SELECTED AFFECIIVE AND COGNITIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENT DISCIPLINARY OFFENDERS Thesis for the Degree of 'Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EMERY J. CUMMINS 1964 THESIS 0-169 WITH Ifllml'lflmmflillmlmmfll'flflll ! "MEL 93 ,19722. 6532.; This is to certify that the thesis entitled Selected Affective and Cognitive Characteristics of Student Disciplinary Offenders presented by Emery J. Cummins has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Education git“ 8 ‘ Rwanda Major professor Date May 21: 196,4 LIBRARY Michigan State University F 3 BINDING BY ' "BAG 8. SllNS' 800K BINDERY [NB LIBRAEY emoens "almost. ulcmm MSU LIBRARIES .-_._—_ l RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. wh’r’x .‘ MW JijLzrflvq’: - 1‘00 019A .‘1 ’99!) m "11:. -< auc:_ [EN . C- I ABSTRACT snacrso arrscrrvs AND coeui'rrva mmcrsarsrzcs or smm'r DISCIPLINARY orrmnsas by Emery J. Cummins This study was concerned with cognitive and affec- tive characteristics which distinguish the student dis- ciplinary offender from the non-offender and which differ- entiate among the four main categories of disciplinary offenses. These categories included 1) Very severe dis- ciplinary offense, 2) Severe disciplinary offense. 3) Moderately severe disciplinary offense. and 4) Disciplinary offense of minor severity. Rating into these categories was done by the three chief student personnel administra- tors at Michigan State University. The instruments used to measure cognitive characteristics were the College Qualification Test and the Test of Critical Thinking. Those used to measure affective characteristics were the Inventory of Beliefs, Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, and the Differential Values Inventory. I A control group, matched on the basis of College Qualification Test (total) score and Socio-Bconomic- Educational Index score, was selected with which to compare the disciplinary group. The writer hypothesized that the disciplinary l Emery J. Cummins offender would tend to be more flexible, less dogmatic, and hold a more emergent value system than the non-disciplinary offender. Conversely. the non-disciplinary student would tend to be less flexible. more dogmatic, and hold a more traditional value system. Regarding the different categories of disciplinary offenders, the writer hypothesized that there would be no significant differences among them. With regard to cognitive characteristics, no differ- ences were predicted either between or among groups. The data generally supported hypotheses relating to cognitive characteristics between disciplinary offenders and non-disciplinary offenders. Also supported were the hypotheses relating to differences among the four groups of disciplinary offenders. It was found that on the affective measures the disciplinary and non-disciplinary students did not differ significantly. This led the writer to conclude that die- ciplinary students are essentially similar to non-disciplin- ary students with regard to those factors measured by the instruments used in this study. That is, they are not more flexible, less dogmatic, nor do they hold more emergent value systems than the non-offenders. This could lead to the possibility that differences between these students may be due more to environmental factors than cognitive and affective characteristics. SELECTBD‘AFFBCTIVI AND COGNITIVE CHARACTERISTICS or srunsu'r DISCIPLINARY orrmosas - by Emery J; Cummins)lf A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR.OP PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1964 . . v. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is sincerely appreciative of the help given him by the following individuals: Dr. Donald Hamachek, chairman of the guidance committee, whose encouragement, assistance, and patience enabled the project to reach completion. Dr. Irvin Lehmann, who made available the data from which this study was derived and gave freely of him- self whenever called upon. Dr. Bernard Corman and Dr. Marian Kinget, who served on the guidance committee and were a source of help and encouragement throughout the writer's doctoral program. Mr. James DeJonge, who gave considerable assist- ance in programming part of the data for the computer. The advisory staff of West McDonel Hall, who performed admirably while the writer worked to complete this study. And especially to my wife, Patti, whose kindness and understanding were a constant source of encouragement during the months of this undertaking. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statanent Of the PrOblan e e e e e e e e Rationale and Purpose of the Study . . . Definition of Terms and Disciplinary Label 3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 II REVIEW’OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . Problem of Defining the Disciplinary Offense O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O The Disciplinary Offense Perceived by Parents, Administrators, and Students. Factors Contributing to Student Discipline Offenses . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Considerations . . . . . . . Summary of Review of the Literature . . III HYPOTHESES AND LIMITATIONS‘OF THE STUDY . . Hypotheses to be Tested . . . . . . . . Limitations and Scape of the Study . . . IV PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . Papulation and Samples Used in the. StudYeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Definition of the Population . . . . . . Selection of the Sample . . . . . . . . Classification of the Sample . . . . . . Instruments Used in the Study . . . . . Collection of the Data . . . . . . . . . Statistical Procedures Used in the StUGYeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 111 PAGE 11 13 15 18 20 20 22 24 24 24 25 25 27 35 36 CHAPTER smaIYeeeeeeeeee V ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . Differences Between Disciplinary and Non-Disciplinary Students . . Cognitive Factors . . . . Affective Factors . . . . Differences Among Disciplinary Students Cognitive Factors . . . . Affective Factors . . . . VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . Statement of the Problem . Method of Procedure . . . . Summary of the Findings . . condusionseeeeeeee Recommendations for Further Research BIBLIOGMPHY . o o e o O o o O O O O O 0 APPENDIX A. DISCIPLINARY OFFENSES RATED BY THREE CHIEF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY APPENDIX B. SOCIO-ECONOMIC-EDUCATIONAL INDEX SCORE 1v PAGE 37 40 4o 42 44 so 51 57 62 62 62 64 7o 73 75 79 82 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 An Intercorrelation Matrix of the Inventory of Beliefs, Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, and College Qualification Test for Male and Female Freshman Students . . . . . . . . . . 30 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Disciplinary and Non-Disciplinary Group Scores on Cognitive and Affective measureseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee41 3 Means and Standard Deviations for the Cognitive and Affective Measures on the Freshman Year Pre-Test . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4 Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary and Non-Disciplinary Males - Test of Critical I'r‘itlkilag O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 44 5 Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary and Non-Disciplinary Females - Test of critical'rhinkingoeeeeeeeeeee e44 6 Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary and Non-Disciplinary Males - Inventory of Bdiggaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee46 7 Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary and Non-Disciplinary Females - Inventory of Beliefs O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 46 8 Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary and Non-Disciplinary Males - Dogmatism Scale . . 47 9 Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary and Non-Disciplinary Females - Dogmatism Scale 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 48 10 Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary and Non-Disciplinary Males - Differential ValuefilnvmtorYeeeeeeeeeeeeee_49 11 Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary and Non-Disciplinary Females - Differential valuealnventoqeeeeeeeeeeeeee49 12 Means and Standard Deviations for Disciplinary Males on Five Measures . . . . 53 V’ TABLE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 Means and Standard Deviations for Disciplinary Females on Five Measures Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Males-College Qualification Test . . Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Females-College Qualification Test . Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Males-Test of Critical Thinking . . . Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Females-Test of Critical Thinking . . Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Males-Inventory of Beliefs . . . . . Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Females-Inventory of Beliefs . . . . Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Males-Dogmatism Scale e e e e e e e e Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Fennel-Dogmatism Scale e e e e e e e Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Males-Differential Values Inventory . Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Females-Differential Values Inventory PAGE 54 55 55 S6 57 58 59 59 6O 61 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Our knowledge about the kind of college student who becomes involved in disciplinary situations is largely conjectural. Relatively little research has been devdted to the task of identifying this student. Educators are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that an institu— tion's disciplinary program can play an important part in the total development of the individual. Costar (932-3) writes: I Providing a positive kind of assistance for students who demonstrate undesirable forms of behavior is now considered to be an important function of most colleges and universities. Whether or not schools are effective in carrying out this activity is dependent upon the possession of a compre- hensive understanding of the unique educa- tional needs of these students. Williamson (35) emphasizes the need to approach discipline as a normal part of the ongoing educational program. It is his contention that rehabilitation should be an integral part of education and should not be looked upon as an undesirable chore. If these observations are valid, than it logically follows that more information about disciplinary students would aid greatly in the development of both prevention and rehabilitation. 2 Statement of the Problem The essential problem of this investigation was to study differences between disciplinary and non- disciplinary students and to examine differences among disciplinary students with regard to selected cognitive and affective characteristics. Rationale and Purpose of the Study The writer felt that a study of this nature was needed because of the lack of information regarding the disciplinary offender. Methods are not available at the present time which allow us to identify ahead of time who the disciplinary offenders will be. With information of this nature, it would be feasible to predict the potential offenders before they committed the offense. If the disciplinary student is markedly different from the non-disciplinary student, and if these differ- ences can be identified early in the student's career, preventive measures may be taken. If, however, he is essentially the same in his cognitive and affective characteristics, other methods will have to be devised in order to identify him. The prdblem now is that we really don't know in which ways he is different from or similar to the non- disciplinary student. Until more information is gathered, it will remain difficult to identify him ahead of time. 3 Most university administrators are interested more in pre- venting than treating offenses. The purpose cf this study, then, was to investigate whether the disciplinary offender tends to be more flexible, less dogmatic, and have a more emergent value system than the non-disciplinary student. In order to do this, three steps were employed. 1) Systematic steps were taken to isolate selected cognitive and affective factors which differentiate the disciplinary offender from other students at Midhigan State University. 2) An effort was made to discover differences among the students involved in dis- ciplinary situations of varying degrees of severity. 3) The writer analyzed the nature and extent of these differ- ences and drew conclusions which may assist those who are involved in this aspect of the educational program. A more detailed explanation of these steps is found in the section dealing with hypotheses to be tested. Definition of Terms and Disciplinary Labels The author is using the following terms and labels as defined below: ngnitivg characteristics: those characteristics dealing primarily with intellectual ability. These in- clude verbal skills, numerical skills, and general information as well as the ability to think critically. In this study they are measured by the College 4 Qualification Test and the Test of Critical Thinking, Form G. Affectivg characteristics: those characteristics dealing in the areas of attitudes and values. This study is specifically concerned with the flexibility and/or inflexibility of belief systems as measured by the Inventory of Beliefs, Form 1: the degree of dogmatism and authoritarianism as measured by Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form B: and value orientation (traditional vs. emergent) as measured by the Differential Values Inventory. Disciplinary offender: a student who is referred to the office of the Dean of Students for disciplinary action. Disciplinary srtuation: a situation that arises as a result of a student's being referred to the office of the Dean of Students. Warning probatron: this action does not restrict the activities of an individual, but the student is re- moved from good standing as a student. He then has an Opportunity to modify his behavior before more serious action is necessary. Disciplinary probation: the restriction of this action is the same as that of Strict disciplinary pro- 'bation (see below) with the exception that this is not jplaced on the student's transcript. Strict disciplinary probation: this action 5 indicates that a person is permitted to remain at the university in spite of some violation of the established standards of conduct. Particular privileges are lost and specific restrictions are applied for an indefinite period of time. Suspension: this action indicates that a person is administratively withdrawn from the university for an indefinite period of time. Disciplinary offensp of minor severity: an offense which would warrant a verbal reprimand and/or warning \ probation. Moderately sevgre disciplinary offense: an offense which would warrant probation with limitations curtailing some of the student's privileges. Severe disciplinary offense: an offense which would warrant either suspension from the university or strict disciplinary probation, depending on the student's background and the circumstances surrounding the case. Vgry severe disciplinary offense: an offense which would warrant either suspension from the university or a permanent hold on registration: if the case involved civil authorities, the student would be turned over to them. The writer will frequently refer to the entire group of disciplinary offenders as “the offender”. This is done generically, and is not meant to be taken in an indi- vidual sense. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE There is a notable lack of literature dealing with the nature of the disciplinary student at the college level. Much that is written tends to reflect the parti- cular views of a given writer and lacks a background of research. One of the reasons for this may be the unique- ness of the rules and regulations in each institution. A student who is a disciplinary problem at one school is not necessarily a problem at another. Drinking in one's room at one institution may be a suspension offense: at an- other, it may result in probation: and in still another, it may be an accepted practice. Depending on the nature of the institution, whether it be private, church-related, public, having most students in residence or having most students commute, the rules and regulations vary consider- ably. However, this does not mean that research cannot be done. We must start somewhere, and what follows is.a breakdown of related published studies, which will serve as a foundation for this research effort. Discipline is sometimes thought of as the enforce- ment of external standards with which the offender may or may not agree. Although most educators would agree that this is necessary, they would not want to put the emphasis on this aspect of discipline. Costar (9) stated that in 7 almost every published article since 1920 dealing with discipline the emphasis is upon the desirability of pro; grams which “emphasize the education and rehabilitation of students instead of punishment and coercion.“ Many of the more recent educators and administrators, such as Mueller (l9), Coleman (5), and Peiffer and Walker (21), express an attitude towards discipline similar to that of Clark, Hagie, and Landrus (4): Discipline at its best is not a negative list of 'thou shalt nots' enforced by standardized or unusual punishment, but rather, it is a positive process of learning and develOpment achieved through responsible participation in real life situations. Problem of Defining the Disciplinary Offense This section is composed of studies which establish the fact that the “disciplinary offense“ is not a well— defined concept. Disciplinary offenses vary widely from institution to institution, and for this reason it is difficult to research adequately in this area. Any con- clusions which might arise from this study must be taken in this light. Conway (6) studied 312 institutions of higher learn- ing in the North Central Association in an attempt to find out how disciplinary problems were being handled. He thought it significant that only 218 of the institutions answered the questionnaire he sent out, but from those returned he found three major types of disciplinary 8 situations: those arising from scholastic difficulties, academic dishonesty, and social misconduct. Students tended to fall short of university eXpectations most often in the area of social misconduct. Social misconduct is, of course, defined by each institution. The diversity of institutional criteria for misconduct is well stated by Levine and Pines (17): Rules have relaxed to the point where boys and girls at one co-educational college in the Midwest, for instance, are allowed to spend the night in sleeping bags in an adjoining park, as long as five students are present--a supposedly magic figure: on the other hand, the colleges severely penalize anyone who gets caught in 'illicit sexual relations'. One young man and woman were suspended from the same college recently--de3pite the fact that both were in excellent academic standing--for producing a baby only six months after they were married. Other colleges...have a wide and rather comical array of regulations about who may visit a student dormitory, where (in downstairs lounges, called 'passion pits', or in student rooms), when, and how (doors cpen, lights on, four feet on the floor). While the boys are given considerable freedom, the girls' dormitories impose strict curfews--which occasionally back- fire, as when girls stay out all night rather than be punished for coming in too late. A number of schools go so far as to outlaw student- owned cars, at least for freshmen (sometimes for lack of parking facilities, as well as for moral‘ reasons, to be sure). If nothing else, such restrictions may succeed‘in obstructing ordinary friendly relationships. -It can be readily seen that social misconduct is determined almost entirely by the set of rules and regulations which the institution has established. Un- fortunately, many of these rules and regulations were set 9 up years ago in a different social and cultural setting, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify them to our current student pepulation. Many of the existing regulations have little or no relevance to the present university situation. Seward (27) writes: We need to gain parapective on the learning Opportunities of discipline and recognize that our concern goes beyond the act itself to the attitude behind the behavior. A re- -. examination of the teachings of psychology in regard to learning will be useful to us in realizing the involvement of learning with ' discipline. It should be noted here that changing rules and regulations is no easy task. Pressures from parents, citizens, boards of control, special interest groups, faculty, legislature, and other agencies make it extremely difficult to revise existing regulations. Clark, Hagie, and Landrus (4) advocated the necessity for students to play an important part in the establishing and maintaining of standards of conduct. It would seem that some basic principles should be established before revising rules and regulations. They should be part of a theoretical framework, not a patchwork system consisting mainly of stOpgap measures. The aims and objectives of the institution should be incorporated into this framework as well. Whitaker (32) reported the results of a faculty committee which was assigned the task Of drawing up some principles around which rules and regulations could be revised: 10 1. It is generally agreed by students of the problem that honesty is not a general characteristic. A person may be completely honest in one situation or circumstance and not in another. 2. The right attitude or thinking will usually lead to right action or reSponse to a situation. However, the individual must have the experience of responding prcperly in a given situation in order that he may develOp a habit of being honest. His atti- tude or point of view needs to be reinforced by a well-established habit. 3. The purpose or goal of our approach must be to develop those ideals, attitudes, and habits which will enable a person to become a reSponsible, self-directed individual. 4. Youth is much concerned about acceptance in his peer group, and any plan that has success potential must recognize this fact.- It becomes imperatiVe, therefore, that an effort be made to create a proper climate of cpinion in various student organizations and groups as well as among the student body at ,1arge. This is, in a sense, combining discipline and guidance in such a way that the disciplinary program, or system of rules and regulations, becomes a part of the student's overall educational eXperience. Williamson (33) defines three goals of what he calls "disciplinary counsel- ing)” the first is that of rehabilitating disciplinary offenders: second, the prevention of misbehavior through counseling to achieve an inner-control of self: third, the modification of unbridled individualism. He goes on to explain: License to develOp as one wishes could result in chaos from the standpoint of membership in a group or a society. And what we want in ll counseling is surely not individualism run wild under the guise of cptimum develOpment. Rather do we seek to help the individual to develop the cptimum measure of his self- determination and self control within the necessary limitations and influences imposed by membership of individuals in groups of other individuals. Not all faculties or administrative officers would necessarily agree with the conclusions of Williamson, but whether they agree or not they should have their own set of principles by which to cperate. The disciplinary offense must be defined in terms of a larger code if it is to have meaning to the student, and it must have meaning to the student if it is to have any educational value. Truitt (31) conducted structured interviews with the disciplinary officers in each of the Big Ten univer- sities and found that these administrators agreed that the university should accept the responsibility for the total development of each student. This, concluded Truitt, includes the disciplinary program, and it should be given a priority in keeping with the other programs of the university. The Disciplinary Offense Perceived by Parents, Administrators, and Students Not only do differences of opinion regarding_h discipline occur between universities, but within univer- sities as well. The following studies report some of these differences in terms of administrative, parental, and 12 student attitudes toward discipline. Again, let it be understood that we are dealing with a fluid concept, and the boundaries are not well defined. Prusok (24) found that, in general, student per- sonnel administrators held more punitive attitudes toward disciplinary offenses than did either students or their parents. The exceptions were situations involving dis- orderly conduct, alcoholic beverages, and violation of probation: in these cases parents held the most punitive attitudes. Students held the least punitive attitudes on all situations but one, alcoholic beverages, where they were between parents and student personnel administrators. The list of hypothetical cases tested consisted of the following: Unapproved housing Assorted misconduct Illegal mass activity Alcoholic beverages Disorderly conduct Academic or related Theft offenses Gambling Automobile cases Misuse of privileges Violation of probation and fraud and miscellaneous offenses Prusok also found that women students generally tend to be less punitive than men in their views toward disciplinary offenses. He concluded that these findings indicate a need for more student involvement in the dis- ciplinary process. Murray (20) conducted a study to find the parti- cular areas in which students were encountering personal difficulties because of conflicts and tensions. He found 13 that the major sources of difficulty grew out of poor teadher-pupil relationships. low grade-point averages, negative encounters with dormitory regulations, and un- satisfactory heterosexual relationships. An interesting study was done by Anderson and Dvorak (2) in which three generations, grandparents, parents, and college students, were compared. It was found that college students differ from parents and grandparents in the standards on which they base their conduct in that they prefer the standards of prudence and esthetics to those of right and wrong. This conclusion is at least partially supported by the work of another writer, (13) who studied a group of Pennsylvania State University 1 students and concluded the following: Students support standards which severely con— demn stealing and cheating....Students do not support strong policies against the use of alcohol. Williamson (33) wrote that the individual involved in disciplinary situations usually presents a hostile attitude to the counselor, even to the point of vociferous protest against ”dictatorial, arbitrary, unilateral, and even 'unconstitutional' interference with his 'private life,‘ especially in the case of sex offenses. Factors Contributing to Student Disciplinary Offenses Although the research in this area is sparse, the - following efforts do tell us something about the nature of \ 14 the disciplinary offender. Costar (9) studied the academic records of all students admitted to Michigan State Univer- sity in 1953 and subsequently reported to the Dean of Students office for disciplinary action during the next four years. No significant differences were found between disciplinary and non-disciplinary students regarding scholastic aptitude or academic major. However, the grade- point averages of the disciplinary students were lower than the grade-point averages of the non-disciplinary students throughout the four-year college program. These differ- ences were significant in nine of the twelve terms. It is interesting to note that no significant differences were found among the disciplinary students for the two quarters before and the two quarters following the term in which the offense was committed. Costar concluded that dis- ciplinary students are not as well-adjusted academically as their non-disciplinary counterparts during the four-year college period. Silverman (29), in a disciplinary study done in the public schools, found six factors whidh cause un- desirable individual conduct: 1. Dissatisfaction in the work process 2. Emotional unrest in interpersonal relations 3. Disturbances in group climate 4. Mistakes in organization and group leadership 5 . Emotional strain and sudden change 15 6. The composition of the group These factors certainly relate to the college situation as well. In a study done in conjunction with the 0.5. Office of Education, Goldman (12) studied some of the factors which caused vandalism in a given city. These factors seemed relevant to the writer and are included below: 1. Low socio-economic status and high in- stability of the student 2. Change and instability in the school 3. Low interest in the academic program and low personal identification with the school 4. Weak administration; students not in- volved in planning school programs Theoretical Considerations Some of the recent studies on prejudice have in- dicated that certain behavioral traits are manifest in several personality syndromes. Among those high scorers on the F Scale, which was devised by Adorno and his associates, (1:759-62) there are several types of indivi- duals. The authoritarian syndrome is closest to the overall description of this group. It was hypothesized that authoritarianism was a variable with its own dimensions and could be investigated and quantified. According to Adorno, the authoritarian person “achieves his own social adjustment only by taking 16 pleasure in obedience and subordination.” The other most frequent syndrome occurring among high scorers on the F Scale is the conventional type. Concerning him Adorno (1:756) writes, "Acceptance of prevailing standards is more important than is discontent." Several theoretical considerations grow out of the instruments used in this study. For example, Rakeach (26:121-23) attempted to correlate his Dogmatism Scale with the F Scale and found that peOple who score relatively high on one test tend to score relatively high on the other as well. Correlations ranged from .54 to .77. (A high score on the Dogmatism Scale indicates a high degree of dogmatism). From this we would expect to find that students scoring high on the Dogmatism Scale would manifest some of the characteristics of the person scoring high on the F Scale. However, the converse is not as easily established. Adorno (1:771-83) found that the low scorers on the F Scale were not as easily typed as the high scorers: he also found that there were greater differences among the low scorers. In general, there are indications that the syndromes of the low-scoring group are more loose- 1y' connected than those of the high-scorers. This might suggest that the disciplinary student would be more difficult to identify because of his greater syndrome diversity. The Inventory of Beliefs was another instrument used in this study and is a measure of stereotypy of‘ 17 beliefs. The instrument purports to identify those whose belief systems are independent, adaptive, and non-stereo- typic as against those whose belief systems are defensive, conforming, resistant, and immature. (7) Lehmann and Ikenberry (16:56) report correlations between the Inventory of Beliefs and Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale of -.63 for males and -.61 for females. The negative correlations are due to scoring procedures only. A high score on the Dogmatism Scale represents a high degree of dogmatism, while a low score on the Inventory of Beliefs represents a high degree of stereotYPy. The two concepts are positively related. From this we might expect that students scoring high on the Dogmatism Scale would also demonstrate stereotypic belief systems. The Differential Values Inventory scores were also analyzed. As described by Prince (23) this is a measure of emergent vs. traditional values. Traditional values are defined as placing a greater emphasis on personal reapectability, self-denial, individualism, and a willing- ness to sacrifice present needs for future rewards. In contrast to this, persons with emergent value orientations place greater emphasis on ability to get along with others over individuality. These persons place greater value on today and worry less about tomorrow. Since the rules and regulations of a university generally reflect traditional societal values, we might 18 eXpect that the disciplinary offender would most likely score high on the emergent value scale and low on the traditional value scale because of his needs for immediate, here and now, gratification and group acceptance. From the considerations mentioned above, we might expect that the more conventional, authoritarian, or I dogmatic student is less likely to become involved in disciplinary problems because of his relative acceptance of the traditional bases on which the rules and regulations are established. Conversely, the less conventional, more individualistic student is more likely to find himself in trouble with the university because he may disagree with the rules and regulations. Summary of Review of the Literature We have seen from this review that the treatment of discipline can and does vary from institution to institution. Although most educators and student person- nel administrators agree that discipline should be in- tegrated into the total educational program, not all can agree on the means for accomplishing this. It seems apparent that parents, administrators, and students all perceive the disciplinary situation in a different light. This may be due in part to the fact that standards of conduct have not been thoroughly reviewed at many campuses for several years and it may also be indicative of a general lack of communication among these 19 differing groups. Little information is available concerning the disciplinary offender himself. Some reasons have been offered to eXplain the causal factors behind undesirable behavior, but we know little about the type of person who becomes involved. The work of Adorno (1) may cast some light upon this problem, but specific research in the area of college discipline is needed before conclusions may be drawn. CHAPTER III HYPOTHESES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Hypotheses to be Tested General Hyppthesis Stated in general terms, the writer is hypothesiz- ing that the disciplinary offender tends to be more flexible, less dogmatic, and holds a more emergent value system than the non-disciplinary offender. Conversely, the non-disciplinary student tends to be less flexible, more dogmatic, and holds a more traditional value system. Regarding the different types of disciplinary offenders, the writer is hypothesizing that there are no significant differences among them. 1. There is no significant difference in critical thinking ability as measured by the Test of Critical Think- ing, Form G, between those involved in disciplinary " offenses and those not involved in disciplinary offenses. . 2. Those involved in disciplinary offenses score higher (are more flexible) on the inventory of Beliefs, Form I, than those not involved in disciplinary offenses. 3. Those involved in disciplinary offenses score lower (are less dogmatic) on Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form 3, than those not involved in disciplinary offenses. 20 21 4. Those involved in disciplinary offenses have more emergent values as measured by the Differential Values Inventory than those not involved in disciplinary offenses. O atio H es s Rel t Differen es on Dis- crplinary Students 5. There is no significant difference in academic ability as measured by the College Qualification Test among those students classified into four groups of disciplinary offenses. 6. There is no significant difference in criti- cal thinking ability as measured by the Test of Critical Thinking, Form G, among those four classifications of disciplinary offenses. 7. There is no significant difference in flex- ibility as measured by the Inventory of Beliefs, Form I, among those four classifications of disciplinary offenses. 8. There is no significant difference in degree of dogmatism as measured by Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form 3, among those four classifications of disciplinary offenses. 9. There is no significant difference in value orientation as measured by the Differential Values Inventory among those four classifications of disciplinary offenses.‘ The confidence level for those hypotheses was set at the .05 level of significance. 22 Limitations and Sc0pe of the Study This study will be concerned only with those students who were referred to the office of the Dean of Students for disciplinary action. Students who may have been disciplinary problems in other areas of the campus community cannot be included because of the inadequacy of existing records. The writer realizes that many students escaped being sent to the dean's office only because they were not caught, and this shortcoming must be recognized. The study will not be able to account for those students who might have been disciplinary offenders but who withdrew from the university before becoming involved. A limitation which is inherent in the research tools, should be mentioned. Instruments measuring atti- tudes and values are, at best, approximations. and we would be well-advised to work within the confines of this limitation and temper our conclusions accordingly. Since only students matriculating at Michigan State University were tested, this restricted population is also a limitation. Foreign and transfer students were not included. Any inferences made from the results in this study will have to take into account the nature of the student pOpulation at a large, state-supported university. An additional limitation involves the classifica- tion of disciplinary offenders into four groups. These groupings are not discrete, but for purposes of analysis 23 they were made so. The ratings of the judges also con- stitute a limitation. Three administrators at Michigan State University determined which offenses fell into each classification, and the rather low reliability of these ratings cannot be ignored and is another factor which must tunper our conclusions. This is discussed more thoroughly in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV PROCEDURE ANDIMETHODOLOGY This chapter deals with the pOpulation and samples used in the study, the instruments used to measure cogni- tive and affective characteristics, a description of data collection techniques, and the statistical procedures used.~ Population and Samples Used in the Study .0 The entire freshman class entering Michigan State University in the fall term, 1958, constituted the papulation from which the sample was drawn. The only ex- ceptions to this include those who transferred to Michigan State University from another institution, foreign students, and those for whom usable test data was not obtained. The pepulation consisted of 2,746 students, 1,436 males and 1,310 females. This particular class was the subject of a large-scale investigation carried out by Lehmann and Dressel (15) and supported by the U.S. Office of Education. Definition of the POpulation More complete information concerning the pOpulation can be found in a preliminary study by Lehmann and Ikenberry (16:19). Following is their summary which describes a profile based on majority responses to a biographical questionnaire. 24 25 He is 18 years of age, single and Protestant. Prior to enrolling at Michigan State, he lived most of his life in a community with a pOpula- tion of under 100,000. He attended a public high school that had less than 200 students in the graduating class and ranked in the upper half of his class. While at high school he participated (in a moderate sense) in the activities offered. Both his parents are native born and had high school or some college education. “His father's occupation would be classed in the middle socio-economic stratum. His mother is a housewife and his father holds only one job. His parental relationship is good. While going through college, he is pri- marily dependent upon his family for financial support. He would like and expects to attend college for four years and he chooses to major in a technical or vocationally oriented curricula (sic) rather than just get a broad general education in the humanities or social sciences. He is presently living in a dormi- tory on campus. Selection of the Sample The sample was selected from the disciplinary files in the office of the Dean of Students. 0f the 2,746 students, all who were referred for disciplinary action were included in the sample. This consisted of 95 males and 49 females. Classification of the Sample .The writer read the disciplinary reports of all students referred to the office of the Dean of Students. These reports were then classified into twenty-eight different categories of disciplinary offenses.1 1See Appendix A. 26 1. Very severe disciplinary offense 2. Severe disciplinary offense 3. Moderately severe disciplinary offense 4. Disciplinary offense of minor severity Since the three chief student personnel administra- tors at Midhigan State University were in the best position to judge the relative severity of each disciplinary offense, the writer chose them to rank each disciplinary case into one of four categories. These judges include the Dean of Students, Associate Dean of Students, and Assistant Dean of Students, who collectively represent over twenty years of experience in student personnel work. None of them was directly involved in the disciplinary situations that are part of this study. The three deans were asked to rate these offenses according to the existing rules and regulations of Michigan State University. When they were returned, the writer determined the consensus for each of the twenty-eight categories and assigned the apprOpriate rating to each of the disciplinary offenders. For example, if two raters chose category 2 and one chose category 3, the consensus would fall on category 2. If the raters each chose a different category, the middle category chosen would be selected. This procedure made it possible to differentiate among the various types of disciplinary situations. Reliability coefficients were computed for the 27 three deans. The Dean of Students is represented as l, the Associate Dean of Students as 2, and the Assistant Dean of Students as 3. H e N I ' .441 1.3 = .503 2.3 = .646 It is evident that these reliability coefficients are not as high as could be desired. However, as pointed out in the literature review, agreement on this kind of data is not easily obtained. Since these three deans are in the best possible position to evaluate discipline at this university, these ratings were used in spite of the low coefficients. This will certainly have to be taken into account when drawing conclusions. Instruments Used in the Study The followihg instruments were used in this study: Measures of cognitive characteristics included 1) the College Qualification Test and 2) the Test of Critical Thinking, Form G. Measures of affective characteristics included 1) the Inventory of Beliefs, Form I, 2) Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form B, and 3) the Differential Values Inventory. Further, when matching the disciplinary group against a non-disciplinary group, the Social Status Index was used in order to control for factors relating to socio- economic status. 28 The College Qualification Tests (3) consists of three tests of ability which yield three individual scores as well as a comprehensive total score. This instrument was designed to serve as an indicator of college success as measured by grade-point average. The three areas into which the test is divided are verbal facility, numerical ability, and general information. The verbal section includes seventy-five vocabulary items, fifty of which ask for identification of synonyms, and twenty-five of which ask for identification of antonyms. The time limit on this section is fifteen minutes. The numerical section includes fifty items, which are taken from arithmetic, algebra, and geometry. It purports to measure conceptual ability rather than com- putational or clerical speed. The time limit on this test is thirty-five minutes. The general information section consists of seventy-five items from broad general categories dealing with such subjects as physical science, biological science, and chemistry, as well as history, economics, geography, and government. The time limit is thirty minutes. The total score represents the sum of the raw scores of the three sections. This is generally used rmare than any of the three individual scores because of its greater predictive power. Concerning reliability, the test manual reports a sPlit-half reliability of .97 for males and .96 for females. 29 Using the data collected from the pOpulation studied by Lehmann and Dressel (16), the reliability of the CQT was .93 as measured by the Kuder-Richardson formula 20. The Test of Critica;_Thinking,Form G, was deveIOped in the CoOperative Study of Evaluation in General Education, (8). In this test, the emphasis is placed on problem-solving ability. In order to measure this aspect of critical thinking, the questions were designed to measure the ability to achieve the following tasks: (8) 1. Recognize the existence of a problem 2. Define the problem 3. Select information pertinent to its solution 4. Recognize assumptions 5. Make hypotheses 6. Draw conclusions 7. Judge the validity of the conclusions 8. Evaluate the conclusions in life situations The Test of Critical Thinking manual indicated a reliability ranging from .71 to .89. This was based on Split-half reliability, comparing the odd with the even items. Using the pOpulation of the study conducted by Lehmann and Dressel (16) the Kuder-Richardson formula 20 showed a reliability coefficient of .79. The Inventoryaof BeliefsI Form II was develOped by the Inter-College Committee on Attitudes, Values, and 30 Personal Adjustment of the CoOperative Study of Evaluation in General Education. (10) This measure contains 120 pseudo-rational, cliche- like statements. Students respond by means of a four- point scale: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree. High scorers, or those who reject a majority of the statements in the Inventory of Beliefs, are thought to have belief systems whiCh are independent, adaptive, and non-stereotypic. Low scorers are more likely to be characterized as defensive, conforming, resistant, and stereotyped in beliefs at an immature level. (7) The following table was reported by Lehmann and Ikenberry (16356) Table 1. An Intercorrelation Matrix of the Inventory of Beliefs, Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, and College Qualifica- tion Test for Male and Female Freshman Students Rokeadh's College Dogmatism Qualification Scale * Test ___ Male Female Male Female Inventory of Beliefs -.63 -.61 , .33 .28 Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale -.l9 -.16 M *The negative correlations between the Inventory GEE Beliefs and Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale are resultant from tfle scoring procedure. The "concepts“ of stereotypy and dcmgmatism are positively related. 31 This table indicates that the Inventory of Beliefs is related to the College Qualification Test, but not nearly so much as to Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale. We can conclude, therefore, that although the factors measured by the Inventory of Beliefs are not independent of cognitive factors, they are much more closely related to the affective factors measured by Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale. The Inventory of Beliefs manual (7) reports reliability estimates ranging from coefficients of .69 to .95 with a median coefficient of .86. A reliability of .84 was found when the Kuder- Richardson formula 20 was applied to the data of the pOpulation which Dressel and Lehmann tested. (16) Rokeach's Dogmatism ScaleI Form E, was develOped by Milton Rokeadh as a measure of general authoritarianism, general intolerance, and Openness of belief systems. The Dogmatism Scale, Form E, contains forty dogmatic statements, to which the subject is asked to. indicate agreement on a six-point scale, -3 to +3, with the zero point excluded in order to force responses to- ward agreement or disagreement. (26) Following is Rokeach's definition of dogmatism: (25:5) (Dogmatism) represents a total ideological defense against threat and at the same time a cognitive framework for satisfying one's need to know and comprehend the world one lives in. In other words, dogmatic thinking and believing makes it possible to ward off threatening aspects of reality and at the same time gives one the satisfaction of feeling that one understands it. 32 Table 1 indicates the relationship between the Dogmatism Scale and the Inventory of Beliefs. Since these scales were constructed independently, and purport to measure related traits, the rather high correlations tend to support the claim for validity of both measures. Even-odd reliability coefficients for the Dogmatism Scale of .84 for males and .85 for females were reported by Plant, Minium, and Myers. (22) An internal consistency reliability of .76 was found using the pOpulation of Lehmann and Dressel. (16) The Differential Values Inventory; developed by Prince (23), attempts to measure the relative weights of four “traditional“ value orientations, including the following: 1. Puritan morality . Individualism . Work-success ethic Future-time orientation bean and four “emergent” value orientations including: 1. Sociability 2. Conformity 3. Moral relativity 4. Present-time orientation These categories were originally set forth by Spindler. (30) As deveIOped by Prince, high traditional values place high value on personal respectability, thrift, self- denial, respect for elders: valuing hard work as good in itself and necessary for success: placing individual 33 ideas and desires above those of the group: willing to sacrifice present needs for future satisfaction and reward. Emergent value orientation emphasizes the ability to get along with others over individuality. This system questions absolutes and accepts group-determined morality. The present is valued over the future. The Differential Values Inventory contains sixty- four items, eaCh pitting one traditional value over an emerging value. The subject is forced to choose between the two. In validating this measure, Prince found that parochial high school students are more traditional than public high school students, and parochial high sdhool teachers are more traditional than public high school teaChers. Teachers, he found, are more traditional in both school settings than are students. Administrators are more traditional than teachers, and older teadhers are more traditional than younger teachers. Using the pOpulation from which the sample in this study was drawn, Lehmann and Ikenberry (16) found that students aspiring toward more than four years of college ‘were more traditional than those aSpiring toward four years «or less. They also found that students from rural homes ‘flare more traditional than students from urban homes. Using the Kuder-Richardson formula 20, the reliability coefficient came out to .75 in the pOpulation 34 studied by Lehmann and Dressel. (16) The evidence for validity and reliability in the Differential Values Inventory is not as extensive as in other measures used in this study, but the researCh done to this point shows it to have more evidences of validity and reliability than most value instruments available. The Socio-Economic-Educational Index was develOped by Ikenberry and reported in Lehmann and Ikenberry. (16:96) In developing this index, he used the occupational rating scale develOped by Hatt and North in assigning a point value to the fathers' occupations. Regarding educational levels of fathers and mothers, point values were given according to the following scheme: Points Category 1 If attended grade school (grades 1 to 8) but did not finish 2 If completed grade school through grade 8 3 u If attended high school (grades 9 to 12) but did not finish 4 If graduated from high school 5 If attended college but did not graduate 6 If graduated from college 7 If attended graduate school or professional school but did not attain a graduate or professional degree 8 If graduated from graduate or professional school 35 A single socio-economic-educational index score was obtained by combining the three variables--occupational prestige rating of father, educational level of father, and educational level of mother-~through the use of factor analysis. Lehmann and Ikenberry report the following correlation coefficients of each of the three variables with the first factor as follows: Educational level of the father .786 Educational level of the mother .584 Occupational prestige rating of the father .731 The formula used to transform the raw scores into the socio-economic-educational index score is listed in Appendix B. Collection of the Data Prior to registration all entering freshmen at 1idhigan State University are required to take a battery of psychological tests during Orientation Week. The College Qualification Tests, M.S.U. Reading Test, and M.S.U. Arithmetic Test are normally administered to all new students. In addition to these, the measures used in this study were given in the fall of 1958. All scores used in tliis study were gathered prior to the Opening of school if) the same year. The disciplinary data was collected by examining thefiles for the period from September 1958 through June 19 62. Am0ng the males, the offenses occurred during the f0 llowing years: 36 Freshman 4O Sophomore 33 Junior 14 Senior 8 Among the females, the offenses occurred as follows: Freshman l7 Sophomore 14 Junior 8 Senior 10 It is evident that the great majority (72%) of offenders committed their offenses during the first two years of college. Since this is the case, predictive instruments would be most helpful in attempting to prevent disciplinary situations from occurring early in the student's college career. Statistical Procedures Used in the Study In order to account for two important variables affecting student behavior--scholastic ability and socio- economic background--a control group was selected from the pOpulation with which to compare the experimental group. An identical number of male and female control subjects were chosen, each corresponding with a member of the dis- <=iplinary group on the basis of College Qualification Test (total) score and Social Index score. This study attempted to accomplish two basic tasks: naInely, to make comparisons between the observed differ- enCes or similarities of the disciplinary group and the nOrl~disciplinary group and to investigate differences or 37 similarities among the four types of disciplinary offenders within the disciplinary group. After matching the disciplinary students with non- disciplinary students according to the two variables mentioned above, the analysis of variance, as described in Edwards (11:117-21), was used to test for significant differences between each group. Hypothesis 1, stated in null form, is tested according to the two-tailed table. Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 are all directional and are tested against the one-tailed table. The analysis of variance was used because the data was readily adaptable to it, and it is more powerful than comparable non-parametric tech- niques. The hypotheses concerning differences among the four types of disciplinary offenders were tested by using Fisher's analysis of variance, as described in Edwards. Data for male and female students were analyzed separately for two reasons. One, Lehmann 5 Dressel (15) found that male and female students differed significantly both in cognitive and affective characteristics. Two, disciplinary referral procedures vary for males and fenales. Summary The pOpulation from which the sample was drawn ccDrasisted of all entering freshmen at Michigan State 38 University in the fall of 1958, except for a small number for which usable test data was not obtained. The sample was made up of all those students from that pOpulation who were referred to the office of the Dean of Students for disciplinary action during the next four years. The sample was classified on the basis of severity of the disciplinary offense, and this classifica- tion was made by the Dean of Students, Associate Dean of Students, and Assistant Dean of Students. The instruments used are measures of certain affective and cognitive Characteristics. The latter in- cluded the College Qualification Test and the Test of Critical Thinking, Form G: the former included the Inventory of Beliefs, Form I, Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form B, and the Differential Values Inventory. The Socio-Economic-Educational Index, devised by Ikenberry, was used in selecting a control group with which to match the experimental group. The data from which this study was derived was made available by Lehmann and Dressel and was collected from the entering freshman class of 1958 at Michigan State University. The statistical procedure used in the study was true analysis of variance as described in Edwards. (11) Det‘ta for males and females were analyzed separately due to Prfieviously demonstrated differences in both cognitive and 39 affective characteristics. Differences in referral pro- cedures also indicated differential analysis. CfiAITER V ANALYSIS OF ms DATA The analysis of the data is presented in two parts. First, differences between disciplinary and non-disciplin- ary students are analyzed: second, differences among the four types of disciplinary students are exunined. For reasons mentioned previously, data for male and fenale students are analyzed separately. The confidence level in this study was established at the .05 level. Differences Between Disciplinary and Non-Disciplinary Students In order to accurately analyze differences between disciplinary and non-disciplinary students, a matched group of non-disciplinary students was selected. This selection was made on the basis of acadenic aptitude and socio- economic badcground., Randomized selection of a control group was considered, but it was decided that acadenic aptitude and socio-economic background were too much related to attitudes and values to be left to chance. The control group is, then, virtually identical to the experi- mental group with regard to these two variables. The analysis of variance technique was then applied to the data, and the results are reported on the following pages. Table 2 reports the means and standard deviations 4O 41 mm n mmemamu Hmuou z oma u amass Hope» z 0% N m0HMEmH Z mm H meME Z mm.am mm.moe No.8” oo.eee am.vm mm.ooH He.mm em.ooe mamum Emfiumemoo mm.» mm.mm mm.o om.em Ha.o om.am oa.a om.mm anon Icm>CH modam> Haeucmumuufio mo.m mm.om mm.a mm.mm um.m No.mm no.5 mm.Hm mcsxcase Hmuauauo «0 umme mo.m~ vu.ve ma.en mo.~m m~.md am.mo mm.ua ma.mm uueaaom no huouce>su e 0“ SUD: snow “5.: one“ C002 Inuqaumuulm “aluuaqauurl willluudqmw macho . asouo huesaaawoeaalcoz auscuaoaoeuc macho huscadmwoeanlsoz.ccs auesaaaaoeun no escaueaoen cueccsum can ease: censuses o>«uuouu4.ccs o>uuucmoo co eouoom .N OHAsB 42 for both males and females on the Test of Critical Thinking, Inventory of Beliefs, Dogmatism Scale, and Differential Values Inventory. Table 3 indicates the means and standard deviations for the papulation from whidh the sample was drawn as reported by'Lehmann and Dressel. (15:27) It is evident from a comparison of mean scores that the non-disciplinary group does not appear to differ sharp- ly from the total pOpulation in these measures. nggitiye raptor Test of Critical Thinking It was hypothesized that there was no difference in critical thinking ability as measured by the Test of Critical Thinking between disciplinary students and non- disciplinary students. This hypothesis was borne out in the data. Tables 4 and 5 show the results of the analysis of variance for both males and females on the Test of Critical Thinking. Since the groups were matched on the basis of COT (total) score, no significant difference on this mean test was expected. ZHowever, the writer tested for differences in ‘ spite of this because he felt that if there was a variation in scores, it would be worth knowing. As indicated in Tables 4 and 5, no differences were found. men.m n Honouz OHm.H n mmamEmoz ome.H u mmflmsz. I 4 mm.o 00.0 no.8 ma.em mm.mm no.em mmsams Hmcoaufiemue u H>o oa.mm av.mm mm.mm mo.moa om.mma ma.moa memum smgumeaoa em.me em.ma mo.va ak.mm an.wm em.mo mumwamm mo suoucm>cH me.» me.» mH.a ov.am m~.Hm Hm.am assesses Hmufiusuo mo umme mm.mm mo.v~ mm.mm oa.H~H av.oHH ma.m~a muoum Hmuoe u 900 Hence mmHoEmm mummr Hmuoe mmHMEmm seam: amok .o.m .cmms 5 uwmelmhm new» omenwmum on» so monommoz m>wuumum< can m>auacmoo on» How necessa>mo oumocmum one memos .m magma 44 Table 4. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary and Non- Disciplinary Males - Test of Critical Thinking W Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 104.64 1 104.64 2.02 within Groups 9730.76 188 51.76 Total 9835.40 189 Table 5. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary and Non- Disciplinary Females - Test of Critical Thinking ‘ ‘—l-_ wfi L Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 31.99 1 31.99 .84 Within Groups 3674.24 96 8.27 Total 3706.23 97 p {F é .05} = 3.84 Affective Factors 1. Inventory of Beliefs It was hypothesized that the disciplinary students would score higher than the non-disciplinary students on the Inventory of Beliefs. That is to say, the disciplinary students would tend to be more independent, adaptive, and non-stereotypic, while the non-disciplinary students would 4E tend to be more defensive, conforming, resistant, and stereotypic in beliefs. This hypothesis was based in part on the research reported by Adorno (l) and Rokeach (25) concerning authoritarianism. This was not evident in the data. Differences for both males and females were found to be non-significant. Tables 6 and 7 report the findings. Although not predicted, this raises some interest- ing questions concerning this aspect of the disciplinary offender. If in fact his belief system is no less con- forming than that of the non-disciplinary student, there may be other factors in his particular environment which contributed to his becoming involved. His relationship With certain students may play a part in this. Special Circmnstances totally unrelated to his belief systan may have caused him to break the rules. Tension built up. as a result of acadenic or personal problems may have been responsible. Belief syst ens could also change in the Course of one or two years. Scores compared were collected prior to the first year of college. Whatever the cause, it would be difficult to build a case on the disciplinary student's problen lying in an independent, non-conforming belief systen. The data does not appear to support this contention. 46 Table 6. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary and Non- Disciplinary Males --Inventory of Beliefs _- Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 395.14 1 395.14 2.15 Within Groups 34606.84 188 184.08 Total 35001.98 189 ‘— ——— ‘— P {F5.05} =2.69 Table 7. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary and Non- Disciplinary Females - Inventory of Beliefs Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 17.15 1 17.15 .10 Within Groups 16690.41 96 173.86 Total 16707.56 97 p E? 5.05} = 2.69 2. Rokeach's Dggmatism Scale It was hypothesized that the disciplinary students would score lower on the Dogmatism Scale than the non- disciplinary students, indicating that they were not as authoritarian or intolerant. This hypothesis was based largely on the research reported by Adorno (l) and Rokeadh. (26) 47 The data did not show this to be true. No significant differences were found among either males or females. This poses another interesting finding. From this analysis it would appear that no appreciable difference in (dogmatism exists between disciplinary and non-disciplinary students. The fact that a student is a disciplinary <3ffendor may not, then, indicate that he necessarily lacks ‘those attributes Adorno and his associates (1) link with eauthoritarianism. This may lead us to the Speculation tfliat he (the offender) may not necessarily be acting on tlie principle of non-conformity, but may be acting merely cni the expediency of the moment. However, the fact that lie commits a disciplinary offense indicates some degree cof non-conformity. This particular instrument evidentally does not measure it. Table 8. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary and Non- Disciplinary Males - Dogmatism Scale ==EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEH============= Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean ‘Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 157.52 1 157.12 .26 Within Groups 115323.05 188 613.42 Total 115490.57 189 48 Table 9. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary and Non- Disciplinary Females - Dogmatism Scale W Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean \Iariance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 454. 30 1 454. 30 .85 Viithin Groups 51492.20 96 536.38 Total 51946. 50 97 W :2 és’zms} = 2.69 From the theoretical base of this study the writer felt that the disciplinary offender would have more emerg- ent: values than the non-disciplinary student. From this, it. was assumed that part of the reason underlying the diusciplinary problem was the discrepancy in value systems. TTuis was not supported in the data for men (see Table 10), anéitmay suggest the following possibilities. First, the relative value system of the discipli- nary offender may not play as important a part in the disciplinary problem as might have been expected. In terms of this instrument, we may be dealing with students Whose values are similar to those of the general student POPUIation. Second, if there are values that differentiate between offenders and non-offenders they are not measured on this particular instrument. It may be that the traditional vs. emergent dichotomy does not apply here. 49 Among the women, however, we can accept the hypothesis that the values of the disciplinary women are significantly different from those of the non-disciplinary women. (p = .05) That is, the disciplinary women have a more emergent value system than the non-disciplinary women. This discrepancy between the sexes illustrates the inherent differences between m n and women. The dynamics CL misbehavior may vary considerably between the sexes, preventive disciplinary procedures must take this into Ta 1 10. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary and Non- Disciplinary Males - Differential Values Inventory ' Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean . Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 7.69 1 7.60 .17 Within Groups 8509.64 188 45.26 Total 8517.24 189 Table 11. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary and Non- Disciplinary Females - Differential Values Inventory W Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 139.68 1 139.68 3.11 Within Groups 4317.79 96 44.98 Total 4457.47 97 W M p 6F 6 .05}: 2.69 50 This concludes the section dealing with differences between disciplinary offenders and non-disciplinary offenders. In general, the hypotheses set forth were accepted in the cognitive area and rejected in the affect- ive area. The section which follows reports the analysis of differences among disciplinary students. Differences Among Disciplinary Students As reported in Chapter III, the disciplinary offenders were classified into four categories by the three chief student personnel administrators at Michigan State University. The categories are: 1. Very severe disciplinary offense 2. Severe disciplinary offense 3. Ioderately severe disciplinary offense 4. Disciplinary offense of minor severity An analysis of variance was computed separately for males and females on five different measures, two cognitive and three affective. It should be noted here that among the females, only one subject was rated in the first category. Since this was not sufficient to meet the requirements of the analysis of variance, the writer combined groups one and two by adding the single subject to group two. Among the females, then, only three groups are compared. The fact that only one female was rated in cate- gory one poses some interesting questions. The writer mentioned previously that women were more likely than men 51‘ to be referred to the dean's office for minor offenses. Yet almost twice as many men than women were referred-- 95 men, 49 women--in Spite of the fact that the pOpulation included 1,436 males and 1,310 females. The diSpropor- tionate share of males leads one to speculate that women tend to conform to the rules and regulations more readily than do men, even though women's regulations.are stricter. All hypotheses regarding differences among dis- ciplinary offenders were stated in null form because there was no basis for stating them otherwise. The reason for analyzing them at all was to investigate the possibility that disciplinary students might differ in degree with regard to either cognitive or affective characteristics. A difference in one of these areas might enable us to predict which students might be prone to certain types of misbehavior. Differences in cognitive or affective characteristics might, for example, imply the use of personal counseling as a preventive measure. Tables 12 and 13 indicate the mean and standard deviation for each group within the male and female offenders reSpectively. Cognitive Factors - 1. College ggalification Test Hypotheses concerning cognitive factors among disciplinary students were stated in null form for lack Of a rationale for predicting directions. An analysis of 52 the College Qualification Test scores showed no significant differences among either males or females.' Tables 14 and 15 report these analyses. Findings on Tables 14 and 15 are not surprising in the light of past research. Costar (9) found no significant differences in scholastic aptitude among disciplinary students, and there appears to be no basis for assuming otherwise. There were, however, some observed differences among the males on the Test of Critical Thinking. Tables 16 and 17 report the analyses of variance for both males and females on this test. s. 2. Test of Critical Thinking The F score in Table 16 is significant at the .05 level of confidence. This finding is unexpected on two counts: no differences were observed among the female disciplinary offenders in Table 17, and no differences were observed among either male or female offenders in the College Qualification Test scores reported in Tables 14 and 15. The explanation for this factor could lie in any of several directions, but two seem most plausible at this point. The men in groups three and four (less severe) score higher than those in groups one and two. The largest difference occurs between those in groups two and three, the break-off point between severe and less severe. Could it be that critical thinking ability is a o... '3 Av.mm mm.ma boob um.ooa ma.mm mm.Hm mm.NNH cmmz Hmuoe nmuommmz mm.v HB.HH omoma mm.b Hm.Hm .Dom Ho.wma oo.mm om.vm mm.ONH one: u QSOMO mm.om on.HH Hm.v hm.ma .D.m wm.moa oo.vm Hm.mm ) . U w.mmH cmmz m asouo Hmuoe mnouo anvuw modem ‘ csouo [\010) m H FIFO) 1! II II I! ll ZZZZZ ,4va .Q.m no.0mH one: N msouo mm.OH hm.mm .Q.m mmd~m> emcee» IHTMHB H>0 oh.mm mHmUm EmfiumFOOQ mm.ooa co.qm mwmaamm mo muoucw>CH acaxcnre Hmonuwuo Mo puma NH.Nm mm.mNH muoom Hmuoe 900 new: A dsouo 0>Hm so mean: massaaafiomao now ncoHuma>mo pumpccum one mcmmz .NH mHflmB me u z Hmuoe m n n .m macaw OH H z .m scone Hm n 2 .H nsouo l E an.o nm.am mm.v mm.mm em.e oe.em om.e «n.6N umuem> necessaemwe H>n % va.vm mm.oee em.mm me.oaa oo.em oa.mea em.mm oo.mmn meson assessmoo mm.MH m.mm mm.ms mm.mn am.aa oa.eo mn.mH mm.mu uneanmu mo auoocm>CH mn.o mo. m oo.m mm.mm .va.e oo.mm ma.“ oa.mm asexuwse Homepage no name mu.am mo.mee na.m mm.maa ma.ma 0m.onH mo.am “w.mna mnoom Hmuoe ego .n.m cams .n.« can: .n.m amms .n.m cam. Hmuoe m nacho m macaw a QSOHO mmucmwmz o>fim co mmHmFem khccHHQAUmHQ now wcoHuma>mD oumocuum tcm momma .mH mHQmB 55 Table 14. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Males- College Qualification Test Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 792 3 264 .51 Within Groups 46737 91 513 Total 47529 94 Table 15. analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Females- College Qualification Test source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 2694 2 1347 3.00 Within Groups 20639 46 448 Total 23333 48 W 2: {F 5.05} = 3.20 Table 16. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Males - Test of Critical Thinking W Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 437 3 145 3.04 Within Groups 4355 91 47 Total ' 4792 94 9 Es 5- .05} = 2.72 56 Table 17. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Females - Test of Critical Thinking W Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 116 2 58.00 1.48 Within Groups 1803 46 39.19 Total 1919 48 W m p {séms} = 3.20 determining factor in a student's decision regarding his involvement in disciplinary offenses? Is it possible that the student who thinks more critically knows better where to step? “ On the other hand, could it be that the student who thinks most critically is clever enough to not let himself get caught, and for this reason has an empty record of disciplinary offenses. The somewhat arbitrary nature of these classifications and the low correlation coefficients of those who rated the offenses make it difficult to establish any firm conclusions. Whatever the reason behind the differences, it would be helpful to have more information regarding some of the dynamics behind these students' behavior. Critical thinking ability may play a role in these differences, but undoubtedly there are other factors involved. 57 Affective Factors The writer hypothesized that disciplinary students would not differ significantly among themselves on the three affective measures. Since there was no research evidence to predict direction, the hypotheses were stated in null form. In each case the data turned out as predicted. No significant differences were found in any of the affective factors among disciplinary students. The indication is that disciplinary offenders comprise a rather homogeneous group regarding belief system, dogmatism, and value orientation. Differences may well occur in other areas \ not studied in this investigation. 1. Inventogy of Beliefs Tables 18 and 19 report the F score for discipli- nary males and females on the Inventory of Beliefs. Table 18. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Males - Inventory of Beliefs Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 518 3 172 1.03 Within Groups 15256 91 167 Total 15774 94 w 12 EF 9.05} = 2.72 5 L0 Table 19. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Females- Inventory of Beliefs Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 54 2 27 .15 Within Groups 8417 46 182 Total 8471 48 W p E? 4 .05} a 3.20 Negligible differences for both males and females on the Inventory of Beliefs are indicative of the homo- geneity of their belief systems. It would appear,there- fore,that this measure of belief stereotypy does not differentiate among disciplinary offenders. 2. Rokeach's Eggmgtigm Scale The null hypothesis was also stated for differences among disciplinary students on Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form B. As with the other affective measures, it was not felt that there was any indication to justify a direction- al hypothesis. The results, reported in Tables 20 and 21, show no significant differences. Those small differences that do occur are irregular. ‘The mean scores recorded in Table 14_show that among the Inales, groups one and two are higher than groups two and three: among the females, however, (Table 13) group one 18 lower than groups two and three. Results of..this nature are not conclusive. Table 20. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Males - DOgmatism Scale Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 2862 3 954 1.96 Within Groups 44349 91 487 . Total 47211 94 p Es 3" .05} -- 2.72 Table 21. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Females- Dogmatism Scale Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 2429 2 1214 2.06 Within Groups 27155 46 590 Total 29584 48 p {a 5 .05} = 3.20 3 Diff t a Va ues Inv tor The last of the affective measures to be reported is the Differential Values Inventory. As in the case of previous hypothesis, this hypothesis was stated in null form because again, there was no evidence that would 60 justify predicting direction. No significant differences were found among either males or females, but a slight difference was noted among the females at the .10 level of confidence. Table 23 indicates that among the females groups two and three have somewhat higher means than group one. (It will be recalled that groups one and two were combined into group one because only one subject was classified type one.) Differences among the males, however, are irregular and give little cause for speculation. It should be noted that a significant difference was found between disciplinary and non-disciplinary female offenders on the Differential Values Inventory. Table 20 shows a difference at the .05 level of confidence, and there may be some relation between this finding and the one reported in Table 23. This will be discussed in the conclusions. Table 22. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Males- Differential Values Inventory Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 124 3 41 .79 Within Groups 4733 91 52 Total 4857 94 HF m 9 in 21- .os} x 2.72 61 Table 23. Analysis of Variance for Disciplinary Females- Differential Values Inventory Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Variance Squares Freedom Square F Between Groups 184 2 92 2.63 Within Groups 1608 46 34 Total 1792 48 r— — ‘— 1» £35.05} - 3.20 CHAPTER‘VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Statement of the Problem The essential purpose of this investigation was to study differences between disciplinary and non-disciplinary students and to examine differences among disciplinary students with regard to selected affective and cognitive characteristics. Method of Procedure Two basic kinds of information were sought. First,~ the writer attempted to find how the disciplinary student differed from the non-disciplinary student on selected cognitive and affective measures. Second, he attempted to find differences which might exist among various types of ldisciplinary offenders. A matched group was chosen from the 1958 entering freshman class at Michigan State University with which to compare the experimental group. The latter group consisted of all students from this freshman class who were referred to the dean's office for disciplinary action in the following four years. The groups were matched on the basis of academic ability (as measured by the College Qualification Test score) and Socio-Economic-Educationa1 Index score. Data for males and females were analyzed separately. 62 63 Two measures were used to analyze cognitive ' characteristics: 1) the College Qualification Test and 2) the Test of Critical Thinking. Three instruments were used to measure affective characteristics: 1) the Inventory of Beliefs, 2) Rakeach's Dogmatism Scale, 3) and the Differential Values Inventory. Test scores analyzed in this study were gathered by Lehmann and Dressel in a study supported by the U.S. Office of Education. The writer was given unlimited_use of this data for his research‘effort. In order to investigate differences among dis- ciplinary offenders, they were classified into four categories according to the severity of the offense com- mitted. These offenses were rated by the three chief student personnel administrators at Michigan State University who included the Dean of Students, Associate Dean of Students, and Assistant Dean of Students. The four categories used for rating purposes include: 1. Very severe disciplinary offense 2. Severe disciplinary offense 3. Moderately severe disciplinary offense 4. Disciplinary offense of minor severity ‘Among the women disciplinary offenders, categories one and two were combined because only one subject fell into the first category. Possible reasons for this were discussed in Chapter IV. In comparing the disciplinary and non-disciplinary groups and in analyzing the four classes within the 64 disciplinary group, Fisher's analysis of variance technique was used. (11) Summary of the Findings nggtheses Related to Differenggs Between Disciplinary and N n- sc na Stud ts ' Hypothesis 1. There is no significant difference in critical thinking ability as measured by the Test of Critical Thinking,-Form G, between those involved in dis- ciplinary offenses and those not involved in disciplinary offenses. ' Result: Hypothesis accepted. This finding suggests that disciplinary students do not become involved because of lack of critical thinking ability. The dis- ciplinary offender appears to have critical thinking skills equal to his non-disciplinary classmate. This finding provides further evidence that the causes of discipline may not necessarily be related to critical thinking ability. Hypothesis 2. Those involved in disciplinary offenses score higher (are more flexible) in the Inventory of Beliefs, Form I, than those not involved in disciplinary offenses. ‘ Result: Hypothesis rejected. There appeared to be no significant differences on this measure. Those differences which did occur were too small to serve as the basis for any definite conclusions. 65 Hypothesis 3.‘ Those involved in disciplinary offenses score lower (are less dogmatic) on Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form 3, than~those not involved in dis- ciplinary offenses. Results Hypothesis rejected. The data did not support this hypothesis. Differences between these two groups of students were small, and it may be assumed that no appreciable difference in dogmatism as measured by Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale exists between them. The basis for the directional hypothesis was the research conducted by.Adorno and his associates (1) in which the authoritarian syndrome was established. :His findings indicated that the authoritarian individual tock pride in conforming and was generally rigid and inflexible. Since the disciplinary student is usually in trouble be- cause he does not conform, it was felt that he would tend to show this on Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale. (The relationship between the Dogmatism Scale and Adorno's F Scale is discussed in Chapter II.) Since this did not appear in the data, it may be possible that the disciplinary offender is no less con- forming than the non-disciplinary student. This finding is also supported by hypothesis 2, which suggested this same trend. ‘ Hypothesis 4. Those involved in disciplinary offenses have a more anergent value systen, as measured 66 by the Differential Values Inventory, than those not in- volved in disciplinary offenses. Result: Hypothesis accepted for females, but rejected for males. Among the females, the disciplinary group scored significantly (.05 level of confidence) in the direction toward emergent values when.compared with the non-disciplinary group. This finding fits in with the general theory of this research that the disciplinary student is not as traditionally oriented as the non- disciplinary student. No significant difference was found between non-disciplinary and disciplinary males. This finding does raise one rather important question. If the disciplinary offenders hold more emergent value systems, is it not possible that the rules and regulations for women need review? Are we penalizing the women who are more progressive in their value systems? Or do we want to penalize those who question the established ‘0 values? Hypgtheses Relatgg to Differencgs Among Disgiplinagy ms: Hypothesis 5. There is no significant difference in academic ability as measured by the College Qualifica- ‘ tion Test among those students classified into four groups of disciplinary offenses. Result: Hypothesis accepted. This adds further evidence to the work of Costar (9),who found no signifi- cant differences regarding scholastic aptitude in his 67 study of disciplinary students at Michigan State University. This would suggest that within the broad spectrum of dis- ciplinary offenders academic ability is much the same. In situations where discrepancies concerning grade-point averages are evident, there may well be factors other than ability at work. In situations such as these it is important to analyze closely the particular individual involved and attempt to find reasons for his poor perform- ance-~acadanically, behaviorally, or both-~when formulating a plan for preventive action. Hypothesis 6. There is no significant difference in critical thinking ability as measured by the‘Test of Critical Thinking, Form G, among those four classifications of disciplinary offenses. Result: Accepted for females, but rejected for males. The four groups of male offenders turned up a difference at the .05 level of confidence. This was not expected in light of the fact that no differences appeared between disciplinary and non-disciplinary males. It appears that critical thinking ability may not be a factor determining disciplinary involvement, but it may be a determinant regarding degree of disciplinary involvement. Table 12, on'page 53, indicates that the mean scores for disciplinary males in groups three and four are significantly higher than the mean scores for those in groups one and two, with the greatest difference occurring 68 between groups two and three. Since groups one and two represent the more serious offenses, while groups three and four represent the less serious offenses, it appears that the men who scored highest on the test of critical thinking are not as apt to become involved in more serious offenses. It could be that they are the men who know where to stOp, who know just how far to tamper with the outer limits. The students score on the Test of Critical Think- ing may be a factor in his decision regarding involvement in potential disciplinary matters. The disciplinary females, who did not demonstrate a significant difference on this measure, appear to differ from men in this area. Hypothesis 7. There is no significant difference in flexibility as measured by the Inventory of Beliefs, Form I, among those four classifications of disciplinary offenses. Result: Hypothesis accepted. This fits in with the finding reported for hypothesis 4. Differences of belief systems are negligible among both disciplinary males and females on this measure. This may indicate that those students involved in major and.minor offenses do not generally differ significantly regarding flexibility of belief systens. Implications from hypotheses 4 and 5 are that disciplinary studbnts do not differ markedly among them- selves or from non-disciplinary students in belief systems. 69 Hypothesis 8. There is no significant difference in degree of dogmatism as measured by Rakeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form 3, among those four classifications of dis- ciplinary offenses. Results Hypothesis accepted. Differences among the groups on this measure were minimal. In light of the finding on hypothesis 7, this is not unexpected. It further substantiates the general pattern that the various types of disciplinary offenders tend to be homogeneous regarding these selected affective characteristics as measured by the instruments used in this study. Hypothesis 9. There is no significant difference in value orientation as measured.by the Differential ‘Values Inventory among those feur classifications of dis- ciplinary offenders. Result: Hypothesis accepted. The data showed no significant differences on this measure. It appears that the general hypothesis regarding disciplinary students has been supported by this study. That is, the disciplinary offenders as a whole do not differ significantly on the affective characteristics measured in this study. One small difference among the females (.10 level of confidence) does raise some questions regarding values. Group one appears to indicate a more emergent value system than either groups two or three. This does not fit a theoretical consideration but it does indicate a possible 70 difference among disciplinary females. However, in the light of the other findings, it is not feasible to-specu- late beyond this. Conclusions Conclusions Related to ngnitive Factors The literature indicated that scholastic aptitude did not seem to be a factor in differences between_dis- ciplinary and non-disciplinary students. Since the control group was chosen partly on the basis of scholastic aptitude (as measured by the COT score) no differences were pre- dicted on the Test of Critical Thinking. No differences were found, and it may be concluded that disciplinary students are able to think as critically as non-disciplinary students. That is, they have not fallen into difficulty because of an inability to think through the issues. The implication is that the Critical Thinking Test does not distinguish between the disciplinary and non-disciplinary student. On the basis of the review'of the literature, the writer did not expect to find differences among the dis- ciplinary groups on either the COT scores or the Test of Critical Thinking. None was found on the former, but among male offenders on the latter measure a difference at the .05 level of confidence was found. The subjects in groups three and four (less severe disciplinary offenders) 71 scored significantly higher than the subjects in groups one and two (more severe offenders). The largest differ- ence occurred between groups two and three, the dividing I point between severe and less severe offenses. It is possible that the disciplinary offenders who score higher on the critical thinking test know where to» stap. They indulge in the mischief that is not severely punished by suspension or strict probation. Rerhaps the reason for their not becoming involved in the more serious offenses lies in the ability to think critically) and anticipate consequences. “‘ If this is true, then it is possible that the most critical thinkers of all are not in this study because either they did not let themselves get caught or they are less prone to the usual varieties of student misbehavior. To sum up, the major point here is that scholastic aptitude does not appear to be a major factor in student misbehavior. Other causes apparently underlie this phenomenon. Conclusions Relatgg to Affggtivg Fggggrg Based largely on the work of Adorno (l) and Rokeach (26) the writer hypothesized that the disciplinary student, who was unable to conferm to the rules and regulations of the university, was more adaptive, independent, less dogmatic, and held a more emergent value system than his non-disciplinary counterpart. 72 Generally speaking, this hypothesis was not found to be true. From all appearances, the disciplinary offender scored essentially the same as the non-disciplinary student on all of the affective measures in this study. The one exception was found among female students on the Differential Values Inventory, where the disciplinary women were discovered to have more emergent values than the non-disciplinary women. This lone finding is particularly interesting in light of the number of women who were referred. Only about half as many women than men were referred for disciplinary action out of a pOpulation that consisted of 1,436 males and 1,310 females. Of these women that were referred, only one was rated in the cate- gory labeled very severe. It may be that the female offenders at Michigan State University do hold more emergent value systens than the non-offenders or it may simply be that student personnel workers are less in- ' clined to be as harsh with women as with.men. The general pattern, however, would indicate that if there are differences between disciplinary and non- disciplinary students they are not adequately measured by the instruments used in this study. This would suggest the possibility that differences could occur in the areas :measured, but the instruments simply do not detect them. On the other hand, it is possible that differences may more likely be related to environmental rather than‘ affective or cognitive factors. 73 Regarding differences among the disciplinary groups, it was‘hypothesized that no significant differences would be evident. This was predicted largely because there were no indications to warrant directional hypotheses. As predicted, no significant differences among either male or female offenders appeared on any of the affective measures--Inventory of Beliefs, Dogmatism Scale, or Differential Values Inventory. It may be assumed that the disciplinary offenders are generally homogeneous concerning the affective measures tested by the instruments used in this study. They appear to have a similar value orientation: they seem to adhere to similar belief systems: the indications are that they do not differ regarding their degree of dogmatism. Any differences that do exist in these areas may be due to an inability of the instruments to measure them. As mentioned previously, the major differences among them may be environmental. Recommendations for Further Research The writer has served in advisory capacity in residence halls for eight years. This study was an out- growth of his interest in disciplinary behavior of college students. On the basis of his observations, the following recommendations are offered in the‘hope that more knowledge may be gathered regarding the dynamics underlying student misbehavior. 74 1. We need to know more about the dynamics of the disciplinary offender. What circumstances in his immediate environment caused him to become involved? To what extent is misbehavior a group function? Is the need for accept- ance an important factor in determining individual mis- behavior? If,in fact, he is similar to the non-offender with regard to selected affective and cognitive character- istics, he may differ significantly in one of the areas mentioned above. 2. Rules and regulations, particularly for the women, need to be examined in detail. Are women being referred for unnecessary infractions? Does the fact that women offenders hold more emergent value systems'than non- offenders relate to existing rules and regulations? 3. In what ways do the disciplinary offenders-and non-offenders differ? Does level of aspiration play a part? Does the home situation have an effect? To what, extent does personal adjustment apply, and would it be possible to effect preventive measures? These and other questions need to be answered before university disciplinary programs can reach maximum effectiveness. We have every reason to believe that further research in this area will be welcomed by researchers and university administrators.- 1. 3. 4. 5. 9. B 181. IOGRAPHY Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, Levinson, D.J., and Sanford, N.R. The Authoritarian Personality, New York: Harper & Brothers, 9 0. Anderson, Alice, and Dvorak, Beatrice. “Differences Between Three Generations in Standards of Conduct,“ chhological Studies in Human Develoment) an and ' K L Thompson, Ed., New York: Appleton- Cmtury-Crofts, Inc., 1952. Bennett, George K., Bennett, Marjorie G., Wallace, Winburn Em, and Wesman, Alexander G. Coliage Qualification Tests,ManualI l9§7I New'York: The Psychological Corporation, 1957. Clark, S.C., Hagie, D.G., and Landrus, W.M. ”Discipline in College Residence Halls,“ Paaaaanai and Guidaace Coleman, Claude, “The Hickory Stick,“ aaaaiaaa Asaaciatioa af Univarsity Egogesaors Baiietin, : - , u umn, . Conway, Margaret I. “The Role of Discipline Action in Higher Education,” Narth Centrai Assoc atioa Qaaggagiy, 29:351-59, April, 195 . COOperative Study of Evaluation in General Education, Paul L. Dressel, Director, Iastructor's Manual for tag Invaaaary of Baiiais. e erican ounc on Education, Committee on Measurement and Evaluation, 1953 (mimeographed). COOperative Study of Evaluation in General Education, Paul L. Dressel, Director, Instruagar's Maaaal fa; the Tast of Critiaal ThiagingI Foam G. The American Council on Education, Committee on Measurement and Evaluation, 1953 (mimeographed). Costar, James W. ”Academic Adjustment of Selected Male Students Reported for Disciplinary Action at Michigan State University.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1958. 10. Dressel, Paul L. and Mayhew, Lewis B. ~ m Education: Eaplorations in Evaiuation, washington, D. .: er can rounc on uca on, 1954. 75 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 76 Edwards, Allen L. Experimental Desige in ngcholocical Research, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960. Goldman, Nathan. “A Social-Psychological Study of School Vandalism," U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Syracuse University Research Institute, July 31, 959. . . Hodinko, Bernard.A. ”The Relation Between Personal Factors and Opinions Regarding Conduct Situations in a Sample of Pennsylvania State University Students,“ Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Pensylvania State University, 1957. Ikenberry, Stanley 0. “A.Multivariate Analysis of the Relationship of Academic.A titude, Social Badkground, Attitudes and Values to Co legiate Persistence,“ Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960. Lehmann, Irvin J. and Dressel, Paul L. Céitical Think- ing, Attitudes, and Values in Highec ucation, Final report of COOperative Research Project No. 590, U.S. Department of Health, Education, Welfare, Office of Education, Michigan State University, 1962. Lehmann, Irvin J. and Ikenberry, Stanley O. Critica Thinking, Attitudes, and.Va;ues ie igher uca on: A Prelimina R t Paul L. Dressel, Princ pa Investigator‘, East Lansing: Office of Evaluation Services, Michigan State University, 1959. Levine, Milton I. and Pines, Maya. “Sex: the Problem Colleges Evade," Hegper's, 223:129-32, Oct., 1961. Mueller, Kate Hevner, ”Problems in the Disciplinary Program,“ P sonn d danc Jou , 34:413- 16, MCI-Ch; e . ‘_ Mueller, Kate Hevner. ”Theory for Campus Discipline," Pegmnel and Guidgce Jamel, 36: 302-09, Jan., Murray, Walter I. “Conflict and Tension Areas‘on the Campus,“ scgeel and Society, 80:168-69, Nov. 27, 1954. . . Peiffer, H.C. and.Walker, D.E. ‘“Disciplinary Interview,“ Perecneel and GuidancelJournel, 35:347-50,.Fa11, 1957. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 77 Plant, W.T., Minium, E.W., and Myers, C. -“An Analysis of the deeach Dogmatism Scale Used with a Sample of American College Students,“ (An unpublished paper read at the Annual Meeting of the Western Ps chol ical As iation San Die 0 California Ap¥11 139-18, 19533):= ' g ' ' Prince Richard. “A Study of the Relationship Between Individual Values and Administrative Effectiveness in the School Situation,“ Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University.of Chicago, 1957. Prusok, Ralph 3. “Student, Student Personnel Wbtkar, and Parent Attitudes Toward Student Discipline,” Pegeennel and Guideece Journal, 40:247-54. Rokeach, Multan J. ”Political and Religious Dogmatism: An Alternative to Authoritarian Personality,“ Peycholcgica; Monograehs, 70:No. 425, 1956, p.5. Rokeach, Milton J. The 02;; and Closed Mind, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1960. Seward, Doris M. “Educational Discipline,“ Joernel of the NatieeelmAsseciation cf’Weeen Qeees and Counselors, 24:192-97, June, 1961. Sillers Dan J. “Administrators Perce tions of Dis- cipline in Selected Institutions 0 Higher Education," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Denver, 1961. Silverman, Hirsch L. "Discipline: Its Psychological ? and Educational Aspects, Mentel Hygieee, 42: ,5 274-83, April, 1958. /” Spindler, George. “Education in a Transforming American Culture,“ Beccard Educaticeal Review, 25:156-63, Summer, 95 . Truitt, John W. “A Study of Student Disciplinary Programs in Ten Selected Universities, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation Michigan State University, 1955. Whitaker, Bruce E. “Helping Studmts Achieve High Moral Values by Combining Discipline and Guidance," Junior College Jeurnal, 32:35-36, Sept., 1961. Williamson, E.G. “Discipline and Counseling," Education, 74:512-18, April, 1954. 78 34. Williamson, E.G. “Fusion of Discipline and Counseling in the Educative Process,“ Personnel and Guidgce gm. 34874.79, Cate. 1955e 35. Williamson, E.G. “Prevmtive Aspects of Disciplinary Counseling,“ Educational end Psycholecical Measurenent, 16:68-81, Spring, 1956. APPENDIX A DISCIPLINARY OFFENSES RATED BY THREE CHIEF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS AT. .MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Directions: Read the disciplinary offense. In the light 1. 2. 4. of existing university regulations rate the offense according to the following scale: 1. 'Very severe Suspension from the university or permanent hold on registration. If case involves civil gathorities, student should be turned over to Cu. 2. Severe Either suspension or strict disciplinary probation, depending on the student's back- ground and circumstances surrounding the case. 3. ‘Moderately severe Probation with limitations which will curtail some of the student's privileges. 4. Of minor severity Verbal reprimand and/or warning probation. A student in the residence hall is found with alcOhol in his possession. A student in the residence hall is found with alcohol in his possession and it is discovered that he used a falsified I.D. to obtain the alcohol. A student over twenty-one years of age living in an off-campus apartment is found to be keeping alcoholic beverages in his refrigerator. A student under twenty-one years of age living in an off-campus apartment is discovered with alcohol he Obtained using falsified I.D. ‘ A student over twenty-one years of age living in an off-campus apartment is discovered holding an un- authorized, unchaperoned party and serving alcoholic beverages. 79 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 80 A student comes into the residence hall under the influence of alcOhol and proceeds to start a fight. A student is arrested by the Campus Police for drunken driving on campus. A student in the residence hall initiates a student disturbance which involves at least twenty people. A student invites a member of the apposite sex into his living quarters without approval of the householder. A student willfully enters the living quarters of a member of the Opposite sex without approval of the housal‘OIdere ‘. A student is arrested for malicious destruction of prcperty off campus. A student is discovered destroying university prcperty on.cumpus. A student is caught trying to sell a book he has Etc]. me A student is found playing cards for money in the residence hall. A group of students, both over and under twenty-one, are discovered at an unauthorized, unchaperoned party with members of the opposite sex and alcdholic beverages. A student is reported for making homosexual advances toward another student. It is established that he is homosexual. A girl leaves the residence hall without signing out so that she may return late without being discovered. A girl leaves the residence hall but does not return until long after the hour indicated on the sign-out sheet. It is past curfew. A girl stays out all night without permission. A girl helps a friend re-enter the residence hall after hours without signing in. A student is discovered passing bad checks. A student is found to have falsified his address at registration. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. A 28. 81 A student lends his I. D. card to a non-student for a football game. A student violates some minor regulations and shows no respect for authority when approached about this. The same student (#24) continues to show no respect for authority or regulations after a second offense. A student is placed on disciplinary probation and does not keep the conditions stated at that time. student is found in possession of explosives in the residence hall. A student is found setting off explosives in the residence hall. APPENDIX B SOCIO-ECOLIOI‘ZIC-EDUCATIOZSAL INDEX SCORE Following is the formula used to determine the Socio- Economic-Educational Index Score described on pages 34-35 in this study. It was devised by Ikenberry and reported in Lehmann and Ikenberry. (16:97) I = .786 (51% - x1) + .584 x2' + .731 (x3 - i3) S2 83 where I = the index score of socio-economic-educational level. X1,X 2, x3 = the raw scores of the three variables. X1‘x2' x3 31' 82' 33 the mean scores of each variable. the standard deviation of each variable. 82 ABSTRACT SELECTED AEFECTIVE AND COGNITIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENT DISCIPLINARY OFFENDERS by Emery J. Cummins This study was concerned with cognitive and affec- tive characteristics which distinguish the student dis- ciplinary offender from the non-offender and which differ- entiate among the four main categories of disciplinary offenses. These categories included 1) Very severe dis- ciplinary offense, 2) Severe disciplinary offense, 3) Moderately severe disciplinary offense, and 4) Disciplinary offense of minor severity. Rating into these categories was done by the three chief student personnel administra- tors at Michigan State University. The instruments used to measure cognitive characteristics were the College Qualification Test and the Test of Critical Thinking. Those used to measure affective characteristics were the Inventory of Beliefs, Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, and the Differential Values Inventory. .A control group, matched on the basis of College Qualification Test (total) score and Socio-Economic- Educational Index score, was selected with which to compare the disciplinary group. The writer hypothesized that the disciplinary l Emery J. Cummins offender would tend to be more flexible, less dogmatic, and hold a more emergent value system than the non-disciplinary offender. Conversely, the non-disciplinary student would tend to be less flexible, more dogmatic, and hold a more traditional value system. Regarding the different categories of disciplinary offenders, the writer hypothesized that there would be no significant differences among them. With regard to cognitive characteristics, no differ- ences were predicted either between or among groups. The data generally supported hypotheses relating to. cognitive Characteristics between disciplinary offenders and non-disciplinary offenders. Also supported were the hypotheses relating to differences among the four groups of disciplinary offenders. It was found that on the effective measures the disciplinary and non-disciplinary students did not differ significantly. This led the writer to conclude that dis- ciplinary students are essentially similar to non-disciplin- ary students with regard to those factors measured by the instruments used in this study. That is, they are not more flexible, less dogmatic, nor do they hold more emergent value systems than the non-offenders. This could lead to the possibility that differences between these students may be due more to environmental factors than cognitive and affective characteristics. ROOM USE ONLY » e = r: . -.~ ,¢§==g-»«.a...h *" w. waft-‘2 J g *3 2 i Que ~. 4. @7101