I 70-15,118 RENTZ, A u d r e y Louise, 19W-1A PERCEPTUAL STUDY OF T H E SORORITY IMAGE AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. Michigan State University, P h . D . , 1969 Education, guidance and counseling University Microfilms, A XJERQKCompany, A nn Arbor, Michigan ‘r-> Copyright by AUDREY LOUISE RENTZ 1970 ill A PERCEPTUAL STUDY O P THE SORORITY IMAGE A T M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY B* ,3, ,i!'> Audrey L. Rentz A THESIS Submitted to M i c higan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of D O C T O R OF PHILOSOPHY Department of C o u n s e l i n g , Personnel Services and Educational Psychology 1969 ABSTRACT A PERCEPTUAL STUDY OF THE SORORITY IMAGE AT M I C HIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Audrey L. Rentz The "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey" was administered to a stratified random sample of 75 sorority women and 375 non-sorority affiliated women on the Michigan State University campus. The purpose was to determine the Sorority Image and also to ascertain specific differences between the Sorority Image and Sorority P r o f 11 the Sorority Image and the Independent Profile; and the Sorority Profile and the Independent Profile. The sorority group answered the Survey themselves and the non-sorority group answered in two ways: (a) themselves and group as responding. (b) as they perceived the sorority Data obtained from sixty items were ana­ lyzed employing the chi-square technique of statistical analysis using the .05 level of probability as criterion of difference. The items wer e written around the following labels, characteri­ zations or criticisms gleaned from the literature as applying to sorority groups in the past: (1) Educational objective; ents' (3) Socio-economic level; educational background; Greek-letter affiliation; (5) Dating patterns; terns; (8) Drugs (7) Social skills; (9) Prejudice; (12) Conformity. (4) Family (6) Drinking pat­ (knowledge of and usage); (10) Civic volunteer/service activities; ship positions; and (2) Par­ (11) Leader Audrey L. Rentz Since the central focus of this study was to determine an image and profile, the conclusions or data are reported from a con­ sensus perspective* This-allows for the compilation of a rather descriptive image and profile, rather than a statistical model based on direction of differences between responding groups. Differences between the Sorority Image and Sorority Profile were found in items composing the following labels, characterizations, or general content areas: (1) Family Greek-letter affiliation; (2) Prejudice; and (3) Conformity. Differences between the Sorority Image and Independent Profile were found to result from items written under the following labels or characterizations t background; ation; (1) Educational objective; (3) Socio-economic level; (5) Dating patterns; (8) Prejudice; (2) Parents' educational (4) Family Greek-letter affili­ (6) Drinking patterns; (7) Social Skills; (9) Civic volunteer/service activities; and (10) Con­ formity. Differences between the Sorority Profile and Independent Profile were found under the following labels or characterizations: Educational objective; economic level; patterns; (2) Parents' educational background; (4) Family Greek-letter affiliation; (6) Drinking patterns; (7) Social skills; (1) (3) Socio­ (5) Dating (8) Prejudice; and (9) Civic volunteer/service activities. Fundamental conclusions of the study were: (1) Labels, char­ acterizations, or criticisms levelled against sororities in the past are very m uch a part of the Sorority Image of 1969; women project an image of: (2) Sorority (a) higher socio-economic backgrounds; (b) college educated parents who are Greek-letter members; financial self-support; (c) no (d) ethnocentric dating and drinking patterns Audrey L. Rentz confined to the Greek sub-culture; and skills; reality, (e) emphasize value of social (3) The Sorority Image almost matches completely the sorority the Sorority Profile; (4) Independent w omen consider them­ selves to be very different from sorority w o m e n w i t h regard to the items from ten of the twelve content areas, labels or characterizations; (5) Sorority women are a -distinctly different sub-culture group from the Independent group of w omen surveyed. Several questions remain unanswered by this study: (1) What factors connected with the rushing program or objectives of sororities are responsible for perpetuating the sorority image of the 1930's and 1940's?; (2) Are sororities aware of the total image they project to non-sorority w o m e n ? ; (3) Is this image consonant with the image sororities would like to project?; (4) If not, h o w might the image be changed?; (5) Are contemporary sorority groups dysfunctional? and Are their objectives relevant to contemporary campuses or society as a whole? AUDREY LOUISE RENTZ Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Oral Defense: November 11, 1969 Dissertation: A Perceptual Study of the Sorority at Michigan State University Outline of Studies: Major Subject - Student Personnel Administration Image Minor Subjects - Psychology, Higher Education Biographical Information: Born, May 1, 1941, Peekskill, New York Undergraduate Degree - College of Mount Saint Vincent, New York City, New York, 1959-1963, A.B. Graduate Degree - The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1963-1965, M.S. Experience: Education - Residence Hall Floor Counselor, College of Mount Saint Vincent, New York City, New York, 1961-1962. Senior Resident Adviser, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1963-1965. Dean of Women, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia, 1965-1966. Teaching Intern, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1966-1967. Senior Graduate Assistant, Counseling Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1967-1968. Instructor, Department of Psychology, Lansing Community College, Lansing, Michigan, 1967-1968. Dean of Women and Instructor in Psychology, Alma College, Alma, Michigan, 1968- ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express appreciation to her major faculty adviser, Dr. Laurine E. Fitzgerald, Professor of Higher Education and Administration, her continued friendship, for sincerity and support through­ out the doctoral program. Th e technical assistance provided b y Mrs. Dorene Chapman w i t h the editing, typing and reproduction of the study is gratefully acknowledged. To her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph F. Rentz, this study is dedicated^ without whose love, kind understand­ ing and gentle support it might never have been brought to completion. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I THE P R O B L E M ............................................ Background for the S t u d y ........................... Need for the S t u d y ................................. Statement of the P r o b l e m ........................... Definition of T e r m s ............................... P r o c e d u r e .......................................... 1 1 7 11 13 14 II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........................ Greek versus Non-Greek Student Research ......... 16 17 III PROCEDURE OF S T U D Y ................................... Introduction ........................................ Construction of the Instrument .................... Selection of the Groups to be S u r v e y e d ........... Administration of the I n s t r u m e n t .................. Treatment of the D a t a ............................. 22 22 22 23 27 28 IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF D A T A .................. Introduction ........................................ Responses and Ascribed Responses to the Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey ............... Educational Objective ........................... Parents' Educational Background ............... Socio-economic Level ........................... Family Greek Affiliation ...................... Dating Patterns ................................. Drinking Patterns ............................... Social Skills ................................... D r u g s ............................................ P r e j u d i c e ........................................ Civic Volunteer/Service Activities ........... Leadership Positions ........................... .................. Conformity of Sorority Women The Sorority I m a g e ................................. The Sorority Profile ............................... The Independent Profile ........................... Differences in Image and P r o f i l e s ............... Sorority Image versus Independent Profile . . . . Sorority Profile versus Independent Profile . . . 31 31 v 37 37 40 40 49 49 63 71 81 81 85 88 91 92 95 98 101 103 106 Chapter V Page SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER R E S E A R C H ............... Restatement of the P r o b l e m ........................ P r o c e d u r e ........................................... L i m i t a t i o n s ......................................... Summary of Major Findings ......................... Implications......................................... Recommendations for Further Studies ............. 108 108 109 110 Ill 114 117 .................................................... 118 APPENDIX A ...................................................... 120 APPENDIX ...................................................... 129 BIBLIOGRAPHY vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Page Characterizations, Item Numbers, and Content of Each Item in the "Sorority and Non-Sorority S u r v e y " ................................................... 24 Data Showing Groups Surveyed, Number Contacted, Number of Respondents, and Percentage of R e s p o n d e n t s .............................................. 28 Characterizations, Item Numbers, and Content of Each Item In the "Sorority and Non-Sorority S u r v e y " ................................................... 33 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 7 Concerning College Major ........................... 38 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 45 Concerning Post-Graduation Plans......... ............ 39 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 59 Concerning "Bull Sessions" ......................... 41 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 60 Concerning "Bull Sessions" ......................... 42 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 8 Concerning Amount of Education ofFather .......... 43 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 9 Concerning Amount of Education ofMother .......... 44 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 13 Concerning Tuition Payment ......................... 46 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 14 ......................... Concerning Tuition Payment 46 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 15 Concerning Tuition Payment ......................... 47 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 16 Concerning Student Employment ...................... 47 vii page Table 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 17 Concerning Student Employment ....................... 48 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 10 Concerning Parental Memberships in Greek Letter ..................................... Social Societies 48 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 11 Concerning Parental Memberships in Greek Letter Social Societies ..................................... 50 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 12 Concerning Parental Memberships in Greek Letter Social Societies ..................................... 50 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 24 Concerning Dating Categories ....................... 52 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 29 Concerning Dating Categories ....................... 53 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 26 Concerning Date Qualities Preferred ............... 54 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 27 Concerning Date Qualities Preferred ............... 55 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 28 Concerning Date Qualities Preferred ............... 56 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 42 Concerning Mate Qualities Preferred ............... 58 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 43 Concerning Mate Qualities Preferred ............... 59 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 44 Concerning Mate Qualities Preferred ............... 60 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 58 Concerning Date Activity Preferred ................ 61 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 46 Concerning Code of Sexual Behavior ................. 62 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 47 Concerning Code of Sexual Behavior ................. 62 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 48 Concerning Code of Sexual Behavior ................. 64 viii Page 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 49 Concerning Code of Sexual Behavior ............... 64 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 18 Concerning Attendance at TGIF's .................... 65 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 20 Concerning Attendance at TGIF's .................... 65 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 22 Concerning Attendance at TGIF's .................... 67 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 21 ........................ Concerning TGIF Organizers 68 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 23 Concerning Types of TGIF's ........................ 69 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 19 Concerning Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages . . . 70 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 50 Concerning Consumption ofAlcoholic Beverages . . . 70 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 51 Concerning Consumption ofAlcoholic Beverages . . . 72 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 31 Concerning Etiquette ............................... 73 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 33 Concerning Etiquette ............................... 74 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 54 Concerning Etiquette ............................... 76 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 32 Concerning Table Settings............ ............... 77 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 55 Concerning Table Settings ............... 78 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 34 Concerning Receiving Line Etiquette ............... 79 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 57 Concerning Receiving Line Etiquette ............... 80 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 56 Concerning Dating Etiquette ........................ 82 ix Table 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Page Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 35 Concerning Knowledge of Drugs ....................... 83 Responses and Ascribed Responses Concerning Use of Drugs 83 to Question 25 ..................... Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 40 Concerning Use of Drugs . ......................... 84 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 41 Concerning Use of D r u g s .............................. 84 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 36 Concerning Religious Preferences .................. 86 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 52 Concerning Racial Preferences ....................... 86 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 37 Concerning Value of Civic Volunteer/Service A c t i v i t i e s ........................................... 87 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 38 Concerning Value of Civic Volunteer/Service A c t i v i t i e s ........................................... 87 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 39 Concerning Involvement with Civic Volunteer/ Service Activities .................................. 89 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 4 Concerning Elected Office ........................... 89 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 5 Concerning Appointed Office ......................... 90 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 53 Concerning Self-evaluation of Conformity ......... 90 x CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Background for the Study A unique and differentiating element found in the historical development of the system of higher education in the United States is the collegiate social fraternity. This movement was and is a novel re­ sult in the evolution of earlier literary societies^ and is not to be found in the history of the predecessors of the United States system of education, in Europe. Three literary societies, which later evolved into social fraternity organizations, were initiated by North American male undergraduates in the m iddle of the nineteenth century: Alpha (1825), Sigma Phi (1827), and Delta Phi (1827).2 element of collegiate social fraternities has continued. Kappa This unique From 8 female fraternities on record from 1902 and 26 male fraternities established by 3 1907, the Greek-letter social system has grown to include 4,092 active 4 male chapters and 2,374 active female chapters registered in 1963. 1 John S. Brubacher and Willis Rudy, Higher Education in Tran s i t i o n , (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1958), p. 122. 2 John Robson, The College Fraternity and Its Modern R o l e , (Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Company, Inc., 1966), p. 23. 3 B a i r d 's Manual of American College F r a t e rnities, e d . by George Starr Lasher, (Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Company, Inc., 1957), p. 52. 4 Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, ed. by George Starr Lasher, (Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Company, Inc., 1963), p. x. 1 The developmental route of these groups was not a smooth path to the present, but a path studded with violent and frequent opposition, and criticism. Until 1865, opposition to this new form of student social grouping was vehement on many campuses and centered around the secret nature of the society and its accompanying ceremonies.^ The opposition to male fraternities began to decrease during the period 1850-1900 and a similar social group for women students had already been established. This group, Alpha Delta Pi, was the first g secret sisterhood founded for college women. Pi Beta Phi, originally titled I.C. Sorosis w hen founded in 1867,^ became the first national organization of college women established by college women aB a national college fraternity. In 1870, Kappa Alpha Theta, receiving assistance from a previously existing male fraternity at DePauw University, was recognized as the first Greek-letter society of w omen organized with g principles and methods similar to those of men's fraternities. Although a few sororities maintain the official title of "fraternity, they are actually female fraternities with somewhat feminine goals and objectives. tinuously "Members of the National Panhellenlc Conference have con­ (since 1902) emphasized social standards and the responsibility 5 Brubacher and R u d y , o£. c i t . , p . 123. 6 Baird, 0 £. c i t . , p. 384. Baird, ££. c i t ., p. 428. 7 8 Baird, o£. c i t . , p. 417. of their members to contribute through personal conduct to good campus standards, and they have consistently cooperated with college authorities In stimulating Interest In good scholarship. Also, members of the National Panhellenlc Conference have brought the spirit of fair 9 play to the problems of opportunity to meet prospective new members." For the next sixty years, social fraternities gained in member­ ship as a result of their Increased appeal to the American undergraduate student population. These social groups offered the college student: housing at a reasonable cost; a center for fellowship; arranged social activities"norms for marriage as well as . . . sources for upward mobility by controll(ed) dating patterns, . . . (and) maintenance of the status of the family unit through the structure of the sorority house. . . . In the decade of the thirties the social fraternities once again were subjected to severe criticisms. fraternities' United States. following: These critical attacks questioned the allegiance to the objectives of higher education in the Among some of the critical charges or labels wer e the "centers of antl-intellectualism, religious and racial 9 Baird, o£. c i t .. p. 41. 10 Brubacher and Rudy, l o c . cit. 11 John F. Scott, "The American College Sorority: Its Role in Class and Ethnic Endogamy." American Sociological R e v i e w . X X X (August, 1965), pp. 514-527. 4 prejudice, caste feeling, and . . . " "subversive movements. ..." 12 Also, that these groups encouraged social and class endogamy by peer maintenance of "norms for marriage. ..." 13 In 1953, the State University of N e w York ordered all student groups to discontinue their national fraternal affiliations and also demanded the elimination of any selection criteria for membership based on "race, color, creed, or national origin." 14 In the same year, other accusations were made against national organizations of social fraternities. mentioned the alumni: Some of these allegations also "It is the national organizations, frequently under the alumni influence, which insist on maintaining the color and religious bias. Thus racial discrimination is shown to be a national and not a local fraternity policy. ..." 15 Criticisms leveled against the social fraternities thus centered around the following labels: centers of ethnocentrism; groups mai n ­ taining norms regarding marriage and ways toward upward social mobility; anti-intellectual groups; and groups classified as racially and religiously prejudiced. Such labels or characterizations of these social fraternal groups tend to be perceived as negative attributes by non-fraternity members. Such negativism is related to the image that 12 Brubacher and Rudy, loc. cit. 13 Scott, l o c . c i t . 14 The New York T imes. October 9, 1953, p. 20. 15 "Church Colleges and the Fraternity Racial Bar," Christian Century. LXX (June 17, 1953), p. 709. 5 these social fraternities project to those around them on the campus. In an attempt to determine if differences actually exist between those students considered to be a part of these Greek-letter groups and their independent or non-member counterparts, been initiated. several studies have One such study was concerned with w o m e n students and attempted to show significant differences between the following two groups: sorority and non-sorority students. included (1) Thurstone Temperament Scales and Instruments used (2) Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.^ Another study, by Widmar in 1 9 6 3 , ^ investigated differences between Greek-letter members and non-members of both sexes at the Florida State University. Using Part I of the College Student Questionnaire, data was gathered about the following: extra-curricular experiences in high school; social and (2) socio-economic levels; (3) scores on the School and College Ability Test; and of independence and conformity. (1) (4) self concepts 18 A third study centered around the areas of retention, academic achievement and scholastic aptitude and was conducted by Collins and 16 Nola Stark Rogers, "A Study of Certain Personality Characteristics of Sorority and Mon-Sorority Women at the University of California, Los Angeles," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles), 1952. 17 Gary E. Widmar, "A Comparative Study of Fraternity and Sorority Membership of Entering Freshmen at the Florida State University," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University), 1963. 18 Widmar, l o c . c i t . 6 Whetstone In 1965. 19 Comparing sorority and non-sororlty women students they concluded that significant differences did, In fact, exist and tended to separate the two groups In the three a r e a s . Although the above studies do not report the same conclusions about sorority and non-sororlty groups of students, certain communalItles do appear. These communalltles appear to be directly related to the critical labels or characterizations cited previously: anti-intellectual groups (Inferring a variance in academic involvement, ability and objectives); groups of higher socio-economic levels endeavoring to maintain the social and economic level of their membership; groups with greater extra-curricular activity involvement; groups of students with different personality profiles; and a new label applied to such group members— more conforming than independent. In view of the past frequent opposition to Greek-letter social groups and the "negative” labels applied to them, it is conceivable that some administrators and members of college faculties perceive these groups to be an anathema. Although the following statements about fraternal groups were written several years ago by Kate Hevner Mueller, it appears that they are grounded in the realities of today: 19 Wanda P. Collins and Robert D. Whetstone, "A Comparison of Sorority and Independent Women Based on Retention, Academic Achievement and Scholastic Aptitude," Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors. XXVIII, No. 4 (1965), p. 178. To their own members whether students or alumni, the advantages of fraternal organizations are not only outstanding but self-evident. To non-members their disadvantages are overwhelming, and their presence on the campus is inimical to the objectives of higher education. To the personnel division the local chap­ ters are simply facts of campus life to be studied and understood to be manipulated towards a greater good of the total student body. . . .20 In 1969, Greek-letter societies may be perceived, labelled, or characterized as ethnocentric, anti-intellectual, or as any of the following: groups with greater extra-curricular involvement, groups of conforming people, groups recruited from upper or uppermlddle class socio-economic levels, groups of people with different dating patterns and family backgrounds. These criticisms of fraternal organizations may be adversely influencing prestige resulting in the decreasing memberships 21 felt on some college and university campuses. Undoubtedly these factors, labels and negative characterizations are reinforced by the image these fraternal groups present to those non-fraternal students around them. How, in fact, do the non-Greek students perceive the image of the social fraternities? How accurate is the non-Greek per­ ception of the social fraternities? Need for the Study Considering the rough developmental path travelled by m a n y male and female fraternities since the late 1880's, it is not surprising that 20 Kate Hevner M u e l l e r , Student Personnel Wor k in Higher Education. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961), p. 444. 21 Charles R. Dalton, "Fraternities at the University of Rochester," School and Soci e t y . XCIII (February 6, 1965), p. 77. 8 another period of criticism currently exists. Many of the charges leveled against Greek-letter social groups during the past five years have centered around the issue of racial discrimination. Although there are several fraternities and sororities whose membership is pre­ dominantly Negro (Alpha Phi Alpha, Kappa Alpha Psi, Omega Psi Phi, Phi Beta Sigma, Alpha Kappa Alpha, Delta Sigma Theta, 22 and Zeta Phi B e t a ) , Sigma Gamma Rho, other Greek-letter social groups have been strongly discouraged by local college authorities from using race or religion as a criterion for non-membership. The two following excerpts from a 1968 issue of a national newspaper are representative of the type of attack the Greek system is currently u ndergoing: It was (the Greek system) . . . a snobbish, discrim­ inatory system that unfairly dominated (twelve years ago) student government and campus life and cruelly relegated members to a social ghetto. . . . But for the most part, the Greek system has lost Influence to the point that few bother to attack it anymore. . . . within the past few years, state colleges and universities and most private schools have required Greek groups to sign anti-discrimination clauses. Most have done so. Some have taken minority group members. But not m a n y . 23 Some comments by women students enrolled at Northwestern University during the present academic year, 1968-69, have made the following state­ ments, negative and positive about the sororities on their campus: Baird, 0 £. c i t ., p. 85. 23 Ursula Vils, "Greeks' Are a Dead Issue," The State J o u r n a l . October 7, 1968, p. 2. 9 Most of us know it's a lousy system, but you don't get dates otherwise. Fraternity m e n just don't date GDI's.24 The rushees tend to come from uppermiddle class homes. Many are "legacies" to Greek houses where their parents once romped and reveled.25 And, until a recent change in admissions policies, almost all of the students were white Anglo-Saxon Protestants with status yearns and money to burn.26 They look alike, dress alike and talk alike. They sit at your feet and hold ashtrays and practically smoke your cigarets. I've decided I'll pick my own friends. But on many campuses— mostly in the Middle West and the South— the rah rah pledge or die myth lingers on. These are the areas of the country where newspapers always mention a girl's sorority in the wedding-engagement columns. If she's an independent, her announcement may not see print. Some of the advantages of the Greek system and its liabilities cited by Mueller and Seward in 1956 include: They provide housing . . . in the small units which are especially desirable and successful, but which the university cannot afford to provide . . .29 24 "New Era for Northwestern: Sororities Struggle to Live," Detroit Free P r e s s . October 21, 1968, p.ll-D. The 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 29 Kate Hevner Mueller and Doris Seward, "An Interpretation of Sororities on the Campus," Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors. XIX (January, 1956), p. 71. 10 they lend support to current standards In dress, grooming, etiquette and social skills, and em­ phasize the all-around personal development of the individual. liabilities include . . . exclusion of m e m b e r ­ ship . . ,31 and over emphasis on political and social aspects of campus life. . . .32 Some of the useful qualities of the Greek system, .i.e.* providing housing, may be dying aspects in today's collegiate culture. . . . working against the Greeks is a new feeling of pride among independents. . . . Some of it is fostered by fancy new dormitories— often wit h swimming pools— that are cheaper to live in than the shabbie Greek houses. 3 A series of questions must be raised: beyond its period of usefulness? Is the Greek system existing Are the critical attacks leveled against these groups in the past, grounded in current reality? Are members different from their non-Greek counterparts on their own campuses? Are non-Greeks perceiving Greeks in stereotypic terms and/or perceptions which are not grounded in direct contact with Greeks? Do non-Greek students perceive Greek members as different from themselves? What are some of the variables which contribute to the Greek "image"? There are no research findings reported which relate to the variables concerned with the "Greek-image" or what is the common per­ ception of fraternity members. 30 Mueller and Seward, oj>. c i t ., p. 72. 31 Mueller and Seward, o p . cit., p. 73. 32 Mueller and Seward, oj>. cit., p. 74. The Detroit Free P r e s s , l o c . c i t . 11 The Implications of such findings would seem to be centered around the following types of concerns: (1) if Greeks are not different from non-Greeks, but are perceived as being different, then a communi­ cation program ought to be established to inform both groups of their communallties; (2) if Greeks are different and are not perceived by non- Greeks as being different, then what are the factors for the decline in Greek memberships; (3) if Greeks are different and are perceived as being different by non-Greeks, what are some of the factors which tend to differentiate the two groups; and (4) if Greeks are characterized by the negative labels or perceptions cited previously, then what are the responsibilities of any institution of higher education to maintain and support such a sub-culture? This study will seek to determine the image of the sororities on the Michigan State University campus, and some of the variables, labels or characterizations which are a part of that image. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study is to determine whether any of the past critical attacks, labels or characterizations described earlier are a part of the Greek-letter social sorority image of today. More specifically, the problem is to determine how non-Greek women students perceive women Greek members on the Michigan State University campus. Such perceptions or labels Include the following: tellectualism; (2) groups seeking to maintain marriage norms and foster social upward mobility; dependent; (1) centers of anti- (3) groups of people more conforming than in­ (4) groups of people from a high socio-economic strata; groups characterized by racial and religious prejudice; people with different dating patterns; (5) (6) groups of (7) groups of people with less 12 Intellectual educational objectives; and (8) groups of people who occupy more leadership roles than other student sub-cultures. Ad d i t i o n a l l y » a secondary purpose is to determine the accuracy of the non-sorority women's perception of the sorority members with regard to the above characterizations. The following three major hypotheses will be tested: There are no significant differences in the responses of sorority women to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey" when compared with the responses of non-sorority women when asked to respond as they perceive sorority women responding; Hg! There are no significant differences in the responses of non-sorority women to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey" when compared with non-sorority perceptions of sorority responses; H^: There are no significant differences in the responses of sorority women when compared with non-sorority women to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey." More specifically, these three general hypotheses will be tested in the following twelve c a t e g o r i e s : 1. Educational objective of sorority women 2. Parents' 3. Socio-economic level of sorority women 4. Family Greek affiliation 5. Dating patterns 6. Drinking patterns 7. Social skills 8. Drugs educational background (knowledge of and usage) 13 9. Prejudice 10. Civic volunteer/service activities 11. Leadership positions 12. Conformity of sorority women Definition of Terms The following terms are defined here in order to clarify their usage throughout the remainder of this study: 1. Anti-intellectual - noninvolvement or lack of participation in voluntary discussions; preference for noninvolvement with abstract con­ cepts or thinking"— preference for academic areas related to preparation of practitioners; 2. Independent - a woman student not affiliated with a Greek-letter social sorority; 3. Independent Profile - a descriptive summary of non-sorority responses to the "Sorority and NonSorority Survey": 4. Legacy - a sorority woman whose Greek-letter social society affiliation is identical to her mother's; 5. Prejudice - an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race or their supposed character­ istics;^^ 34 Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, 3rd ed.; unabridged, 1961, p. 1788. 14 6. Social skills - knowledge of, and acceptance/performance of socially dictated principles influenc­ ing personal actions and appearances in various social s e t t i n g s ; 7. Social upward mobility - the process involving certain methods which permit an individual to move from one socio-economic strata to another strata of higher socio-economic status. 8. Sorority - a society or club of girls or women 35 (as in a college) ; 9. Sorority Image - a descriptive summary of ascribed sorority responses made by non-sorority women to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey"; 10. Sorority Profile - a descriptive summary of sorority responses to the "Sorority and NonSorority Survey": 11. Value - "Meanings perceived as related to self." Procedure In order to test the three hypotheses of this study, a questionnaire instrument was constructed by the investigator. The "Sorority and Non- Sorority Survey" contains sixty items designed to elicit responses to 35 W e b s t e r ^ Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, op. c i t . , p. 2175. 36 Gordon W. Allport, "Values and Our Youth," Record. (December, 1961), p. 216. Teachers College 36 15 questions comprising the twelve general labels or characterizations applied to Greek-letter groups which wer e cited earlier. The following two groups will participate In the study: 1. A random selection of 75 undergraduate w o m e n students en­ rolled at M i c h i g a n State University wh o are members of 5 national Greek-letter social sororities and reside in sorority houses off the campus; 2. A random selection of 375 women resident students enrolled at Michigan State University who are not members of Greekletter social groups and w h o reside in 2 residential complexes on the campus. During Fall Term, 1968 and Winter Term, 1969 a schedule of meetings will be established to distribute, administer and collect the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey." The above two groups will respond to the Survey in the following manner: 1. The sorority students will answer the items in the Survey themselves; 2. The non-sorority students will answer the items in the Survey themselves; 3. The non-sorority students will also answer the items in the Survey as they perceive the sorority group responding. Three major analyses of the data obtained from the Survey w ill be performed. study. Each analysis will test one of the three hypotheses of the The statistical technique to be employed in the analyses of the data is the chi-square analysis utilizing the .05 per cent level of probability as a criterion for statistical significance. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Among the publications reviewed to obtain findings of research studies related to sorority groups and the image these groups tend to project to non-Greek affiliated students around them, the following were of major significance: (1) the Education Index since 1946; (2) the Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors since 1948; (3) Dissertation Abstracts since 1950; (4) the Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l ; (5) the Journal of College Student Personnel; (6) the R e a d e r 's Guide to Periodical Literature since 1946; and (7) The New York Times Index since 1952. Although there have been studies concerned with sorority versus non-sorority students and articles relating to the prejudice and bias evident in some Greek-letter social sororities on certain campuses, there have been no research findings reported that are directly con­ cerned with the "sorority image" on a specific campus, or campuses in general. Likewise, there have been numerous perception studies, usually undertaken with the Intent of improving communication between two or more groups, based on perceived personality images. There are no reported findings concerning perceived roles for, or, the perceptions of Greek-letter social sorority groups made by non-sorority students. Therefore, the studies which are briefly reviewed here are those which relate to the typical Greek versus non-Greek design. These re­ sults give evidence to support the theory that these two groups of people are, in fact, different from each other demographically, as well as, on other personality dimensions. 16 Since one of the hypotheses to be 17 tested In this study is concerned with the similarities between sorority and non-sorority groups, such research findings are con­ sidered relevant and presented below. Greek versus Non-Greek Student Research The following two studies are representative of the types of research generally undertaken and the data which usually result. Willingham published a set of responses in 1962^ gathered from a research study conducted at the University of Georgia. His concern was to determine certain trends among freshmen men who pledge during their freshmen year. Although he concluded that freshmen pledges are less likely to drop out of the University of Georgia during their first year and that their level of academic achievement tended to be slightly higher than their non-fraternity counterparts, Willingham did not publish data concerning academic or Intellectual ability of these students. Michigan in 1963 A similar study reported from the University of 2 was concerned with making comparisons between fraternity members and non-Greek male students. clusions were reported: The following con­ (1) fraternity members are more likely to have college educated parents; (2) fraternity members are more active in athletics and other extra-curricular activities; (3) fraternity 1 Warren W. Willingham, "College Performance of Fraternity Members and Independent Students." Personnel and Guidance Journal. (September, 1962), p. 30. 2 William W. Brickman, ed., "Facts on Fraternities," School and Society. XCI (February 23, 1963), p. 80. 18 members tend to have mor e dates; (4) fraternity members tend to occupy or assume more campus leadership roles or offices; and (5) fraternity members tend to receive lower grades. A secondary finding Included the following list of adjectives typically applied to fraternity m e n by others: "well-dressed; well-to-do; aggressive; sophisticated." enthusiastic; and 3 Several researchers have been Interested in comparisons of sorority women and non-sororlty women. categories of data as: These studies have centered around such personal backgrounds, academic performance and personality classifications or structures. 1952 4 Rogers' dissertation in indicated differences which resulted from administrations of the Thurstone Temperament Scale and five scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Her subjects included two groups of women (N-183) at the University of California at Los Angeles; women students. the following: sorority and non-sorority The significant differences reported by Rogers include (1) the mea n scores of the non-sorority group were lower than those of the sorority group on the Impulsive, Dominant and Sociable Scales of the Thurstone Temperament Scale; (2) on the Reflective and Vigorous Scales, the sorority mean scores were higher than those of the non-sorority group; (3) w ith regard to the MMPI scales: a) sorority mean scores were higher on the Social Adjustment, Family Relations, Emotionality and Economic Conservatism Scales than were the non-sorority 3 Brickman, l o c . c i t . 4 Nola Stark Rogers, "A Study of Certain Personality Characteristics of Sorority and Non-Sorority Women at the University of California, Los Angeles," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1952). 19 group means. 5 In 1951, Stone** investigated affiliation to a Greek-letter social sorority and degree of personal adjustment. Her study was conducted at the State College of Washington and involved a total group of 864 women students enrolled in a required physical education course. 4 undergraduate classes were represented as follows: sophomores; 181 juniors; and 52 seniors. The 399 freshmen; 241 The personality instrument utilized was the Bell Adjustment Inventory. Stone's findings indicated that in the following three areas of Home Adjustment, Social Adjustment and Emotional Adjustment, the more favorable scores were attributed to the sorority women in the sample. She did state that factors other than sorority membership may have accounted for the high ratings, al­ though it did appear that sorority membership was a factor in success­ ful personality adjustment. Collins and Whetstone in 1965^ compared sorority and non-sorority women on the following three basis: and scholastic aptitude. retention, academic achievement Their sub-samples were composed of 550 sorority pledges and 795 independent women enrolled at the University of Colorado. The following four conclusions were reported: (1) sorority pledges have significantly higher scholastic aptitude scores than non-sorority women; (2) sorority pledges dominate the 5 Rogers, lo c . c l t . 6 Carol Larson Stone, "Sorority Status and Personality Adjustment," American Sociological Review, XV (1951), pp. 538-541. 7 Wanda P. Collins and Independent Women Scholastic Aptitude," Deans and Counselors. and Robert D. Whetstone, "A Comparison of Sorority Based on Retention, Academic Achievement, and Journal of the National Association of Women IV (Summer, 1965), p. 178. 20 middle-range of aptitude scores and represent a more homogeneous group than non-sorority women; (3) more sorority women, regardless of aptitude, return for their sophomore year than do non-sorority women; and (4) no difference was found between the percentages of sorority and non-sorority women in academic difficulty. Providing evidence to the theory that sorority and non-sorority women students are somewhat alike in personality profiles, Plant, 8 in 1966, investigated intolerance and authoritarianism over a two year period at San Jose State College of California. Of the original sample of 1,343 women students enrolled in 1958, only 449 women were still enrolled in 1960. The instruments used were the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, a modified Ethnocentrism Scale and Gough's modified Authoritarianism Scale. While sorority women dropped more than non-sorority students in their scores on the dogmatism scales, both groups, sorority and no n ­ sorority students showed equivalent declines in authoritarianism and ethnocentrism. Another study published in 1966 was conducted by Widmar. His con­ cern was a comparison of fraternity and sorority aspirants at the Florida State University. 9 Conclusions were that sorority aspirants tended to differ from non-sorority aspirants in the following ways: (1) sorority aspirants had greater extra-curricular experiences while in high school; 8 Walter T. Plant, "Changes in Intolerance and Authoritarianism for Sorority and Non-Sorority Women Enrolled in College After Two Tears," Journal of Social Psychology, LXVIII (February, 1966), pp. 79-83. 9 Gary E. Widmar, "Comparative Study of Fraternity and Sorority Membership Aspirations of Entering Freshmen at the Florida State University," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1966). 21 (2) sorority aspirants came from smaller families; and (3) non-sorority aspirants had higher scores on the SCAT and considered themselves to be independent and unconforming to a greater degree than their sorority aspirant counterparts. Certain general trends seem to emerge from a summary of such re­ search studies' concerning Greek versus non-Greek affiliated students. Greek-letter affiliated college students, whether fraternity or sorority members, tend to be differentiated from their independent counterparts on the following general variables: activities; (4) Campus offices and/or leadership positions; (6) Academic achievement; ability; (1) Involvement in extra-curricular (7) Personality variables; (5) Dating; (8) Academic (9) Ethnocentrism; and (10) Conformity. No research findings are reported which investigate all or several of these variables at one time with the same sub-samples. There are no findings published concerning the non-sorority perception of the sorority group or "sorority image" and how, in fact, these variables may influence or be a part of the projected "sorority image." From the above listing of variables, gleaned from the literature, the following characterizations or variables were derived and/or selected to test the three hypotheses of this study: sorority women; (2) Parents' educational background; level of sorority women; patterns; (3) Socio-economic (4) Family Greek affiliation; (6) Drinking patterns; of and usage); (1) Educational objective of (9) Prejudice; (7) Social skills; (5) Dating (8) Drugs (knowledge (10) Civic volunteer/service activities; (11) Leadership positions; and (12) Conformity of sorority women. CHAPTER III PROCEDURE OF STUDY Introduction The basic purpose of this study is to determine whether any of the past criticisms, labels, perceptions or characterizations as found in the literature are a part of the Greek-letter social sorority image of today. Specifically, the problem is to determine how women non-Greek member students perceive women Greek members on the Michigan State University campus. The actual stages concerned with the development of this study included the following four general procedures: instrument; (1) construction of the (2) selection of the groups to be surveyed; tion of the instrument; and (3) administra­ (4) analysis and interpretation of the data gathered from the instrument. Construction of the Instrument The investigator developed an instrument of the questionnaire type containing sixty items. The instrument was divided into two parts; (1) Part One contained items designed to gather certain demographic data about the subject, and (2) Part Two contained items designed to elicit actual responses and perceived responses of subjects to items concerned with characterizations generally applied to sorority groups, reported in previously cited studies. Part Two of the Instrument contained items about the following types of Information related to the characterizations or perceptions generally applied to sororities: 22 23 1. Educational objective of sorority women 2. Parents' 3. Socio-economic level of sorority women 4. Family Greek affiliation 5. Dating patterns 6. Drinking patterns 7. Social skills 8. Drugs 9. Prejudice educational background (knowledge of and usage) 10. Civic volunteer/service activities 11. Leadership positions 12. Conformity of sorority women Table 1 shows the above twelve characterizations or labels, the particular content of the items in the Survey, and the position number of each item as it appeared in the Survey. An initial testing sample of the undergraduate women students enrolled at Alma College, Alma, Michigan served as a panel of student experts who reviewed the instrument. This initial sample of students consisted of sorority and non-sorority affiliated students. Their comments and criticisms of the instrument were noted during meetings with them and later the instrument was revised using their reactions as a guideline. The content of the items and overall presentation of the questionnaire was then considered adequate for its later use with the groups to be studied in this investigation. Selection of the Groups to be Surveyed Two groups participated in this study. One group Included under­ graduate women sorority members residing in off-campus sorority houses, 24 Table 1 Characterizations, Item Numbers, and Content of Each Item In Characterization Item Number Content of Each Item 1. Educational objective of sorority women 2. Parents' educational background 8, 9 3. Socio-economic level of sorority women 13, 14, 15 16, 17 Tuition payment Student employment 4. Family Greek affiliation 1 0 , 1 1 . 12 Parental memberships 5. Dating patterns 6. 7 45 59, 60 College major Graduate study plans "Bull sessions" Amount of education 24, 29 26, 27, 28 42, 43, 44 58 46, 47, 48, 49 Dating categories Date qualities preferred Mate qualities preferred Date activity preferred Code of sexual behavior Drinking patterns 18, 2 0 , 22 21 23 19, 50, 51 Attendance at TGIF's TGIF organizers Types of TGIF's Consumption of alcoholic beverages 7. Social skills 31, 33, 54 32, 55 34, 57 56 Etiquette Table settings Receiving line etiquette Dating etiquette 8. Drugs (knowledge of and usage) 35 25, 40, 41 Knowledge of drugs Use of drugs 9. Prejudice 10. Civic volunteer/service activities 11. Leadership positions 12. Conformity of sorority women 36 52 Religious preferences Racial preferences 37, 38 39 Value of such acts Involvement with such activities 4 5 53 Elected office Appointed office Self-evaluation 25 and the other population was composed of undergraduate non-sorority affiliated women students. Both populations are students of the Michigan State University campus. The sorority affiliated group was selected in the following manner: from a roster of the twenty-two sorority groups on the Michigan State University c a m p u s , the two sororities which hold affillative or associ­ ative types of membership in the National Panhellenic Council were eliminated. (NPC) This listing provided the investigator with a roster of the twenty sorority groups which hold regular membership in the National Panhellenic Council. The names of these groups were placed on separate pieces of paper and put in a jar. Five slips of paper were independently drawn from the jar, supplying the five sororities which were to be surveyed in the study. These groups will be designated as Sorority A, B, C, D, and E, as per an agreement with the Michigan State University Panhellenic Adviser and the Panhellenic Executive Council. Since the size five subjects, each of the sorority group sample had been set at seventy- of the presidents of the selected sorority groups were requested to provide a sample of some fifteen members to participate in the study. sorority group, From the membership list, arranged by class, for each the president selected the sub-sample of fifteen members to approximate equal representation of sophomores, juniors and seniors. Depending on the number of members of the group within each class, the presidents selected either every other name, every second or every third name from their list. The non-sorority group was determined and selected by the follow­ ing technique: the names of the residence hall complexes were placed on separate pieces of paper and placed in a jar. Two pieces of paper were independently drawn, providing the two areas to be surveyed in 26 the study. For each geographic complex area selected, the names of the residence halls for women In each area were designated as the sub­ samples for the study. The actual ratio of women non-sororlty members to sorority members Is ten to one on the Michigan State University campus. The ratio of five to one had been selected to provide a r e ­ duced stratified random sample and also to provide a workable number of subjects In the study. Therefore, the following numbers of participants in the study resulted: 75 sorority members and 375 women non-Greek students. Each of the five women Head Resident Advisers was contacted Indi­ vidually and their willingness to participate In the study obtained. Instructions concerning the administration of the Survey w e r e given to the Head Resident Advisers. It was decided by the Investigator and the five Head Resident Advisers, to request the Resident Assistants to dis­ tribute copies to students on their floors. The Resident Assistants selected the students In each of the four undergraduate classes to w h o m the Surveys w ere to be given. This was accomplished by having the Resident Assistants pick the students from a list of roommates for each house. No uniform system, student, was utilized. every other student or every third The numbers of students In each of the Resident Assistant sub-groups was established so that approximately equal representation of the four classes was possible. Thus, each Resident Assistant was In charge of a sub-group of approximately ten women students. The total tested population was controlled to the extent that all of the participants in the study were enrolled as students o n the Michigan State University campus during the Fall and Winter Terms of the academic year 1968-1969. Another controlling factor was that none 27 of the subjects in the non-sorority group had participated in a Pan­ hellenic Rushing or Pledging Program. This was determined by a response to Ouestion 3 in Part One of the Survey. of the sorority group members were, The non-sorority perceptions therefore, based on stereotypic perceptions, rumors, and a generalized reputation based on hearsay, rather than direct involvement with or exposure to sorority groups. Administration of the Instrument The Survey was administered in two ways. Following individual meetings with the presidents of the five sorority houses, a schedule of meetings was arranged to administer the Survey. The schedule below indicates the arranged meetings of the investigator with the various five sub-samples: Sorority A and Sorority B at Sorority Sorority C B and Sorority D at Sorority C Sorority E at Sorority Monday, 9:30 p.m. Monday, November 11, 9:30 p.m.* Monday, E November 11, November 11, 6:30 p.m.** The non-sorority women students received their questionnaire via their Resident Assistants within their residence hall units. Three hundred and seventy-five non-sorority women were selected from among two large residence hall complexes. The Resident Assistants returned *An assistant, Mr. Jack Cassidy, presided at the administration at this location. **The "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey" was reviewed by the alumnae adviser before approval was given for its use in this house. 28 the completed Surveys to their Head Resident Advisers. The investigator collected the completed Surveys from the Head Resident Advisers. The sorority group and 160 of the non-sorority group responded to the instrument during the period of November 11 to November 23, 1968. A follow-up procedure was Initiated during the week of November 24, 1968. The remaining 215 students of the non-sorority group responded to the instrument during the two week period of January 8 to January 22, 1969. Table 2 indicates the per cent of response by groups of women students surveyed. Table 2 Data Showing Groups Surveyed, Number Contacted, Number of Respondents, and Percentage of Respondents Group Number 73 96 24 26 25 23 26 24 96 100 96 375 274 73 115 110 90 60 83 84 61 46 71 76 66 76 Sophomores Juniors Seniors Freshmen Sophomores Juniors Seniors % of Respondents 75 Sorority Non-Sorority Number of Respondents Treatment of the Data The participants were asked to respond to sixty items in the questionnaire. Some of these items requested demographic data of the subject; some required the subject to express an opinion; and some of the items requested the subject to rate the value of certain qualities or characteristics of people. The two groups responded to the instrument 29 in two ways: (1) the sorority women answered the items, supplying an actual sorority response pattern, and (2) the non-sorority women responded with an actual response pattern and by taking the instrument a second time at the same meeting responded with their perceptions of sorority responses. Thus, the following three types of data were produced: (1) sorority women responses; (2) non-sorority women responses; and (3) perceived sorority responses made by non-sorority women. The chi-square technique using the .05 level of probability as a criterion of significance was utilized to test each of the following three hypotheses. Each hypothesis was tested for each of the items on the Survey concerning the twelve perceptions or labels applied to sororities: H^: There are no significant differences in the responses of sorority women to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey" when compared wit h the responses of n o n ­ sorority w o m e n when asked to respond as they perceive sorority w omen responding; There are no significant differences in the responses of non-sorority women to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey" when compared with non-sorority perceptions of sorority responses; : There are no significant differences in the responses of sorority women when compared with non-sorority women to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey." Three major analyses were performed with the data obtained from the questionnaire: the first analysis compared the responses of sorority women and the perceived sorority responses made by non-sorority women 30 to the instrument; the second compared responses of non-sorority women and their perceptions of sorority responses to the instrument; and the third compared responses of sorority and non-sorority women to the Survey. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DAT A Introduction This chapter presents the data obtained from the administration of the Instrument, and analysis of the data used in testing the three following hypotheses: H^: There are no significant differences in the responses of sorority women to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey" when compared wit h the responses of no n ­ sorority w omen w h e n asked to respond as they perceive sorority w omen responding; HgJ There are no significant differences in the responses of non-sorority w o m e n to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey" w h e n compared with non-sorority perceptions of sorority responses; H^: There are no significant differences in the responses of sorority women when compared w i t h non-sorority women to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey." The sixty items contained in the Survey were divided into twelve major categories reflecting the images of sorority women cited in the literature: 1. Educational objective of sorority women 2. P a r e n t s ' educational background 3. Socio-economic level of sorority women 4. Family Greek affiliation 31 32 5. Dating patterns 6. Drinking patterns 7. Social skills 8. Drugs 9. Prejudice (knowledge of and usage) 10. Civic volunteer/service activities 11. Leadership positions 12. Conformity of sorority women data from the two groups studied in this study were statist!cally analyzed uBlng the following method: since the chi-square technique was to be employed and the IBM 3600 Computer used, the re­ sponses to the Surveys were transferred to IBM cards by the key punch operators of the Computer Laboratory on the Michigan State University campus. The computer program selected to treat the data was the ACT program— the basic chi-square analysis program. ACT employs the follow­ ing fundamental definition of the statistic, chi-square: (observed frequency - theoretical frequency) 2 theoretical frequency with degrees of freedom: Therefore, df ** (c-1) (r-1) since three analyses were to be made, each hypothesis was tested independently for each item in the Survey. Computer processed the data by making three runs; the data for one of the three Tables 4-58 indicate the The IBM 3600 each run analyzing hypotheses of the study. response patterns to the items in the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey," for each of the groups studied. The following table, Table 3, is presented to provide the reader with a guide to the understanding of tables which follow in this chapter. Each of the twelve characterizations constitute a major table heading 33 Table 3 Characterizations, Item Numbers, and Content of Each Item in the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey11 Characterization Item Number Content of Each Item 1. Educational objective of sorority women 2. Parent s ' educat ional background 8, 9 3. Socio-economic level of sorority women 13, 14, 15 16, 17 Tuition payment Student employment 4. Family Greek affiliation 1 0 , 1 1 , 12 Parental memberships 5. Dating patterns 6. 7 45 59, 60 College major Graduate study plans "Bull sessions" Amount of education 24, 29 26, 27, 28 42, 43, 44 58 46, 47, 48, 49 Dating categories Date qualities preferred Hate qualities preferred Date activity preferred Code of sexual behavior Drinking patterns 18, 2 0 , 22 21 23 50, 51 19, Attendance at TGIF's TGIF organizers Types of TGIF's Consumption of alcoholic beverages 7. Social skills 31, 33, 54 32, 55 34, 57 56 Etiquette Table settings Receiving line etiquette Dating etiquette 8. Drugs (knowledge of and usage) 35 25, 40, 41 Knowledge of drugs Use of drugs 9. Prejudice 10. Civic volunteer/service activities 11. Leadership positions 12. Conformity of sorority women 36 52 Religious preferences Racial preferences 37, 38 39 Value of such acts Involvement with such activities 4 5 53 Elected office Appointed office Self-evaluation 34 with regard to the hypothesis under investigation. characterization, Following each the number of the item, as it appeared in the Survey, is shown and also the specific content of each item. area entitled Educational Objective, from Questions No. Thus, for the the next four tables present data 7, 45, 59, and 60 relating to College major, Graduate study plans and "Bull sessions.” The following pages, presenting the discussion of the analysis and interpretation of data, are organized according to the following out­ line: Responses and Ascribed Responses to the Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey The focus of this investigation was to determine the image of sorority women as held by non-sorority women on the same campus. As a result of this, the significant information is the sorority image as­ cribed by the majority of non— sorority women surveyed. Therefore, the discussion section reflects the find­ ings from a consensus point of view. The image is a reflection of the ascribed responses made by most of the non-sorority women. In some cases, the data relating to significant statistical differences between the groups being compared may reflect evidences of a difference which appear to be contradictory to the consensus response pattern discussed. This statistically significant difference results from the frequency and spread in 35 distribution of the various responses of the groups. Indications of statistical difference are provided in each table, but are not a consistent part of the dis­ cussion section. Due to the consistent inflation of the computed chi-square values resulting from the second chi-square analysis (comparing non-sorority responses with as­ cribed sorority responses made by non-sorority w o m e n ) , the chi-square values have been omitted from the tables. Statistically significant differences were found for every item analyzed, indicating non-sorority women see themselves as very much different from sorority women. Summary of Composite Image and Profiles The majority responses to each question have been compiled for each group and presented in a descriptive manner for each group. The Sorority Image is a descriptive summary of ascribed sorority responses made by non-sorority women to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey." The Sorority Profile is a descriptive summary of sorority responses to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey." The Independent Profile is a descriptive summary of non-sorority responses to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey." 36 Differences in Image and Profiles This section presents a concise description of the differences in majority responses for each of the groups studied. were made: The following comparisons Sorority Image and Sorority Profile; Sorority Image and Independent Profile; and Sorority Profile and Independent Profile. 37 Responses and Ascribed Responses to the Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey Educational Objective The general content area entitled Educational Objective was composed of the following sub-categories and questions: Question No. 7; (1) College major, (2) Graduate study plans, Question No. 45; and (3) "Bull sessions," Questions No. 59 and 60. Concerning College Major: modal non-sorority response (21.9%) was a major within the College of Social Science and posited a major in the College of Education for sorority women. selected by sorority w o m e n The most frequent response (39.7%) indicated majors in the College of Education and thus matched the ascribed sorority response of Independents. See Table 4. Although a chi-square value of 36.06 was found to be sig­ nificant at the .05 level, this result was probably due to the observed variance in the distribution of responses among other college majors. When asked what their post graduate plans were, Question 45, the category with greatest frequency selected by Independents indicated a combination of "Marriage and work," (36.0%) while indicating the same response would be made by sorority women. The majority of sorority women (28.7%) did, in fact, respond "Marriage and work." See Table 5. The significant chi-square value of 88.57 tended to result from the ob­ served variances in frequency of responding "Marriage" and "Work and Graduate Study." Question 59 asked h o w often the woman became involved in "Bull sessions." Most Independents (47.6%) responded "Two or three times a week," and ascribed the same response to sorority women. Most sorority 38 Table 4 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 7 Concerning __________ College Ma^or_________________________________________________ Responses Column A Column B Column C f f f % % o 14 19.1 70 26.8 53 19.3 Agriculture 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 c) Business 5 6.8 4 1.5 10 3.6 d) Education 29 39.7 148 56.7 54 19.7 e) Home Economics 6 8.2 21 8.0 19 6.9 f) Natural Science 0 0.0 2 0.7 36 13.1 g) Social Science 16 21.9 10 3.8 60 21.9 h) JMC, LBM, JMC 1 1.3 1 0.3 0 0.0 i) Other 2 N^-73 2.7 5 N 2=261 1.9 41 N 3=274 14.9 a) Arts and Letters b) df=8 Chi-square .05=15.5 X^=36.057 2 X ^ = 3 1 .717 * "Within the College of:" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 39 Table 5 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 45 Concerning Post-Graduation Plans__________________________________________ Responses Column A Column B Column C f % f f 2 2.7 92 34.7 7 2.5 11 15.0 18 6.7 53 19.4 6 8.2 4 1.5 18 6.6 % % a) Marriage b) Work c) Graduate study d) a) and b) 21 28.7 112 42.2 98 36.0 e) a) and c) 1 1.3 13 4.9 5 1.8 f) b) and c) 19 26.0 6 2.2 35 12.8 g) All three 13 N x=73 17.8 20 N 2=265 7.5 54 N 3=272 19.8 df=6 2 Chi-square ,05=14.06 X^=88.567 * X * = 8 .805 'Immediately following graduation, my plans include: Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 40 women (60.2%) indicated a frequency of Involvement identical to their ascribed response, "Two or three times a week." See Table 6. A chi- square value of 20.22 was considered significant at the .05 level. Concerning the most generally discussed topic, Question 60, the most frequent Independent response (26.2%) was "Men," and the ascribed sorority reply was "Dating." The sorority category with greatest frequency was "Men," (36.1%). See Table 7. P a r e n t B 1 Educational Background Questions No. 8 and 9 asked for the highest level of educational training received by either parent. Table 8 presents the responses con­ cerning the educational background of the father and Table 9 shows the responses regarding the mother. Modal Independent response (40.5%) indicated fathers were "High school graduates" and ascribed "AB or BS" degrees to the fathers of sorority women. Most sorority women (46.5%) indicated their fathers were college graduates. See Table 8. Although the majority response is identical in each case, a chi-square value of 12.96 being significant at the .05 level resulted from the differences in the spread of responses. Most Independents (52.9%) indicated their mothers were "High school graduates" and indicated "AB or BS" degrees for mothers of sorority women. Most sorority women (43.8%) responded "AB or BS" degrees for their mothers. See Table 9. Socio-economic Level This general content area contained items relating to manner of tuition payment, Questions No. 13, 14, and 15; and student employment 41 Table 6 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 59 Concerning "Bull Sessions" ___ ____________________ Responses Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % a) Nightly 12 16.4 65 24.2 60 21.9 b) Two or three times a week 44 60.2 134 50.0 130 47.6 c) Once a w e e k 16 21.9 39 14.5 56 20.5 d) Once or twice a month 1 1.3 25 9.3 20 7.3 e) I never do 0 N 1**73 0.0 5 N 2=268 1.8 7 N 3=273 2.5 df=4 Chi-square .05=9.49 X^=10.770 X^-7.977 "How often do you get Involved in and/or participate in 'bull sessions'?" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 42 Table 7 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 60 Concerning "Bull Sessions" ___________ ResDonses Column A Coluimn B Column C f f f % % % 17 23.6 96 37.2 45 17.1 International problems 1 1.3 2 0.7 7 2.6 c) Sex 8 11.1 41 15.8 47 17.8 d) Politics 3 4.1 0 0.0 10 3.8 e) Men 26 36.1 84 32.5 69 26.2 f) M.S.U. 5 6.9 14 5.4 28 10.2 g) Other 12 16.6 20 N 2-258 7.7 55 N 3-263 20.9 a) Dating b) N r 72 df-6 Chi-square .05-12.5 X^-20.220* Xg-7.054 "What ls» generally, the most discussed topic?" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Significant at .05 level 2 X^-Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^-Comparison of sorority and Independent responses (A&C) 43 Table 8 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 8 Concerning Amount of Education of Father_____ Responses Column A Column B Column C f f % f % % a) High school 12 16.4 18 6.8 110 40.5 b) Some college without a degree 13 17.8 29 10.9 77 28.4 c) College (AB, BS) 34 46.5 178 67.4 38 14.0 d) Masters 8 10.9 25 9.4 28 10.3 e) PhD, EdD 2 2.7 5 1.8 11 4.0 f) MD, DVM, DDS 4 N 1=73 5.4 9 N2=264 3.4 7 N 3=271 2.5 df=5 Chi-square .05=11.07 X^=12.995* 2 * X^=42.843 "highest degree completed by" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Significant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 44 Table 9 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 9 Concerning _____ Amount of Education of M o ther Responses Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % a) High school 20 27.4 37 14.0 144 52.9 b) Some college without a degree 18 24.6 88 33.3 72 26.4 c) College 32 43.8 131 49.6 43 15.8 d) Masters 3 4.1 7 4.7 13 4.7 e) PhD, EdD 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 f) MD, DVM, DDS 0 1^=73 0.0 1 N 2=264 0.0 0 N 3=272 0.0 (AB, BS) df=5 Chi-square .05=11.07 X^=8.505 2 X ^ = 2 8 .824 * "highest degree completed by" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Significant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 45 during the academic year, Questions No. 16 and 17. Table 10 shows the responses to the question, are you taking ad­ vantage of the M.S.U. sliding scale tuition plan? Appendix B ) . Most Independents "No" to sorority women. (re: tuition plan, see (61.5%) responded "No," and attributed Most sorority women (79.4%) indicated "No." Question 14 concerned the average amount of savings per term, if the student was utilising the M.S.U. 11 shows that most Independents sliding scale tuition plan. Table (62.6%) responded "$61.00 per term," maximum) and ascribed a response of "$0.00 per term," (the minimum) sorority women. Most sorority The ascribed response was accurate. women (60.0%) responded "$0.00 per term." most Independents sorority response was "None." "None." See Table 12. to See Table 11. When asked what part of their tuition the students, Question 15: (the themselves, pay (46.6%) indicated "Part." The ascribed Most sorority women (75.3%) responded A significant chi-square value (8.17) resulted from distribution variance in response patterns, although "None" was the majority response made b y each group. Question 16 asked if the student had any form of employment during the academic year. Most Independents (51.4%) Indicated "Yes" and in­ dicated a response of "No" would be made by sorority women. See Table 13. Most sorority women (68.4%) responded "No." If the student had a source of employment, Question 17 asked how many hours per wee k she worked. Most Independents (42.0%) responded "Ten hours," and attributed the response "Less than ten hours," to sorority women. Most sorority women (42.3%) indicated they worked "Less than ten hours," per week. See Table 14. The statistical dif­ ference significant at .05 level (chi-square of 11.00) results from the variance in response frequencies of both groups. 46 Table 10 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 13 Concerning __________TuitionP a y m e n t _______________________________________ Responses a) Yes b) No df=l Column A Column B Column C f f f % 15 20.5 58 Nj-73 79.4 % % 61 23.2 103 38.4 201 76.7 165 N 3=268 61.5 N 2=262 Chi-square .05=3.84 X*=0.243 2 * X 3 =8.110 Table 11 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 14 Concerning ___________Tuition Payment_______________________________________________ Responses Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % a) $61.00 per term 6 20.0 21 17.8 82 62.6 b) $5.00 per term 6 20.0 24 20.3 19 14.5 c) $0 . 0 0 per term 18 Nx=30 60.0 61.8 30 N 3=131 22.9 df=2 Chi-square .05=5.99 73 N2=118 X^=0.079 2 X ^ = 1 9 .847 * Legend A - Sorority Responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X 3=Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 47 Table 12 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 15 Concerning Tuition Payment Responses Column A Column B Column C f f % f % % 3 4.1 2 0.7 32 11.7 Part 15 20.5 89 33.2 127 46.6 None 55 ^=73 75.3 177 N 2=268 66.0 113 N 3=272 41.5 a) All b) c) df = 2 Chi-square 2 X ^ = 8 .171 .05=5.99 * * X 3=26.383 Table 13 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 16 Concerning Student Employment Responses a) Yes b) No df=l Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % 23 31.5 48 17.9 140 51.4 50 N 1=73 68.4 219 N 2=267 82.0 132 N 3=272 48.5 Chi-square .05=3.84 X^=6.351 2 * X ^ = 9 .203 Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C -- Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority — --- and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 48 Table 14 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 17 Concerning Student Employment Responses Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % a) Ten hours 10 38.4 25 31.2 58 42.0 b) Less than ten hours 11 42.3 53 66.2 32 23.1 c) Twenty hours 4 15.3 2 2.5 28 20.2 d) More than twenty hours 1 3.8 0 0.0 20 14.5 df=3 N 3=138 N 2=80 ^=26 Chi-square .05=7.81 X^=11.004 X ^ = 5 .324 Table 15 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 10 Concerning ___________ Parental Memberships in Greek Letter Social Societies_____ Responses a) Yes b) No df=l Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % 20 27.4 173 66.0 37 13.5 53 N x=73 72.6 89 N 2=262 33.9 236 N 3=273 86.4 Chi-square X^=34.894 .05=3.84 * 2 * X^=8.023 Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Significant at .05 level 2 X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 49 Family Greek Affiliation This general content area consisted of items concerning affiliation of parents with Greek-letter social groups and similarities of membership between daughters and mothers. Question 10 asked if the student's father was a Greek-letter social group member. Table 15 indicates most Independents (86.4%) responded "No," and ascribed a response of "Yes" to sorority women. women (72.6%) Indicated "No." accurate. Most sorority The ascribed response pattern was not Chi-square values of 34.89 and 8.02 were signfleant at the .05 level. Concerning Greek-letter social memberships of mothers, most Indepen­ dents (91.5%) responded "No," their mothers did not hold memberships. They assigned a response of "Yes" to sorority women. (63.0%) responded "No." See Table 16. Most sorority women The significant chi-square value of 38.00 at .05 level appeared to result from differences in the frequency distribution of sorority and non-sorority responses. When asked if the student belonged to the same Greek-letter social group as her mother "No." 17. (Question 12), most Independents (96.2%) indicated They posited a response of "Yes," for sorority women. See Table Most sorority women (76.1%) did respond "No." Dating Patterns The general content area entitled Dating Patterns consisted of thirteen items concerning dating categories; preferred characteristics of a date for an evening; preferred characteristics of a marriage part­ ner; type of activity preferred while on a date; and a code of sexual behavioral standards. 50 Table 16 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 11 Concerning _______ Parental Memberships In Greek Letter Social Societies ____ Responses a) Yes b) No df=l Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % 27 36.9 213 80.9 23 8.4 46 N 1=73 63.0 50 N 2=273 19.0 250 N 3=263 91.5 Chi-square * X ^ = 5 4 .211 .05=3.84 2 X ^ = 3 8 .007 * Table 17 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 12 Concerning _________ Parental Memberships In Greek Letter Social Societies______ Responses a) Yes b) No Column B Column C f f f % 10 23.8 32 N x=42 76.1 Chi-square 110 50 N 2=160 .05=3.84 % % 68.7 3 3.7 31.2 77 96.2 o CO II CO 53 df=1 Column A X^=27.861* 9 ft X^=11.640 Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level 2 X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^=Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 51 Question 24 asked the student to Indicate which dating category or label best described her. Table 18 shows Independents most frequently responded "Dating around,” (43.9%). "Pinned" to sorority women. around." They ascribed the response choice Most sorority women (71.2%) responded "Dating The ascribed sorority response was not accurate. A chi-square value of 41.49 was significant at the .05 level. When asked ho w many of their friends are either pinned or engaged before graduation (Question 29), "Between 49% and 25%." (30.0%) of the Independents indicated They attributed the following response to sorority women, "Between 74% and 50%." However, most sorority women (36.9%) responded "Between 49% and 24%." See Table 19. A chi-square value of 46.06 was considered significant at the .05 level. Most Independents (43.4%) considered a date's quality of fraternity membership as "Very unimportant," but ascribed the sorority rating as "Important." See Table 20. fraternity membership chi-square values Most sorority women (57.7%) considered (Question 26) as "Doesn't matter to me." Both (129.54 and 35.16) were significant at the .05 level. Concerning the date quality of religious practice or persuasion (Question 27), most Independents (38.3%) rated this quality of a pro­ spective date as "Doesn't matter to me." to sorority women. to me." They assigned the same response Most sorority women (45.2%) responded "Doesn't matter See Table 21. A significant chi-sqaure value of 35.16 may have resulted from the differences in the N's of the two groups compared. The occupational aspirations of a prospective date were rated by most Independents (43.2%) as "Important." See Table 22. the same response would be made by sorority women. (50.6%) did rate this quality as "Important." They Indicated Most sorority women 52 Table 18 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 24 Concerning Dating Categories Responses Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % a) Engaged 2 2.7 3 1.1 39 14.2 b) Pinned 5 6.8 116 43.2 20 7.3 c) Going steady 12 16.4 49 18.2 58 21.2 d) Dating around 52 71.2 99 36.9 120 43.9 e) None of the above 2 2.7 1 0.3 36 N 3=273 13.1 Nj-73 df«4 N 2=268 Chi-square .05=9.49 X^=41.488 2 X3=21.50 * "Which 'dating category' best describes you?" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level 2 X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 53 Table 19 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 29 Concerning Dating Categories Responses Column A Column B Column C f % f f % 3 4.1 61 22.8 12 4.4 % a) Between 100% and 75% b) Between 74% and 50% 20 27.4 129 48.3 53 19.4 c) Between 49% and 25% 27 36.9 44 16.4 82 30.0 d) Between 24% and 5% 19 26.0 28 10.4 73 27.1 e) Less than 5% 4 5-4 2 0.7 40 14.6 f) None 0 0.0 3 N 2=267 1.1 12 4.4 =73 N l! df=5 Chi-square .05=11.1 N 3=272 X^=46.064* X ^ = 9 .678 "How many of your friends in your immediate living area are either pinned or engaged before graduation?" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 54 Table 20 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 26 Concerning __________ Date Qualities Preferred__________________________ ____ ______ Responses Column A Column B Column C f % f f % % a) Very important 1 1.3 76 27.9 0 0.0 b) Important 9 12.3 148 54.4 7 2.5 c) Doesn't matter to roe 42 57.5 37 13.6 99 36.1 d) Unimportant 10 13.7 8 2.9 49 17.8 e) Very unimportant 11 15.0 1.1 119 N 3=274 43.4 Ni=73 df=4 Chi-square .05=9.49 N 2=272 X^=129.540* 2 X ^ = 3 5 .162 "Greek-letter membership * (fraternity)" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 55 Table 21 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 27 Concerning __________Date Qualities Preferred_____________________ _____________ Responses Column A Column B Column C f % f % f % 2 2.7 13 4.8 15 5.4 a) Very important b) Important 16 21.9 70 25.9 73 22.9 c) Doesn't matter to me 33 45.2 135 50.0 105 38.3 d) Unimportant 14 19.1 39 14.4 47 17.1 e) Very unimportant 8 10.9 13 N 2=270 4.8 44 N 3=274 16.0 N^-73 df=4 Chi-square .05=9.49 X^=5.580 2 * X 3=35.162 "Religious practice or persuasion" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level 2 X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^=Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 56 Table 22 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 28 Concerning __________ Date Qualities Preferred___________________________________ Responses Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % a) Very important 17 23.2 80 29.4 48 17.5 b) Important 37 50.6 128 47.0 118 43.2 c) Doesn't matter to me 16 21.9 51 18.7 87 31.8 d) Unimportant 3 4.1 9 3.3 16 5.8 e) Very unimportant 0 0.0 4 N 2=272 1.4 4 N 3=273 1.4 N ]L=73 df=4 Chi-square .05=9.49 X^=2.403 X^=5.021 "Occupational aspirations" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Slgnlfleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) X ^ C o m p a r i s o n of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 57 Question 42 concerned the rating of the quality of fraternity member­ ship of a prospective marriage partner. Most Independents (48.9%) rated this quality "Very unimportant," while ascribing a rating of "Important," to sorority women. to me." Most sorority women (56.2%) responded "Doesn't matter See Table 23. Significant chi-square values of 80.94 and 28.30 were found to exist at the .05 level. Most Independents (51.4%) considered religious practice or per­ suasion an "Important" quality of a prospective marriage partner. ascribed a rating of "Important" to sorority women. They See Table 24. Most sorority women (56.1%) did respond with a rating of "Important" con­ cerning this quality. The variance within frequency distribution of the last category resulted in a significant chi-square value of 11.05 at the .05 level. Occupational aspirations of a prospective marriage partner were rated as "Important" by most Independents (64.8%). They assigned a rating of "Very important" to sorority women which coincided with the majority sorority response (47.9%) of "Very important." See Table 25. When asked what type of activity was preferred on a date, Independent reply was the modal (31.2%) "See a movie," while projecting "Informal mixer at a fraternity" as the sorority response. formal mixer at a fraternity" was selected by See Table 26. "In­ (39.7%) of sorority women and matched the ascribed image held by Independents. The significant chi-square value of 35.37 tended to result from the variances in the fre­ quency distributions of the two groups compared. Identical responses of "Disagree" resulted in response to Question 46 concerning the fact that there are two differing standards of sexual behavior applying to sorority and non-sorority students. Most Independents See Table 27. (85.8%) matched the ascribed sorority response of 58 Table 23 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 42 Concerning __________ Mate Qualities Preferred___________________________________ Responses Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % a) Very important 0 0.0 40 14.8 1 0.3 b) Important 7 9.5 139 51.4 4 1.4 c) Doesn't matter to me 41 56.2 65 24.0 94 34.3 d) Unimportant 7 9.6 13 4.8 41 14.9 e) Very unimportant 18 N 1=73 24.7 13 N 2“ 270 4.8 134 N 3=274 48.9 * df“ 4 Chi-square X*“ 80.935 .05-9.49 2 X 3=>28.302 * "Greek-letter membership" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses ^Significant at .05 level 2 X^**Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X “Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 59 Table 24 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 43 Concerning __________Mate Qualities Preferred__________________________________ Responses a) Very important b) Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % 8 10.9 53 19.7 66 24.2 Important 41 56.1 157 58.3 140 51.4 c) Doesn't matter to me 16 21.9 48 17.8 40 14.7 d) Unimportant 4 5.4 9 3.3 11 4.0 e) Very unimportant 4 Nx=73 5.4 2 0.7 15 N 3=272 5.5 df-4 Chi-square .05=9.49 N 2=269 X^=11.047* X^=7.109 "Religious practice or persuasion" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 60 Table 25 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 44 Concerning Mate Qualities Preferred C olumn A Column B Column C f % f f 57.6 61 22.3 % % a) Very important 35 -si • VO Responses 155 b) Important 33 46.5 104 38.6 177 64.8 c) D o e s n ’t matter to me 4 5.5 9 3.3 32 11.7 d) Unimportant 1 1.4 1 0.3 2 0.7 e) Very unimportant 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 Nj-73 df=4 Chi-square .05=9.49 N 2=269 N 3=273 X^=3.825 2 X*=18.160 * "Occupation" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^=Coniparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 61 Table 26 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 58 Concerning __________ Date Activity Preferred____________________________________ Responses Column C f f f % 8.9 % % 126 48.6 24 Grandmo t h e r 1s , C D 1s , "the Gables" 8 10.9 88 33.9 22 c) See a movie 4 5.4 6 84 31.2 d) Private date, without others around 16 21.9 19 7.3 66 24.5 16 N 1=73 21.9 20 7.7 73 N 3=269 27.1 b) e) Other df=4 N 2=259 Chi-square .05=9.49 i—* 39.7 • 29 00 Informal mixer at a fraternity Column B ro • LO a) Column A X^=35.367 2 X^=51.222 * "What do you prefer to do w h e n going out with a date for an evening?" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparlson of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 62 Table 27 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 46 Concerning ________ Code of Sexual Behavior____________________________________ Responses a) Agree b) Disagree df=l Column A Column B Column C f % f f 7 9.7 57 21.6 38 14.1 65 N x=72 90.2 206 N 2=263 78.3 231 85.8 Chi-square % % V269 2 X*=5.224 .05=3.84 * X^=0.962 Table 28 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 47 Concerning Code of Sexual Behavior Responses a) Agree b) Disagree Column A Column B Column C f % f f 7 9.5 46 17.6 49 18.6 66 90.4 214 N 2=260 82.3 219 N 3=268 81.3 N 1=73 df=1 Chi-square .05=3.84 % % X^=2.797 X 3=3.364 Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) X ^ C o m p a r i s o n of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 63 "Disagree ;11 and most sorority students (90.2%) responded "Disagree." Although the majority responses were identical, square value the significant chi- (5.22) resulted from variances in frequency distribution. When asked if the behavioral code pertaining to sorority women was less stringent than among Independents, resulted. Most Independents identical responses of "Disagree" (81.3%) matched the attributed sorority response and most sorority w o m e n (90.4%) indicated disagreement. See Table 28. Question 48 read: "Pre-marital sexual intercourse is more prevalent among sorority women than among non-sorority women at M.S.U." responses of "Disagree" were indicated. See Table 29. Identical Most Independents (8 6 .2 %) matched the ascribed sorority response and the majority of sorority women (97.2%) w h o responded with "Disagree." When asked if pre-marital sexual intercourse is more prevalent among Independents than among sorority women, similar responses of "Disagree" resulted. Most Independents sponse and also the "Disagree." (8 6 .6 %) matched the ascribed sorority re­ majority of sorority students See Table 30. (65.2%) who indicated The significant chi-square value of 18.68 tended to result from variances in the frequency distribution and N ’s of the two groups compared. Drinking Patterns The eight items which composed this general content area concerned frequency of attendance at TGIF parties; TGIF organizers; types of TGIF's; and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Question 18 asked if the student generally goes to TGIF parties. Table 31 shows that most Independents dicated a sorority response of "Yes." (63.5%) responded "No," and in­ Most sorority w omen (95.8%) 64 Table 29 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 48 Concerning Code of Sexual Behavior Responses a) Agree b) Disagree df=l Column A Column B Column C f % f % f 2 2.7 12 4.6 36 13.7 70 Nx=72 97.2 249 N 2=261 95.4 226 N3=262 86.2 Chi-square .05=3.84 % X^=2.797 2 * X^=6.732 Table 30 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 49 Concerning Code of Sexual Behavior Responses a) Agree b) Disagree df=l Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % 25 34.7 73 27.9 34 12.9 47 N 1=72 65.2 188 N 2=261 72.0 228 N 3=262 86.6 Chi-square .05=3.84 X^=0.464 X^=18.676* Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 65 Table 31 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 18 Concerning ________ Attendance at TGIF*s_______________________________________ Responses a) Yes b) No Column A Column B Column C f f f 70 95.8 3 N =73 4.1 Chi-square df=l % % 259 95.9 100 36.5 11 4.0 174 N 3=274 63.5 N2=270 .05=3.84 X^=0.000 2 X ^ = 8 1 .370 Table 32 % * Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 20 Concerning Attendance at TGIF's Responses Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % a) Once a month 22 31.4 19 7.4 89 73.5 b) Twice a month 27 38.5 69 26.9 12 9.9 c) Three times a month 17 24.2 75 29.3 12 9.9 d) Every Friday 4 N 1=70 5.7 93 N 2=256 36.3 8 6 .6 df=3 Chi-square N 3=121 * .05=7.81 X ^ = 4 5 .121 2 X ^ = 3 7 .459 * Legend A - Sorority response B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signlfleant at .05 level 2 X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 66 did respond "Yes." A chi-square value' of 81.37 wa s found to be significant at the .05 level. When asked w i t h what frequency the student attends TGIF parties, most Independents (73.5%) indicated "Once a month." "Every F r i d a y ," as a sorority response. They ascribed Table 32 indicates the most frequently selected response by sorority w o m e n (38.5%) was ’Twice a month." Both chi-square valueB-obtained-were significant at the .05 level. Most Independents (61.1%) indicated "I want to be wit h m y f r i e n d s ," when asked their motivation for attending TGIF parties. See Table 33. The attributed sorority response of "I want to be with m y friends," coincided w ith the response indicated by most sorority women (62.8%). Question 21 asked which group generally organized the TGIF parties attended. Table 34 presents data indicating most Independents (65.9%) responded "Informal group of friends," and ascribed the response "Fraternity," to sorority members. respond "Fraternity"; Most Independents Most sorority women (91.6%) did the ascribed response was accurate. (90.9%) responded they attended TGIF parties of "Completely mixed group of Greeks and non-Greeks." They projected the response "Sorority and fraternity members only," to sorority students. Table 35 indicates that most sorority women "Sorority and fraternity members only." (85.9%) did respond The smaller chi-square value of 9.73 was found to b e significant at the .05 level. When asked what was the typical type of drink consumed at TGIF's, most Independents (54.5%) replied "Beer." was "Beer," as shown in Table 36. spond "Beer." The ascribed sorority response M ost sorority women (97.1%) did re­ The ascribed response was accurate. Question 50 read: "Over consumption of alcohol is more prevalent among non-sorority women than among sorority w omen at M.S.U." Most 67 Table 33 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 22 Concerning Attendance at TGIF *s Responses a) It's Friday and I need it b) My sorority requires it c) I want to be with my friends d) I wouldn't to if it were up to me df-3 Column A Column B Column C f f f % 1 % % 22 31.4 42 16.6 30 20.8 1 1.4 68 26.8 0 0.0 44 62.8 136 53.7 88 61.1 3 N^-70 4.2 7 N 2=253 2.7 26 N 3=144 18.0 Chi-square .05=7.81 X^=23.931 2 X ^ I O .846 * "What motivates you to go?" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level 2 X^**Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 68 Table 34 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 21 Concerning _______ TGIF Organizers____________________________________________ Responses Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % Informal group of friends 0 0.0 35 13.6 116 65.9 b) Sorority 3 4.1 54 21.0 3 1.7 c) Residence hall frlends 3 4.1 6 2.3 9 5.1 d) Fraternity 66 91.6 154 60.1 36 20.4 e) Spontaneous 0 0.0 7 N 2=256 2.7 12 6.8 a) tLj-72 df-4 Chi-square .05=9.49 N 3=176 X^=30.077* X ^ = 1 1 6 .740* "Which group typically organizes the TGIF's?" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 69 Table 35 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 23 Concerning Types of TGIF's Responses a) Sorority w o m e n only b) Sorority and fraternity c) All women, sorority and non-sorority d) Mixed Greeks and non-Greeks Column A Column B Column C f f f % X 1 1.4 1 0.3 0 0.0 61 85.9 177 69.1 4 3.0 1 1.4 7 2.7 8 6.0 8 11.2 71 N 2=256 27.7 121 90.9 N^-71 df-3 % Chi-square .05=7.81 N 3=133 X*=9.729* X*=150.469* "What type of TGIF's do you usually go to?" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level 2 X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 70 Table 36 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 19 Concerning __________Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages________________________ Responses Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % 68 97.1 149 57.0 80 54.4 Whiskey/Scotch 0 0.0 18 6.9 11 7.4 c) Soft drink 2 2.8 5 1.9 33 22.4 d) Mixed drinks 0 0.0 89 N 2=261 34.1 23 N 3=147 15.6 a) Beer b) N 1=70 df=3 Chi-square .05=7.81 X*=42.437 * 2 * X^AO.165 Table 37 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 50 Concerning ___________Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages____________________ Responses a) Agree b) Disagree df=l Column A Column B Coltpin C f f f % % % 9 12.3 91 34.4 32 11.9 64 N x=73 87.6 172 N2=264 65.1 235 N 3=267 87.6 Chi-square .05=3.84 * 9 X.^13.865 X^=0.280 Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level 2 X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X 3=Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 71 Independents (87.6%) indicated disagreement and ascribed the same response to sorority women. Most sorority w omen agreement w i t h the statement. value (87.6%) also registered dis­ See Table 37. The significant chi-square (13.87), indicating statistical difference, resulted from the frequency distribution of responses. When told over-consumption of alcohol was more prevalent among sorority women, most Independents (64.3%) responded "Disagree." attributed the same response to sorority women. was valid. Table 38. They The attributed response Most sorority w o m e n (84.9%) responded "Disagree." See Although the same response was selected b y both groups, a chi- square value of 11.36 was found to be significant at the .05 level. Social Skills This general content area contained items concerning the rating of certain social skills or practices i..e,. etiquette; table settings; receiving line etiquette; and dating etiquette. Question 31 asked the student to rate the importance of standing when an older person, regardless of sex, enters the room. Most Indepen­ dents (42.1%) responded "Doesn't matter today," and ascribed "Important" to sorority women. See Table 39. Most sorority women (54.7%) did respond "Important." The significant chi-square value (15.82) tended to result from the overall frequency distribution of responses. The knowledge and/or use of etiquette on the part of a date was rated "Important" by most Independents (64.8%). The assigned sorority response was "Important," although most sorority women "Very important." See Table 40. (56.1%) responded 72 Table 38 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 51 Concerning Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages_________________________ Responses a) Agree b) Disagree df=l Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % 11 15.0 39 14.7 96 35.6 62 N -73 84.9 226 N 2=265 85.2 173 N 3=269 64.3 Chi-square .05=3.84 X 3=0.006 2 X ^ = l l .355 * "Over-consumption of alcohol is m ore prevalent among sorority women than among non-sorority women at MSU." Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^=Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 73 Table 39 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 31 Concerning Etiquette Responses Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % a) Very important 16 21.9 29 10.7 15 5.4 b) Important 40 54.7 117 43.3 108 39.5 c) Doesn't matter today 12 16.4 104 38.5 115 42.1 d) Unimportant 4 5.4 13 4.8 24 8.7 e) Very unimportant 1 1.3 7 270 2.5 11 4.0 lLj-73 V N3=273 * df»4 Chi -square .05=9.49 X^=15.824 2 X^-32.773 * "Standing when an older person, regardless of sex, enters the room" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X “Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 74 Table 40 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 33 Concerning __________ Etiquette ______________________________ Responses Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % Very important 41 56.1 130 48.5 83 30.4 b) Important 32 43.8 131 48.8 177 64.8 c) Doesn't matter today 0 0.0 7 2.6 10 3.6 d) Unimportant 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.1 e) Very unimportant 0 N x=73 o o 0 N 2=268 0.0 0 N 3=273 0.0 df=4 * a) Chi-square .05=9.49 X^=2.883 2 X^=18.347 * "The knowledge and/or use of etiquette on the part of her date" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) X ^ C o m p a r i s o n of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 75 When asked h o w frequently the student rose whe n an older person, regardless of sex, entered a room most Independents "Seldom." (52.0%) responded They attributed the. sorority response as "Only w hen at the sorority house." See Table 41. Mos t sorority w o m e n (56.1%) Indicated "Frequently." Significant chi-square values of 28.73 and 70.01 were found to exist at the .05 level. Most Independents (60*2%) rated the correct table setting for a large dinner party as "Important," and ascribed "Very Important," as the sorority response. The modal sorority response (49.3%) rated this characteristic as "Important." See Table 42. When asked ho w well the student thought she could arrange a table correctly for a large party, most Independents (48.3%) responded "Well." They indicated the same response would be made by sorority women. The response "Well" was selected most frequently by sorority women (41.1%). See Table 43. Significant chi-square values at the .05 level resulted from frequency of responses -in the fourth cell group. The ability to arrange a receiving line correctly for a formal re­ ception was rated "Important" most frequently by Independents The ascribed sorority response was the same. responded "Important." (41.9%). Most sorority women See Table 44. "Would need help" was selected most frequently by Independents (41.3%) w hen asked how well they could arrange a receiving line for a formal reception. sorority women They posited "Well" as the sorority response. (56.1%) indicated "Would need some help." Most See Table 45. The chi-square value of 13.57 was considered significant at the .05 level. When asked how frequently the student actually stepped back from an unopened door allowing a man to open it for her, most Independents (49.8%) responded "Frequently." They attributed "As often as I can," Table 41 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 54 Concerning _________ Etiquette_________________________________________________ Responses a) Whenever an older person enters Column A Column B Column C f f % f % % 8 10.9 19 7.1 15 5.5 b) Frequently 41 56.1 74 27.8 79 29.1 c) Only when at the sorority house 11 15.0 107 40.2 2 0.7 d) Seldom 13 17.8 53 19.9 141 52.0 e) Never 0 0.0 13 N 2=266 4.8 34 N 3=271 12.5 N x=73 df=4 * Chi-square .05=9.49 X^=28.727 2 * X ^ = 7 0 .014 "How often do you find yourself standing when an older person, regardless of sex, enters the room?" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X ^ C o m p a r i s o n of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 77 Table 42 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 32 Concerning ______ Table Settings______________________________________________ C olumn A Responses % f Column B Column C f f % % a) Very important 29 39.7 136 50.1 56 20.4 b) Important 36 49.3 123 45.3 165 60.2 c) Doesn't matter today 5 6.8 11 4.0 27 9.8 d) Unimportant 2 2.7 0 0.0 17 6.2 e) Very unimportant 1 1.3 1 0.3 9 N 3=274 3.2 N 2=271 N x=73 df»4 Chi-square .05=9.49 x ^ _ 10-882 2 * X 3 =12.499 "The correct table setting for a large dinner party" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^=Compari8on of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 78 Table 43 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 55 Concerning ________ Table Settings____________________________________________ Responses Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % a) Very well 19 26.0 98 36.8 63 23.0 b) Well 30 41.1 132 49.6 132 48.3 c) I wouldn't have to 0 0.0 11 4.1 14 5.1 d) Would need help 24 32.8 24 9.0 52 19.0 e) Would have no Idea 0 0.0 1 0.3 12 4.4 N 2=266 N^-73 N 3=273 * df-4 Chi-square .05=9.49 X ^ = 2 9 .125 2 X^=12.826 * "How well do you think you could arrange a table for a large party If called upon to do so?" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level 2 Xj“Comparlson of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X -Comparison of sorority and Independent responses (A&C) 79 Table 44 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 34 Concerning __________ Receiving Line Etiquette____________________________________ Column A Responses 1 f l * % Column B Column C f f % % a) Very important 12 16.4 105 39.3 41 15.0 b) Important 50 68.4 138 51.6 114 41.9 c) Doesn't matter today 8 10.9 19 7.1 73 26.8 d) Unimportant 2 2.7 4 1.5 30 11.0 e) Very unimportant 1 1.3 1 0.3 14 N 3=272 5.1 N x=73 df**4 Chi-square N 2=267 2 * 2 * X ^ = 1 4 .188 .05=9.49 X ^ = 2 0 .958 "The ability to arrange a receiving line for a formal reception correctly" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses ^Significant at .05 level 2 X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X "Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 80 Table 45 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 57 Concerning __________ Receiving Line Etiquette__________________________________ _ T Responses a) Very well b) Well c) I wouldn't have to d) Would need help e) Would have no idea Column A Column B Column C f % f f % 7 9.5 61 22.9 27 9.8 23 31.5 143 53.1 79 28.9 0 0.0 14 5.2 22 8.0 41 56.1 45 16.9 113 41.3 2 2.7 3 N 2=266 1.1 32 N 3=273 11.7 N x=73 df=4 Chi-square .05=9.49 % X^=50.507* 2 X ^ = 1 3 .570 * "How well do you think you could arrange a receiving line at a formal reception if called upon to do so?" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 81 to sorority women. Most sorority women (58.9%) did respond as ascribed, "As often as I can." See Table 46. Drugs This general content area contained items concerning knowledge of and usage of drugs. Most Independents (62.4%) indicated they did not know all they wanted to know about such drugs as LSD and marijuana. the same response for sorority women. They projected Most sorority women (72.6%) responded in the manner projected by the Independents. See Table 47. When asked if the student has ever attended a party where marijuana was being used, most Independents (73.9%) responded "No," and ascribed the same response to sorority women. Most sorority women (61.6%) did respond "No," as indicated in Table 48. Most Independents (8 6 .8 %) indicated they had never tried or ex­ perimented with marijuana (See Table 49) or LSD (See Table 50) (98.9%). In both cases, they ascribed negative responses to sorority women. Most sorority women indicated never trying or experimenting with marijuana (Table 49) (69.8%) or LSD (See Table 50) (98.6%). The ascribed responses were accurate even though significant chi-square values resulted. Prejudice The general content area entitled Prejudice contained two items concerning religious preferences and racial preferences. Question 36 read: "While thinking of the ideal living unit of 60 women students what percentages of the following religious sects would you like to see living together? 100%)." (your total of percentages should equal The following four alternatives were provided: (2) Jewish; (3) Oriental sects; and (4) Protestant. (1) Catholic; 82 Table 46 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 56 Concerning ________ Dating Etiquette___________________________________________ Column A Responses Column B Column C As often as I can 43 58.9 157 58.8 90 32.9 Frequently 25 34.2 92 34.4 136 49.8 Only on a date 6.8 15 5.6 25 Seldom 0.0 1.1 20 0.0 0.0 Never N =73 df=4 Chi-square .05=9.49 2 X ^ = 1 9 .318 * "How often do you find yourself stepping b a c k from a door to allow a ma n to open or close it for you?" Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^=Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) Table 47 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 35 Concerning Knowledge of Drugs_________________________________________ Responses a) Yes b) No df=l Column A Column B Coluimn C f f f % % % 20 27.4 104 39.2 103 37.5 53 N^=73 72.6 161 N 2=265 60.7 171 N 3=274 62.4 Chi-square .05=3.84 X^=3.459 X^=2.618 Table 48 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 25 Concerning ___________Use of Drugs____________________________________________________ Responses a) Yes b) No df=l Column A Column B f f % % 28 38.3 128 48.1 45 N x=73 61.6 138 N 2=266 51.8 Chi-square .05=3.84 Column C f % 70 25.6 202 73.9 N 3=272 X^=2.198 2 X ^ = 4 .786 * LeRend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and Independent responses (A&C) Table 49 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 40 Concerning _______ Use of Drugs ____________ _____________________ _ ______ Responses a) Yes b) No df=l Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % 22 30.1 108 40.4 36 13.1 51 N.j-73 69.8 159 N 2=267 59.5 237 N 3=273 86.8 Chi-square X ^ = 2 .582 .05=3.84 2 X^-11.860 * Table 50 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 41 Concerning ___________ Use of Drugs____________________________________________________ Responses a) Yes b) No df=l Column A Column B Coin m n C f % f f 1 1.3 25 9.2 3 1.0 72 N 1=73 98.6 244 N 2=269 90.7 271 N 3=274 98.9 % % 2 Chi-square .05=3.84 X ^ = 5 .132 * X 3=0.038 Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^“ Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^=Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 85 Because of the nature of the type of responses collected for this Item, Table 51 presents the majority response patterns only. appear more significant w h e n presented in this manner. not indicated. Frequencies are M ost Independents responded wit h a n equal representation and ascribed the following to sorority women: Protestant These data (50%). Catholic (50%); and Most sorority w o m e n responded w i t h an equal represen­ tation among all four alternatives. Question 52 read: "While thinking of the ideal living unit of 60 women students, what percentages of the following races would you like to see living together? (your percentages should equal 100%)." following three alternatives w ere provided: (1) Caucasian; The (2) Negro; and (3) Oriental. The majority response patterns are Indicated in Table 52. Most Independents responded with an equal representation and attributed the following to sorority women: Caucasian 100%. Most sorority women indicated an overwhelming preference for Caucasian only. The attributed response pattern wa s accurate. Civic Volunteer/Service Activities The general content area, Civic Volunteer/Service Activities, contained items concerning the value of and involvement in activities classified as civic volunteer/service in nature. Most Independents (75.6%) responded "Yes" w h e n asked if they felt that civic, charitable or other such volunteer w o r k is an important part of the life of the college graduated w oman in today's society. The projected sorority response was also positive. (87.6%) indicated consent. Most sorority women See Table 53. When asked if the college graduated w o m a n should make time for 86 Table 51 Responses and Ascribed Responses Religious Preferences Responses Column A to Question 36 Concerning Column B Column C a) Catholic 25% 50% 25% b) Jewish 25% 0% 25% c) Oriental sects 25% 0% 25% d) Protestant Table 52 25% 50% 25% 100% 100% 100% Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 52 Concerning Racial Preferences Responses Column A Column B Column C 100% 100% 33 1/3% a) Caucasian b) Negro 0% 0% 33 1/3% c) Oriental 0% 0% 100% 100% 33 1/3% 100 % Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses Table 53 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 37 Concerning __________Value of Civic Volunteer/Service Activities_______________ Responses a) Yes b) No df=l Column A Column B Column C f f f % % 64 87.6 235 88.6 9 N^-73 12.3 30 N 2=265 11.3 % 205 75.6 66 24.3 N 3=171 Chi-square .05=3.84 X^=0.057 2 , X ^ = 4 .878 * Table 54 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 38 Concerning ___________Value of Civic Volunteer/Service A c t i v i t i e s __________ Responses a) Yes b) No df=l Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % 56 76.7 212 80.0 186 68.8 17 N x=73 23.2 53 N 2=265 20.0 84 N 3=270 31.1 Chi-square .05=3.84 X^-0.377 X ^ = l .693 Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Significant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 88 such volunteer/service activities as part of her everyday life, most Independents (6 8 .8 %) responded "Yes." The assigned sorority response coincided w i t h the majority sorority response (76.7%) "Yes." See Table 54. Question 39 asked if the student spends any time during the academic year involved in such civic volunteer/service activities. Independents (67.5%) responded "No" to sorority women. See Table 55. Most and ascribed a positive response Most sorority women (61.6%) did respond "Yes." A chi-square value of 20.68 was found to be significant at the .05 level. Leadership Positions This general content area contained items concerning the posses­ sion of an elected or appointed campus-wide office. Most Independents wide elected office. (97.0%) indicated they did not hold any campusThey indicated a negative response for sorority women, which coincided with the "No" (100%). See Table 56. response for sorority women, The significant chi-square value of 38.70 tended to result from the observed frequency distribution of responses. Question 5 concerned the possession of a campus-wide appointed office. Most Independents (96.7%) indicated they did not hold such an office and also ascribed a similar response to sorority women. Most sorority women (86.3%) indicated they did not hold such an office. See Table 57. Although the majority responses were identical for both groups, the significant chi-square values were obtained because of the variance in frequency distribution between the two alternate responses. 89 Table 55 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 39 Concerning __________ Involvement with Civic Volunteer/Service Activities_______ Column A Responses a) Yes 28 N, *73 df=l Column B Column C 61.6 181 67.0 89 32.4 38.6 89 32.9 185 67.5 Chi-square .05=3.84 X^=20.680* Table 56 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 4 Concerning ___________ Elected Office_____________________________________ Responses a) Yes b) No Column A Column B Column C f % f f 0 0.0 101 37.4 8 2.9 73 100.0 169 N 2=270 62.5 265 N 3=273 97.0 V 73 df=l Chi-square .05=3.84 % % * X^=38.704 X 3=2.190 Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X^Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 90 Table 57 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 5 Concerning __________ Appointed Office__________________________________________ Responses a) Yes b) No Column A Column B Column C f f f % % % 10 13.7 108 40.4 9 3.2 63 N 1=73 86.3 159 N 2=267 59.5 265 N 3=274 96.7 * df=l Chi-square X 3=18.103 .05=3.84 2 X ^ = 1 2 .078 * Table 58 Responses and Ascribed Responses to Question 53 Concerning ___________ Self-evaluation of Conformity_________________________________ Responses a) Yes b) No df=l Column A Column B Column C f f f % % 30 41.1 161 60.5 43 N 1=73 58.9 105 N 2=266 39.4 .05=3.84 59 21.8 211 78.1 N 3=270 2 Chi-square % X!T=8.792 2 * X^=ll.075 * Legend A - Sorority responses B - Ascribed sorority responses C - Independent responses *Signifleant at .05 level X^=Comparison of sorority and ascribed sorority responses (A&B) 2 X3=Comparison of sorority and independent responses (A&C) 91 Conformity of Sorority Women Question 53 read: "Do you consider .yourself to be 'Conformist' rather than 'I n d e p e n d e n t " a "No" Most Independents (78.1%) responded with response and attributed a "Yes," response to sorority women. See Table 58. Most sorority women (58.9%) responded "No." 92 The Sorority Iiflage The following represents a summary profile of the sorority image on the Michigan State University campus compiled from the ascribed charac­ teristics indicated by the majority of independent w o m e n students. The image profile indicates the way in w hich sorority w o m e n are seen b y the Independent w omen on their own campus. Sorority w omen are undergraduate majors wit h i n the College of Education. They become involved in "Bull sessions," "Two or three times per week" usually centered around the topic of "Dating." After gradua­ tion from the University they tend to expect "Marriage and work" to fill their lives. Both parents of sorority w omen are college graduates and also both are perceived as being Greek-letter social society members while in col­ lege. The mothers were members of the same sorority in which their daughters hold membership. Thus, sorority w o m e n on campus today are con­ sidered to be "legacies" to their groups. Sorority w omen do not participate in the University's sliding scale tuition plan based on family income, nor do they contribute any part of their own tuition costs. They are not employed during the academic year. In considering a date for a Saturday evening, sorority women rate fraternity membership as "Important"; the date's religious persuasion as "Doesn't matter to me"; and his occupational aspirations as "Important." While assessing or considering a prospective marriage partner, sorority women rate fraternity membership as "Important"; and his occupational aspirations as "Very important." Sorority women are "Pinned," as opposed to other labels applying to social standings. They believe that "Between 50% and 74%" of the w o m e n within their immediate living unit 93 will be either pinned or engaged before graduation from the University. When given various options of activities for a Saturday night date, most sorority women prefer to attend an "Informal mixer at a fraternity." They do not believe there are two differing codes of behavior applied to sorority women and Ind e p e n d e n t s . They do not believe either group could be characterized by an excess of involvement in pre-marital sexual intercourse or an excess of alcohol consumption. Sorority women prefer to attend TGIF parties "Every Friday night" which are organized by a fraternity. with my friends." They go because they "Want to be At such parties they drink "Beer" and socialize only with sorority and fraternity members. They consider standing whenever an older person, regardless of sex, enters a room a "Very important" quality of the college graduated woman of today. However, sorority house." they stand to show respect for age "Only w h e n at the Sorority w o m e n consider or rate the knowledge and/or use of etiquette on the part of their date as an "Important" quality. They will stand back from a door allowing a ma n to open it for them as often as they can. They rate the ability to correctly set a table or arrange a receiving line for a formal reception as "Very important" and "Important" qualities of the w o m a n college graduate. They feel they could arrange either of these activities "Well," and would not need help. Concerning such drugs as marijuana or LSD, sorority women do not know all they would like to about them, nor have they ever attended a party where these drugs were being used. They have never tried or ex­ perimented with such drugs themselves. Sorority women show a preference for a living unit of sixty women to have the following representations of the listed races and religious 94 persuasions: (a) Catholic and Protestant (50%); and (50%); Jewish (0%); Oriental sects (b) Caucasian (100%); Negro (0%); (0%); and Oriental (0%). Sorority w omen consider civic volunteer/service activities an important part of the life of the college graduated woman. They believe such women should budget time in their everyday schedules to engage in such activities. During the academic year, they do become involved in such activities. Sorority women do not hold either campus-wide elected or appointed offices. They are not in key leadership positions on their campus. Sorority w o m e n consider themselves "Conformist" rather than "Independent." Thus, sorority women are seen as: (a) education majors; (b) from higher socio-economic levels w i t h college graduated and Greek-letter member parents; (c) unemployed during the academic year and contributing nothing toward their tuition costs; (d) preferring ethnocentric dating and drinking activities confined to the Greek sub-culture; (e) emphasizing the v a l u e of social skills and civic volunteer/service activities; and (f) not in key leadership positions on their campus. 95 The Sorority Profile The following represents a summary profile of sorority women on the Michigan State University campus compiled from the actual responses of the majority of sorority women. Sorority women generally major within the College of Education. become involved in "Bull sessions", "Two or three times per week" usually centered around the topic of "Dating." versity, They After graduation from the U n i ­ they tend to expect "Marriage and work" to fill their lives. Both parents are college graduates. Their fathers are not Greek- letter social society members, while their mothers are. The daughters in sororities belong to different social groups than their mothers. Thus, the daughters are not "legacies" to their own groups. Sorority women do not participate in the U n i v e r s i t y ’s sliding scale tuition plan based on family income; indicating a family income in excess of $18,500. They do not contribute any part of their tuition costs, nor are they employed during the academic year. In considering a date for a Saturday night, sorority women rate fraternity membership as "Doesn't matter to me"; his religious persua­ sion as " D o e s n ’t matter to me"; and his occupational aspirations as "Important." While assessing or considering the qualities of a pro­ spective marriage partner, sorority women rate fraternity membership as "Doesn't matter to me"; his religious persuasion as "Important"; and his occupational aspirations as "Very important." Sorority women list them­ selves as "Dating around" as opposed to other labels applying to social standings. They believe that "Between 25% and 49%" of the women within their immediate living unit will be either pinned or engaged before 96 graduation from the University. activities, When given various types of dating sorority women prefer to go to an "Informal mixer at a fraternity" to other alternatives. They do not believe there are two differing standards or codes of behavior applying to sorority w o m e n and Independents. Nor do they b e ­ lieve that either group is guided by a more stringent code or set of values. Neither group is characterized by a prevalence of pre-marital sexual intercourse or an excess of alcohol consumption. Sorority women tend to attend TGIF parties "Twice a month" because they "Want to be with m y friends." fraternity, At these parties, organized by a they drink "Beer" and socialize with sorority and fraternity members only. They consider standing whenever an older person, regardless of sex, enters the room an "Important" quality of the college graduated woman of today, but indicate they stand only "Frequently" to show respect for age. Sorority w omen consider the knowledge and/or use of etiquette on the part of their date as "Very important." The ability to correctly set a table or arrange a receiving line for a formal reception is rated as "Important." They Indicate they could perfrom the first task "Well," but "Would need help" for the second. they can, They stand back from a door as often as thus allowing a man to open it for them. Sorority women do not know all they would like to about such drugs as marijuana or LSD. They have never attended a party where these drugs were being used, nor have they ever experimented with or tried them them­ selves . They Indicate a preference for a living unit of sixty women with the following representations of races and religious persuasions: 97 (a) Catholic (25%); Jewish (25%); Oriental sects tant (25%); and (b) Caucasian (100%); Negro (25%); and Protes­ (0%); and Oriental (0%). Civic volunteer/service activities are considered by sorority women an important part of the life of the college graduated woman in today's society. They believe the woman graduate should budget some time from her everyday schedule for involvement with such activities. Sorority women, during the academic year, do spend some time engaged in such volunteer and charitable activities. Sorority women do not hold campus-wide leadership positions, either elected or appointed offices. They do not consider themselves "Conformist" rather than "indepen­ dent." 98 The Independent Profile The following represents a summary profile of the Independent women on the Michigan State University campus compiled from the responses of the majority of independent women. Independent women tend to major within the College of Social Science. They become involved in "Bull sessions," "Two or three times per week" usually centered around the topic of "Men." University, After graduation from the they expect "Marriage and work" to fill their lives. Both parents are "High school graduates." Consequently, neither parent holds membership in a Greek-letter social society. Independent women do not participate in the University's sliding scale tuition plan based on family income. Those who do indicate a usual savings of "$61,00 per term," the maximum allowable. They con­ tribute "Part" of their tuition costs and are employed "Ten hours" per week during the academic year. In considering a date for a Saturday night, fraternity membership as "Very unimportant"; Independents rate religious persuasion as "Doesn't matter to me"; and occupational aspirations as "Important." When considering qualities of a prospective marriage partner, Independents rate fraternity membership as "Important"; religious persuasion as "Important"; and occupational aspirations as "Important." women label themselves as "Dating around." Independent They believe that "Between 25% and 49%" of the women within their immediate living unit will be either pinned or engaged before graduation. dating activities, When given various types of Independents prefer to "See a movie." They do not believe there are two differing standards or codes of behavior which apply to sorority and Independent women. Nor do they 99 believe that either group could be characterized b y an excess of alcohol consumption or a prevalance of pre-marital sexual Intercourse. Independents indicated they do not generally attend TGIF parties. Those few who do Indicated a frequency of "Once a month" and w ent because "It's Friday and I need it." Their TGIF's are organized by an informal group of friends and attended by Greek and non-Greek members. They drink "Beer." Standing w h e n an older person, regardless of sex, enters the room is rated as "Doesn't matter today" w h e n assessing the qualities of a college graduated woman. They themselves stand "Seldom." They consider the knowledge and/or use of etiquette on the part of their date as "Important." The ability to correctly set a table or arrange a receiving line are rated as "Important," but they indicate they could perform the first task "Well," but "Would need help" for the second. They stand back from a door "Frequently," thus allowing a m a n to open it for them. Independent w omen do not know all they would like to about such drugs as marijuana or LSD. Nor do they indicate they have either attended parties where these drugs wer e being used or experimented with them themselves. Independents Indicate a preference for a living unit of sixty women students to have an equal representation of religious persuasions and races as follows: (a) Catholic (25%); and Protestant (25%); Jewish (25%); and (b) Caucasian (33 1/3%); and Oriental (25%); Oriental sects (33 1/3%); Negro (33 1/3%). Civic volunteer/service activities are considered by Independents as an important part of the life of the w oman college graduate in today's society. They believe she should budget some time from her schedule for 100 Involvement in such activities. Independent women indicate they do not spend any time during the academic year involved in these kinds of activities. Independents indicate they do no hold campus-wide leadership positions; either elected or appointed offices. They do not consider themselves "Conformist" rather than "Indepen­ dent." 101 Differences In Image and Profiles Sorority Image versus Sorority Profile The following is a list of the differences In majority response patterns between the sorority group and ascribed sorority responses made by Independent women. 1. Fathers and mothers of sorority women are not Greek-letter social society members, although Greek-letter membership is attributed to them; 2. Sorority women are not "legacies" to their groups, although they are seen as such; 3. Sorority women are not "Pinned," as projected; 4. Sorority women believe that between 25% and 49% of women within their immediate living unit will be either pinned or engaged before graduation, as opposed to the ascribed response of "Between 50% and 74%;" 5. Sorority women rate fraternity membership as "Doesn't matter to me" whe n assessing a prospective date. The attributed sorority response was "Important;" 6. Sorority women attend TGIF parties "Twice a month," rather than "Every Friday" as indicated by Independents; 7. Sorority women stand "Frequently" to indicate respect for age, as opposed to "Only when at the sorority house," which was a t ­ tributed to them by Independents; 8. Sorority women consider knowledge and/or use of etiquette on the part of their date "Very important." Independents was "Important"; The projected response by 102 9. Sorority women consider setting a table correctly an "Important" quality of a woman college graduate. The ascribed sorority response was "Very important"; 10. Sorority women indicated they "Would need help" arranging a receiving line correctly. The assigned response was "Well," implying ability to complete the task without assistance; 11. Sorority women prefer a living unit of sixty women to include an equal representation of religious persuasions. The ascribed sorority response was Catholic (50%); Jewish (0%); Oriental sects (0%); and Protestant 12. (50%); Sorority women do not consider themselves to be "Conform­ ist" rather than "Independent," although they are perceived as "Conformist" by non-sorority women. wmr103 Sorority Image versus Independent Profile The following is a list of differences in the majority response patterns of non-sorority w o m e n and their responses attributed to sor­ ority women: 1. Independents major within the College of Social Science and perceive sorority w omen as College of Education majors; 2. Independents discuss "Men" during "Bull sessions," while they expect sorority w omen to discuss "Dating"; 3. Independents' parents are high school graduates, but they attribute college educations to parents of sorority women; 4. Independents save "$61.00 per term," the maxi m u m allowable on fee reductions and assign a savings of "$ 0 . 0 0 per term" to sorority women; 5. Independents contribute "Part" of their tuition costs and ascribe "None" to sorority women; 6. Independents are employed during the academic year while ascribing no employment 7. to sorority women; Independents rate fraternity membership of a prospective date "Very unimportant," while projecting a sorority re­ sponse of "Doesn't matter to me"; 8. Independents rate occupational aspirations of a prospec­ tive marriage partner as "Important," but attribute a sorority response of "Very important"; 9. Independents prefer to "See a movie" on a Saturday night date while projecting a sorority response of going to an "Informal mixer at a fraternity"; 104 10. Independents, who attend TGIF parties, go "Once a month" and attributed "Every Friday" to sorority women; 11. Independents attend TGIF's because " I t ’s Friday and I need it" contrasted with the perceived sorority response, "I want to be with my friends"; 12. Independents attended TGIF's organized by an "Informal group of friends," while assigning a sorority response of "Fraternity"; 13. Independents attend TGIF's populated with "Completely mixed group of Greeks and non-Greeks," but attributed the so­ rority response as "Sorority and fraternity members only"; 14. Independents rate standing "Doesn't matter today" and as a sign of respect for age as assigned a rating of "Important" to sorority women; 15. Independents stand as an indication of respect for age "Seldom" and attribute the response "Only when at the sorority house" to sorority women; 16. Independents rate knowledge and/or use of etiquette by a date as "Important" and inferred a rating of "Very important' to sorority women; 17. Independents step back from a door "Frequently" allowing a man to open it for them and project a frequency of "As often as I can" to sorority women; 18. Independents prefer a living unit of sixty women to equally represent religious persuasions and predict the sorority responses as Catholic (50%); Jewish (0%); Oriental sects (0%); and Protestant (50%); 105 19. Independents prefer a living unit of sixty w omen to equally represent races and ascribe the following response pattern to sorority women: Oriental 20. Caucasian (100%); Negro (0%); and (0%); Independents do not spend any time during the academic year engaged in civic volunteer/service activities and assign the sorority responses as some involvement. 106 Sorority Profile versus Independent Profile The following Is a list of the differences In the majority response patterns of sorority women and non-sororlty women: 1. Sorority w omen are majors within the College of Education, while Independents major within the College of Social Science; 2. Sorority w omen are Involved in "Bull sessions" which center around "Dating," as opposed to the indicated topic of "Men" for non-sorority women; 3. Parents of sorority w o m e n are college graduates, while parents of Independents are high school graduates; 4. Sorority students save "$0.00 per term," the minimum allow­ able on fee reductions, while some non-sorority women save "$61.00 per term"; 5. Sorority women do not contribute any part of their tuition costs, while Independents do contribute "Part"; 6 . Sorority w omen are not employed during the academic year, while non-sorority women are and Indicate working "Ten hours" per week; 7. Sorority w omen rate fraternity membership of a prospective date "Doesn't matter to me," while non-sorority women rate it "Very unimportant"; 8. Sorority women rate fraternity membership of a prospective marriage partner "Doesn't matter to me," while ascribing "Very unimportant" to sorority women; 9. Sorority women prefer to attend an informal mixer at a 107 fraternity, w h i l e non-sorority women prefer to "See a movie" for a Saturday night date; 10. Sorority w omen attend TGIF parties "Twice a month," while Independents attend "Once a month"; 11. Sorority attended TGIF's are organized b y a "Fraternity," while those attended b y non-sorority w omen are organized by an "Informal group of friends"; 12. Sorority attended TGIF's are populated w i t h "Sorority and fraternity members only," while non-sorority attended TGIF's are populated wit h "Completely mixed group of Greeks and non-Greeks"; 13. Sorority w omen consider standing as a sign of respect for age "Important," while Independents indicate the quality "Doesn't matter today"; 14. Sorority women stand, as an indication of respect for age, "Frequently," while Independents responded with a fre­ quency of "Seldom"; 15. Sorority w omen rate the knowledge and/or use of etiquette on the part of their date as "Very important," while the non-sorority w o m e n rate it "Important"; 16. Sorority women spend some time during the academic year engaged in civic volunteer/service activities, while non-sorority women do not. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Restatement of the Problem The basic problem of this study was to determine whether any of the past criticisms, labels, perceptions or characterizations as found in the literature are a part of the Greek-letter social sorority image of today. Specifically, the problem was to determine how women non-Greek member students perceive women Greek members on the Michigan State University campus. The following three hypotheses were tested as part of this study: H^: There are no significant differences in the responses of sorority women to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey" when compared with the responses of non­ sorority women when asked to respond as they perceive sorority women responding; H ^ i There are no significant differences in the responses of non-sorority women to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey" when compared with the non-sorority perceptions of sorority responses; H^: There are no significant differences in the responses of sorority women when compared with non-sorority women to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey." 108 109 Procedure In order to test the three hypotheses of this study, a survey Instrument was constructed by the Investigator. The "Sorority and Non- Sorority Survey" contained sixty items designed to elicit responses to questions comprising the twelve general labels or characterizations gleaned from the literature as applying to Greek-letter social groups. These twelve labels or general content areas were: 1. Educational objective of sorority women 2. P are n t s ' educational background 3. Socio-economic level of sorority women 4. Family Greek-letter affiliation 5. Dating patterns 6. Drinking patterns 7. Social skills 8. Drugs (knowledge of and usage) 9. Prejudice 10. Civic volunteer/service activities 11. Leadership positions 12. Conformity of sorority women The following two groups participated in the study: 1. A random selection of 75 undergraduate women students enrolled at Michigan State University who were members of 5 national Greek-letter social sororities and resided in sorority houses off campus; 2. A random selection of 375 women resident students en­ rolled at Michigan State University who were not members 110 of Greek-letter social groups and wh o resided In 2 residential complexes on the campus. During Fall Term, 1968 and Winter Term, 1969 a schedule of meetings was established to distribute, administer and collect the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey." The above two groups responded to the Survey in the following manner: 1. The sorority students answered the items In the Survey themselves; 2. The non-sorority students answered the items In the Survey themselves; 3. The non-sorority students also answered the items in the Survey as they perceived the sorority group would respond. Three major analyses of the data obtained from the Survey were per­ formed. Each analysis tested one of the three hypotheses of the study. The statistical technique employed in the analyses of the data was the chi-square analysis, utilizing the .05 level of probability as a criterion for statistical significance. Limi tations The data gathered during this study were limited to the stratified random sample responses of the women students enrolled at Michigan State University during the Fall Term, 1968 and Winter Term, 1969. None of the non-sorority population surveyed had ever participated in a Panhellenic Rushing or Pledging Program. Thus, the non-sorority responses should not be biased as a result of direct experience with these Panhellenic activities. 1X1 Summary of Major Findings Since the focus of this study was to determine the sorority Image and profile, the findings are presented from a consensus perspective. Interpretation of the data obtained from administrations of the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey" revealed that one of the three hypotheses tested was supported. 1. Thus, the major conclusions of the study are: There are no significant differences in the responses of sorority women to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey" when compared with the responses of non­ sorority women when asked to respond as they perceive sorority women responding; 2. There are significant differences in the responses of non-sorority women to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey" when compared with the non-sorority perceptions of sorority responses; 3. There are significant differences in the responses of sorority women whe n compared with non-sorority women to the "Sorority and Non-Sorority Survey." Specific differences found in a comparison of the Sorority Image and the Sorority Profile are discussed in Chapter IV. Some of the major differences or incongruencies discovered were: 1. Sorority women are not "legacies" to their own groups; 2. Sorority women expressed a preference for equal representation of religious persuasions in a living unit, rather than the narrow White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant image ascribed to them; 112 3. Sorority women do not consider themselves "Conformist" rather than "Independent"; 4. Sorority women label themselves as "Dating around" rather than "Pinned." Some of the similarities between the Sorority Image and the Sorority Profile are as follows: 1. Sorority women tend to major within the College of Education, as perceived; 2. Sorority women come from a higher socio-economic level and are far less self-supporting financially than are Independents, 3. as perceived; Sorority women tend to have dating patterns and prefer dating activities within their own Greek sub-culture, as perceived; 4. Sorority women tend to expect both "Marriage and work" to fill their lives after graduation, as perceived. Specific differences resulting from a comparison of the Sorority Image and the Independent Profile are discussed in Chapter IV. Differences resulted in almost every Instance from the Survey items indicating non-sorority women consider themselves different from sorority women. Consequently, no similarities between non-sorority self responses and perceived sorority responses were revealed. Specific differences between the Sorority Profile and the Independent Profile are discussed in Chapter IV. Some of the major differences or incongruencies were: 1. Sorority women tend to indicate a College of Education major while Independents tend to select majors within the College of Social Science; 113 2. Sorority w o m e n tend to come from families on a higher socio-economic level than do Independents; 3. Sorority women tend to come from homes of college graduated parents while parents of Independents are high school g r a d u a t e s ; 4. Sorority w o m e n spend some time during the academic year engaged in civic volunteer/service activities, while Independents do not. There were no major similarities found between the Sorority Profile and theIndependent Profile. women differ The basic conclusion being that sorority from non-sorority w o m e n on the basis of all twelve labels or characterizations employed in devising the Survey. These two groups are then to be considered dissimilar student sub-cultures. To summarize, 1. the major findings of this study are: Labels, characterizations or criticisms applied to sororities in the past, gleaned from the literature, are a part of the sorority image of 1969; 2. The Sorority Image can be predicted by non-sorority women and in such a almost perfectly way as to indicate congruence between the Sorority Image and the actual sorority responses, 3. or Sorority Profile; Sorority women project an image of higher socio-economic b a c k g r o u n d s ; college graduated parents who are Greekletter members; no financial self-support; ethnocentric dating and drinking patterns confined to the Greek sub­ culture; emphasis on value of social skills; and involvement in civic volunteer/service activities; 114 4. Non-sorority women consider themselves different from sorority women on many of the bases used as labels; socio-economic level; parents' educational and Greeklet ter background; dating and drinking patterns, et cetera; 5. Sorority women are different from non-sorority women on such bases as: socio-economic level; parents' educational background; dating and drinking patterns; social skills, et cetera. Implications Several questions must be raised revolving around the findings of this study. A Sorority Image has been established and described for the sorority women on the Michigan State University campus. Why is the described image so similar to the stereotypic image of sororities found in the literature of the 1930's and 194 0 's? What factors connected with the rushing program or the objectives of the Greek-letter system have contributed to the maintenance or support of the image? Do sorority women on the Michigan State University campus realize the type of image which they are projecting? Is the projected Image consonant with the image they would like to have projected? Is the M.S.U. Sorority Image similar or dissimilar to the sorority image held on other types of college and university campuses? What are some of the factors which the Greek-letter social system for women might change in an attempt to alter their image among non-sorority women? What about the validity of comparing levels of academic achievement based on grade point averages of sorority and non-sorority women? By the very selective process 115 of obtaining new members, do sororities accept women students after they have demonstrated ability to achieve at a certain level and not before? Does the influence of sorority majors within the College of Education affect the grade point average of the groups compared to non­ sorority majors within other disciplines? In addition to the above questions relating to specific parts of the Sorority Image, the evaluation of the composite image leads to the following discussion of sorority groups as a whole. Sororities appear dysfunctional. As controlling and structured groups they tend to provide select women students with a social class of distinction on a large university campus which is inherently heterogeneously populated. Is this goal one of the original objectives of the Greek-letter social system for women? Are the traditional objectives of inexpensive housing, arranged social life (when there was none on the campus) and personal identity with and gained from a sister­ hood upheld today? campuses or society? Are these objectives relevant to contemporary Do such objectives represent viable goals for a collegiate sub-culture? Why have sororities tended to recruit women who match the Sorority Profile discussed earlier? Why have they not, instead, expanded their horizons and recruited a more heterogeneous group of women? Does the intellectual woman on a large university campus feel out of place with a sorority group and elect not to rush; or is she not rushed by any sorority group? What type of woman student seeks to be­ come Identified with high socio-economic level students and parents rather than with intellectually acute students? Why are upper middle class women students in need of or seeking another form of social class distinction when their family financial status provides a social 116 class distinction In Itself? Research (Feldman and Newcomb, 1969) Indicates that children of non-college graduated parents, who gravitate toward state Institutions, tend to major In e d u cation...... wh y do sorority women select the same academic major? Or do sorority w omen change their major after they become affiliated with a sorority? Do they major In education because it is typically viewed as a "feminine profession"? What about the differences revealed between sorority emphasis on the value of social skills or tasks and the inability of sorority w omen to successfully perform such tasks? Many of these researchable questions must remain unanswered as a result of the findings of this study. A beginning has been mad e and certain data are now defined concerning the image of sororities; the sorority reality or profile; congruencies and incongruencies between the two; and the non-sorority profile. 117 Recommendations for Further Studies 1. Administrations of the Survey pre-and post-academic years would give evidence to sorority members of the image they are projecting to their own campus. It would also provide data to indicate which factors might be altered or de-emphasized by the individual group members in order to change any part of or the total image of the group. 2. Replications of this study could be used to gather data for com­ paring the composite sorority image of one campus with the sorority image of a similar or dissimilar campus. 3. A longitudinal study should be made of those women who are accepted in a sorority and those who tried and were rejected. What happens to the woman student who is accepted over a two or three year period? Does she change her college major to conform to the group? Does her social life change or her drinking patterns, after member­ ship? What are her attitudes toward dating and marriage before and after membership? 4. The Survey could be modified and used to study any of the various student sub-cultures and their images on a college or university campus. 5. The Survey could be administered to advisers of groups and the membership to determine the accuracy of the adviser’s image of the group he advises. In such cases, differences in total objectives of the group may be discovered. 6. Replications of this study on other campuses having chapters of the same sororities would enable an adviser, or national officer, student personnel administrator, to determine if there are differences in chapters on different campuses. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, Gordon W. ''Values and Our Youth." (December, 1961), 216. Teachers College R e c o r d , Brickman, William W . , ed. "Facts on Fraternities." Society, XCI (February 23, 1963), 80. School and Brubacher, John S. and Rudy, Willis. Higher Education in T r a n s i t i o n . New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1958. "Church Colleges and the Fraternity Racial Bar." C e n t u r y . LXX (June 17, 1953), 709. Christian Collins, Wanda P. and Whetstone, Robert D. "Comparison of Sorority and Independent Women Based on Retention, Academic Achievement and Scholastic Aptitude." Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Coun s e l o r s , XXVIII, No. 4 (1965), 178. Dalton, Charles R. "Fraternities at the University of Rochester." School and S o c i e t y , XCIII (February 6 , 1965), 77. Lasher, George Starr, ed. Baird's Manual of American College F r a t e rnities. Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Company, 1963. Inc., Lasher, George Starr, ed. Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities. Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Company, 1957. Inc., Mueller, Kate Hevner. Student Personnel Work in Higher Ed u c a t i o n . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961. Mueller, Kate Hevner and Seward, Doris. "An Interpretation of Sororities on the Campus." Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Coun s e l o r s , X I X (January, 1956), 71. "New Era for Northwestern: Sororities Struggle to Live." Detroit Free P r e s s . October 21, 1968. The Plant, Walter T. "Changes in Intolerance and Authoritarianism for Sorority and Non-Sorority Women Enrolled in College After Two Years." Journal of Social P s y c h o l o g y , LXVIII (February, 1966), 79-83. Robson, John. The College Fraternity and Its Modern R o l e . Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Company, Inc., 1966. Rogers, Nola Stark. "A Study of Certain Personality Characteristics of Sorority and Non-Sorority Women at the University of California, Los Angeles." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles, 1952. Scott, John F. "The American College Sorority: Its Role in Class and Ethnic Endogamy." American Sociological R e v i e w , XXX (August, 1965), 514-27. Stone, Carol Larson. "Sorority Status and Personality Adjustment." American Sooiological R e v i e w , XV (August, 1951), 538-41. The New York Times. October 19, 1953. Vils, Ursula. "Greeks' Are a Dead Issue." October 7, 1968. T h e State J o u r n a l , Webster1s Third N e w International Dictionary of the English L a n g u a g e , 3rd e d . , unabridged, 1961. Widmar, Gary E. "A Comparative Study of Fraternity and Sorority Membership of Entering Freshmen at the Florida State University." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1963. Willingham, Warren W. "College Performance of Fraternity Members and Independent Students." Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l , (September, 1962), 30. References Not Cited in Study Burke, C. J. and Lewis, D. "The Use and Misuse of the Chi-Square Test." Psychological B u l l e t i n , XLVI (1949), 433-89. Henderson, John W. "Follow-up Study of the Members of Greek Letter Social Fraternities at Michigan State University." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University at East Lansing, 1958. Michigan State University. Spring 1969 - Schedule of Courses and Academic H a n d b o o k . LXIII (February, 1969), 22. Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral S c i e n c e s . New York City, New York: McG r a w Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956. APPENDIX A 120 APPENDIX A SORORITY AND NON-SORORITY SURVEY PART ONE Instructions: Please answer the following questions with answers that will provide information about Y O U . 1)Term standing: a)_________ b )_________ c )_________ d )_________ 1st, 4th, 7th, 1 0 th, 2nd, or 5th, or 8 th, or 1 1 th, or 3rd 6 th 9th 1 2 th 2)Do you belong to a Greek-letter social sorority? a) Yes b)__________ No 3)Have you ever participated in a PanHel Rushing or Pledging Program? a) Yes b)__________ No -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-xx-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x -x-x-x-x-x~x-x-x-x-x-x-x~x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x- PART TWO Instructions: Please answer the following questions in two ways. F i r s t , record your response to each question in the column marked "Self." Second, if you are not a sorority member, answer each question as you think a sorority woman would In the column marked "Sorority." SELF SORORITY 4)Do you hold any campus-wide elected office? a) Yes a)_______ b) No b)_______ a)_______ b)_______ 5)Do you hold any campus-wide appointed office? a) Yes a)_ b) No b) a) b) 121 SELF SORORITY 6 )Academic major:______________________________ a)__________ a) 7)Within the College of: a) Arts and Letters______________________ a)_______ b) Agriculture b)_______ c) Business_______________________________ c)______ d) Education______________________________ d)_______ e) Home Economics__________________________ e)_______ f) Nat. Science____________________________ f)_______ g) Soc. Science____________________________ g)______ h) J M C ,LBC, JMC h)_______ i) Other___________________________________ i)_______ a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) 8 )Educatlonal Background of Parents: highest degree completed by Father: a) High school a)______ b) Some college without a degree_________b)______ c) College (AB, BS)________________________ c)_______ d) Masters________________________________ d)_______ e) PhD, EdD_______________________________ e)______ f) MD, DVM, DDS___________________________ f)_______ 9) Mother: a) High school b) Some college without a degree c) College (AB, BS) d) Masters e) PhD, EdD f) MD, DVM, DDS a)_______ b)_______ c)_______ d)_______ e)_______ f)_______ a) b) c) d) e) f) a)_ b)_ c)_ d), e)_ f)_ 10)Is your father a member of a Greek-letter social fraternity? a) Yes a)_______ a)_ b) No b)_______ b)_ 11)Is your mother a member of a Greek-letter social sorority? a) Yes a)_______ a)_______ b) No b)_______ b)_______ 1 2 )If yes a) b) to # 1 1 , are you and your mother members of the same sorority? Yes a)_______ a)_______ No b)_______ b)_______ 13)Have you or are you now taking advantage of the sllding-scale tuition plan at MSU? a) Yes a)_____ a)__________________ b) No b)_______ b)_______ 14)If yes to #13, what is the usual amount of savings per term? a) $61.00 per term * 0 -----b) $ 5.00 per term b >-----c) $ 0 . 0 0 per term SELF SORORITY 15)Wlth regard to your tuition, do you yourself, without family help, pay: a) All a)_______ a)_______ b) Part b)_______ b)_______ c) None c)_______ c)_______ 16)Do you have any form of employment during the academic year? a) Yes a)_______ a)_______ b) No b)_______ b)_______ 17)If yes to #16, h o w m any hours per w e e k do you work? a). a) Ten hours b) Less than ten hours b>_ c) Twenty hours c >. d)_ d) More than twenty hours 18)Do you go to T 6 IF parties? a) Yes b) No 19)What a) b) c) d) a)_ b)_ do you generally drink at the TGIF's? Beer a)_ Whiskey/Scotch b)_ c)_ Soft drink Mixed drinks; martinis, old fashioneds d)_ 20)How frequently do you go to TGIF's? a) Once a month b) Twice a m onth c) Three times a month d) Every Friday a)_ b)_ c)_ d)‘ 21)Which group typically organizes the TGIF's? a) Informal group of friends a)_ b) Sorority b). c) Residence hall friends c ). d) Fraternity d)_ e) Spontaneous, no one organizes them a ). a). b). a). b). c >. d>. a). b). c ). d) a). b). <=)_ d). e ). 2 2 )What motivates a) b) c) d) you to go? It's Friday and 1 need it My sorority requires it I want to be with my friends I wouldn't go if it were up to me a). b)_ c ). d)_ a)_ b)_ c)_ d)_ a). b)_ c), d) 123 SELF 23)What type of TGIF's do you usually go to? a) Those attended b y sorority women only a), b) Sorority and fraternity members only b)_ c) All women, sorority and no n ­ sorority c), d) Completely mixed group of Greeks and non-Greeks d) 24)Which a) b) c) d) e) "dating category" best describes you? Engaged a)_ Pinned b)_ Going steady c)_ Dating around d)_ None of the above e)_ SORORITY a)_ b)_ c ). d)_ a)_ b)_ c) d)_ 25)Have you ever been at a party where marijuana was being used? a)__ a) Yes a)___________ b) No b)___________ b)__ 26)If you were selecting a dating partner for this Saturday night, how important would each of the following characteristics be to you? 1 )Greek-letter membership a) b) c) d) e) (fraternity) Very important Important Doesn't matter to me Unimportant Very unimportant 27) 2)Religious practice or persuasion a) Very important b) Important c) Doesn't matter to me d) Unimportant e) Very unimportant a)_ a). b)_ c ). d). e ). b). c >. d)_ e)_ a). a). b). b). c ). d). d). e). e)_ 28) 3)Occupational aspirations a) b) c) d) e) Very important Important Doesn't matter to me Unimportant Very unimportant a). a). b). c ). d). b). c ). d). a). 124 SELF SORORITY 29)How many of your friends In your Immediate living area are either pinned or engaged before graduation? a) Between 100% and 75%__________________ a)______ a)_______ b) Between 74% and 50%___________________ b)______ b)_______ c) Between 49% and 25%___________________ c)______ c)_______ d) Between 24% and 5%____________________ d)______ d)_______ e) Less than 5% e)_____ e)_______ f) None f)_____ f)_______ 30)What kind of college or university would would attend? a) Church-related liberal arts (4yrs) b) Private liberal arts (4 yrs) c) State supported small college d) State supported large university e) Ivy League college for women you hope your daughter a)____________ b)____________ c)____________ d)____________ e)____________ a)_ b)_ c)_ d)_ e)_ 31)How important or valuable do you consider each of the following qualities or characteristics of the college graduated woman of today? 1 )Standing when an older person, a) b) c) d) e) regardless of sex, enters the room Very important a)__________ a)__ Important b)__________ b)__ Doesn't matter today c)__________ c)__ Unimportant d)__________ d)__ Very unimportant_______________________e)__________ e)__ 32) 2 )The correct table setting for a large dinner party a) Very important a)__________ b) Important b)__________ c) Doesn't matter today__________________ c)__________ d) Unimportant d)__________ e) Very unimportant_______________________e)__________ a)__ b)__ c)__ d) e)__ 33) 3)The knowledge and/or use of etiquette on the part of her date a) Very important_________________________ a)__________ a)__ b) Important______________________________ b)__________ b)__ c) Doesn't matter today__________________ c)__________ c)__ d) Unimportant d)__________ d)__ e) Very unimportant_______________________e)__________ e)__ 34) 4)The ability to arrange a receiving line for a formal reception correctly a) Very important_________________________a)__________ a)__ b) Important______________________________ b)__________ b)__ c) Doesn't matter today__________________ c)__________ c)__ d) Unimportant____________________________ d)__________ d)__ e) Very unimportant______________________ a)__________ e)__ 125 SELF SORORITY 35)Do you feel that you know all that you want to know about such drugs as LSD and marijuana? a)_______ a) Yes a)______ b) No b)______ b)_______ 36)While thinking of the Ideal living unit of 60 women students, what percentages of the following religious sects would you like to see living together? (your total of percentages should equal 100%) a) Catholic_______________________________ a)______ b) Jewish b)______ c) Oriental sects (such as Buddhism, Moslem, etc.)__________________________ c)______ d) Protestant denominations d)______ a)_______ b)_______ c)_______ d)_______ 37)Do you feel civic, charitable or other such volunteer w ork Is an important part of the life of the college graduated woman in today's society? a) Yes____________________________________ a)______ a)_______ b) No______________________________________ b)______ b)_______ 38)Do you feel the college graduated woman should make time for such volunteer/service activities as part of her everyday life? a) Yes a)_______ a)_______ b) No b)_______ b)_______ 39)Do you spend any time while now in college engaged in such volunteer/service activities? a) Yes a)_______ a)_______ b) No b)_______ b)_______ AO)Have a) b) you ever experimented with or tried marijuana? Yes a)_______ No b)_______ 41)Have you experimented with or tried LSD? a) Yes a)_______ b) No b)_______ a)___ b)___ a)___ b)___ 42)In choosing a marriage partner, how important are each of the following characteristics to you? 1 )Greek-letter membership a) Very important a)_______ a)___ b) Important b)_______ b)___ c) Doesn't matter to me c)________ c)___ d) Unimportant d)_______ d)___ e) Very unimportant e)_______ e)___ 126 SELF 43) 2)Religious practice or persuasion a) Very important b) Important c) Doesn't matter to m e d) Unimportant e) Very unimportant a)______ b)______ c)______ d)______ e)______ 44) 3)Occupation a) Very important_________________________a)_______ b) Important______________________________ b)_______ c) Doesn't matter to me___________________ c)_______ d) Unimportant____________________________ d)_______ e) Very unimportant______________________ e)_______ 45)Immediately following graduation, m y plans include: a) Marriage a). b) W ork b). c) Graduate study c ). d) a) and b) d)_ e) a) and c) e). f) b) and c) f). g) All three g). SORORITY a) b) c) d) e) a) b) c) d) e) a). b). c ). d). e ). f). g). 46)There are two standards of behavior with regard to liberal trends in sexual behavior between sorority and non-sorority women. a) Agree a)____________ a)__ b) Disagree b)____________ b)__ 47)The code pertaining to sorority women is less stringent than among non-sorority students at MSU. a) Agree a),____________ a)__ b) Disagree b)____________ b)__ 48)Pre-marital sexual intercourse is mor e prevalent among sorority women than among non-sorority women at MSU. a)__ a) Agree a)____________ b) Disagree b)____________ b)__ 49)Pre-marital sexual intercourse is more prevalent among non-sorority women than among sorority women at MSU. a) Agree a)___________ a)__ b) Disagree b)___________ b)__ 50)Over-consumption of alcohol is more prevalent among non-sorority women than among sorority women at MSU. a) Agree a)__________ a)__ b) Disagree b)__________ b)__ 51)Over-consumption of alcohol is more prevalent among sorority women than among non-sorority w omen at MSU. a) Agree___________________________________ a)_______ a)_______ b) Disagree________________________________ b)_______ b)_______ SELF SORORITY 52)While thinking of the ideal living unit of 60 women students, what percentages of the following races would you like to see living together? (your percentages should equal 1 0 0 %) a)__ a) Caucasian______________________________ a)___________ b) Negro___________________________________b)___________ b)__ c) Oriental_______________________________ c)___________ c)__ 53)Do you consider yourself to be "conformist" rather than "independent"? a) Yes_____________________________________ a)___________ b) No______________________________________ b)___________ a)__ b)__ 54)How often do you find yourself standing w h e n an older person, regardless of sex, enters the room? a) Whenever an older person enters_______ a)___________ a)__ b) Frequently_____________________________ b)___________ b)__ c) Only w hen at the sorority house_____ c)___________ c)__ d) Seldom__________________________________d)___________ d)__ e) Never___________________________________ e)___________ e)__ 55)How well do you think you could arrange a table for a large party if called upon to do so? a) Very well a)_______ a)_______ b) Well b)_______ b)_______ c) I wouldn't have to c)_______ c)_______ d) Would need help d)_______ d)_______ e) Would have no idea e)_______ e)_______ 56)How often do you find yourself stepping bac k from a door to allow a man to open or close it for you? a) As often as I can a)_______ a)_______ b) Frequently b)_______ b)_______ c) Only on a date c)_______ c)_______ d) Seldom d)_______ d)_______ e) Never e)_______ e)_______ 57)How well do you think you could arrange a receiving line at a formal reception if called u pon to do so? a) Very well a)_______ a)_______ b) Well b)_______ b)_______ c) I wouldn't have to c)_______ c)_______ d) Would need help d)_______ d)_______ e) Would have no idea e)_______ e)_______ 58)What do you prefer to do when going out with a date for an evening? a) Informal mixer ata fraternity a)______ a)_______ b) Grandmother's, CD's, "the Gables" b)________ b)_______ c) See a movie c)______ c)_______ d) Private date, without others around d)______ d)_______ e) Other e)______ e)_______ 128 SELF SORORITY 59)How often do you get Involved in and/or participate in "bull sessions"? a) a) Nightly a). b) Two or three times a wee k b) ______ b). c) c) Once a w e e k c ). d) _ d) Once or twice a month d)_ e) e) I never do e ). 60)What a) b) c) d) e) f) g) is, generally, the most discussed topic? a) Dating b) International problems Sex c) . d) Politics e) Men M.S.U. f) Other r) a). ___ b). c). d>. e ). f). g). APPENDIX B 129 APPENDIX B Th e s l l d l n g - s c a l e tuition plan utilized on the Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y campus fro m September, 1968 to June, 1969, Is described in the S p r i n g 1969 issue of the Schedule of CourseB and Academic H a n d b o o k , a M i c h i g a n State University publication as follows: Pag e 22 - "FEE REDUCTIONS: Students paying Michigan r e s ident fees and not receiving scholarships and grants of $95 or more are eligible to apply for fee r e d u c t i o n w h e n the total ’parental* income for 1968 is less than $18,400 for undergraduates ($19,400 for g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s ) . In such cases, fees will be 1% of total 'parental* income for 1968, but not less than $123 ($148 for graduate students). Some students who are c o mpletely independent and self-supporting and w h o a r e in no way supported by their parents may apply o n the b a s i s of their own income. Married students, veterans, and older students often qualify on this basis."