AN ANALYSIS OP SOCIAL REJECTION IN A COLLEGE MEN'S RESIDENCE HALL By JOHN WILLIAM KIDD A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Education 1951 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To the following members of the faculty and staff of Michigan State College, who permitted the names of their offices to be used as approving the questionnaire upon which much of this study is based, the writer wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness: Stanley E. Crowe, former Dean of Students; Emery G. Poster, Manager of Dormitories and Pood Services; L. Dale Faunce, former Counselor for Men; Kenneth D. Lawson, Manager of Men*s Residence Halls; William A. Mann, Assistant Director of Counseling; and Michael J. Dmochowski, former Manager of Mason-Abbot Hall. The writer is additionally indebted for the facil­ ities placed at his disposal by Messrs. Poster, Lawson, and Dmochowski of those named above. For the very helpful advice received from Cecil V. Millard, Wilbur B. Brookover and Morton S. Malter, of his guidance committee, and from Orden C. Smucker, Leo Katz and William D. Baten the writer also wishes to express his appreciation. Hi John William Kidd candidate for the degree of Doctor of Education Pinal examination, March 2, 1951* 1:00 p.m., 202 Morrill Hall. Dissertation: An Analysis of Social Rejection in a College M e n 1s Residence Hall Outline of Studies Major field: Education - Higher Education, Adminis­ tration and Supervision, Psychology and Measurement Cognate field: Social Psychology Biographical Items Born, April 14, 1911* Roosevelt, East Carroll Parish, Louisiana Undergraduate Studies, Centenary College, 1927-31; Louisiana State University, 1932-33 Graduate Studies, Louisiana State University, 1935-42; Michigan State College, 1947-51* Degrees: B.A. (History) Louisiana State University, 1933; M.A. (Education) Louisiana State Uni­ versity, 1937* Experience: Teacher, Glbsland, Louisiana, High School, 1934-35* Teaching Fellow and Graduate Assistant, Louisiana State University, Department of Social Science, 1935-42. Assistant to the Educational Officer, U. S. Merchant Marine Cadet School, pass Christian, Mississippi, 1942-45* Instruc­ tor, Louisiana State University, Depart­ ment of Social Science, 1945-47* Instruc­ tor, Michigan State College, Department of Social Science, 1947-51* Member of Phi Delta Kappa, Pi Gamma Mu. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter I. THE P R O B L E M ........................... Introduction ......................... 1 The p r o b l e m ........................... 3 Orientation ............................ 3 Hypotheses 6 ............................ Justification ......................... 7 ......................... 8 Organization and presentation ........ 9 Delimitation II. RElJATED L I T E R A T U R E ......................... S u m m a r y .................................. III. 1 HYPOTHESES ELABORATED AND METHODOLOGY . . . Elaboration of hypotheses ................ 11 24 26 27 The background hypothesis ............. 27 The behavioral hypothesis ............. 29 Recapitulation of elaborated h y p o t h e s e s ........................... Site of the s t u d y ....................... 35 3$ M e t h o d o l o g y ....................... The questionnaire ....................... 40 40 Validity and reliability of the questionnaire ......................... 51 The Annual Men's Residence Report . . . 58 The supplementary sheet ............... 62 v Page Chapter Treatment of the d a t a ............ Separability of traits rated IV. 62 ......... EVIDENCE ON THE BACKGROUND HYPOTHESIS . . . The first background subhypothesis ... R a c e ............................. 69 R e l i g i o n ......................... 70 66 69 69 Regional background ................... 71 Religion and regional background ... 73 ................. 7^ Family relationship ................... 76 Community background Resume of evidence on first background subhypothesis ........... The second background subhypothesis . . . A g e ............................... College classification 79 79 ............... Occupation of the f a t h e r ....... 78 80 8l Family income ......................... 83 Resume of evidence on second background subhypothesis .......... 84 Summary of evidence on background hypothesis ............... 85 Interpretation of evidence on background hypothesis ............... 87 vi Chapter V. Page EVIDENCE ON THE BEHAVIORAL HYPOTHESIS . . . The first behavioral subhypothesis 89 ... 90 ........... 90 Rejection and selection of others . . . 94 Leadership-prestige status Extra-curricular and spectator - 97 a c t i v i t i e s .................... Part-time employment ................. Participation in dormitory affairs . . Over-all social participation ......... 98 99 101 Resume of evidence on first behavioral subhypothesis ........... The second behavioral subhypothesis 103 .. . 104 Rejection and lack of selection as compared with feelings of being rejected and not selected . . . 105 Scholastic effort . ................... 108 Participation in dormitory affairs; over-all social participation; citizenship; social and personality a d j u s t m e n t ..................... 110 Resume of evidence on second behavioral subhypothesis ........... The third behavioral subhypothesis Ill .. . 112 vii Page Chapter Relatively low academic achieve­ ment in relation to a b i l i t y ........... 113 Relatively frequent changes of residence and/or drop-outs ......... Admitted feelings of insecurity . . . . 117 118 ........... 120 Scholastic effort ..................... 121 Citizenship 124 Ignorance of family income . . . . . Social and personality adjustment . . . 125 Reasons for rejection ................. 128 Case s t u d i e s ............................ 13° Summary; reasons for rejection and case s t u d i e s ......................l4l Resume of evidence on third behavioral subhypothesis ........... 142 Summary of evidence on behavioral hypothesis ..................... 144 Interpretation of evidence on behavioral hypothesis ............... VI. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ............. Background factors . Prestige-detracting traits Background summary ........... ........... . . . . 147 150 151 153 154 viii Page Chapter Behavioral factors; restricted interaction ............... Self-image ................. 155 156 Frustration and/or insecurity 156 Implications ............... 157 ............................ 162 APPENDIX A. THE Q U E S T I O N N A I R E ......... 166 APPENDIX B. ASSURANCE OF ANONYMITY . . . 172 APPENDIX C. ANNUAL MEN'S RESIDENCE REPORT 173 APPENDIX D. SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET 175 APPENDIX E. NOTES ON UTILIZATION OF TECHNIQUES BIBLIOGRAPHY .... REFERRED TO AT END OF LAST CHAPTER ................. 177 ix LIST OP TABLES Table I. Page Distribution of Selection-Rejection Scores Based on Plus One Point for Each Time Cited as Best Friend and Minus One Point for Each Time Cited as One Most Reluctantly A c ­ cepted as F r i e n d ................... II. 46 Rejects and Selects Rated Average on Over-all Social participation as Rated on Social and Personality Adjustment by Resident Assistants III. . . . . Religious Preference of Rejects and S e l e c t s .................................. IV. 72 Community Background of Rejects and S e l e c t s .................................. VI. 71 Regional Background of Rejects and S e l e c t s .................................. V. 68 75 Rejects and Selects Living with Both Natural Parents and Not Living with Both Natural Parents at Time of Finishing High S c h o o l ................... VII. 77 Rejects and Selects According to Whether They Experienced a Change in Parental Relationship from Birth until Completion of High S c h o o l ......... 77 X Table VIII. IX. Page Age of Rejects and S e l e c t s ................. College Classification of Rejects and S e l e c t s .............................. X. 84 Summary of Relationships Between Rejection and Background F a c t o r s ........ XIII. 82 Family Income During Previous Year of Rejects and S e l e c t s ................... XII. 8l Occupation of the Fathers of Rejects and S e l e c t s .............................. XI. 80 86 Leadership-prestlge Scores of Rejects and Selects Based on Plus One Point for Citation as Most Preferred and Minus One Point for Least Preferred as Resident A s s i s t a n t ................... XIV. 92 Leadership-prestlge Scores of Rejects and Selects Based on Plus One Point for Citation as Most Preferred and Minus One Point for Citation as Least Preferred as Conference Representative . . XV. 92 Leadership-prestlge Scores of Rejects and Selects Based on Plus One Point for Citation as Most Preferred and Minus One Point for Citation as Least Preferred as Resident Assistant and/or Conference Representative . ............. 93 Table XVI. Number of Persons Rejected as Friends by Rejects and Selects XVII. Number of Persons Selected as Friends by Rejects and Selects XVIII. ......... ......... Number of Spectator and Extra­ curricular Activities of Rejects and Selects .............................. XIX. Part-time Employment of Rejects and S e l e c t s ..............* .............. XX. Rejects and Selects as Rated by Resident Assistants on Participa­ tion in Dormitory Affairs ............... XXI. Self-rating of Rejects and Selects on Participation in Dormitory Affairs .................................. XXII. Rejects and Selects as Rated by Resident Assistants on Over-all Social Participation XXIII. ................... Self-rating of Rejects and Selects on Over-all Social Participation XXIV. . . . . Expectations of Rejects and Selects as to Frequency of Selection as Best Friend .............................. Table XXV. Page Expectations of Rejects and Selects as to Frequency of Selection as Least Acceptable as F r i e n d ............... 107 XXVI. Rejects as Rated by Selves and Resident Assistants on Scholastic E f f o r t .....................................109 XXVII. Rejects as Rated by Selves and Resident Assistants on (1) Partici­ pation in Dormitory Affairs; (2) Over-all Social Participation; (3) Citizenship; and (4) Social and Personality Adjustment XXVIII. ................. 109 Quintile Ranks of Rejects and Selects on Total Score on American Council on Education Psychological Exam­ ination .................................... 115 XXIX. Grade-point Average of Rejects and S e l e c t s .................................... 115 XXX. Grade-point Average of Rejects and Selects Whose Total Scores on the American Council on Education Psychological Examination Were at Deciles 4, 5> and 7 ................... 116 xiii Table XXXI. Page Rejects and Selects as They Moved, Dropped Out or Remained in Same Room the Subsequent T e r m ..................118 XXXII. Self-rating of Rejects and Selects on Security-Insecurity XXXIII. ................. 119 Occupations of the Fathers of Rejects and Selects Who Stated that Family Income Was U n k n o w n ...... 121 XXXIV. Rejects and Selects Stating Family Income Unknown XXXV. ......................... Self-rating of Rejects and Selects on Scholastic Effort XXXVI. 122 ................... 123 Rejects and Selects as Rated by Resident Assistants on Scholastic E f f o r t ............................... 123 XXXVII. Self-rating of Rejects and Selects on Citizenship XXXVIII. .......... . . . . . . . Rejects and Selects as Rated by Resident Assistants on Citizenship XXXIX. . .. 126 .. 127 Self-rating of Rejects and Selects on Social and Personality Adjustment XL. 125 Rejects and Selects as Rated by Resident Assistants on Social and Personality Adjustment ............. 127 xlv Table XLI. Page Arbitrary Combinations of Most Frequent Free-response Reasons Given for Rejection in Order of F r e q u e n c y .................................. 129 XLII. Summary of Relationships Between Rejec­ tion and Behavioral Factors ............. 145 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction* that, " . . . The writer believes, with Jennings, the educational process proceeds by offer­ ing the opportunity for development which shall include facility in entering into relationships with others and in communication experience with others. Education is considered to fall short if the individual shows himself finally incapable of rapport with others to a degree necessary to coordinate the common activities of his life with others ."1 This conception of the educational process, which seems to be gaining increasing acceptance in American educational institutions, is a far cry from the earlier emphasis upon readin1, 'rltin1, and 'rithmetic as the more or less exclusive concern of the schools, and is taken as indicative of a shift of position on the part of those schools from primary, if not sole, emphasis upon the academic aspects of student growth to an in­ creasing concern for the social adjustment aspect of the student's development such that American schools are prone to express this broader purpose as the "education of the whole person." 1 Helen Hall Jennings, Leadership and Isolation (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1943 ) » P- While the literature of education in America is replete with history, theory, analysis and diagnosis of academic failure at all levels, there is a dearth of in­ formation to be found concerning social failure, partic­ ularly among males at the college level. Moreno, Jennings and Sargent, in referring to various studies of interpersonal relations, state that, "The most elusive problem up to date has been the measure O ment of rejection," in which they use rejection to indi­ cate a low status of acceptability to one's peers, the meaning attached to the term throughout this study. The rationale of the study is that since social acceptability, as well as academic competence, is a de­ sirable outcome of the educational process, in order that this aspect of individual development may be aided and abetted by educational institutions, considerable understanding of the nature of social rejection is es­ sential. The justification of the study rests upon this rationale and the dearth of scientific inquiry into the nature of social rejection. 2 J. L. Moreno, Helen Hall Jennings, and Joseph H. Sargent, Time As A Quantitative Index of Inter-per­ sonal Relations (SocTometry Monographs, NoT 13. New York: Beacon Rouse, 19^7 ), p. 16 . The problem. The general problem which this study was designed to answer in part is: social rejection? What is the nature of As limited by the site and design of the study, the problem more specifically is: What are some factors significantly associated with those indi­ viduals most highly rejected by their peers in Abbot Hall, a residence hall for men at Michigan State College? General and specific hypotheses to be tested in pursuit of an answer to the question posed above are presented in Chapter III along with the methodology em­ ployed, and following a review of the relevant litera­ ture. Orientation. The orientation of the study is that which may be designated the social interactlonist view of personality development following the analyses of Cooley, G. H. Mead, Dewey, W. I. Thomas and Young. As the latter puts it, " . . . accepting the constitu­ tional factors as given, they consider the personality to be fundamentally a social-cultural product, but one which is always in a dynamic or moving state of equilib­ rium or disequilibrium with reference to the particular group and its culture at a given time and place," and further that, while there are great varieties of physi­ cal, intellectual and emotional differences from indi­ vidual to individual, such differences mean nothing ". . . unless we take into account the social and cul­ tural situation in which they operate. Maturation and socialization typically bring about an ability for a person to become an object to himself, to take on roles of others and thus see himself more or less as someone else sees him and as the conglomerate of others (Mead’s "generalized other") sees him.21’ Thus, failure to attain a relatively high degree of accepta­ bility to one’s peers may be attributed for the most part to either a lack of capacity and/or motivation for taking on the roles of others so as to comprehend their expectations, or, having gained such comprehension, an inability and/or unwillingness to comply with them to an acceptable extent.-* It is commonly held that rejection status is often, if not usually, based upon predisposing background factors of the more or less unalterable variety. It would be expected that such factors do not operate so as to inexorably consign one to the category of rejects, but that temporary status only may be so assigned pending 3 Kimball Young, Personality and Problems of Adjustment (New York: P. S. Crofts and Company, l^T)* pp. kyb-6 . 4 George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self, and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Fress, 193^)> pp. 15^5^. (Concept developed and reinforced throughout, citation is example.) 5 Young, op. cit., Ch. IX. a demonstration on the part of the individual that he is both adept at role-taking and desirous of complying with group expectations. Only in rare cases defined by ex­ treme prejudice is it likely that individual adjustment to group values would not result in a higher degree of acceptability being achieved. However, such predisposing background factors as may operate in a given case may serve as barriers to communication and effective role-taking in addition to being the bases for assignment of tentative status. As previously indicated, a social group may as­ sign temporary status to an individual on the basis of known facts about that individual and/or his background. For example, an individual is known to be from the South. This gives him tempory status based on the stereotyped concepts such as talking slowly, "anti-Yankee" in senti­ ment, intolerant of Negroes, etc. Such a concept may represent major group expectations concerning him, but at the same time, the group holds certain other role defini­ tions with their concommitant expectations. For example, if this individual is to become a leader in the group he must more or less comply with the group's definition and expectations concerning such a role. If he is to become widely accepted as a friend or to fulfil any other role in that group, it is necessary that he become aware of their expectations concerning such a role and comply with those expectations. The process by which the individual becomes famil­ iar with definitions and expectations in a given group is that of effectively taking on roles of others in the group to the point that these roles tend to merge, and to coalesce. The investigating individual comprehends and retains as a part of himself the expectations of this conglomerate of others. Mead's position generally is that the individual does this kind of thing more or less as a matter of course. It is the writer's belief that role-taking ability is, in addition to being an aspect of capacity for learning, a skill which may be developed. It is held that the typical individual may learn both the de­ sirability of more effective role-taking and improved techniques for gaining insight into the value systems of others, and further, that more congenial inter-personal relations are likely to accrue in direct proportion to the extent to which persons Involved realistically "put themselves in the other fellow's shoes." Hypotheses. Based on the above, the two funda­ mental hypotheses investigated in the study were: (1) rejection is associated with those Individuals who are Identified by their peers as strange, different, atypical or lacking in prestige at the time they become group members; and (2) rejection is associated with those in­ dividuals who, through inability or lack of motivation, fail to comply with the group's expectations of accep­ table behavior, and which may be attributed to a defi­ ciency in role-taking. These basic hypotheses will be elaborated in Chap­ ter III since a review of the literature, Chapter II, is necessary to the selection of criteria by which to mea­ sure: (1) initial atypicality and (2) deficiency in role-taking. Justification. If all cases of social rejection were the result of inability to see oneself as others see him or the result of compulsion such that even with that insight, one were simply unable to comply with the expectations of others, research into the extent and nature of rejection would hold little promise for fur­ thering the social adjustment and adjustability of stu­ dents. Since in many cases motivation and/or under­ standing rather than ability may be lacking, research of this type becomes essential for guidance purposes. In addition, guidance may lead to an individual improv­ ing his skill in role-taking as well as becoming aware of its desirability. 8 Consequently, research may lead to discovery of characteristics significantly associated with the most rejected individuals. Further, it may provide clues as to ways in which these individuals fail to live in com­ pliance with the group expectations of the friendship role. Research of this kind is necessary, then, since it may serve as bases for possible counseling programs designed to improve either or both motivation for and skill in role-taking. Specifically, the problem involves probing and defining peer reactions, utilizing techniques part iy developed in sociometry. Delimitation. The study is confined to the 639 residents of one men’s residence hall at Michigan State College present during the last two weeks of the winter term of the 19^9-50 academic year. As further explained in Chapter III, it is limited for the most part to a comparative study of the 102 individuals most liked by 6 J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive? Helen Rail Jennings, collaborator '(Trashington: fjervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company, 193*0 > *K37 PP» This work marks the beginning of a series of investigations experiments in the measurement of interpersonal rela­ tions, which area and techniques are generally indicated by the term "sociometry." the total residents with the 96 individuals least liked by the total residents. Selection was made with a view to discovering which, if any, of the investigated char­ acteristics were significantly associated with those individuals who were least liked. Predictability which may derive from the study must be limited by the extent to which the population about which the prediction is made is similar to the population studied, since this is a study of a selected population. The study does not seek exhaustiveness nor ulti­ mately definitive answers. It comprises tests only of those hypotheses which seem to be empirically and situationally justifiable, and seeks evidence to either re­ fute, support, or render tentatively tenable such hypo­ theses rather than the proof of a series of propositions. Organization and presentation. Following a review of the related literature in Chapter II, Chapter III pre­ sents the hypotheses and methodology of the study. Chapter IV is concerned with the analyses of re­ jection as related to background factors, and Chapter V with behavioral factors, with the reasons given for rejection and including case studies of some of the most rejected individuals. 10 The conclusions and implications of the study comprise Chapter VI, followed by the Bibliography, and Appendices. A CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE While no intensive study of social rejection at the college level has ever been reported, evidence is avail­ able in a number of studies which provides some insight into the subject. The evidence, however, is not completely consistent. As an example of such lack of consistency Smith found in his study of friendship selection among high school students that, eliminating the sex factor, friend­ ship choices tend to be ego-morphlc. In this instance friendship choices reflect the same religion, economic and occupational status, and marks, so that the person chosen reflects to some extent the character of the chooser.'1' On the other hand, Bogardus and Otto found that a quality admired in a chum is often one which is lacking in the admirer and that more than half of the pairs of chums studied were planning different types of life work.^ 1 Mapheus Smith, "Some Factors in Friendship Selections of High School Students," Sociometry, 7:30310, August, 1944. 2 Ruth Bogardus and Phyllis Otto, "Social Psy­ chology of Chums," Sociology and Social Research, 20: 260-70, January, February, 1936. In Hill's study of the relationship of extra­ curricular activities to social adjustment among college students, it was found that, "Staff stimulation to par­ ticipation in extra-curricular activities makes for im­ proved social adjustment of college students hut its effect on their scholastic achievement is negligible. He also Indicates that most studies point to favorable effects of such participation on social adjustment of college students. Prestige status has been found to correlate closely with friendship choice by Cook-' and Smucker. Steele concluded that seniors in college tend to be the center of greater attraction than lower classmen .1 3 Reuben Hill, "An Experimental Study of Social Adjustment," American Sociological Review, 9:493* Oc­ tober, 1944. 4 Ibid., p. 483. - - 5 Lloyd Allen Cook, "An Experimental Sociographic Study of a Stratified 10th Grade Class," American Socio­ logical Review, 10:260, April, 1945* 6 Orden Curtiss Smucker, "A Sociographic Study of Friendship Patterns on a College Campus," (unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1945), P« 220. (This and other page references may not coincide with those of the official copies since they were taken from Dr. Smucker's personal copy). 7 Samuel C. Steele, "Friendship Patterns on a College Campus," (unpublished Master's thesis, Univer­ sity of Rochester, New York, 1938), pp. 28-9 . 13 That there may be a relationship between the fam­ ily atmosphere and peer rejection was indicated by Flotow1s study in which it was found that low social status score was earned consistently by those " . . . from homes where parents maintained unsatisfactory relationships, Q from broken homes, from foster-homes, etc. . . . " A similar relationship was indicated by Woolf's study at Stephens College. Using the Bell Adjustment Inventory to measure home adjustment and the ratings of resident hall counselors, advisers, suite mates, and instructors to Indicate behavioral patterns, he compared 106 girls with excellent home adjustment with 105 girls with unsatisfactory home adjustment. It was concluded that poor home adjustment led to unsatisfactory behavior in the college student. The home maladjusted student was observed to be supersensitive, to express hate, mope by herself, cut classes, to be self-conscious, listless, express feelings of inferiority, to cry, express preju­ dices, miss meals, express fear, sulk and pout, resent criticism, and to be spiteful.^ 8 Ernest A. Flotow, "Charting Social Relation­ ships of School Children," The Elementary School Journal, 46:498-504, May, 1946. .“ 9 Maurice D. Woolf, "A Study of Some Relationships Between Home Adjustment and.the Behavior of Junior Col­ lege Students," Journal of Social Psychology, 17:275-86, 1943. . " Among fourth grade children in a Texas community, Bonney found that in winning friends, strong, positive traits and friendly attitudes seemed to be about equally important .10 Austin and Thompson found among urban New York sixth grade children that personality characteristics appeared to be the most important factors influencing children1s selection and rejection of best friends .11 That social success and academic success may be correlated was indicated by Janney's study among 160 college women. He concluded, " . . . that there is a tendency for those qualities or abilities which make for academic success to be similar to those qualities or abilities which make for social success with members of one’s own sex as measured by extra-curricular achieve­ ment." 12 A similar conclusion was reached by Bonney in a study of primary children. It was found that a higher 10 Merl E. Bonney, "Personality Traits of Socially Successful and Socially Unsuccessful Children," The Jour­ nal of Educational Psychology, 34:449-72, November, 1943• 11 Mary C. Austin and George C. Thompson, "Child­ ren’s Friendships: A Study of the Bases on Which Child­ ren Select and Reject Their Best Friends." The Journal of Educational Psychology, 39:101-16, 1948. 12 J. E. Janney, "A Technique for the Measurement of Social Adjustment," Journal of Experimental Education, 7:204, March, 1939* ~ degree of brightness was associated with ability to win friends but that it was no guarantee of social competence. In addition, Bonney found that: (1) the only child showed consistent superiority in social success; ( 2) child­ ren from large families of four or more children received higher choice status than did those from families of two or three children; and (3 ) that higher choice status tended to accompany smallness of number of brothers and sisters within five years of one's own a g e . ^ Alexander and Woodruff, in a study of college students, also found an indication that the correla­ tion of a high academic record in college and social development was pronounced. However, social development was measured by ratings of the faculty adviser and two or more other persons on appearance, manner, responsi­ bility, emotional balance, use of ability, ease of ad­ justment, initiative, breadth of Interests, ability to win confidence and respect, and tolerance. Therefore, it seems likely that one's academic record may have been reflected in the ratings assigned to a significant ex­ tent. The study also revealed that: (1) age seemed to 13 Merl E. Bonney, "A Study of the Relation of Intelligence, Family Size, and Sex Differences with Mutual Friendships in the Primary Grades," Child Development, 13: 79-100, March, 19^2. 16 be a favorable factor along with; (2 ) residence at home or in a campus house rather than residence in an inde­ pendent establishment or the home of others; (3) gradu­ ation from a secondary school with an enrollment of 900 or more rather than a smaller one; (4) intelligence test scores; (5 ) superior high school marks; (6 ) degree to which they excelled their ability ratings in academic performance; and, (7 ) for men, the extent to which they participated in activities both social and athletic. 14 In his study of junior college women, Smucker found that high rejects tended to be boisterous and ag­ gressive, generally exhibiting behavior which might be considered compensatory for inner frustration. stated that they " . . . 15 He also show behavior trends which imply a definite lack of orientation to the total group situ­ ation. In every case they prove to be disruptive of group harmony. In their outward expression of inner maladjustment they detract from total welfare." In a study of 100 male students of Brooklyn Col­ lege, Winslow and Prankel discovered the following traits 14 Norman Alexander and Ruth J. Woodruff, "De­ terminants of College Success," The Journal of Higher Education, 11:479-85, December, 1940. 15 Smucker, op. cit., pp. 225-7. 16 Ibid., p. 160 . « in the order in which they were most disliked by men in other men: (1) thinskinnedness, (2) garrulity, (3 ) brag­ gart about conquests with other sex, (4) cursing, swear­ ing, "free" language, (5) intelligence inferior to own, (6) strong religious attitude, (7) flashiness in clothes, (8) promiscuity with opposite sex, (9 ) flirtatious, (10) submission to your decisions.1^ Kuhlen and Lee, in a similar study of sixth and twelfth grade boys and girls found traits having lowest association with acceptability for boys were approximately the same in sixth and twelfth grades. Listed in order of association for twelfth grade boys, they were: (1) seeks attention, (2) restless, (3) bosses others, (4) enjoys fight, (5 ) acts older.1® The study by Thomas of more than 600 males and females in college classes in beginning psychology is quite revealing concerning characteristics making for liking and disliking people. Probably more realistic 17 Charles N. Winslow and Muriel N. Frankel, "A Questionnaire Study of the Traits that Adults Consider to Be Important in the Formation of Friendship with Members of Their Own Sex," Journal of Social Psychology, 13:45, February, 1941. 18 Raymond G. Kuhlen and Beatrice J. Lee, "Per­ sonality Characteristics and Social Adaptability in Ado­ lescence," The Journal of Educational Psychology, 34: 335, September,“ 1945: 18 than Winslow and Frankel's study, since these character­ istics were related to actual persons, it was found that the first thirty qualities disliked by males in other males, in order of frequency, were: ( 1) conceit, (2 ) self-centered, (3) unintelligent, (4) deceitful, (3) over­ bearing, (6) dishonest, (7 ) selfish, (8 ) loud, ( 9) snob­ bish, ( 10) unmannerly, (11) boastful, ( 12) personal in­ jury, ( 13) untruthful, (14) ill-tempered, (15) officious, (16) ostentatious, (17) sarcastic, (18) unfair, (19) in­ considerate, (20) effeminate, (21) affected, (22 ) child­ ish, (23) immoral, (24) meddlesome, (25) bullying, ( 26) talkative, (27) unfriendly, (28) unkempt, (29) vulgar, (30) narrow-minded.^ The quality most disliked by both males and females in both males and females was conceit. 20 The first thirty qualities liked in males by other males, in order of frequency, were: ( 1 ) intelligent, (2 ) cheerful, (3) friendly, (4) common interests, (5) congenial, (6) helpful, (7 ) loyal, (8 ) sense of humor, (9) generous, (10) good sport, (11) honesty, ( 12) kind, 19 William Frederick Thomas, "Attitudes of Liking and Disliking Persons and Their Determining Conditions, (unpublished Master*s thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1936), p. 37* 20 Ibid., p. 45- ( 13) considerate, (14) sincere, (15) Idealistic, (16) Industrious, (17) understanding, (18) appearance, (19) reliable, (20) ambitious, ( 21) interesting, (22) athletic, (23) modest, (24) entertaining, (25) trustworthy, (26) mannerly, (27) carefree, ( 28) reserved, (29) fair, (30) witty .21 The quality most liked by both males and females in males and by females in females was intelligence. Only beauty outranked it as a quality most liked by males in females. 22 Jennings concluded about one population studied through sociometric techniques that, "No one personalitypattern accompanies isolation or near-isolation in the population of the test community."23 she further stated that, "No simple variable, such as the length of time the individual had been in the community or his chrono­ logical age relative to other members or his intelligence or even his greater opportunity for contacting others, appears to account for the particular cholce-status accorded him." 21 oii P- 2 2 * 22 Ibid., p. 30. p. 185. 23 Jennings, Leadership and Isolation, op. cit., ------------------------24 Ibid., p. 211. She did not conclude that there is no relation­ ship between separate variables and choice status, merely that no one single variable accounts for choice status. That relationships between choice status and personality type were apparent is indicated in her conclusion that the underchosen were characterized by I-centered behavior, persecution and inferiority complex and over-compensation as contrasted with the over-chosen who were group-centered in their thinking as well as more objective and general in evaluating others.2^ Jennings further concluded that the underchosen among adolescents, at least, appeared to lack security and were emotionally immature. 26 Older persons often classified the behavior of these underchosen adolescents as dominant and aggressive though Jennings does not em­ phasize that point.2^ She did state, however, that, "The personalities of the isolates and near-isolates show, with but one exception. . . . the common characteristics of a marked incapacity for establishing rapport with other persons, they appear actively to repel choice and 25 Ibid., p. 134. 26 Ibid., p. 159. 27 Ibid., p. 163, also see examples pp. 166-85 . invite rejection to such an extent as they cause psychological discomfort to others," 28 After describing leaders as those possessing un­ usual capacity to identify themselves with others and feel solicitude for them, she made the point that, "By contrast, the isolates and near-isolates appear rela­ tively "self-bound," unable to bridge the gap between their own personalities and those of other persons. In this respect, each appears himself in need."2^ That a tendency to be rejected in one group is likely to be carried over into other groups is Indicated by Jennings in her statement that, ". . . it would appear that certain qualities in the personalities of the iso­ lates (. . .) unless outgrown may continue to act un­ favorably upon the individuals 1 future relationships in other groups."3° This conclusion Is fundamentally In agreement with that of Northway who stated that for reasonably similar (cultural-age) groups there was consistency in one's acceptance status and that, "An individual's 28 Ibid., p. 184. 29 Ibid., p. 204. 30 Ibid., p. 205. acceptance score . . . is an outward measure of a psycho- logical characteristic called acceptability ."^1 Northway also was in agreement with Jenning's char­ acterization of the isolates and near-isolates as I-cen­ tered as she stated that, "The least accepted individuals always include the retiring, lethargic, ingrown, selfcentered . . oo While Jenning's conclusions were based primarily upon studies of adolescent girls, Northway's studies involved elementary school children in Toronto and child­ ren in twenty-eight other schools and camps.^3 Three personality types were hypothesized among the "outsiders" by Northway. They were: (l) the reces- sives who were listless, lacked vitality, usually under par physically, either below normal in Intelligence or ineffective in the use of the ability theyhad, careless in appearance, care of possessions,workhabits, lacked interest in people, activity or events of the outside world; (2) socially uninterested children who were not liked by others nor who appeared to make any effort 31 Mary L. Northway, "Soclometry and Some Chal­ lenging Problems of Social Relationships," Soclometry, 9:139, August, 19^6. 32 Loc. clt. 33 Mary L. Northway, "Outsiders," Soclometry, 7:10-25, February, 1944. either in class or school social affairs, whose interests were personal rather than social, and who accepted class­ room requirements with passivity; and (3) socially inef­ fective children who were often noisy, rebellious, delin­ quent in classroom affairs, boastful and arrogant such that she concluded," . . . these manifested forms of be­ havior seem to have arisen as rather ineffective, naive attempts to overcome the basic social insecurity and isolation from group life which they experience ."0 Among Northway's conclusions are these: (1) that maladjustment tends to follow frustration;^ (2) that, "The extreme recesslves . . . show all the symptoms of chronic, long established fear and anxiety states" (3 ) that a lack of consistency and affection in the fam­ ily may be important facto r s ; ^ and that, (4) ". . . with both the socially uninterested and the inefficient child, at some point social learning has been inadequate to meet social situations and the child has taken refuge in withdrawing to non-social Interests or by hitting blindly at the problem without finding a satisfactory 3^ Loc. cit. 35 Northway, Soclometry, 9, op. cit., p. 197* 36 Ibid., p. 196. 37 Northway, Soclometry, 7> op. cit., pp. 16-17. 24 solution. "3® The writer is of the opinion that the last statement might well have included her third category of "outsiders," the recessives, as well. Northway apparently believed that the lack of physical vigor was a basic causal factor in that category, while it appears that it may have been the accompaniment of a withdrawal role and, certainly, such is not precluded by the nature of her evidence. Summary. Evidence from the literature reviewed tends to support the following hypotheses: (1) rejection is characterized by non-participation in extra-curricular activities; (2) rejection is positively associated with low prestige status; (3 ) rejection is positively asso­ ciated with being a lower classman in college; (4) rejec­ tion is positively related to poor home adjustment and unsatisfactory parental relationships; (3 ) personality characteristics are the most important characteristics determining rejection; (6) rejection is positively cor­ related with academic failure; (7 ) rejects disrupt group harmony; (8 ) rejects are likely to be ego-centric; (9) the behavior of rejects is compensatory for inner frus­ tration and is often aggressive; (10) an individual's rejection status is likely to be approximately the same 38 Ibid., p. 16. 25 in different but similar groups; (11) behavior leading to or accompanying rejection is positively related to lack of security. As noted in Chapter III, this study was designed to test, at least in part, all except the tenth of these hypotheses. The studies referred to above are considered as providing a series of clues as to what the role of rejection may be, clues as to items to be investigated concerning the group to be studied. CHAPTER III HYPOTHESES ELABORATED AND METHODOLOGY The two basic hypotheses set forth in Chapter I were to the effect that rejection is associated with those individuals who are: ( 1 ) distinguishable to the peer group as more or less atypical and/or lacking in prestige; and ( 2) deficient in role-taking so as not to comprehend and/or comply adequately with the group defi­ nitions and expectations of a role of acceptability. The first of these will be referred to as the background hypothesis. It is based upon the observation that individuals entering a group, and at the same time easily distinguishable by the group as being strange, different, atypical, and/or lacking in prestige, are sometimes assigned a more or less isolated or rejected role. This initial group reaction obviously makes com­ munication between the stranger and others in the group difficult. In turn the stranger has certain barriers thus set up which make adequate role-taking Improbable. The second of the major hypotheses will be referred to as the behavioral hypothesis. It fundamentally over­ rides the first hypothesis in a situation where indi­ vidual group members have spent some time in the group. This is apparent in that it attributes rejection to inadequacy in role-taking. Hence, whether the rejected Individual is characterized by originally atypical and/or prestige-detracting traits or not, his rejection is hypo­ thesized as attributable to deficiency in role-taking. If he is initially strange or low in prestige, continuing rejection, within the hypotheses, is due to barriers to interaction, barriers to communication, hence to inade­ quacy in role-taking. If he is not so Initially charac­ terized, rejection is nevertheless hypothesized as at­ tributable to the same role-taking deficiency. In the latter case, of course, initial barriers to interaction based on predisposing background traits such as those investigated in this study would not account for the Inadequacy in role-taking. I. ELABORATION OP HYPOTHESES The background hypothesis. Two major facets or sub-hypotheses were abstracted from the background hy­ pothesis for the sake of clarity and communlcabillty. They are: A. Rejection is associated with those individuals whose past experience has produced values, appearance or behavior identifiable by the group as atypical. B. Rejection is associated with those individuals who are characterized by prestige-detracting traits. In order that evidence might be obtained on the first of these sub-hypotheses, certain traits which often serve to distinguish between and among individuals in the manner indicated were selected as criteria of atypi­ cality. These were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Atypical Atypical Atypical Atypical Atypical race. religion. regional background. community background. family relationship. Prestige-detracting traits selected as criteria of the second background sub-hypothesis (B above) were: 1. 2. 3. 4. Relatively Relatively Relatively father. Relatively low chronological age. low college classification. low occupational category of the low family income. Of course, there is no absolute proof that for a particular individual or group any one of these will measure low prestige. However, each in turn identifies the low level in a particular prestige helrarchy, to wit: 1. 2. 3» 4. Younger group members are often, if not usually, treated by the median and older members with a degree of impatience, intolerance and con­ descension. A similar distinction is commonly observable in a group of several college classes such that the dignified senior is in contrast to the lowly freshman. The very arrangement of occupational categories into an ascending and descending order, as that of the U. S. Bureau of the Census used in this study, is both a reflection and probably a creator of prestige ranks. Similarly, in the American society there is repeated recognition of the association of high income with high prestige and vice versa. Thus the validity of the subhypotheses and, con­ sequently, the behavioral hypothesis, while not perfectly measured, seems likely to be clearly Indicated by the measurement of these criteria. The behavioral hypothesis. The behavioral hypothe­ sis, which is in essence that rejection is associated with inadequacy in role-taking, was, so to speak, approached from three angles. were structured. In other words, three sub-hypotheses They are: A. Rejection is associated with those individuals whose interaction with other group members is relatively restricted. B. The self-images of the rejected individuals are Inaccurate in terms of the group judgment. C. The behavior of the rejected individuals is often typical of reaction to insecurity and/or frustration, that is, it is often aggressive and/or withdrawing. The first of these sub-hypotheses was based on the logical premise that role-taking occurs largely through interpersonal relations, hence through communi­ cation. Therefore, if rejection is associated with in­ adequacy in role-taking, the rejected persons may have had less communication, less interaction with other group members than had those who have a highly accep­ table status. Thus, if evidence is forthcoming that rejected persons have relatively restricted interaction within the group, it will be considered as supporting the behavioral hypothesis that rejection is associated with inadequate role-taking. In order that evidence might be gathered on this point, the following criteria were selected, for the reasons subsequently indicated, to measure, in part, the restriction of interaction between the individual and the group: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Low leadership-prestige status among one’s peers. Selecting relatively few others as friends. Rejecting relatively few others as friends. Participating in relatively few spectator and extra-curricular activities. Taking on relatively little part-time employ­ ment where such employment brings one into proximity with considerable numbers of one’s peers. Being rated lower by themselves and Resident Assistants on participation in dormitory af­ fairs . Being rated lower by themselves and Resident Assistants on over-all social participation. Since high leadership-prestige status in a group may be in large measure the result of successful roletaking, hence of considerable Interaction, low leader­ ship-prestige may be evidence of the absence of such interaction. Perhaps the most justifiable criterion of reduced interaction is that which measures the extent to which one selects and rejects others. The number of individuals in the group named as best friends, as well as the number named as unattractive in that capacity, are, logically, reflections In part of the extent to which the selecting individual has got acquainted, has interacted with others in the group. Since spectator and extra-curricular activities typically require one to mingle and associate with others, the number of such activities was taken as a measure of interaction. The typical employment of members of the group studied was in the residence hall dining room, kitchen, on the telephone exchange, in the post office, or as Resident Assistant. Therefore, employment was considered as providing opportunity for communication and inter­ personal relations, and it was selected as a criterion of the amount of interaction. Additional criteria of restricted interaction on the part of the rejects utilized were low ratings by themselves and Resident Assistants on: (1) partici­ pation in dormitory affairs, and (2 ) over-all social participation. The second behavioral sub-hypothesis was to the effect that if rejection is associated with inadequate role-taking, the self-image of the rejected individuals is inaccurate to some extent in terms of the group judgment. The most logical criterion of such disparity is the extent to which there is a difference between the amount of rejection an individual receives and his realization of that rejection. In addition, clues to such disparity may be found in differences in self-ratings and ratings by others on certain desirable characteristics. Therefore, the following criteria were selected to measure the self-image and the group judgment of the rejected Individuals: Self-image 1. 2. Realization of rejection. Realization of deficiency in: a. participation in the affairs of the group; b. over-all social participation; c. scholastic effort; d. citizenship; e. social and personality adjustment. Group judgment 1. Actual rejection. 2. Judged deficient in: a. participa­ tion in the affairs of the group; b. over-all social par­ ticipation; c. scholastic effort; d. citizenship; e. social and personality adjustment. The third behavioral sub-hypothesis was to the effect that the rejected Individual is often character­ ized by aggressive-withdrawing behavior since, if through inadequate role-taking he has failed to achieve an ac­ ceptable role, he is likely to be insecure and/or frustrated. This derives in part from the emphasis placed upon security as a basic drive in human conduct by Thomas, Linton, McDougall, W. Williams, and Young among others .1 As the latter put it, "The basis of security lies essentially in the predictability - that is, in the recurrent stability - of the interaction of O the personality with others." Also fundamental to the framing of the hypothesis regarding frustration was the generally recognized pat­ tern in which the individual who is thwarted in a desired goal-response reacts by aggression or withdrawal, though he may learn to resort to various substitute devices.^ Hence the individual who fails to achieve a satisfac­ tory role, an acceptable role, would be expected to behave in a primarily aggressive or withdrawing manner. It then became necessary to seek signs of frustra­ tion, insecurity, and typical reactions to them. Since insecurity and frustration are likely to detract from one’s efficiency in any and all areas, it is logical that if a rejected individual is insecure and frustrated he should be less efficient academically 1 Young, op. cit., p. 181. 2 Ibid., p. I83 . than others. Therefore, it became necessary to measure academic achievement as well as ability since to test differences in academic efficiency one must account for differences in ability when comparing achievement. As an indication of withdrawing behavior the criterion selected was the frequency of moves and/or drop-outs. If rejected persons are relatively more in­ secure and/or frustrated they should be expected to flee the scene of rejection frequently and to do so signifi­ cantly more often than the highly selected persons. A third criterion selected was the stated feeling of insecurity. While Freudian doctrine of the sub-con­ scious renders such a criterion questionable, in that Insecurity may be so deep-seated as to render the indi­ vidual incapable of verbalizing it, such a criterion was selected to check the possibility of such verbalization. In so far as rejection is a frustrating experience, it may be that rejects think of themselves as inferior on such traits as scholastic effort, citizenship, and social and personal adjustment. Their aggressive or withdrawing or other reaction to frustration may also lead others to rate them low on such traits. There­ fore, self-ratings and Resident Assistant rating on these three traits were examined as they might reveal evidence of reaction to frustration and/or insecurity. Perhaps the most logical test of frustration is the free-response description by others of one's behavior as being aggressive and/or withdrawing. Therefore, evi­ dence was sought as to how rejected persons were char­ acterized by those who rejected them. As a final check on the insecurity-frustration sub-hypothesis, it was decided that an extensive case study of some of the most rejected individuals would be made. Thus the criteria selected by which to measure and calculate the extent to which rejection was asso­ ciated with insecurity and/or frustration were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. relatively low academic achievement in rela­ tion to ability; relatively frequent changes of residence and/or drop-outs; admitted feelings of insecurity; low rating by selves and Resident Assistants on scholastic effort; low rating by selves and Resident Assistants on citizenship; low rating by selves and Resident Assistants on social and personality adjustment; being characterized by one's peers as being aggressive and/or withdrawing in his inter­ personal relations; case studies of some of the most rejected individuals. Recapitulation of elaborated hypotheses. The major hypotheses with the Investigated sub-hypotheses and cri­ teria are indicated in the following outline form: 36 I. Rejection is associated with those individuals who are identified by their peers a 3 strange, different, atypical, or lacking in prestige at the time they become group members. A. Rejection is associated with those indi­ viduals whose past experience has produced values, appearance, or behavior identifi­ able by the group as different. Measurable evidence of such differences may be re­ vealed by; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. B. race; nationality; religion; community background; family relationship. Rejection is associated with those indi­ viduals who are characterized by prestigedetracting traits, including: 1. 2. 3. 4. II. atypical atypical atypical atypical atypical relatively low relatively low relatively low of the father; relatively low chronological age; college classification; occupational category family Income. Rejection is associated with those individuals who, through inability or lack of motivation, fail to comply with the group's expectations of acceptable behavior, and which may be at­ tributable to a deficiency in role-taking. A. Rejection is associated with those indi­ viduals whose interaction with other group members is relatively restricted. Measur­ able evidence of such restricted interac­ tion may be revealed by: 1. 2. 3. 4. low leadershlp-prestige status in the group; selecting relatively few others as friends; rejecting relatively few others as friends; participating in relatively few spec­ tator and extra-curricular activities; 37 5» 6. 7. taking on relatively less part-time employment where such employment brings one into proximity with con­ siderable numbers of one’s peers; being rated lower by themselves and Resident Assistants on participation in dormitory affairs; being rated lower by themselves and Resident Assistants on over-all social participation. B. The self-images of the most rejected in­ dividuals are likely to be Inaccurate in terms of the group judgment, as evidenced by: (self-image) 1 . a feeling of being rejected by one's peers; 2 . a feeling of being deficient in: a. scholastic effort; b. over-all social participation; c. participation in the affairs of the group; d. social and personality adjustment, (group judgment) 1 . the extent to which the group rejected the most rejected individuals; 2 . the extent to which the group consid­ ered those most rejected to be defi­ cient in: a. scholastic effort; b. over-all social participation; c. participation in the affairs of the group; d. citizenship; e. social and personality adjustment. C. The most rejected individuals' behavior is often typical of reaction to frustration, that is, it is likely to be aggressive and/or withdrawing, as evidenced by: 1. 2. 3. 4. relatively low academic achievement in relation to ability; relatively frequent changes of resi­ dence and/or drop-outs; admitted feelings of insecurity; low rating by selves and Resident Assistants on scholastic effort; 5* 6. 7. 8. low rating by selves and Resident Assistants on citizenship; low rating by selves and Resident Assistants on social and personality adjustment; being characterized by one's peers as being aggressive and/or withdrawing in his interpersonal relations; case studies of some of the most re­ jected individuals. II. SITE OP THE STUDY The study was conducted during the latter part of the winter term and during the spring term of the 19^9-50 academic year. It was confined to the 639 resi­ dents of Abbot Hall, a Michigan State College residence hall for men. Michigan State College, with a fall term, 1949, enrollment of more than 16,000 students, maintained, at the time the study was completed, three double-unit resi­ dence halls for men. Each unit housed, with three resi­ dents in most rooms, from approximately 600 to 750 male students. Each such unit is one of a pair confined to a single building and centered about a common food prepara­ tion and serving area. Responsible for the operation of all campus resi­ dence halls is a Manager of Dormitories and Pood Services on whose staff is a Manager of Men's Residence Halls. manager and his clerical staff are assigned to each A double-unit building, and a full-time member of the teaching staff and his wife, designated Resident Adviser and Hostess, live in each of the single units. Each unit is composed of nine or ten more or less well-defined sections or wings known as precincts. In each precinct a student is assigned, who has been selected and trained for the purpose, as Resident Assistant. He is compensated to the extent of his meals as a minimum, his meals and room as a maximum. The Resident Assistants are considered to be liaison persons between the students in their respective precincts and agents of the institutions. The work of the Resident Assistants, for the most part, as well as their selection and training, is under the jurisdiction of the Resident Adviser. 4 Other facts concerning the general group setting which may lend clarity to the study and the population Involved include, at least, the apparent degree of par­ ticipation of members of the group in general institu­ tional policy formation. 4 The structure and philosophy of the Michigan State College M e n ’s Residence Hall program may be found in Resident Assistant’s Manual, mimeographed, Manager of M e n ’s Residence Halls, Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, April, 1950. The primary unit of self-government in each m e n ’s residence hall is a General Council. It consists of the Resident Assistants and two representatives of each pre­ cinct elected by the residents thereof. These General Councils exercise jurisdiction over the conduct of the residents other than that covered by: ( 1) all-college regulations such as those prohibiting alcohol and explo­ sives on campus; (2 ) student council regulations such as eligibility requirements for student office; and (3) regulations concerning care of institutional property. Pees assessed and collected from residents for social and recreational purposes, their expenditure, quiet hours, inter-dorm affairs of a social or recreational nature, and revision of the Constitution of the hall are com­ pletely under the jurisdiction of the General Councils. In addition, by resolution and petition, they serve to check on and attempt to Improve all matters pertaining to campus living. Ill. METHODOLOGY The questionnaire. The primary device used in gathering the data needed for the study was a socio­ metric type questionnaire^ which was distributed to the 639 residents of Abbot Hall. 5 See Appendix A. 41 Since so much of the study depended upon success­ fully identifying the most rejected individuals, and, for comparative purposes, the most highly selected indi­ viduals, the first task considered for the questionnaire was a means of quantifying friendship interactions such that each individual might be assigned a friendship score indicating his status relative to others in the group. In constructing the questions regarding friendship choices and rejections, Moreno's dictum was kept in focus, in which he said, "If therefore, the inhabitants of a community are asked whom they like or dislike in their community irrespective of any criterion this should not be called sociometric. These likes and dislikes being unrelated to a criterion are not analytically differen­ tiated."^ While Smucker, 7 Mick, 8 Q and Steele 7 chose not to use such a criterion, the writer was desirous of follow­ ing the edict cited. Therefore, in framing the questions 6 Moreno, Who Shall Survive?, op. cit., p. 16 . 7 Smucker, op. cit., 263 pp. 8 Lucille Kennedy Mick, "A Sociometric Study of Dormitory Friendships," (unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State College, East Lansing, 1948), 135 pp. 9 Steele, op. cit., 65 pp. concerning friendship choice, the possibilities of a criterion were reduced by Interviews with students and others to: "visit in your home" or "have as a roommate." Through further interviews and discussion, the first of these alternatives was discarded because of the likelihood that the student might have so altered his value system while away from home that such a cri­ terion might clash in some measure with those values he actually used in the selection and rejection of friends in the residence hall. So, while it was recognized that one might have friends with whom he might not care to room, it was decided that desirability as a roommate was the most meaningful basis of discrimination that might be applied to friendship selection in the group being studied. Since the person making the study also operated in an institutional role in relation to the students studied, and since he was directly involved in room assignments, it was thought that the implied obligation of the use of this criterion as a part of the direct question was greater than he could ethically assume. Therefore, the criterion was included indirectly as a part of the Introductory statement, thus, "In the hope that we may make more compatible room assignments . . . " The main questions in this connection were: "Who are your best friends in Abbot Hall?" and "Which residents of Abbot Hall would you be most reluctant to accept as friends ?"10 In each case space was provided for ten responses, a pilot project having Indicated that such would be ade­ quate for most responses. In order that "best friend" and its opposite might have some common meaning, it was decided, through the pilot project and subsequent inter­ views, that each would be limited to ten. Therefore, if an Individual named more than ten in either category, only the ten apparently listed first were counted. Six persons listed more than ten "best friends" and one person listed more than ten in the opposite category. As indicated by the arithmetic mean, the typical individual listed 6.31 persons as best friends and .79 persons as those he would be most reluctant to accept as friend3. In order that these friendship choices might be quantified so as to differentiate between the rejects and others, and between the selects and others, it was necessary that a score be assigned to each individual. 10 See Appendix A, and for ensuing discussion of questionnaire. These scores should meet the criteria of: (1) reflecting the Individual's relative status as an object of friend­ ship choices; and (2 ) producing the appearance of a linear continuum from highest to lowest in the subsequent distribution of selection-rejection scores. Since it satisfied both of these criteria, the method used was to assign to a person one positive point for each time he was named as a best friend and one negative point for each time he was named as one most reluctantly accepted as a friend. These points were then added algebraically to obtain the individual's selection-rejection score. Since it was necessary throughout the study to seek traits which served to differentiate between the most rejected and the most highly selected persons, it became necessary that some definition of these two groups be adopted. Given such individual choices as to produce a fairly widespread distribution, one may, of course, set his limits of rejection and selection at any point(s) from the selected measure of central tendency outward toward the extremes of the distribution. The nearer the extremes of the distribution such limits are placed, the more extreme the selection and rejection status of the groups. To separate two such groups by one value point, one step interval, one standard deviation, or any other measure of difference may be as good or as bad as any other. One must arbitrarily fix such limits as they best serve the purposes of his research. In order that the term 11re jection" as used through­ out the study as an opposite of selection might be justi­ fied, it was desired that, in such a linear continuum as provided by the distribution of selection-rejection scores, rejection and selection each should signify something less than one-half the total group. In order that the two be sufficiently different one from the other, it was desired that a considerable neutral or buffer group stand between them in the continuum. At the same time it was desirable that a sufficiently large number be Included in each extreme category that they should be subject to the statistical procedures deemed suitable for the purpose. In answer to these needs, it was decided in advance of the administration of the questionnaire that approximately one hundred at the lower extreme would be designated "rejects," and approx­ imately the same number from the other extreme of the distribution would be treated as the "selects." As may be seen in Table I, the nearest feasible numbers to the desired one hundred in each group were TABLE I DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTION-REJECTION SCORES BASED ON PLUS ONE POINT FOR EACH TIME CITED AS BEST FRIEND AND MINUS ONE POINT FOR EACH TIME CITED AS ONE MOST RELUCTANTLY ACCEPTED AS FRIEND Selects Rejects Middle Group Frequency Score Frequency 24 2 28 1 34 23 22 0 9 8 30 0 26 48 - 1 9 21 1 7 6 60 - 2 20 2 58 19 18 1 5 4 - 3 - 4 5 6 17 2 16 4 15 14 Score 13 12 11 10 Sub Total 1 1 3 2 67 72 Score - 5 - 6 78 Frequency 5 2 2 1 7 - 7 - 8 9 12 - 9 -10 1 2 21 -11 0 19 20 -12 0 -13 2 102 441 Grand Total: 1 96 639 (Read: Two persons had a friendship score of 24, none had a friendship score of 23, etc.) 102 selects and 96 rejects. The difference between the arithmetic mean of the distribution and the nearest limits of each of these two groups is somewhat less than one standard deviation. Of the total of 639 cases, 441 cases separate the two extreme groups. They are approx­ imately 1.8 standard deviations apart in the distribution. It is recognized that the scale does not neces­ sarily measure a linear continuum. As Chapin put it, in reference to a particular sociometric scale, " . . . what­ ever the crudities of the original assumption of linear units, the scale does work as a differentiating device. As long as it works it is a useful instrument ."11 It is further recognized that significant dif­ ferences may occur between two such extreme groups as were selected for the study as would not occur between either and the modal, median, or mean group. However, this basis of comparison is justifiable since the highly selected persons are more representative of generally desirable friendship rating than are the modal persons. In addition, the differences between highly selected persons and highly rejected persons are more likely to reveal distinguishing characteristics which hold promise for personality readjustment on the part of rejects. 11 P. Stuart Chapin, Experimental Designs in Sociological Research (New York: Harper and Brothers, T947J, p. 162”------- Certain weaknesses are apparent in this procedure An individual who was a complete isolate would receive the same score as an individual who was selected and rejected an equal number of times. It is not implied that they are the same personality types nor that they are of equal friendship rating. A more accurate measure of such differences might be desirable in an intensive individual study and will be cited in the individual cases reviewed in this study. But since this is essen­ tially a study in group comparison, the forces of attrac tion and repulsion centering about the individual were treated as though equal positive and negative forces neutralized each other. It then becomes apparent that wherever a con­ clusion is stated in this study concerning rejection or rejects, it is understood and hereby stipulated that the modifying phrase "in comparison with selection or selects" applies. As an example, the statement might be that, "characteristic X is significantly associated with the rejects." To avoid monotonous repetition, and in terms of the procedures of the study, this will be understood to imply that, "characteristic X is signifi­ cantly associated with the rejects, as compared with the Leadership-prestige status was quantified in a manner identical with that used to quantify friendship status. The questionnaire requested one to name the most preferred and least preferred residents to serve as Resident Assistant and to serve as a representative to a hypothetical conference. In each case one positive point was allotted for each time chosen, one negative for each time rejected, and the algebraic sum became the individual’s score. While it was recognized that stated feelings of security-insecurity might vary greatly from the results obtained through individual psychoanalytic inquiry, in order that some evidence might be gathered in relation to such conscious feelings, a five-point scale was con12 structed after the pattern used by Llkert. This scale, included in the questionnaire, permitted one to indicate a general feeling about the future at either extreme or at one of three Intermediate points between "very secure" and "very insecure." In a similar manner, three-point scales were constructed and Included in the questionnaire, seeking to reveal each Individual’s expectations concerning 12 Gardner Murphy and Rensis Likert, Public Opinion and the Individual (New York: Harper and Bro­ thers tublis'Hers, 193d), 316 pp. being selected and/or rejected by others. Thus he could check "many," "a few," or "none" as those he expected to select him as a friend and the same categories for those he expected to reject him as a friend. The following additional information, necessary in order that the stated hypotheses might be tested, was requested in the questionnaire: (1) racial classi­ fication; (2) state (country if other than U. S.) in which one spent the greater part of one's life prior to his eighteenth birthday; (3) college classification; (4) father's occupation; (5) religious preference; (6) status in family as to living with natural parents, foster par­ ents, etc. and changes, if any, in such status; (7 ) age; and (8) grade-point average. The questionnaire was prefaced with an assurance of anonymity and a request for cooperation. The tone of the introductory statement was calculated to impress the recipient that it constituted a sincere effort to Improve living conditions in the hall and did not re­ veal that it was doctoral research. The method of distribution and collection was calculated to acquire and retain the confidence and cooperation of the residents. Each Resident Assistant was given a numbered questionnaire for each resident in his precinct. The name of the numbered resident was on a slip of paper attached to his questionnaire which he was directed to remove and destroy before completing 1-2 and returning the questionnaire. J Each questionnaire was accompanied by an envelope addressed to the investigator in which the resident was requested to seal his completed questionnaire. This was an additional device to gain confidence and respon­ siveness. Each day the Resident Assistants were advised the names of those who had not returned the question­ naires so that some continuing pressure could be applied in the form of a reminder by the Resident Assistant. However, it wa 3 understood at all times that the response was not compulsory. In this manner 9^ per cent of the questionnaires were returned. Validity and reliability of the questionnaire. Several precautions were taken in advance to secure both validity and reliability. In the first place, Lundberg's criteria were followed in that: ( 1) by its wording and rewording after a pilot study and interviews, the appeal attempted to be straightforward and put in a manner cal­ culated to be realistic and meaningful to the population 13 See Appendix B studied; and ( 2) questions on family income and negative personal choices were not placed at the beginning of the questionnaire since it was believed that they might lii arouse antagonism if encountered early. The comments, written and otherwise, made in response to the question­ naire confirmed that judgment. In the second place, the complete questionnaire was worded and reworded so as to achieve maximum communicability in light of a pilot study of a sample of the population studied followed by Interviews with them and various advisory personnel. In the third place, the structure and sequence of the questions was patterned after that of other in­ vestigators mentioned in the study who had evidence of high validity and reliability. Prom the actual administration and completion of the questionnaire itself one is able to gather certain evidence which supports Its validity and, therefore, its reliability. In the first place, the return of 9 1# of the questionnaires on a voluntary basis argues well for its meaningfulness and the responsiveness of the resi­ dents. 14 George A. Lundberg, Social Research (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1942)",' pp. 182-210. In the second place, and, perhaps, most signifi­ cant, is the extent to which it not only differentiated among individuals as to friendship status hut distinguished among them in various other respects, some of which con­ firmed differences observed by previous investigators. Particularly satisfying evidence of the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, in so far as it differentiated among individuals in respect to friendship status, was the occurrence among the rejects of every case of rejection which had come to the attention of the Resident Adviser to the group prior to the admin­ istration of the questionnaire. As an additional post check on validity and re­ liability, particularly reliability, interviews were held with eight randomly selected rejects and eight randomly selected selects. The agreement between the interview answers and the written answers to the ques­ tionnaire was practically perfect. The one notable exception was a highly rejected individual who had been counseled on two occasions concerning his behavior. On the questionnaire he had rated himself superior on citizenship, while in Interview he admitted that such was, perhaps, a slight exaggeration. As a check on the validity, and, therefore, the reliability, of the questionnaire in respect to certain ^ informational items, a sample of twenty questionnaires was checked against other sources of Information on col­ lege classification, place of prior residence, race, religious preference, age, and grade-point average. There was no significant variation from the one to the other. The greatest variation was observed in: (1) grade-point average, in which the differences were ap­ proximately .10 and were neither consistently high nor low; and (2 ) age, in which case the time lapse between the compilation of the two records accounted for the differences. It needs to be recognized that a questionnaire such as the one used in this study which seeks infor­ mation, in so far as that information is verifiable from outside sources, is subject to a satisfactory validity test through sampling those outside sources. Exactly that was done as reported above for those items where such sources were available. However, to the extent that such questionnaires seek expressions of opinion, confidential revelation of attitudes, and a cross section of Interpersonal rela­ tions in a given group at a given time and place, the utilization of outside criteria for purposes of valida­ tion is necessarily limited. The aforementioned com­ parison of cases of apparent rejection observed in the group prior to the study and their occurrence in the most rejected group as revealed by the questionnaire certainly lends strong support to the validity of the questionnaire as a device for distinguishing between highly selected and highly rejected persons. While such evidence as that above upholding the validity of the questionnaire may justifiably be taken as indicative of its reliability, the conventional split-halves and retesting or post-testing methods of checking reliability are not appropriate. The split-halves method of checking reliability is applicable to an instrument which purports to measure essentially one thing such as understanding in a subject matter field. The questionnaire used in this study can­ not be classified as such an instrument since it seeks to measure many separate and distinct things. The retest method of checking reliability is appropriate concerning an instrument which purports to measure a relatively unchanging condition, again such as understanding of a subject matter field. It is even appropriate in an attltudinal test situation where it may be logically justified to those being tested so that their response is as complete and sincere on the retest as on the original. One could conceivably retest that part of the questionnaire seeking the identity and extent of friend­ ship choice. However, the justification to the group concerned could hardly be as logical or as effective as in the case of the original. The original question­ naire explained that revealing one's friends, those rejected as friends, reasons for rejection, etc. would enable the Resident Adviser to render more adequate counseling service, arrange more compatible room assign­ ments, and select Resident Assistants more effectively. Such could hardly be utilized in a retest. A part of the original appeal for cooperation which would be rather futile in a retest was, " . . . remember that in order to help someone improve himself, it is most im­ portant to know the extent to which he is accepted and rejected by his fellows. This Information cannot be obtained readily in any other way. Therefore you may very well be doing these people a real service."1^ In so far as the questionnaire sought facts such as age, there remains no serious question of reliability, since the extremely high validity of the results was clearly indicated by the sample check against outside sources. 15 See Appendix A In so far as the questionnaire sought to reveal characteristics of a scene of group interaction which is ever-changing and which can be measured only as a cross-section artificially arrested in time and space, the retest device is logically inappropriate. The inappropriateness of the retest device rests partially on the futility of attempting to justify logi­ cally such a retest to the group being tested, as explained above. In addition, opinions, attitudes, and other as­ pects of interpersonal relations tend to be dynamic and in a continuing state of flux. The data gathered on such points must be treated as stated reactions if they are stated reactions. It is a relatively futile task to attempt to measure such things as attitudes as though they existed in the individual apart and different from what he states them to be. Where there is considerable pressure against the possession of a particular attitude, one, if urged to state his position, may conceivably misrepresent it. But where he is given the choice of not replying at all, with no penalty attached, as he was in the questionnaire used in this study, and where pres­ sure for and against certain types of replies are re­ duced, if they exist, by a straightforward assurance of anonymity, as was also the case in the questionnaire used in this study, then there seems to be no logical justification for expecting misrepresentation in the responses. The logic of this position coupled with the evi­ dence reported of high validity on most aspects of the questionnaire seem to justify the treatment of the results with a high degree of confidence. The Annual M e n 1s Residence Report. Additional data pertaining to some of the hypotheses of the study were obtained from the Annual M e n ’s Residence Reports. For purposes of the study, each resident was requested to complete this form. It Includes information about: (1) spectator and extra-curricular activities; (2) parttime employment; and (3) five-point rating scales on: (a) scholastic effort, (b) citizenship, (c) participa­ tion in dormitory affairs, (d) over-all social partici­ pation, and (e) social and personality adjustment. In addition to having each resident rate himself, the Res­ ident Assistants were asked to rate the residents in their respective precincts. In the plan to compare the self-images of highly rejected persons with the group judgment concerning them, it was pointed out that the most justifiable 16 See Appendix C. criteria seemed to be the amount of rejection as com­ pared with the realization of rejection. Additional criteria selected for this purpose consisted of selfratings as compared with ratings by the Resident Assis­ tants on certain desirable traits. Since it was obviously impracticable to have each resident rate each other resident in this manner, and since the Resident Assistants were in a position to be better acquainted with the other residents than any other sub-group whose judgment might have been used, the ratings given by the Resident Assistants were treated as though they were representative of the group ratings. There is no deception involved since these ratings throughout the study are designated as ratings by the Resident Assistants. They are simply the nearest feas­ ible approach to the group judgment which could be elicited While the official status of the Resident Assistant has been described, since their ratings constitute a substantial part of the study, some further clarifica­ tion of their selection and functioning seems to be appropriate at this point. Factors usually taken into consideration in the selection of the Resident Assistants include: 1. Academic record - an average half-way be­ tween the conventional C and B being consid­ ered the desired minimum. 2. Participation in student affairs - some former participation generally is considered desir­ able but such extra-curricular activities as would necessitate spending a considerable amount of time outside the residence hall are considered undesirable. 3 . Personnel record - it is necessary that his record be such that he will be approved by the Dean of Students. 4. Personal references - at least three such references are usually required. 5 . Prior residence and classification - generally it is considered desirable that he be an upper classman and that he should have lived in one of the residence halls on campus. 6 . Personal evaluation of the Resident Adviser, Hostess, and Manager - the final selection is made, for the most part, by the Resident Ad­ viser, with the advice and consent, so to speak of the Hostess and building Manager. In addition to the above, the writer, in select­ ing Resident Assistants, places considerable value on the confidential responses of residents of the hall as they indicate the candidate's friendship and leadership-prestige status in the group. He considers it desirable that a Resident Assistant shall have demon­ strated his role-taking proclivities to the extent that he has few, if any, negative citations and a relatively high number of positive citations as a friend, and, particularly, as a leader. To the writer's knowledge, such application of the sociometric technique has not been reported previously in men's residence halls at the college level. Raines' study of the programs in men's residence halls of the other members of the Western Conference fails to reveal an instance of the utilization of the sociometric technique In the selection of "third level functionaries" who are comparable to Resident Assistants at Michigan State College.1^ In utilizing leadership-prestige status in such a selection process, one needs be mindful of the fact that Moreno and Jennings found that prison inmates and reformatory inmates assigned high status to those with outstanding anti-social records. 18 Consequently, steps are taken to ascertain the type of leadership through such checks as have been indicated. The writer's con­ fidence in such status as a basis of selection is ex­ pressed adequately in Moreno's conclusion that, "Sociometry has taught us to be pessimistic, critical of all enterprises which try to solve the problems of human relations without the most Intensive participation of 17 Max Reed Raines, "A Survey of the Counseling and Activity Programs in the Men's Residence Halls of the Big Nine Universities," (unpublished Master's thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, 1948), 389 pp. 18 J. L. Moreno and Helen Hall Jennings, Socio­ metric Control Studies of Grouping and Regrouping (Sociometry Monographs, Wo. T~, New ¥ork: Beacon House, 1947), P. 17. the people involved, and the most intensive knowledge of their psycho-social living conditions."1^ The supplementary sheet. For the sake of con­ venience and efficiency the needed information from the Annual Men's Residence Report and certain other informa­ tion was transcribed to a supplementary sheet which was stapled to that student's questionnaire. Treatment of the data. 20 Throughout the study the quest is for significant aspects of rejection, especially as rejection differs from selection. This means that some technique should be applied which will reveal the probability or improbability that a set of quantified facts about two mutually exclusive groups, highly re­ jected and highly selected persons, Indicates indepen­ dence or homogeneity of those two groups. Should such facts, that is, the measure of a specific characteristic, indicate independence of the two groups, the conclusion may be drawn that the one group is significantly dif­ ferent from the other in respect to that characteristic. 19 J* L. Moreno, Soclometry and the Cultural Order (Soclometry Monographs, No. 2. New York: Beacon House, 1943), p. 344. 20 See Appendix D. More specifically, the need here is for a tech­ nique which will answer such a question as: Is A sig­ nificantly different from B in respect to trait X? And in those cases where the answer is in the affirmative, it should provide a clue as to the nature of the dif­ ference. As an example, with the measures of height of a group of males and a group of females, an answer is desired to the question: Is this group of males signif­ icantly different from this group of females in respect to height? And, if the one is different from the other, which is the taller? One technique which is suited to this type of 21 situation is known as Chi-square. With it one may calculate the probability that a set of quantified facts about two mutually exclusive groups occurred through chance alone, or more precisely, would be expected to occur through chance alone so many times in a hundred, or in a thousand, etc. The distribution of the values of Chi-square being known, once that value is derived from the distribution of the measures it can be stated that a value as large or larger could be expected so many times in a hundred 21 E. P. Lindquist, Statistical Analysis in Edu­ cational Research (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, ■IVWJ, PPV3U-47. such cases through chance alone. If it could be expected less than one time in a hundred, the distribution or re­ lationship is said to be significant at the one per cent level of confidence. If it could be expected five times or less in a hundred, it is said to be significant at the five per cent level of confidence. Generally this per cent level of confidence is written as probability, thus: p = .05 means significant at the five per cent level of confidence. The Chi-square value is converted into the proba­ bility (p) value through a table of Chi-square values which depends upon the degrees of freedom in the dlstribution of the measures being tested. 22 Only with the degrees of freedom known may a Chi-square value be con­ verted into probability or significance. Having set up a contingency table of the measures to be tested, thus Height 6* and up Males Females 5*9"5* H " 36 30 5*6n5 *81. 1 28 8 13 15 5*3"- 5 15" 31 14 5'2" and down 10 40 one is able to determine the degrees of freedom by multi­ plying the number of rows minus one (in this case, two 22 Ibid., p. 36 minus one) by the number of columns minus one (in this case five minus one). Hence, in the illustration, there would be four degrees of freedom. Should such a distribution differ from chance at or beyond the five per cent level of confidence, it is referred to as a significant difference. If the level is between five and ten per cent, the possible differ­ ence or relationship is considered as being neither sup­ ported nor not supported but that the hypothesis of relationship continues to be tenable. If the level is greater than ten per cent, the difference or relation­ ship is considered attributable to chance. When the distribution is significantly different from chance, an examination of the contingency table yields evidence as to the direction of the relationship. As in the example given above, the relationship is ob­ viously linear such that males are taller than females. However, the probability that there is a real relationship does not directly indicate either the nature or extent of the relationship. While the nature of the relationship is suggested by the contingency table, the extent of the relationship is measured by another statis­ tic. This statistic is derived from the Chi-square value, the number of cases involved, and the degrees of freedom. It is symbolized thus: c(corrected), and is an approxi­ mation of the Pear3onian product-moment coefficient of correlation and may be interpreted as such. 24 In the relationships tested in the study, the Chisquare value and the p value will be cited in each case. In all cases in which the p value is less than five per cent the c(corrected) value will be specified. The nature of such significant relationships will be discussed in the body of the study. Separability of traits rated. While it is probably impossible to perfectly define the meanings of the rated traits in the minds of those doing the ratings, one may seek evidence as to the independence of such traits. If these traits had no meanings, as an example, to the Resident Assistants, it would then be most likely that no traits would be significantly associated with rejection-selection status. On the other hand, if two or more of these traits were indistinguishable in the minds of the Resident Assistants, they should be equally but not independently associated or not associated with selection-rejectlon status. 24 Thomas Carson McCormick, Elementary Social Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., T94I),' p. '207. In the first place, several ratings were signifi­ cantly associated with such status, indicating that the trait had a consistent meaning in the mind of the raters. In the second place, if one of the traits sig­ nificantly associated with rejection is held constant while another trait significantly associated with rejec­ tion remains significantly associated under such a con­ trol, one may safely conclude that the two are separable. There could then be little question as to the indepen­ dence of meaning of these traits in the minds of the raters. As a test of such separability, a sample of sig­ nificantly associated traits in the Resident Assistant ratings was checked by holding one trait constant while checking the significance of the relationship of the other to rejection. This was done by comparing rejects with selects according to how they were rated by Resident Assistants on social and personality adjustment, but using only those rejects and selects who were rated average on over-all social participation by the Resident Assistants. As shown in Table II, low rating by Resident Assistants on social and personality adjustment was significantly associated with rejection with ratings on over-all social participation held constant. Thus, It appears that the Resident Assistants, and presumably the other residents, held rather wellfixed definitions of these traits. TABLE II REJECTS AND SELECTS RATED AVERAGE ON OVER-ALL SOCIAL PARTICIPATION AS RATED ON SOCIAL AND PERSONALITY ADJUSTMENT BY RESIDENT ASSISTANTS Social and Personality Adjustment Groups Average and Below Above Average Total Rejects 31 9 40 Selects 17 17 34 Total 48 26 74 Chi-square 6.097 p .02- c (corrected) .43 CHAPTER IV EVIDENCE ON THE BACKGROUND HYPOTHESIS The background hypothesis refers to those more or less stable characteristics of a person, such as race, religion, nationality, and prestige-detracting traits which may serve as bases for initial group judg­ ment and the assigning of status to this individual. They may serve also as subsequent barriers to that individual in such efforts as he may expend through role-taking to participate in the group Interaction. It, then, may be difficult for him to identify other status concepts in the group and the accompanying role definitions and expectations. I. THE FIRST BACKGROUND SUBHYPOTHESIS That rejection is related to an individual's Initial atypicality upon entering a group is the sub­ ject of investigation in the following series of analyses. Race. To test the possible association of race, as a criterion of atypicality, with rejection, responses were sought from the members of the group studied so that they might be classified as either: (1) Caucasoid; (2) Mongoloid; or (3) Negroid. It was subsequently noted that the group was predominantly Caucasoid, 577 of the 599 completing this item being Caucasoid, eleven Negroid, and eleven Mongoloid. One of the eleven Mongoloids was among the rejects and two of the Negroids were among the selects. The small number of the minority race individuals present provided an Inadequate basis for a test of significance. It must be concluded that atypicality, as indicated by the criterion race, was not adequately tested due to the nature of the population being studied. Religion. To test the possibility that religious atypicality was associated with rejection, the question­ naire provided a check list of religious preference. It was revealed that the population under con­ sideration was approximately two-thirds Protestant, two-ninths Catholic, and one-ninth Other. Table III indicates a possible relationship such that atypicality of religious preference was positively associated with rejection. However, this possible re­ lationship failed to stand the test of significance by a narrow margin. The Chi-square value indicates that such a distribution would have occurred through chance alone slightly more than ten times in a hundred. TABLE III RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE OF REJECTS AND SELECTS Religion Protestant Catholic Other Total Rejects 58 18 13 89 Selects 74 16 6 96 Total 132 34 19 185 Chi-square 4.377; P .1+* * .1+ means nearer .1 than .2 but in the direction of .2 Regional background. Data were obtained through the questionnaire to classify the two groups being com­ pared as to the state or country of their origin. These data revealed that a significant relationship was in­ volved as shown in Table IV. As indicated, through chance alone such a rela­ tionship would have occurred less than five times in a hundred. By inspecting the distribution, it is apparent that rejection was positively associated with foreign nationality and negatively associated with a Michigan background. The latter was the background most typical of the entire population, approximately two-thirds being TABLE IV REGIONAL BACKGROUND OP REJECTS AND SELECTS Regional Background Michigan Other North Central States Other U. S. Foreign Total Rejects 53 16 7 12 88 Selects 68 17 8 2 95 121 33 15 14 183 Groups Total Chi-square 8.846 P -05- c(corrected) .29 from Michigan, one-fourth from other sections of the United States and one-twelfth from foreign countries. This significant relationship is interpreted as indicating: (1) the residence hall group rejected for­ eigners significantly more often than it did Americans, especially Americans from the same region, Michigan, as was most typical of the group; and (2) original assign­ ment of rejection status on the "basis of foreign nation­ ality was followed to a significant extent by ineffec­ tive role-taking so that foreigners tended to continue fulfilling the requirements of the rejection role. The latter conclusion implies possible barriers in connection with the group reaction to foreign nationality which makes effective role-taking difficult. It may be that typical group members shun the foreigners or the reverse, and, in addition, the foreigners were probably less facile than Americans in language communi­ cation with other group members. The implications for a counseling program de­ signed to aid in the development of social adjustment and acceptability are such that it should seek to in­ crease the interaction and communication between the foreign student and various group members. Through Increased interaction the foreigner may be able to de­ fine more clearly the role of general acceptability in terms of group definitions and expectations. Religion and regional background. Looking back at Tables III and IV, and considering the likelihood that the two in combination serve to reveal important differentiating aspects of ethnic type, the fact that the two show the same type of linearity is in itself logically significant. While atypical regional background was signifi­ cantly associated with rejection, the possible asso­ ciation of atypical religion with rejection failed to gain significant statistical support separately. How­ ever, combining the two as measures of atypical ethnic type, following Lindquist's formula,1 a Chi-square value of 10.6355 is derived which, with four degrees of freedom is significant at the 5 per cent level of confidence. This provides significant support for the back­ ground hypothesis, and particularly the first sub-hypoth­ esis to the effect that initial rejection is associated with atypicality. The fact that the foreign national was frequently a Moslem, Buddhist, or Hindu further justifies the above combination of these two separate tests of signifi­ cance and the conclusion that an individual of markedly atypical ethnic origin is likely to be assigned an ini­ tial role of rejection and that subsequent barriers to effective communication and role-taking are likely to make achievement of an acceptable role difficult. Community background. Community background was selected as a criterion of atypicality since: (1) one’s mannerisms, dress, general behavior, and answers to questions put early among new acquaintances, tend to reveal his home town; (2) certain stereotypes exist in American society such as "country hick" and "city slicker which may reflect community size as a common basis of 1 Lindquist, op. clt., pp. 46-7 • discrimination; and (3) early status assignment as well as "barriers to Interaction might derive from atypicality of community background. In order that this criterion might be tested, each resident was asked to check the size of community from which he came. The data were tabulated and, for the rejects and selects, arranged as shown in Table V. For the entire population it was found that less than one-third of the group gave a city or metropolitan area of more than 100,000 as the community in which he was reared. TABLE V COMMUNITY BACKGROUND OF REJECTS AND SELECTS Community Background Groups Less than More than 100,000 100,000 Total Rejects 46 43 89 Selects 70 26 96 Total 116 69 185 Chi-square 8.90 p .01- c(corrected) .336 The comparison of rejects and selects in this re­ spect revealed that rejection was related to atypicality of community background to a significant extent. The relationship was such that rejects, more frequently than selects, came from communities of more than 100,000 population. Family relationship. Each resident was asked to check that condition descriptive of his parent-child relationship at the time he completed high school, and to indicate the duration of that condition. This infor­ mation was collected in order that a test of signifi­ cance might be applied to the criterion "atypical family background" as possibly related to rejection. Approximately five-sixths of the total residents lived with both natural parents at the time of graduation from high school. Living with one natural parent or with no natural parent were about equally atypical. As shown in Table VI, the apparent linear rela­ tionship such that rejection was associated with atypical family background failed to meet the requirements of significance. A different aspect of the matter is presented in Table VII. This shows the distribution of rejects and selects as to whether a change occurred in such paren­ tal relationship between birth and completion of high school. Again the apparent relationship is not a sig­ nificant one. TABLE VI REJECTS AND SELECTS LIVING WITH BOTH NATURAL PARENTS AND NOT LIVING WITH BOTH NATURAL PARENTS AT TIME OP FINISHING HIGH SCHOOL Parents Lived With Groups Two Natural Parents Less Than Two Natural Parents Total Rejects 68 21 89 Selects 82 14 96 Total 150 35 185 Chi-square 2.446 .2 - p TABLE VII REJECTS AND SELECTS ACCORDING TO WHETHER THEY EXPERIENCED A CHANGE IN PARENTAL RELATION­ SHIP FROM BIRTH UNTIL COMPLETION OF HIGH SCHOOL Parental Relationship Groups Change No change Total Rejects 75 14 89 Selects 88 8 96 163 22 185 Total Chi-square 2.46 p .2 - Resume of evidence on first background subhypoth­ esis. That initial atypicality of an individual is asso­ ciated with his rejection by the group received substan­ tial support in the investigation. While the group was so predominantly Caucasoid that the criterion race was not adequately tested, the other criteria showed a relationship to rejection in most cases. Atypical religion was apparently associated with rejection so that rejects were more frequently Catholic than Protestant, and more frequently Other than Catholic; the most typical of the entire group being Protestant and the least typical Other. This association would have occurred through chance alone between ten and twenty times in a hundred and is not considered statistically significant. However, in combination with atypical regional background as evidence of atypical ethnic type, the relationship between such atypicality and rejec­ tion was significant at the 5 per cent level of confi­ dence. Regional background separately was similarly significant. ^ Foreigners were more often rejected espe­ cially in contrast with Michiganders. Less than one-third of the group coming from cities of more than 100,000 population, such was considered to be atypical in that group. Rejection was signifi­ cantly related to being reared in a large city. The Chi-squares indicated that the association between rejection and a changed parental relationship and/or something other than the typical child-two natural parent relationship would not have occurred through chance alone more than twenty times in a hundred. While such is not statistically significant, it is considered to be indirect support in that each distribution showed the same directional trend. II. THE SECOND BACKGROUND SUBHYPOTHESIS The following analyses seek evidence to test the subhypothesis that rejection is associated with individ­ uals who are characterized by prestige-detracting traits. Age. Of the 599 who gave their ages, 259 were less than 21 and 340 were 21 or older. Since the age 21 generally carries a special significance in our society as a mark of maturity, it was thought that being less than 21 in a group with many members both older and younger than that age might detract from one*s prestige. Such, in turn, might lead to rejection and the erection by the group of barriers to interaction. As shown in Table VIII, while rejects in compari­ son with selects more frequently came from the lower age group, the association was not statistically significant. This distribution would be expected through chance alone slightly more than ten times in a hundred. TABLE VIII AGE OF REJECTS AND SELECTS Age Groups Less than 21 21 or Older Total Rejects 45 44 89 Selects 38 60 98 Total 83 104 187 Chi-square 2.625 P College classification. .1+ Being a lower classman, in contrast to upper classmen, wa3 selected as a prestige detracting trait which might be associated with rejection The undergraduates in the total population studied were rather evenly distributed over the four classes, there being 142 freshmen, 176 sophomores, 109 juniors, and 132 seniors. In comparing rejects and selects with regard to college class membership, it was found that rejection was significantly associated with being a lower classman. Table IX shows this distribution which is inter­ preted as supporting the hypothesis that prestige-detract­ ing traits are associated with rejection through either initial assignment by the group or barriers erected making interaction difficult or both. TABLE IX COLLEGE CLASSIFICATION OF REJECTS AND SELECTS College Classification Juniors and Seniors Rejects 49 32 81 Selects 34 48 82 Total CO Chi-square 5.9285 o Freshmen and Sophomores CD U) Groups p .05 - Occupation of the father. Total 163 c(corrected) .29 While other occupa­ tional classifications may have been used, it was thought that the one used by the U. S. Bureau of the Census would be satisfactory for the purposes of this study. Arranging the original categories into convenient combinations as shown in Table X revealed that there was no significant relationship between the occupation of the father and the selection-rejectlon status of the indi­ vidual. By inspection it is seen that even if the combi­ nations were rearranged so as to arrive at a dichotomy of higher and lower occupations, there still would be no slightest indication of a relationship between this criterion of low prestige and rejection. TABLE X OCCUPATIONS OP THE FATHERS OP REJECTS AND SELECTS Father’s Occupation Groups Profes- „ slonal Farmers Owners Clerks, Managers, etc. Lower Total Rejects 12 5 19 26 25 87 Selects 8 9 19 25 30 91 20 14 38 51 55 178 Total Chi-square 2.328 P .7 In generalizing about this fact, it may be par­ ticularly appropriate to point out that the group studied was undoubtedly at considerable variance with the general population in this respect. College student bodies are disproportionately recruited from the upper father occu­ pational categories. In addition, there may have been a skimming off process involved in that those residents moving to fraternity houses from time to time are reputed to he even more disproportionately selected from the upper father occupational categories. These findings may be Interpreted as indicating that: ( 1) the occupation of the father of the student is not generally known to the group, hence it does not serve to detract from prestige; or (2) if known to the group, it was not a common basis of rejection; or (3) if a basis of initial rejection, it failed to serve as a handicap in role-taking and achieving acceptable status. Family income. To a considerable extent, though certainly not exclusively, success in the American so­ ciety is measured in terms of material wealth. Based on this fact, it was thought that low family income might be a prestige-detracting factor. Consequently the resi­ dents were requested to supply such information. Among those who did return such data there was no indication of a relationship between low family income and rejection as shown in Table XI. As in the case of occupation of the father, low family Income either was not known to the group, or not used as a basis of rejection, or failed to serve as a barrier to interaction, role-taking, and the achieving of an acceptable role. Special consideration is given those who indicated ignorance of family income in Chapter V. TABLE XI FAMILY INCOME DURING PREVIOUS YEAR OF REJECTS AND SELECTS Family Income Groups $0,000 $2,001 $3,001 $4,001 $5,001 $7,501 to to to to to or Total 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 7,500 more Rejects 7 5 8 10 15 12 57 Selects 5 10 10 20 21 14 80 12 15 18 30 36 26 137 Total Chi-square 2.931 P .8- Resume of evidence on second background subhypoth­ esis. That rejection is associated with prestige-detract­ ing characteristics, as measured by the criteria used in the study, received slight support. While rejects came more frequently from the younger age group than selects, they did not do so to a statis­ tically significant degree. Of the four criteria used, only being a lower class­ man was found to be significantly associated with rejec­ tion in the population studied. There was not the slightest indication of an asso­ ciation between rejection and either low occupational category of the father or low family income as reported. Summary of evidence on background hypothesis. The background hypothesis held that rejection was associated with individuals who are initially atypical and/or char­ acterized by prestige-detracting traits. The evidence gathered on this point is shown in Table XII. Rather strong support was found for the first point, that is, that rejection is associated with atypi­ cality. Specifically, rejection, as compared with selec­ tion, was significantly associated with being from an atypical regional background - particularly foreign nationality - and being from a city of more than 100,000 population. Further, rejection was significantly asso­ ciated with the composite of atypical regional background and atypical religion as evidence of ethnic atypicality. Being from a family of other than two natural parents and having undergone a change in parent-child relationship were not significantly associated with re­ jection, though the level of probability in each case was 20 per cent and in each case the direction of the distribution indicated such a relationship. Race is considered not to have been adequately tested since the population was so predominantly Caucasoid. TABLE XII SUMMARY OP RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN REJECTION AND BACKGROUND FACTORS Factor Evidence Rejection apparently related to College classification P .05- Lower classman Community background P .05- City of more than 100,000 Regional background P .05- Foreign nationality Religious preference P .1+* Other than Protestant and Catholic Ethnic type (composite two above) P .05- Foreign ethnic type Parental relationship P .2-* Other than two natural parents Parental relationship P .2-* A change in relationship Age P • 1+* Occupation of father no relationship indicated Family income no relationship indicated Race * not significant insufficient Less than 21 However, it may be noted that of the 11 Mongoloids and 11 Negroids in the population, there was no conspicuous grouping of these atypical races in either the rejected or selected group - one Mongoloid being among the rejects and two Negroids among the selects. Of the four prestige-detracting traits studied, only being a lower classman was significantly associated with rejection (see Table XII). Interpretation of evidence on background hypoth­ esis. Ineffective role-taking seems to have been char­ acteristic of those group members who were markedly atypical in respect to ethnic type. Such a deficiency was likewise indicated for those who came from very large cities and for lower classmen. It seems likely that in the group studied there was a tendency to assign a role of rejection to certain rather conspicuous per­ sons, particularly foreigners and the men from big cities, probably accompanied by a degree of ostracism making interaction and effective role-taking difficult. The evidence indicates that such individuals did not rapidly change their status and that counseling toward such readjustment might be in order. The retention of a hypothesis that there is a relationship between rejection and unusual or changed 88 parent-child relationship received no support from the evidence of the study. In general, it seems justifiable to conclude that, in the group studied, being of a foreign nation­ ality, being a lower classman, and being from a city much larger than the home town of the typical group mem­ ber were bases of rejection and constitute formidable though not insurmountable barriers to effective roletaking and the acquisition of an acceptable status. i CHAPTER V EVIDENCE ON THE BEHAVIORAL HYPOTHESIS The behavioral hypothesis held that rejection was associated with those individuals who, through lack of ability or motivation or both, fail to identify ade­ quately with the roles of others so as to comprehend and comply with the group1s definitions and expecta­ tions concerning acceptable behavior. In seeking evidence on this hypothesis, three subhypotheses were structured: 1. Rejection is associated with those individ­ uals whose interaction with other group members is relatively restricted. 2. The self-image of the rejected individual is likely to be inaccurate in terms of the group judgment. 3. The behavior of the rejected individual is often typical of reaction to frustration and/or Insecurity, that is, aggressive and/or withdrawing. In the case of each of these subhypotheses, cri­ teria were selected, as previously indicated, about which data were gathered in an attempt to reveal evidence on the respective propositions. I. THE FIRST BEHAVIORAL SUBHYPOTHESIS If one's level of interaction is restricted it would be expected that his leadership-prestige status among his peers would be low through sheer lack of extended acquaintance in the group. Likewise if one whose interaction is restricted were asked to name best friends and those least acceptable as friends, it would be expected that he would list relatively few in either category. If one's Interaction were restricted he would be expected to participate in relatively few spectator and extra-curricular activities. And it seems probable that he would be less likely to take on part-time employ­ ment which brought him into association with considerable numbers of his fellows. Therefore, information was sought on each of these criteria of restricted interaction. Leadership-prestige status. In order that this criterion of restricted interaction might be tested, each resident was requested to name one or more persons whom he would prefer as his precinct Resident Assistant and one or more he would least prefer in that position. It also asked that each resident name one or more per­ sons whom he would prefer to represent him at a meeting of delegates from m e n ‘s residence halls In Western Con­ ference schools, and one or more he would least prefer In that assignment. Persons named in these categories were assigned one positive point for each time chosen and one negative point for each time rejected in each position. A distri­ bution of leadership-prestige scores then became pos­ sible under two specific types: (l) leadership-prestige in the status of Resident Assistant; and (2) leadershipprestige in the status of a conference representative. Rejects were then compared with selects in each of these respects as well as on a basis of the combined scores from these two categories. The results of these comparisons are shown in Tables XIII, XIV, and XV. In each case the Chi-square value indicated a significant relationship since none of the distributions would be expected to occur through chance alone as often as one time in a thousand. The conclusion that low leadership-prestige status is associated with rejection is in harmony with other findings which were summarized by Smucker in the state­ ment that, " . . . friendship choice tends to be made up­ ward in terms of prestige status."1 1 Smucker, op. cit., pp. 220-21. TABLE XIII LEADERSHIP-PRESTIGE SCORES OF REJECTS AND SELECTS BASED ON PLUS ONE POINT FOR CITATION AS MOST PREFERRED AND MINUS ONE POINT FOR CITATION AS LEAST PREFERRED AS RESIDENT ASSISTANT Scores Groups +3 or more +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 or less Total Rejects 1 0 1 46 19 11 18 96 Selects 33 17 19 26 6 1 0 102 Total 3^ 17 20 72 23 12 18 198 101. 866 Chi-square P .001- c (corrected) •75 TABLE XIV LEADERSHIP-PRESTIGE SCORES OF REJECTS AND SELECTS BASED ON PLUS ONE POINT FOR CITATION AS MOST PREFERRED AND MINUS ONE POINT FOR CITATION AS LEAST PREFERRED AS CONFERENCE REPRESENTATIVE Scores Groups +3 or more +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 or less Total Rejects 0 1 5 37 20 9 24 96 Selects 47 20 8 22 2 3 0 102 Total 47 21 13 59 22 12 24 198 Chi-square 110. 33 P .001- c <[corrected) .77 93 TABLE XV LEADERSHIP-PRESTIGE SCORES OP REJECTS AND SELECTS BASED ON PLUS ONE POINT FOR CITATION AS MOST PREFERRED AND MINUS ONE POINT FOR CITATION AS LEAST PREFERRED AS RESIDENT ASSISTANT AND/OR CONFERENCE REPRESENTATIVE Scores Groups +3 or more +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3 or less Total Rejects 0 2 4 31 16 6 37 96 Selects 65 8 8 14 3 2 2 102 Total 65 10 12 45 19 8 39 198 Chi-square 18.574 P .001- c (corrected) •79 Perhaps such a distinction as may be indicated by this terminology is not entirely justifiable in the sense that the assignment of leadership-prestige status is made by the same people and by the same process as the assign­ ment of friendship status. Further, the two choices are probably to some extent the same thing, while the term­ inology implies a separateness which may not exist in the minds of those making the choices. The lack of per­ fect correlation between leadership-prestige status and friendship.status in this and Smucker1s study indicates, however, that the two are not identical, p though a relia­ bility error might account for such differences. The results may be interpreted as indicating that the role of rejection is partially identified by the expectation that one will interact less and/or less ef­ fectively to the extent that he will have low leadershipprestige status in the group. Adequate facility and practice in role-taking should reveal this general ex­ pectation to the point that, provided sufficient moti­ vation is present and the prejudice against him is not extreme, the rejected individual might include in his program of adjustment a willingness to assume more respon­ sibility, be more sympathetic, and interact with others in the group to a greater extent. It is noteworthy in these cases that the c (cor­ rected) values are .75 , .77> and .79* Not only are the relationships highly significant but separately the two measures of leadership-prestige status correspond rather closely with the friendship measure and, in combination, the relationship is even more pronounced. Rejection and selection of others. In the hypo­ thetical relationship between rejection and restricted interaction it was considered probable that rejects would reject and select significantly fewer others than would selects. Table XVT shows rejects and selects according to the number of persons they listed as those they would be most reluctant to accept as friends. That there was a significant relationship between rejection and listing relatively few persons in this category is considered to be indicative of relatively little interaction. TABLE XVI NUMBER OP PERSONS REJECTED AS FRIENDS BY REJECTS AND SELECTS Number of Persons Rejected Groups 3 or more Total 0 1 2 Rejects 62 12 11 5 90 Selects 46 16 18 18 98 108 28 29 23 188 Total Chi-square 11.66 p .01 - c (corrected) .33 As shown in Table XVII rejection was even more significantly related to listing relatively few others as friends. This, too, is considered to be indicative of a relatively restricted amount of interpersonal rela­ tions in the group on the part of the rejects. TABLE XVII NUMBER OP PERSONS SELECTED AS FRIENDS BY REJECTS AND SELECTS Number of Personei Selected Groups 0 1-2 3-4 Rejects 16 12 Selects 8 24 5-6 7-8 9 or more 25 9 12 16 90 3 4 8 12 63 98 15 29 17 24 79 188 Chi-square! 51.047 P .001- Total Total c (corrected) .80 It may be noted that not only was the second of the above relationships more significant, occurring through chance alone less than one time in a thousand, but also more extensive, i.e., a greater correlation existed, as indicated by a c (corrected) value of .80. Rejection, then, was particularly characterized in this group by an apparent lack of initiative on the part of the rejects in the friend-making processes. It seems that the rejects actually knew fewer group members than did the selects, which, in turn, supports the hypothesis that rejection is characterized by inadequacy of roletaking . Extra-curricular and spectator activities* As a criterion of restricted interaction, relatively few spectator and extra-curricular activities were positively and significantly associated with rejection. The data for the comparison shown in Table XVIII were taken from the Annual Men's Residence Reports. Such a distribution would not be expected through chance alone as often as one time in a thousand. TABLE XVIII NUMBER OP SPECTATOR AND EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES OF REJECTS AND SELECTS Number of Actlvities Groups 9 or more 0-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 Rejects 10 32 19 10 3 94 Selects 2 25 34 29 11 101 12 77 53 39 14 195 Total Chi-square 32.666 p .001- Total c (corrected) .51 This evidence supports the proposition that the rejects were characterized by restricted interaction, and 98 hence by inadequacy of role-taking. In addition, it significantly reinforces the similar findings reported by Hill.3 The implications for education are such as to war­ rant pointing out to the student the desirability of such activities. This might well be accompanied by the pre­ sentation of such evidence as this which might be more meaningful to him than sheer logic and/or Idealism. part-time employment. In testing the subhypothesis that rejection was related positively to few interper­ sonal relations, one of the criteria of restricted inter­ action selected for measurement was the amount of parttime employment. The position taken was that rejection is associated with little or no part-time employment. This statement rested on the supposition that part-time employment tended to increase one*s interpersonal rela­ tions with members of As a matter of other groups. But in the group. fact, such may not be the case in the group studied, most part-time employment, as previously explained, was of such a type as likely to involve one in extended and repeated per­ sonal contacts with group members. thetical position was taken. 3 Hill, op. cit., p. 493« Therefore, this hypo­ In testing this criterion, the data were taken from the Annual M e n ’s Residence Reports and arranged as shown in Table XIX. The analysis revealed that there was a sig­ nificant relationship between rejection, as opposed to selection, and not taking on part-time employment. TABLE XIX PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT OF REJECTS AND SELECTS Status Employed Unemployed Rejects 24 71 95 Selects 39 62 101 Total 63 133 196 Chi-square 4.0 P .05- Total c (corrected) .22 Thus additional support is gained for the subhypothesis that rejection is positively associated with a relatively restricted amount of interaction, and, log­ ically, with inadequate or ineffective role-taking. Participation in dormitory affairs. As may be observed in Tables XX and XXI rejects were rated signif­ icantly lower than selects on participation in dormitory affairs by themselves and by their Resident Assistants. TABLE XX REJECTS AND SELECTS AS RATED BY RESIDENT ASSISTANTS ON PARTICIPATION IN DORMITORY AFFAIRS Participation Groups Poor Below Average Rejects 10 27 Selects 1 10 11 37 Total Chi-square 31.09 Above Average Superior 7 4 93 51 30 9 101 96 37 13 194 Average .001- p c ( corrected) Total .495 TABLE XXI SELF-RATING OF REJECTS AND SELECTS ON PARTICIPATION IN DORMITORY AFFAIRS Participation Groups Poor Below Average Average Above Average Rejects 17 24 36 7 5 89 Selects 3 14 52 24 7 100 20 38 88 31 12 189 Total Chi-square 24.434 p .001- Superior c (corrected) Total .45 Thus, there appears another confirmation of the point that rejection is associated with restricted inter­ action. This, too, provides another clue as to a course of action for the reject’s program of readjustment, that is, more extensive participation in the affairs of the group of which he is a member. It is, of course, possible that rejects might think their participation was restricted even when others did not think so. But the fact that Resident Assistants rated them significantly lower tends to con­ firm their own judgment. When it is recalled that re­ jects participated in fewer spectator and extra-curricular activities and rejected as well as selected significantly fewer persons as friends, the case for a clear-cut pattern of restricted Interaction by rejects becomes a very strong one. Over-all social participation. On over-all social participation, the rejects were rated significantly lower than the selects by the Resident Assistants (see Table XXII). The self-ratings showed the same direction of re­ lationship, as indicated by Table XXIII, but failed by a slight margin to be significant at the 5 per cent level of confidence. Since such a distribution could be ex­ pected through chance only between five and ten times in TABLE XXII REJECTS AND SELECTS AS RATED BY RESIDENT ASSISTANTS ON OVER-ALL SOCIAL PARTICIPATION Over-all Social Participation Groups Poor and Below Average Average Above Average Rejects 12 41 31 9 93 Selects 3 34 46 17 100 15 75 77 26 193 Total Chi-square 11.19 •02- P Superior c (corrected) Total •32 TABLE XXIII SELF-RATING OF REJECTS AND SELECTS ON OVER-ALL SOCIAL PARTICIPATION Over-all Social Participation Groups Poor and Below Average Average Rejects 14 41 29 7 91 Selects 4 50 38 10 102 Total 18 91 67 17 193 Chi-square 7-58 p Average .05+ SuPeI*ior Total a hundred, it is permissible to retain the hypothesis of relationship. Thus, it appears, that on still another count, the rejects are found to be characterized by restricted interaction. Resume of evidence on first behavioral subhypoth­ esis. The criteria used as measures of relatively re­ stricted interpersonal relations yielded evidence which consistently supported the subhypothesis that rejec­ tion is associated with such inactivity. The distributions of leadership-prestige scores, whether derived from selection and rejection as Resident Assistant, or conference representative, or a combina­ tion of the two, in every case were significant beyond the one one-thousandth level of confidence. The relation­ ship was Buch that rejection was accompanied by low leadership-prestige score. Rejection as well as selection of others was sig­ nificantly more restricted among the rejects than among the selects. Rejects listed significantly fewer extra-cur­ ricular and spectator activities than did the selects. Part-time employment, being for the most part of a type which produced considerable contact with others in the group, was significantly related to rejection in that rejects did not have part-time jobs as often as selects. Further, the subhypothesis was supported by the relationship between rejection and low rating on par­ ticipation in dormitory affairs according to both the self-ratings and the ratings by Resident Assistants. On over-all social participation, the Resident Assistants rated the rejects significantly lower than the selects. The self-ratings on this criterion per­ mit the retention of the hypothesized relationship of the same order. In summation, there seems little room for doubt that individuals low in selection-rejectlon rating in the group studied were also low in the amount of inter­ action within the group. Not that an additional amount of interaction would bring an additional degree of ac­ ceptance, but certainly adequate role-playing requires considerable Interpersonal relations; without it a rela­ tively low selection-rejection status seems to be almost inevitable. II. THE SECOND BEHAVIORAL SUBHYPOTHESIS The behavioral hypothesis held that rejection was associated with inadequate role-taking. In turn, as a subhypothesis, It was held in the beginning of the study that the self-image of the reject was likely to be some­ what inaccurate in terms of the group judgment. The latter seemed a likely concommitant of inadequacy of role-taking and would be considered as evidence of such inadequacy. For each of the criteria selected by which to measure such a possible discrepancy, the data will be presented under the heading of the criterion, indicat­ ing first the group judgment, then the self-image fol­ lowed by the comparison of the two. Rejection and lack of selection compared with feeling of being rejected and not selected. In the amount of rejection and selection received by the re­ jects as compared with the selects, the rejects were different from the selects to an extent which would not occur through chance alone as often as one time in a thousand. 4 4 This is true since there was no overlapping of the rejects and selects. Providing a minimum of ten cases in each theoretical cell of a contingency table, with no overlap, the smallest group will yield a Chisquare of 40 with one degree of freedom, whereas a Chisquare of 10.827 is sufficient for significance at the one one-thousandth level of confidence. It may be argued, then, that if the self-image of the rejects were extremely accurate in terms of the group judgment, they would be equally different from the selects in respect to their expectation of being selected and re­ jected. As shown in Table XXIV, this was true of their expectation of being selected. But Table XXV reveals that there was no significant difference between rejects and selects in their stated expectations of being re­ jected as a friend. The first of these bits of evidence may be in­ terpreted as indicating that rejects are aware of their lack of friends, their lack of interaction, and that they are not completely without role-taking ability through which such awareness must have been gained. At the same time, the second criterion, that is, their expectation of being rejected as a friend, indicates that the rejects were either not aware of the extent to which they were rejected or unwilling or consciously unable to admit such awareness. It then follows that, in spite of certain roletaking ability indicated by the first criterion, the rejects must have been generally deficient in either that capacity or practice, since the group attitudes toward them apparently were not fully comprehended. 107 TABLE XXIV EXPECTATIONS OF REJECTS AND SELECTS AS TO FREQUENCY OF SELECTION AS BEST FRIEND Will be Selected as Friend By Groups None or a Few Many Total Rejects 19 59 78 Selects 48 41 89 Total 67 100 167 Chi-square 15*133 P .001- c (corrected) TABLE XXV EXPECTATIONS OF REJECTS AND SELECTS AS TO FREQUENCY OF SELECTION AS LEAST ACCEPTABLE AS FRIEND Will be Rejected as Friend By Groups Many or a Few None Total Rejects 57 20 77 Selects 56 32 88 Total 113 52 165 Chi-square 2.054 P .2- .45 Scholastic effort. As may be seen in Tables XXVI and XXVII, the greatest difference between columnar dif­ ferences occurred in the distribution on scholastic ef­ fort when compared with the other ratings used.-* Table XXVI shows that there was no significant difference between the self-rating and the ratings by Resident Assistants on scholastic effort. One must conclude, then, that, according to this evidence, the self-image of the rejects is not signifi­ cantly different from the group judgment when the two are compared by these criteria. When self-ratings are compared with Resident Assistant ratings, one is not necessarily comparing with the group judgment. As previously explained, hav­ ing every resident rate each other resident on these traits being exceedingly impracticable, the ratings of the Resident Assistants were used as the nearest feasible approximation of the group judgment, and that, of course, might be erroneous. 5 Since the row totals are approximately the same, and a significant difference in self-ratings and Resident Assistant ratings would depend upon a considerably greater proportion of the one being higher or lower than the other, a test of significance was first applied to "scholastic effort" since, through an inspection of columnar differ­ ences, it may be observed that on this trait, more than on any other, a greater proportion of the one was higher or lower than the other. 109 TABLE XXVT REJECTS AS RATED BY SELVES AND RESIDENT ASSISTANTS . ON SCHOLASTIC EFFORT Scholastic Effort Rated t>y Average or Below Above Average Res. Ass*t. 48 46 94 Selves 56 35 91 104 81 185 Total Chi-square 2.06 Total p' .2 - TABLE XXVII REJECTS AS RATED BY SELVES AND RESIDENT ASSISTANTS ON (1) PARTICIPATION IN DORMITORY AFFAIRS; (2) OVER-ALL SOCIAL PARTICIPATION; (3) CITIZENSHIP; AND (4) SOCIAL AND PERSONALITY ADJUSTMENT Rating Rated on Rated by Average or Below Above Average 82 Total \ Res. Ass't. Selves 77 11 12 89 r o\ Res. Ass't. Selves 53 55 40 36 93 91 0\ Res. Ass't. Selves 45 47 49 45 94 92 1ii\ (4) Res. Ass't. Selves 62 31 93 84 i 56 28 93 Therefore, It is concluded that either (1) the self-image of the rejects i3 essentially the same as the group judgment in respect to scholastic effort, or ( 2) the ratings by the Resident Assistants do not truly rep­ resent the group judgment. Participation in dormitory affairs; over-all social participation; citizenship; social and personality adjust­ ment. Table XXVII showB the comparative ratings of the rejects on participation in dormitory affairs, over-all social participation, citizenship, and social and per­ sonality adjustment by the Resident Assistants and by themselves. In each instance the Chi-square value was less than in the case of scholastic effort. This may be determined by Inspection since the difference in columnar differences in every case is less than a third as great as in the case of scholastic effort. Since the relation­ ship was not significant in that respect, and since the degrees of freedom are the same, it is not significant in any of these cases. It then appears that either (1) the self-image of the rejects is accurate in terms of group judgment on these traits, or (2) the ratings by the Resident Assis­ tants are not representative of the group judgment. At least, in none of the traits rated, was support found for the contention that the self-image of the rejects was inaccurate in terms of the group judgment. Only in reference to the extent of rejection was there an indica­ tion of such erroneous view and there appears to have been some awareness of rating in that respect. Therefore, rejects may be held to have a fairly accurate view of themselves as compared to the view of others as represented by the Resident Assistants. The lack of adjustment then must be attributable largely to a failure to comprehend the group definition of a more acceptable role, or lack of motivation to achieve it, or, being thwarted as the group withholds acceptance, they may under the duress of frustration be incapable of a rational approach to adjustment. Resume of evidence on second behavioral subhypoth­ esis. The criteria used to measure the self-image and the group judgment yielded little evidence that the re­ jects held a distorted self-image in terms of the group judgment. On the basis of their stated expectations, the rejects were significantly different from the selects in that the rejects expected to be selected as a friend less often. In this respect, their self-image was relatively accurate. However, the rejects were not significantly different from the selects in their stated expectations of being named as one most reluctantly accepted as a friend. In this case, then, one must conclude that the self-image deviated from reality as expressed in the group judgment. Ratings by Resident Assistants as compared with self-ratings yielded no evidence of an inaccurate selfimage in respect to (1) scholastic effort, (2) partici­ pation in dormitory affairs, (3 ) over-all social parti­ cipation, (4) citizenship, or (5) social and personality adjustment. III. THE THIRD BEHAVIORAL SUBHYPOTHESIS The behavioral hypothesis proposed an association between rejection and inadequacy of role-taking. As a sub-hypothesis, it was then argued that rejects are likely to be insecure and/or frustrated. Such an argu­ ment could not be put forward if one held that rejects were completely unaware of their rejection. While the second subhypothesis held that the self-image of the rejects was inaccurate in terms of the group image, it was not proposed that the self-image was completely dis­ torted - that the rejects were completely unaware of their stata. As a matter of fact, evidence presented above indicated that there was some degree of inaccuracy in the rejects' estimation of themselves but at the same time considerable awareness of their rejection. Holding that view at the outset of the study made it possible to offer the third subhypothesis since the failure of the rejects to attain acceptable status, thus failing to attain a probably desired goal-response, might very well produce frustration and some of its outward manifestations. Therefore, in seeking evidence on the matter, the investigator set up criteria which might reveal behavior which was aggressive, withdrawing, and/or erratic in that a frustrated individual might be expected to be some­ what unstable and inefficient in the pursuit of other goals. Relatively low academic achievement in relation to ability. While it might have been argued that rejects had lower general academic ability than selects, there was no particular evidence upon which to base such a hypoth esls which would not support as well or better the argu­ ment that rejects are likely to achieve less academically in relation to their ability as an accompaniment of frus­ tration in their peer relationships. In order that the subhypothesis to that effect might be tested, the grade-point average for the previous term was computed and the scores on the American Council on Education Psychological Examination were obtained. The total score on the latter was used as a measure of general ability. At the time of the study the marking system at Michigan State College allotted one point for each credit hour of C work, two points for each credit hour of B, three points for each credit hour of A, zero for each credit hour of D, and minus one point for each credit hour of F unless subsequently removed by repeating the course in question with a mark of D or higher. Hence a straight C average would be expressed as a grade-point average of 1.0, a straight B average as 2.0, etc. As shown in Table XXVIII, the first preliminary step involved a check as to whether there was a signifi­ cant difference in the ability scores of rejects and selects. As measured by the ACE total score there was no significant difference nor did the result approach sig­ nificance. The relationship indicating homogeneity could be expected nearly fifty times in a hundred through chance alone. That rejects achieved significantly lower course marks than selects is indicated in Table XXIX. TABLE XXVIII QUINTILE RANK OF REJECTS AND SELECTS ON TOTAL SCORE ON AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION Quintile Rank Prfouna 1 2 3 4 5 Rejects 12 16 18 15 12 73 Selects 17 12 19 27 12 87 Total 29 28 37 42 24 160 Chi-square 3*693 P Total *5- TABLE XXIX GRADE-POINT AVERAGE OF REJECTS AND SELECTS Grade-point Average Groups 0 to *9 to .8 Rejects 1.2 1.8 2.1 to and Higher 1.1 to 1.4 1-5 to 1*7 2.0 12 26 16 17 4 8 83 Selects 6 12 35 19 11 11 94 Total 18 38 51 36 15 19 177 p *01- Chi-square 17*474 c (corrected) Total .39 The crucial test of this criterion involved com­ paring rejects with selects of similar ability rating as to their achievement rating. This was done, as shown in Table XXX, and it was revealed that rejects achieved significantly lower gradepoint averages than selects of the same ability scores. Thus, the argument that rejects are frustrated may be considered as being partially substantiated, and it may be that such academic behavior produces even more frus­ tration. (The number of cases was too limited to test other than the middle ability group.) TABLE XXX GRADE-POINT AVERAGES OP REJECTS AND SELECTS WHOSE TOTAL SCORES ON THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION WERE AT DECILES 4, 5, 6 , AND 7 Grade-point Average 1 .2 -3.0 0-1.1 Total Rejects 15 18 33 Selects 5 37 42 20 55 75 Total Chi-square 10.64 P .01 - c (corrected) .55 Relatively frequent changes of residence and/or drop-outs. It was considered likely that an outward manifestation of failure to solve the problem of group expectations and adequate compliance with them might be that rejects tend to move away from the scene of their rejection. Such behavior would be typical of one of the more usual reactions to frustratlon-lnsecurity in that it involves a pattern of withdrawal. In seeking evidence on this matter, a tabulation was made of those who requested and received permission to change their residence and those who dropped out of school in one category, with those who remained in the same room the succeeding term in the other category. The comparison of rejects and selects on this trait, as shown in Table XXXI, revealed a relationship significant at the one one-thousandth level of confidence. Rejects moved or dropped out significantly more often than selects. This should prove to be a clue of value to edu­ cational institutions, such that a request for change of residence or the move to drop out of school may be examined in reference to the question: Is this a case of social rejection? One may also interpret this evidence as indicating a degree of frustration and insecurity on the part of the 118 TABLE XXXI REJECTS AND SELECTS AS THEY MOVED, DROPPED OUT OR REMAINED IN SAME ROOM THE SUBSEQUENT TERM Location Subsequent Term Groups Moved or Dropped Out Remained in Same Room Total Rejects 27 69 96 Selects 5 97 102 Total 32 166 198 Chi-square 19.68 p .001- c (correc ted) .47 rejects such that they tend, to withdraw from the scene of rejection. While Inadequacy of role-taking is indi­ cated, there is also an indication that rejects are somewhat aware of their rejection. Admitted feelings of insecurity. Since insecurity was considered to be a likely concommltant of the rejec­ tion role, each resident was asked to check himself on a scale of security-insecurity as to how he felt about the future. 6 See page 5 of questionnaire, Appendix A. As pointed out earlier in connection with this criterion, it may be that insecurity as commonly referred to is not subject to verbalization by the individual. Therefore, this measure clearly seeks stated feelings of insecurity. Psychiatric and psychoanalytical techniques beyond the scope of this study might indicate insecurity a characteristic of individuals unable to admit such conscious feelings. In so far as admitted feelings of insecurity were concerned there was no significant difference between rejects and selects as indicated in Table XXXII. TABLE XXXII SELF-RATING OF REJECTS AND SELECTS ON SECURITY •-INSECURITY Security-insecurity Some or Consid­ erable Inse­ curity Little if any Inse­ curity Some Security Consid­ erable Security Rejects 28 9 28 20 85 Selects 36 10 32 15 93 Total 64 19 60 35 178 Groups Chi-square 1.678 P *5+ Total In this respect, then, there was no support for the position taken that rejection is associated with frustration-insecurity as an aspect of inadequate roletaking. Ignorance of family income. In the course of investigating the hypothesized prestige-detracting char­ acteristic of low family income, evidence came to light which appeared to hear upon the third behavioral sub­ hypothesis. It appeared that an appreciably greater proportion of the rejects stated that they did not know their family income. This could reflect a prior family status somewhat different from that typical of the selects, in that the person stating his family income was unknown may have been accorded less than the ordinary amount of family confidence. He may have been treated as some­ thing less than an adult in late adolescence. He may have experienced a degree of rejection in the family. Therefore, it was thought desirable to check for a possible significant difference between rejects and selects in this respect. As a first step, the rejects were compared with the selects as to the occupations of the fathers of those who stated their family income was unknown. This was done since it appeared possible that the major im­ pelling factor in such a response was shame connected with a low Income. While no test of significance is .applied, Table XXXIII shows rather clearly that such was not the case. This conclusion is bolstered by the absence of a significant relationship between rejection and low occupational status as previously reported. TABLE XXXIII OCCUPATIONS OP THE FATHERS OP REJECTS AND SELECTS WHO STATED THAT FAMILY INCOME WAS UNKNOWN Father's Occupation Gr°UPS Prof pro1* ers 0wners CMgrk ' safes' Skilled bKlllea 0th" ers To“ tal Rejects 6 2 7 11 5 0 31 Selects 0 1 0 4 3 12 4 There was a relationship between rejection and stated ignorance of family Income significant at the one per cent level of confidence as shown in Table XXXIV. Logically, this may be accepted as supporting the proposition that rejection is associated with a feeling of insecurity. Scholastic effort. The thwarting of a desired goal-response producing a state of frustration may lead TABLE XXXIV REJECTS AND SELECTS STATING FAMILY INCOME UNKNOWN Family Income Known Unknown Total Rejects 57 32 89 Selects 80 16 96 Total 137 48 185 Chi-square 8.942 P .01- c (corrected) .34 to erratic behavior, withdrawal, aggressiveness, general Inefficiency, a variety of substitutive behavior or sub­ limation. It is thus logical that rejects might be characterized by inefficiency in the pursuit of academic goals, or that they and others might think of them as being inadequate in that respect. The question, then, is; Do rejects rate them­ selves significantly low in scholastic effort, and how do others rate them? Table XXXV shows that rejects rated themselves significantly lower than selects on scholastic effort. Table XXXVI reveals that Resident Assistants did not so rate them. TABLE XXXV SELF-RATING OF REJECTS AND SELECTS ON SCHOLASTIC EFFORT Scholastic Effort Groups Average and Below Above Average Total Rejects 56 35 91 Selects 47 53 100 Total 103 88 191 Chi-square 4.06 p .05- c (corrected) TABLE XXXVI REJECTS AND SELECTS AS RATED BY RESIDENT ASSISTANTS ON SCHOLASTIC EFFORT Scholastic Effort Groups Above Average Average and Below Total Rejects 48 46 94 Selects 47 54 101 Total 95 100 195 Chi-square .4 P *5+ .23 The apparent fact that rejects think of themselves as significantly low in scholastic effort may, in and of itself, be a reaction to rejection as an aspect of a feeling of inferiority. This seems even more likely in light of the ratings by Resident Assistants. In their judgment, at least, such a distinction seems not to have existed. Citizenship. As in the case of scholastic effort, it was thought that, as evidence of frustration and in­ security, the rejects might think of themselves as bad citizens from a general feeling of inferiority. It was considered possible that other kinds of reaction to frus­ tration, particularly aggressive behavior, might produce the same opinion in the minds of others. As a check on these points, self-ratings and ratings of Resident Assistants on citizenship was arranged so as to compare rejects with selects on this basis. As shown in Table XXXVTI, the direction of the distribution was such as to make it appear that rejects rated themselves lower than did selects on citizenship. However, this relationship would occur between five and 10 times in a hundred by chance, which is interpreted as permitting the retention of a hypothesis to the effect that this relationship existed. In other words, it neither supports nor refutes the argument. TABLE XXXVII SELF-RATING OF REJECTS AND SELECTS ON CITIZENSHIP Citizenship Groups Above Average Average or Lower Total Rejects 47 43 92 Selects 39 6l 100 Total 86 106 192 Chi-square 2.827 P .1- Table XXXVIII reveals that a similar situation existed in the judgment of the Resident Assistants. While they rated rejects consistently lower than selects, the relationship occurred at the 10 per cent level of prob­ ability and remains in the realm of the conjectural or hypothetical, having received neither support nor con­ tradiction from the evidence. Social and personality adjustment. As a reaction to frustration and/or insecurity, it was held likely that rejects might think of themselves as socially and personally maladjusted to a significantly greater degree than selects. Their behavior in turn might so Impress TABLE XXXVIII REJECTS AND SELECTS AS RATED BY RESIDENT ASSISTANTS ON CITIZENSHIP Citizenship Groups Average or Lower Above Average Total Rejects 45 49 94 Selects 36 65 101 Total 81 114 195 Chi-square 2.99 p .1- others that a similar distinction would exist in the judgment of the Resident Assistants. In the first case, as shown in Table XXXIX, re­ jects did rate themselves significantly lower than selects on this criterion. Table XL shows that Resident Assis­ tants, likewise, rated them significantly lower. Each of these investigations, thus, revealed evidence supporting the position that the behavior of the rejects is erratic, or unique, or of such a type that others think of them as socially and personally maladjusted, and they think of themselves in essentially the same way. 127 TABLE XXXIX SELF-RATING OF REJECTS AND SELECTS ON SOCIAL AND PERSONALITY ADJUSTMENT Social and Personality Adjustment Groups Average or Lower Above Average Superior Total Rejects 56 23 5 84 Selects 42 43 12 97 Total 98 66 17 181 Chi-square 10.06 .01- p c (corrected) •33 TABLE XL REJECTS AND SELECTS AS RATED BY RESIDENT ASSISTANTS ON SOCIAL AND PERSONALITY ADJUSTMENT Social and Personality Adjustment Groups Poor and Below Average Average Above Average Superior Total Rejects 13 49 27 4 93 Selects 1 26 55 19 101 14 75 82 23 194 Total Chi-square 36.417 P .001- c (corrected) .55 It appears likely that persons who are rated by themselves and others as significantly maladjusted would feel a considerable degree of frustration and/or insecur­ ity. If such is the case, this is strong support for the third behavioral subhypothesis. Reasons for rejection. In the questionnaire it was requested that one or more reasons be given for each person rejected. These free-response reasons were tab­ ulated and combined where similar so as to yield general characteristics with their frequency of mention as descrip­ tive of those rejected. Table XLI lists, in order of occurrence, the rea­ sons given by the residents for rejecting others, with the frequency of each. Other combinations were certainly possible, but, unless deliberately obscured, the general group reaction to the rejects must have emerged much as it did in the categorization used. The pattern of behavior which, in the opinion of the group, characterized the rejects seems to overshadow any particular combination which may have been structured. It is clearly a pattern of aggressive and inconsiderate lack of cooperation with a secondary pattern of with­ drawal, shyness, effeminacy and juvenile behavior. 129 TABLE XLI ARBITRARY COMBINATIONS OP MOST FREQUENT FREE-RESPONSE REASONS GIVEN FOR REJECTION IN ORDER OF FREQUENCY 1. Superiority role (Conceited, big-shot ideas, egotistical, overconfident, cocky, know-itall, selfish, braggart, superiority complex, superior air, intrusive, social climber, ex­ trovert, argumentative, sarcastic, spoiled, unreasonable, domineering, overbearing, must have own way, others always wrong, aggres­ sive, belligerent, temperamental, bully, ........................... chip-on-shoulder) 231 2. Loud (Noisy, boisterous, prankster, t a l k a t i v e ) .................................. 122 3. Inconsiderate (No regard for others, no re­ spect for others, uncooperative) ............. 84 4. Immature (juvenile, childish) ............... 57 5. Inferiority role (Unfriendly, timid, too quiet, independent, introvert, retiring, inferiority feelings) ....................... 48 Profane (Vulgar, crude, ill-mannered, low morals, loose morals, foul-minded, cursing). . 40 Irresponsible (Untrustworthy, unreliable, ................. two-faced, sly, untruthful) 28 8. Untidy (Insanitary, unclean, slovenly) . . . . 22 9. Pessimist (Griper, complainer, moody) . . . . 18 6. 7. 10. 11. Odd (Screwy, silly, simple, sex-crazy, naive, helpless, narrow, straightlaced) Effeminate (Affected, girlish) ... ... 14 ......... 11 These characteristics are typical of reaction to frustration as Indicated in Chapter III, and generally uphold the third behavioral subhypothesis to the effect that rejects are likely to be frustrated and/or insecure. A comparison of these traits with those listed by Thomas and cited in Chapter II, as most frequently listed by males as reasons for disliking other males, reveals a striking consistency. With the exceptions of "unintel­ ligent11 and "personal injury" there is almost exact dup­ lication, and in each case the ego-centered role is the most objectionable one. Case studies. Based on the questionnaires, the Annual Men's Residence Reports, the comments of group members, and the personnel records, the following sum­ maries describe the nine individuals who received the lowest scores (the highest negative scores) on the selection-rejection distribution. Case I. Rejected as a friend by nineteen per­ sons; seTected as a friend by six persons; selectionrejectlon score -13; age 19; white; native of Mich­ igan city of more than 100,000 ; sophomore; family Income previous year about $ 3 ,500; father a factory supervisor; Protestant; lived with one natural parent from birth through high school; grade-point average •7 (1.0 needed for graduation); ACE Psychological Examination total score at decile 5; expected to be selected as a friend by a few persons and rejected by a few; checked the neutral position on the security-insecurity scale; rejected three persons as friends; selected three as friends; leadership score -17; participated in three extra-curricular and spectator activities; no part-time employment; rated himself average on citizenship, average on scholas­ tic effort, below average on participation in dormi­ tory affairs, average on over-all social participa­ tion, and average on social and personality adjust­ ment. Resident Assistant rated him below average on citizenship, below average on scholastic effort, average on participation in dormitory affairs, average on over-all social participation, and below average on social and personality adjustment. Those rejecting him gave the following reasons with the noted frequencies: profane 9, boisterous 8 , inconsiderate 3 , poor attitude 3 > disrespectful 2 , over-confident 2 , no morals 2 , unfriendly 1 , malad­ justed 1 , egotistical 1 , immature 1, not compatible 1 , foul-minded 1 , indecent 1, pessimistic 1 , negative 1. Remarks by Resident Assistants were: housekeep­ ing poor; consideration of fellow students poor; language loud and filthy; scholastic effort notably below par; quite noisy in rooms and halls. Other observations: Case I and II (reported next) were roommates; both were highly rejected and simi­ larly profane and noisy; both affected the currently "sharp" collegiate hair style and dress to a high degree; a group of their fellow precinct residents seriously threatened them with hazing if they did not become less noisy; their roommate requested and was granted permission to move elsewhere; they were called in for counseling three times during the year as a result of complaints by other residents about their noise and profanity; some improvement seems to have resulted. Comments: the total picture Indicates the exis­ tence in this case of a long-standing feeling of insecurity and frustration probably associated with earlier rejection such that this aggressiveness and boisterousness constitutes his habitual behavior pattern. Certainly his role-taking and/or compliance with group expectations were not adequate to attain a generally acceptable status. While no origin is evident, the status of toeing rejected and his typical behavior may have reinforced each other in a somewhat cyclic manner. Case II. Rejected as a friend by fourteen per­ sons; selected as a friend by eight persons; selection-rejection score -6 ; age 23; white; native of rural Michigan; sophomore; family income previous year about $8,750; father a police worker; Protestant lived with both natural parents from birth through high school; grade-point average 1.0 (minimum re­ quired for graduation); ACE Psychological Exam total score at decile 4; expected to be selected as a friend by many persons and rejected by many; checked the neutral position on the security-insecurlty scale; rejected one person; selected five as friends; leadership score -20; participated in three extra­ curricular and spectator activities; no part-time employment; rated himself superior on citizenship, average on scholastic effort, superior on partici­ pation in dormitory affairs, superior on over-all social participation, and omitted self-rating on social and personality adjustment. Resident Assistant rated him poor on citizenship, below average on scholastic effort, superior on par­ ticipation in dormitory affairs, above average on over-all social participation, and poor on social and personality adjustment. Those rejecting him gave the following reasons with the noted frequencies: boisterous 7 , profane 6, Inconsiderate 6 , disrespectful 3 , Indecent 3 , egotistical 2 , unfriendly 2, not cooperative 2, ir­ responsible 1 , maladjusted 1, immature 1 , overbear­ ing 1 , drinker 1, foul-minded 1, hypocrite 1, un­ tidy 1 . Remarks by Resident Assistant were: often noisy and inconsiderate of residents, scholastic effort definitely below par, language extra foul. Other observations: In addition to the situation involving his roommate noted in Case I above, Case II on several occasions expressed concern that some of the residents didn‘t like him; he moved off cam­ pus the following term; he was apprehended and re­ ported to the Dean of Students during the ensuing term for gaining admission to Abbot Hall dining room by using the meal ticket of a resident of the hall, the ticket being non-transferable; he professed to be "hep" to modern jazz though not himself a musi­ cian; he seemed to delight in referring to ordinary citizens as "squares" in a derogatory manner; he volunteered and served one term as social repre­ sentative for his precinct but proved to be rather unreliable in accepting his responsibilities. Comments: The insecurity or frustration-aggression hypothesis again seems to be the most logical explanation. Unlike Case I, however, Case IX was admittedly both aware of and concerned about his re­ jection. He was making some attempt to comprehend and comply with an acceptable role as evidenced by: (1) volunteering as social representative; (2) ask­ ing advice about winning friends; (3 ) being selected as a friend by eight persons even though rejected by fourteen; and (4) his voluntary withdrawal from the scene after his apparent failure to overcome the rejection. Case III. Rejected as a friend by eight persons; selected as a friend by two persons; selection-rejectlon score -6 ; age 19; white; native of out of state mldwestern city of more than 100,000 popula­ tion; freshman; family income about $ 2,500 previous year; father a salesman; Indicated "no religion"; lived with one natural parent and one step-parent from age 11; grade-point average 1.0 (minimum nec­ essary for graduation); ACE Psychological Examina­ tion total score at decile 8 ; expected to be selected as a friend by a few persons and rejected by none; admitted some feeling of insecurity about the future; rejected no one; selected two as friends; leadership score -8 ; participated in four spectator and extra­ curricular activities; fourteen hours per week parttime work; rated himself average on citizenship, average on scholastic effort, poor on participa­ tion in dormitory affairs, above average on over-all social participation, and above average on social and personality adjustment. Resident Assistant rated him average on citizen­ ship, average on scholastic effort, poor on partici­ pation in dormitory affairs; above average on over­ all social participation, and average on social and personality adjustment. 134 Those rejecting him gave the following reasons with the noted frequencies: noisy 3 , borrower 3 , immature 3 > conceited 2 , inconsiderate 2 , sloppy 1 , smart alec 1 , Indiscreet 1, obnoxious 1 . Remarks by his Resident Assistant were: well liked by many fellows. not too Other observations: he requested and was granted permission to move to another precinct during the year; upon leaving at the end of the academic year he indicated that he would not return to the same hall if the same college the following year; he was a weight-lifter and a musician taking part in "jamsessions" in the hall; he was occasionally reported for disturbing other residents by practicing on his trumpet in his room; he tried with some success to play the currently faddish "bop" style of music; he repeatedly pulled up a chair and sat down in the food line and other such attention-getting acts were com­ mon; he once asked permission to demonstrate weight­ lifting and gymnastics at one of the hall parties; he once threatened a food-server and fellow student with bodily harm if he was not permitted to have extra por­ tions. Comments: frustration and/or insecurity seem to be the underlying theme of this personality and is accompanied by some effort to gain attention and pos­ sibly status and friends. There was neither the consistent defiance evident in Case I nor the con­ sistent seeking after friends as in Case II. Eco­ nomically inferior to the two previous cases reported, he seems to have been superior in academic ability though not in grades. There is apparently a ten­ dency toward earlier and more persistent withdrawal than in the two previous cases, with a corresponding reduction in aggression. Case IV. Rejected as a friend by thirteen per­ sons; selected as a friend by three persons; selectlonrejection score -10; age 20 ; white; native of out of state midwestern city of more than 100,000 population; freshman; family income previous year about $ 6,250; father a salesman; Protestant; lived with one natural parent and one step-parent from age 13; grade-point average 1.6 (C+); ACE Psychological Examination total score at decile 8 ; expected to be selected as a friend by a few persons and rejected by a few; claimed some 135 feeling of security about the future; rejected no one; selected eight as friends; leadership score -18; participated in two spectator and extra-cur­ ricular activities; no part-time employment; rated himself average on citizenship, above average on scholastic effort, average on participation in dormitory affairs, average on over-all social par­ ticipation, and average on social and personality adjustment. Resident Assistant rated him average on all points. Those rejecting him gave the following reasons with the noted frequencies: self-centered 6 , over­ bearing loud too forward 2 , inconsiderate 2 , odd outlook 2 , boisterous 2 , simple 1 , not dependable 1 , indifferent 1 . Remarks by his Resident Assistant were: has not learned how to get along with men; is very immature; loud. Other observations: he requested and was granted permission to move out of the hall at the end of the winter term 19^ 9 -50 . Comments: If there was an insecurity factor in­ volved in the immature behavior of this individual, it was probably subconscious. There is little if any evidence of effort to gain acceptance and there was a rather rapid withdrawal from the scene. It is questionable whether he would have been able to verbalize his reasons for wanting to move. It may be that a parentally Induced role of perpetual childish­ ness and rejection, rather than an accepted role of increasing maturity, had blinded him to a realiza­ tion that he had failed to gain a mature social status in keeping with his chronology. His roletaking must not have been effective as indicated by his failure to realize the group attitude. Case V. Rejected as a friend by twelve persons; selected as a friend by two persons; selection-rejection score -10; age 20; white; native of Michigan city of more than 100,000 population; sophomore; family income not revealed; father a salesman; Prot­ estant; lived with both natural parents from birth through high school; grade-point average 1.0 (mini­ mum required for graduation); ACE Psychological 136 Examination total score at decile 10; no response to questions regarding expectation of being selected or rejected; claimed some feeling of security about the future; rejected no one as friend; selected no one as friend; leadership score -3 ; participated in three spectator and extra-curricular activities; no part-time employment; rated himself average on cit­ izenship, poor on scholastic effort, no rating on participation in dormitory affairs, above average on over-all social participation, and average on social and personality adjustment. Resident Assistant rated him average on citizen­ ship, poor on scholastic effort, poor on participa­ tion in dormitory affairs, above average on over-all social participation, and average on social and per­ sonality adjustment. Those rejecting him gave the following reasons with the noted frequencies; boisterous 4, different values 4, inconsiderate 3, juvenile 2, too aggressive 1, wise guy 1, too forward 1, not trustworthy 1, drinker 1. Remarks of his Resident Assistant were: not wellknown or liked by the men in his precinct, definite discipline problem, lack of respect for other fel­ lows, poor adjustment. Other observations; his roommate requested and was granted permission to sleep elsewhere since Case V consistently came in late, turned on lights, and was generally inconsiderate of one trying to sleep; when the Resident Adviser attempted counseling him, Case V expressed the opinion that he didn't care what anyone thought of him; he was reported to have put padlocks on his chest of drawers and to have fre­ quently asked visitors to leave; he showed a marked preference for solitude. Comments; there is striking evidence in thl 3 case of a refusal to accept ordinary values associated with acceptable behavior. His ACE rank indicated scholastic ability far in excess of his performance and he admits poor scholastic effort. He has met a considerable degree of failure and probably frustra­ tion both in the social and academic spheres. His reaction seems to have been primarily one of with­ drawal, perhaps symbolically locking the world out of his life as he locked Inquisitors out of his chest of drawers. Case VI. Rejected as a friend by twelve persons; selected as a friend by three persons; selectionrejection score -9; age 19; white; native of Michigan city of between 10,000 and 100,000 population; fresh­ man; family income previous year more than $ 10,000; father an owner-operator; Protestant; lived with both natural parents from birth through high school; grade-polnt average 1.3 (C+); ACE Psychological Exam­ ination total score at decile 2 ; expected to be selec ted as a friend by a few persons and rejected by a few; admitted some feeling of insecurity about the future; rejected three persons and selected ten as friends; leadership score -17; participated in five spectator and extra-curricular activities; no parttime employment; rated himself as above average on citizenship, above average on scholastic effort, below average on participation in dormitory affairs, below average on over-all social participation, and average on social and personality adjustment. Resident Assistant rated him average on all traits Those rejecting him gave the following reasons with the noted frequencies: braggart 7 , loud 6 , conceited 6, obnoxious 4, inconsiderate 1 , irritat­ ing 1 . Remarks of his Resident Assistant were: a very irresponsible fellow, by far the biggest "story tel­ ler" I've known. Other observations: it was reliably reported that during the academic year a stranger came into the precinct bathroom late at night, sent word for Case VI to come in and knocked him down when he ar­ rived, later explaining that an unnamed resident of the hall had paid him ten dollars to do so. Comments: While there appears to have been a consciousness of being rejected to some extent, this individual did not attempt realistically to solve the frustration. While he named ten persons as friends, perhaps thereby indicating some seeking after acceptance, his behavior was rather aggressive and at the same time geared to gaining attention. The indication is that he was subconsciously and compulsively striking back while overtly claiming many friends instead of adequately evaluating the expectations of his associates and behaving with some conformity to those expectations. Case V I I . Rejected as a friend by fourteen per­ sons; selected as a friend by one person; selectionrejection score -13; age 23; white; native of Mich­ igan city of more than 100,000 population; senior; family Income previous year about $ 6,750; father a railroad agent; Protestant; lived with both natural parents from birth through high school; grade-point average 1.0 (minimum required for graduation); ACE Psychological Examination total score at decile 3; expected to be selected as a friend by a few persons and rejected by many; claimed considerable feeling of security about the future; rejected five persons; selected three as friends; leadership score -15; par­ ticipated in seven spectator and extra-curricular activities; no part-time employment; rated himself as superior on citizenship, scholastic effort, partici­ pation in dormitory affairs, over-all social part­ icipation, and social and personality adjustment. Resident Assistant rated him superior on all traits except social and personality adjustment on which he was rated above average. Those rejecting him gave the following reasons with the noted frequencies: egotistical 6 , braggart 4, loud 3 , immature 3 , inconsiderate 3> selfish 2 , dirty 2 , smart alec 2 , sarcastic 1 , queer 1, over­ bearing 1, hypocritical 1 , untruthful 1, insincere 1 . Remarks of his Resident Assistants were: gre­ garious, friendly, cooperative, takes affront easily, sarcastic, acts superior. Other observations: apparently as evidence of his decided unpopularity, his room once was filled with debris and the door blocked from the inside, the perpetrators leaving by the window; he roomed with a relative who was a freshman and who seemed not to be sarcastic or a braggart but who was a nearisolate, being chosen as a friend by two persons and rejected by one; he graduated at the end of the spring term 1949-50. Comments: This individual undoubtedly realized his rejection status. However, he showed no sign of an active program of adjustment to group expecta­ tions unless it was on a selective basis since he impressed his Resident Assistant as well as the Manager, Resident Adviser and Hostess as being cheer­ ful, friendly and cooperative. As far as his peers were concerned, he apparently accepted the role of reject through a process of rationalization so as to inflate his ego regarding his superiority which he could logically justify on neither academic nor social grounds. As a substitute device, he was re­ ported to have stressed the superiority of his family to those of his peers, a not uncommon reac­ tion to frustration. While the overt, superficial, conscious role seems to have become stabilized, there is evidence of an unstable over-all personality. Case VTII. Rejected as a friend by nine persons; selected as a friend by one person; selection-rejectlon score -8 ; age 22; white; native of Michigan city of more than 100,000 population; senior; family in­ come previous year about $ 6 ,250; father a printer; Protestant; lived with both natural parents from birth through high school; grade-point average 1.0 (minimum required for graduation); ACE Psychological Examination total score at decile 2; expected to be selected as a friend by many persons and rejected by a few; claimed some feeling of security about the future; rejected one person; selected four persons as friends; leadership score -17; participated in five spectator and extra-curricular activities; no part-time employment; rated himself average on citi­ zenship, scholastic effort, participation in dormi­ tory affairs, over-all social participation, and omitted rating on social and personality adjustment. Resident Assistant rated him above average on citizenship, average on scholastic effort, average on participation in dormitory affairs, average on over-all social participation, and below average on social and personality adjustment. Those rejecting him gave the following reasons with the noted frequencies: pessimistic 6, griper 4, inferiority complex 3 , arguer 1 , noisy 1, poor con­ versationalist 1, inconsiderate 1 . 140 Remarks of the Resident Assistant were: doesn't mix with fellow students much, is very quiet, a mal­ formed hand seems to be his personality weakness. Other observations: he graduated at the end of the spring term 1949-5°» Comments: unlike the previously reported cases of extremely high rejection, this individual seemed to be bitter, cynical, and constantly complaining. While the history and influence of the malformed hand are not known, it appears to be quite probable that it is associated with the pessimistic role in which this individual was habituated. Inadequacy of role-taking is Indicated in that he was not aware of the reactions of the group to his complaining; he thought he had many friends and a few who didn't like him. Case IX. Rejected as a friend by eight persons; selected as a friend by one person; selection-rejection score -7; age 20; white; native of Michigan city of between 1,000 and 10,000 population; sopho­ more; family income previous year about $ 3 *500; father a business manager and part owner; Protestant; lived with both natural parents from birth through high school; grade-point average .9 ( 1.0 required for graduation); ACE Psychological Examination total score at decile 2 ; no Indication of expectation as to be­ ing selected or rejected; no response on securitylnsecurity scale; rejected five persons; selected nine persons as friends; leadership score -9 ; par­ ticipated in three spectator and extra-curricular activities; no part-time employment; rated himself above average on citizenship, average on scholastic effort, below average on participation in dormitory affairs, below average on over-all social participa­ tion, and above average on social and personality adjustment. Resident Assistant rated him superior on citizen­ ship, above average on scholastic effort, average on participation in dormitory affairs, above average on over-all social participation, and above average on social and personality adjustment. Those rejecting him gave the following reasons with the noted frequencies: know-it-all 3 , immature 3 , pest 2, unclean 2 , obnoxious 2 , peculiar 2, un­ stable 2, untruthful 1, nosey 1 . 141 There were no further comments by his Resident Assistant nor were there further observations. Comments: this individual's apparent know-it-all role may be largely compensation for feelings of frustration and inferiority. He had obviously failed to adequately take on the roles of others in the group or conform with their expectations. He was not par­ ticularly aggressive. It is doubtful if he realized the extent of his rejection. Summary; reasons for rejection and case studies. Whether derived from the reasons given for rejecting any and all individuals or from those given for reject­ ing the nine most rejected individuals, the general pattern of indicated behavior is essentially the same. In each case the most frequently mentioned ob­ jectionable traits are indicative of a superiority role. The most objectionable type of behavior on either basis is egotistical involving being a braggart, being over­ bearing and conceited. This type of behavior is often accompanied by being loud and Inconsiderate. This en­ tire characterization is one of essential aggressive­ ness as though a primary reaction to frustration and/or insecurity. The secondary behavioral pattern which may be gleaned from either of the above sources is one that is essentially withdrawing. In some cases the with­ drawal is into a childish, immature role, in others it involves self-imposed Isolation from one's peers. This, too, is a not unusual reaction to frustration and/or insecurity. Resume of evidence on third behavioral subhypoth­ esis. With the ability factor held constant, the academic achievement of the rejects, as evidenced by their gradepoint averages, was significantly lower than that of selects. It is considered likely that their social frus­ tration in not achieving acceptable status might very well produce inefficiency in the attainment of other im­ portant goals and is associated with this academic inef­ ficiency. Withdrawal being a primary reaction to frustra­ tion, the fact that rejects moved their residences and/or dropped out of school significantly more often than selects is considered to be Indicative of frustration and/or insecurity. Further evidence of feelings of frustration and deviate behavior was found in the significant relation­ ships between rejection and: (1) low self-rating on scholastic effort; (2) low self-rating and rating by Resident Assistants on social and personality adjustment. Relationship between rejection and low Resident Assist­ ant rating on citizenship was neither confirmed nor contradicted. The same was true for self-rating on this criterion. There was no significant relationship be­ tween rejection and Resident Assistant rating on citizen­ ship. The fact the rejects stated that they were ignor­ ant of their family incomes significantly more often than did selects, is taken to reveal a probable status of partial rejection within the family. Such a history of rejection may have been, at least in part, responsible for the formation of aggressive and/or withdrawal habits on the part of these individuals who again found them­ selves rejected; and who continued in their habitual patterns of conduct instead of attempting a rational adjustment of their own behavior. Such an adjustment vrould necessitate extensive role-taking so as to define the group expectations. In the summary of reasons given for rejection, as well as in the study of the cases who were the most highly rejected, the objectionable behavior was primarily of the ego-centered aggressive type and/or of the immature, juvenile, withdrawing type. Rejects did not admit significantly more feeling of insecurity than did selects. Summary of evidence on behavioral hypothesis. The tests of significance of the various criteria used in this connection are summarized in Table XLII. The hypothesis to the effect that rejection is associated with Inadequacy of role-taking was approached first from the point of view that rejection was asso­ ciated with relatively restricted Interaction. Restricted interaction is considered to be prima facie evidence of restricted role-taking since role-taking is based in a large measure on communicative activities within a group. The following criteria of restricted interaction were significantly associated with rejection as opposed to selection: (1) low leadership-prestlge rating; (2 ) restricted rejection and selection of others; (3 ) re­ stricted spectator and extra-curricular activities; and (4) restricted part-time employment which brings one into contact with group members. The second approach to the hypothesized relation­ ship between rejection and inadequacy of role-taking in­ volved the proposition that rejection was associated with an Inaccurate self-image in terms of the group judgment. This follows the simple logic that without adequate roletaking one is not likely to have the same view of him­ self that is held by others. TABLE XLII SUMMARY OP RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN REJECTION AND BEHAVIORAL FACTORS Factor Evidence Rejection Related To Low status Leadership-prestige status P .001Rejection of others . 01 Few rejected P . 001 Few selected Selection of others P Spectator and extra-curricular activities Few activities P .001Part-time employment ~ Unemployment P .05Participation in dormitory affairs ]5 Little participation P .001. 001 Little participation Participation in dormitory affairs P Over-all social participation ]5 . 02 Little participation P .05+* Over-all social participation P (evidence on restricted interaction) Expectations of selection Expectations of rejection Scholastic effort Participation in dormitory affairs Over-all social participation Citizenship Social and personality adjustment (evidence on inaccuracy P P P P P P P of .001.2-*2 .2-*l Low expectation *1 *1 *1 *1 self-image) Grade-point average (ability constant) Low average P .01Moving and dropping out Moves and drop-outs^ P .001Security-insecurity P •5+* Income unknown Family income unknown P .01Little effort Scholastic effort^ .05P Scholastic effort-5 P .5+* Citizenships P .1-* Citizenship -5 P .1-* Social and personality adjustment!? Poor adjustment P .01Social and personality adjustment-5 . 001 Poor adjustment P (evidence on frustration-insecurity) * not significant; 1 accurate self-image; Assistant rating; 4 self-rating 2 inaccurate self-image; 3 Resident As criteria of such an inaccurate self-image, the extent of rejection as compared with its realization by the rejects, and the group judgment as compared with the self-rating on scholastic effort, participation in dormi­ tory affairs, over-all social participation, citizenship, and social and personality adjustment were examined for inaccuracy of the self-image in those respects. Inaccuracy of the self-image was indicated only by the first of these criteria. The third and last basis of analyzing the behav­ ioral hypothesis was from the point of view that failure to achieve an acceptable status plus a failure to ade­ quately take on roles of others so as to gain comprehen­ sion of the group expectations is essentially a frus­ trating experience and probably results in a feeling of insecurity. This would be expected to result in certain aggressive and/or withdrawing behavior on the part of rejects. As criteria of such frustration and/or insecurity, it was found that low academic achievement in relation to ability, more frequent moves and drop-outs, and being Ignorant of the family income were significantly asso­ ciated with rejection as opposed to selection. However, the rejects admitted no significantly greater feelings of insecurity than did the selects. A tabulation of the reasons given for rejection, as well as case studies of the nine most rejected indi­ viduals, yielded evidence which indicates that the be­ havior of rejects in the judgment of their associates is essentially aggressive, ego-centered, inconsiderate and/or withdrawing, Immature and juvenile. Hence the Indications of frustration and insecurity, in spite of the lack of such admission by the rejects, is in support of the the­ sis that they are thwarted in their attempts at roletaking . Interpretation of evidence on behavioral hypoth­ esis. Both consistent and highly significant was the evidence that rejects are characterized by a restricted degree of interaction within their group(s). While such does not indicate that increased interaction would assure adequacy of role-taking or a lessening degree of rejec­ tion, it does support the argument that without a rela­ tively high degree of interaction adequate role-taking is unlikely and hence the achievement of an acceptable status, too, is unlikely. In sociometric research, it has been observed repeatedly that positive choices tended to run well ahead of negative choices when both are sought on ques­ tions of friendship. Such preponderance of positive choices, as occurred in this study, may not be attributed entirely to a mere reluctance to make such negative choices in light of this evidence on interaction. Part of such restricted negative choices may be associated with the fact that rejects simply failed to mix, failed to be widely acquainted as compared with the selects, therefore, did not know as many of the group from which selections were made. The implication for counseling involves one step in a program of adjustment of the rejected personality, that of increasing his interpersonal relations. In or­ der that he may gain comprehension of the values, the expectations of his group, he needs to become widely acquainted, widely intercommunicative, so as to take on various roles of others within the group. Without; such comprehension of group behavioral norms compliance is impossible. Such a conclusion and its implication is bolstered by the evidence which indicates that the self-image of the reject is somewhat inaccurate in terms of the group judgment. Counseling might seek to reveal to him such a possibility and how, by role-taking, his self-image might become more accurate. The aggressive and withdrawing behavior so common among rejects provides an additional basis for counseling. 149 The reject may be made aware of the kinds of behavior associated with rejection, the extent to which he is so characterized, and the likelihood that he is frustrated. The probability that his frustration reactions stabilize or Increase his rejection and hence his frustration should be made clear. A reorientation toward his desired goal-responses then becomes essential accompanied by the substitution of rational analysis for such rationalization as may bolster up his usual behavioral pattern in and toward the group. It may be in order to suggest to him that he undoubtedly really does care what others think and feel concerning him; that his welfare and happiness may improve immeasurably following the achievement of acceptable status; and that a realistic appraisal of his behavior in reference to group expectations is the nec­ essary starting point in a program of readjustment. i CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Basic to the entire investigation was the point of view that one comes to know the values of his society and groups within it through interpersonal relations, primar­ ily through symbolic interaction. Fundamentally this is achieved through taking on roles of others, largely through language symbols, so as to comprehend their con­ cepts of individual stata and their expectations regard­ ing various roles. Through taking on such roles, and as they become part of the self, the expectations of specific others tend to merge into a composite "they" or in Mead's terminology "generalized other."'1' Further, it is accepted that individuals are neither equally adept at role-taking nor equally moti­ vated as to compliance, but that either adeptness or motivation, as other things human, are subject to some modification. Therefore, in taking a look at the most highly rejected individuals in a group, one expects that they will resemble one another more or less in such respects as serve to define the role(s) of rejection in that 1 Mead, op. cit. group. They are likewise expected to be deficient in the abilities involved in role-taking and/or in motiva­ tion to comply with the group expectations and defini­ tions concerning the accepted role(s). Based upon clues provided by the literature on the subject and the experiences of the writer, two hypoth­ eses and certain subhypotheses were set up to the effect that: ( 1) rejection is associated with certain more or less stable background factors which may serve to establish an individual in a preconceived role of rejec­ tion in a given group and which may, in addition, serve as barriers to effective role-taking and attempts at adjustment; and (2) rejection is associated with certain behavioral factors which may serve both to define the rejection role(s) and to provide cues to the educator or counselor as to ways in which an individual may be aided in self-improvement. Further, it was held that such behavior as is typical of the reject and distaste­ ful to the group may be modified through adequate roletaking and sufficient motivation to comply with the re­ quirements of the role(s) of acceptability. Background factors. No significant conclusion may be drawn from the study regarding race as a factor in rejection. Only three of the 22 non-Caucasoids in the group of 639 persons appeared among the 198 combined rejects and selects, one of these being a reject and two being selects. This is considered an inadequate sample unless particularly conspicuous grouping had occurred. It may be concluded from the study that being of an atypical ethnic type was associated with rejection. This is shown by the relationship between (1) atypical nationality and rejection; (2) atypical religion and rejection, although this does not quite meet the 5 per cent level of confidence; and (3) atypicality of a com­ posite index of these two factors. Thus, it appears that an individual of markedly atypical ethnic type is likely to be rejected. Furthermore, it appears that barriers to effective communication imposed through a sort of group boycott as well as by language handicaps are likely to make the discovery of acceptable roles difficult. Lastly, the behavior of the person of atyp­ ical ethnic type is probably based upon the expectations of a composite "they" or "generalized other" in which the values are somewhat divergent from those of his current group. In a similar manner the values to which one has become oriented in the big city seem to be a barrier to full acceptance in this group which was predominantly from villages, towns and small cities. Rejects came proportionately more frequently from families in which the individuals had lived for sometime in an arrangement other than with two natural parents. The same tendency was apparent where a change in parental relationship had occurred. Neither of these possible relationships, however, occurred with enough consistency to be statistically significant. Prestige-detracting traits. Rejects in proportion came more frequently from the ages below 21 than did the selects. However, this relationship occurred between the ten and 20 per cent level of confidence and thus is not considered statistically significant. Being a lower classman was significantly asso­ ciated with rejection. It is likely that a certain degree of ostracism by the upper classmen served as a barrier to Interaction, role-taking and comprehension of group values making adjustment difficult. There was no indication of a relationship between occupation of the father and rejection. either: It appears that (1) the father's occupation was not known to the group; or ( 2) if known to the group, it was not a common basis of rejection; or (3) if a basis of Initial rejection, it failed to serve as a barrier to interac­ tion and adjustment. Too, it may be pointed out that in such a large group there were enough individuals from each of the occupational categories that friendship vdthin these categories may have camouflaged discrimina­ tion between and among them. Low family income was not related to rejection as far as the evidence revealed and essentially the same conclusions reached above concerning occupation of the father apply in this case. Background summary. Atypicality of background, especially when accompanied by the label "foreigner," was significantly associated with rejection. Not only is the "generalized other" for such persons considerably different from that of the typical group member, but either self-imposed or group-imposed isolation and lan­ guage difficulties operate as barriers to communication and interaction. Therefore, it is difficult for such individuals to take on roles of others, to effectively displace the conglomerate "they" in the self to which their behavior is habitually oriented by a modified and different synthesis of the expectations of others. In­ deed, the desire to do so may not exist for those who Intend to return to their native cultures in a short time. It also appears from the evidence that a family background in which one did not live through adolescence with two natural parents, or in which one experienced a change in parental relationship may operate so as to cause one to become habituated in behavior associated with rejection. This, however, was neither clearly supported nor refuted by the data from this study. Such prestige-detracting traits as being younger than the group median, having a father in a low-rated occupational category, and having a relatively low family income were not associated with rejection. However, being a lower classman was significantly associated with rejection. Thus, it seems that, in the group studied, rejection-selection status was not usually based on age or the prominence or wealth of one's family and generally, with the exceptions of being a lower classman or a "for­ eigner," rejection-selection status was based on behavior rather than background factors which might predispose the group. Behavioral factors; restricted interaction. No criterion used revealed evidence contrary to the hypo­ thetical position taken at the outset to the effect the rejection is associated with restricted Interaction, restricted interpersonal relations in the group where the rejection occurs. than selects on; Rejects were significantly lower (1) leadership-prestige status, (2) the number of others selected as friends, (3 ) the number of others rejected as friends, (4) the number of spectator and extra-curricular activities, (5 ) the amount of parttime employment of a type bringing one into contact with considerable numbers of group members, ( 6) self-rating and Resident Assistant rating on participation in dor­ mitory affairs, and (7) Resident Assistant rating on over-all social participation. The self-rating on the latter item was related to rejection in such a way that the distribution would have occurred from five to 10 times in a hundred through chance and constitutes nei­ ther negative nor positive evidence. Self-image. Contrary to the position taken at the beginning of the investigation, it was found that the self-image of the rejects was relatively accurate when compared with the judgment of the Resident Assist­ ants on scholastic effort, citizenship, participation in dormitory affairs, over-all social participation, and social and personality adjustment. There was evidence that the rejects did not realize the extent of their rejection and either did not realize the definitions of approved behavior or had not adequately complied with them. Frustration and/or insecurity. While the rejects did not admit significantly more feelings of insecurity about the future than the selects did, there was considerable evidence that as a group they were charac­ terized by reactions to frustration and/or insecurity. Their behavior was significantly egocentric, I-centered, turning outward as aggressiveness, boisterousness, incons iderateness, profanity, and creating disturbances, or turning inward to withdrawing from the scene of rejection, thinking of themselves as Inferior on scholas­ tic effort and actually achieving significantly less in relation to their ability than did the selects. They admitted significantly more social and personality maladjustment and were so rated by Resident Assistants. There was some evidence of frustration and in­ security in the family background in that rejects, sig­ nificantly more often than selects said that they did not know their family's income. Implications. Since the evidence of this study strongly supports the hypothesis advanced by Austin and p Thompson to the effect that personality characteristics are the most important factors influencing selection and rejection of friends, and since personality character­ istics are modifiable, a general Implication of the study is that an individual usually may reduce the degree 2 Austin and Thompson, op. cit. 158 of rejection through rational adaptation to group expec­ tations. Thus, he may be aided in the achievement of such a social goal in much the same sense that he may be aided in the attainment of academic goals. In terms of the over-all findings of the study a program of counseling to aid in the attainment of accep­ table status by a rejected individual would be justi­ fied in incorporating into its procedures the following points: 1. In the case of foreigners and others from markedly different ethnic backgrounds: a. attempt to bring them to a realization of the many differences likely to exist be­ tween their previous cultural values and the values of the culture in which they now find themselves; b. suggest that the mark of an educated man is adaptability - that they may make certain adjustments to these different values without forever forsaking their earlier values to which they may return; c. attempt to get over the idea that to really understand another individual and anticipate his actions and reactions, one must think as he thinks - therefore adjustment to the values of a group and the individuals therein necessitates tak­ ing on the roles of various Individuals within such a group; d. show that effective role-taking is essen­ tially a communicative process, a mat­ ter of interpersonal relations of a sym­ pathetic sort; that to effectively put oneself in another person's place one must at least temporarily abandon bias, prejudice, dogma, and a priori answers; i 2. e. explain that being thwarted in attempting such a goal-response as gaining social acceptance tends to lead to frustration and reduce rationality to rationalization; f. arrange situations, programs, activities, and conditions in so far as feasible to increase the sheer quantity of contacts by foreigners with more typical group members In the case of other rejects: a, b, c, d, e, above plus f. calling their attention as the situation permits to the kinds of behavior typical of the most rejected persons, and how adjustment to norms of acceptable behavior in such a group constitutes a vital part of the educational process and is real preparation for successful living in Amer­ ican society. The study has certain additional implications. First, there should be a systematic effort, certainly feasible in residence halls, to obtain information about individuals and groups which would reveal selectionre jection stata. personnel should be provided who would utilize such information in aiding the Individual to attain higher acceptability. These persons should be qualified in counseling, including sociometric techniques and serve under an aura of non-laissez faire cooperative­ ness. saying. That it should be non-authoritarian goes without That is not to say that such a program must be completely non-directive. It is believed that a cooper­ ative endeavor can stand vigorous leadership and to some 160 extent directive techniques, the degree of which must derive from the situation, the people involved. Specifically, it is recommended that in a resi­ dence hall such as that in which with 500-700 residents, at least one person on a half- time basis be provided.Perhaps the study took place, a graduate student beyond the Master's degree qualified as above indicated would be sufficient if under adequate supervision. Second, at least once during the year, after the students have lived together for some months, a brief sociometric survey should be made which would elicit at (1) the names of one's best friends using a least: meaningful criterion such as desirability as a roommate; (2 ) the names of those one would be most reluctant to accept as friends with reasons in each case; and (3) the names of those one would prefer as student leader with a meaningful criterion. (As an example, at Michigan State College, Resident Assistant would be an appropriate cri­ terion.) Such a questionnaire should be preceded by an extended explanation to the group of its function and purpose including a convincing guarantee of anonymity. And third, this Information should be utilized to at least the following extent: ( 1) high rejects should be observed so as to at least take advantage of the first opportunity preferably Initiated by them to give them some insight into their stata and what might be done about it; and (2) high selects and those with high leadership-prestige status should be indirectly recruited into the program of student leadership in the formal sense. (As an example, at Michigan State College they might be made aware of the manner and appropriate time of applying for appointment as Resident Assistant, though it is considered unwise for them to realize that they are being recruited or solicited.)^ 3 See Appendix E. BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Chapin, P. Stuart, Experimental Designs in Sociological Research* New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947* 206 pp. Jennings, Helen Hall, Leadership and Isolation. Longmans, Green and company, 1943“ 240 pp. New York: Lindquist, E. P., Statistical Analysis in Educational Research. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1940. 266 pp. Lundberg, George A., Social Research. New York: Long­ mans, Green and Company, "1942. 426 pp. McCormick, Thomas Carson, Elementary Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1941. 353 pp. Mead, George Herbert, Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. 4o0 pp. Moreno, J. L., and Helen Hall Jennings, Soclometrlc Con­ trol Studies of Grouping. Sociometry Monographs, Number 7, NewTork: Beacon House, 1947* 23 pp. , , and Joseph H. Sargent, Time as a QuantiNative Index of Inter-personal Relations. 'Sociometry Monographs, Number 13, New York: BeaconHouse, 1947• 19 PP« , Sociometry and the Cultural Order. Sociometry Monographs, Number 2, New York: Beacon House, 1943. 344 pp. , Who Shall Survive? Helen Hall Jennings, collab­ orator. Washington:Nervous and Mental Disease Pub­ lishing Company, 193^* ^37 pp. Murphy, Gardner, and Rensis Llkert, Public Opinion and the Individual. New York: Harper and Brothers Pub­ lishers, 1938. 316 pp. Young, Kimball, Personality and Problems of Adjustment. New York: P. S. Crofts and Company, 19^7^ 000 pp. B. PERIODICAL ARTICLES Alexander, Norman, and Ruth J. Woodruff, "Determinants of College Success," Journal of Higher Education, 11:479-85* December, 1040. Austin, Mary C., and George C. Thompson, "Children's Friendships: A Study of the Bases on Which Children Select and Reject Their Best Friends," Journal of Educational Psychology, 39:101-16, January, 19487 Bogardus, Ruth, and Phyllis Otto, "Social Psychology of Chums," Sociology and Social Research, 20:260-70, January, February, 1930* Bonney, Merl E., "A Study of the Relation of Intelligence Family Size, and Sex Differences with Mutual Friend­ ships in the Primary Grades," Child Development, 13: 79-100, March, 1942. , "Personality Traits of Socially Successful and Socially Unsuccessful Children," Journal of Educa­ tional Psychology, 34: 449-72, November, 1*943. Cook, Lloyd Allen, "An Experimental Sociographic Study of a Stratified 10th Grade Class," American Socio­ l o g i e s Review, 10:250-61, April, 1945. Flotow, Ernest A., "Charting Social Relationships of School Children," Elementary School Journal, 46:498504, May, 1946. Hill, Reuben, "An Experimental Study of Social Adjustment American Sociological Review, 9:481-94, October, 1944 Janney, J. E., "A Technique for the Measurement of Social Adjustment," Journal of Experimental Education, 7: 203-5, March, 1939Kuhlen, Raymond G., and Beatrice J. Lee, "Personality Characteristics and Social Acceptability in Adoles­ cence," Journal of Educational Psychology, 34:32140, September, 1943* Northway, Mary L., "Outsiders," Sociometry, 7:10-25* February, 1944.. 164 , "Sociometry and Some Challenging Problems of Social Relationships," Sociometry, 9:187-98, MayAugust, 1946. Smith, Mapheus, "Some Factors in Friendship Selections of High School Students," Sociometry, 7:303-1°# August, 1944. “ Winslow, Charles N . » and Muriel N. Frankel, "A Question­ naire Study of the Traits that Adults Consider To Be Important in the Formation of Friendship with Members of Their Own Sex," Journal of Social Psychology, 13: 37-49, February, 19TT! Woolf, Maurice D., "A Study of Some Relationships Between Home Adjustment and the Behavior of Junior College Students," Journal of Social Psychology, 17:275-86, February-May, 1943Zeleny, Leslie D., "Objective Selection of Croup Leaders," Sociology and Social Research, 24:326-36, March, April, 194T77" C. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Mick, Lucille Kennedy, "A Sociometric Study of Dormitory Friendships." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State College, East Lansing, 1948. 135 pp. Raines, Max Reid, "A Survey of the Counseling and Activity Programs in the Men's Residence Halls of the Big Nine Universities." Unpublished Master's thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, 1948. 289 pp. "Resident Assistant's Manual." Locally published, Man­ ager of Men's Residence Halls, Michigan State College, East Lansing, 195°. 27 pp. Smucker, Orden Curtiss, "A Sociographic Study of the Friendship Patterns on a College Campus." Unpub­ lished doctor's dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, 1945. 263 pp. (May not coincide with page numbers of official copy; taken from Dr. Smucker's personal copy.) 165 Steele, Samuel C., "Friendship Patterns on a College Campus." Unpublished Master*s thesis, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, 1938* 65 pp. Thomas, W. F., "Attitudes of Liking and Disliking Per­ sons and Their Determining Conditions." Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1936. APPENDIX A THE QUESTIONNAIRE cou:'s:' l i ::o our st toil/ a ir s In the hope that we may improve counseling on campus, better select Resident Assistants, and make more compatible room assignments, we are asking you to complete this form at your earliest convenience, T S RESULTS WILL BE TREATED WITH COMPLETE COUFTLPCE YOUR HAMS *,fILL EE RE— VSALYD TO HO OILS, This study has b een approved by the Director of the Counseling Center, the Dean of Students, the Counselor for Men, the Manager of Dormitories and Food Services, the Manager of Men's Residence Halls, and the Manager of ilason-Abbot Hall. After the form has been completed, please place it in the envelope supplied for that purpose, seal, and leave it w i t h your precinct Resident Assistant who will for­ ward it, unopened. to the Resident Adviser. Your cooperation will be greatly appre­ ciated John W. Kidd, Resident Advisor DO HOT MARK IH THE ZXxTEMI RIGHT C O 7,U P 1-3 Schedule no. Check your racial classification: Caucasoid_____ Hegroid_______ Mongoloid Other (name). h. 1 2 3. List the state (country, if not U.S.) in which you spent the greater part of your 5- 1 life prior to your 18th birthday: 2 3~ h 6 7 6 9_ (DO. Check your c l a s s : Fro shman _ S op'no mo r e_____ Jun i o r_________ Senior_________ Graduate_____ Short course. Other (name). State your father's occupation (even if deceased): 6. 1 2 3~ h 5l 6 ?I 7. 1 2 3. L 5l 6 7 8 9. (1)0. i PS. 2 $1,000 or less $l,001-$2f00u $2,001-53,000 $3,001-5^,000 $i), 001-5*5, OuO $*5,001-57, *500, $7, *501-310,000 $10,001 or more Unknown 8. 1 2 3 U c 6 7 8 9 (1)0 Check that whici "beat indicates the type of community in which you spent most of your life prior to your 18th "birthday! Open country_________________ 1. 9. Village (0-1,000)_________ 2. Little town (1,000-10,000)_ V Small city (10,000-100,000). k City (100,000-1,000,000)___ 5. Metropolis (over 1,000,000). 6 S u b u r b ______________________ 7 Fringe (rural non-farm)____ 8 Check your religious preference: Protestantism_____ Catholicism________ Jud ai sm____________ Kohammr-dani sm_____ Budr hi sm _____ Brahmanism__ Other (name). ______ Hone . 10 1 2 , n ✓ h 5. 6 7 8 Check that one of the following which applied to y o u when you finished high school: 1 Lived with both natural parents___________________________________________ 11. Lived with one natural parent only. Lived with one natural and one step-parent. 3. k Lived with two foster-parents (adopted). Lived with one foster-parent only (adopted)_______________ 5l Lived with relatives other than natural parents, foster_ 6 pnronts, or step-parents_________________________________ Lived with no natural or legal relatives. 7~ Other (describe)___________________________ 8 Since what age had you lived with the people checked above? Since I was__________years of age. 12. 1_ 2 3' n 5' 6 7 e i If Abbot Hall wore requested to send a student representative to a meeting of stu­ dents from men's residence halls of schools in the Western Conference, name your choice for the assignment, remembering that Michigan State College would be judged by his behavior; ITame more than one if you wish, _____________________ ; __________ 1 3 . 1 M 5 ____ 16,17,1a___ ________________________________ 19,20,21____ 22.23.2h___ 25,26,27____ Which resident of Abbot Kail would you least like to have as your representative at such a conference? ITarae more than one if you wish. _______________________________ __________________________ 28,29,30_ 31,32,33. __________________________ ^ ,35,36_ 37.38.39_ ho,ki,h2_ Check your age (nearest birthday) : O-lo 17 13________ 1 9________ lJ-3. 1_ 2_ 3. h. 20 5. 21 22_____ 6_ 7_ 23 ___________________ " 2^-30___ 31 up 3 _ 9_ (1)0„ Which resident of Abbot Hall would you prefer to have as your precinct Resident Assistant? Tame more than one if you wish, ___________________________________U M 5 , h 6 _ ________________________________________ h7,h8,h9 50,51,52_ 53,5^,55. 56.57.53_ Which resident of Abbot Hall would you least like to havo as your precinct Resident Assistant? Tame more than ono if you wish. 39,60,61____ 62,63,6h___ .65,66,67___ 68,69,70____ 71,72,73____ Check your grade point average: Lens than .5______ ,6-.8______ .9-1.1_____________ 1.2-l.h_________ 1.5-1.7____________ 1. 8-2.0_________ 2.1-2.3_________ 2.U-2.6_________ 2. 7 - 3 . 0 ____________ 7h. 1_ 2 X h 5“ 6 7_ 8 9_ NOT MARX ABOVE LUTE Who are your "best friends in Abbot Hall? L-score (HA) L-score (OR) L-score (Tot.) 75,76 77,78] 79,80 Name as few or an many as you like. — ----------------------------------- --- ----------------------------------- B B ---------------------------------------------------------------------- B 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 B ____________________________________ _ ____________________________________ B 3 _____________________________________ ______________________________________ B 3 1,2,3_____ 4,5,6_____ 7,8,9_____ 10,11,12_____ 13,1 M 5_____ 16,17,18_____ 19,20,21_____ 22,23,24_____ 25,25,27_____ 28,29,30_____ Which residents of Abbot Hall would you he most reluctant to accept as friends? Name as few or as many as you like. Please list one or more brief reasons'in each case,(if you are at all hesitant about listing such people, remember that in order to help someone improve himself, it is most important to know the extent to which ho is accepted and rejected by his fellows. This information cannot bo obtained readi­ ly in any other way. Therefore, you may very'well be doing these people a real ser­ vice. Also, REMEMEER; YOU SEAL THE ENVELOPE, IT IS OPENED ONLY 3Y MR. KILL, YOUR NAME IS NOT O N THE QUESTIONNAIRE, NO OHS ELSE KN07S THE NUMBER ASSIGNEE TO YOU ON THE QUESTION AIRS, YOUR NAME '/ILL B E REVEALED TO NO ONE NOT EVEN TO YOUR RESIDENT ASSISTANT). Name__________________________________________ Rcason(s)______________________________________________________________ 3 Name Reason(s). 2 3'*,35,36.. Name Reason (b ). B 37,38,39. Name Reason (s). B 40,41,42. Name Reason (s). B 43,44,45,. Name Reason (s). 3 46,47,48. (THERE ARE MORE SPACES OIT THE NEXT PAGE) 31,32,33_____ Kane________ Reason(s). B U9,50,51. Kane Reason (s). B 52,53,5^. ________________________________ ane ^ R c a o o n ( s ) _________ B 55,56,57. ________________ Check one of the following ways in which you expect the other residents cf Abbot Hall to rate you o n these questionnaires: Many will select me as a friend B 58 1. A few will select me as a friend 2, Ivone will select me as a friend 3. Chock one of Hall to rate Many will A few will None will the following ways in which ybu expect the other residents you on these questionnaires: reject me as a friend___ reject me a s a friend reject mo as a friend___ Check one of the following: Beep down inside of me, I look forward to my future with: Considerable uncertainty, doubt, worry and/or concern__________ Some uncertainty, doubt, worry and/or concern __________________ Little, if any, uncertainty, doubt, worry and/or concern______ Some confidence and feeling of security_________________ . Considerable confidence and feeling of security ___________ ofAbbot B 59 1_ 2_ 3_ B 60 1 2, 3. ^ 5. APPENDIX B ASSURANCE OP ANONYMITY ,_______________________________ , Room You will bo identified only by the num­ ber on this questionnaire, I will re­ veal your name to no one. Go ploase feel free to answer all questions. John W. Kidd, Res, M v , APPENDIX ANNUAL MEN'S C RESIDENCE REPORT Office of Counselor for Men ANNUAL MEN'S RESIDENCE REPORT Please Print Student's N a m e . __________________________________________ Birth D a te --------- ___________________ D a te of R eport________________________ Student N o __________ Room________ P recinct________ H a ll___ ACTIVITIES (This inform ation is received through personal interviews with the student) List Membership in Organizations (Including dormitory organizations): Name of Organization Office Held Name of Organization 1 R 2 4 Office Held List Active Participation A T H L E T IC S V/nrcitv fn trn m n rn l 1V FrPdhmnn M l K IP (W h n t? ) ID IIR N A I K M DFRATF PURI. 1C S P F A K IN O (W h n t ? ) O THERS Check Spectator Participation LECTURE C O N C E R T — - O f t e n .__ Som etim es___ N e v e r___ S H O W S —O fte n ___ Sometimes___ SPORTS................................O f t e n . __ Som etim es___ N pupc O T H F R A C T I V I T I F S — (1 k t ) N ever___ Employment AV HR S PFR W F F K TYPF OF W O RK FM PI O YFR CHECK RATING Average Very W e ll Check degree to which you are acquainted w ith student This is confidential inform ation. I------- It is understood th a t your ju d g m en t is the only basis for this inform ation. Superior 5 3 Scholastic E ffo rt.............................................................. Participation in D orm itory A ffa ir s ......................... Over-all Social P a rtic ip a tio n — m a le --— fem aleSocial and Personality A d ju s tm e n t........................................................ In your opinion, has th e student grown and developed this year? Y es. Poor Average A Citizenship — co operation........................................... — hou sekeep in g ....................................... — respect for rules and regulations- No. dn what way?__________________________________________________________ Other Slightly comment (contributions made, capabilities, p a rtic u la r problems, discipline, e tc .) 2 1 APPENDIX D SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET Scholastic effort, EA rating B 73 Participation in dormitory affairs, self-rating B 74 rH CM C^^t Participation in dormitory affairs, E A rating B 75 rH CM 1 2 1—! CM Cr\-^ B 61 ACE decile Over-all social participation, self-rating B 76 Over-all social participa­ tion, RA rating B 77 Social and personality aCjustment, self-rating B 78 Social and personality adjustmont, E A rating B 79 3. 4 VT\ 5i 6 7. 8 9. (l)0_ S-score B 62,63. Number rejected 1)7 subject B 64, 65. Number selected by subject B 66,67. U"\ Extra-Curricular activities 3_ 4 5-6. 7-8. VT\ .. ' 1 2 1-2_______ 3-^_______ rH CM B 68 0_________ 5. 6 13-14 8 15-16 9. 17— 0 7. H CM 9-10 11-12 VP* Hours employment B 69 1 2 1-3________ 4 - 6 _______ 7-9________ 4 10-12 5. 3, 'A rH CM 13-15. 16-13 19-21 iH CM CM-^ 0_________ 22-30 _ Citizenship, VP\ 31— self-rating Citizenship, RA. rating Scholastic effort, ing self-rat - 3 70 B 71 B 72 1 2 3. 4 i APPENDIX E NOTES ON UTILIZATION OF TECHNIQUES REFERRED TO AT END OF LAST CHAPTER NOTES ON UTILIZATION OP TECHNIQUES REFERRED TO AT END OP LAST CHAPTER These techniques have been followed with the group studied and the results seem to have justified their con­ tinuation. In the case of the rejects who were seeking help it was observed that they often appeared eager to know what the other residents thought about them, what they could do to modify their objectionable characteris­ tics, and that they sincerely attempted a program of readjustment with varying degrees of success. In the few cases in which the rejects were offered information and advice about the attitudes of others to­ ward them prior to their seeking help, their attitudes were rather consistently those of indifference or stated indifference to what others thought. As to the utilization of such information in re­ cruiting Resident Assistants, the Resident Adviser made certain that all individuals of high selection and leadership-prestlge status were indirectly advised as to the availability of Resident Assistant appointments. Those individuals were unanimous in making inquiries concern­ ing the appointments and, while some were recipients of academic appointments which may have limited their use­ fulness, one was elected to the Student Council and thought he should not therefore apply for Resident Assis­ tant appointment, one had a grade-point average lower than the 1.4 generally required of Resident Assistants, and two were uncertain as to whether they would return to school, the four Resident Assistants reappointed for the ensuing academic year and four of the five newly appointed Resident Assistants, in the hall in which this study was made, had relatively high leadership-prestige as well as friendship status on the basis of the ques­ tionnaire used in the study. The other appointee was not in the hall at the time the study was made but had been a resident at a previous time and was selected on the basis of other factors including: (1) satisfactory grade-polnt average; (2) good reputation with students and staff; (3) high ability scores and ratings; (4) de­ sirable appearance and speech; (5) desirable philosophy and interests; and (6) general maturity, all of which factors were also considered in the other appointments. In recommending the adoption of such procedures in other men*s residence halls it is suggested that high leadership-prestige and friendship status be the decisive factor if all other factors are approximately even and that extremely low ratings on these points should render an individual temporarily ineligible for appointment. Assuming that the role of the Resident Assistant as far as the institution is concerned is not that of a policeman but that of leader, friend and particularly helper to the students under his jurisdiction, it is suggested that the individual be assigned to a group other than that in which he has achieved such status. This is not done casually, and is not necessarily desired procedure in every group, but is derived from experience with appointments as Resident Assistant in the same group and in a new group. The results, both to the observer and to the appointees, rather strongly indicate that the capacity for acquiring high leadership and friend­ ship status will remain with the person in his new though similar group. However, remaining in the same group pre‘sents certain handicaps not present in the new group in that his former status had been achieved solely in the role of fellow student while his role is automatically changed to that of institutional hireling with his ap­ pointment as Resident Assistant and the basis of inter­ action, therefore, cannot be the same as before. Remaining in the same group tends to bring about the situation in which friends seek to impose upon the demonstrated "good nature" in spite of his new official status. In the new group he can achieve high status by essentially the same kind of behavior as was his habit but making his initial impact upon the group in the of­ ficial role of Resident Assistant reduces the amount of attempted imposition almost to the vanishing point. After one term of service as Resident Assistant the four appointed and assigned new precincts in Abbot Hall and who were relatively high in the leadershipprestige and friendship ratings seem to have high morale and cooperative spirit among their residents in exact ratio to these four persons' relative ratings. Their assumption of responsibility was noticeably greater than the average among those appointed earlier without knowl­ edge of status, their usefulness in being in communica­ tion with their residents and conveying their impressions to responsible authority, their tendency to make con­ structive criticism of the residence hall program, their ability to produce enthusiasm among their charges for various programs - social, recreational, and academic, 180 and their real concern for the welfare of both the insti­ tution and the individuals in their charge, all these ap­ pear to be decidedly greater than among former appointees. Further observations, including confidential stu­ dent opinion, seeking verification of these points, is planned.