sample
Egangelical Sam 1

 

 

 

“an O

u

"on" I
c

u
S‘AI an
' In.

.‘lenvu

57

Table 8

Instrumental Values
(Using the Composite Rank Order of the National Sample from
Rokeach to list the values in order, the graph compares
Rokeach's National Average scores with the average scores
of our Evangelical students.)

 

Honest
Responsible

Courageous

 

Broadminded
Ambitious

 

Forgiving
Capable

Self Control
Helpful

 

Loving
Independent
Intelligent
Clean
Cheerful
Polite
Logical
Imaginative
Obedient

National Sample
Evangelical Sampl

 

g
o-
‘3'

l1.

 

Q?

    

 

 

 

“Ia-

..
'a....

 

l.-

'1‘

'b.

.5-

n.‘

 

 

58

three added values tend to substantiate the original
hypothesis that the Social-Moral values are preferred
to a greater degree by the students of a church-related
evangelical college than by the national average.

It is interesting to note that the National
Sample preferred to a fairly great degree the values of
"Family Security," "A World of Peace," "Freedom,"
"Equality," "National Security," "Courageous," "Broad-
minded," "Ambitious," "Independent," and "Intelligent."

The Evangelical students in turn preferred "Inner Harmony,

"Salvation," "True Friendship," "Mature Love," "Social
Recognition," "An Exciting Life," "Forgiving," "Self
Control," "Loving," "Cheerful,“ and "Obedient." These

seem to suggest that the National Sample prefer things
that make your circumstances more pleasant and Competence,
while the evangeliCals prefer the Spiritual, Social, and
Moral values.

All of these findings show that the Rokeach Value
Study does differentiate between persons. It would be
expected that religious students would prefer the Moral
and Spiritual, and since this is found, it could be seen
as a validation of Rokeach's Value Study.

IV. Hypothesis Four--Trend in
Values of Competence

 

 

Our fourth hypothesis proposes that the values

of Competence will be preferred by freshmen to a greater

 

 

59

degree than seniors and to even a greater degree than by

seminarians. Generally this prediction was not supported.

Table 9

Average Scores Between Freshmen, Seniors, and
Seminarians on Values of Competence

 

 

Value Freshmen Senior Seminary
A Sense of Accomplishment 9.43(9)a 8.59(9) 7.33(7)
Broadminded ll.32(l3) ll.96(15) l4.44(l7)
Capable 10.62(ll) 10.33(9) 10.56(10)
LOgical l3.0l(16) ll.74(l4) 12.12(l4)
Intellectual l3.73(l7) 12.00(l6) ll.75(l3)
Imaginative 14.13(18) 12.63(18) 14.69(18)

¥

aThe numbers in the parentheses stand for the
Conmxosite rank order for that value by that group.

A trend Opposite the prediction was consistent

Witii both "A Sense of Accomplishment" and "Intellectual."

There was no clear trend for the three values designated

"Capable," "Logical," or "Imaginative" in that the seniors

preferred all three to either Freshmen or Seminarians.

The only clear trend in the direction predicted was for

tika value designated "Broadminded," which we have stated

before does not relate to Competence as well as some of

the other values.

Therefore, we conclude that this hypothesis is

r“3t confirmed. The weight of the evidence would further

 

‘1“

n-c.‘

I...‘
co

1
.c'(A
—

“- uv

-
ny-OI-

i‘v-
.

"nu

 

 

60

suggest that there is a slight leaning to the opposite
direction of that predicted, meaning that the seminarians
preferred values of Competence slightly more than seniors
did, and the seniors preferred them slightly more than
freshmen.

V. Hypothesis Five--Trend in
Social-Mora14Values

 

 

Our fifth hypothesis proposes that the Social-
Moral values will be preferred by seminarians to a greater
degree than by seniors in college, and to an even greater
degree than by freshmen. This hypothesis was not con-

firmed by the data:

Table 10

Average Scores Between Freshmen, Seniors, and
Seminarians on Social-Moral Values

.1.“

 

 

kvalue Freshmen Senior Seminary
Salvation 1.ll(1)a 1.00m 1.24m
Clean 11.70(14) 11.07(12) 12.66(15)
Forgiving 5.75(3) 7.19(5) 5.78(5)
Obedient 8.13(7) 9.30(7) 5.19M)
Mature Love 6.57(6) 5.ll(4) 5.79M)
Loving 4.223(1) 3.22(1) 3.69(1)
Polite 10.50(10) 10.67(11) 10.59(11)
\

 

c aThe numbers in the parentheses stand for the
OmPosite rank order for that value by that group.

 

 

 

 

-.4

...

yr-

‘01

u...

‘v

‘e

 

61

Table 10 reveals none of the seven values has any
clear trend. For two of the values ("Salvation" and
"Clean") the seminarians showed the least preference,
which is contrary to our prediction. In four of the
values, the seminarians scored in between the freshmen
and seniors, leaving us with no trend. Only for the
value designated "Obedient" did the seminarians give a
decided preference. Even though the freshmen preferred
it to a greater degree than seniors, yet seminarians
Preferred it to a greater degree than either freshmen
or seniors.

Therefore we conclude that this hypothesis is
not.<:onfirmed by the data. It also suggests that trends

whicfl) are started in the college are sometimes reversed

in the seminary .

VI. Hypothesis Six-~Prescriptive
RéligIOus Orientations

Our sixth hypothesis proposes that students with

greater prescriptive orientations in religion will prefer

ting values of "Salvation," "Forgiveness," and "Equality"
t" a greater degree than those who are more proscriptive
1‘1 their religious orientation. This was partially
cc’nfirmed in that the predicted trend was found in two
(If the three values listed and the opposite trend was

rKDt found in the third value.

 

62

 

umnu How umcuo xccu mnemomfioo on» now pcmum mommsusmumm

.msonw won» an 05Hc>
can CH newness ones

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

om.ma om.m oo.a N Ha m
nH.mH 00.5 oo.H. m ca e
Amavmw.ma Illll Amvmo.n llll flavo~.a
304 oo Hm.ma ma.> om.a ma m m
mm.ma mm.w HH.H mm m w
ma.ma mm.m No.a mm b h
em.ma mm.m H~.H mm m m
Amavom.ma Illll Amvma.m Illl Aavno.a
.ccz NNN mo.mH mo.m No.a mm m m
om.~a mn.m oo.H om e 0H
em.ma mm.m oo.H mm m HH
oo.va om.m oo.a m N NH
Avavvm.ma_lllll Amvmm.m Illl. caavoo.a
roam Hm mm.ma ao.m oo.H m a ma
oo.oa oo.n oo.H a o ea
. mums muoom cuoom
cum 2 audacovm Im>HmHom coauc>amm z m>Humeomoum m>wumfluommum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

can c>wumwuomoum cows mucmpsum :mm3uom mozam> camuuou mo mouoom ommum><

ncoauoucoauo msowowaom msflumwuommum

Ha canoe

 

63

Table 11 reveals that there were no individuals
who scored in the lowest three categories on the Pre-
scriptive scale (0, l, and 2), so they were omitted from
the table. When the individual categories are studied,
it is difficult to find a trend, but when the categories
are grouped into fours to give to us prescriptive groups

Two
I

of high, medium, and low, the definite trends are seen .
I

in two of the three values and an Opposite trend is not

_ ‘I -r vwnl

found in the third value.

For the value designated as "Salvation," the

 

trend.is that the more prescriptive the religious orien-
taticnn the more they prefer "Salvation." The dif-
ference becomes exaggerated when one realizes that it
iS very rare for a student in an evangelical college to
giVEB "Salvation" anything but a first preference. This
is (nonfirmed by the fact that the average score given to
"Salvation" is 1.1 by the entire student body.

The same trend is found for the value designated
"Fergiveness." The more prescriptive the student's
lflaligious orientation becomes, the more he tends to
Prefer "Forgiveness." This is true when calculating
tine average scores as well as the composite rank order
for the value by the three groups.

NO such trend was found for "Equality," since

each group scored very closely in their average prefer-

enCe, and since the "Medium" roup preferred "Equality"
g

b

64

slightly more than either the "High" or the "Low" group.
fumever, when consideration is given to the composite
rank order, then there seems to be a preference for
"Equality" shown by the "High" proscriptive group, which
is in the Opposite direction of our prediction.

Therefore, this hypothesis is partially confirmed.
The trend was found for values designated "Salvation" F_‘¥
and "Forgiveness," but not for "Equality." 1

VII. Hypothesis Seven-~Proscriptive
Religious Orientation r If

 

 

Our seventh hypothesis proposes that the higher .i.a
the pmoscriptive score becomes on the religious orien-
tatixan, the more the person will prefer "Pleasure" as

a Value. This hypothesis was not substantiated.

Table 12

.A.Comparison of Proscriptive Religious Orientation
on the Value Designated "Pleasure"

x

 

Proscriptive Group High Medium LOW
\

Pleasure 13.91(17)a 14.00(17) 12.61(12)
\

 

aThe numbers in the parentheses stand for the
(“thosite rank order for that value by that group.

On Table 12, we divided the proscriptive religious
orientation into "High," "Medium," and "Low" groups in
the same manner as we did on Table 11 in analyzing

Hypothesis Six. By doing this, we find that the average

‘———————-J

65

mxue given to the "High," "Medium," and "Low" proscrip-
tive groups were 13.91, 14.00, and 12.61 respectively.
Because the "Medium" group preferred "Pleasure" the
least, there was no trend found. However, if the
"Medium” group is omitted, since it is neither highly
proscriptive or prescriptive, then we find that the

"Low" proscriptive group preferred "Pleasure" by a

difference of 1.30 (13.91 — 12.61) in their average

A." 1

scores. Likewise the "Low" proscriptive group gave it

a composite rank order of 12, while the "High" group

ii

 

nrfi Iran.
.

gave it a composite rank order of 17, a difference of
five. All of this is in the opposite direction of our
Prediction. Thus it appears that the "Low" proscriptive
Students preferred "Pleasure" over the "High" proscrip-
tive: student. Or to state it another way, the student
Witt: a prescriptive religious orientation preferred
"Plxaasure" to a greater degree than the proscriptive
Stllldent did.

Therefore, we conclude that this hypothesis was

ruyt confirmed, and a preference was found in the opposite

direction of the prediction.

VIII. Hypothesis Eight--Trends in
d—ReiigiOus Orientation

Our eighth hypothesis proposes that liberal arts
freShmen will be least prescriptive, ministerial seniors

W111 be more prescriptive, and seminarians will be most

IIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl--__‘IIIIIII

66

prescriptive. This hypothesis was not confirmed and

the evidence points to a trend in the opposite direction

of the prediction.

Table 13

Average Prescriptive Scores

 

Nonministerial Freshmen Ministerial Seniors Seminary

8.43 8.58 7.32

 

As Table 13 reveals, the prescriptive scores of
lununinisterial freshmen, ministerial seniors, and semi-
narians were 8.43, 8.58, and 7.32 respectively. Thus
there is no definite trend. The predicted trend was very
Sli4ihtly maintained in the college, but then went defi-
nitfialy in the opposite direction in the seminary, giving
the! seminarians the lowest prescriptive score rather than
the highest as was predicted.

Table 14 shows that nonministerial students in
thfi! college are the most prescriptive in their religious
orientation, ministerial students in the college are
leSS prescriptive, and seminarians are the least pre-
scriptive.

At the same time, Table 15 reveals that semi-
narians are less prescriptive than college students. If
y‘"4 compare each class separately, the trend is not so

definite, but if you group Freshmen and Sophomores

 

 

67

Table 14

Average Prescriptive Scores of Ministerial and
Nonministerial Students

 

 

 

; College - College
Seminary Ministerial Nonministerial
7032 8'02 8.36
Table 15

Average Scores with Different Classes in the College

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Class Prescriptive Score
Freshmen 8.27
8.35
SOphomore 8.46
8.31
Junior 8.11
8.19
Senior 8.38
Seminary 7.32 7.32 7.32

 

 

 

 

68

together as Underclassmen and group Juniors and Seniors

together as Upperclassmen, then a trend through college

appears which continues on into seminary. It appears that

the longer one stays in school, the less prescriptive he
becomes, and that their intentions concerning the min-
istry nor their age are as important in determining
their prescriptive orientation as the influence of the
school itself.

Thus our hypothesis is not confirmed and the
weight of the evidence seems to go contrary to the pre-
diction since the seminarians are the least prescriptive
of all groups.

IX. Hypothesis Nine--Inf1uence of
Parent-Child Relations

 

 

Our final hypothesis is concerned with student's
religious orientation as reflected in the child-raising
habits of the parents. More specifically, it was felt
that rewarding parents would produce a more prescriptive
orientation among their children, and that punitive
parents would produce a more proscriptive orientation.
In other words, there should be a positive correlation

between rewarding parents and prescriptive orientation

and between punishing parents and proscriptive orientation.

Table 16 reveals that generally this is true.
When comparing parents with religious orien-

tation, the trends are more easily discernible when we

 

69

r . 3151...! ...-3.. ...2

hi

.stummou nonuoa can on cam Hmcucm on» On

cm>Hm mcuoom msu weaves Mamsflm an pmcflmuno mum qusHoo omega ca newsman mean

.manwmmom me 5 mo muoom Houou g

.umme mflnmsowucamm CHHSUIucoucm can
so annoyed mecca Op mucmpsum Hmasowuumm we sm>wm muoom can cumowpcw newness one

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hm 00.0 0N.m mm.m 00.0 HB.N vw.N 30A .Hm
MNN 00.0 mm.m vm.m 00.0 0w.m vm.m .Umz .002
00 mm.0 vo.m mm.m Nh.m vh.m mm.N .Hm 30A
a 00.0H 00.0 00.0 00.5 00.m 00.0 0 0H
m vm.n n0.m h0.m 00.0 mm.N m0.N a ma
mm 00.0 00.m ov.m 00.0 00.N 00.N N NH
NN av.0 mo.m Nm.m mm.m mn.m N0.N m AH
on 00.0 vm.m 00.m 00.0 00.N vm.~ 0 0H
N0 H0.0 vm.m 5v.m 50.0 hm.m 0H.m m 0
mm 00.0 mv.m v0.m 00.0 mm.N 00.m 0 0
mm mm.0 vo.m mv.m H0.m N0.N 00.N w 5
mm 00.0 HH.m mm.m mw.m 0>.N hm.m m 0
ma 00.0 ho.m mm.m 00.0 nm.~ ~0.m m m
0 mm.0 00.m mm.m 00.0 om.N 00.m 0H 0
N 00.0 om.H om.N om.v 00.N om.N HH m
csuom Hocumm umnuoz csuom Hmnucm Hmnuoz m>Humwuomoum m>wumwuommum

Z

mucmucm mcwpnczmm

mucwucm w>wufls5m

cowucusmfluo mSmeHHCm

 

soflpcucmwuo msowmaacm 0cm moowuocum mswucmmlpawno Gmmzucm someucmaou <

0H OHQMB

70

group the twelve categories of religious orientation into
three groups, the first four categories becoming the "Low"
prescriptive or "High" proscriptive, the middle four cate-
gories becoming the "Medium" group for both prescriptive
and proscriptive measurements, and the last four cate-
gories becoming the "High" prescriptive or the "Low"
proscriptive group. This was done on the bottom three
lines of the table.

Punitive mothers gave a clear consistent trend:
the more punitive they were perceived to be by the stu-
dents, the more proscriptive were the students and like-
wise, the less punitive they were perceived to be the
more prescriptive were the students. Punitive fathers
did not give as clear a trend, although when the "Medium"
group was omitted because it is neither prescriptive or
proscriptive, the same trend is slightly present. When
adding the scores together, and again omitting the
"Medium" group, the same trend is noticeable. There-
fore, though the score differences are not great the
trend does seem to appear that a punitive orientation
among parents tends to make for a proscriptive religious
orientation which causes the student to be more aware of
wrong-doing than right-doing.

Rewarding mothers did not give the consistent
pattern toward prescriptive orientations as punitive

mothers did toward proscriptive orientations. But by

r i
-__ __l

 

A.'.

.... I

n-

....

on"

u-a

'74

.A.

~V:

(I:

 

u
a

I

D!

71

omitting the "Medium," a slight trend does appear to confirm
the prediction that rewarding mothers tend to produce pre-
scriptive students. But consistent trends in that direction
were found among rewarding fathers, and also when the

scores of the parents were combined. Therefore, the data
seem to confirm the fact that rewarding parents tend to
produce prescriptive students which causes them to be Fe_j
more aware of righteousness than sin. This is in keeping
with the findings of McKinney (19, p. 79) in his 1970

study.

 

Our data also seem to say that punitive mothers :a_r
are more influential in producing proscriptive students
and rewarding fathers are more influential in producing
prescriptive students.

If we eliminate the middle group of religious
orientation, we can compare the highly prescriptive and
the highly proscriptive student with their relationship
to their parents. As Table 17 shows, the prescriptive
or proscriptive male or female does not score their
mothers very differently in relationship to their ten-
dency to reward or punish. Nor does the prescriptive
female score her father much differently than the pro-
scriptive female in relation to his rewarding or punish-
ing. But the prescriptive and proscriptive males do
score their fathers quite differently on their tendency

to reward or punish. The prescriptive male saw their

72

Table 17

A Comparison Between Parent-Child Relationships and the
Student's Religious Orientation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre- Pro- Pre- Pro-
scriptive scriptive scriptive scriptive
Male Male Female Female
N 10 32 22 29

Mother F i
Reward 78.7 76.3 76.4 77.2 g '
Mother
Punish 71.0 70.1 65.0 68.1
Father . _
Reward 78.8 68.9 70.5 73.1 g
Father
Punish 66.0 71.1 62.5 59.2
Mother
Symbolic 79.6 79.6 79.0 84.4
Mother
Direct Obj. 70.1 66.8 62.4 66.9
Father
Symbolic 78.0 73.4 74.4 71.6
Father
Direct Obj. 66.8 66.5 58.5 60.6
Mother
Reward 76.8 76.8
Mother
Punish 70.3 66.8
Father
Reward 71.3 72.0
Father
Punish 69.9 60.6

 

 

 

The numbers indicate the score that that particu-
lar group of students gave to the parents of that particu-
lar characteristic. A total score of 140 is possible.

73

fathers as more rewarding than the proscriptive males
(78.8 to 68.9 on a 140 point scale) and saw their fathers
more rewarding than punishing (78.8 to 66.0). The pro-
scriptive male saw their fathers as more punitive than
rewarding (71.1 to 68.9) and saw them as more punitive

than the prescriptive male (71.1 to 66.0). Lifting

 

those four scores from Table 17 would result in the
following:
Prescriptive Proscriptive .
Male Male j
Rewarding 3.,
Fathers 78.8 68.9
Punishing
Fathers 66.0 71.1

The number indicates the mean score which that
particular student gave to his father in terms of
rewarding and punishing. This would indicate that
rewarding fathers tend to produce prescriptive sons
and punitive fathers tend to produce proscriptive sons.

Table 17 also reveals that male and female stu-
dents saw their fathers and mothers as about the same in
relationship to their tendency to reward. But males
generally saw both their fathers and mothers as more
punitive than the females did, indicating that their
parents tend to punish sons more than they do their
daughters. Also, among the prescriptive and proscriptive

males, 76% of them were proscriptive (32 to 10) in

74

comparison to 57% of the females. This too, could indi-
cate that the more punitive stance toward the sons by the
parents tend to cause them to be more proscriptive.

It is interesting to note the influence of puni-
tive fathers on daughters. Prescriptive females saw
their fathers as more punitive than proscriptive females,
indicating that punishing fathers have the Opposite r_—1

effect on children of the Opposite sex.

 

if N
k...

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF OTHER DATA

The foregoing discussion raises another question:

does the religious orientation influence the values of
the person? Table 18 reveals that the most marked dif-
ference was found for the value "Helpful." This was a
consistent trend appearing through "Low," "Medium," and
"High" groups, with a difference for that value on the
average score of 2.82 between the "Low" and the "High"
groups. The composite rank order showed a difference
of five. Thus we can clearly say that the higher the
prescriptive orientation of the student, the more he
prefers the value designated "Helpful." This would seem
to be in keeping with the findings of Olejnik and
McKinney (21) that prescriptive children are more gen-
erous.

Another trend, which was almost as great, was
for the value designated "Intellectual." There was a
difference for the average score on this value of 2.04
between the "Low" and "High" prescriptive groups with a

composite rank order difference of four. The trend here

75

-‘fl‘ .Kfil”:

 

76

Table 18

A Comparison Between Religious Orientation and Values Among College and
Seminary Students in a Church-Related School

 

 

 

Prescriptive Score 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Difference
Between
Proscriptive Group Low Medium High Lo & Hi
A Comfortable Life 13.20(14)a 13.51(l4) 12.16(ll) 1.o4(3)
An Exciting Life 11.84(1l) 11.75(ll) 12.84(13) 1.00(2)
A Sense of Accom- '
plishment 8.74(9) 7.08(7) 9.45(10) .71(1)
A World of Peace 13.69(15) 13.46(l3) 13.00(15) .69
A World of Beauty l3.90(16) l3.91(l6) l3.78(17) .12(l)
Equality 12.88(12) 12.60(12) 12.84(14) .04(2)
Family Security 7.94(8) 7.38(8) 8.26(8) .32
Freedom 8.75(10) 9.90(10) 7.90(7) .85(3)
Happiness 6.73(6) 6.85(6) 6.29(5) .44(1)
Inner Harmony 4.95(2) 4.69(2) 6.13(4) 1.18(2)
Mature Love 5.93(4) 6.31(5) 6.74(6) .81(2)
National Security 14.47(18) l4.63(18) l4.52(18) .35
lPleasure l3.91(17) l4.00(17) 12.61(12) 1.30(5)
Salvation l.20(l) 1.07(l) 1.00(1) .20
Self Respect 7.83(7) 7.63(9) 8.84(9) 1.01(2)
Social Recognition 13.0S(13) 13.53(15) l3.6l(16) .56(3)
True Friendship 6.70(5) 6.05(4) 5.87(3) .83(2)
Wisdom 5.30(3) 4.77(3) 5.16(2) .140.)
Panhitious 8.92(7) 10.11(9) 10.03(ll) 1.11(4)
Broadminded 12.34(16) 11.64(13) 12.10(13) .24(3)
Capable 11.22(l3) 10.42(10) ll.23(12) .01(1)
Cuneerful 9.54(8) 9.l7(8) 8.42(7) 1.12(1)
c3lean ll.49(15) ll.76(l4) 12.20(14) .7l(1)
Chourageous ll.10(12) 10.81(12) 9.87(10) 1.32(2)
FWorgiveness 7.05(5) 6.18(3) 5.93(3) 1.12(2)
lielpful 9.95(9) 8.18(7) 7.13(4) 2.82(5)
Honest 4.81(2) 4.45(l) 4.52(2) .29
Imaginative 14.61(18) 13.63(18) 13.81(18) .80
Independent 11.34(l4) 12.76(16) 12.97(l6) l.63(2)
Intellectual 10.86(ll) 12.89(17) 12.90(15) 2.04(4)
Logical 12.69(17) 12.73(15) 13.42(l7) .73
Loving 4.01(l) 4.66(2) 3.29(1) .72
Obedient 8.54(6)‘ 7.98(6) 8.7l(8) .l7(2)
Polite 10.80(10) 10.70(ll) 9.80(9) 1.00(1)
Responsible“ 6.04(3) 6.47(5) 7.29(5) l.25(2)
Self Control 6.52(4) 6.38(4) 7.39(6) .87(2)

 

aThe numbers in the parentheses stand for the composite rank order
of that value for that group.

 

 

77

was also consistent throughout the three groups. With

this value, the more prescriptive oriented preferred
the value designated "Intellectual" to a lesser degree.
Conversely, the more proscriptive student preferred
"Intellectual" as a value to a greater degree than the
prescriptive student.

Another strong consistent trend is found for the
value designated as ”Independent." Again the "High"
Proscriptive student preferred this value to a greater
degree than the "High" prescriptive by a difference in
the average score of 1.63 and a difference in the com-
POsite rank order of two.

A fairly strong and consistent trend was found

qu: the value called "Courageous." This time the "High"

Prtescriptive preferred this value by a difference in the
aVerage score of 1.32 and a difference in the composite
rank order of two.

"Pleasure" was not as consistent, but the dif-
ftarence in the average score was 1.30 and the difference
:Lln the composite rank order was five, with the "High"
prescriptive group preferring that value to a greater

cl(agree than the "High" proscriptive group.

A consistent trend was found for "Responsible"
"With the proscriptive student preferring it to the pre-
55<3riptive by a difference in the average score of 1.25.

Iln.the composite rank order, a difference of two was

obtained .

 

‘2.--

78

A consistent trend was found for the value

designated "Ambitious." A difference between the "Low"

and the "High" prescriptive groups was 1.11 in the
average score, and a difference of four in the composite
rank order, with the more proscriptive student preferring

it to a greater degree than the prescriptive student.
Consistent trends were also found for "Forgive-

ness" and "Cheerful" with a difference of 1.12 for both

Of them on the average score; the prescriptive student

Preferring both of them.
The following lists (Table 19) will give you the

ValJJeS preferred by the prescriptive and proscriptive

ngHJpS, omitting the "Medium" group which is neither

highly prescriptive or proscriptive. The numbers indi-

Cate the difference in the average score given to that

Value, while the number in the parehthesis indicates

the difference in the composite rank order. The first

g"roup represents those values whose average score dif-

f(fired 1.00 or more, and representing a marked difference.

{brie second group have average score differences from .50

tzt) .99 and thus have some meaning. The average score of

the third group differed from .01 to .49 and thus had

"eary little meaning. In the last group the difference

J<r1.the average score went one way while the difference

J<r1 the composite rank order went the other, thus appear-

3iJng to show no difference. It should be noted that we

 

79

Table 19

Values Preferred by Proscriptive and Prescriptive
Students

 

Prescriptive Prefer

Proscriptive Prefer

Helpful 2.85(5) Intellectual 2.04(4)
Courageous l.32(2) Independent l.63(2)
Pleasure 1.30(5) Responsible l.25(2)
Forgiveness 1.12(2) Inner Harmony 1.18(2)
Cheerful 1.12(1) Ambitious l.1l(4)
A Comfortable Self Respect 1.01(2)
Life 1.04(3) An Exciting Life 1.00(2)
Polite 1.00(2)
Freedom .85(3) Self Control .87(2)
Thane Friendship .83(2) Mature Love .81(2)
Imaginative . 80(0) Logical . 73(0)
Loving .72(0) A Sense of
A World of Peace .69(0) Accomplishment .71(1)
Social Recognition .56(3)
Happiness .44(l) National Security .35(0)
Honest .29(0) Family Security .32(0)
BIfoadminded .24(3) Obedient .17(2)
Salvation . 20(0)
lsdom .14(1)
A World Of Beauty .12(-1)a Clean .71(-l)a
Equality . 04 (-2) a Capable . 01(-1) a
\

 

aThe minus sign indicates that the composite rank
cbltrder went in the Opposite direction as the average score

er that value.

 

 

"1

.‘ I"

 

 

l
c

o
o.

 

80

are not saying that proscriptive students do not prefer
Helpful, Courageous, etc., but that they simply prefer
these values Le_s_s than prescriptive students. Again, we
are not indicating that prescriptive students do not

prefer Intelligence, Independence, etc., but that they

Simply prefer these values less than proscriptive stu-

I’D I (n.—

dents.

As one reads the list, especially of the first
group where the most difference is found, one receives

the impression that the prescriptive group prefers values

 

'l JYZ". ."

with social significance while the proscriptive grOuP

prefers values that are personal. The first value in

both lists, the value with the greatest difference in
average score and composite rank order, illustrates this
Well. The prescriptive seem to prefer "Helpful" far

mOre than the proscriptive, while the proscriptive prefer

a more Personal value, "Intellectual." The prescriptive

student might be characterized as other-oriented in the
s - '
ense that he is interested in others: Whlle the pro-

scri ~ . . . . . .
ptlve student is more inner-oriented, indicating

tha .
t ha is more concerned Wlth self. It would be

intereS ting to see if the proscriptive orientation cor-
relates. with a person's self-image. From our data, it
would seem that a high proscriptive orientation would
correlate with a low self-image, a person who is not free

to think of others but is preoccupied with himself.

‘7"1!

 

 

81

"Equality," a value that we predicted would
characterize a prescriptive orientation was a value
Whose average score put it on the side of the prescrip-
tive. But this difference (.04) was almost nonexistent.
However, the composite rank order difference was two,
putting it on the proscriptive side. So that the pro-
Scrj-Ptive student prefers "Equality" as much, and maybe
a bit more than the prescriptive-

"Salvation" was also predicted to be a value

preferred by prescriptive studentS. The difference

 

appears to be small, but this is deceiving. There is
a <30nsistent trend through "Low," "Medium," and "High"
(Table 18) indicating that prescriptive students do
Prefer salvation to a greater degree than the proscrip-
tive Students. And as we have already noted this dif-
ference is magnified when we consider that it is rare
for the students studied to give anything but a first
Preference to "Salvation." Again, I would predict that
"Salvation" would be significantly preferred by a pre-
scriptive orientation if the study was done among a more
repreSQntative sample of students in the United States.
"pleasure" was predicted to be a value preferred
by proscriptive students, and as we noted before, this

is “Qt It was preferred to a greater degree by those

$0.

of _ .
a Dr escriptive orientation .

82

Since prescriptive orientations tend to emphasize

righteousness and proscriptive orientations tend to call

attention to sin, which orientation makes a person more

moral, and which makes him a better minister?
Morality is not clearly measured by the Rokeach

WSurvey. Nor is it easy to define. We have indi-

cated before that perhaps "Salvation," "Clean," "For- F u

giving," "Obedient," "Mature Love," "Loving," and
Then we added

 

I
'Polite" might be a measure of morality.

to that list "Helpful," "Honest," and "Self Control."

 

Of these ten values, six are on the prescriptive side

and four are on the proscriptive list. However, none

of them appear very high on the proscriptive list, while
"Helpful," "Forgiveness," and "Polite" are high on the
prescriptive list. These three would seem to be essential
in the life of a minister. If a test measuring morality

were created and correlated with prescriptive and pro-
scriptive orientations, it would be my contention that

the prescriptive orientation would score higher on

morality. The Bible says, "the fear of the Lord is the

beginning of Wisdom." That statement would indicate
that a proscriptive orientation is needed to begin a
moral life: but that maturity in morality is reached by
a more prescriptive orientation. So the New Testament

em . .
Plies izes love, compaSSlon, mercy, grace, patience,

and kindneSS. If such a test could be conceived, it

83

w'CHild be interesting to see if a certain amount of pro-
SCriptive orientation is needed to start moral character
While a prescriptive orientation is needed to develop it.
One question we have not yet raised. Does the
mainner in which parents punish or reward their Children
jJIfluence their prescriptive or proscriptive orientation?
Table 20 shows that there is not a clear trend. But when
(“unparing the bottom three lines for the "Low," "High,"
and "Medium" groups one finds a slight correlation between
prescriptive orientations with symbolic child-rearing
practices and between proscriptive orientations with
direct-(ibject child-rearing practiceS. That simply

means tliat if you reward children with gifts and punish

them by’ taking away gifts, they develop a more proscrip-

tive Ortientation of emphasizing sin. If you reward
childrtan with such things as attention and love and
Punisflu them by withdrawing that attention and love, they
develcaED a more prescriptive orientation.

Our data seem to suggest that perhaps a prescrip-
tive (DJEientation is more useful to the developing of
moral.j§1ty and the making of a minister. It also suggeStS
that S . . . . _

:gmbolic rewards lend toward a prescriptive orlen
tatixbrl while direct object punishment lends toward a
proscr jptive orientation.

It would be interesting to devise a test that

wo . .
‘u143- Ineasure the success of a minister and correlate

 

h

84

.mHQHmmom ma 5 mo whoom g

.>m>usm msowuwamm oaflSUIucmHmm may no
mucmpsum mnu ma muamumm may on cm>flm whoom mmmum>m map ucmmmummu mumnfidc mmmna

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Hmcumm
Ucm Hmnuoa o» cm>flm monoom may mcflppm mamEHm an Umcflmuno mum mmusmww mmmnem
Hm ma.m mv.m mm.m om.m mm.m mv.m 30A Hm
mNN om.m m>.m nm.~ mm.m vm.m No.m pm: pm:
om mm.m mo.m mm.~ av.m mo.m ms.m am 20a
a oo.m oo.v oo.v oo.m oo.v oo.m 0 ea
m mw.m mm.m oo.m oo.n mm.m mm.m a ma
m om.m om.m oo.m om.m ov.m ov.m N NH
mm mm.v mm.m om.m mm.m mN.m mv.m m Ha
om mv.m mo.m om.~ No.5 vm.m mm.m v OH
mm mo.m HB.N mm.~ om.m nm.m mm.m m m
mm mn.m vm.m Hm.m ma.n om.m mm.m m m
mm nv.m mm.m Hm.~ om.m mm.m nm.m n n
hm mm.m on.m mm.m ov.m mo.m mm.m m m
ma om.m om.~ oo.m om.m om.m om.m m m
m mm.m om.m mm.~ vm.m ma.m mm.m ca v
m oo.v oo.m oo.m oo.m oo.~ oo.m Ha m
mnuom nonumm umnuoz mauom Hmnumm Moshe: m>Humeomoum m>flumfluommum

Z

pomflno pomuao usaonssm cogumuamfiuo mooflmaamm

 

coflumucmfluo mSOHmHHmm cam moowuomum maflummmlpaflno cmmsumm cOmHummEou d

ON 033

85

that with prescriptive-proscriptive orientations. Our
data lead me to speculate that the prescriptive would
be more successful, although this may vary in different
Social-Economic classes.

This last statement was precipitated by the data
of our study that shows that as the S.E.S. (Socio-Economic
Status) rises, the proscriptive score rises, or con- F—
versely, the prescriptive score lowers. The ten students
who saw themselves in the upper class had a prescriptive

Score of 8.10. The 282 students who saw themselves in

 

the middle class had a prescriptive score of 8.16, and
the 23 students who saw themselves in the lower class had
a prescriptive score of 8.65.

Table 21 will also reveal that the lower economic
c31ass generally prefer the values which have been found
to be preferred by the more prescriptive students and
to prefer to a lesser degree the values which were pre-
feI‘red by the proscriptive students. This was so for
fiVe of the seven prescriptive values and five of the
Seven proscriptive values. This was especially true of
the two values which were designated most prescriptive
and most proscriptive by the data. In both cases there
was a clear trend revealing that upper-class students
prefer the proscriptive value to a greater degree than
lO‘Ner class, and that lower-class students preferred

the prescriptive value to a greater degree than the

86

mucmpsum

 

 

.»m>usm msam> nomwxom on» so mosam> ommnu m>mm

mo mmsoum smasofiuumm mmmnu muoom momum>m map ucmmmummu mumnfisc 0:8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ov.Ha mm.HH mm.HH mafia mcflufloxm cm mm.m mm.oa mo.ma muaaom
om.n em.> mm.m uoommmm mamm oo.ma mv.ma mm.HH wmaq manmuuomEoo m
ov.oa hm.m mm.m msowuflna¢ mn.n mm.m ha.m admummnu
mm.m mm.v oo.m wacfiumm umccH mn.m mm.m ha.m mmmcm>amuom
o~.m mm.m mm.s manamcommmm ma.va ms.ma ms.ea musmmmam
mm.ma mm.ma mv.aa usmpsmmmUcH mm.~H mo.oa hm.HH msommmusou
mm.vH mm.ma 5H.m anduomaamusH we.“ ~v.m mm.oa Hammamm
A 2 D A 2 D
mosam> m>aumwuomoum mmsam> m>wumwuommum
mmmau mmmau

 

 

 

 

msumum UHEOGOOMIOfloom saws modam> m>flumauomoum can m>flumfluommum

Hm magma

mo comwummeou d

87

upper class. Since proscriptive seems more inner-

oriented and prescriptive seems more other-oriented,
it would tend to suggest that an unselfish, prescriptive
ministry would be most important in ministering to

peeples of the lower Socio-Economic Status.

Several times during this study we have wondered

whether or not students prefer certain values because

if!

they possess them or whether it is a reaction to something

they feel they lack. Who counts money more valuable,

the rich who have it, or the poor who need it? So, do

those who enjoy a comfortable life value it most or '

 

those who need it? In that particular case, the upper

<elass valued it most and the middle class valued it

least. The low class, however, value it only slightly

more than the middle class, indicating that it is

Valuable to those who have it more than to those who

lack it. This is in keeping with dissonant theories

which would suggest that if we possess something, we
will rationalize in such a way as to make it seem
valuable and if we lack something, we will rationalize
to make it seem less valuable to reduce the dissonance.
If we compare values of mental Competence ("Wisdom,"

"Capable," "Intellectual," and "Imaginative") we find

that generally this is true. Though Competence and

G-P.A. are not synonomous, they are similar, and

Table 22 shows that in every case with the four values

 

 

 

 

 

88

mentioned, those with a G.P.A. of 4.0 preferred these
values (assigned them a lower number) over those who had
a G.P.A. under 2.0. This seems to indicate that those
who have certain values assign importance to those values
and those who do not have them assign less importance
to them. We assume this holds for Social values such

as "Loving," "Forgiveness," "Equality," etc.

Table 22

Comparison of Values of Mental Competence with
Grade Point Average

 

 

 

 

G.P.A.
Value
1 2 3 4

Wisdom 6.33 4.87 4.87 4.80
Capable 9.00 10.88 10.50 7.90
Imaginative 15.33 13.32 14.01 12.60
Intellectual 15.67 12.28 12.35 11.90
\

 

Table 23 seems to indicate that as the G.P.A.
rises, the prescriptive score has a tendency to decrease.
If Prescriptive orientation tends to make a person more
S0(2-‘ia1 minded (other-oriented) , then a lower G.P.A. would
tend to cause students to prefer Social values and thus
pr'e‘fer those values which are designated as prescriptive.
But Table 24 is mixed in its confirmation of that theory.
If You drop the "C's" and "B's" and compare those who

had a G.P.A. under 2.0 with those who got 4.0, you will

89

find that in five of the seven values measuring pre-
snzriptive orientation, preference was given by the low
(3.]?MA. to a greater degree than those with a high G.P.A.
The high G.P.A. preferred proscriptive values in four of
‘tliee seven cases. 80 it does seem to suggest that the
LLcavver G.P.A. gives the student a more prescriptive

orientation.

Table 23

Comparison of Grade Point Average with
Religious Orientation

 

 

 

 

G.P.A. Prescriptive Score
1 8.67(3)a
8.22
2 8.21(ll9)
3 8.15(17l)
8.17
4 8.56(9)

 

aThe numbers in the parentheses indicate the
number of students in that category.

Table 25 shows that there are some values that
tend to be preferred by those with a lower G.P.A. This
trend is seen for values of "A Sense of Accomplishment,"
"Ekluality," "National Security," "Pleasure," "Clean,"
"ERDDest," "Obedient," and "Polite." Those with a high
(3-I?.A. tend to prefer such values as "Family Security,"
"VViSdom," "Broadminded," "Capable," "Cheerful,"

"
Chaurageous," "Imaginative," "Intellectual," "LOVingr"

‘4'

 

.mucmpsum mo msoum
Hmasoauumm umnu an msam> umnu ou cm>am whoom mumum>m may mumowpca mumnEs: one

 

90

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mugs
ov.m H~.~H m6.aa mm.m assuaoxm cm on.mH mm.oa mo.oa sm.m muaaom
mmaq
om.» mm.a ms.s 58.5 pommmmm mflmm ov.ma mm.mH ~s.~a oo.va manwuuomsoo m
oa.oa Na.m mm.m oo.aa msoauagsa om.m m~.m mm.m mm.oa Hauummao
oo.v sm.s om.m oo.v maosumm umcaH os.m ma.m os.o mm.m mmmam>amuom
om.m mH.m No.5 oo.m manamcommmm om.sa so.sa vm.mH oo.sH musmmmam
oo.va ms.ma mm.aa 58.8H usmnnmmmccH om.oa mm.oa mo.aa mm.~H msommmusoo
om.HH mm.~H mm.ma sm.ma ucmmaflamucH os.m ms.m Hm.» oo.m Hammamm
w m m a mosam> v m N H modam>
.<.m.0 m>aumauomoum .¢.m.w m>aumauom0um

 

 

 

 

.¢.m.o saws mmsHm> m>wumwuomonm paw m>flumwuommum mo GOmHHMQEOU d

vm GHQMB

91

Table 25

A Comparison of the Average Scores on Rokeach Value

Study to G.P.A.

 

 

Value GPA=1 2 3 4

A Comfortable Life 14.00 12.72 13.88 15.40
An Exciting Life 9.33 11.48 12.21 9.40
It ESense of Accomplishment 7.67 8.54 9.02 8.90
A World of peace 15.00 13.80 13.32 14.70
A World of Beauty 11.67 14.11 13.80 13.30
Equality 11.33 12.79 12.56 14.00
I?axnflJy Security 10.00 7.63 7.52 6.40
Freedom 7.33 9.79 9.09 9.70
Happiness 6.67 6.96 6.75 6.40
Inner Harmony 4.00 5.30 4.67 4.00
Mature Love 5.67 6.39 6.13 5.40
heartional Security 13.67 14.76 14.56 14.70
Pleasure 14.00 13.34 14.04 14.90
Salvation 1.00 1.10 1.11 1.00
Self-Respect 7.67 7.78 7.93 7.90
SOCial Recognition 18.00 13.33 13.33 13.60
Tyne Friendship 7.67 6.29 6.14 6.50
wisdom 6.33 4.87 4.87 4.80
Ambitious 11.00 9.89 9.72 10.10
Broadminded 14.33 11.62 11.98 11.70
Capable 9.00 10.88 10.52 7.90
Cheerful 10.33 9.36 9.29 6.90
Clean 3.67 10.90 12.45 13.70
Courageous 12.33 11.09 10.58 10.90
Forgiving 5.33 6.70 6.16 6.40
Helpfui 3.00 8.81 8.46 5.40
Honest 3.33 4.55 4.59 5.80
Imaginative 15.33 13.32 14.01 12.60
Independent 16.67 11.92 12.46 14.00
Intellectual 15.67 12.28 12.35 11.90
Logical 13.33 12.21 12.97 15.30

oving 5.67 4.59 4.25 2.40
Obedient 7.67 8.65 7.92 9.00
Pelite 9.67 10.06 10.86 13.70

eSponsible 8.00 7.02 6.13 5.60
Self-Control 6.67 7.15 6.23 7.70

\

 

92

and "Responsible." The low G.P.A. seem to have Moral
values ("Equality," "Honest," "Obedient," "Polite")
while the high G.P.A. tend to have Mental values
("Wisdom," "Broadminded," "Capable," "Imaginative,"
" Intellectual") .

An interesting question would be: "what
relationship does parent-child relationships have to
academic performance!?" Table 26 shows that in general
the lower G.P.A. students give higher scores to their
Parents. This is true in every category except for
" Father-Reward." Only in this category do higher G.P.A.
Students give a higher score, but this is by the lowest
difference (0.17) of any other category. This seems to
Suggest that high academic performance is associated
with perceiving the parents as being less active in the
child-raising process. Our survey does not determine
Whether or not the parents are really less active, but
the high performance student evidently sees them as
less active than the low performing student. If parents
013 high performers are really less active in raising
their children it may mean that these students have
lEarned to become more self-sufficient and thus able
to think for themselves. If this correlation is only
because the students see them as less active it may
Simply reflect the fact that the high performer has
more confidence in himself and thus has less need for

hls parents and sees them as less active.

 

A Comparison

93

Table 26

of Grade Point Averages with Parent-

Child Relationships

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ikarent-Child Grade POint Average Difference
Relationship Between
1 2 3 4 1 & 4

Mo ther-

IPunishment 3.00 3.13 2.89 2.60 0.40 Elli
Mo ther-

IReward 4.00 3.51 3.45 3.50 0.50
Mo ther-

Symbolic 4.00 3.61 3.55 3.40 0.60 I
_ 3
Mother- 3

IDirect Object 3.00 2.98 2.79 2.70 0.30 11_
Father-

Punishment 3.00 2.99 2.72 2.50 0.50
Father-

Reward 3.33 3.07 3.22 3.50 -o.17a
Father-

Symbolic 3.67 3.29 3.23 3.10 0.57
Fether--

Direct Object 3.00 2.74 2.64 2.50 0.50

'Iotals 27.00 25.32 24.49 23.80 3.20
\

 

 

 

 

 

 

aThe minus
<DED'posite direction

quDte: The numbers
score given

sign indicates that it goes in the

of all other categories.

in the boxes represent the average
to the parent by the student for that
particular Measurement.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS FROM THIS STUDY

The major questions raised at the beginning of
this article were: (1) Is there a difference in the
Value profiles of students attending a conservative,

evangelical, church-related college when ministerial

 

(1-

Students are compared with those in liberal arts pro-
grams? (2) Does this difference continue on into the

Seminary students of the same school? (3) Are the
three groups different in their proscriptive or pre-
SC=J:'iptive orientation toward religion? (4) Does their
religious orientation reflect their child-rearing
experiences?

On all four questions the answer seems to be

" Yes" on the basis of this study, though it was not
always in the direction predicted. There appeared to
be a difference between ministerial and nonministerial
S“t—‘udents in their value profiles. Ministerial students
did prefer the designated "Social-Moral" values more
tlflan nonministerial students as predicted although they

did not seem to prefer the designated "Competence" values

94

95

less than the liberal arts students. This trend was
carried on into Seminary, where seminarians preferred
the "Social-Moral" values to a greater degree than
college students. On the seminary level, they gave a
slight preference to the "Competence" values, which was
opposite our prediction, but does not substantiate the
Statement that the values do differ between the groups.
We also found that liberal arts college students, minis-
terial college students, and seminarians all differ in

the religious orientation, though it was Opposite our

 

prediction. The longer one stays in the school and the
more committed he becomes to the ministry, the more pro-
scriptive is his orientation. Our data also suggests
that the religious orientation is influenced by the
Child—rearing practices of the parents, and as we pre-
dicted, rewarding parents seem to produce prescriptive
Students and punitive parents seem to produce proscrip-
tive students.

Our students also showed differences from the
r7K3rms printed by Rokeach so that they tended to prefer
" Social-Moral" values more than the national average
and "Competence" values less than the national average
( See Table 27 of Appendix D). All of these differences
Seem to confirm previous findings that students choose
S*<.‘.hools that are similar to their value profiles and

that these schools in turn continue to influence the

96

values of the student in the direction of the school's
orientation and philosophy.

Since previous studies showed that religiously
oriented students preferred values designated as "Com-
petence" less than those in a secular setting, we
expected that as students continued their studies at
the Grand Rapids Baptist College they would prefer such
values less. This proved to be untrue. Perhaps this =
is due to the emphasis which this particular college

places on academic excellence. They have sought to

 

Promote and maintain a high academic standard. It is
true that the students of this college preferred the
"Competence" values less, confirming the negative cor-
relation between religion and such values, but the col-
lege did not continue this trend and by the time they
were in the seminary, the trend seemed to be slightly
reversed.

The students of this college differed from pre-
vious findings with the value designated "Clean."
Plli‘evious findings showed that the religious student
preferred "Clean" to the secular student, and thus it
was listed among the Social-Moral values. But consis-
tently, these students preferred "Clean" less than the
r16.1;ional average and the trend continued as the student
a(ivanced to the seminary level. Perhaps this reflects

a strong emphasis toward spiritual values such as

97

"Salvation," and toward "Social-Moral" values, thus
showing less preference for physical values.

With some of the values, there seemed to be a
definite trend set in the College, but reversed in the
Seminary. Table 28 of Appendix D shows that among the
"Social-Moral" values this was true of "Forgiving" and
" Obedient." This was not a longitudinal study, but we
assumed that as students continued through the college,
these values were given less preference, but then was
much more preferred by seminarians. The "Competence"
value of "Imaginative" also showed this. As students
continued through the college they preferred this value
more, but seminarians preferred it much less. With
"Obedience" the Seminarians were more similar to the
Freshmen than to the Seniors. At least among these
Values, the college seems to be more like the secular
cOlleges where students come to prefer "Social-Moral"
Values less and "Competence" values more. This was only
reversed when we reached the seminary level. This would
Seem to indicate that the philos0phy of the college was
InC>re like that of the secular colleges where Competence
is stressed over Morality, while the seminary still had
the emphasis on Social and Moral values. Previous
13€esearch by Jacob (14) indicates that it is not so much
1ll'ie curriculum, the teacher, or the method that

influences the values, but the philosophy and the

 

98

orientation of the institute. While such reversals were

found in three of the designated "Social-Moral" values

Uadding "Clean" to the two mentioned abovei, it was
fraund in only the one "Competence" value mentioned above.
Zkruother possible reason for this reversal could be that
I?1:eshmen, freshly out of the high school could be
:reaflecting somewhat the values of adults as learned
'tlirough their parents. As they continue through college, P
tJIey could begin to reflect the values of the younger

<geaneration, being out from under the influence of their

 

rusnmu As they grew older and entered Seminary, they could §~w
tilen be returning to the values of the adult world and
making them their own.

Another finding which relates particularly to the
(Irand Rapids Baptist College and Seminary is that as they
CKDntinue their studies through the school, they become
lsess prescriptive and more proscriptive. Because this
143 not a longitudinal study, this must remain an
Eisssumption. A proscriptive orientation seems more
ifiner-oriented and less other-oriented. They began
ilfleir schooling preferring "Helpful" with a score of
.7..7l.and consistently preferred it less as they continued
tll‘leir studies. At least in the college, "Forgiving" was
E>lreferred less as they continued their studies, and the
£363minarians reversal of that trend did not cause them

‘tID prefer it as much as the Freshmen in college. And

99

the composite rank order for "Forgiving" is 3 for Fresh-
men, 5 for Seniors, and 5 for Seminarians. "Cheerful"
was consistently preferred less as students continued
through college and seminary. These are all values which
"High" prescriptive students preferred, and which would
seem important to the ministry.

Another conclusion worth mentioning is that when
Students perceived their parents to be punitive, the
students themselves were more proscriptive and where
Students perceived their parents to be rewarding, the
Students themselves were more prescriptive. This sug-
gests according to McKinney (19, p. 79) that perhaps
Punishment calls attention to evil deeds while rewarding
Calls attention to good deeds. More interesting is that
the punitiveness of the mother was more effective in pro-
ducing proscriptive students than the punitiveness of
fathers and the rewardiveness of fathers was more
influential in producing prescriptive students than
the rewardiveness of mothers. Our American culture would
as sign roles of punishment more to fathers and roles of
rewarding more to mothers. Perhaps it is when a father
()1? mother takes the opposite role that it becomes most
effective. Thus, if you want proscriptive children, let
tll’le mother take a punitive role. If you are interested
in prescriptive children, let the father assume a rewarding

rOle. One other conclusion, found in Table 28 of

 

100

Appendix D, was that there existed a greater difference
in the score given by the proscriptive and prescriptive
female on the role of mother's punishment than between
the proscriptive and prescriptive male. There was also
a greater difference between the scores given to rewarding
fathers by prescriptive and proscriptive males than
between proscriptive and prescriptive females. This
would indicate that punitive mothers are most effective
in producing proscriptive daughters and rewarding fathers
are most effective in producing prescriptive sons. Puni-
tive mothers tend slightly to correlate with prescriptive
males and rewarding fathers tend to correlate with pro-
scriptive females, indicating that when a parent takes
tile opposite role as assigned by American culture, it
Produces the negative effect in a child of the opposite
Sex, but the positive effect on a child of the same sex.

It was also found that males tended to score their
parents higher on punishment than females did. This
Seems to suggest that parents see their sons as needing
I“(are punishment.

One other conclusion should be mentioned. The
lower the G.P.A. of the student, the more prescriptive
1’le became in his religious orientation, and the more he
Preferred "Social-Moral" values. The higher the G.P.A.

Of the student, the more he preferred "Competence" values.

 

IF"

lOl

Contrary to our American stereotypes, the students with

a low academic performance are not necessarily less moral.

It" » “MA.

CHAPTER VI

APPLICATIONS

If we reflect on the entire body of this research
effort, can we bring together some meaningful speculations?
The data seem to indicate that perhaps the stress on aca-

demic excellence is not necessarily the best way for a

 

church-related college to produce good ministers, given
that this is the purpose of the school. Proscriptive
orientations tended to correlate with Competence values
such as Intelligence (page 79). Students with high grade
point averages preferred Wisdom, Broadminded, Capable,
Imaginative, and Intelligence. At the same time, pre-
scriptive orientations tended to correlate with Social-
Moral values such as Helpful, Forgiveness, and Polite
(page 79). Students with low grade point averages pre-
ferred Equality, Honesty, Obedience, and Polite. Again,
if you take the seven prescriptive values (page 90) and
total their preference according to grade point averages,
you will find that the rank scores are 68.66, 72.08,
73.27, and 73.60 respectively from G.P.A. of one to

G.P.A. of four, remembering that the lower scores on

102

103

the values indicate more preference. The same clear

trend is found for the seven proscriptive values, giving

a total rank score of 62.90, 65.47, 65.67, and 72.35
respectively from G.P.A. of four to G.P.A. of one. That
is, the lower G.P.A. students prefer prescriptive values
and higher G.P.A. students prefer proscriptive values.
Academic performance does not necessarily mean good social
performance. It would appear that a prescriptive orien-
tation with its Social-Moral emphasis is important to

the ministry, but our results suggest that emphasis on
academics is related to a more proscriptive orientation.
At the same time an academic emphasis could be related to
lower G.P.A. students dropping out, which students in

the end could have been the better ministers. All these
trends suggest that if you want good scientists, emphasize
the academics, the Competence; but if you want good social
workers, psycholoqists, and ministers, emphasize the
Social-Moral. The college with academic excellence could
be weeding out the plants with the weeds! The school
could well study the feasibility of developing a Bible
curriculum for lower G.P.A. students who would normally
drop out of school to prepare them for certain types of
ministry to which they may be better fitted than the
higher G.P.A. students. The data also suggest that for
the students who do remain, the academic thrust is not

the most conducive atmosphere for developing Christian

 

104

workers of any type. If the college wants to maintain
its distinctive thrust toward preparing church workers,
it should re-evaluate its thrust toward "Academic Excel-
lence.” We suggested from several measurements that the
students in the college became more like the secular
students. It was not until the seminary that these
changed. So while the seminary still had a proper
orientation toward preparing ministers, the college did
not. Although, even the seminarians preferred Competence
values slightly above the college and they were also more
proscriptive which would not seem the best orientation
for a minister. We are not suggesting that academic
excellence is contrary to Christian living, but when
training of ministers is desired, it may not be the

most relevant.

The findings that suggest that the higher the
Socio-Economic Status the more proscriptive a student
becomes and vice-versa suggests some direction for place-
ment. A more social-oriented, unselfish person would fit
in best, and thus be possibly more effective, with lower
S.E.S. people. While the more self-oriented, ambitious,
competent minister would fit best, and thus be possibly
more effective, among the upper S.E.S.

In terms of the ministry as a whole, however, it
would seem that the develOpment of a prescriptive orien-

tation is best. Since religion has more to do with

 

105

relationships than with Competence, the Social-Moral
values become more important. These values correlate
with a prescriptive orientation. Therefore, an emphasis
on righteousness would seem more effective than on sin.
Obedience or disobedience to God (rewards for righteous-
ness or punishment for lack of righteousness) is more
effective than emphasizing sin and the effects of yield-
ing to it. In other words, the emphasis on our relation-
ship to God is more important than our relationship to
Satan. No person is entirely prescriptive or proscrip-
tive, so the positive, or prescriptive, emphasis should
not exclude the negative, or proscriptive, emphasis.

Our data also have some indications for parents.
Trends toward Competence or toward Social-moral values
were not found as students progressed through the school.
But trends toward Social-Moral values were found as one
committed himself to the ministry. Because the students
at this college were noticeably different from the
secular students, choices seem to be influenced by
values. But once they got to the college, their choice
did not seem to influence the value system, unless that
choice was in the direction of their earlier value sys-
tem. Thus the school seemed to strengthen the values
that were in keeping with their commitment. So the
values that are taught before college years seem to be

greater determiners of behavior than the values learned

 

106

during college days. And these values seem to relate
somewhat to how active a parent is in the bringing up
of the child. Students with a low G.P.A. were more pre-
scriptive, emphasizing the Social-Moral, and at the same
time saw their parents as more active; while students

with a higher G.P.A. were more proscriptive, emphasizing

Competence, and at the same time saw their parents as in}

less active. More attention by parents seem to produce
good relaters (social children) while less attention

seems to produce good students (scholastic children).

 

Perhaps this last interpretation has real meaning .
to class barriers since high S.E.S. and high G.P.A. stu-
dents are both more proscriptive and low S.E.S. and low
G.P.A. students are both more prescriptive. The kind
and amount of attention shown to the child gives him an
orientation that not only fits his socio-economic class,
but keeps him in that class: proscriptive students
having values of industry and competence (Intelligent,
Independent, Responsible, Inner Harmony, Ambitious, Self-
Respect, and An Exciting Life), and prescriptive students
having values of sociability (Helpful, Courageous,
Pleasure, Forgiveness, Cheerful, A Comfortable Life,
and Polite).

Many of the parents in our churches show great
anxiety over the attitudes and behaviors of teenagers.

One of the findings in our survey could be of help in

107

counseling parents. We found that parents seem to have

a positive effect on children of the same sex and a

negative effect on children of the opposite sex. Reward-

ing fathers tend to produce prescriptive sons but pro-

scriptive daughters. Though Table 17 on page 72 shows

both rewarding and punitive mothers receiving higher

scores from proscriptive females than from prescriptive -*"m]

females this is only because proscriptive students

scored parents as more active. It will be noticed that

 

the difference between prescriptive and proscriptive E i
females is greater in their scores for punitive mothers. .. I
All these data indicate that parents have a greater

positive influence on children of the same sex than do

the parents of the opposite sex. These teenagers seem

to identify with parents of the same sex. If Freud's

theory be true, then this should be reversed for smaller

children, but for these teenagers, the mother becomes

more important to daughters and fathers to sons. Surely

both parents influence both sons and daughters, but

teenage children tend to reflect the attitudes and values

of the parent of the same sex.

CHAPTER VII

FURTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR STUDY

Flu

;

There were a few findings in this study which a

would suggest interesting tOpics for other studies. The
value designated "Obedient" was much preferred by our

students over the national average. It was also pre-

 

~uw

ferred by ministerial students over nonministerial, and
by seminarians over college students. Does this mean
that religious commitment causes students to show more
respect toward parents or does it mean that they are

more law-abiding, or both? Or does it mean that some
students define it differently: one seeing it as fearful
obedience and the other as loving obedience?

Another finding is that sons tended to see their
parents as more punitive than daughters do. We suggested
this means that parents punish sons more. If this is
so, does this mean that boys tend to misbehave more,
or is it because parents have an image of boys as mis-
behavers, and thus notice misbehavior of boys more
readily and punish them more quickly? Rewarding fathers

have the most influence on producing prescriptive sons.

108

109

Perhaps this suggests a vicious circle where parents
tend to see sons as greater misbehavers than daughters

and this leads to a self—fulfilling prophecy where sons

see themselves as misbehavers and live up to it. Further

research is needed to test such an assumption.

Among the students at the Grand Rapids Baptist
College, the more prescriptive the religious orientation,
the more they preferred the value designated "Salvation."
This was actually hard to judge because these students
normally made this the first choice. Would such a trend
hold true in a secular university? We suggest that this
is so, but further studies are necessary to substantiate
it.

In determining whether or not the prescriptive
orientation influences the value profiles, we stated
that the prescriptive student seems to be more "other-
oriented" while the proscriptive student seems to be
more "inner-oriented" or "self-oriented." Does this
have to do with the self-image of the student? Since
rewarding seems to influence a child towards a pre-
scriptive orientation, it would seem probable that a
rewarded student would see himself as more loved and
more capable. Thus, he would have a better self-image.
A person with a low image of himself would tend to be
self-centered, always trying to find ways to improve his

image in the eyes of others. Thus, a person with a

 

110

healthy self-image would be more free and more able to
think of others while a poor self-image would cause a
person to be preoccupied with self. It would be interest-
ing to test the hypothesis which states that a prescrip—
tive orientation correlates with a healthy self-image
while a proscriptive orientation correlates with a poor
self-image.

We also indicated that students with prescriptive
orientations prefer values that seem necessary for
religious ministers. Do prescriptive persons have more
compassion, mercy, patience, and kindness? Using dif-
ferent methods to measure the success of pastors, do
prescriptive pastors have more success than proscriptive
ones? Or does this vary with the socio-economic class
to which you are ministering? Since lower classes seem
more prescriptive and upper classes seem more proscrip-
tive, would a proscriptive pastor have more success with
upper classes and prescriptive pastors with lower classes?
The answer to that question would greatly aid in the
placement of such pastors and could give seminaries
direction for training future pastors.

It was also suggested that perhaps a certain
amount of punishment from parents and a certain amount
of proscriptive orientation was needed to start moral
character, but then rewarding and the development of a

prescriptive orientation is needed to cause morality to

 

lll

mature. Would future research bare this out? Since
symbolic rewarding and punishing show a Slight cor-
relation with prescriptive orientations and direct-
object rewarding and punishing show a slight correlation
with proscriptive orientations, does it also hold true
that a certain amount of direct object rewarding and
punishing is necessary to start moral character and

then symbolic rewarding and punishing to mature such a
character? Whether or not such a measurement could be
produced is another matter, but if some ingenious person
could manufacture such a measurement, it would be inter-
esting to find out if such were the case.

We alluded to another finding, and that is that
those with a higher G.P.A. score their parents lower on
all the Parent-Child relations scales, indicating that
they see them as less active in the upbringing of the

child. Does this relate to self-image? That is, do

less active parents cause students to see themselves less

in need of parental help, more self-sufficient, and thus
with a better image so that they are able to perform
better academically? Or do they only see their parents
as less active? Does their better performance give them
more self-confidence and thus less in need of parental
guidance? In other words, do high performers only see
their parents as having a less active role in their

development, or are parents actually less active with

- 6
.- A.
I- 1
_ .
b
.-
r

 

‘kh‘

112

high-performing children? And which causes which? Do
less active parents cause high academic performance
through healthier self-image, or do parents see high-
performing students as in less need of guidance? And
does the amount of perceived activity from parents have
anything to do with the amount of time the parent spends
away from home and away from the children? It seems
that these are important questions for educators which
could well be worth further investigation.

Our findings have also indicated that parents
have a positive influence on children of the same sex
and a negative influence on children of the Opposite sex.
Rewarding fathers tend to produce prescriptive sons and
proscriptive daughters, while punitive mothers tend to
produce proscriptive daughters and prescriptive sons.

If Freud's theory concerning the Oedipus Complex is
correct, then this should be reversed for smaller chil-
dren. It would be interesting to see if parents had a
positive effect on smaller children of the opposite sex
and a negative influence on smaller children of the same
sex. This could have important meaning to parents and
counselors concerning the raising of children and the

development of the child.

 

elm-....

APPENDICES

 

 

APPENDIX A

PRE-TEST OF RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION

 

APPENDIX A
PRE-TEST OF RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION

Study of Religious Orientation

 

Read carefully each item and mark "A" or "B" in the
space provided. There are no right or wrong answers.
Choose the answer which you prefer. If both answers seem
to have equal value, try to choose the one which you feel
you prefer, even though the preference may be slight.

l. The Lord is pleased more when I
A. am faithful in church attendance
B. show kindness toward a member of my family

2. It bothers me more when I
A. lose my temper with a friend
B. hold my anger inside and sulk

3. God is displeased more with a person who
A. will not serve Him
B. lives in sin

 

4. God will more likely chasten the Christian who
A. cheats on his income tax
B. fails to witness for Christ when visiting
a nonbeliever

5. More peOple are converted to Christianity when
preachers preach on
A. Heaven
B. Hell

6. It is more delightful to Satan when I
A. Steal a car
B. Commit fornication

7. In the Bible, it is more desirable to
A. refrain from adultery
B. love other Christians

8. God is more concerned that I
A. love other Christians
B. try to convert unbelievers

9. I feel more guilty when I
A. pass up an Opportunity to tell someone
about Christ
B. "day dream" about engaging in immoral acts

113

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

114

Christ is more pleased with me when I

A. show kindness to a stranger

B. refrain from criticizing one who dis-
likes me

I feel better when I have
A. overcome a temptation to sin
B. helped a friend

God is more satisfied with
A. a clean, pure church
B. a loving, united church

It is more displeasing to Christ when I
A. get mad at my parents
B. fail to obey my parents

The Holy Spirit is grieved more when He sees

A. a church who refuses to practice the
"Great Commission"

B. a church where there is gossipping and
bickering

God's Divine standards are best summarized in
A. the Ten Commandments
B. the Sermon on the Mount

I am grateful for my Salvation more because
A. it has prepared me for heaven
B. it has delivered me from hell

It worries me more that
A. I may fall into some degrading sin
B. I may miss God's plan for my life

I am more concerned about
A. warding off Satan
B. Pleasing the Lord

The work of the church is hindered more by
A. people outside the church who criticize it
B. church members who cheat or gossip

Satan is more pleased when a Christian
A. does not have his daily devotions
B. looks at pornographic pictures

Revival comes quicker when evangelists

A. preach on loving God and loving fellow
believers

B. preach judgment on sins

 

22.

23.

24.

115

It is more beneficial to the church to hear a
sermon on

A. a Holy God who judges sin

B. a Loving God who cares for His children

I am more prone to feel that my day has been a

failure if I

A. regress into a sin that I had confessed to
God

B. fail to speak to someone about Christ

Blessings from God are more quickly cut off

from a church that

A. becomes apathetic and fails to be con-
cerned about converting unbelievers

B. remains zealous but allows its members to
engage in sinful practices without dis-
ciplining them

 

5 III";
II

116

DATA FOR THE PRETEST OF RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION

 

Items 1 and 2 were filler questions, used to keep the
student from detecting what was being measured. On the
final survey form, we kept only item 2 as a filler
question, making it number 1. Item 6 was also a filler
question and was kept on the final survey, becoming item 4.
Items 8, 12, 15, and 19 were all filler questions which
were omitted on the survey. The data for the other items

on the pretest are as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item No Index of DI:::i;I- Biserial Item No. on 3
° Difficulty . Correlation Final Survey *
nation
3 55 60 .6609 2
4 45 33 .3249 omitted
5 50 60 .4963 3
7 16 13 .2456 6
9 77 53 .7865 7
10 27 13 .2080 5
ll 16 0 .1358 omitted
13 36 46 .5241 8
14 91 0 .0324 omitted
16 41 67 .5899 9
17 23 27 .3483 10
18 20 47 .5525 ll
20 61 54 .5331 12
21 23 60 .7281 13
22 13 40 .7087 16
23 89 20 .5935 14
24 52 33 .4043 15

In the typing of the survey, a mistake was made.
Item 4 was omitted rather than item 10. Item 10 had a
lower Biserial Correlation, was less difficult, and less
discriminatory than item 4. Thus it was our intention to

use item 4 and to omit 10.

117

For a good item, the Index of Difficulty should be
somewhere around 25-75. Eight of the 14 items chosen
for the final survey fell within that range. The average
Index of Difficulty was 42. The Index of Discrimination
should be somewhere around 50 or above. Six of the 14
items were above 50, while 8 were below. The average
Index of Discrimination was also 42. The Biserial Cor-
relation for a good item should be somewhere around .50
or above. Ten of the 14 items met this criterion while
4 did not. The average Biserial Correlation for the 14
items chosen for the survey was .5271. Because these
items had to do with questions on religion, and because
these scores were taken from a pretest taken at Michigan
State University, we expect that each item would score
considerably better at a religious college where students
have made a religious commitment, as was the case in the
survey.

Though a mistake was made in omitting item 4 rather
than item 10, yet the 2 worst offenders in each of the
measurements were items 11 and 14. They had the most
extreme Index of Difficulty, both scored zero on the
Index of Discrimination, and both were of the lowest
Biserial Correlation, scoring less than .15. Again, with
these items omitted, and with the survey going to a
religious college, the Kuder Richardson Reliability

score should exceed considerably the .5571 score obtained

-..—y

 

 

 

 

118

on the pretest. Therefore we felt justified in using the
final survey form as a fairly reliable test of prescrip-

tive and proscriptive orientations toward religion.

 

APPENDIX B

SURVEY GIVEN TO STUDENT BODY OF THE GRAND

RAPIDS BAPTIST COLLEGE AND SEMINARY

 

I.

APPENDIX B

A STUDENT VALUE STUDY
Lester De Boer
September, 1973

This questionnaire will remain strictly anonymous.

PERSONAL INFORMATION

1.

Class in school: Freshman

 

Sophomore ____
Junior ____
Senior ____
Seminary ____
Special ____
Sex: Male
Female
Date of Birth
mo. day yr.

As of now, what are your majors and minors?

Majors:

 

 

Minors:

 

 

As of now, what are your occupational intentions?

 

 

On the average, how often do you attend church
each week, including Sunday School, Prayer

Meeting, etc.?

 

What is your Grade Point Average (using 4.0 scale)
so far in college? (If you are a Freshman, use

your high school GPA)

 

119

120

8. What Socio-Economic class do you consider your
family to be in?
Upper-Upper
Lower-Upper
Upper-Middle
Lower-Middle
Upper-Lower

Lower-Lower

 

II. PARENT-CHILD RELATIONS

This questionnaire contains a number of statements
which describe different ways that mothers and fathers act
toward their children. Read each statement carefully and
think how well it describes how your father and mother
acted while you were growing up.

Before and after each statement there are four lines.
These are labelled VERY TRUE: TENDED TO BE TRUE: TENDED TO
BE UNTRUE: VERY UNTRUE. Put an X on the line that indi-
cates how true you think each statement was of your mother
and of your father. If none of these descriptions seems
quite right, you may put the X between two of the lines.
Evaluate your mother on the four lines to the left of the
statement and your father on the four lines to the right
of the statement.

For example, if your memory is that your mother
always objected if you were late for meals, but your

father never objected, you would mark the items as follows:

 

 

121

 

 

VERY TENDED TENDED VERY VERY TENDED TENDED VERY
TRUE TO BE TO BE UNTRUE TRUE TO BE TO BE UN-
TRUE UNTRUE TRUE UNTRUE TRUE
MY MOTHER MY FATHER
X l. objected when I was X

 

 

 

late for meals

 

122

PCR QUESTIONNAIRE

VERY TENDED TENDED VERY VERY TENDED TENDED VERY
TRUE TO BE TO BE UNTRUE TRUE TO BE TO BE UN-
TRUE UNTRUE TRUE UNTRUE TRUE

MY MOTHER MY FATHER

 

 

l. complained about me
to others when I did
not listen to him/

her.

 

2. discussed what was
good about my
behavior and helped
to make clear the
desirable conse-
quences of my
actions.

 

 

3. took away my toys

 

or playthings when
I was bad.

4. took me plaCes

 

 

(trips, shows"
etc.) as a reward.

5. made me feel

 

 

ashamed or guilty
when I misbehaved.

6. compared me favor-

 

ably with other
children when I did
well.

7. slapped or struck

 

 

me when I was
improper.

8. relaxed rules and
regulations as a
reward.

 

9. nagged or scolded
when I was bad.

 

10. told me how proud
he/she was of me
when I was good.

 

123

VERY TENDED TENDED VERY VERY TENDED TENDED VERY
TRUE TO BE TO BE UNTRUE TRUE TO BE TO BE UN-
TRUE UNTRUE TRUE UNTRUE TRUE
MY MOTHER MY FATHER

 

 

11. took away or re-

duced my allowance
as punishment.

 

 

12. gave me new books
or records as
rewards.

 

 

l3. punished me by
ignoring me.

 

 

14. treated me more
like a grown-up
when I behaved
well.

 

 

 

15. wouldn't let me
play with other
children when I
was bad.

 

 

16. let me stay up
longer as a
reward.

 

 

17. made me feel I
wasn't loved
any more if I
misbehaved.

 

 

18. praised me before
my playmates.

 

 

l9. spanked or whipped
me as punishment.

 

 

20. rewarded me by
letting me off
some of my regu-
lar chores.

 

 

21. shamed me before
my playmates when
I misbehaved.

 

 

124

VERY TENDED TENDED VERY VERY TENDED TENDED VERY
'NKE TO BE TO BE UNTRUE TRUE TO BE TO BE UN-
TRUE UNTRUE TRUE UNTRUE TRUE
MY MOTHER MY FATHER

 

 

22. expressed greater

love for me when
I was good.

 

23. gave me extra
chores as pun-
ishment.

 

24. gave me candy or
ice cream or
fixed my favorite
foods for me as a
reward.

 

 

25. frightened or
threatened me
when I did
wrong.

 

 

26. gave me Special

 

attention as a
reward.

27. punished me by

 

sending me out
of the room or
to bed.

28. let me go to
parties or play
with others more
than usual as a
reward.

 

29. told me how
ashamed he/she
was when I mis-
behaved.

 

30. praised me when I
deserved it.

 

 

31. took away my books
or records as
punishment.

 

125

VERY TENDED TENDED VERY VERY TENDED TENDED VERY
TRUE TO BE TO BE UNTRUE TRUE TO BE TO BE UN-
TRUE UNTRUE TRUE UNTRUE TRUE
MY MOTHER MY FATHER

 

 

32. rewarded me by
giving me money,
or increasing my

allowance.

 

33. compared me un-
favorably with
other children
when I mis-
behaved.

 

34. made me feel
proud when I did
well.

 

 

35. punished me by
being more strict
about rules and
regulations.

 

36. hugged me, kissed
me, petted me
when I was good.

 

37. reasoned with me

 

 

and explained
possible harmful
consequences when
I did wrong.

38. praised me to

 

others.

39. punished me by
not taking me
on trips, visits,
etc. that I had
been promised.

 

40. gave me new
things as a
reward, such as
toys.

126

III. STUDY OF RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION
Read carefully each item and mark "A" or "B" in the space

provided. There are no right or wrong answers. Choose the
answer which you prefer. If both answers seem to have equal
value, try to choose the one which you feel you prefer, even
though the preference may be slight.
1. It bothers me more when I

A. lose my temper with a friend

B. hold my anger inside and sulk
2. God is displeased more with a person who

A. will not serve Him
B. lives in sin

 

3. More people are converted to Christianity when
preachers preach on
A. Heaven
B. Hell

4. It is more delightful to Satan when I
A. Steal a car
B. Commit fornication

5. Christ is more pleased with me when I
A. show kindness to a stranger
B. love other Christians

6. In the Bible, it is more desirable to
A. refrain from adultery
B. love other Christians

7. I feel more guilty when I
A. pass up an Opportunity to tell someone about
Christ
B. "day dream" about engaging in immoral acts

8. It is more displeasing to Christ when I
A. get mad at my parents
B. fail to obey my parents

9. I am grateful for my Salvation more because
A. it has prepared me for heaven
B. it has delivered me from hell

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

127

STUDY OF RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION

It worries me more that
A. I may fall into some degrading sin
B. I may miss God's plan for my life

I am more concerned about
A. warding off Satan
B. pleasing the Lord

Satan is more pleased when a Christian
A. does not have his daily devotions
B. looks at pornographic pictures

Revival comes quicker when evangelists

A. preach on loving God and loving fellow
believers

B. preach judgment on sins

I am more prone to feel that my day has been a
failure if I

A. regress into a sin that I had confessed to God
B. fail to speak to someone about Christ

Blessings from God are more quickly cut Off from

a church that

A. becomes apathetic and fails to be concerned
about converting unbelievers

B. remains zealous but allows its members to
engage in sinful practices without disci-
plining them

It is more beneficial to the church to hear a
sermon on

A. a Holy God who judges sin

B. a Loving God who cares for His children

 

 

128

IV. VALUE SURVEY

Below is a list of 18 values arranged in alphabetical order.
Your task is to arrange them in order of their importance to
YOU, as guiding principles in YOUR life.

Study the list carefully. Then place a 1 next to the value
which is most important for you. Place a g_n5xt to the value
which is second most important to you, etc. The value which is
least important, relative to the others, should be ranked 18.

Work slowly and think carefully. If you change your mind,

feel free to change your answers. The end result should truly
show how you really feel.

A COMFORTABLE LIFE (a prosperous life)

 

AN EXCITING LIFE (a stimulating, active life)

 

A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT (lasting contribution)

 

 

A WORLD OF PEACE (free of war and conflict)

 

A WORLD OF BEAUTY (beauty of nature and the arts)

 

EQUALITY (brotherhood, equal opportunity for all)

 

FAMILY SECURITY (taking care of loved ones)

 

FREEDOM (independence, free choice)

 

HAPPINESS (contentedness)

 

INNER HARMONY (freedom from inner conflict)

 

MATURE LOVE (sexual and spiritual intimacy)

 

NATIONAL SECURITY (protection from attack)

 

PLEASURE (an enjoyable, leisurely life)

 

SALVATION (saved, eternal life)

 

SELF-RESPECT (self-esteem)

 

SOCIAL RECOGNITION (respect, admiration)

TRUE FRIENDSHIP (close companionship)

 

WISDOM (a mature understanding of life)

 

 

129

VALUE SURVEY

Below is a list of another 18 values. Rank these in order
of importance in the same way you ranked the first list on
the preceding page.

AMBITIOUS (hard-working, aspiring)

BROADMINDED (open-minded)

CAPABLE (competent, effective)

CHEERFUL (lighthearted, joyful)

CLEAN (neat, tidy)

COURAGEOUS (standing up for your beliefs)

 

FORGIVING (willing to pardon others)
HELPFUL (working for the welfare of others)
HONEST (sincere, truthful)

IMAGINATIVE (daring, creative)

INDEPENDENT (self-reliant, self—sufficient)
INTELLECTUAL (intelligent, reflective)
LOGICAL (consistent, rational)

LOVING (affectionate, tender)

OBEDIENT (dutiful, respectful)

POLITE (courteous, well-mannered)
RESPONSIBLE (dependable, reliable)
SELF-CONTROLLED (restrained, self-disciplined)

Please check to be sure you do not have any duplications or
omissions.

 

APPENDIX C

A LIST OF INTENDED OCCUPATIONS GIVEN BY THE STUDENTS
AT GRAND RAPIDS BAPTIST COLLEGE AND SEMINAR WHICH
WE CODED INTO MINISTERIAL AND NONMINISTERIAL

CATEGORIES

 

APPENDIX C

INTENDED OCCUPATIONS

.MINISTERIAL

 

Chaplain
Christian Book Store
Christian Education

Children's Work

Director of

Teacher in Christian Day School
House Parents in Christian Home
Ministry

Christian Service

Church Work

Pastor

Pastor or Evangelist

Pastor or Missionary

Radio Evangelist
Missionary

Home

Linguistics

Nursing

Translation
Secretary of church or missions
Wife of church worker

Youth Worker

130

NONMINISTERIAL

 

Accounting
Agriculture
Forestry
Park Naturalist
Broadcaster
Business
Children's Work
Blind Children
Coaching
Counseling
Psychologist
Sociologist/Psychologist
Youth Counselor
Education
Administration
Elementary
Teacher
Art
Business
Elementary
French/Spanish

Home Economics

 

131

 

 

MINISTERIAL (continued) NONMINISTERIAL (continued)
Camp Work Nursery School
Director of Youth Physical Ed.

Lay Worker of Youth Secondary

Pastor of Youth Special Ed.

Youth & Music Insurance
Journalist

Juvenile Delinquents & Prison
Work

Librarian

Lawyer

 

Medicine
Doctor
Medical Assistant
Nursing
Physical Therapist
Technologist
Military
Modeling
Music
Singing
Teacher
Performer
Pilot
Police

State Police

132

NONMINISTERIAL (continued)

 

Secretary
Medical
Office Work
Social Work
Case Worker
Christian Social Worker
Psychiatric Social Worker
Wife

Youth

 

APPENDIX D

TABLES USED IN ANALYSIS

 

APPENDIX D

TABLES USED IN ANALYSIS

Table 27

The Average Score Given to the Rokeach Values by Various Classes in the
Grand Rapids Baptist College and Seminary

 

G.R. Coll.

 

& Sem. Fresh. Soph. Jr. Sr. Sem. Spec.
A Comfortable Life 13.4012 13.00 13.22 13.13 13.44 15.36 15.60
An Exciting Life 11.8166 11.84 11.29 12.42 11.48 12.27 13.60
A Sense of Accomplishment 8.8994 9.43 9.01 8.79 8.59 7.33 7.60
A World of Peace 13.4941 13.16 13.28 13.85 15.07 13.94 12.60
A World of Beauty 13.8935 13.64 13.59 13.96 15.30 14.76 12.40
Equality 12.6391 12.58 12.91 12.75 12.63 12.27 11.80
Family Security 7.5917 7.45 7.96 7.10 7.78 7.70 7.60
Freedom 9.4042 9.71 8.97 9.46 9.67 8.70 12.20
Happiness 6.7988 6.43 6.77 6.87 6.78 7.76 7.40
Inner Harmony 4.8787 4.86 4.97 5.42 4.67 3.94 6.20
Mature Love 6.2663 6.57 6.94 5.52 5.11 5.79 4.40
National Security 14.6036 14.36 15.18 14.48 15.11 13.55 15.00
Pleasure 13.8225 13.43 13.82 13.83 13.63 15.06 14.40
Salvation 1.1065 1.11 1.01 1.25 1.00 1.24 1.00
Self Respect 7.7840 8.46 7.63 7.67 6.89 7.15 4.80
Social Recognition 13.4231 13.62 13.49 13.27 12.52 13.18 14.40
True Friendship 6.2544 5.90 6.33 6.12 6.41 7.24 5.20
Wisdom 4.8872 5.41 4.59 5.02 4.93 3.76 4.80
Ambitious 9.9610 10.26 9.28 9.20 11.48 10.66 9.60
Broadminded 11.8348 11.32 11.46 11.80 11.96 14.44 12.60
Capable 10.5736 10.62 10.80 9.92 10.33 10.56, 13.40
Cheerful 9.1351 8.27 9.18 9.80 10.26 10.34 7.40
Clean 11.7898 11.70 11.68 12.04 11.07 12.66 10.60
Courageous 10.8054 10.83 10.99 10.88 10.52 10.16 10.60
Forgiving 6.3683 5.75 6.91 6.88 7.19 5.78 5.00
Helpful 8.4384 7.71 8.56 8.60 8.59 10.00 10.80
Honest 4.5526 5.25 3.97 4.66 4.48 3.84 2.60
Imaginative 13.6787 14.13 13.37 12.80 12.63 14.69 14.80
Independent 12.4384 12.33 12.45 12.32 12.52 13.16 9.40
Intelligent 12.3994 13.73 11.73 11.12 12.00 11.75 13.80
Logical 12.6847 13.01 12.92 12.84 11.74 12.12 10.00
Loving 4.3563 4.28 4.87 4.78 3.22 3.69 4.40
Obedient 8.2072 8.13 8.69 8.78 9.30 5.19 10.00
Polite 10.6396 10.50 10.65 10.96 10.67 10.59 11.00
Responsible 6.5135 6.38 6.43 7.28 6.19 6.53 6.60
Self-Control 6.5796 6.79 7.05 6.00 6.85 4.84 8.40

 

 

133

134

Table 28

A Comparison Between the Average Scores and Composite Rank Orders Given to Rokeach
Values by Students from a National Samplea and Students from an
Evangelical Religious College

 

 

 

Value Evangelical Composite National Composite
Average Rank Order Average Rank Order
A Comfortable Life 13.13 (14) 11.2 (13)
An Exciting Life 11.75 (12) 15.3 (18)
A Sense of Accomplishment 9.11 ( 9) 7.6 ( 6)
A World of Peace 11.31 (11) 4.2 ( 2)
A World of Beauty 13.83 (17) 13.6 (15)
Equality 12.72 (13) 8.4 ( 8)
Family Security 7.58 ( 7) 3.5 ( 1)
Freedom 9.42 (10) 5.4 ( 3)
Happiness 6.65 ( 6) 7.8 ( 7)
Inner Harmony 4.98 ( 2) 9.4 ( 9)
Mature Love 6.37 ( 5) 12.2 (14)
National Security 14.71 (18) 10.1 (10)
Pleasure 13.64 (16) 14.8 (16)
Salvation 1.09 ( 1) 10.3 (11)
Self Respect 7.91 ( 8) 6.9 ( 5)
Social Recognition 13.42 (15) 15.1 (17)
True Friendship 6.12 ( 4) 10.4 (12)
Wisdom 5.03 ( 3) 6.1 ( 4)
Ambitious 9.87 ( 9) 7.7 ( 5)
Broadminded 11.51 (13) 7.4 ( 4)
Capable 10.53 (10) 9.1 ( 7)
Cheerful 9.00 ( 8) 11.3 (14)
Clean 11.69 (14) 10.6 (13)
Courageous 10.86 (12) 6.7 ( 3)
Forgiving 6.45 ( 3) 8.8 ( 6)
Helpful 8.22 ( 6) 9.5 ( 9)
Honest 4.66 ( 2) 3.4 ( 1)
Imaginative 13.52 (18) 14.0 (17)
Independent 12.38 (15) 10.2 (11)
Intelligent 12.48 (16) 10.3 (12)
Logical 12.83 (17) 12.1 (16)
Loving 4.46 ( 1) 9.6 (10)
Obedient 8.53 ( 7) 14.7 (18)
Polite 10.64 (11) 11.6 (15)
Responsible 6.53 ( 4) 5.9 ( 2)
Self-Control 6.74 ( 5) 9.2 ( 8)

 

aThis sample was of 180 students with some college, published in 1973

(26, pp. 64, 65).

 

10.

REFERENCES

Albert, E. M. Value systems. Encyclopedia of Social
Science, 16, 287-291.

 

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. Personal religious
orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality

 

and Social Psychology, 1967, 5, 432-443.

 

Aronfreed, J. Conduct and conscience: The sociali-
zation of internalized control over behaVior.
New York: Academic Press, 1968.

 

 

Arsenian, S. Change in evaluative attitudes during
four years of college. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 1943, 21, 338-349.

 

Bender, I. E. Changes in religious interest: A
retest after fifteen years. Journal of Abnormal
Social Psychology, 1958, 51, 41:46.

 

 

Bender, I. E. Changing patterns of religious
interest. The Humanist, 1958, 18, 139-144.

 

Bryan, J. H., & London, P. Altruistic behavior by
children. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 13(3),
200-211.

 

Duffy, E. A. A critical review of investigations
employing the Allport-Vernon Study of Values and
other tests of evaluative attitude. Psychological

 

 

 

 

Evans, R. I. Personal values as factors in anti-
Semitism. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology,

 

Feather, N. T. Similarity of value systems as a
determinant of educational choice at university
level. Australian Journal of Psychology, 1971.

 

135

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

136

Feather, N. T. Value systems in state and church
schools. Australian Journal of Psychology, 1970,
22, 299-313.

 

Harris, M. B. Reciprocity and generosity: Some
determinants of sharing in children. Child
Development, 1970, 41(2), 313-328.

 

 

Iscoe, I., & Lucier, O. A comparison of the revised
Allport-Vernon scale of values (1951) and the
Kuder Preference Record. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 1953, 31, 195-196.

 

 

Jacob, P. E. Changing values in college. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1957.

 

Kelly, E. L., & Fiske, D. W. The_prediction of per-
formance in clinical psychology. Ann Arbor:
University of MIEhigan Press, 1951.

 

 

Kelly, E. L., & Fiske, D. W. The prediction of
success in the V.A. training program in clinical
psychology. American Psychologist, 1950, 5,
395-406.

 

Kohlberg, L. Moral development. Encyclopedia of
Social Science, 483-493.

 

 

Krebs, D. L. Altruism-~an examination of the concept
and a review Of the literature. Psychological

 

 

McKinney, J. P. The development of values--Pre-
scriptive or proscriptive? Human Development,
1971, 14, 71-80.

 

Mussen, P., Harris, M., Rutherford, E., & Keasey,
C. B. Honesty and altruism among preadolescents.
DevelOpmental Psychology, 1970, 3(2), 169-194.

 

Olejnik, A. B., & McKinney, J. P. Parental value
orientation and generosity in children. Paper
presented at 43rd annual meeting of the Eastern
Psychological Association, April 29, 1972.

Rokeach, M. Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968}

 

Rokeach, M. Faith, hope, and bigotry. Psychology
Today, April 1970.

 

 

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

137

Rokeach, M. Long-range modification of values,
attitudes, and behavior. American Psychologist,
May, 1971.

 

Rokeach, M. The nature of attitudes. Encyclopedia
of Social Science, 1, 454.

 

 

Rokeach, M. The nature of human values. New York:
Free Press, 1973.

 

Rokeach, M. Religious values and social compassion.
Review of Religious Research, 1969, 11, 24-38.

 

Rokeach, M. A theory of organization and change
within value-attitude systems. Journal of Social
Issues, 1968, 14, 13-33.

 

Rokeach, M. Value systems and religion. Review of
Religious Research, 1969, 11, 2-23.

 

 

Shortland, R. L., & Berger, W. G. Behavioral vali-
dation of several values from the Rokeach value
scale as an index of honesty. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1970, 54, 433-435.

 

 

Stark, R., & Glock, C. Y. American piety: The
nature of religious commitment. Berkley: Uni-
versity ofICalIfornia Press, 1968.

 

 

Sternberg, C. The relation of interest, values, and
personality to major field of study in college.
Dissertation Abstracts, 1953, 11, 1095.

 

Tate, E. D., & Miller, G. R. Differences in value
systems of persons with varying religious orien-
tations. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, Winter 1971, 19(4), 357-365.

 

 

Todd, J. E. Social norms and the behavior of col-
lege students. New York: Teachers College
Bureau Publication, 1941.

Williams, R. M. The concept of values. Encyclo-
pedia of Social Science, 16, 283-287.

 

Williams, R. M., Jr. Strangers next door. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall) Inc., 1964.

 

 

 

 

11111111'111111115