INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a m icrofilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The follow ing explanation o f techniques is provided to help you markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. understand The sign or ''target'' for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s|". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity, 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You w ill find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being p h o to g ra p h ed the photographer follow ed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The m ajority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding o f the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor. M ich igan 48106 A Xerox E d ucation Company 73-12,743 JACKSON, Jr., Maxie C. , 1939A CCMPARATIVE DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF MSU STUDENT VOLUNTEERS AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THEIR BACKGROUND AND INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS TO STUDENT ACTIVISTS AND TO NON-VOLUNTEER STUDENTS. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1972 Education, higher U niversity M icrofilm s, A XEROX C o m p a n y , A n n Arbor, M ich igan A COMPARATIVE DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF MSU STUDENT VOLUNTEERS AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THEIR BACKGROUND A N D INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS TO STUDENT ACTIVISTS AND TO NON-VOLUNTEER STUDENTS By Maxie C. Jackson, Jr. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1972 PLEASE NOTE: Some p a g e s m ay have i nd is t i nc t print. F i lm e d University as Microfilms, received. A Xerox E d u c a t i o n C om p a n y ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF MSU STUDENT VOLUNTEERS AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF THEIR BACKGROUND AND INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS TO STUDENT ACTIVISTS AND TO NON-VOLUNTEER STUDENTS By Maxie C . Jackson, Jr. The purpose of this study was to compare the characteristic profiles of MSU Student Volunteers to the characteristic profiles of MSU Non-Volunteer Students and student activists. More specifically, this study tested the overall hypotheses that a comparative descriptive study of the background and individual characteristics of MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer Students would illustrate a closer profile relationship, i .e. background and individual characteristics, between MSU Student Volunteers and student activists than between MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer Stu de nt s. Procedures A comprehensive review of the research pertaining to student activists yielded a consistent profile of these students. Compared to non-activist students, they tended to be from families that were better educated and socioeconomically more privileged. They also tended to Maxie C. Jackson, Jr. be from households that reflected a more democratic and anti-authoritarian atmosphere, and where intellectual and aesthetic activities were pursued and preferred. The population from which the sample groups were selected included all of the Fall Quarter 1971 first-term freshmen entering Michigan State University that partici­ pated in a questionnaire survey developed and administered by the MSU Office of Evaluation Services. The inventories obtained personal history and opinion data from each of the students. The sample of MSU Student Volunteers included 10 8 students from the population group that made application to and volunteered via the MSU Volunteer Bureau within three weeks of the beginning of the term. A second sample of 171 MSU Non-Volunteer Students was randomly selected from the population group minus those in the first sample. Inventory items that were identified as relevant to testing the hypotheses were selected for analysis. An .05 level of significance was needed to accept each of the ten hypotheses, eight of which were tested by a ChiSquare analysis and two by a t-test. Conclusions An analysis of the data resulted in the following conclusions: 1. MSU Student Volunteers were not from higher socio-economic status backgrounds than MSU Non-Volunteer Students, i.e. family income, Maxie C. Jackson, Jr. professional occupations and educational ac hi ev em en t. MSU Student Volunteers did not perceive their parents as b e i ng devoted to intellectual and esthetic pursuits more than did MSU Non-Volunteer Students. MSU Student Volunteers did perceive their households as being more democratic and antiauthoritarian than did MSU Non-Volunteer Students. MSU Student Volunteers did not perceive their parents as participants in selected civic activities more than did MSU Non-Volunteer Students. MSU Student Volunteers did not hold more lead­ ership positions in high school than did MSU Non-Volunteer Students. MSU Student Volunteers had not enjoyed selected "out-of-class" experiences and accomplishments more than had MSU Non-Volunteer Students. MSU Student Volunteers did participate in and/or appreciate more, intellectual and aesthetic activities and events than did Non-Volunteer Students. MSU Maxie C. Jackson, Jr. 8. MSU Student Volunteers were not better informed about poltiical events than were MSU NonVolunteer Students. 9. MSU Student Volunteers were not more selfconfident than were MSU Non-Volunteer Students. 10. MSU Student Volunteers were more interested in helping other people than were MSU Non-Volunteer Students. ACKNOW LEDGEMENTS To Dr. Joseph M c M i l l a n , my guidance committee chairman, and D r s . Wilbur Brookover, Vandel Johnson and John Useem, guidance committee m e m b e r s , 1 extend my deep appreciation for their support and encouragement through­ out this academic experience. I am further indebted to Drs. Lawrence Lezotte and John Schweitzer for their special assistance through­ out the research project; and to Dr, Robert L. Green for his sincere concern and constant support. A very special thanks to my wife, Carrie, and children, Maxie III and Lori Michelle, for their under­ standing, patience and encouragement; and to my parents who have always provided the support essential to succeeding. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................ ii LIST OF T A B L E S ........................................ V Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM. . . Need for the S t u d y ....................... Purpose of the S t u d y ....................... Hypotheses ................................. Theory ..................................... Limitations of the Study ................. Overview..................................... 1 4 5 6 6 9 10 II. REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E .................... General Reviews of the Literature . . . In-Depth Reviews of Related Studies. . . S u m m a r y ..................................... 11 11 19 29 III. M E T H O D ........................................ S a m p l e ..................................... Measures..................................... D e s i g n .......................... Testable Hypotheses ....................... Analysis..................................... S u m m a r y ..................................... 31 31 31 33 34 35 35 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA AND RESULTS . . . . Hypothesis 1 ............................. Hypothesis 2 ............................. Hypothesis 3 ............................. Hypothesis 4 . .......................... Hypothesis 5 ............................. Hypothesis 6 . ......................... Hypothesis 7 ............................. Hypothesis 8 ............................. Hypothesis 9 ............................. Hypothesis 1 0 ............................. Additional Findings ...................... S u m m a r y ..................................... 36 36 40 45 47 47 50 55 57 59 65 68 71 Chapter Page SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S ..................... S u m m a r y ...................................... F i n d i n g s ...................................... Additional F i n d i n g s ........................ Con clu si on s .................................. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s ........................... 76 76 78 83 84 87 BI BLIOGRAPHY............................................. 89 A P P E N D I X ................................................ 93 V. iv LIST OF TABLES Demographic characteristics of student samples. 32 Analysis of responses to the question/ "What is the highest level of formal education obtained by your father?"..................... 37 Analysis of responses to the question/ "What is the highest level of formal education obtained by your m o t h e r ? " ..................... 37 Analysis of responses to the question, "What is your best estimate of the total income last year of your parental family, before t a x es ?" ......................................... 39 Analysis of responses regarding parental occupations .................................. 39 Analysis of responses to the question "How many books, not including textbooks, do you and your family have at h o m e ? ” .............. 41 Analysis of responses to the questions rega rd ­ ing the availability of types of periodicals in the h o m e .................................. 42 Analysis of responses to a question regarding the availability of musical instruments for the serious study of classical music . 43 Analysis of responses to a question regarding parental attendance or participation in music and/or dramatic performance . 43 Analysis of responses to a question regarding parental visits to museums or art galleries. 44 Analysis of combined responses to selected questions to determine student perceptions of their home relative to an anti­ authoritarian or democratic household a t m o s phe re...................................... 46 Analysis of responses to questions regarding parental participation in selected civic a c t i v it ie s...................................... 48 Table 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 Page Analysis of responses bo questions regarding leadership positions held by them in high s c h o o l ......................................... 51 Analysis of responses to questions regarding their involvement in selected out-of-class experiences w h il e in high school . . . . 53 Analysis of combined responses to selected questions to determine student participation in, and appreciation of intellectual ac t i v i t i e s ...................................... 56 Analysis of combined responses to selected questions to determine student participation in, and appreciation of aesthetic a c t i v i t i e s ...................................... 56 Analysis of responses to the question, "How interested are you in political issues and political a f f a i r s ? " ........................... 58 Analysis of responses to the question, "How informed do you presently consider yourself in regard to political affairs?" . . . . 59 Analysis of responses to questions regarding student efforts to become informed about political affairs and i s s u e s ................. 60 A nalysis of responses to questions regarding student self-comparisons with peers . . . 62 Analysis of responses to the question, "How likely is it that you will graduate from M S U ? " ......................................... 64 A nalysis of responses to questions regarding student interest in helping others. . . . 66 Analysis of responses to questions regarding student experience in helping others . . . 67 Analysis of responses to a question regarding religious background ....................... 68 Analysis of responses to a question regarding racial background ........................... 69 vi Table 4.25 Page Analysis of responses to the statement, "I tend to be more practical than theoretical." 70 Analysis of responses to the statement, "1 prefer the type of class in w h i c h the instructor specifies in detail w hat must be d o n e . " ...................................... 71 4.27 Summary of findings............................... 73 4.28 Summary of additional f i n d i n g s .................. 75 4.26 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A N D STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Student: activism has been characteristic of higher education throughout the world and a part of higher education in the United States since its beginning. Unlike students in other parts o f the world, students in the United States have never had traditional targets archies and century old practices) could focus their efforts. (m o n ­ toward which they As such, student activism has been reflective of the major issues of the period. Prior to the Industrial Revolution when communications between other parts of the world was very limited, and rural-agrarian concerns were prevalent, student activism was directed toward local concerns and problems, e.g., food services, concerns. living conditions and student-society Frederick Rudolph, discussing domitory life in the 1830's stated: The dormitory concentrated into groups eager, active, healthy, young men who were capable of being whi pp ed into an explosive rebellion as into a religious revival. N o t every college under­ went a rebellion, and the rebellions were inspired by a variety of conditions. Generally, however. 1 2 they took the form of a concerted strike of a majority of the undergraduates, protesting against some real or imagined w r o n g .^ The turn of the 20th century brought with it improved communication systems and a shift from a ruralagrarian oriented society to an urban-industrial oriented society. The effect of this shift in orientation and improved communications was a greater involvement by the United States in international affairs. The protest efforts of student activists then focused on international problems, e.g., Nazism, Facism and Communism as menaces to world peace. student activism, Seymour Lipset, discussing American indicates the politics of this period "were dominated by the international struggle against totalitarian expansionism, by Stalinist Communism." 2 first by Axis powers and then He further indicated that although many intellectuals and activists were critical of domestic institutions and practices, the threats on democracy were real and their attentions and efforts were directed against the totalitarian crisis. Since the late 1960's, the efforts of student activists have been directed toward problems and ills of our society that effect us here at home. As Lipset ^Frederick Rudolph, The American College and University: A History (New Y o r k : Vintage B o o k s , T562) , p“ 97. 2 Monica: Seymour Lipset, American Student Activism (Santa Rand Corporation* l’96 9j~,’ p . 7~. 3 indicates "the new generation of liberals who know not Hitler and Stalin, the Checz coup and the Hungarian revolution, from first-hand experience found little reason to restrain applying their moral beliefs to domestic politics. This change in ideological climate, as well as an escalation of protest from words to action was facilitated by the struggle for Negro rights after 1954." Richard F l a cks , referring to the impact of the civil rights movement on student activism stated, "the non-violent civil rights movement, especially the Negro student sit-ins beginning in 196 0, had a triggering impact because it offered to white humanist students a way of directly acting on their values— a way previously unavailable— with a moral purity and personal commitment present nowhere else 4 in society." The protest efforts that followed reflected social discontent resulting from a failure of democratic principles to coincide with social realities and a denial to deprived or disadvantaged groups the fruits of a plentiful society. Reactions to societal ills have taken the form of protest marches, sit-ins, freedom-rides, voter registration drives, and involvement in Peace Corps and VISTA type volunteer activities. 3I bid., p . 3. 4 Richard Flacks, "Who Protests: Social Bases of the Student Movement” , Protest 1 Student A c t i v i s m , ed. Julian Foster and Durward Long (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1970), p. 152. 4 Regarding the future role of student activism, Lipset has stated "historically, then, one w o u ld expect a sharp increase in student activism whenever events call accepted political and social values into question, in times particularly where policy failures seem to question the adequacy of social, economic and political a r r an ge ­ ments and institutions. Although it may be argued that student activism is the result, rather than the cause of k social discontent, it is important to recognize that once activated, student groups have play ed a major role in mobilizing public opinion behind the causes and ideologies fostered by them. Social unrest causes student unrest, but once they start expressing their disquiet, students and intellectuals have been in many ways the vanguard of political change." In view of the many domestic and international problems we face today, it appears we cam expect continued student activism in the years to come. N e e d for the Study Although student activism has been characteristic of higher education in the United States since its beginning, the impact of, and attention devoted to student activism in recent years is unprecedented. 5Lipset, L o c . c i t ., p. 12. It appears further that 5 student, activism will remain a significant sociopolitical force in the years to come. Ac cepting this, it is essential that we devote our efforts to investigating the various facets of student a c t ivi sm in order to under­ stand more fully the full implications of this movement. More specifically, there is a n eed to become m o r e Jcnow- ledgeable and understand more f u l l y : a. the background and individual characteristics of student activists, b. their motivations for involvement in this effort, c. why a student becomes involved in one type of activism rather than another (confrontation tactics rather than participating t a c t i c s ) , d. the effect of involvement in these efforts on the students educational, political and professional objectives. With a better unders tan ding of the student activist and the factors motivating his involvement in these e f f o r t s , hopefully we can develop educational experiences that will maximize their energies and efforts for the betterment of our society. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to compare M S U Student Volunteers with M S U Non-Volunteer Students and student activists (as per related research) . This comparative descriptive study will illustrate the greater degree of similarity between the background and individual character­ istics of MSU Student Volunteers and student activists than between MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer Students. 6 Hypothesis That student volunteers represent a form or type of student activist and therefore are similar in charac­ teristics to other student activists protest marches and sit-ins) this study. (those engaged in is the major hypothesis of An analysis of selected background and individual characteristics of Michigan State University Student Volunteers, Non-Volunteer Students and student activists (as per related research) will yield results that indicate Michigan State University Student Volunteers are profiled more similarly to student activists than to Michigan State University Non-Volunteer Students. Theory One result of the tremendous impact of, and the attention devoted to student activism in recent years has been the growing number of studies undertaken regarding the student activist. this trend writes, Alexander Astin, acknowledging "typically, activists and non-activists are compared in terms of various biographical character­ istics and psychological test scores. Although these studies differ widely in terms of methodology, type of student body, type of institution, and other factors, certain highly consistent findings have emerged. For example, compared to the non-activists the activist 7 student tends to be more intelligent, politically liberal, individualistic and independent. The also show more interest in artistic and esthetic pursuits. the parents of a typical college student, Compared to the parents of activists tend to be more highly educated, wealthy, more politically liberal, less religious (in terms of regular church a t t e n d a n c e ) , and more inclined to be permissive in rearing their children."** Richard Flacks, analyzing the social bases of the 7 student movement via a review of available studies, found that the student activists: a. average family income is higher than that characteristic of their non-activist clas s­ mates . But the source of this high income is special, it derives from occupations that are intellectual or professional in nature. b. in terms of religious affiliation, are disproportionately over-representative of Jewish backgrounds and under-representative of Catholic backgrounds. c. parents (according to student responses) are more liberal than parents of n o n - a c t i v i s t s . d. parents interest are described as primarily intellectual and esthetic in content. They read extensively, attend concerts and art shows, and travel to culturally enriching places. e. tend to come from homes with a rather democratic, egalitarian and antiauthoritarian atmosphere. Alexander Astin, "Personal and Environmental Determinants of Student Activism," Educational R e s e a r c h : Readings in F o c u s , ed. Irvin Lehmann and W i l l i a m Mehrens (New Y o r k : H o l t , Rineholt and Winston, Inc., 1971), p. 218. 7Flacks, L o c . c i t ., Chapter 2. 8 Kenneth Keniston writes of a new tendency to try to separate the "good guys" (non-violent, constructive and idealistic student activists) from the "bad guys" (nihilistic, violent, destructive and anarchistic q student activists). Although he does not feel there is such a clear cut difference, others are investigating this further. Robert Liebert, a New York Psychoanalyst, after intensive interviewing of a group of white and black participants and non-participants in the Columbia University 9 "Liberation" of 1968, found that students in the occupied buildings fell along a continuum of "idealistic and constructive" to "nihilistic and destructive". Liebert's study will be discussed in detail in Chapter I I . Although student activists may be identified at various points along the continuum "good or bad" or "idealistic constructive to nihilistic destructive", it is my contention that they are yet basically similar in terms of individual and background characteristics. Most of the data yielding background and individual character­ istics of student activists was collected in reference to student activists involved in efforts that could be classified as radical behavior (taking over buildings, SDS members and activists involved in the 196 8 Democratic g Kenneth Keniston, Youth and Dissent (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, I n c ., 19 71), p . 271. 9 Robert L i e ber t, Radical and Militant Youth (New York: Praeger Publisher,19^1). 9 Convention). Considering this group to be the "bad guys", students engaged in volunteer activities sister programs and tutoring efforts) "good guys". (big-brother- could be considered Using the consistently found results of student activists as representative characteristics, a comparison of selected background and individual character­ istics of Michigan State University Student Volunteers and Non-Volunteer Students will reveal that Michigan State University Student Volunteers are characteristically more similar to student activists than to Michigan State University Non-Volunteer Students. Limitations of the Study This study has three limitations that should be identified. First, the motivations of Michigan State University Student Volunteers are unknown and the general­ ized "good guys" classification may not be applicable to all members of that sample. Second, the student samples are from a single university and therefore, the ability to generalize the findings to students of other institutions and regions is limited. Third, there are the routine limitations that are associated with all studies of this type, e.g. reliability of the instruments as well as the responses of the students sampled. 10 Overview A review of pertinent literature and related studies and the projected contributions of this study will be presented in Chapter II. In Chapter III, information regarding the study design will be presented and in Chapter IV, the results of the data analysis and results will be presented. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Since the m id-1960fs, much has been written about student activism and student activists, both pro and con. Although some of the literature represents anecdotal and journalistic endeavors, many systematic and significant studies have been conducted and the results published. This chapter will include two general reviews of research to date; two in-depth reviews of studies more directly related to the focus of this study; and a summary state­ ment regarding these findings and the implications for this study. General Reviews of the Literature Most of the research to date has focused on students that have been involved in specific protest activities. In many instances, the methodology might have been different, however, the findings of these studies have been largely consistent. The research team of Jeanne Block, Normal Haan, and M. Brewster Smith 11 12 has summarized studies of four different groups of student activists.1 Their summary includes: a. three studies of the Free Speech Movement participants at Berkeley conducted by William Watts and D. W h i t t a k e r P a u l H e i s t ,"3 and the research team's own study. b. the Richard Flacks and Bernice Neugarten study of activist students at the University of Chicago.^ c. the D. Westby and R. Braungart study of "left" and "right" students at Pennsylvania State University.5 d. the Frederic Soloman and Jacob Fishman study of protestors at the 1962 Peace March in Washington, D.C.5 The research team reported their inclusive summary of these studies via the following categories: family background, academic achievement; personality character­ istics; value systems; parential child-rearing practices; and stability of commitment. Family Background Student activists, per the studies reviewed, tend to come from families that are representative of the advantaged strata of American society, attainment, i.e. educational socio-economic status and prestigious occupations J. Block, N. Haan, and M. Smith, "Activism and Apathy in Contemporary Adolescents", Understanding A d o l e s c e n c e , e d . James Adams (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, I n c ., 1 9 6 8 T , Chapter 9. 2 I b i d ., p. 213. ^I b i d ., p. 213. ^ I b i d . , p. 214. ^Ibi d . , p. 214. I b i d ., p . 214. 13 (requiring at least four years of college). Parents of student activists tend to be politically liberal. This finding refutes the point of view that student activists are rebelling against their parents. Rather# the findings indicate a similarity of points of view between activists and their parents w ith the activists "acting-out" what the parents feel and think. Jewish students were found to be disproportionately over-represented in the ranks of student activists. Catholic students were found to be disproportionately under-represented in the ranks of student activists. Academic Achievement Student activists and their parents tend to be intellectually oriented and have good academic records. Parents of student activists tend to have achieved higher educational levels than parents of non-activist students. Personality Characteristics Investigations of personality characteristics have been secondary to studies of sociological and i demographic characteristics of student activists. However# the studies to date indicate student activists tend to be idealistic and expressive individuals. They are less concerned with conventional mores and reflect independent and non-authoritarian attitudes. and esthetically oriented. They are both intellectually 14 Value Systems Student activists tend to be more community and people oriented than s e l f - o r i e n t e d . empathic, They are also altruistic, tolerant, responsive, and display a dedication to work for the betterment of our society and world. The contrasting value system identified by non-student activists is more Protestant Ethic oriented, e.g. self-denying, ambitious, orderly and self-controlled. Parential Child-Rearing Practices The child-rearing philosophy of Dr. Benjamin Spock has been influential in the growth and development of most student activists. Parents of these students, discarding the traditional concern over discipline and blind obedience, have raised these students in an atmosphere that fostered independent thinking and autonomous decision-making. The atmosphere of these households reflected milder discipline and closer affective rel ation­ ships than those of non-student activists. Stability of Commitment The studies included in the research team's summary indicate a continuous involvement by student activists in political-social activities. Peach Marchers studied, Of the 1962 72% were previously involved in political or social actions. Of the Free Speech Movement p a r t i c i p a n t s , 94% were involved in social and political oriented activities at the time of an 18 month follow-up study. 15 Richard Flacks, as did the research team, found a tremendous convergence in the findings of student activists studies that he reviewed. 7 He does specify that those findings are in reference to white student activists and that "Black student protest is sufficiently different Q to warran t a separate study . . .11 Flacks lists nine generalizations based on the findings of these studies. a. "Movement participants tend to be recruited from the most selective universities and colleges; the highest incidence of offcampus and on-campus protest activity has occurred at major state and private universities and prestigious liberal arts colleges ."® The findings of F l a c k s ' review indicate a greater degree of student activism at institutions that have a higher percentage of Ph.D.'s and are more selective in student admissions. These institutions tend to promote student participation in socio-political events as well as student independence. b. * "Student protestors are rarely recruited from among those w i t h below average g r a d e s ; there is some tendency for those with high grades to be disproportionately represented in protest activity."^ Studies comparing grades of student and non-student activists to determine which group makes higher grades have 7 Flacks, L o c . c i t ., Chapter 3. 8I b i d ., p. 135. 10Ibid., p. 136. 9I b id., p. 135. 16 not been clearly definitive. Important, however, are the indications of an under-representation of belowaverage students and a clear cut necessity to d i f f e r ­ entiate between intellectual ability and academic p e r ­ formance . As Flacks has indicated, student activists tend to demonstrate greater intellectual ability c. "In terms of aptii.utes and interests, activists tend to be more academic than non-activists.' Regarding their educational e x p e r i e n c e s , student activists enjoy exposure to the best thinkers, prefer independent reading and research, and place a pre m i u m on intellectual work. d. "Activists are disproportionately recruited from a particular social background: they are the sons and daughters of high income families, in which both parents have at least four years of college and tend to be employed in occupations for which advanced educational attainment is a primary requisite."12 Student activists tend to be the offspring of urban-suburban families from the east and west coasts. Uhese are high income families whose financial, as well as social status, is related to occupations that are professional in n a t u r e . 11I b i d ., p. 136. 12Ibid., p. 137. 17 e. "The typical activists family is quite secular; however, a minority of activists come from families w i t h a strong religious o r i e n tation."13 In addition to an over-representation of students from Jewish backgrounds , and an tinder-representation of students from Catholic backgrounds, there appears to be a disproportionate number of student activists from families of humanitarian sects e.g. Quakers and Unitarians. f. "The typical activist's parents are politically liberal; the proportion of activists who have 'converted' from a background of conservatism is quite small, as is the proportion who have parents who are themselves left-wing or liberal activists."!4 Studies indicate student activists tend to report their parents as democrats and liberal more so than n o n ­ student activists. Other studies that have been directed at the parents of student activists have reinforced these findings. g. ' "The religious secularism and political liberalism characteristic of activists families are expressions of an underlying cluster of values articulated by parents and shared by their artivists o f f s p r i n g ."15 Parents of student activists prefer i n t e l l e ctual, culturally enriching and esthetic pursuits and their offspring tend to be so inclined also. 13I b i d . , p. 138. 14I b i d ., p . 138. 15I b i d ., p. 140. These parents 18 tend to stress autonomy and self-expression as being more important than conventional morality and self-control. Further, they promote social responsibility, e.g. making a contribution for society's betterment, as a goal in life. h. "Activists tend to come from homes in which a relatively democratic and egalitarian child-rearing ideology was emphasized; there is little evidence, however, for the popular view that student protest is related to parental overpermissiveness or indulgence."^® Although parents of student activists foster autonomy and self-expression and a skepticism about c o n ­ ventional moral standards, this should not be interpreted or characterized as indulgence or a failure to assert standards. They do promote standards of intellectual and creative activity as well as activity that is socially beneficial. Having been encouraged in self-expression and decision making by their parents, student activists act against adult authority that appears to be restrictive and ar b i t r a r y . i i. "Although the prototype background of student activists is the 'educated humanist' family, factors other than family background are also important in determining recruitment to the movement, and forms of participation of i t . "17 16I b i d ., p . 142. 17I b i d . , p. 144. 19 The characteristics discussed thus far do not account for all student activist and those w i t h different sociological and background characteristics represent a significant minority in student activism, and in many cases, leaders have emerged from this group. Also, the degree and level of involvement is unrelated to the identi­ fied characteristics relative to the student activists background. Rather, the degree and level of commitment is related to the length of time and prior relationship to the movement in question. The composite characteristics of student activists as reviewed by the research team and Flacks is embodied in Alexander A s t i n ’s statement: \ . . . certain highly consistent findings have emerged. For example, compared to the non-activist, the activist student tends to be more intelligent, politically liberal, individualistic and independent. Activists are more likely to be taking pre-professional programs. They also show more interest in artistic and esthetic p u r s u i t s . Compared to the parents of a typical college student, the parents of activists tend to be more highly educated, wealthier, more politically liberal, less religious (in the formal sense of church attendance) and more inclined to be permissive in rearing their children.18 In-Depth Reviews of Related Studies The following are in-depth reviews of two studies conducted by Leonared Baird 19 and Robert Liebert. 20 Baird's 18 Astin, h o c . c i t ., p. 218. 19 Leonard Baird, "Who Protests: A Study of Student A c t i v i s t ” , Protest! Student A c t i v i s m , ed. Julian Foster and Durward Long (New Y o r k : Willi am Morrow and Company, Inc., 19 70), Chapter 2. 20 . Liebert, L o c . cit. 20 study illustrates the individual and background character­ istics of student activists. Liebert's study provides the theoretical base supporting the classification of student activists along an 'idealistic-nihilistic' continuum. Baird, utilizing data collected from 12,432 freshmen at 31 institutions via the American College Survey in 1964, compared the responses of students that were "activists-to-be" with non-activist students in the same population group. regarding students' The instruments used secured information interests, achievements, goals, competencies, self-concept and personalities. The sample group consisted of 5,129 students at 29 institutions that were administered both an initial freshman survey in 1964 and a follow-up survey after their sophomore year. differences reported were significant at the The .001 level. Of the analysis and findings made by Baird in his s t u d y , the following represents those findings that are directly related to this study. Three checklists regarding estimated family income, experiences and places visited and household items 'museums and art g a l l erys), (books and artistic tools) information relative to the family background, provided i.e. socio­ economic status and intellectual and esthetic pursuits. B a i r d ’s analysis did not indicate reviewed) (as did the other studies that student activists were from families with higher incomes, but he did find that intellectually and 21 esthetically stimulating experiences were fostered by their p a r e n t s . Checklists regarding h igh school out-of-class activity requested information relative to leadership positions held and intellectual and esthetic involvement by students. Baird found that student activists held more leadership positions than non-activist students; and that they experienced more non-academic achievement. This is supported via an analysis of responses to other self-rating scales whereby student activists describe themselves as esthetically talented and experienced leaders. Compared to non-activist students, activists place a higher value on being w ell read. In reference to political events and activities, self-rating scales regarding goals and aspirations indicate student activists are more concerned about being informed and knowledgeable than non-activist students. An analysis of self-rating scales relative to self-concept reveals that, compared to non-activist students, activists describe themselves as more self- confident regarding a range of traits, e.g. speaking ability, sociability, writing ability and expressiveness. Self-rating scales relative to goals and aspirations and self-concept illustrate the importance to student activists, of helping others. In addition 22 to this being a goal of student activists, as per their rating, they also describe themselves as being more understanding and sensitive to the needs of others. The student activists studied by Baird are distinguished by their talent, intellectuality and leadership. These findings support the overall hypotheses of this study. Robert Liebert, a New York Psychiatrist and parttime consultant and teacher at Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , conducted a study of students participating in the "Liberation" movement at that University in 1968. Students involved in this confrontation took over several campus buildings to protest various university educational and socio-political policies and p r a c t i c e s . The objective 21 of Liebert*s "Firehouse Research" was to test his hypotheses that ". . . the political behavior of each student was the outcome of a constellation of interacting forces-character structure, value systems, responses to the unconscious and conscious meaning of the particular t radical action undertaken, and the external reality of the immediate sociopolitical situation." 21 22 Ibid., p. 7. Liebert defines "Firehouse Research" as what takes place w hen a social crisis erupts unexpectedly and the researcher races out and studies it as best he can, with no prior plan for the project. 22 I b i d . , p. 7. 23 Liebert's sample groups were drawn from the student population and consisted of three categories of students: active radicals or militants, or antimilitants, and nonactivists. active antiradicals Information about these students was obtained via direct interviews by Liebert, clinical descriptions provided by other thera­ pists, Term Papers written by students in the sample g r o u p s , and data from the university r e c o r d s . The follow­ ing breakdown provides the number of students in each category. Papers Clinical Descriptions 34 5 42 2 7 1 14 23 21 Interviews Active Radicals Active Antiradicals Nonactivists The direct interviews and clinical descriptions reflect information obtained via the traditional psychoanalytically oriented interview, behavior during the crisis; focusing on the students' the relationship of the student's actions to his past, family, social relationships, present and future; and ways the student felt he changed as a result of the experience. The term papers reflected students descriptive behavior during the crisis and political rhetoric. 24 Before discussing Liebert*s findings that are relevant to this study, certain limitations of his research effort must be identified. First, no systematic method of identifying students for inclusion in the sample, and collecting and maintaining data was used. randomness of the sample is questionable, As such, any and the data, from which conclusions have been developed, is unavailable for objective evaluation by other researchers. Secondly, the passage of time (April 30, 1968 to July 31, 19 68) from incident to final interviews, as it effected the perceptions and interpretations of both the researcher and the students, is unknown. Background Data Liebert identified differential background characteristics between w h i t e and black students involved in the co n f rontation. White students (79%) tended to be from educationally and socioeconomically privileged backgrounds whereas black students (72%) tended to be from educationally and socioeconomically less privileged families. The majority of participants in the c o n f ronta­ tion were sophomores and juniors yet the future vocational choice of w h i t e students was unclear, although they expressed academic interests in the Humanities and Social Sciences. On the other hand, a majority of the black students were not interested in the humanities and social sciences but rather in the sciences and mathematics. 25 University administrators and faculty members expressed the feeling that those students involved in the confrontation were academically superior to the non­ activist students and that the leadership in the former group was far superior in number and quality to that in the latter group. There was apparently no racial distinc­ tions in this regard. Students and Family Liebert1s analysis of student and family relation­ ships was concerned primarily w i t h their interactions as related to this crisis rather than the historical or child-rearing relationship. In regard to the latter however, he indicated an agreement with the findings of other studies related to child-rearing practices. As a result of his analysis of the student and family interactions regarding this situation, Liebert observed that the calibre of this interaction reflected the sociopolitical ethic of the student; and that these students could be classified as either "idealistic" or "Aihilistic" in terms of their sociopolitical philosophy. From the perspective of a continuum, students at the 'idealistic' pole would: a. emphasize programs w i t h "realistic" and negotiable goals 26 b. not pursue violence and disruptive tactics as sources of psychological gratification c. have the capacity to empathize with the oppressed and powerless d. have sources of pleasure and relatedness apart from political activity e. maintain a humanistic credo and follow it in his daily life In contrast, students at the 'nihilistic* pole would: a. offer no programs for constructive change b. focus his planning on violence and disruption as ends in themselves, and as sources of pleasure if achieved c. relate to and use people as pawns in a political struggle d. be obsessed with issues of politics and race to the exclusion of other relationships, i n t e r e s t s , and pleasures e. * totally mask dreams of w h a t might be w ith rage at what is and deny anything positive in order to maintain an essentially paranoid view. It should be noted that rarely, 23 if ever, will anyone be found at the polar extremes in their sociopolitical behavior. 23Ibid., p. 169. 27 Idealistic student activists tended to be from families where the parents expressed their feelings and concerns regarding the student's involvement but the student had the right to make the final decision. Nihilistic student activists tended to be from families where the parents opposed to the end the student's participation in the con f ron ta t i o n . In all instances, the parents expressed concern about the students academic future and safety. However, the more successful and educated parents were primarily concerned about the substantive issues and legitimacy of the tactics involved in the confrontation and the less successful and educated parents were concerned about the personal consequences that might have resulted from involvement in the confrontation. Although this analysis was b a s e d on student and parents interaction regarding the "liberation" incident, the intra-family relations as attributed must be significantly related to the child-rearing atmosphere ofl the two types of homes. In other words, we can assume that the family interaction attributed to the idealistic student activists home, e.g. a sharing of opinions and concerns by parents and student with the student being responsible for making the decision, has to be character­ istic of the kind of child-rearing atmosphere within which the student was raised. 28 Individual Factors in Radical Activism As a result of his study, Liebert expresses the belief that the political actions of student activists are directly related to individual and socio-politicalhistorical factors. Included in the individual factors are: a. individual character-an outgrowth of parentchild interaction atmosphere b. value orientation-derived from the individual's family and social origins c. responses to the nature of the radical action-in this instance, the "Liberation" crisis. Included in the socio-political-historical factors are: a. the external sociopolitical situation-the capacity of the object of protest to change in order to meet the needs of the protesting group b. ^ the psychohistorical context-the experiences shared by the protesting group that shape their political philosophy, life style and psychological integration. The composite influences of these factors thus shape the sociopolitical behavior of the student activists that determine their position within the idealistic to nihilistic continuum. 29 Summary As indicated at the outset of this chapter, the results of studies concerning student activists have yielded consistent findings regarding their background and individual characteristics. The two general reviews of several studies and the review of Baird's study emphasizes these characteristics. Student activists tend to be the offspring of more educated and socioeconomically privileged parents than do nonactivist students. These parents tend to raise their children in atmospheres that reflect more democratic and egalitarian relationships than do parents of nonactivist students. well as the offspring, Furthermore, these parents, as tend to be more intellectual, esthetic and theoretical in perspective than do nonactivist students and their parents. The review of Liebert's study provides the theo­ retical perspective from which activists can be identified based on their sociopolitical philosophy. A student's sociopolitical behavior is dependent upon the composite influences of individual factors and socio-politicalhistorical factors, and the manifestation of this behavior provides for the classification of student activists along an 'idealistic to nihilistic' continuum. 30 Studies of student activists indicate the b e n e f i ­ ciaries of changes resulting from their protest efforts are, more often than not, nonparticipants in the activities. Liebert has suggested that activists at the ’’idealistic" pole of the continuum emphasize constructive and realistic programs, are essentially non-violent, are empathetic toward the oppressed and powerless and are humanistic in their life styles. The programs of student volunteers and their interest in helping others are reflective of the above mentioned characteristics. As such, I feel student volunteers can be characterized as "constructive-idealistic" student activists. It is from this theoretical base that the major hypotheses of this study is made, that MSU Student Volunteers are more closely related to student activists than to MSU Non-Volunteer Students in terms of individual and background characteristics. The results of this study will be the identification of a profile of individual and background characteristics of Michigan State University Student Volunteers and the relationship of this profile to Michigan State University Non-Volunteer Students and student activists. In addition to the study findings, other questions for further study will surface. For example, what are the characteristics of students that volunteer for specific programs? How does the volunteer experience effect the educational, professional and personal growth of students? CHAPTER III METHOD Sample The population from which the two samples were drawn consisted of all the first-term freshmen entering Michigan State University, Fall Quarter, 1972. The MSU Student Volunteer sample included 108 students from the population group that made application to and joined the MSU Volunteer Bureau within three weeks after the quarter began. The MSU Non-Volunteer Student sample included 171 students randomly selected from the remaining students in the population group. The following chart provides demographic data relative to the sampled students. With the exception of sex, there is a tremendous similarity between MSU Student Volunteers and Non-Volunteer Students, relative to demographic characteristics. Female student volunteers constitute 80% of that group as compared to 51% of the Non-Volunteer Students. Measures The MSU Office of Evaluation Services developed and administered questionnaire surveys to all entering 31 32 TABLE 3.1.— Demographic characteristics of the samples. student MSU Student Volunteers MSU Non-Volunteer Students Age: Only 1 student over 19 years of age Only 1 student over 19 years of age Sex: Male 24 Female 84 Male 83 Female 88 Race: White 97 Black 9 Oriental 1 Chicano 0 White 155 Black 14 Oriental 1 Chicano 0 Residence: Michigan 92 U.S. (non-Mich.) Foreign 0 Marital Status: Single 10 7 Married 1 16 Michigan 148 U.S. (non-Mich.) Foreign 1 22 Single 171 Married 0 first-term Freshman Fall quarter 1971. These inventories were designed to obtain information from each student regarding their background and personal history, opinions and views, and expectations. The objective of this effort was to obtain specific data on MSU students for the purpdse of understanding them better and improving educational programs. Although reliability figures are not available for the inventories used, it should be noted that they were developed by experts in the MSU Office of Evaluation Services. Instruments developed in this office have also been used by others. 33 Information obtained from these surveys was used in this study to test the hypotheses. Of the 365 questions asked in the questionnaire surveys, 152 were relevant to this study. Some of the questions were combined to form scales which measured variables of interest. Other questions were analyzed separately. Design The students in both sample groups were all Fall Quarter 19 71 first-term freshmen and information was available from their responses to the questionnaire surveys administered by the MSU Office of Evaluation Services. Selected items in the survey were identified and the responses analyzed to provide information relative to the hypotheses of the study. The responses in each sample were compared to determine any profile differences between the two groups relative to the profile character­ istics of student activists. The profile characteristics of the student a c t i vists, as determined by an extensive review of the literature, indicated t h e y : a. are from families with high incomes and professional occupations b. are the offspring of intellectual and aesthetic oriented parents c. are raised in democratic and egalitarian house­ hold atmospheres 34 d. held leadership positions in high school and had experienced intellectual and aesthetic accomplishments "out-of-class". e. are well informed about political affairs f. are interested in helping others. Testable Hypothesis The major hypotheses tested in this study concerns the similarity between MSU Student Volunteers and student activists (as per related research) being significantly greater than the similarity between MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer Students. It was hypothesized that MSU Student Volunteers have profile characteristics that are more similar to student activists than to MSU NonVolunteer Students. More specifically, MSU Student Volunteers moreso than MSU Non-Volunteer Students: are from high socio-economic status backgrounds; perceive their parents as being more devoted to intellectual and esthetic pursuits; perceive their households as being more democratic and antiauthoritarian; perceive their parents as participants in selected civic activities; held more leadership positions in high school; enjoyed selected 'out-of-school* experiences and accomplishments; participated in, and/or appreciated more intellectual and esthetic activities and events; are better informed about political events; are more selfconfident; and are more interested in helping other people. 35 Analysis The hypotheses were tested by coinparing the responses of MSU Student Volunteers to the responses of MSU Non-Volunteer Students as related to the profile characteristics of student activists. An analysis of the selected responses was made by either a t-test or a Chi-Square test of independence. In both cases, an .05 level of significance was needed to reject the null hy p o these s . Summary Of the Fall Quarter 19 71 first-term freshmen entering Michigan State University, 108 students that joined the MSU Volunteer Bureau within three weeks after the quarter began were compared to 171 MSU Non-Volunteer Students randomly selected from the population group. Using the responses to selected items on instruments developed and administered by the MSU Office of Evaluation Services, profile characteristics were compared to v determine the degree of similarity between MSU Student Volunteers and student activists as compared to the degree of similarity between MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer S t u d e n t s . Either a Chi-Square or t-test at the .05 level of significance was used to determine the acceptance or rejection of the hypotheses. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA A N D RESULTS In this chapter, the data obtained from the items selected for study will be presented and analyzed. Each hypotheses is stated and there is elaboration on the data relative to the hypotheses. will be presented also. Additional findings of interest A summary of findings at the end of this chapter indicates whether the hypotheses was accepted or not accepted. Hypothesis 1 That MSU student volunteers are from higher socio-economic status backgrounds than n o n ­ volunteer students, i.e. family income, professional occupations and educational achievement. Three inventory items were selected to test for significant differences in educational achievement and family income. Student responses regarding their fathers and mothers educational achievement are presented in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. A higher percentage of the fathers of MSU Student Volunteers had post-graduate degrees 36 (25%) than did the 37 TABLE 4.1— Analysis of responses to the question, "What is the highest level of formal education obtained ______by your father?" . ____ ____ Student Volunteers Non-Volunteer Students Post-Graduate Degree 27 (25%) 28 (16%) College Degree 22 (20%) 47 (28%) Some College 21 (20%) 29 (17%) H.S. Graduate 21 (20%) 39 (23%) Some H.S. 11 (10%) 18 (11%) Grammar School or less Chi-Square 4.434; 5 ( 5%) 107 (100%) 8 ( 5%) 169 (100%) 5 degrees of freedom; not significant TABLE 4.2.— Analysis of responses to the question, "What is the highest level of formal education obtained by your mother?". Student Volunteers Post-Graduate Degree 8 ( 7%) Non-Volunteer Students 11 ( 6%) College Degree 23 (22%) 37 (22%) Some College 28 (26%) 37 (22%) H *S. Graduate 39 (36%) 73 (43%) 5 ( 5%) 11 ( 6%) Some H.S. Grammar School or less Chi-Square 5.304; 4 ( 4%) 107 (100%) 5 degrees of freedom; 1 ( 1%) 170 (100%) not significant 38 fa+-'.ers of MSU Non-Volunteer Students both fathers and mothers, (16%). However, for the percentage difference between the two sample groups, w ith reference to college degrees and above, was only 1% in the hypothesized direction. The difference between the two groups was not statistically s i g n i f i c a n t . Student responses regarding estimated parental income for the previous year yielded the income distri­ bution presented in Table 4.3. student volunteers A higher percentage of (13%) were from families with incomes over $30,000 as compared to (9%) of the Non-Volunteer Students. It should be noted, however, that 50% of the students in both samples were from homes with incomes of $12,000 or more. The difference was not statistically significant. Data regarding parents occupations was available from the survey. Appendix A) Of 46 occupations identified, (see 2 3 were selected in terms of their professional status and a frequency distribution of responses yielded the data presented in Table 4.4. A higher percentage of Sample A parents were professionals B parents (21%). signific a n t . (29%) than were Sample The difference, however, was not 39 TABLE 4.3.— Analysis of responses to the question, "What is your best estimate of the total income last year _____________ of your parental family, before taxes?". ___ Over 30,000 25,000 to 29,999 Student Volunteers Non-Volunteer Students 12 12 (9%) (13%) 5 < 5%) 9 ( 6%) 20,000 to 24,999 17 (17%) 23 (16%) 15,000 to 19,999 14 (15%) 26 (18%) 12,500 to 14,999 12 (13%) 19 (14%) 10,000 to 12,499 15 (16%) 25 (18%) 8,000 to 9,999 11 (11%) 15 (11%) 6,000 to 7,999 6 ( 6%) 3 ( 2%) 4,000 to 5,999 4 ( 4%) 6 ( 4%) less than 4,000 0 ( 0%) 3 ( 2%) 96 (100%) 5 degrees of freedom; Chi-square 4.434; 141 (100%) not significant TABLE 4.4.— Analysis of responses regarding parental occupations. Professional - 4.,- - - .. ■ — ■ Non-Professional ■ Student Volunteers 31 (29%) 77 (71%) Non-Volunteer Students 36 (21%) 134 (79%) Chi-Square 2.046; 1 degree of freedom; not significant 40 Although parents of MSU Student Volunteers did tend to have achieved higher levels of education; to have higher incomes; and to have more professional occupations than did parents of MSU Non-Volunteer Students, the differences were not statistically significant, and Hypothesis 1 was not accepted. Hypothesis 2 That MSU Student Volunteers perceive their parents as being more devoted to intellectual and esthetic pursuits than do MSU Non-Volunteer Students. Inventory items that requested information regard­ ing the number and type of literature and/or publications available in the students homes were analyzed to determine student perceptions of parental intellectual orientation. Table 4.5 provides data regarding the number of books available in the home. One or more bookcases full of books were available in the homes of 77% of the MSU Student Volunteers and 75% of the MSU Non-Volunteer Stu d e n t s . None of the response categories had a percentage difference v greater than 2%, therefore, the difference was not statistically significant. 41 TABLE 4.5.— Analysis of responses to the question "How many books, not including textbooks, do you and your family have at home?". Non-Volunteer Student Students Volunteers 3 or more bookcases 55 (51%) 83 (49%) 2 bookcases 23 (21%) 38 (22%) 1 bookcase full 27 (25%) 42 (24%) a few books 2 ( 2 %) 7 < 4%) none or very few 1 ( 1%) 1 ( 1%) 108 Chi-Square 1.2 46; (100%) 171 (100%) 4 degrees of freedom; not significant Table 4,6 includes information regarding the types of publications that were found in the homes of respon­ dents. There was no difference in the availability of weekly news magazines (Time and N e w s w e e k ) . -Volunteer Students, however, literary Look) (Saturday Review) had a higher percentage of and lighter reading publications available in their homes Respectively) MSU Non- (54% and 9 4% than did MSU Student Volunteers 92% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . (Life and (49% and These differences were not statistically significant. Three inventory items that requested information regarding selected aesthetic activities were analyzed. 42 TABLE 4.6.— Analysis of resonses to the questions regarding the availability of types of periodicals in the h o m e . Student Volunteers Weekly News Magazine (TIME) Yes 74 (69%) 118 (69%) No 34 (31%) 53 (31%) 108 Chi-Square .007; Non-Volunteer Students (100%) 171 (100%) 1 degree of freedom; not significant Literary Type Magazine (SATURDAY REVIEW) Yes No 53 93 (54%) (49%) 78 55 (51%) 108 (100%) 171 (46%) (100%) Chi-Square 2.209; 2 degrees of freedom; not significant Lighter Reading (LOOK,LIFE) Yes No (92%) 161 (94%) 9 ( 8%) 10 ( 6%) 99 108 Chi-Square (100%) 171 (100%) .644; 1 degree of freedom; not significant Table 4.7 includes information regarding the availability of instruments for the study of classical music in the \ home. A higher percentage of MSU Student V o l u n t e e r s ' homes (70%) as compared to (60%) of MSU Non-Volunteer homes had such musical instruments available. Students* However, this difference was not statistically significant. 43 TABLE 4.7.— Analysis of responses to a question regarding the availability of musical instruments for the serious study of classical music. Non-Volunteer Students Student Volunteers Yes 76 (70%) 102 (60%) No 32 (30%) 69 (40%) 108 (100%) 171 (100%) Chi-Square S . 281; 2 degrees of freedom; not significant Table 4.8 includes data relative to parental a t t e n ­ dance or participation in music and/or dramatic performances A higher percentage of the parents of MSU Student Volunteers (72%) frequently and occasionally participate in or attend these performances as compared to (60%) M S U Non-Volunteer Students. of the parents of This difference was not statistically significant. TABLE 4.8.— Analysis of responses to a question regarding parental attendance or participation in music itic performances. Non-Volunteer Student Students Volunteers Frequently 43 (40%) 50 Occasionally 35 (32%) 51 (30%) Rarely 18 (17%) 39 (23%) N o t at all 10 ( 9%) 25 (15%) 2 ( 2%) 4 ( 2%) 169 (100%) Not available 108 Chi-Square 5.152; (100%) (30%) 4 degrees of freedom; not significant 44 Family visits to museums or Art Galleries is illustrated in Table 4.9. Although a higher percentage of the families of MSU Student Volunteers (13%) as compared to 9% of the families of MSU Non-Volunteer Students visit these institutions frequently, this differ­ ence was not statistically significant. TABLE 4.9.— Analysis of resonses to a question regarding parental visits to museums or art galleries. Student Volunteers Non-volunteer Students Frequently 15 (13%) 16 Occas ionally 27 (25%) 53 (32%) Rarely 32 (30%) 52 Not at all 32 (30%) 44 (26%) 2 ( 2 %) 3 ( 2%) Not available 108 Chi-Square 2.2409; \ (100%) 168 ( 9%) (31%) (100%) 4 degrees of freedom; not significant The data presented in Tables 4.5 through 4.9 indicated MSU Student Volunteers tended to perceive their parents as being more intellectually and esthetically oriented than did MSU Non-Volunteer Students. However, the differences in perceptions were not statistically significant and Hypothesis 2 was not accepted. 45 Hypothesis 3 That M S U Student Volunteers perceive their households as being more democratic and anti­ authoritarian than do MSU Non-Volunteer Students. Three inventory items were analyzed to determine students perceptions of the atmosphere in their homes as related to the concerns articulated in this hypothesis. The first item concerned parents policy on raising children and their practice in absolute control with little impact by the children to a practice of great permissive­ ness . The second item concerned the degree of frequency that students consulted with their parents regarding important personal decisions. The third item concerned students perceptions of the degree of unity in their families. The responses to these three items were combined to form a scale measuring democratic and anti-authoritarian household atmosphere. The mean difference for the two groups on this variable was tested by a t-test analysis. The difference was found to be significant and the hypotheses was accepted. (Table 4.10) TABLE 4.10.— Analysis of combined responses to selected questions to determine student perceptions of their home relative to an anti-authoritarian or democratic household atmosphere Frequency Mean SD T 2.085 Student Volunteers 103 8.825 1.574 Non-Volunteer Students 167 8.419 1.542 Significance Level .036 47 Hypothesis 4 That MSU Student Volunteers perceive their parents as participants in selected civic activities moreso than do MSU Non-Volunteer Students. Five inventory items were analyzed to test this hypotheses. Table 4.11 includes data from each of the five items with reference to students perceptions of parental participation in selected civic activities. With regard to PTA meetings and community o r volunteer services, MSU Student Volunteers' parents parti­ cipated in these activities at a more frequent rate (62% and 56% respectively), than did MSU Non-Volunteer Students'parents (52%) and 41% respectively). Regarding School Board Meetings and political rallies, the tendency is reversed. The frequency of participation in City Council Meetings is about equal. The degree of difference between students perceptions in MSU Student Volunteers and Non-Volunteer Students with respect to parental p a r t i c i p a ­ tion in selected civic activities was insignificant and tfie hypotheses was not accepted. Hypothesis 5 That MSU Student Volunteers held more leader­ ship positions in high school than MSU NonVolunteer Students. TABLE 4.11.— Analysis ef responses to questions regarding parental participation in selected civic activities. Frequently PTA Meetings Student Volunteers 33 Non-Volunteer Students 45 (27%) Chi-Square 3.726; (31%) Ocasionally Rarely Not at all Not. Avail. 32 (31%) 22 (21%) 16 (15%) 2 ( 2%) 42 40 (24%) 31 (19%) 9 ( 5%) (25%) 4 degrees of freedom; not significant Sch. Bd. Meet. Student Volunteers Non-Volunteer Students 9 ( 8%) 21 (19%) 24 (22%) 47 (34%) 7 ( 7%) 25 (15%) 29 (17%) 29 (23%) 68 (40%) 8 ( 5%) Chi-Square 21994; 4 degrees of freedom; not significant City Council Student Volunteers Non-Volunteer Students Chi-Square 5 { 5%) 14 (13%) 27 (25%) 56 (52%) 6 ( 5%) 12 ( 7%) 19 (11%) 42 (25%) 85 (50%) 11 ( 7%) .949; 4 degrees of freedom; not significant TABLE 4.11.— Continued, Frequently Occas ionally Rarely Not iat all Not. Avail. Political Rallies Student Volunteers 3 { 3%) 8 ( 7%) 16 (15%) 72 (68%) 7 ( 7%) Non-Volunteer Students 5 ( 3%) 13 ( 8%) 34 (20%) 107 (64%) 8 ( 5%) 17 (16%) 1 ( 1%) 45 (27%) 3 ( 2%) Chi-Square 1.527; 4 degrees of freedom; not significant Community or Vol. Serv. Student Volunteers 17 (16%) 43 Non-Volunteer Students 22 (13%) 47 (28%) (40%) 29 (27%) 50 (30%) Chi-Square 7.255; 4 degrees of freedom; not significant 50 This hypotheses was tested by analyzing the responses to six inventory items concerning leadership positions held by students while in high school (Table 4.12). The data indicated MSU Student Volunteers were feature writers, editors or assistant editors and elected to student offices in high school more than were MSU NonVolunteer Students. The reverse was true regarding the organizing of student or community service groups. Only with regard to the election to student offices were 50% or more of the students in either group involved. The differences between the two groups were not statistically significant and the hypotheses was not accepted. Hypothesis 6 That MSU Student Volunteers have enjoyed selected "out-of-class” experiences and accomplishments more than MSU Non-Volunteer Students. Five inventory items were analyzed to determine the involvement of respondents in selected activities 4.13). (Table A higher percentage of MSU Student Volunteers \ finished works of art (53%) (59%) and wrote creative stories them did MSU Non-Volunteer Students respectively). A higher percentage of MSU Non-Volunteer Students, however, won art competition awards (53% and 43% (14%) and literary (11%); and participated in speech or debate contests (21%) than did MSU Student Volunteers respectively). (11%, 10% and 17% There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups and the hypotheses was not accepted. TABLE 4,12.— Analysis of resonses to questions regarding leadership positions held by them in high school. Had experience 2 times or more or more than a year Had experience once or less than 1 year Feature Writer Yearbook, newspaper annual, etc. Student Volunteers 21 (19%) 14 (13%) Non-Volunteer Students 28 (17%) 12 ( 7%) Chi-Square 3.873; Not had experience 73 (68%) 128 (76%) 3 degrees of freedom; not significant Editor or Asst. Ed. School Newspaper Student Volunteers 10 ( 9%) 11 (10%) Non-Volunteer Students 16 (10%) 12 ( 7%) 87 (81%) 139 (83%) Chi-Square 1.416; 3 degrees of freedom; not significant Organized a student or community service group Student Volunteers 12 (11%) 20 (19%) Non-Volunteer Students 22 (13%) 28 (17%) Chi-Square .340; 2 degrees of freedom; not significant 74 (70%) 116 (70%) TABLE 4.12.— Continued™ Had experience 2 times or more or more than a year Had experience once or less than 1 year Not had experience Elected to one or more student offices Student Volunteers 34 (32%) 23 (22%) 48 (46%) Non-Volunteer Students 50 (30%) 38 (23%) 79 (47%) Chi-Square 4.074; 4 degrees of freedom; not significant Served on Student Faculty Committee Student Volunteers 12 (11%) 23 (22%) 70 (67%) Non-Volunteer Students 19 51 (31%) 96 (58%) (11%) Chi-Square 2.704; 4 degrees of freedom; not significant Elected President of Special Interest Group Student Volunteers 11 (11%) 18 (17%) 76 (72%) Non-Volunteer Students 12 ( 7%) 26 (16%) 129 (77%) Chi-Square 2.806; 3 degrees of freedom; not significant TABLE 4.13.— Analysis of responses to questions regarding their involvement in selected out-of-class experiences while in high school. Had experience 2 times or more than 1 year Had experience 1 time or 1 year or less No experience Finished Work of Art Student Volunteers 45 {42%) 18 (17%) 45 (41%) Non-Volunteer Students 52 (31%) 36 (22%) 79 (47%) Chi-Square 3.483; 3 degrees of freedom; not significant Wrote Creative Writing Original Story Student Volunteers 29 (27%) 28 (26%) 51 (47%) Non-Volunteer Students 37 (22%) 35 (21%) 96 Chi-Square 3.111; 3 degrees of freedom; not significant Won prize or award in art competition Student Volunteers 3(3%) Non-Volunteer Students Chi-Square 3.642; (57%) 10 { 6%) 8 ( 8%) 13 ( 8%) 4 degrees of freedom; not significant 95 (89%) 144 (86%) TABLE 4.13.— Continued. Had experience 2 times or more than 1 year In Speech, Debate Contest Student Volunteers 7 ( 7%) Non-Volunteer Students Chi-Square 2.217; 12 ( 7%) Had experience 1 time or 1 year or less 11 (10%) 13 (14%) No experience 87 (83%) 133 (79%) 3 degrees of freedom; not significant Won Literary Prize or Award Student Volunteers 2 ( 2%) 8 ( 8%) 95 (90%) Non-Volunteer Students 4 { 2%) 15 ( 9%) 149 (89%) Chi-Square 1.803; 3 degrees of freedom; not significant 55 Hypothesis 7 That MSU Student Volunteers participate in, and/or appreciate more, intellectual and esthetic activities and events than do MSU Non-Volunteer Students. Two inventory items were analyzed to determine students participation in, or appreciation of, intellectual activities and e v e n t s . The first item concerned the frequency of use of the public library at home and the second i tem referred to frequency of attendance at serious lectures . The responses to these two items were combined to form a scale measuring "Participation In and Appreciation of Intellectual A c t i v i t i e s ” . The mean differences for the two groups on t: ..a variable was tested by a t-test analysis and found to be significant (Table 4.14). Four inventory items were analyzed to determine student participation in, or appreciation of, esthetic activities and events. The first item concerned students knowledge of the history of painting. The second and third items referred to students enjoyment of reading x poetry and pleasure derived from a live performance of classical music. The fourth item concerned humanities articles read in Scholarly Journals. The responses to these items were combined to form a scale measuring "Participation and Appreciation of Esthetic Activities" (Table 4.15). The mean difference for the two groups on this variable was tested by a t-test analysis and found to be not significant. TABLE 4,14.— Analysis of combined responses to selected questions to determine participation in, and appreciation of intellectual activities. Frequency Mean SD Student Volunteers 106 4.830 1.222 Non-Volunteer Students 167 4.305 1.408 T 3,154 Significance Level ,002 TABLE 4.15.— Analysis of combined responses to selected questions to determine student participation i n , and appreciation of aesthetic activities. Frequency Mean SD Student Volunteers 107 7.523 1.808 Non-Volunteer Students 171 7.081 2.021 T Significant Level 1.843 .063 57 The acceptance or rejection of this hypothesis was complicated by the significance of the findings regard­ ing intellectual activities and the non-significance of findings regarding aesthetic activities. A n individual Chi-Square analysis of each of the items regarding aesthetic activities indicated that two were significant humanities articles items) (poetry and and two were not significant (history of painting and classical music i t e m s ) . With 50% of the items analyzed yielding a statistically significant difference between the two student groups the hypothesis was accepted. Hypothesis 8 That MSU Student Volunteers are better informed about political events than MSU Non-Volunteer Students. Six items were analyzed to determine the validity of this hypothesis. Table 4.16 provides information regarding students interest in political affairs and issues. Only 6% and 10% of MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer Students respectively were not interested. The remaining percentage of respondents in both samples are equally represented as to their degree of interest. The differences here were not statistically significant. 58 TABLE 4.16.— Analysis of responses to the question, "How interested are you in political issues and political affairs?". Student Volunteers Non-Volunteer Students 17 (16%) 29 (17%) Quite interested, but not active 38 (36%) 66 (39%) Occasionally interested 45 (42%) 58 (34%) Very interested, active 7 ( 6%) Not interested 108 Chi-Square 2.551; (100%) 18 (10%) 169 (100%) 3 degrees of freedom; not significant Tafcle 4.17 students are about yields information regarding how informed political affairs and issues. A higher percentage of MSU Non-Volunteer Students were fairly well or very well informed Student Volunteers. (61%) as compared to 48% of MSU This represents a tendency in the opposite direction of the hypothesis and this difference was not statistically significant. An analysis was made of four items reflecting student efforts to become better informed about political affairs and issues (Table 4.18). In neither of the activi­ ties identified was there more than a 6% difference between both groups as to their having or not having had the particular experience. 59 TABLE 4.17.— Analysis of responses to the question, "How informed do you presently consider yourself in regard to political a f f a i r s ? " . S tudent Volunteers Very well informed Non-Volunteer S tuden ts 7 { 6%) 16 ( 9%) Fairly well informed 45 (42%) 87 (52%) N ot very well informed 49 (46%) 56 (33%) Very uninformed 7 ( 6%) 108 Chi-Square 4.6 75; (100%) 10 169 ( 6%) (100%) 3 degrees of freedom; not significant The difference between the two groups relative to the analysis of data in Tables 4.16, 4.17 and 4.18 indicates no statistically significant difference and this hypothesis was not accepted. Hypothesis 9 That MSU Student Volunteers are more selfconfident than MSU Non-Volunteer Students. Six items were analyzed to determine the validity of this self-concept hypothesis. Five items were analyzed that concerned students self-comparison with peers (Table 4.19). higher MSU Student Volunteers rated themselves (above average and Top 10%) regarding academic ability, leadership ability and social self-confidence. TABLE 4.18.— Analysis of responses to questions regarding student efforts to become informed about political affairs and issues. Had experience 2 times or more or over a year Had experience 1 time or 1 year or less Not had experience Interviewed people of different backgrounds regarding political issues Student Volunteers 12 (11%) 24 (23%) 70 (66%) Non-Volunteer Students 16 40 (24%) 109 (66%) Chi-Square (10%) .876; 3 degrees of freedom; not significant Contact local official about community problem Student Volunteers Non-Volunteer Students Chi-Square 4.464; 6 ( 6%) 20 (12%) 34 (32%) 65 (62%) 49 (29%) 99 (59%) (44%) 3 degrees of: freedom; not significant Read 1 or more books about politics Student Volunteers 22 (21%) 37 (35%) 46 Non-Volunteer Students 34 (20%) 60 (36%) 74 (44%) Chi-Square ,758; 4 degrees of freedom; not significant TABLE 4.18.— Continued. Had experience 2 times or more or over a year Talked with elected officials about politics Student Volunteers Non-Volunteer Students Chi-Square 4.051; 7 { 7%) 15 ( 9%) Had experience 1 time or 1 year or less 26 (25%) 28 (17%) 3 degrees of freedom; not significant Not had experience 72 (68%) 128 (74%) TABLE 4.19.— Analysis of responses to questions regarding student self-comparisons with peers. Top 10% Above Average Average Below Average Academic Ability Student Volunteers 21 (19%) 67 (62%) 19 (19%) 1 ( 1%) Non-Volunteer Stu. 27 (16%) 39 (23%) 1 ( 1%) Chi-Square 1.582; 100 (60%) 3 degrees of freedom; not significant Leadership Ability Student Volunteers 11 (10%) 43 (40%) 44 (41%) 10 ( 9%) Non-Volunteer Stu. 23 53 (32%) 70 (42%) 21 (12%) Chi-Square 2.570; Lowest 10% (14%) 3 degrees of freedom; not significant Public Speaking Ability Student Volunteers 7 ( 6%) 22 (21%) 43 (40%) 10 ( 9%) 6 ( 6%) Non-Volunteer Stu. 11 ( 6%) 41 (25%) 66 21 (12%) 1 ( 1%) (40%) Chi-Square 6.840; 4 degrees of freedom; not significant TABLE 4.19.— Continued. Top 10% Above Average Average Below Average Self-Confidence Intellectual Student Volunteers 10 ( 9%) 44 (41%) 46 (43%) 7(7%) Non-Volunteer Stu. 17 (10%) 68 (41%) 74 (44%) 7(4%) Chi-Square 1.420; Lowest 10% 1 ( 1%) 4 degrees of freedom; not significant Self-Confidence Social Student Volunteers 7 [ 7%) 28 (26%) 45 (42%) 24 (23%) 2 ( 2%) Non-Volunteer Stu. 10 ( 6%) 36 (22%) 39 (54%) 29 (17%) 2 ( 1%) Chi-Square 3.378; 4 degrees of freedom; not significant 64 MSU Non-Volunteer Students rated themselves higher regard­ ing Public Speaking ability and intellectual self-confidence. The differences between the two groups on any of the items was not statistically significant. A single item regarding self-assessment without a peer reference was analyzed (Table 4.20) . higher percentage of MSU Student Volunteers compared to MSU Non-Volunteer Students (32%) Although a (36%) as indicated a certainty of graduation probability, the difference was not statistically significant. This hypothesis was not accepted. TABLE 4.20.— Analysis of responses to the question, "How likely is it that you will graduate from MSU?". Student Volunteers Non-Volunteer S tudents Certain 39 (35%) 55 (32%) Very likely 32 (29%) 52 (31%) Probably 18 (17%) 39 (23%) Not certain 14 (13%) 18 Not likely Chi-Square 2.090; 5 ( 5%) (11%) 6 ( 3%) 4 degrees of freedom; not significant 65 Hypothesis 10 That MSU Student Volunteers are more interested in helping other people than MSU Non-Volunteer Students. Five inventory items were analyzed to determine students interest in helping others. The first three items requested students opinions about the need to do more regarding disadvantaged groups and urban problems (Table 4.21). A higher percentage of MSU Student Volunteers felt there was a definite or urgent need to do more regarding disadvantaged groups and urban problems than did MSU Non-Volunteer Students. However, the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. An analysis of two items regarding student experiences in helping others (Table 4.22) indicated MSU Student Volunteers had more experience helping others than did MSU Non-Volunteer Students. This difference was statistically significant. Again, accepting or not accepting this hypothesis was complicated by the significance of one aspect of the data as opposed to the non-significance of another aspect of the data. More specifically, responses indicate MSU Student Volunteers have a tendency to be more interested in helping others than do MSU Non-Volunteer Students but the difference is not statistically significant. Yet, MSU Student Volunteers have indicated past experience in helping others, more than M S U Non-Volunteer Students, and the TABLE 4.21.— Analysis of responses to questions regarding student interest in helping others, ____ 1____ = ..... ^ .......... Urgent Need Definite Need Some Need No Need Reduce Effort 1 (1%) More should be done to help disadvantaged in chronic poverty Student Volunteers 35 (33%) 55 (52%) 12 (12%) 2(2%) Non-Volunteer Students 44 (27%) 81 (49%) 31 (19%) 8 ( 5%) Chi-Square 6.357; 4 degrees of freedom; not significant More support for urban health, welfare programs Student Volunteers 22 (21%) 53 (50%) 17 (16%) 8(8%) 5 (5%) Non-Volunteer Students 29 (19%) 69 47 (28%) 16 (10%) 3 (2%) Chi-Square 7.719; (42%) 4 degrees of freedom; not significant More money spent for education and self-help programs for disadvantaged Student Volunteers 35 (33%) 49 (46%) 19 (19%) 3 ( 3%) Non-Volunteer Students 34 83 (50%) 43 (26%) 5 ( 3%) Chi-Square 6.651; (20%) 4 degrees of freedom; not significant TABLE 4.22.— Analysis of responses to questions regarding student experience in helping others. Had experience 2 times or more than 1 year Worked as volunteer aide in hospital Student Volunteers 20 Non-Volunteer Students 13 ( 8%) Chi-Square 10.722; Had experience 1 time or for less than a year (19%) Not had experience (19%) 66 (63%) 28 (17%) 127 (75%) 19 4 degrees of freedom; significant Worked as volunteer on school or civic improvement project Student Volunteers 26 (25%) 44 (42%) 35 (33%) Non-Volunteer Students 20 (12%) 59 (35%) 88 Chi-Square 14.820; 4 degrees of freedom; significant (53%) 68 difference is statistically significant. evidence, Considering this the hypothesis was accepted. Additional Findings Religious Background The literature indicated that in most studies, students of Jewish backgrounds were over represented and students of Catholic backgrounds were under-represented in terms of involvement in student activist effcrts. The data in this study supports these findings as illustrated in Table 4.23. Whereas students of Jewish backgrounds constitute 5% of MSU Non-Volunteer Students they constitute 11% of MSU Student Volunteers. Students of Catholic backgrounds constitute 34% of MSU Non-Volunteer Students and 27% of MSU Student Volunteers. TABLE 4.23.— Analysis of responses to a question regarding religious backgrounds Student Volunteers Non-Volunteer S tudents Protestants 54 (51%) 89 (54%) Catholic 29 (27%) 55 (34%) Jewish 12 (11%) 8 ( 5%) Other 10 ( 9%) 8 ( 5%) 4 ( 2%) 3 ( 2%) None 107 (100%) 163 (100%) 69 Racial Backgrounds The literature has suggested that involvement of Blacks in the student activist movement has been limited to specific issues (discimination primarily) as opposed to comprehensive involvement (racism, the war, academic freedom, student participation in academic governance, etc.). One might conclude from the above that Blacks would be under-represented in general student activist studies and this study as well. The data from this study indicates, however, that the percentage of Blacks is the same in both sample groups (Table 4.24). TABLE 4.24.— Analysis of responses to a question regarding racial background. S tudent Volunteers White 96 (90%) Non-Volunteer Students 155 (91%) Black 9 ( 8%) 14 { 8%) Span.-Amer 1 ( 1%) 0 ( 0%) Amer.-Ind. 0 ( 0%) 0 ( 0%) Oriental 1 ( 1%) 1 ( 1%) 107 (100%) 170 (100%) 70 Theoretical-Practical Orientation The literature on student activists indicate they are more theoretical than non-activist students. In addition, student activists prefer academic programs that provide for flexibility in instructional methods and procedures (independent study, e t c . ) . Two inventory items were analyzed that provided information in this regard. Table 4.25 indicates that 69% of MSU Non-Volunteer Students as compared to 64% of MSU Student Volunteers, agreed with the statement "I tend to be more practical than theoretical.” The responses indicate a tendency in the direction of previous study findings, however, the differ­ ences in this study were not statistically significant. TABLE 4.25.— Analysis of responses to the statement "I tend to be more practical than theoretical." Student Volunteers Non-Volunteer Students Definitely Agree 18 (17%) 42 (25%) Agree More than Disagree 51 (47%) 73 (44%) Disagree more than agree 27 (25%) 27 (22%) Definitely disagree 12 (11%) 14 ( 9%) 108 (100%) 166 (100%) Chi-Square 3.080; 3 degrees of freedom? not significant 71 Responding to the statement "I prefer the type of class in which the instructor specifies in detail what must be done," 81% of MSU Non-Volunteer Students agreed as compared to 65% of MSU Student Volunteers (Table 4.26) . The difference between the two groups, in this instance, was statistically significant. TABLE 4.26.— Analysis of responses to the statement, "I prefer the type of class in which the instructor specifies in detail what must be done." Student Volunteers Non-Volunteer Students Definitely Agree 26 (24%) 47 (28%) Agree More than Disagree 44 (41%) 89 Disagree More than Agree 33 (31%) 26 (15%) 5 ( 4%) 7 ( 4%) Definitely Disagree 108 Chi-Square 11.016; (100%) 169 (53%) (100%) 4 degrees of freedom; significant Summary The data obtained to test the hypotheses under consideration has been presented in this chapter. Each hypothesis was restated and the results of an analysis of the responses to the inventory items selected to d e ter­ mine the validity of the hypotheses was elaborated on. The findings were analyzed by either a Chi-Square or t-test analysis at the .05 level of significance. 72 Ten hypotheses were presented and all but three were not accepted. Additional findings w ere presented that supported findings in other studies but were not the object of this effort. Table 4.27 provides a summary of the findings as related to the specific hypotheses being accepted or not accepted. Table 4.28 provides a summary of additional findings of relevance to this study. TABLE 4.27.— Summary of findings. Hypotheses Chi-Square Test 1. That MSU Student Volunteers are from’higher socio-economic status backgrounds than Non-Volunteer Students i.e. family income, professional occupations and educational achievement. Not Accepted 2. That MSU Student Volunteers perceive their parents as being more devoted to intellectual and aesthetic pursuits than do MSU Non-Volunteer Students. Not Accepted 3. That MSU Student Volunteers perceive their households as being more democratic and anti-authoritarian than do MSU Non-Volunteer Students. 4. That MSU Student Volunteers perceive their parents as participants in selected civic activities moreso than do MSU Non-Volunteer Students, Not Accepted 5. That MSU Student Volunteers held more leadership positions in high school than MSU Non-Volunteer Students. Not Accepted 6. That MSU Student Volunteers have enjoyed selected "out-of-class" experiences and accomplishments more than MSU Non-Volunteer Students. Not Accepted t-test analysis Accepted TABLE 4.27.— Continued. Hypotheses Chi-Square Test 7. That MSU Student Volunteers participate in, and/or appreciate more, intellectual and aesthetic activities and events than MSU Non-Volunteer Students. a. Intellectual aspect of hypothesis (accepted) b. Aesthetic aspect of hypothesis {not accepted) 8. That MSU Student Volunteer? are better informed about political events than MSU Non-Volunteer Stuaer.i.. Not Accepted 9. That MSU Student Voiunteere are more self-confident than MSU Non-Volunteer Students. Not Accepted That MSU Student Volunteers are more interested in helping other people than MSU Non-Volunteer Students. a. based on opinions expressed (not accepted) b. based on experience (accepted) Accepted 10. t-test analysis Accepted TABLE 4.28.— Summary of additional findings. 1. Students from Jewish backgrounds are over-represented in MSU Student Volunteers in terms of their representation in the random sample of the population group. 2. Students from Catholic backgrounds are under-represented in MSU Student Volunteers in terms of their representation in the random sample of the population group. 3. Black students are represented in MSU Student Volunteers proportionately to their representation in the random sample of the population group; and at a percentage of the sample greater than their percentage of the University Student Population. 4. MSU Student Volunteers are more theoretical in perspective than students in the random sample of the population group. 5. MSU Student Volunteers are more agreeable to less rigid instruction methods and techniques than students in the random sample of the population group. CHAPTER V SUMMARY A N D CONCLUSIONS Summary The purpose of this study was to compare MSU Student Volunteers with MSU Non-Volunteer Students and student activists (as per related re s e a r c h ) . This comparative descriptive study had the specific objective of illustrating the degree of similarity between the background and individual characteristics of MSU Student Volunteers and student activists as compared to the degree of similarity between MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer Students. A comprehensive review of the literature has yielded consistent findings regarding the background and individual characteristics of student activists. Student activists tend to be the offspring of m ore educated and socio­ economically priviledged parents than do non-activist students. These parents tend to raise their children in atmospheres that reflect more democratic and egalitarian relationships than do parents of non-activist students. These parents, as well as their offspring, tend to be more i n t e l l e c t u a l . aesthetic and theoretical in perspective than do non-activists students and their parents. 76 77 The literature further provides the theoretical perspectives from w hich activists can be identified based on their socio-political philosophy. A student's socio­ political behavior is dependent upon the composite influences of individual factors and socio-political-historical factors, and the manifestation of this behavior provides for the classification of student activists along an "idealistic to nihilistic" continuum. It is from this theoretical base that the major hypotheses of this study is made, that MSU Student Volunteers are more closely related to student activists than to MSU Non-Volunteer Students in terms of background and individual characteristics. The instruments from which the data for this study was obtained, were developed by the MSU Office of Evalua­ tion Services. They were administered to all Fall Quarter 1971 entering first-term freshmen. This freshmen group represented the population from which the sample groups were taken: MSU Student Volunteers consisted of 108 students that made application to and joined the MSU Volunteer Bureau within three weeks after the quarter began; and MSU Non-Volunteer Students consisted of 171 students randomly selected from the remaining students in the population group. 78 From the 365 items responded to by the students in the population group, to this study. 152 were identified as relevant The responses of MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer Students were compared and where appropriate, a Chi-Square or t-test at the .05 level of significance was used to determine the acceptance or non-acceptance of the hypotheses, A t-test was used to test hypotheses 3 and 7, and the remaining hypotheses were tested via a Chi-Square analysis. Findings Hypothesis 1 Responses to the questions relative to this hypothesis indicated that more MSU Student Volunteers did come from homes where the parents had reached higher levels of formal education, earned higher incomes and were employed in professional occupations with student activists) However, (characteristics associated than did MSU Non-Volunteer Students. the difference between MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer Students was not statistically significant and therefore the hypothesis was not accepted. Hypothesis 2 This hypothesis was tested by focusing on items related to intellectual pursuits and aesthetic pursuits separately. An analysis of the number and type of books and publications available in the home yielded differences no greater than 2% between the two samples. An analysis 79 of the items relative to aesthetic pursuits indicated a greater percentage of the parents of MSU Student Volunteers pursued aesthetic concerns than did the parents of MSU Non-Volunteer Students. The difference between MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer Students, as related to these characteristics of student activists, was not statistically significant and the hypothesis was not accepted. Hypothesis 3 An analysis of items with reference to parental policy on raising children, i.e. emphasis on control; students consulting with parents on important issues; and family unity indicated a greater percentage of MSU Student Volunteers perceived their parents as being more permissive and consulted with their parents regarding important decisions than did MSU Non-Volunteer Students. The difference between MSU Student Volunteers and MSU NonVolunteer S t u d e n t s , as related to these characteristics of student activists, was statistically significant and the hypothesis was accepted. Hypothesis 4 An analysis of the data regarding this hypothesis revealed a greater percentage of parents of MSU Volunteers were involved in some of the a c t i v i t i e s , and in others the situation was reversed. The overall trend of responses 80 was not in the hypothesized direction and the difference between MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer Students, as related to this characteristic of student activists, was not statistically significant. As such, the hypothesis was not accepted. Hypothesis 5 An analysis of the data relative to leadership positions held by students in high school indicated a trend in the hypothesized direction: MSU Volunteers were elected as student officers and held more leadership positions than did MSU Non-Volunteer Students. The difference, however, between MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer Students, as related to this character­ istic of student activists, was not statistically significant and the hypothesis was not accepted. Hypothesis 6 A greater percentage of MSU Student Volunteers completed creative works than did MSU Non-Volunteer Students. However, a greater percentage of MSU Non-Volunteer Students won prizes and awards than did MSU Student Volunteers. The overall trend of responses was not in the hypothesized direction and the difference between MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer Students, as related to this characteristic of student activists, was not statistically significant. As such, the hypothesis was not accepted. 81 Hypothesis 7 To test this h y p o t h e s i s , two foci w e r e analyzed by way of selected items related to students intellectual activities and students aesthetic activities. A greater percentage of M S U Student Volunteers used the public library and a t t e n d e d serious lectures at a rate statis­ tically significant. MSU Student Volunteers were also found to participate in aesthetic activities more than MSU Non-Volunteer Students. The difference between MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer Students, as related to these characteristics of student activists, was statistically significant and the hypothesis was accepted. Hypothesis 8 An analysis of the data indicated a small percentage difference between the two groups with the M S U NonVolunteer Students represented as being m o r e interested in and better informed about political affairs. This was counter to the hypothesized direction and the difference between MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer Students, as related to this characteristic of student activists, was not statistically significant. As such, the hypothesis was not accepted. Hypothesis 9 An analysis of responses that re q u i r e d students to compare themselves to their peers indicated that a 82 greater percentage of MSU Student Volunteers rated the m ­ selves higher than MSU Non-Volunteer Students with regard to specific abilities self-confidence). (academic, leadership and social Similar results were obtained from an analysis of a self-assessment item. Although the trend of responses were in the hypothesized direction, the difference, however, between MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer S t u d e n t s , as related to this character­ istic of student activists, was not statistically signifi­ cant and the hypothesis was not accepted. Hypothesis 10 Several items were analyzed to test this hypothesis and on some items, differences between the two groups were significant, and on other items the differences between the two groups were not significant. A significantly greater percentage of MSU Student Volunteers had d e m o n ­ strated, via personal experience, others. an interest in helping The trend of responses indicated a greater percentage of MSU Student Volunteers were interested in helping others than were MSU Non-Volunteer Students. The difference between MSU Student Volunteers and MSU Non-Volunteer Students, as related to this characteristic of student activists, was statistically significant and the hypothesis was accepted. 83 Additional Findings The following represents additional findings of interest and relevant to the study. F i r s t , as indicated in the literature, activists were disproportionately over-represented by students from Jewish backgrounds and under-represented by students from Catholic backgrounds. An analysis of the data in this study revealed the same pattern with respect to MSU Student Volunteers. S e c o n d , whereas blacks are under-represented in overall activists efforts (anti-war, academic freedom, student participation in academic goverance) those efforts directed against data from this stud;, as opposed to racist practices, the reveals they are represented in the MSU Student Volunteer group and the MSU Non-Volunteer Student group at the same percentage rate. T h i r d , as indicated in the literature, student activists tend to be more theoretical and less practical than non-activist students. An analysis of the data in this study reveals a similar finding in that MSU Student Volunteers are less practical and more theoretical than MSU Non-Volunteer Students. MSU Student Volunteers also prefer more flexible instructional methods and programs than do MSU Non-Volunteer Students. This too was indicated in the literature as characteristic of student activists. 84 Conclusions The literature regarding studies of activists provided a characteristic profile that clearly differ­ entiated this group from their non-activist student classmates. Authorities on student activists have advanced theories that provide for a classification of student activists along a constructive-destructive continuum. The theoretical base from which this study was conceived posited that student volunteers reflected the activist at the constructive pole of the continuum. As such, the results of a comparative descriptive study of volunteer students and non-volunteer students would yield a characteristic profile of MSU Volunteer Students more closely resembling the profile of student activists than the profile of MSU Non-Volunteer Students. As indicated by the analysis of the data in this study, the differences between the profiles of the two groups of students, as related to activist students, were not statistically significant except for three hypotheses. More specifically, profile of MSU the characteristic Student Volunteers indicated: 1. a greater similarity to MSU Non-Volunteer Students than to student activists in terms of family socio-economic status; 2. a greater similarity to MSU Non-Volunteer Students than to student activists in terms of perceived parental devotion to intellectual and aesthetic pursuits. 85 3. a greater similarity to student activists than to MSU Non-Volunteer Students as related to perceptions of their households being more democratic and egalitarian in atmosphere; 4. a greater similarity to MSU Non-Volunteer Students than to student activists in terms of perceived parental participation in selected civic activities; 5. a greater similarity to MSU Non-Volunteer Students than to student activists in terms of leadership positions held in high school; 6. a greater similarity to MSU Non-Volunteer Students than to student activists as related to "out-of-class" experiences during high school; 7. a greater similarity to study activists than to MSU Non-Volunteer Students as related to their interest in, and appreciation of intellectual and aesthetic activities; 8. a greater similarity to MSU Non-Volunteer Students than to student activists in terms of being informed about political events; 9. a greater similarity to MSU Non-Volunteer Students than to student activists as related to self-confidence; 10. a greater similarity to student activists than do to MSU Non-Volunteer Students as related to interest in helping others. Contrary to the above indicated implications, how­ ever, a closer analysis suggests that both the MSU Student Volunteer and MSU Non-Volunteer Student have similar profiles, and that these profiles are in fact similar to the profile of student activists. More specifically, not only did a sizable percentage of MSU Student Volunteers come from socio-economically privileged families, a nearly 86 equal percentage of MSU Non-Volunteer Students came from similar families. The percentage differences relative to formal education achievement and parental income over $15,000 between the two groups did not exceed 5%. Regard­ ing parental devotion to intellectual and aesthetic pursuits, the percentage difference was 7% or below for all but one item analyzed. In terms of parental participation in selected civic activities, the percentage difference was 7% or below for all but one item analyzed. In terms of leadership positions held and out-of-class experiences during high school, the percentage differences were 9% and 11% respectively. These findings raise the question of over generali­ zation with regard to characteristics of student activists. It can be documented that most of the studies identifying characteristics of student activists as compared to n o n ­ activist students, have focused on students involved in more aggressive efforts (the 196 8 Democratic Convention, the Liberation of Columbia University, etc.) resulted in arrest and violence. that often These studies have not been representative of the less aggressive activists that w o uld quite possibly have brought the characteristic profile of student activists more in line with non-activist students. 87 Additionally, the generalization regarding an under representation of Catholics in student activists ranks might be subject to the same exclusionary cir­ cumstances as discussed above. It is quite possible that Catholic students are involved in less aggressive activities via the Catholic churches in the community and as such are not publicized as the more aggressive activities of other student activists. Although three of the hypotheses were accepted with reference to statistical significance the overall conclusion that cannot be ignored is that MSU Student Volunteers are profiled similarly to MSU Non-Volunteer Students and they are both profiled similarly to student ac t i vist s . Recommendations E ven though the findings and conclusions regarding the hypotheses of this study were not supportive for three hypotheses) {except this should not be interpreted to mean studies of volunteer profiles are not significant. In fact, this demands the opposite interpretation, namely; 1. The need to identify the motivational profile of students regarding what makes them volunteer whereas other students do not. 2. The need to identify the motivational charac­ teristics that prompts a student to volunteer for specific types of activities, i.e. Big Brother-Sister programs rather than recreational or community organization type p r o g r a m s . 88 3. The n e e d to identify academic, professional and personal benefits that are gained as a result of the volunteer experience. 4. The n e e d to determine the affect of these experiences on the academic and professional goals and objectives of volunteers. 5. The n eed to determine the impact of certain volunteer experiences on the socio-political growth and development of student volunteers. 6. The n e e d to determine appropriate methods of evaluating volunteer experiences for the purpose of awarding academic credit as related to degree programs and/or Life Long Education. These represent but a few of the areas that need further study as related to volunteers and volunteer programs. Hopefully, the findings of this study will provide a "jumping off" point for further research in this regard. B IB L IO G R A P H Y BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Adams, James F. (ed.) . Understanding Adolescence: Current Developments in Adolescent P s y c h o l o g y . B o s t o n : Allyn and Bacon, 1968. Foster, J. and Long, D. (eds.). Protest! Student A c t i v i s m . N e w York: W i l l i a m Morrow and C o m p a n y , I n c ., 1976. K e n i s t o n , Kw-."-~i+'n. The Uncommitted: Alienated Y o u th in American Soc-i^ty. York":— Deii, --------_________. Youth and Dissent: The Ris._ N e w York: Harcourt, l97l. a New O p p o s i t i o n . _________. Young R a d i c a l s : Notes on Committed Y o u t h , York! Harcourt, 196 8. ~ Lehmann, Irvin J. and M e h r e n s , William A. (eds.) Research: Readings in Focus. New York: rwrr.------ New Educational Holt, Liebert, Robert. Radical and Militant Youth: A Psychoanalytic I n q u i r y ^ N e w Y o r k : P r a e g e r , 19 71. Lipset, Seymour. American Student A c t i v i s m . Rand C o r p o r a t i o n , 19 69. Santa Monica; Manpower/Automation Research. Americans V o l u n t e e r , Monograph 10. Washington: U.S. Department of Labor, 19 69. Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University: A H i s t o r y . N e w York: Vintage Books, 1965. Smith, M. Brewster. Social Psychology and Human Values: Selected E s s a y s . Chicago : AlcLine , 1969 . Tanck, James. College Volunteers— A Guide to A c t i o n : Helping Students to H e 1^ O t h e r s . W a s h i n g t o n : Government Printing Office, 1959. 90 91 Periodicals Braungart, Richard. "Parental Identification and Student P o l i t i c s , ’’ Sociology of Education, XLIV, (1971) , 463-73. Briggs, Donald and Vaughn, Edwin. "Some Parents Attitudes Toward Campus Dissent," Journal of College Student P e r s o n n e l , XII, (1971) , 347-55 . C a u l e y , John and Bacon, Jonathan. "Michigan State University: People Helping People," Michigan C h a l l e n g e , X, (1969), 14-16. Flacks, Richard E. "The Liberated Generation: An Exploration of the Roots of Student Protest, *1 Journal of Social Issues, XXIII, No. 3 (1967), 52-75:------------------Freeman, Harvey and Brubaker, Paul. "Personality Characteristics of Campus Demonstrators Compared to Non- D e m o n s t r a t o r s ," Journal of Counseling P s y c h o l o g y , XVII, (19717^ 462-4. Gelineau, Milton and Kantor, David. "Pro-Social Commitment Among College Students," Journal of Social I s s u e s , XX, (1964), 112-130. Haan, N.; Smith, M. B., and Block, J. "Moral Reasoning of Young Adu5 t s ," Journal of Personality and Social P s y c h o l o g y , X, No. 3 (1968), 183-201. Harvey, W. "College Students Today: Extremist or Activists," Phi Delta K a p p a n , LII, (1970), 84-5. Jennings, Robert. "Student Activism: A Perspective and Strategy," Clearing H o u s e , XLVI , (1971) , 86-90 . Johnson, Richard. "Student Revolt and Social Revolution," Educational R e c o r d , LI, (1970) , 198-200. Kahn, Roger and Bowers, William. "Social Context of the Rank-and-File Student Activist: A Test of Four Hypotheses," Sociology of E d u c a t i o n , X L I I I , (1970) , 38-55. Knapp, Robert H. and Holzberg, Jules. "Characteristics of College Students Volunteering for Service to Mental P a t i e n t s ," Journal of Consulting P s y c h o l o g y , XXVIII, (1964) , 82=®r. 92 Ohlsen, M. M. "Dissident Students," Contemporary Education, X L I X , (1971), 157-63. Roper Research Associates, Inc. "Profile of the College Rebel," School and S o c i e t y X C V I I , (1969), 408. Sampson, E. "Student Activism and the Decade of Protest," Journal of Social I s s u e s , XXIII, No. 3 (1967) , 2. S k o l n i c k , Jerome. "Student Protest," AAUP Bulletin, LV, (1969), 309-26. Solomon, F. and Fishman, J. R. "Youth and Peace: A Psychosocial Study of Student Peace Demonstrators in Washington, D.C.," Journal of Social I s s u e s , XX, No. 4 (1964), 54-73. Thomson, Scott. "A Perspective on Student Activism," Theory Into P r a c t i c e , VIII, (1969) , 279-83. Watts, W. A. and Whittaker, D. "Free Speech Advocates at Berkeley," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , II (1966) , 41-62. W e s t b y , D . , and Braungart, R. "Class and Politics in the Family Backgrounds of Student Political Activists," American Sociological Review, XXXI (1966) , 690-692. Unpublished Works R i t s e m a , A. H. "Characteristics of Disadvantaged Volunteers and Non-Volunteers for a Federal Youth W o r k Train­ ing Program." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, M ichigan State University, 196 7. Williams, Polly Franklin. "A Study of College Volunteers: Characteristics, Analysis of Activities and Perceived Participation E f f o r t s ." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of Education, University of Mississippi, 1972. APPENDIX A OCCUPATIONS LISTED FOR PARENTS Accountant or Actuary* Actor or Entertainer* Architect* Artist* Business (clerical Business Executive (management) Business Owner or Proprietor Business Salesman or Buyer Clergyman Clinical Psychologist* College Teacher* Computer Programmer Conservationist or Forester Dentist* Dietitian* Engineer* Farmer or Rancher Foreign Service Worker (diplomat)* Housewife Interior Decorator (designer) Interpreter Lab Technician or Hygienist Law Enforcement Officer Lawyer (attorney)* Military Service (career) Musician (performercomposer)* Nurse Optometrist* Pharmacist* Physician* School Counselor* School Principal or Superintendent* Scientific Researcher* Social Worker* Statistician Therapist (physical, occupational, speech) Teacher (elementary)* Teacher (secondary)* Veterinarian* Writer or Journalist* Skilled Trades Laborer (unskilled) Semi-Skilled Worker Other occupation Unemployed *These occupations were identified as professional for purposes of developing parental occupation table. These occupations (except Actor, Artist and Musician) require at least a BA or BS degree; and in some occupations, graduate study. 94