IN F O R M A T IO N TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm 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 following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. 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 w ith 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 will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
the photographer
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed
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.
followed a definite m ethod
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 of the dissertation. Silver
prints o f "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE N O TE: Some pages may have
indistinct print. Filmed as
received.
Xerox University Microfilms
300 N orth Zoeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
76-12,505
PARRISH, Susan E liz a b e th , 1945-
CCMPARISCN OF PERSONAL VALUES OF HOME
ECONOMICS AND HUMAN ECOLOGY STUDENTS
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, 1968-1975.
M ichigan S ta te U h iv e r s ity , P h .D ., 1975
E d ucation , psychology
Xerox University Microfilms f Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
( £ ) C opyright by
SUSAN ELIZABETH PARRISH
1975
11
COMPARISON OF PERSONAL VALUES OF HOME ECONOMICS
AND HUMAN ECOLOGY STUDENTS AT MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY, 1968-1975
By
Susan E liz a b e th P a rris h
A DISSERTATION
Subm itted to
Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity
in p a r t ia l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e requirem ents
f o r th e degree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f Fam ily Ecology
1975
ABSTRACT
COMPARISON OF PERSONAL VALUES OF HOME ECONOMICS
AND HUMAN ECOLOGY STUDENTS AT MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY, 1968-1975
By
Susan E liz a b e th P a rris h
The g en eral o b je c tiv e o f th e study was to compare th e personal
values o f Home Economics and Human Ecology fem ale undergraduate students
a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity from 1968 to 1975, The s p e c if ic o b je c tiv e s
o f the study w ere:
( 1 ) to d eterm in e th e d iffe r e n c e in personal values
held by Human Ecology students by m a jo r, c o lle g e d ep artm en t, and le v e l
f o r th e block p e rio d 1 9 71 -19 75 ; ( 2 ) to d eterm in e th e d iffe r e n c e s in
personal values h e ld by Human Ecology stu d en ts among m a jo rs , c o lle g e
d epartm ent, l e v e l , and years from 1971 to 1975; (3 ) to d eterm in e the
d iffe re n c e s in personal values held by t r a n s f e r and freshman n o n tra n s fe r
Human Ecology stu d en ts
in F a ll term and S pring term o f th e ye a rs 1971 to
1975; and (4 ) to d eterm in e th e d iffe r e n c e s in the personal values held
by Home Economics and Human Ecology stu d en ts by m a jo r, c o lle g e d e p a rt
m ent, l e v e l , and academic years 1968-69 and 1974-75.
The nonrandom sample o f fem ale s tu d e n ts , n= 2,3 51 was lim ite d
to freshman n o n tra n s fe rs , t r a n s f e r s , and s e n io r n o n tra n s fe rs , aged 18
to 22 y e a rs . S tudents were re p re s e n te d by th e academic m a jo r c lu s te r s :
(1 ) C h ild Development & T eaching; (2 ) Consumer-Community S e rv ic e s ,
F am ily Ecology; F am ily Ecology-Communication A r ts ; (3 ) Foods, D i e t e t ic s ,
Susan E liz a b e th P a rr is h
N u t r it io n ; (4 ) Home Economics E ducation; (5 ) C lo th in g & T e x t ile s ;
(6 )
I n t e r i o r Design, Human Environment & Design; and (7 ) R e ta ilin g
o f C lo th in g & T e x tile s .
To o btain student ranking o f 36 personal v a lu e s , the Rokeach
Value Survey, Form D and Form F , was used. The dependent v a r ia b le ,
personal v a lu e , was analyzed as a v a lu e system, nine values a t one tim e ,
using the m u ltiv a r ia te a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e . As a s in g le personal v a lu e ,
the dependent v a r ia b le was analyzed by th e median t e s t . The Kendall
concordance c o e ff ic ie n t was used to e s tim ate th e homogeneity o f ranking
w ith in groups. For r e je c tio n o f each n u ll hypothesis the chosen alpha
le v e l was
.0 5 .
Analysis o f the data showed t h a t :
(1 ) From 1968-69 to 1974-76
each m ajor changed s ig n if ic a n t ly on o n ly p a rt o f the te rm in a l and in s tr u
mental value systems. Majors s ig n if ic a n t ly v a rie d on th e e n t ir e term in a l
and instru m ental value systems in the block p erio d 1971-1975. D iffe re n c e
among majors has decreased each academic year from 1971 to 1975.
In
1974-75 the one c o n tra s t value was social recognition.
Freshman le v e l majors d if f e r e d more than s e n io r le v e l majors
on v a lu e systems in th e block p erio d 1971-1975.
Freshman majors v a rie d
s ig n if ic a n t ly on th re e -fo u rth s o f the term in a l and instru m ental value
systems w h ile s e n io r majors v a rie d on o n e -h a lf o f the te rm in a l and
in s tru m e n ta l value systems.
(2 )
From 1968-69 to 1974-75, freshmen have changed more than
s e n io rs . Freshmen v a rie d on the e n t ir e term in a l and in stru m ental value
systems w ith 19 c o n tra s t valu es. Seniors v a rie d on th e e n t ir e te rm in a l
v a lu e system w ith 8 c o n tra s t v a lu e s .
Susan E liz a b e th P a rris h
Freshmen were s ig n if ic a n t ly d if f e r e n t from seniors on the e n t ir e
term in a l and instru m ental value systems in th e block p erio d 1971-1975.
Value d iffe re n c e s between freshmen and seniors from 1971 to 1975 have
decreased, r e s p e c tiv e ly , from 12 to 7 personal valu es.
Freshmen s ig n if ic a n t ly d if f e r e d from tr a n s fe r students from 1971
to 1975 on th re e -fo u rth s o f the te rm in a l and in stru m en tal value systems.
N e ith e r freshmen nor tra n s fe rs were s ig n if ic a n t ly d if f e r e n t in F a ll and
Spring term o f each academic y e a r from 1971 to 1975.
Freshmen and
tra n s fe r s s ig n if ic a n t ly v a rie d o ver the years 1971 to 1975 in F a ll
and Spring term s.
(3 ) From 1968-69 to 19 74-75, the fo u r c o lle g e departments v a rie d
in s ig n if ic a n t change on the te rm in a l and in stru m en tal value systems.
The Human Environment & Design department changed s ig n if ic a n t ly on 11
v a lu e s , Fam ily Ecology on 8 v a lu e s , Food Science & Human N u t r it io n on
6 v a lu e s , and Fam ily & C h ild Sciences on 3 va lu e s. The departments
s ig n if ic a n t ly v a rie d on th e e n t ir e te rm in a l and in stru m ental value
systems in th e block p erio d 1971-1975. The departments decreased in
v a ria n c e from 1971 to 1975 w ith only s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e on the
personal value / amity security in 1974-75. Department homogeneity
was g re a te s t in Fam ily Ecology and le a s t in Human Environment & Design
in 1974-75.
(4 ) Home Economics students in 1968-69 s ig n if ic a n t ly d if f e r e d
from Human Ecology students in 1974-75 on the e n t ir e te rm in a l and
instru m en tal valu e systems w ith 23 c o n tra s tin g personal v a lu e s .
H ighest f i v e p r i o r i t y te rm in a l values were the same over the y e a rs :
happiness, mature love, self respect, inner harmony, and freedom.
Susan E liz a b e th P a r r is h
H ig h est f i v e p r i o r i t y in s tru m e n ta l values were th e same over th e y e a rs :
honest, loving, responsible, forgiving, and broadminded. W hile th e
values remained in th e h ig h e s t s ix ranked p o s itio n s , the rank p o s itio n
o f th e value s h if t e d over th e y e a rs .
By 1974-75 th e C o lle g e o f Human Ecology became f o r th e most p a rt
homogeneous in personal v a lu e o r ie n t a t io n . C u rriculu m development and
re v is io n can be implemented acco rd ing to th e v a ria n c e in departm ent and
academic m ajor concern fo r th e f a m ily , th e fo c a l s o c ia l group f o r th e
c o lle g e . V a ria n c e in id e a lis m by freshm en, t r a n s f e r s , and s e n io rs sug
g ests an in c re a s e In r e a l i s t i c and r e le v a n t exp eriences f o r freshmen
and t r a n s fe r s . Continued v a lu e assessment o f stu d en ts and f a c u lt y is
recommended.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I have a p a r t ic u la r a p p re c ia tio n o f Dr. Norma B o b b itt, my
advisor and d is s e r ta tio n d ir e c t o r , f o r her encouragement, c o n s tru c tiv e
c r it ic is m , and f a c i l i t a t i o n .
I als o have learned from the c o n s tru c tiv e ,
in d iv id u a l thoughts o f Dr. Richard Lew is, Dr. E. Jane O yer, and Dr.
Carol S h a ffe r who were members o f my d is s e r ta tio n committee. F u rth e r,
I express my a p p re c ia tio n to Dr. Linda Nelson, Fam ily Ecology department
chairman, who w i l l i n g l y gave h e lp fu l suggestions fo r re v is io n o f my
d is s e r ta tio n . To the C o lleg e o f Human Ecology,
I am g r a te fu l fo r the
fe llo w s h ip presented, and to the fa c u lt y who helped to c o lle c t the d a ta ,
n o ta b ly , Jean Page.
I e s p e c ia lly thank several o f my in te rn a tio n a l frie n d s fo r t h e ir
in d iv id u a l s p i r i t and p ro fess io n al a t t i t u d e , and Grace R u th e rfo rd , fo r
her e f f i c i e n t and d e lig h tfu l help in p rep aring t h is d is s e r ta tio n .
In p a r t ic u la r ,
I am g r a te fu l to my parents f o r t h e i r support.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
..........................................................................................................
vi
LIST OF F IG U R E S ..........................................................................................................
x i i
Page
Chapter
I . THE PROBLEM.................................................................................................
Statem ent o f the P ro b le m ...................................................................
..................................................................................................
O b jec tives
........................................
Purpose and Importance o f th e Study
Background ..................................................................................................
H y p o th e s e s ..................................................................................................
D e fin itio n o f T e r m s ............................................................................
A s s u m p tio n s .............................................................................................
L i m i t a t i o n s .............................................................................................
I I . REVIEW OF LITERATURE................................................................................
Values in Home Economics/Human Ecology ....................................
Values in Higher Education
..............................................................
The Rokeach Value Survey ...................................................................
S u m m a ry ......................................................................................................
I I I . DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY............................................................................
.
.
C o lle c tio n o f D a t a ................................................................................
In s tr u m e n t ............................................
O p eratio nal D e fin itio n s
......................................................
.
S u b je c t s ......................................................................................................
H y p o th e s e s ..................................................................................................
Hypothesis 1 .....................................................................................
Hypothesis 2 .....................................................................................
Hypothesis 3 .....................................................................................
Hypothesis 4 .....................................................................................
............................................................................
Design M atrices
A nalysis o f D a t a .....................................................................................
Data C l a s s i f i c a t i o n .......................................
........................................
S t a t is t ic a l Test C la s s ific a tio n
S t a t is t ic a l Test S e l e c t i o n .....................................................
S u m m a ry ......................................................................................................
iv
1
1
2
3
7
14
15
16
17
20
21
38
53
58
62
62
65
71
72
81
84
84
86
87
88
90
90
91
93
98
C h a p te r
Page
IV . F IN D IN G S ..............................................................................................................
99
N u ll Hypothesis 1 . 1 ....................................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 1 . 2 ....................................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 1 .3 .1
N u ll Hypothesis 1 .3 .2
N u ll Hypothesis 1 . 3 .3
N u ll Hypothesis 1 . 4 ....................................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 2 . 1 ....................................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 2 . 2 ....................................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 2 . 3 ....................................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 2 . 4 ....................................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 2 . 5 ....................................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 2 .6 .1
N u ll Hypothesis 2 . 6 .2
N u ll Hypothesis 2 .7 .1
N u ll Hypothesis 2 . 7 .2
N u ll Hypothesis 3 . 1 ....................................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 3 .2
N u ll H ypothesis 3 . 3 ....................................................................
N u ll H ypothesis 3 . 4 ....................................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 3 . 5 .................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 3 . 6 ....................................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 3 . 7 ....................................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 3 . 8 ....................................................................
N u ll H ypothesis 3 . 9 ....................................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 3 . 1 0 ....................................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 4 . 1 ....................................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 4 . 2 ....................................................................
N u ll H ypothesis 4 . 3 ....................................................................
N u ll Hypothesis 4 .4 .1
N u ll Hypothesis 4 . 4 .2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sunmary o f the F i n d i n g s .....................................................................
100
104
108
116
119
120
126
129
141
148
161
173
178
180
183
190
197
201
206
207
208
209
215
216
219
220
226
233
249
256
263
V . SUMMARY..............................................................................................................
281
C o n c l u s io n s ................................................................................................
D is c u s s io n .....................................................................................................
Im p lic a tio n s ................................................................................................
..............................................................................
..............................................................................
C o lle g e Program
F utu re Research
281
288
295
295
297
APPENDIX
...........................................................................................................................
299
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................................
307
v
LIST OP TABLES
Sumnary o f Data C o l l e c t i o n ..................................................................
Median T e s t-R e te s t R e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r Form D, Form E,
Form F , and P aired Comparison Method o f th e Rokeach
Value Survey .................................................................................................
Sample and P opu lation D is tr ib u tio n by Levels o f Home
Economics and Human Ecology Undergraduate Students*
1968-1975
......................................................................................................
Sample and P opu lation D is tr ib u tio n o f Undergraduate
T ra n s fe r Students 1n th e C o lleg e o f Human Ecology,
1971-1975
......................................................................................................
Sample and P opulation D is tr ib u tio n by Majors o f Home
Economics and Human Ecology Undergraduate S tu d e n ts ,
1968-1975
......................................................................................................
Page
64
68
75
76
77
D iffe re n c e in Value Systems f o r M ajors During
1971-1975...........................................................................................................
103
Term inal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders fo r
N o n tran sfe r Undergraduate Students During 1971-1975
.
. *
106
In s tru m e n ta l Value Medians and Composite Rank Order
f o r N o n tran sfer Undergraduate Students During
1971-1975...........................................................................................................
D iffe re n c e in Term inal Value Systems Between Levels
in Each M ajor During 1971-1975 ..........................................................
D iffe re n c e in Instru m en tal Value Systems Between
Levels in Each M ajor During 1971-1975
........................................
D iffe re n c e in Value Systems f o r M ajors by Level
During 1971-1975 .........................................................................................
Term inal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders f o r
Departments During 1971-1975 ..............................................................
In stru m en tal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders
f o r Departments During 1971-1975 ......................................................
107
112
114
117
122
123
v i
Value D iffe re n c e s Between Years
.....................................................
D iffe re n c e in Term inal Value Systems Across Majors
in a Year
......................................................................................................
D iffe re n c e in Instru m ental Value Systems Across
Majors in a Year .........................................................................................
Term inal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders
f o r Departments in 1971-1972 ..............................................................
In stru m ental Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders
fo r Departments in 1971-1972 ..............................................................
Term inal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders fo r
Departments in 1974-1975 .......................................................................
Instru m ental Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders
f o r Departments in 1974-1975 .
.................................................
.
.
Term inal Value D iffe re n c e s Between Levels in a Year
.
.
.
Instrum ental Value D iffe re n c e s Between Levels in a Year
S ig n if ic a n t Value D iffe re n c e s Between Levels in a Year .
.
D iffe re n c e s in Term inal Value System f o r Each M ajor
Over the Y e a r s .................. .... ......................................................................
D iffe re n c e s in In stru m ental Value System f o r Each
.
M ajor Over th e Years
...................................................................
.
.
Terminal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders For
Departments in the Years 1971-1972 and 1974-1975 ..................
Page
127
131
132
135
136
137
138
142
144
149
151
153
158
Instru m ental Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders
fo r Departments
in the Years 1971-1972 and 1974-1975 .
.
.
159
D iffe re n c e in Term inal Value System fo r Levels Over
the Years
......................................................................................................
D iffe re n c e in Instrum ental Value System f o r Levels
Over th e Years
.............................................................................................
Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders f o r Freshman
Students in the Y etrs 1971-1972 and 1974-1975
......................
Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders f o r S en io r
Students in the Years 1971-1972 and 1974-1975
.......................
162
164
168
169
vi 1
High and Low Ranked Values f o r Levels in the Years
1971-1972 and 1974-1975
..............................................................
D iffe re n c e in Terminal Value System Among Majors
in Each Year f o r Levels
..............................................................
D iffe re n c e in Instru m ental Value System Among
Majors in Each Year f o r Levels .................................................
D iffe re n c e in Terminal Value System Between Levels
in Each M ajor Over the Academic Years 19 71-72, 1972-73,
1973-74, and 1974-75 (Simmer Term O m itted)
......................
D iffe re n c e in Instru m ental Value System Between Levels
in Each M ajor Over the Academic Years 19 71 -72 , 1972-73,
1973-74, and 1974-75 (Summer Term O m itted)
......................
D iffe re n c e in Terminal Value System f o r Freshman
N o n tran sfer Students Between F a ll and Spring Term
o f Each Year ........................................................................................
D iffe re n c e in Instrum ental Value System f o r Freshman
N o n tran sfer Students Between F a ll and Spring Term o f
Each Year
.............................................................................................
D iffe re n c e s in Value Systems f o r T ra n s fe r Students
Between F a ll and Spring Term o f Each Year
......................
D iffe re n c e 1n Term inal Value System f o r Freshman
and T ra n s fe r Students in Each Term Over the Years
1971-1975.... .............................................................................................
D iffe re n c e in Instru m ental Value System f o r Freshman
and T ra n s fe r Students 1n Each Term Over th e Years
1971-1975
.............................................................................................
Terminal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders
fo r Levels and Year
.......................................................................
Instrum ental Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders
f o r Levels and Year
.......................................................................
D iffe re n c e s 1n Value Systems fo r the Combined Group
o f Freshmen and T ra n s fe r Students in a Term Over
the Years 1971-1975
.......................................................................
Terminal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders f o r
Freshman and Senior N o n tran sfer Undergraduate Students
..........................................................
in 1968-1969 and 1974-1975
v i 11
Page
171
174
176
184
186
191
193
198
202
204
211
213
217
221
T able
46.
47.
Instru m ental Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders
f o r Freshman and S enior N o n tran sfer Undergraduate
Students in 1968-1969 and 1974-1975
Term inal and Instru m ental Value D iffe re n c e s fo r
Freshman and S enior N o n tran sfer Undergraduate
Students in 1968-1969 and 1974-1975
48. D iffe re n c e In Value Systems by Level Between the
Years 1968-1969 and 1974-1975
Page
222
224
227
49. S ig n ific a n t Value D iffe re n c e s Between th e Years
1968-1969 and 1974-1975 In N o n tran sfer Undergraduate
S tu d e n ts .................................................................. *
...................................
230
50. Common Value Changes o f Freshman and Senior N o n tran sfer
Undergraduate Students Between th e Years 1968-1969 and
1974-1975
232
51. D iffe re n c e in Term inal Value Systems Between the
Years 1968-1969 and 1974-1975 f o r M a j o r s ....................................
234
52. D iffe re n c e in Instru m ental Value Systems Between
the Years 1968-1969 and 1974-1975 f o r Majors
...........................
236
53. D iffe re n c e s in Term inal Value Systems and In stru m ental
Value Systems Between the Years 1968-1969 and 1974-1975
f o r D e p a r t m e n t s .........................................................................................
54.
55.
56.
57.
S ig n ific a n t Value D iffe re n c e s Between the Years
1968-1969 and 1974-1975 1n Department o f Human
Environment and Design ...........................................................................
S ig n ific a n t Value D iffe re n c e s Between the Years
1968-1969 and 1974-1975 in Department o f Fam ily
Ecology
.............................................................................................
S ig n ific a n t Value D iffe re n c e s Between the Years
1968-1969 and 1974-1975 in Department o f Food
Science and Human N u tr itio n
..............................................................
S ig n ific a n t Value D iffe re n c e s Between the Years
1968-1969 and 1974-1975 in Department o f Fam ily
and C h ild S c ie n c e s ....................................................................................
241
243
244
246
247
58. D iffe re n c e s in Term inal Value System Between the
Years 1968-1969 and 1974-1975 f o r Freshman Non
tr a n s f e r M a j o r s .........................................................................................
250
1 x
T a b le
59. D iffe re n c e s
in Instrum ental Value Systems Between the
Years 1968-69 and 1974-75 f o r Freshman N ontransfer
M a j o r s ...............................................................................................................
60. D iffe re n c e in Terminal Value Systems Between the
Years 1968-69 and 1974-75 f o r S enior N o n tran sfer
M a j o r s ...............................................................................................................
61. D iffe re n c e in Instrum ental Value Systems Between
the
Years 1968-69 and 1974-75 f o r S enior N o n tran sfer Majors
.
62. Summary o f the N u ll Hypothesis T e s t s ..................................................
Page
252
257
259
267
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1. SIV f o r home management re s id e n t students compared
by P a rris h on Rokeach and Human Ecology values
......................
32
2. P r o f ile fa c to r f o r fa m ily l i f e students compared
by P a rris h on Rokeach and Human Ecology values
......................
33
3. Top f i v e term inal values chosen by Michigan
re s id e n ts in two age groups, 18-20 and 2 1 - 2 6 ...........................
4. R e la tio n between sample s iz e and e r r o r .........................................
5. Hypothesis 1 m a t r i x .................................................................................
6. Hypothesis 2 m a t r i x .................................................................................
7. Hypothesis 3 m a t r i x .................................................................................
8. Hypothesis 4 m a trix
.................................................................................
55
79
88
89
89
90
9. C la s s ific a tio n o f 36 personal values by group
.......................
101
x i
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Statement o f th e Problem
We may be on th e
in human h is to r y . Those who th in k the f in a l q u a r te r o f
th is century w i l l m erely be an e x tra p o la tio n o f the th ir d
w i l l be s e rio u s ly d is illu s io n e d [p . 3 2 ].
verge o f one o f the g re a t d is c o n tin u itie s
L e s te r Brow n's1 ( U.S. News & World R eport, March 3 , 1975) quote
is a re a c tio n to the
same p o in t t h a t o b servers, such as A lv in T o f f l e r ,
have n o te d --th e c u rre n t transform ing American c u ltu r e .
The American c u ltu re is transform ing in to what is known as a
p r e fig u r a tiv e c u ltu r e . A p r e f ig u r a t iv e c u ltu re is one in which p aren ts
le a rn als o from t h e i r c h ild re n (Mead, 1970, p. 1 ) .
In such a s e ttin g
the youth c u ltu re ac ts not only as a symptom o f th e new c u ltu re but als o
as an agent o f change. Hence, when a u n iv e rs ity is atte m p tin g to m odify
programs and keep pace w ith so c ia l change, knowledge o f c u rre n t stu d en t
o r ie n ta tio n s is h e lp fu l when making adjustm ents.
W hile knowledge o f the p res en t youth o r ie n ta tio n o f s e l f f u l
f illm e n t and hum anitarianism (F la c k s , 1971; L ystad , 1973; Y an kelo vltch
and C la r k , 1974)
is h e lp fu l as a guide in u n iv e r s ity d ecisio n making,
the broadness o f in fo rm a tio n may n o t be s p e c ific enough to a p a r t ic u la r
t e s t e r Brown is an American a g r ic u ltu r a l economist and a
lea d in g a u th o r ity on food problems on a worldwide le v e l .
1
2
c o lle g e w ith in th e u n iv e r s ity . Thus, an assessment o f stu d en t
o r ie n ta tio n w ith in th e u n iv e r s ity c o lle g e may be o f value to t h a t
c o lle g e when making decisio n s and adjustm ents such as in cu rricu lu m
development and r e v is io n .
Since a d e s c rip tiv e study o f fem ale students e n ro lle d in the
C ollege o f Human Ecology a t M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity has not been done
since 1968-69 (L o re n z, 1 9 7 0 ), an updating o f the d e s c rip tiv e stu d en t
study gains m e rit in being done in o rd e r to p ro vid e u sefu l
in fo rm a tio n
f o r cu rricu lu m re v is io n and development. The study o f 1973 alumni o f
th re e Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity c o lle g e s (Human Ecology, A g r ic u ltu r e ,
S ociolo gy) (M arcus, 1974, 1975) does not q u a lif y as a c u rre n t assessment
o f students e n ro lle d in th e C o lle g e o f Human Ecology.
Hence, out o f the broad p ic tu r e o f th e transform ing and subse
q u e n tly a d ju s tin g s o c ie ty , th e problem f o r study is an i d e n t if ic a t io n
and comparison o f personal value trends o f Home Economics and Hunan
Ecology undergraduate fem ale students a t M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity from
1968 to 1975. An u p -to -d a te d e s c rip tio n o f campus youth is p a r t o f the
b a s e lin e data necessary f o r d e c is io n making and continuous adjustm ent 1n
an ed ucational
i n s t it u t io n w ith a s p e c ific p re p ro fe s s io n a l o r ie n t a t io n .
O b jec tives
For the study o f personal values o f fem ale students a t the
undergraduate c o lle g e le v e l the o b je c tiv e s a re :
1. To determ ine the d iffe r e n c e 1n personal values held by under
graduate Human Ecology students a t M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity
by m ajor and le v e l f o r th e one block p erio d 1971-1975.
2. To determ ine the d iffe re n c e s in the personal values held
by undergraduate Human Ecology students a t Michigan S ta te
U n iv e rs ity among m ajors, le v e ls , and years 1971-1975.
3 . To determ ine th e d iffe re n c e s 1n personal values held by
tr a n s fe r and freshman n o n tra n s fe r undergraduate Human Ecology
students a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity in F a ll term and Spring
term during th e academic years 1971-1975.
4 . To determ ine th e d iffe re n c e s in the personal values held by
undergraduate Home Economics students and undergraduate Human
Ecology students a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity by m a jo r, l e v e l ,
and two academic years 1968-69 and 1974-75.
Purpose and Importance o f th e Study
The framework o f the study is a comparison o f personal values
o f Home Economics and Human Ecology undergraduate woman students a t
Michigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity over the tim e 1968 to 1975 and by student
academic major and le v e l s ta tu s .
The u p d atin g , from 1968 to 1975, o f a d e s c rip tio n o f the C ollege
o f Human Ecology stu d en t body is done as th e re has n o t been an overview
o f the undergraduate students since Lorenz*
(1970) 1968-69 study e n t a i l
ing background, a t t it u d e s , and v a lu e s .
This study on the comparison o f
stu d en t personal values goes beyond th e annual d e s c rip tio n o f students
by demographic v a r ia b le s .
F u rth e r, a c u rre n t in v e n to ry o f the Human Ecology student is
a p p ro p ria te since th e College o f Human Ecology student mix v a rie s w ith
the annual
increase in student e n ro llm e n t. S im ila r ly , over th e past
4
decade (19 62 -19 73 ) on a n a tio n a l
le v e l . Home Economics in h ig h er
education has grown.
Ju st undergraduate en ro llm en t alone has increased
by 96 p e rc e n t. The ra te o f increase is g re a te r than the n a tio n a l growth
trend f o r undergraduate education over th e same period o f tim e (H arp er,
1975, p. 7 ) .
In s h o r t, the in crease o f women a tte n d in g in s t it u t io n s o f h ig her
e d u ca tio n , the increase in women's s tu d ie s , and a g re a te r consciousness
o f women's r ig h ts and ro le s a re a l l
in d ic a to rs o f a lo c a l , n a tio n a l, and
in te r n a tio n a l human rig h ts focus and p r i o r i t y w ith in s o c ie tie s . Hence,
a comparison o f women's personal values 1n h ig h er education and in a
predom inantly fem ale p ro fe s s io n a l area (H a rp e r, 1975, p. 10)
is in
accordance w ith expanding th e knowledge on the sta tu s o f women.
Value change o f youth in general
is a second new area o f c u rre n t
study to which comparison o f personal values o f Human Ecology students
is a d d itiv e . W hile youth v a lu e change stu d ie s (F la c k s , 1971; Lystad,
1973; Mead, 1970; Y a n k e lo v itc h , 1974a) have shown th a t in general the
1973-1975 group is d if f e r e n t from th a t o f 1968-69; the focus o f the
stu d ies has been more on a tt it u d e s toward c u rre n t s o c ia l
issues and
in s t it u t io n s (b u t c a lle d v a lu e s ) and w ith broad u n iv e r s ity academic
d is c ip lin e samples. The broadness in scope as a m ajor fe a tu r e in the
stu d ies does not in h e re n tly lend i t s e l f to a m icroscopic exam ination
o f youth value change. Hence, in general over the 1968-1975 period
th e re has been l i t t l e study o f personal v a lu e o rie n ta tio n in academic
(p re p ro fe s s io n a l) d is c ip lin e s and fem ale students per se.
The l i t t l e study th a t has been done on personal values o f
c o lle g e youth and s p e c if ic a lly w ith the Rokeach value survey has been
5
been aimed a t some s p e c if ic academic d is c ip lin e s o r majors and o n ly
a t one p o in t in tim e . For example. Lorenz (1970) d id a d e s c rip tiv e
one-year study o f freshmen and sophomore to s e n io r Home Economics
students by background* a t t it u d e s , and personal values in 1968-69.
F eather (1970) compared th ree academic majors (H u m a n ities , Social
S ciences, Sciences) o f f i r s t ye ar u n iv e r s ity students in A u s tr a lia .
During the la t e 1 9 6 0 's , the value study (Rokeach, 1973,
p. 140) o f Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity students in ten majors did not
p ro vid e meaningful re s u lts p r im a r ily because o f in s u f f ic ie n t numbers
in each case.
Thus, the pursuance o f a d e s c rip tiv e study o f undergraduate
Home Economics and Human Ecology student personal values from 1968 to
1975 would help to f i l l
in s p e c ific gaps on youth v a lu e change in th e
country and a t M ichigan S tate U n iv e r s ity . F u rth e r, t h is study on fem ale
youth v a lu e s , using the Rokeach v a lu e survey, would have the la r g e s t
known sample s iz e , N= 2 ,3 5 1 , and be the lon gest lo n g itu d in a l assessment
(7 y e a rs ) o f u n iv e r s ity student values in one academic major o r p rep ro
fe s s io n a l area (Human Ecology). The Human Ecology stu d en t value study
could improve upon th e weakness o f small numbers by pro vidin g s u f f i c i e n t
c e ll s iz e s and upon th e lack o f lo n g itu d in a l assessment o f personal
value o rie n ta tio n s o f c o lle g e yo u th.
The d e te rm in a tio n o f personal valu e p o s itio n s o f Home Economics
and Human Ecology students by seven majors in the c o lle g e can help
re ve al the d iffe r e n c e s , i f any, among the d if f e r e n t p rev o ca tio n a l valu e
o r ie n ta tio n s . When done over th e ye ars the p a tte rn s o f value commitment
6
by m ajor may appear. Approximate comparisons to c o lle g e youth as a
whole group and to the American c u ltu r e could then be made.
A lso , the a s c e rta in in g o f th e o v e ra ll personal valu e p o s itio n
o f Human Ecology female students can provide a d e s c rip tio n o f e n ro lle d
students and students ready to e n te r the Human Ecology p ro fe s s io n .
F u rth e r, the student value o r ie n ta tio n may p ro vid e evidence th a t the
c o lle g e program is preparing Human Ecology students to e n te r the pro
fes sio n w ith a unique philosophy and value o r ie n ta tio n .
Given th e n a tio n a l two-pronged d ir e c tio n o f the Home Economics
f i e l d (Y a n k e lo v itc h , 1974b, p. 3 ) , th is study on the Human Ecology value
o r ie n ta tio n a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity g ives evidence o f a Human Eco
lo g ic a l p ro fe s s io n a l d ir e c tio n . This student d e s c rip tio n then could be
in co rp o rated in to the o v e ra ll assessment o f th e C ollege o f Human Ecology
i f the c o lle g e is reviewed by the American Home Economics A sso ciatio n
f o r a c c r e d ita tio n .
One s e t o f inputs needed f o r co n tin u a l ed u catio nal curriculum
development and re v is io n d e c is io n s
is a general d e s c rip tio n o f student
c h a r a c te r is tic s . Although a study o f stu d en t personal values is not
encompassing o f student c h a r a c t e r is t ic s , the in c lu s io n o f values as one
v a r ia b le gains m e rit because o f the c e n tra l n atu re o f values in human
b ehavior and i t s permeation a t almost a l l
le v e ls — c u l t u r a l ,
i n s t i t u
t i o n a l , group, and in d iv id u a l. The c u rre n t change o f youth values has
a lre a d y shown th a t students s t i l l value ed ucation but want to be "an
in te g r a l p a rt o f the process" (S to u t, 1972, p. 2 4 8 ).
In meeting the
c h a lle n g e o f changing values on campus, c o n s id e ra tio n has been given
7
to e v a lu a tio n o f t r a d it io n a l methods and programs, e . g . , change o f
C ollege o f Home Economics to C ollege o f Human Ecology 1n 1970, small
group discussions in c la s s , group process, In s tr u c tio n a l modules,
student re p re s e n ta tio n and in p u t to a d m in is tra tio n and cu rricu lu m
and program p lann ing .
L a s tly , by means o f id e n tify in g student personal values
over tim e , fu r t h e r c o n trib u tio n to value research may be made.
To d a te , value instrum ents have been v a rie d and o fte n based upon
d if f e r e n t assumptions and d e f in it io n s which thus provide a lack
o f c o n tin u ity o f a system atic study o f va lu e s. Use o f the Rokeach
Value Survey over tim e , in th is study on Home Economics and Human
Ecology student personal v a lu e s , may help to determ ine the s tre n g th
o f the instru m ent and add depth to value measurement.
Background
The d e s c rip tio n o f personal values o f Home Economics and
Human Ecology students from 1968 to 1975 re p re s e n ts , f i r s t , a
p ic tu re o f value o rie n ta tio n s o f both a p rep ro fes sio n a l so cial
group, and a fem ale youth group, w ith in the la r g e r s e ttin g o f the
s o c ie ty o r c u ltu r e . Second, the study focuses not o n ly on value
o rie n ta tio n a t one time but a ls o o ver tim e and hence captures p o s sib le
movements and trends in valu e o rie n ta tio n s o f the dual female youth and
p rep ro fes sio n a l s o c ia l groups.
At the broadest l e v e l , the case under study is enmeshed in the
American c u ltu r e during 1968 to 1975. A t another le v e l th e re is the
8
Home Economics and Homan Ecology student group immersion in th e newly
evolved youth c u ltu r e . At the same l e v e l , the case group in te rfa c e s
lo c a lly w ith the p ro fe s s io n a l o r ie n ta tio n o f Human Ecology a t Michigan
S ta te U n iv e rs ity and n a tio n a lly w ith Home Economics. Thus, th is spe
c i f i c Home Economics-Human Ecology student group a t Michigan S ta te
U n iv e rs ity is in te rd e p e n d e n tly and p r im a r ily lin k e d w ith the values
held by the American c u ltu r e in g e n e ra l, y o u th , Home Economics pro
fe s s io n , Human Ecology philosop hy, and the student h e r s e lf.
At the beginning o f the 1968-1975 e r a , a cu lm in atio n o f so c ia l
s tr a in s b u rs t the seams o f the once s ta b le s o c ie ty , e . g . , development
o f b lack youth movements, campus youth r io t in g and marching. No longer
did the s ta b le American s o c ie ty e x i s t - - " a s o c ie ty in which v a lu e s ,
in s t it u t io n s and te c h n o lo g ic a l requirem ents were u niquely w e ll meshed
.
.
.
a u n iq u ely open s o c ie ty —one responsive both to th e a s p ira tio n s
and demands o f th e people and to th e need f o r change" (F la c k s , 1971,
p. 1 8 ). The P ro te s ta n t E th ic 2 (Max Weber's term fo r a s e t o f American
value o r ie n t a t io n s ) , was a ls o on th e d e c lin e because o f two major s o c ia l
developments, technology and a fflu e n c e (F la c k s , 1971, pp. 2 1 -2 5 ; L ystad,
1974, p. 3 ) .
Too, th e re was d is s o lu tio n o f the id e a l o f woman being a person
who did not seek independence and success in work but r a th e r supported
2Several values considered as dominant in the American way o f
l i f e came under change and upheaval by the end o f the I 9 6 0 's. Several
o f th e values were:
p ro g ress, (4 ) goodness o f man, (5 ) h e lp fu ln e s s , ( 6 ) la w -a b id in g , (7 )
freedom , (8 ) e q u a lity , (9 ) good l i f e — th e decent l i f e , (1 0 ) c le a n lin e s s ,
(1 1 ) p rid e in achievement (w o rk ), (1 2 ) fa m ily closeness (F la c k s , 1971;
L ystad , 1974; S c h le s in g e r, 1968; S t. E r lic h , 1973; Thomas, 1969; and
W illia m s , 1967).
(1 ) happiness, (2 ) independence, (3 ) f a i t h in
9
her w o rk -o rie n te d husband, produced an e f f i c i e n t household and ra is e d
t h e ir male c h ild re n to be j u s t l i k e t h e i r fa th e r --h a r d w orking, r e l i
a b le , a c h ie v in g , and s a c r ific in g (F la c k s , 1971, p. 7 1 ). Replacing the
id e a l woman concept was the women's lib e r a t io n movement which p a r a l
le le d the "m ale-centeredness o f the youth movement" (F la c k s , 1971,
p. 1 1 7 ), an expression o f i n a b i l i t y o f c e r ta in types o f male youth
to accept the conventional d e f in it io n s o f th e male r o le .
Gone a re th e marks o f ra d ic a lis m and re v o lu tio n a ry movements
comnon during 1968-1970 as th e s o c ia l s e ttin g has changed. Causes fo r
s h if t s in youth a ttitu d e s between th e l a t e s ix t ie s and e a r ly seven ties
a re :
( 1 ) removal o f th r e a t to l i f e by stopping o f the m i l it a r y d r a f t ,
(2 )
increase in cost o f l i v i n g , (3 ) mass media coverage o f more casual
sexual r e la t io n s , and (4 ) p u b lic it y o f double standard o f W atergate
a u th o r itie s (Robinson, 1975, p. 4 ) .
Now the youth group is
is o la t e d , n e ith e r c h ild nor a d u lt , and
has few ac tu a l power p o s itio n s . However, youth is a d is t in c t stage in
the l i f e c y c le , w ith i t s own s e t o f values and i t s own in s t it u t io n s
such as th e u n iv e r s it y .
The l a t e s t c o n fro n ta tio n th a t youth has is an upsurge in
unemployment and economic in s e c u r ity . Discontentm ent o f noncollege
youth is p a r t ly a r e s u lt o f th e continuance o f seeking a lt e r n a t iv e
meaningful o p p o rtu n itie s in t h e i r liv e s a f t e r formal ed u catio n.
The
tric k le -d o w n e f f e c t o f reactio n -ch an g e has permeated from c o lle g e
youth to noncollege youth to th e high school graduate youth.
By 1974 subdued youth have r e a liz e d t h e i r lim it s o f power as
a group. There has been a d e c lin e in momentum o f th e youth movement
10
from th e re a c tio n a ry overtones o f 1968-70 e ra . A w illin g n e s s to
fo llo w c e rta in r u le s , but w ith a demand to have e v e ry th in g now, is
the c u rre n t tre n d . D if f e r e n t p r i o r i t i e s a re shown by what is being
sought and how i t is sought.
" In s ta n t bourbon s o c ie ty and now"
is
a c o n tra s t from the past "reward o f a good l i f e w i l l come w ith hard
work and time" (Y a n k e lo v itc h and C la r k , 1974, pp. 4 5 + ).
At the same tim e the new ferm ent o f d isco ntentm en t, ad ju s tm e n t,
and rearrangem ent o f p r i o r i t y o f goals in youth is having a permeating
e f f e c t as youth move in to occupations in
in creasin g numbers.
In f a c t ,
by 1975 about 50 m illio n (about 25 p e rc e n t) o f the e le c to r a te are in
the 2 to 35 year age b rac ke t plus an a d d itio n a l 10 m illio n youths in
the 18 to 21 y e a r range. Professions are slo w ly changing t h e i r p ro
fe s s io n a l
id e n t it ie s since a " ra d ic a ls -in -th e -p r o fe s s io n s " movement
is e v o lv in g (F la c k s , 1971, p. 1 0 5 ). To e x e m p lify , in a congressional
house vote to e le v a te the s a la r ie s o f c a b in e t members, s e n a to rs , and
congressmen, 51 freshman re p re s e n ta tiv e s voted a g a in s t the measure
and 21 voted f o r i t ( S ta te News, August 1, 1975).
I t is not o n ly the s p i r i t but the t a c tic s o f student p ro te s t
and o th e r forms o f re a c tio n th a t are being c a rrie d through to a new
c la s s consciousness.
The youth o r ie n ta tio n is s t i l l p resen t but i t s
c lo th in g is d if f e r e n t .
R eferen t p o in ts f o r th e i d e n t it y o f a p ro fession can be d eriv ed
from the p ro fe s s io n 's a c t i v i t i e s o r occupations. Thus, when a p ro fe s
s io n 's response changes in accordance w ith s o c ia l changes, so does the
p ro fe s s io n a l
id e n t it y change to an e x te n t as a fo llo w -th ro u g h .
11
A case in p o in t in p ro fessio n tra n s fo rm a tio n is the profession
o f Home Economics3 which has had th e fa m ily as
i t s so c ia l r e fe r e n t
group. Since the beginning o f th e century th e fa m ily o rg a n iz a tio n
has g ra d u a lly moved from a c o fig u ra tiv e ** to a p r e f ig u r a t iv e 5 s ty le
o f fa m ily member r e la tio n s h ip . Out o f the e v o lu tio n o f th e contemporary
fa m ily has a ls o evolved the d e f i n i t e youth group in the l i f e c y c le .
Thus, the Home Economics p ro fessio n has had to go through an e v o lu tio n ,
since i t s in c e p tio n in the e a r ly 1900‘ s, somewhat p a r a lle l
in pace to
th e fa m ily movement and secondary to the r is e o f the youth group.
C o fig u ra tiv e so cial groups such as th e fa m ily and youth group
have developed in a recognized form only over the la s t approxim ate 15
y e a rs . S im ila r ly , a t the same tim e the p ro fessio n o f Home Economics,
in i t s attem pt to change and keep pace w ith i t s fa m ily r e fe r e n t group,
has shown a recognized am biguity in i t s p ro fe s s io n a l
id e n t it y . Cur
r e n t ly , th e Home Economics p ro fess io n is showing two hands: on the
one hand, a t r a d it io n a l c o fig u r a tiv e s t y le , and on the o th e r , a
p r e fig u r a tiv e purposeful s ty le (Y a n k e lo v itc h , 1974b, p. 3 ) .
Since th e s o c ie ty is undergoing tra n s fo rm a tio n to a p r e f ig
u ra tiv e c u ltu r e i t is p o ssib le th a t the Home Economics p ro fessio n is
le v e l.
3Home Economics is the p ro fe s s io n a l name a t the n a tio n a l
W ith in the Home Economics p ro fe s s io n , subgroups are changing t h e i r name
and p h ilosop hies to Human E cology, e . g . , a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity
the C ollege o f Home Economics changed to C o lleg e o f Human Ecology in
J u ly 1970.
*X o fig u ra tiv e is the kin d o f c u ltu r e in which both c h ild re n and
a d u lts le a rn from t h e i r peers (Mead, 1970, p. 1 ).
5P re f1 g u ra tiv e is th e kin d o f c u ltu r e in which a d u lts le a rn also
from t h e i r c h ild re n (Mead, 1970, p. 1 ).
12
als o undergoing a tra n s fo rm a tio n l i k e o th e r professions to p a r a lle l a
p r e fig u r a tiv e c u ltu r e s t y le . Hence* presen t youth o r ie n ta tio n can now
be a c u rre n t source o f contemporary and fu tu re so c ia l o rie n ta tio n s in
the p ro fe s s io n .
The personal goals o r values o f Human Ecology under
graduate students in a u n iv e r s ity can be considered as a p rep ro fessio n al
youth o r ie n ta tio n . F u rth e r, an o r ie n ta tio n assessment o f Human Ecology
youth since the h eig h t o f the youth movement, 1968-1970, may provide
suggestions to present trends and p re d ic tio n s o f th e kind o f Human
Ecology p ro fe s s io n a l
id e n t it y or o r ie n ta tio n t h a t is e v o lv in g .
The p resen t study does examine the personal valu e o rie n ta tio n
o f Human Ecology p re p ro fe s s io n a ls a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity over
th e tim e 1968 to 1975. Along w ith Y a n k e lo v itc h 's (1974 ) study o f the
general Home Economics p ro fe s s io n , th is study o f a p a rt o f th e Home
Economics p re p ro fe s s io n a ls may p ro vide a more complete p ic tu re o f the
general Home Economics o r ie n t a t io n — e s p e c ia lly the Human Ecology branch
a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity .
However, as a f i n a l p o in t what were the conclusions o f the l a s t
study on th e Home Economics p rep ro fes sio n a l o r ie n ta tio n a t Michigan
S ta te U n iv e rs ity ? Conclusions (L o re n z, 1970, pp. 123-125) made were
th a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity Home Economics students expressed a
g re a te r concern in the area o f so c ia l conscience than o th e r co lle g e
and u n iv e r s ity women. S im ila r ly , Home Economics students were more
concerned w ith lib e r a lis m and so c ia l conscience a f t e r becoming in vo lved
w ith a Home Economics program. The Home Economics c u r r ic u la r subgroups
d id not d i f f e r s ig n if ic a n t ly from th e t o t a l Home Economics group in
t h e i r concern f o r lib e r a lis m and so c ia l conscience and in t h e ir
13
assessment o f general va lu e s. Subgroups d id show a s ig n if ic a n t
d iffe r e n c e on the combination o f s a tis fa c tio n w ith m ajor and concern
fo r w e ll-b e in g o f p eople. R e ta ilin g and in t e r io r design subgroups
showed les s a l t r u i s t i c concern f o r people than d id th e teach ing ,
foods, and n u t r it io n subgroups. Lack o f s p e c if ic it y o f where each
group stood in r e la t io n to values provides o p p o rtu n ity to examine more
deeply th e id e n t if ic a t io n and comparisons o f subgroup values in r e la t io n
to a p ro fe s s io n a l value commitment in Human Ecology (L o re n z, 1970,
p. 1 2 6 ). Since no broad d e s c rip tiv e study o f Human Ecology students
has been c a rrie d out from the in c e p tio n o f the Human Ecology program
in 1970 a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity , Lorenz' study a c ts as a guide
and springboard to in s t it u t io n a l assessment o f Human Ecology students.
In l i g h t o f past flu c tu a tio n s in a s c e rta in in g and c l a r if y in g the Home
Economics and Human Ecology value commitments, i t would seem a p p ro p ria te
to v e r i f y and a f fir m th e present Human Ecology d ir e c t io n seven years
a f t e r Lorenz' work.
In b r i e f , th e n , th e present study o f student values in one
p ro fe s s io n a l a re a , Human Ecology, provides c u rre n t in fo rm atio n about
in p u t and output o f the u n iv e rs ity education processing w ith respect
to enhancing p ro fe s s io n a l Human E c o lo g is ts . Knowledge o f student
c h a r a c te r is tic s is one o f the several fa c e ts th a t must be considered
when p rep arin g c u r r ic u la re le v a n t to professions and s o c ia l trends
and needs and when d eterm in in g the degree o f a c c o u n ta b ility o f an
ed u catio n al
i n s t it u t io n . The use o f personal values o r goals provides
a common denominator among s o c ie ty 's c u rre n t trends o f emphasis, p ro
fe s s io n a l o r ie n t a t io n , and stand ard s, and in d iv id u a l o rie n ta tio n s a t
14
any one given tim e .
Id e n tify in g and comparing undergraduate Human
Ecology student values over th e la s t seven y e a rs , th u s , is one o f the
c o n trib u tin g fa c e ts to a s c e rta in in g u n iv e r s ity cu rricu lu m re le v a n c e ,
u n iv e rs ity a c c o u n ta b ility , and s o c ia l relevance through p ro fe s s io n a l
in te r a c tio n .
Hypotheses
For purposes o f t h is study on the comparison o f personal
values o f Home Economics and Human Ecology undergraduate fem ale
students the fo llo w in g general research hypotheses a re posed:
1. There a re d iffe re n c e s in th e personal values held by
undergraduate Human Ecology students by m ajor and le v e l
f o r the one academic p erio d 1971-1975.
2. There a re d iffe re n c e s in the personal values held by
undergraduate Human Ecology students among m ajo rs, le v e ls ,
and academic years 1971 to 1975.
3. There a r e d iffe re n c e s in the personal values held by freshman
and t r a n s f e r undergraduate Human Ecology students
in the years
1971-1975.
4. There a re d iffe re n c e s
in the personal values held by
undergraduate Home Economics students in 1968-69 and
undergraduate Human Ecology students in 1974-75 by m ajor
and l e v e l .
The te s ta b le forms o f th e general research hypotheses are
re s ta te d in d e t a i l
in Chapter I I I , Design and Methodology.
15
D e fin it io n o f Terms
At the o u ts e t, re fe re n c e to a value is made in terms o f a
value held by a person.
Value in the sense o f the degree o f worth o f
an o b je c t is not being discussed o r considered in th is study. F u rth e r,
since the Rokeach Value Survey is the instrum ent used in t h is stu d y,
i t
is a p p ro p ria te to in t e r p r e t the concept o f value as suggested by Rokeach.
Value " is an enduring b e l ie f th a t a sp ecial mode o f conduct o r
e n d -s ta te o f e x is te n c e is p e rs o n a lly o r s o c ia lly p re fe ra b le to an oppo
s i t e or converse mode o f conduct o r e n d -s ta te o f e x is te n c e " (Rokeach,
1973, p. 5 ) . A value fu n c tio n s by transcending " a ttitu d e s towards
o b je c ts and s it u a t io n s ;
.
.
.
'a c tin g as* a standard th a t guides and
determ ines a c tio n , a ttitu d e s towards o b je c ts and s it u a t io n s , id e o lo g y ,
p re s e n ta tio n o f s e lf to o th e rs ;
. .
. and attem pts to in flu e n c e o th ers"
(Rokeach, 1973, p. 2 5 ).
Values have c o g n itiv e , a f f e c t i v e , and b eh avio ral p a rts which
express the in t e r r e la t e d t r i p a r t compositions o f a value (Rokeach, 1973,
p. 7 ) . The th re e re s p e c tiv e p a rts o f a valu e a re :
conceived thoughts
o f the d e s ir a b le , fe e lin g s f o r an d /o r a g a in s t a v a lu e , and in te rv e n tio n
th a t leads to a c tio n when a c tiv a te d .
The Rokeach d e f in it io n o f a personal value is als o h ig h ly
com patible w ith those value d e f in it io n s proposed by Clyde Kluckhohn
(1 9 5 2 ), Smith (1 9 6 3 ), and W illia m s (1968) (Rokeach, 1968, p. 160).
Instrum ental value is b il a t e r a l since th e re are two kinds:
moral value and competence v a lu e :
( 1 ) Moral values a re p r im a r ily
"modes o f behavior and do not n e c e s s a rily include values th a t concern
16
e n d -s ta te s o f e x is te n c e ." Moral values r e f e r o n ly "to those t h a t have
an in te rp e rs o n a l focus which when v io la te d arouse pangs o f conscience
o r fe e lin g s o f g u i l t fo r wrongdoing" (Rokeach, 1973, p. 8 ) ; and
(2 ) Competence values o r s e l f a c tu a liz a tio n values "have a personal
r a th e r than in te rp e rs o n a l focus and do not seem to be e s p e c ia lly con
cerned w ith m o r a lity . T h e ir v io la tio n leads to fe e lin g s o f shame about
personal
inadequacy ra th e r than to fe e lin g s o f g u i l t about wrongdoing"
(Rokeach, 1973, p. 8 ) .
Term inal value is an id e a liz e d e n d -s ta te o f e x is te n c e .
"G e n era lly a l l
instrum ental values are modes o f behavior th a t are
in stru m ental to the a tta in m e n t o f a l l values concerning e n d -s ta te s
o f e x iste n c e (Rokeach, 1973, p. 1 2 ).
Value system " is an enduring o rg a n iz a tio n o f b e lie fs concerning
p re fe ra b le modes o f conduct o r e n d -s ta te s o f e x is te n c e along a c o n tin
uum o f r e l a t i v e importance" (Rokeach, 1973, p. 5 ) .
Assumptions
1. A ll people hold the same personal values but w ith d if f e r e n t
p r i o r i t i e s .
2. Values can be organized in to value systems.
3. Human or personal values have a m u ltifa c e te d o r ig in :
c u ltu r e ,
s o c ie ty and i t s
in s t it u t io n s , and p e rs o n a lity . Thus, the
s ta tu s o f an in d iv id u a l's values may r e f l e c t contemporary
s o c ia l value p a tte rn s .
17
4. The personal valu e system held by an in d iv id u a l r e f le c t s
a personal o r ie n ta tio n towards liv in g and in flu e n c e s the
s e le c tio n o f an ed u catio nal choice.
5* There are d iffe re n c e s in th e personal value systems o f male
and fem ale u n iv e r s ity stu d en ts.
6,
Id e n t if ic a t io n and comparison o f student values can provide
useful data f o r purposes o f c o lle g e program e v a lu a tio n p la n
n in g , r e v is io n , a c c o u n ta b ility , and student s ta tu s .
7. The American s o c ie ty is th e s e ttin g in which the study takes
p la c e .
8, A d m in is tra tio n o f the Rokeach Value Survey in one session is
the same whether in a cla ss s e ttin g or a home s e ttin g since
the respondent completes the survey independently in about
20 m inutes.
9. The Rokeach Value Survey, Form D and Form F , are b a s ic a lly th e
same Instrum ent as the same com pletion process and end product
re s u lts a re e n ta ile d .
L im ita tio n s
1. The study is lim ite d to a nonrandom sample o f fem ale Home
Economics and Human Ecology freshm an, s e n io r, and tr a n s fe r
students a t M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity from 1968 to 1975.
G e n e ra liz a tio n beyond th is group is in a p p ro p ria te since
i t is not a random sample.
18
2. The 1968-69 Home Economics sample is re p re s e n ta tiv e but not
random sin ce i t is in s im ila r p ro p o rtio n to the pop ulatio n
by subgroup and le v e l.
3. The 1971-1975 nonrandom Human Ecology sample is not com pletely
re p re s e n ta tiv e . G e n e ra liz a tio n s cannot be made beyond the
s iz e o f th e sample but the la rg e sample s iz e does a llo w fo r
suggestions about th e p o p u la tio n .
4. Male students re g is te re d in the past C ollege o f Home Economics
and p resen t C ollege o f Human Ecology are o m itted since the
small number present in th e sumple make comparisons d i f f i c u l t
and some d iffe re n c e s e x is t in value systems by sex type (C ross,
1968, pp. 1 2 -2 1 ; F e a th e r, 1970, p. 1 3 4 ).
5. Home Economics and Human Ecology fem ale students a t the under
graduate le v e l were surveyed during only some s p e c ific school
term s, r a th e r than a l l school terms o f the academic years
1968-69 and 1971-1975.
The f i r s t ch ap ter has provided a discussion o f the problem,
the purpose o f th e stu d y, and the background o f the study. F u rth e r,
the form at o f th e study has been o u tlin e d by way o f o b je c tiv e s , main
hypotheses, assum ptions, and lim it a t io n s .
In Chapter I I th e re is c o n tin u a tio n o f background in fo rm a tio n
f o r the study. Trends in value o r ie n ta tio n o f th re e connected areas
are shown:
(1 ) p ro fe s s io n a l and p re p ro fe s s io n a l o r ie n ta tio n o f Home
Economics in general and s p e c i f ic a l l y a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity ,
(2 ) value o r ie n ta tio n s o f campus youth in g e n e ra l, and (3 ) value
19
o rie n ta tio n s o f campus youth through the use o f th e Rokeach Value
Survey.
In Chapter I I I , an e la b o ra tio n o f the methodology f o r the
study is g iven .
Follow ing th e re p o rtin g o f procedures and instrum ent
used in c o lle c tin g the data on personal v a lu e s , a d e s c rip tio n o f the
Home Economics and Human Ecology undergraduate student p a rtic ip a n ts is
g iven . N ext, th e general research hypotheses are s ta te d and fo llo w e d
by an o u tlin e o f the a n a ly s is used to te s t th e hypotheses.
In Chapter IV , the re s u lts from the d ata a n a ly s is on Home
Economics and Human Ecology student personal values from 1968 to
1975 are described and summarized.
In Chapter V, co n clu sio n s, d is cu ss io n , and im p lic a tio n s a re
presented.
L a s tly , in th e Appendix, an example o f th e in s tru m e n t,
Rokeach Value Survey,
is p ro vided.
CHAPTER I I
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The c e n t r a lit y and pervasiveness o f values c re a te s a breadth
o f scope in values l i t e r a t u r e . S e le c tio n o f l i t e r a t u r e r e la te d to the
d e s c rip tio n o f values held by Home Economics/Human Ecology undergraduate
u n iv e r s ity students has been narrowed to th re e areas. The f i r s t area
concerns th e values held by th e Home Economics/Human Ecology profession
and provides a h is t o r ic a l background to th e p ro fe s s io n a l o r ie n ta tio n and
c u rre n t s ta tu s .
The second area p e rta in s to a broader view o f s tu d ie s re la te d
to values o f u n iv e r s ity students and helps to f i t value research o f Home
Economics/Human Ecology students in to th e broader p e rs p e c tiv e o f student
values in h ig her ed u catio n.
The t h ir d area d eals w ith the value research o f u n iv e r s ity
students using the Rokeach Value Survey. Reference to previous work
using the Rokeach Value Survey is p e r tin e n t as th e c u rre n t study uses
th e Rokeach Value Survey w ith u n iv e rs ity Home Economics/Human Ecology
s tu d en ts. The value th e o ry , research m ethodologies, and valu e data
re s u lts can provide a base f o r comparison and suggestions f o r fu tu re
v alu e s tu d ie s .
20
21
Values In Home Economics/Human Ecology
Since the in c e p tio n o f Home Economics a t the tu rn o f the
tw e n tie th century
th e re has been a c i r c u la r development o f the
c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f th e p ro fess io n al Home Economics purpose* g o a l, and
conmitment over th e p as t 70 y e a rs . At th e 1902 Lake P la c id Conference
th e values o f the new Home Economics o rg a n iz a tio n were s tip u la te d as
being:
1. The id e a l home l i f e fo r today unhampered by th e
tr a d itio n s o f th e past.
2 . The u t i l i z a t i o n o f a l l the resources o f modern
science to improve the home l i f e .
3. The freedom o f th e home from th e dominance o f things
and t h e i r due subordination to id e a ls .
4. The s im p lic it y in m a te ria l surroundings w i l l fr e e the
s p i r i t fo r th e more im portant and permanent in te re s ts
o f the home and o f so c ie ty [Lake P lacid Conference o f
Home Economics: Proceedings o f th e S ix th Annual Con
fe re n c e , 1904, p. 3 1 ].
These Home Economics women a tte n d in g the conference were
a c t iv e ly a s s e rtin g t h e i r concern f o r t h e i r m u ltifa c e te d ro le in s o c ie ty
and concern f o r o th e rs in g e n eral. Thus, th e re was a re c o g n itio n o f
th e concern fo r a q u a lit y l i f e f o r th e fa m ily and in d iv id u a ls in c o n te x t
to the apparent s o c ia l, economic, and in d u s tr ia l changes o f th a t tim e .
As Lorenz (1970, p. 21) pointed o u t, th ese s ta ted values s t i l l have
v a l i d i t y today w ith th e repercussions o f an in c re a s in g a c c e le ra tio n
o f technology,
in d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , and p l u r a l i s t i c s t y le o f l iv i n g .
The second stage o f p ro fe s s io n a l comnitment c l a r i f i c a t i o n was
in d ic a te d by Bane (1 9 5 0 , p. 1 5 ), H i l l
(1 9 5 5 , p. 5 2 9 ), and Budewig's
(1 9 5 9 , p. 36) n o ta tio n o f a need to e s ta b lis h c le a r ly the basic values
t h a t uphold the Home Economics p ro fe s s io n . Both Bane and H i l l suggested
22
a continued focus on th e home but H i l l zeroed in more s p e c if ic a lly
on the concept o f r e la t in g a l l Home Economics phases to the needs
o f fa m ilie s and in d iv id u a ls w ith a p o s itiv e acceptance o f change.
As a r e s u lt o f the u n c e rta in tie s in th e 1 9 5 0 's , the committee on the
philosophy and o b je c tiv e s o f the American Home Economics A ssociation
(1 9 5 9 , p. 3) reviewed th e 1902 creed and re a ffirm e d the v a l i d i t y o f
the creed f o r a concern o f a q u a lit y fa m ily l i f e .
However, t a lk and d e c la ra tio n does not im ply th a t th ere is
a c tio n to v e r if y the p ro fe s s io n a l Home Economics p o s itio n and focus.
Lee and Dressel
(19 63 , p. 106)
in d ic a te d th e u n d u latin g Home Economics
p o s itio n and s ta rte d in q u ir ie s f o r philosophy change in the I9 6 0 ’ s.
When Lee and D re s s e l, determ ined the balance o f l i b e r a l and p ro fe s
sio n al education in Home Economic's c u r r ic u la , they found th a t th e re
was a la c k o f fa m ily o r ie n ta tio n in some Home Economics courses and
c u r r ic u la . Thus, th e re was a suggestion f o r continued research o f
i n s t it u t io n c u r r ic u la e v a lu a tio n and re v is io n th a t would t i e in th e
p ro fe s s io n a l fa m ily l i f e focus.
As a beginning in c u r r ic u la e v a lu a tio n , McConnell (1965) found
th a t according to Home Economics statem ents o f fa m ily (as a c e n tra l
fo c u s ), human va lu e s , in t e g r a t io n , and process (M cC onnell, 1965,
p. 1 2 6 ), Home Economics c u r r ic u la a t th re e ed u catio n al
le v e ls adhered
more c lo s e ly to the pragm atic philosophy o f John Dewey than th re e o th e r
examined philosop hies (M cC onnell, 1965, p. 1 2 6 ). Establishm ent o f an
ed u catio n al philosophy was a v a lid stepp ing stone which could p ro vid e
l a t e r a frame o f re fe re n c e f o r c u r r ic u la re v is io n d e c is io n s .
23
Like Lee and Dressel (1 9 6 3 , p. 106) and McConnell (1 9 6 5 , p. 1 3 3 ),
Brown (1 9 6 7 , p. 769) sensed a lack o f a c e n tra l theme in Home Economics
su b je ct m a tte r and c u r r ic u la and queried the id e n t if ic a t io n o f c e n tra l
value concepts in Home Economics. Brown's conclusion (19 67 , p. 769) was
th a t the goals o f the Home Economics pro fession would be more adequately
f u l f i l l e d i f th e goals were c le a r ly d efin e d and based upon a to ta l
e x p lic a tio n and consensus o f a l l fundamental conmon values in Home
Economics.
Movement forw ard was made from Brown's proposal f o r a c tio n o f
c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f the Home Economic1s p ro fess io n al conmitment. Creekmore
(1 9 6 8 , p. 95) s ta te d the basic concept o f Home Economics as b ein g , "home
economics is the study o f man as a t o t a l b ein g , h is near environment and
the in te r a c tio n between them." However, Creekmore (19 68 , p. 94) argued
th a t purposes, g o a ls , and values were su b je ct to change over tim e and
consequently in a p p ro p ria te f o r basic concepts u n d erly in g Home Economics.
On th e one hand, Creekmore's comment is v a l id , and, on th e o th e r hand,
i t is not as th e re is not c l a r i t y between th e use o f changing c u ltu r a l
values and those values th a t are i m p l i c i t l y p o s ite d in a p ro fe s s io n a l
commitment such as the Home Economics creed and c e n tra l theme. Hence,
in a p ro fe s s io n a l p o s itio n statem ent th e re can be an i d e n t if ic a t io n o f
c e r ta in a f f i l i a t e d values ir r e s p e c tiv e o f the c u rre n t tim es . Movement
s t i l l continues in c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f a Home Economics p ro fess io n al com
mitment because the n a tio n a l
le v e l o f Home Economics/Human Ecology
p ro fession to d ate (1975) has not co n so lid ated a current, p ro fess io n al
d ir e c t io n , comnitment, and o b je c tiv e s f o r a r o le in s o c ie ty (Brown,
1967; Byrd, 1970; Ray, 19 70 ). There is a d iv e r s it y o f suggested
24
d ire c tio n s and emphases fo r th e Home Economics/Human Ecology
p ro fe s s io n .
One in d ic a tio n o f the d iv e r s it y is Ray's (19 70 , p. 717)
statem ent t h a t i t is tim e to c l a r i f y p ro fe s s io n a l values since
Home Economics has not liv e d up to the standards s ta te d in 1958.
Ray in d ic a te d th a t th e re is a dichotomy about the use o f the
fa m ily as a focus since the c o n je ctu re is th a t everyone does not liv e
in a fa m ily s e ttin g (1 9 7 0 , p. 7 1 5 ).
A second in d ic a tio n came from the b r i e f rep o rts o f the 11th
Lake P la c id Conference th a t supported the d iv e r s it y o f o p in io n about
Home Economics/Human Ecology d ir e c tio n and value o r ie n ta tio n . Examples
o f d if f e r e n t Home Economics d ir e c tio n s and concerns a re :
( 1 ) s k i l l s
are a v i t a l p a r t o f Home Economics, (2 ) awareness o f the Home Economics
group as one in com p etition w ith o th e r p ro fe s s io n a l groups s e rv ic in g
the p u b lic , (3 ) tim e to move from th e in te r n a l to the e x te r n a l,
(4 ) pursue the r e la tio n s h ip between man and environm ent, and
(5 ) re -e d u c a te men to take a r e s p o n s ib ilit y in homemaking (1 1 th
Lake P la c id Conference, 1974, p. 1 0 ).
Examples o f issues f o r p r i o r i t y in th e 1970's a re : m ain ta in
in te r n a tio n a l work and exchange programs, conserve n a tu ra l and human
reso u rces, c h ild development and c a re , p o p u la tio n ed u c a tio n , p u b lic
p o lic y and e f f e c t iv e change a g e n t, o ld age problem s, consumer problems,
and housing (Lake P la c id Year R epo rt, 1974a, p. 5 0 ).
Examples o f ac tio n s to strengthen Home Economics a re :
(1 )
develop p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s , (2 ) develop a c le a r conceptual framework,
25
(3 ) strengthen re se arch , and (4 ) b u ild a strong p u b lic r e la tio n s th ru s t
th a t e x h ib its a c le a r Home Economic's id e n t it y and code o f p ro fess io n al
values and standards (Lake P la c id Year R eport, 1974b, p. 5 0 ).
A th ir d in d ic a tio n is t h a t w ith the changing face o f th e fa m ily ,
the question has been asked ( S t. M a rie , 1970; E a s t, 1970; The Fam ily
Faces Change, 1970) as to how best should th e Home Economics p rofession
modify i t s e l f to a lig n w ith th e c u rre n t trends o f fa m ily l i f e and s t i l l
be a s e rv ic in g p ro fess io n .
And a f o u r th , a c o n firm a tio n o f the d iv e rs e p o s itio n
o f the Home Economics p ro fessio n and hence need f o r re c o n s id e ra tio n
o f i t s p ro fe s s io n a l value commitment and o r ie n t a t io n , has been shown
through Y a n k e lo v itc h 's (1974b) survey o f q u a lit a t iv e a ttitu d e s from
s ix f ie ld s about th e image o f th e Home Economics p ro fession and about
the work done by Home Economists.
The f i e l d s — business, c o lle g e s and u n iv e r s it ie s , secondary
schools, government, s ta te le g is la t u r e , m edia, have a p o la riz e d
perception o f the Home Economics p ro fessio n :
On the one hand, home economists are seen as a c t iv e , s k i l l e d ,
On th e o th e r
and w orthw hile c o n trib u to rs as employees.
.
hand, home economists are seen as t r a d i t i o n a l ,
lim it e d , and
c a rry in g an u n c e rta in ty as to the e x te n t to which they can
or w i l l c o n trib u te to the em ployer's u ltim a te goals
[Y a n k e lo v itc h , 1974b, p. 3 ] .
.
.
The key to the s o lu tio n o f th e p ro fe s s io n a l o r ie n ta tio n issue
th a t the Y ankelovitch study raised was
lon g-ran ge planning in terms
o f d e fin in g Home Economics. With o rg a n iz a tio n o f the d is c ip lin e 's
content and strong p u b lic r e la tio n s th e re is th e p o s s ib ilit y o f people
26
c le a r ly seeing what subprofessions and ro le s in s o c ie ty are housed 1n
the general profession o f Home Economics (Y a n k e lo v itc h , 1974b, p. 7 ) .
To continue w ith the n a tio n a l
le v e l re c o g n itio n o f th e Home
Economics p ro fession need to c l a r i f y i t s o b je c tiv e s , philosophy, and
o rie n ta tio n in s o c ie ty (Brown, Creekmore, D r e s s e l), the College o f
Human Ecology a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity has taken s ix steps in an
i n i t i a t i v e to c l a r i f y , d e fin e , and implement a p ro fess io n al value
p o s itio n and d ir e c tio n .
F i r s t , through a conceptual a n a ly s is o f th e term fa m ily ,
Q u illin g (19 70 ) reviewed th e 1958-1969 American Home Economics
A sso ciatio n l i t e r a t u r e to update and c l a r i f y the c u rre n t n a tio n a l
Home Economics p ro fess io n al valu e p o s itio n . At th a t tim e th e Home
Economics philosophy was d ire c te d towards th e fa m ily :
"Home Economics
attem pts to educate in d iv id u a ls to l iv e e f f e c t iv e fa m ily liv e s "
( Q u illin g ,
in A b s tra c t, 1970, p.
i ) . More s p e c i f ic a l l y , th e aim was
to move the fa m ily l i f e s t y le from an independent s e lf-s u s ta in in g e n t i t y
to a more open interdependent group. The fa m ily was to have a l i f e
s ty le c h a r a c t e r is t ic a lly l i k e :
.
. m id d le c la s s , s ta b le , u n if ie d , re sp o n s ib le to s o c ie ty ,
.
h e a lth y , norm al, t h e ir needs r e la t iv e to fo o d , c lo th in g
and s h e lte r are ad equ ately m et, they s t r iv e to improve
t h e ir l i f e s t y l e , and they promote th e c u lt u r e 's p o l i t i c a l
ideology [ Q u illin g ,
in A b s tra c t, 1970, pp.
i v - v ] .
From Q u illin g 's i d e n t if ic a t io n and resume o f the fa m ily concept
p o s itio n p ro je c te d by th e Home Economics p ro fe s s io n , the conclusion was
th a t th e Home Economics philosophy had reached an e v o lu tio n a ry p o in t
where th e re must be a c o n s id e ra tio n o f knowledge and th eo ry fo r
27
c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f the Home Economics p ro fess io n al o r ie n ta tio n and
d ir e c tio n ( Q u illin g , 1970, p. 2 6 3 ). Q u illin g 's conclusion i d e n t i f i e d
the sta tu s o f the past Home Economic*s philosophy but the conclusion
d id not suggest t h a t the s ta tu s was th e d esired c u rre n t and fu tu r e
Home Economics p ro fe s s io n a l p o s itio n . On the c o n tra ry , an im p lic a tio n
fo r fu tu re research was “ to determ ine i f Home Economics as a f i e l d
presents a u n ifie d approach to the concept fa m ily o r i f a v a r ie ty o f
d iv e rs e view points e x is t? ( Q u illin g , 1970, p. 2 6 6 ). Thus, Q u illin g
was in agreement w ith Brown, Creekmore, and Dressel about a re q u ire d
cementing o f a c u rre n t d e f in it io n o f Home Economics and p ro fe s s io n a l
commitment and o rie n ta tio n in s o c ie ty .
Second, Lorenz (1970) described the c u rre n t Home Economics
students a t the end o f the Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity Home Economics
era in 1968-1969.
T h ir d , in 1970 the C o lleg e o f Home Economics a t Michigan S ta te
U n iv e rs ity changed i t s name, c u rric u lu m , and philosophy. The re v is e d
C ollege o f Home Economics was housed under the new heading o f C o lle g e
o f Human Ecology.
F o u rth , two jo u rn a l a r t i c l e s from Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity
have s ta te d p ro fe s s io n a l Human Ecology p o s itio n s . Turk (19 71 , p. 1)
s ta te d t h a t the ch allen g e to the C ollege o f Human Ecology was the
q u a lity o f liv in g and th a t th e o r ig in a l aim o f Home Economics s t i l l
a p p lie s to the p ro fe s s io n a l f i e l d o f Human Ecology.
28
When Home Economics was organized as a p ro fe s s io n a l f i e l d
around the tu rn o f th e c e n tu ry , th e lead ers s ta te d t h e i r
aim as "the study o f law s, c o n d itio n s , p r in c ip le s and
Id e a ls which are concerned on th e one hand w ith man's
immediate physical environment and on th e o th e r hand
w ith his n atu re as a so c ia l b e in g , and is the study
s p e c ia lly o f the r e la t io n between those two fa c t o r s ."
The aim s t i l l f i t s [T u rk , 1971, p. 1 ],
Since the o v e r a ll emphasis is on th e In terd ep en d en t r e la tio n s h ip
between man and his near environm ent, th e re are p a r a lle l a p p lic a tio n s to
the c e n tr a l focus on th e subunit o f the fa m ily . Thus, Hook and Paolucci
(19 70 , p. 315)
in the second jo u rn a l a r t i c l e have suggested th a t the
home is "a l i f e support system f o r the fa m ily members; th a t i s , p ro v i
sion o f both p hysical and so c ia l n u rtu ra n c e ." The d ir e c tio n f o r Home
Economists is to "search fo r understanding and c o n tr o llin g th e m u tu ally
su s ta in in g re la tio n s h ip s th a t couple man w ith his near environment"
(Hook and P a o lu c c i, 1970, p. 3 1 6 ).
F i f t h , i f a philosophy is to be c a rr ie d out to an a c tio n stage
as in "You p ra c tic e what you preach," then th e re is a need f o r a mech
anism t h a t w i l l help to tra n s fe r the body o f co o rd in ated Ideas to a
le v e l o f a c tio n . Hence, w ith a need to co n vert the a b s tra c t to the
c o n c re te , Vaines (1 9 7 4 ) has probed a t th e n a tio n a l
le v e l th e use o f the
Human E c o lo g ical Systems Framework (p ro fe s s io n a l o r ie n ta tio n used by
C ollege o f Human Ecology a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity ).
The Human
E colog ical Systems framework is a way to c re a te the tra n s fo rm a tio n ,
conversion o r mechanism o f the philosophy and p ro fe s s io n a l value p o s i
tio n in Human Ecology and Home Economics, to the im plem entation stage.
Thus, a goal o f th e framework is to p rovide an approach f o r a n a ly s is o f
a s itu a tio n and to a s s is t in fin d in g a s u ita b le answer to th e question
or issue a t hand o r in o b ta in in g a g o a l.
29
From the nationw ide Home Economics a d m in is tra to r survey,
th e re was in d ic a tio n o f 22 percent to 40 percent agreement in using
the E co lo g ical Systems Framework as the c e n tra l focus o f Home
Economics and Human Ecology.
The use o f an a b s tra c t te c h n ic a l
language in the survey to
e x p la in the Ecological Systems Framework may be a fa c to r in low numbers
o f response and low agreement. Examples o f comments from respondents
in d ic a te d enthusiasm fo r acceptance o f the framework, semantic problems
and need fo r more e x p la n a tio n , and disagreem ent because o f the la c k o f
in c lu s io n o f a l l
in d iv id u a ls in s o c ie ty when th e focus is only on the
f a m i l y .
Two basic co n sid e ra tio n s in the communication and inn ovatio n
d iffu s io n o f the framework appear to be in co m p letely attended to .
There appeared to be a la c k o f communicating in the o th e r man's
language (although a g lo ss ary was p ro v id e d ). F u r th e r, the tim ing
o f the a d m in is tra tio n o f the survey was in September and coincided
w ith a busy tim e f o r respondents who were a d m in is tra to rs and p o s sib ly
more concerned about the opening o f t h e i r own c o lle g e o r school fo r
an o th e r academic y e a r.
S ix th , in the freshman Human Ecology core course a t Michigan
S ta te U n iv e r s ity , th e use o f the Human E co lo g ical Systems Framework,
to implement the human e c o lo g ic a l p ro fe s s io n a l v a lu e p o s itio n and p h i
losophy, has had a v a rie d response. On in tro d u c tio n to the framework,
th e re has been an i n i t i a l confused response due to the a b s tra c t new
language o f systems term in o lo g y. However, w ith a p p lic a tio n o f the
30
framework in case s tu d ie s , modules, group discussions and an 80
percent m astery t e s t , th e re is c l a r i t y o f th e Human E colog ical
Systems Framework.
Perception o f relevan ce o f th e use o f the framework has
v a rie d .
Freshman, sophomore, and ju n io r Human Ecology students
have shown an e n th u s ia s tic a p p re c ia tio n to a n i l a p p re c ia tio n o f
th e Human E co lo g ical Systems Framework. F u rth e r, students have
shown a p o s itiv e la t e n t e f f e c t in p e rc e iv in g the re levan ce and
a p p lic a tio n o f th e framework. No study has been done to show the
degree o f acceptance and use o f the E colog ical Systems Framework
by Human Ecology students a t undergraduate, g rad u ate , and fa c u lty
l e v e l . 1
To sum up, the value o r ie n ta tio n o f th e Home Economics and
Human Ecology p ro fession has been p a r t i a l l y and broadly d e fin e d .
One statem ent o f p ro fe s s io n a l o r ie n ta tio n is the concern f o r a q u a lity
l i f e f o r the fa m ily and in d iv id u a ls . A second statem ent o f p ro fe s s io n a l
o r ie n ta tio n is th a t th e re a re f iv e basic i n t r in s i c values undergirding
th e Human Ecology f i e l d : h e a lth , o rd e r, a e s th e tic s , e t h ic s , happiness
(C o lle g e o f Home Economics, M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1968, pp. 1 7 -1 8 );
D re s s e l, 1 9 6 8 ).
I t is e a s ie r to understand th e s h if t in g o f th e Home
Economics p ro fe s s io n a l focus and philosophy given th a t i t s focus is
interd ep en den t upon th e c u rre n t fa m ily . W ith the d is c re p a n c ie s in
the c u ltu r e and youth o r ie n t a t io n s , th e Home Economics p ro fess io n
l 0ne a d m in is tra to r was a respondent in V a in e s 1 study (1 9 7 4 ).
31
is consequently bound to have some d iscrep an cies
in i t s a f f i l i a t i o n s
and o rie n ta tio n s --d e p e n d in g upon th e c l i e n t group served.
What is the stu d en t value o r ie n ta tio n a t th e p rep ro fes sio n a l
le v e l o f Human Ecology a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity in the la s t two
years?
In an o verview , Home Management Residence and Fam ily l i f e
subgroups o f Home Economics students have been d e s c rib e d , respec
t i v e l y , by the Survey o f In te rp e rs o n a l Values (Fukushima, 1966) and
S ixteen P e rs o n a lity F ac to r Q u estio n n aire (A s t le , 19 6 7 ). L a te r ,
in
1968-69, an encompassing re p re s e n ta tiv e group o f Home Economics s tu
dents was described by th e C ollege Student Q uestionnaires developed
by Educational T estin g Service a t P rin c e to n , New J e rs e y , and the
Rokeach Value Survey (L o re n z, 1970).
The presen t study o f student
values would encompass the Human Ecology C o llege by majors and le v e ls
over th e years since Lorenz' study.
The Survey o f In te rp e rs o n a l Values was used to compare
management ra tin g s w ith th e in te rp e rs o n a l values o f 30 ju n io r and
sen io r students a t the home management residence (Fukushima, 19 66 ).
Independence, s u p p o rt, and re c o g n itio n were ranked h ig h e r than
c o n fo rm ity , le a d e rs h ip , and benevolence in comparison to the
N atio n al C o lleg e Norms f o r fem ales. The t o t a l m anagerial s e lf
scores were not asso ciated w ith in d iv id u a l s p e c ific in te rp e rs o n a l
v a lu e s . An approxim ate comparison o f SIV values to th e Rokeach values
and u n d erg ird in g Human Ecology values can be shown in F ig ure 1.
32
VALUES
SIV
Rokeach
Scored above
n a tio n a l
comparison
Independence
Support
Recognition
Independent
In n e r Harmony
S ocial
re c o g n itio n
C ollege o f
Human Ecology
Happiness
Scored below
n a tio n a l
comparison
Conform ity
Leadership
Benevolence
Obedient
R esponsibi1i t y
H e lp fu l
E th ic s
Happiness
F ig ure 1. SIV f o r home management re s id e n t students (Fukushima, 1966)
compared by P a rris h (1975) on Rokeach (1973) and Human
Ecology values (CHE unpublished p a p e r).
33
A t e n t a t iv e in fe re n c e would show th a t the home management house
re sid en ts were low on the p ro fe s s io n a l Human Ecology value commitment
as in d ic a te d by the lack o f p a r a lle l matching o f values and more
matching o f values being in th e low ra te d group. Too, the study does
make use o f a n a tio n a l com parative group which helps to put th e home
management students
in to a broader comparative p e rs p e c tiv e .
Although A s tle 's (1967) study did not examine student values
per se, some o f the re s u lts in comparison to norms e s ta b lis h e d by
C a tte ll are r e la te d in d ir e c t ly to va lu e s. The fa m ily l i f e students
had a high f a c t o r ra tin g on an a r t i s t i c fa c to r and a low fa c to r ra tin g
on a mature confidence in s e l f and c a p a c ity to deal w ith th in g s . These
two fa c to rs can be approxim ately compared to the values o f Rokeach and
Human Ecology in Figure 2.
P r o file F acto r
Rokeach Value
Human Ecology
Value
A r t is t ic
World o f beauty
A e s th e tic
Confidence and
c a p a c ity to
deal w ith th in gs
Responsible
Accomplishment
Capable
E th ic s
Figure 2 . P r o f i le fa c to r f o r fa m ily l i f e students (A s tle , 1967)
compared by P a rris h (19 75 ) on Rokeach (19 73 ) and Human
Ecology values (CHE unpublished p ap e rs ).
34
Again* o n ly a p a r t ia l comparison is made and th e alignm ent o f
p ro fess io n al valu e o r ie n ta tio n is s p l i t h a lf and h a l f .
The comparison o f fa m ily l i f e students w ith the younger n a tu ra l
science students does suggest* m e th o d o lo g ic a lly * l i k e Fukushima and
Lorenz, a p e rs p e c tiv e w ith which to view c o lle g e s tu d e n ts .
In te r e s t
is created by th e b ip o la r comparison o f the p e o p le -o rie n te d fa m ily
l i f e sample to th e n o t-s o -p e o p le -o rie n te d n a tu ra l science sample.
W hile th e 1960's marked an era o f searching f o r a re c a p itu
la t io n o f p ro fe s s io n a l o r ie n ta tio n f o r Home Economics, Lorenz'
(19 70 )
d e s c r ip tiv e study on backgrounds, a t t it u d e s , and values o f Home Eco
nomics students a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity marked th e beginning o f
id e n t if ic a t io n o f student statu s on th e Home Economics focus o f concern
f o r so c ia l problems o r w e ll being o f people.
In th e area o f s o c ia l
conscience the Home Economics undergraduate students scored s i g n i f
ic a n t ly higher than o th e r c o lle g e and u n iv e r s ity women. Home Economics
students scored low er in expected jo b s a tis fa c tio n from being u sefu l to
s o c ie ty .
S ig n if ic a n t ly higher scores in lib e r a lis m and so c ia l conscience
were a tta in e d by a fte r-b e c o m in g -in v o lv e d Home Economics students than
w hen-entering Home Economics stu d en ts. Subgroups o f Home Economics s tu
dents did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r from the t o ta l group on lib e r a lis m
s o c ia l conscience area (L oren z, 1970, p. 1 2 4 ). Lorenz fu r th e r p o in ted
out th a t g re a te r d is s a tis fa c tio n o f Home Economics students w ith t h e i r
majors in d ic a te d a p o ssib le la c k o f commitment by th e students to the
purpose o f Home Economics as th e w e ll being o f p e o p le , or a lack o f
35
commitment to th a t purpose in the o rg a n iz a tio n o f Home Economics
c u r r ic u la . A lso , th e students in r e t a i l i n g and i n t e r i o r design majors
were more concerned w ith being c r e a tiv e and using t h e i r a b i l i t i e s than
w ith being useful to s o c ie ty (L o ren z, 1970, p. 1 2 5 ). Thus, a concern
fo r th e w ell being o f people has been shown by th e Home Economics
students but in varying degrees by th e Home Economics subgroups.
There were d iffe re n c e s and s i m i l a r i t i e s in th e values held
by Home Economics subgroups and com parative groups. When Home Eco
nomics subgroups were compared on th e Rokeach personal values to the
to ta l Home Economics group and the M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity group,
th e re were high c o r r e la tio n s . One exclu sio n was a low c o r r e la tio n
on te rm in a l values w ith comparison o f Home Economics subgroups to
the Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity com parative group (L o re n z, 1970,
p. 8 2 ) .
With comparison among Home Economics subgroups, th e re was
more d iffe r e n c e in te rm in a l values than in instru m ental values f o r
freshman students.
For the upperclass le v e l
(freshmen o m itte d )
subgroups d iffe r e d s ig n if ic a n t ly more on the in stru m en tal values
than on the term inal v a lu e s . These re s u lts d id not c le a r ly show
the s ta tu s o f Home Economics p ro fe s s io n a l value commitment since
th is was not the s p e c ific o v e ra ll
in t e n t o f th e use o f values in
the stu d y.
In r e la tio n to Fukushima and A s tle , Lorenz has improved
the design o f comparing Home Economics students to o th e r groups
by in c lu d in g both a n a tio n a l com parative group and a Michigan S tate
U n iv e rs ity campus com parative group which is more re p re s e n ta tiv e than
36
ju s t another academic f i e l d group. This dual comparison w ith o th er
groups h e lp s , f i r s t , to put the stu d y 's sample in to a broader co n text
to u n iv e r s ity students a t la r g e , and second, to compensate sin ce th e re
was th e i n a b i l i t y to g e n e ra liz e w ith the nonrandom but re p re s e n ta tiv e
sample.
Hence, in r e la t io n to Lorenz' stu d y, the present undergoing
study on Home Economics and Human Ecology student personal values
can help to show a s h o rt h is to r ic a l movement w ith the p o te n tia l o f
id e n tify in g p re d ic to rs re la te d to s tu d e n t, c o lle g e , and Human
E colog ical p ro fe s s io n a l value o r ie n ta tio n s .
In a la s t comment and in re tro s p e c t to the p rep ro fes sio n a l
Human Ecology s tu d e n ts , a fo llo w -u p study on 3,0 00 alumni
(1969-1973)
was done in the M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity c o lle g e s o f S o cial Science
(CSS), A g ric u ltu re (C A g), and Human Ecology (CHE) (M arcus, 1974, 1 9 7 5 ).
The study a s c e rta in e d fa c to rs o f c a re e r c h o ic e , c o n trib u tio n s o f
e d u c a tio n , and d ir e c tio n s in c a re e rs .
In b r i e f , f o r a l l th re e c o lle g e s th e fo u r reasons given
h ig hest p r i o r i t y in c a re e r choice were:
1.
o p p o rtu n ity to be h e lp fu l to o thers o r useful to s o c ie ty ,
2.
chance to work w ith people r a th e r than th in g s ,
3. o p p o rtu n ity to be o r ig in a l and c r e a t iv e ,
4. making a l o t o f money.
And th e
two most in flu e n c in g fa c to rs p la y in g a p a rt in s e le c tio n
o f a major were:
1.
in te r e s t in s u b je c t m a tte r,
2. wanting a broad general ed u catio n.
37
The th re e co lle g e s h ig h ly c o rre la te d on th e most in flu e n c in g fa c to rs
on major s e le c tio n , r = .9 8 .
The CHE fem ales provided the most c o n s is te n t p a tte rn 1n
re p o rtin g th a t the h ig h e s t c o n trib u tio n o f c o lle g e to t h e i r liv e s
was in th e personal development s e c tio n . When p ro je c tin g t h e i r c a re e r
fu tu re f iv e years hence, 53 percent o f the CHE graduates considered the
fo llo w in g p re fe rre d areas: w r i t e r , 17 p e rc e n t; homemaker, 10 p e rc e n t;
teach er (n o t c o lle g e ) , 10 p e rc e n t; s a la r ie d manager, <10 p e rc e n t;
and c o lle g e te a c h e r, <10 p erc en t. W hile CHE had the h ig h e st number,
11 p e rc e n t, hoping to change o rg a n iza tio n s o r f ie ld s in f iv e y e a rs ,
th e re was no d iffe re n c e between CSS and CHE women in t h e i r le a v in g
the la b o r fo rc e to become homemakers (ab o ut 10 p e rc e n t).
In f a c t
fo r a l l th re e c o lle g e s most women, l i k e men, thought t h a t they would
stay on the jo b u n t il another appears "more in te r e s tin g or c h a lle n g in g ."
When compared to the n a tio n a l averages th e Michigan S ta te
U n iv e rs ity alumni are most s im ila r . Hence, Marcus (1 9 7 5 , p. 28)
concluded th a t " i f jo b s a tis fa c tio n r e la te d to c o lle g e e d u c a tio n ,
experiences a t M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity may have enhanced p le a s u ra b le
employment."
The Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity alumni study does p a r a lle l some
o f the trends o f youth in t h e i r seeking in s ta n t f u l f i l l i n g jobs and
th a t women see c a r e e r , m a rria g e , and fa m ily (11 p erc en t w ithdrew to
be homemakers) as being com patible.
F u r th e r,
in th e youth o r ie n ta
tio n th e re is a concern to serve o th e r people and to be s e l f
ex p re s s iv e .
38
In summary, w h ile the Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity C ollege o f
Human Ecology has e s ta b lis h e d i t s p ro fess io n al p o s itio n and d ir e c tio n
in th e 1 9 7 0 's , the Home Economics/Human Ecology p ro fessio n as a whole
has not reached consensus. H yp o th esizin g , th e re may be d i f f i c u l t y in
reaching a consensus since th e focus o f the p ro fessio n is hinged to
l i f e s t y l e s o f people s e t in a p l u r a l i s t i c s o c ie ty . The College o f
Human Ecology a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity and s im ila r c o lle g es o f
Human Ecology may be showing the need to fr a c tio n o f f and s p e c ia liz e
in a s p e c ific d ir e c tio n ; f o r example, focus on the fa m ily in r e l a t i o n
ship to i t s environm ent, r a th e r than attem pt to be a l l encompassing.
The p resen t undergoing study does not attem pt to encompass the whole
Home Economics and Human Ecology p ro fession but r a th e r s e ttle s the
p ro fe s s io n a l area o f Human Ecology a t one u n iv e r s ity .
Values in Higher Education
Past value stu d ies in h ig h e r education have provided re s u lts
th a t in d ic a te th e re a re changes in th e values held by u n iv e r s ity s tu
dents as th ey progress through t h e i r fo u r years o f academic s tu d ie s .
For alm ost a decade, s ta r tin g in 1952, Freedman (1 9 6 1 , p. 21) stu d ied
undergraduate and alumnae p e rs o n a lity changes th a t took place during
the c o lle g e years a t the l ib e r a l education Vassar C ollege f o r g i r l s .
R esults o f the stu d ies s ig n ify th a t s u b s ta n tia l system atic p e rs o n a lity
changes took p lace between freshman and s e n io r ye ars and these data
compare s im ila r ly w ith those o f o th e r women's l ib e r a l a r ts c o lle g e s .
These changes appear to have taken p lace q u ite e a r ly in the fo u r ye ar
39
term r a th e r than being lin e a r changes from y e a r to y e a r. Seniors
tended to demonstrate a g re a te r acceptance o f in t e lle c t u a l values
and g re a te r in te rn a l c o n f lic t than freshmen (Freedman in Dressel and
Lehmann, 1965, p. 2 4 9 ). S u b s ta n tia l d iffe re n c e s among sen io rs in
various m ajor f ie ld s appeared not to be a fu n c tio n o f in flu e n c e s o f
m ajoring in a f i e l d but seemed to be more a fu n c tio n o f d iffe re n c e s
alrea d y p resen t a t the tim e o f c o lle g e e n tra n c e . There is a tendency
then o f those students s e le c tin g the same m ajor to have had some
p e rs o n a lity c h a r a c te r is tic s in common (Freedman, 1961, p. 2 2 ).
Using a b a tte ry o f in stru m en ts, a fo u r -y e a r study was made on
the im pact o f h ig her education on undergraduate students a t Michigan
S ta te U n iv e r s ity (Dressel and Lehmann, 1 9 6 5 ). The re s u lts o f th e study
presented changes from freshman to se n io r y e a r w ith improved c r i t i c a l
th in k in g and a movement away from a u th o r ita ria n is m and th e t r a d it io n a l
value o r ie n t a t io n . Change occurred more in th e freshman to ju n io r years
w ith " o u te r -o r -o th e r " d irec ted n e ss than in th e s e n io r y e a r and more
marked changes occurred w ith females than males (D ressel and Lehmann,
1965, pp. 4 5 3 -4 5 5 ). Females in the v o c a tio n a l-o rie n te d c u r r ic u la
were found to be less dogmatic and s te re o ty p ic than those females
in non techn ical programs. Homogeneity o f students increased over
the fo u r years w ith a le a n in g toward c u rre n t mores or e n t ir e w ith
drawal
(D res se l and Lehmann, 1965, p. 4 5 6 ).
I t was fu r th e r noted t h a t an impact o f h ig h er education on
values could be found in :
40
a.
increased consciousness o f one's own va lu e s;
b.
c.
d.
increased awareness o f value d iffe re n c e s and
c o n f lic ts among in d iv id u a ls and groups;
re-exam in atio n and p o s sib ly m o d ific a tio n o f one's
v a lu e s ; and
increased a b i l i t y to make d ecisio n s and take a c tio n s
which witness and r e in fo r c e th e values in which one
b e lie v e s [D ressel and Lehmann, 1965, p. 45 6 ].
Follow ing Dressel and Lehmann (1 9 6 5 ), Lehmann, Sinha and
H a rtn e tt (1 9 6 6 ) p a ra lle le d a fo u r -y e a r study o f 1,747 freshmen and
then as s e n io r students a t M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity fo r purposes o f
examining th e re la tio n s h ip between changes in a t t it u d e s , v a lu e s , and
general academic a t t it u d e . Changes showed t h a t students became “o u ter
d ire c te d "
in t h e i r value o r ie n ta tio n and fem ales underwent a g r e a te r
change in values and a tt it u d e s than com parative male students (Lehmann
e t a l . , 1966, p. 8 9 ).
F u r th e r, in the s e rie s o f Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity stu d en t
stu d ies Juola (1973) found th a t the 1971 freshman class was s e l f -
c o n fid e n t. There were d iffe re n c e s between male and female students
in t h e i r p ro fe s s io n a l, p o l i t i c a l , s o c ie t a l, and personal g o a ls . The
women were more concerned than men w ith in t e ll e c t u a l and s o c ie ta l
o b je c tiv e s , such as increased awareness o f d i f f e r e n t l i f e s t y l e s ,
s k i l l
in g e ttin g along w ith o th e rs , and community s e rv ic e .
In
p a r t i c u l a r , the personal goals tended to be g e n e r a lly more accepted
by the freshmen in the Human Ecology and Education c o lle g e s . However,
when asked about t h e ir occupational f u tu r e , fem ale freshmen were
41
d e f i n i t e l y more c a re e r o rie n te d a t t h is time in l i f e and c le a r ly d id
n ot commit themselves to the s in g le goal o f being a housewife (J u o la ,
1973, p. 2 3 ).
Opposite to Freedman (1 9 6 1 ), Dressel (1 9 6 5 ), and Lehmann e t a l .
(1966) on valu e changes over th e y e a r s , W hitely (1 9 3 8 , pp. 406-407)
found th a t a f t e r measuring a group o f 84 F ra n k lin and M arshall C o lleg e
students each y e a r from freshman to s e n io r y e a r, th e re was l i t t l e v a lu e
change except f o r an increase in a e s th e tic scores and a decrease in
r e lig io u s scores.
Using th e A llp o rt-V e m o n Study o f values both Arsenian (1 9 4 3 ,
p. 339) and Todd (1 9 4 1 , in A rse n ian , 1943, p. 341) found th a t value
changes re s u lte d in an emerging valu e p a tte rn th a t fo llo w e d the c u ltu r e
norms. A rsen ian 's sample included 76 freshman stu d en ts a t S p rin g fie ld
C o lle g e , M assachusetts, who were l a t e r measured again when se n io rs .
Todd's sample co n sisted o f 94 students in the la s t y e a r o f high school
who were again measured a t th e beginning o f t h e ir sophomore year in
c o lle g e .
Jacob's (1957) massive lo n g itu d in a l and c r o s s - in s t it u t io n a l
study o f the impact o f h igher ed u catio n on student valu es has been
supported l a t e r in some respects by p rev io u sly mentioned s tu d ie s .
Findings o f th e study showed th a t th e values o f c o lle g e students were
homogeneous w ith g re a te r homogeneity and consistency occurring a t th e
end o f the s tu d e n ts ' fo u rth y e a r (Jacob, 1957, pp. 3 , 6 ) . Results o f
g re a te r homogeneity a t sen io r le v e l and Impetus n o t coming m ainly from
formal education p a r a lle le d Dressel and Lehmann's fin d in g s (1965,
pp. 45 4 -4 5 5 ).
42
To determine the trends in a ttitu d e s and valu e p r o f ile s
o f stu d en t bodies, Hoge (19 70 , p. 170) employed th e seldom used
research approach o f c o n tro lle d r e p lic a tio n o f a study o f a t t it u d e
and v a lu e change o f a s t r a t i f i e d random sample o f male undergraduates
a t Dartmouth and U n iv e rs ity o f M ich ig an , f i r s t in 1952 and second in
19 6 8 -6 9 . Over th e y e a rs , th e re was a decrease in emphasis on p riv a tis m ,
o th e r-d ire c te d n e s s , embeddedness
in groups, r e lig io u s a t tit u d e s towards
t r a d it io n a l b e lie fs and norms, and a n x ie tie s about d ev ia n t and suspect
s o c ia l groups. An increased emphasis in value o r ie n ta tio n and a t t it u d e
from 1952 to 1969 was shown in corrmitments to p o l i t i c a l p a r t ic ip a t io n
and c r it ic is m o f s o c ia l
in s t it u t io n s . Some o f these changes show
s i m i l a r i t y to the trends in Y a n k e lo v itc h 's (1972) nationw ide
fin d in g s o f student values and a t t it u d e s , 1967-1969.
Hoge used a nationw ide p o ll on re lig io u s values and a ttitu d e s
in 1952 and 1965 to show th a t th e re was a small d e c lin e in t r a d it io n a l
b e lie f s and p ra c tic e s (M arty e t a l . , 19 68 ). This p o ll acted as a check
on stu d en t re lig io u s values and a ttitu d e s and re s u lts were p a r a lle l to
th e student value and a t t it u d e changes. However, the student values
were accentuations o f changes in th e e n t ir e a d u lt s o c ie ty .
A suggestion f o r improved methodology was to re p e a t th e
study each year to lessen "skimpy" and "in c o n s is te n t" d ata (Hoge,
1970, p. 19 5).
In the present study o f Human Ecology student values
th e re is both the r e p lic a tio n o f the value study and a d m in is tra tio n
o f th e survey from y e a r to y e a r.
43
L ike Hoge, M orris (1974) d u p lic a te d his 1950 nationw ide survey
o f undergraduate u n iv e r s ity students again in 1970. Using the 13 Ways
o f L if e Survey (conceived values in s tru m e n t), students s t i l l p re fe rre d
the more detached Way Seven— a d e s ire f o r a many-sided s e l f . However,
the 1970 students were d e f i n i t e l y le s s t r a d it io n a l than the 1950 s tu
d en ts.
I t appeared th a t the 1970 students were t r y in g " a c tiv e ly in
va rio u s ways to l i v e by c e r ta in basic id e a ls in a s o c ie ty which many
o f them f e l t represented a b e tra y a l o f these id e a ls " (M o r ris , 1974,
p. 2 6 0 ).
Too, th e re was a d e f i n i t e d e c lin e in p referen ce fo r Way One—
preserve th e best th a t man has a t t a in e d , i . e . , a s tre s s on conservatism ,
by the 1970 s tu d en ts. M o rris ' study o f noted change in students towards
a new openness is a su p p o rtive fo re ru n n e r o f Y a n k elo v itc h *s stu d ies and
p a r a lle ls the fin d in g s o f Hoge, F la c k s , and Lystad.
W illiam s (1 9 7 1 , p. 41) a research su p erviso r in student a f f a i r s
a t Pennsylvania S ta te U n iv e rs ity has in d ic a te d th a t ap proxim ately 50
percent o f " a l l c o lle g e students change t h e i r values and t h e ir v ie w p o in t
about education during t h e i r f i r s t y e a r ."
A t th e beginning o f th e freshman ye ar the m a jo r ity (50 p e rc e n t)
o f male and fem ale students a f f i l i a t e w ith the c o lle g ia t e view p o in t o f
importance on e x t r a - c u r r ic u la r a c t i v i t i e s — a t h l e t i c s , s o c ia l
l i f e , and
c o lle g e t r a d it io n s :
a norm f o r many la rg e p u b lic u n iv e r s it ie s . By th e
end o f the freshman y e a r th e emphasis has changed to understanding,
s o c ia l re c o g n itio n , autonomy and e x h ib itio n . H ence,th ere is a movement
away from r e s t r a in t s and a movement towards in t e r e s t in Ideas or
i n t e l l e c t .
44
In the beginning o f Y a n k e lo v itc h ’ s (1968) lo n g itu d in a l cro s s-
s e c tio n a l study o f American young a d u lts aged 18-25 y e a rs , the most
d is s a t is f ie d were c o lle g e stu d en ts. Social reform and r e je c tio n o f the
t r a d it io n a l conventional c a re e r were emphasized. The noncollege youth
s e c to r was fo r the most p a rt a c o n tra s t to t h e i r peer campus group by
a f f i l i a t i n g c lo s e ly w ith the c u rre n t s o c ia l values o f w ork, m a rria g e ,
p a trio tis m and re s p e c t o f a u th o r ity (Y a n k e lo v itc h , 1972; Y ankelovitch
and C la r k , 1974, p. 4 5 ).
Six years l a t e r (1973)
in a nationw ide sample o f 3,5 22 c o lle g e
and noncollege youth aged 16 to 25 y e a rs , personal
in te rv ie w s o f s im ila r
questions used in p r io r s tu d ie s , revealed a c o n tra s tin g valu e o r ie n ta tio n
(Y a n k e lo v itc h and C la r k , 1974, p. 4 5 ).
There are th re e d is t in c t iv e value changes o f the present youth.
F i r s t , the most d is s a t is f ie d group o f youth is the ju s t graduated from
high school and gone to work an d /o r m arriage.
In c o n tra s t the c o lle g e
group is now o rie n te d w ith i t s present l i f e .
Second, the c o lle g e student in te r e s t is now on fin d in g s e l f -
f u l f i l l m e n t w ith a conventional c a re e r.
T h ird , education re c e n tly re je c te d is now s tro n g ly advocated
as
i t is seen as a t i c k e t to s o c ie ty (H ech in g er, 1974, pp. A -9 ).
The change in youth values is s im ila r to Jacob's (1957) fin d in g s
o f the 1 9 5 0 's , Hoge's (1970)
l a t e r te n -y e a r stu d y, and M o rris ' 1950-1970
repeated study in th a t th e re is a w eigh ting towards p riv a tls m and a
decrease in obedience and r e lig io u s emphasis.
45
W ith respect to p riv a tis m and s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t during the 1950's
the in d iv id u a l worked during the week and used the weekend as a tim e
f o r p r iv a te l i f e . F u lf illm e n t o f l i f e meant a focus on a fa m ily and
m arriag e. Today youth seek f u l f i l l m e n t not in a s e q u e n tia l scheduled
manner but ra th e r in an a ll- a t - o n c e approach (Y a n k e lo v itc h and C la rk ,
1974, p. 4 6 ). There is a focus on s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t and s a tis fa c tio n
in t h e i r careers and a t the same tim e enjoyment o f the money rewards:
in s ta n t "the good, r i c h , s a tis fy in g l i f e fo re v e r and e v e r ." Both
Y ankelovitch and C lark conclude t h a t the c u rre n t value p o s itio n o f
youth is supporting tn e c u rre n t re s tle s s seeking o f a lte r n a te options
to shaping a l i f e c a re e r o th e r than going d ir e c t ly to work o r c o lle g e
a f t e r high school graduation (Y a n k e lo v itc h and C la r k , 1974, p. 6 4 ).
A problem in comparing value stu d ies and re s u lts is th a t the
d if f e r e n t instrum ents used in c o rp o ra te d if f e r e n t values and measures.
Comparisons can only be approxim ations when d if f e r e n t in te r p r e ta tio n s
o f the value concepts and d if f e r e n t methods o f measuring a re used.
There is no accu rate e q u a liz in g tech n iq u e.
Consequently general
in fe re n c e s are made about trends or
p a tte rn s o f value c h a r a c te r is tic s which in the long run are h e lp fu l
and c o n trib u te to valu e th e o ry . These studies o f values p o in t out a
basic method o f en masse (macro) t e s t - r e t e s t o f th e sample not only a t
two p o in ts , freshman and s e n io r y e a rs , but also a t fo u r p o in ts , fre s h
man through s e n io r y e a rs . Value change appears to be more c r i t i c a l
in
the f i r s t th re e years o f c o lle g e r a th e r than in s e n io r y e a r. To exam
in e value change, i t would seem a p p ro p ria te to in c lu d e measures o f
students in a l l years f o r lo n g itu d in a l study purposes. Both Lehmann
46
(19 66 , p. 90) and Corey (1936) have s im ila r ly commented on th is
technique.
In th e present study o f Home Economics/Human Ecology
student values th e sample is not s p e c if ic a lly a t e s t - r e t e s t o f the
same group but ra th e r measures o f freshmen and s e n io rs ' values each
y e a r. Discussion can then c e n te r on more m icroscopic group
d iffe re n c e s by m a jo r, l e v e l , and y e a r , and changes by y e a r.
Using the Rokeach Value Survey in the present study over
a p erio d o f tim e helps to p ro vid e consistency and ease in comparison
o f group valu es.
I t is p o ssib le th a t the Rokeach Value Survey may:
provide s im ila r re s u lts to previous value instrum ents which could
fu r th e r support conclusions on value th e o ry ; erro neo usly make the
same or o th e r m istakes o r make poor measurements as past values
instrum ents may have; a n d /o r provide a more r e l i a b l e and v a lid
values instru m ent.
Although value change over time in u n iv e r s ity students has
been shown to occur, th e re is l i t t l e evidence th a t changes are due
to any one fa c to r (Lehmann and Payne, 1963, p. 4 0 8 ). Various values
stu d ies have fin d in g s th a t in d ic a te value p o s itio n s and value changes
may occur fo r d if f e r e n t reasons and under d if f e r e n t circum stances.
Lehmann (19 66 , p. 97) very c a r e f u lly pointed out t h a t the valu e changes
observed o f u n iv e r s ity students may not be a re s u lta n t o f c o lle g e
education per se but t h a t , "th e m atu ratio n and s o c ia l environment
m ight have more impact upon p e rs o n a lity development than courses and
form al academic e x p e rie n c e s ."
In exam ination o f valu e problem areas
o f 522 freshman and sophomore men and women e n ro lle d in the E f fe c tiv e
47
L iv in g course in the Basic C o lle g e o f Michigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity , Orwig
(19 53 , pp. 174, 179) found th a t more than o n e -th ird o f the sample had
general problems in value areas
in the fo llo w in g order o f in t e n s it y
(low to h ig h ); a concern f o r :
c le a r and lo g ic a l th in k in g , adequate
goals and o b je c tiv e s ; inadequate a e s th e tic stand ard s; r e lig io u s issues.
O rw ig's study a ls o lends support to Lehmann's m aturation concept and
Dressel and Lehmann's le v e l in g - o f f - a f t e r - j u n i o r - y e a r concept.
Bengtson and Lovejoy (19 73 ) would f u r t h e r support the
in flu e n c in g fa c to r o f l i f e stages on value h o ld in g . While age is
a dimension o f so c ia l d if f e r e n t i a t i o n and l i f e exp erien ces, age can
imply a c u ltu r a l change over tim e in value and o r ie n ta tio n s . When i t
comes to youth value o r ie n t a t io n , the personal experience is th e prime
p re d ic to r (1 9 7 3 , p. 90 8 ).
Arseni an 's n o ta tio n t h a t a s tu d e n t's changed value p o s itio n
p a r a lle le d those o f the c u ltu r a l norms, may suggest h y p o th e tic a lly
th a t w ith personal development through the c o lle g e years th a t s o c ia l
norms have increased w e ig h tin g . Hence, the d ir e c tio n o f stu d en t value
change in c o lle g e may have a one-sided le a n in g .
In another so c ia l c o n te x t, vo c atio n al c h o ic e, Woodruff
(19 42 , p. 33) and Dukes (1 9 5 5 , p. 28) rep o rted th a t past re s u lts
o f the A llp o rt-V e rn o n -L in d ze y Study o f Values t e s t in d ica te d v a lu e
p a tte rn s seem to agree w ith th e vo c atio n al choices and o th e r a c t i v i t i e s
o f in d iv id u a ls . More re c e n tly * Feather (1 9 7 0 , p. 127) re p o rte d th a t the
stu d en ts' choice o f school (h u m a n itie s , s o c ia l scien ces, s c ien ce s) a t
48
F lin d e rs u n iv e rs ity was re la te d to th e r e la t iv e importance o f values
as measured by the Rokeach Value Survey* Form E.
How much In flu e n c e does a s o c ia l o r c u lt u r a l value system
have upon an in d iv id u a l's value system is a question to be considered
when determ ining reasons f o r a s p e c ific value o r ie n t a t io n o f a group
or in d iv id u a l. Both Friesen and Keniston have conmented th a t value
o rie n ta tio n s o f youth a re not h ig h ly d is t in c t iv e from a parent c u ltu r e .
Friesen (19 72 ) compared th re e adolescent su b cu ltu res e n ro lle d
in la rg e urban s e n io r high schools and matched on age, grade, and sex.
The High School Values
Inventory and Gough Home Index Scale were used.
Group d iffe re n c e s on each value in d ic a to r were te s te d by the Chi-Square
t e s t a t the alpha le v e l o f .0 5 .
L i t t l e support is given to th e lin e o f youth c u ltu re being
s e p a ra te and d is t in c t from the p are n t c u ltu re because most o f th e value
in d ic a to rs were d i r e c t l y re la te d to the e th n o -c u ltu r a l background o f
the in vo lved students (F rie s e n , 1972, p. 27 1 ).
In c o n tra s t, Y a n k e lo v itc h , Bengtson and L o v e jo y , F lacks,
L y s ta d , Grunstrom and Mead would suggest th a t th e youth c u ltu re does
have d is t in c t io n .
Thomas (1 9 7 1 , p. 135) has an ex p la n a tio n f o r a d iffe re n c e in
va lu e o rie n ta tio n between parent and c h ild .
In v a r ia b ly th e c h ild re n
are those o f parents who have moved forw ard to a le v e l o f abundance.
Those values useful f o r a fflu e n c e a re now not so u s e fu l o r meaningful
to the c h ild re n who a re alread y a f f l u e n t . Rather th e c h ild now sees
a new s e t o f values t h a t w il l f a c i l i t a t e new and d i f f e r e n t goals which
a re in c o n tra s t to those o f his p a re n ts .
49
In K eniston's (1 9 6 8 ) study o f youth movements, th e young
ra d ic a ls were considered to be fo rerun n ers o f the youth in g e n e ra l.
T h e ir goals were ones o f t r u s t , openness, human responsiveness and
re c o g n itio n o f each in d iv id u a l
(K e n lsto n ,
in B ro d b e lt, 1971, p. 7 0 ).
Evidence has shown t h a t these youth a re liv in g out t h e i r p are n ts '
values (K e n isto n , 1968, p. 308) and f la c k (1 9 6 8 , p. 7) repo rted th a t
th e outspoken ra d ic a l stu d en t comes from th e m iddle c la s s and upper
class fa m ily which is more a p t to be th e h ig h ly educated one.
This type o f fa m ily , by i t s own r e p o r t , encourages i n t r i n
s ic in t e lle c t u a l and a e s th e tic achievements more than
concern f o r m a te ria l com fort and s ta tu s , which i t tends
to regard as something vaguely d is t a s t e f u l o r immoral.
r e je c t s , a t le a s t v e r b a lly , conventional r e lig io u s
id e n t if ic a tio n s and c r i t e r i a fo r r e s p e c t a b ilit y .
values education f o r i t s own sake, and tends to s u b s titu te
the u n iv e rs ity fo r th e church as th e re p o s ito ry o f h ighest
valu es.
I t
I t
S im ila r to F rie s e n 's fin d in g s F la ck found th a t lower class and
m iddle class youth were not s tro n g ly opposing a d u lt v a lu e s . A study o f
v alu e c o n f lic t s between a d u lts and youth by the L in co ln F ile n e C enter
(Kvaraceus, 1969, pp. 6 7 -7 1 ) showed t h a t youths in th e sample are w e ll
aware o f a d u lt valu es.
But a ls o , w ith th e d e c lin e o f th e o v e r tly re a c tio n a ry 1968-1970
era o f the youth, a "New Humanistic E th ic "
is evo lvin g as the c u rre n t
tre n d in c h a r a c te r is tic s and value p r i o r i t i e s o f th e youth (L y s ta d ,
1973, p. 1 2 1 ). There is a d e s ire f o r inm ed iate g r a t i f i c a t i o n , less
convention in fin d in g means to s a t is f y w an ts, c o lle c t iv e o r ie n t a t io n ,
concern f o r e q u a lity , and respect o f man as being i n t r i n s i c a l l y w orthy.
A g ain , Y a n k e lo v itc h , Mead, S to u t, and Thomas could agree w ith L ys ta d 's
o b s erva tio n s .
50
In another re la te d dimension o f youth valu e o r ie n t a t io n , Cross
(1968) provided a n a tio n a l composite p ic tu re o f u n iv e r s ity students by
combining fo u r n a tio n a l stu d ies o f u n iv e r s ity student d e s c rip tio n s done
from 1959 to 1967. One conclusion was th a t the values held by u n iv e r
s i t y students were d if f e r e n t f o r men and f o r women (C ross, 1968,
pp. 1 2 -2 1 ). A second conclusion was th a t u p p er-class women were
in c re a s in g ly in te re s te d in tru e fr ie n d s h ip s , liv in g group fu n c tio n s
and in th e w ell-ro u n d ed woman who valued s o c ia l
l i f e . R e la tiv e to men
th e women were less c o n fid e n t but expressed themselves as being more
understanding o f o th e rs , more c h e e r fu l, and more a r t i s t i c (C ross,
1968, p. 1 6 ).
As a lre a d y suggested by Juola and Marcus, women students are
showing a change in t h e i r goals e s p e c ia lly over the la s t f i f t e e n y e a rs .
Epstein (19 72 , p. 671) f i r s t found th a t 1960-1965 stu d ies on women
showed s tu d e n ts , both men and women, to have a t r a d it io n a l view th a t
personal f u l f i l l m e n t o f the women was centered in t h e i r homes and
f a m ilie s .
But in th e 1970 fem ale freshman sample a t a L ib e ra l A rts C o lle g e ,
C o llege Student Q u e stio n n aire Surveys (CSQ) provided re s u lts which in d i
cated th a t 48 percen t o f the students in 15 years hence see themselves
as m arried c a re e r women w ith c h ild r e n . This was an in crease from 42
percent agreement in th e 1965 n a tio n a l sample. Only 28 p ercen t were
in agreement w ith m arried c h ild in 15 years in th e 1970 sample— a
decrease. Thus, home and fa m ily were not considered as th e end a l l
and be a l l f o r women but r a th e r o n ly a p a rt o f t h e i r l i f e .
51
Klemmack's (1 9 7 3 , pp. 51 0-5 23 ) study o f 300 fem ale m 1 d -A tla n tic
u n iv e r s ity students o f p r im a r ily freshman and sophomore le v e l
is 1n
accordance w ith E p s te in , J u o la , and Marcus. The th re e ro le s o f house
w ife , m other, and c a re e r were viewed as being co m p a tib le . However,
53 p e rc e n t o f those In te n d in g to work showed a p refe re n c e f o r the
t r a d i t i o n a l l y stereotyped nonfem lnlne occupation— a d e f i n i t e change
from th e p as t. A ls o , m arriage and fa m ily plans were concluded as
servin g as a fu n c tio n In determ ining th e type o f d e s ire d occupation.
As a supporting fo llo w -th ro u g h , Smith (1 9 5 5 , pp. 471-477)
s ta te d th a t both a tt it u d e s and values were m o d ified depending upon
the n a tu re o f the ex p e rie n c e . Both a ttitu d e s and values were Id e n
t i f i e d as being m o d ified depending upon th e n atu re o f th e experience
(S m ith , 1955, pp. 4 7 1 -4 7 7 ).
To e x e m p lify , the value o r ie n ta tio n o f women 1s parad oxical and
mixed g iven th e c o n d itio n s o f being reared and s o c ia liz e d In a m arginal
r o le .
To e x p la in , a m arginal person is one who "must have access to th e
c u lt u r a l
In s t it u t io n s and media which a ffir m th e values o f th e dominant
group and downgrade o r ign ore those o f th e m arginal ones" (W a ls ta d t,
1974, p. 6 4 0 ). Women a re m arginals both as an In d iv id u a l and as a
group.
Females are schooled from b ir t h in to th e more h ig h ly valued
norms o f the male c u ltu r e (be a s s e r tiv e , autonomous, compet
i t i v e , a c h ie v in g ) but th ey a re a ls o tau g ht to be h e lp f u l,
u n a s s e rtiv e , dependent, and lea ve ach ievin g to t h e i r hus
bands when they grow up. The boundaries between th e c u ltu re s
a re permeable so g i r l s are drawn to the more powerful and
rew arding "m asculine" w orld even as they a re a ls o le a rn in g
to accept as n a tu ra l th e s o c ie ta l view th a t th ey should
never e n te r th a t w o rld . The c la s h o f two p o s s ib le s e l f -
d e f ln it Io n s is u s u a lly experienced by g i r l s and women as
u n d iffe r e n tia te d fe e lin g s o f f r u s t r a t i o n , a n x ie ty , o r
52
d is c o n te n t. G ir ls lea rn ve ry e a r ly th a t I t is p re fe ra b le
to be m ale, and th is knowledge may c re a te i d e n t it y and
s e lf-im a g e problems as the research o f Brown (1 9 5 6 ),
H a rtle y (1 9 5 9 , I9 6 0 ) and many o thers dem onstrates.
boys and men th e re is r a r e ly a reverse longing to In c o r
p orate aspects o f the "fem in in e" ro le and any male who
attem pts to do so w i l l be v u ln e ra b le to co n sid erab le
s o c ia l o stracism [W a ls ta d t, 1974, p. 6 4 0 ].
In
As the o rie n ta tio n s and o u tle ts o f men have been changing w ith
the e v o lu tio n o f the youth c u lt u r e , th e re is Interdependent and conse
quent change in o p p o rtu n itie s f o r experience and expression by women,
such as the "women's lib e r a tio n " movement and increased in t e r e s t in
nonfem inine occupations (Klemmack). Thus, I t would be n a tu ra l to
a n tic ip a te a change in female youth value o r ie n ta tio n in th e la s t
ten y e a rs .
F u rth e r, Snyder (19 69 , p. 270) in a 5 -y e a r fo llo w -u p o f high
school graduates found th a t:
1.
values do change a f t e r high sch oo l,
2 .
3.
e a r l i e r values o f high school time are n o t associated
w ith education and occupational achievement a f t e r high
school.
l a t e r education and occupational sta tu s is re la te d
p o s itiv e ly to the degree o f so c ia l a c t i v i t y in high
sch oo l.
When in te r p r e tin g re s u lts o f value stu d ie s th e re 1s need to
tak e caution since in te rv e n in g u n c o n tro lle d fa c to r s may e x is t on account
o f th e in t e r r e la te d n atu re o f v a lu e s . Problems o f design and methodol
ogy o f a study may be created w ith d i f f i c u l t i e s o f c o n tr o llin g a l l
p o s sib le in te rv e n in g fa c to rs sin ce some are not e a s ily q u a n tifie d .
With stu d ie s o f c o lle g e students the p lace o f values in edu
c a tio n a l a d m in is tra tio n can have two d if f e r e n t emphases: d e s c r ip tiv e
53
a n a ly s is o f values and th e e f f e c t o f s o c ia l and in d iv id u a l values in
the a d m in is tra tiv e p ro ce ss , and the norm ative approach o f p h ilo s o p h ic al
tre a tm e n t o f values o r id e a ls (W11lower, 1961, p. 1 5 7 ).
Some questions th a t p e rta in to d e s c rip tiv e and norm ative
problems a re :
What is the r e la tio n s h ip between personal values and
o rg a n iz a tio n a l values? How do th e members o f a p ro fe s s io n ,
f o r example, school a d m in is tra to rs , le a rn the values o f the
p ro fe s s io n a l group? How do personal values in flu e n c e s e le c
t io n and e n try in to th e p ro fess io n al group? How does the
p e rs o n a l-o rg a n iz a tio n a l values r e la tio n s h ip in flu e n c e con
f l i c t , s a t is f a c t io n , and placement o f lo y a lt ie s 1n an
o rg a n iz a tio n a l s e ttin g ?
[W illo w e r, 1961, p. 1 5 9 ].
im p lic a tio n s o f a p h i
What a re the s p e c if ic behavioral
losophy o f ed u catio n f o r the e d u c a tio n a l a d m in is tra to r?
[W illo w e r , 1961, p. 1 6 0 ].
Thus, in l i g h t o f the a p p lic a tio n o f values in th e adm inis
t r a t i v e process, a study o f I d e n t if ic a t io n and comparison o f student
values
in u n iv e r s ity g ain s more m e r it.
In c o n tin u a tio n a fu tu re study
would be to in q u ire in t o th e re s u lts o f a p p lic a tio n o f id e n t if ie d
valu es.
The Rokeach V alu e Survey
W ith focus on c o lle g e woman s tu d ie s , Rokeach (1 9 7 3 , p. 35)
concluded th a t th e re a re several d eterm in an ts o f value s t a b i l i t y .
Although in d iv id u a ls may vary g r e a tly in t h e i r value system s t a b i l i t y ,
the reasons fo r in d iv id u a l d iffe re n c e s in s t a b i l i t y a re n o t c le a r . The
v a r ia b le s , sex, ag e,
in t e lle c t u a l a b i l i t y , and lib e r a lis m a re known to
in flu e n c e term in a l and instrum ental v a lu e s t a b i l i t y (Rokeach, 1973,
p. 3 6 ). Women have s ig n if ic a n t ly (o r n e a r - s ig n if ic a n t ly ) more s ta b le
54
In s tru m e n ta l and te rm in a l v a lu e systems than men. As compared w ith
o ld e r c o lle g e students th e younger c o lle g e s tu d e n ts have more s ta b le
value systems.
Freshmen have th e most s ta b le v a lu e system and soph
omores and ju n io r s have th e le a s t s ta b le . W ith th e in s tru m e n ta l value
system th e re is more s t a b i l i t y w ith s o c ia l s c ie n c e and communication
majors than Home Economics m a jo rs . Those p r e f e r r in g i n t e l l e c t u a l
a c t i v i t i e s o ver s o c ia l a c t i v i t i e s have a more s ta b le te rm in a l and
in s tru m e n ta l v a lu e system.
The degree o f v a lu e s t a b i l i t y in d ic a te s th a t values may change
w ith in d iv id u a ls In v a ry in g amounts. Rokeach has in te g ra te d s e v e ra l
samples o f Americans ranging
in age from 11 to 70 and over and shown
th a t sets o f values f lu c t u a t e 1n p r i o r i t i e s o v e r th e age span o f an
in d iv id u a l. The developm ental p a tte rn s show t h a t s ix values remain
f a i r l y s ta b le no m a tte r what th e age:
te rm in a l v a lu e s — freedom, hap
piness, and social recognition;
in s tru m e n ta l v&"\ue5--coia*ageous, honest,
and self-controlled. W hile some values show a decrease suddenly during
c o lle g e y e a r s , th e re are 12 v a lu e s th a t show a gradual to sharp
increase
in im portance in c o lle g e y e a r s :
te rm in a l v a lu e s — inner harmony, mature
love, salvation, self respect, a sense of accomplishment, and wisdom',
in s tru m e n ta l v a lu e s -- a m b it io u s , broadminded, imaginative, intellectual,
logical, and responsible. Some o f these v a lu e s w i l l show a d e c lin e
a f t e r c o lle g e and others w i l l s u rfa c e (Rokeach, 1973, pp. 7 3 - 8 1 ) .
Hence,
in th e p res en t s tu d y , th e r e may be in d ic a tio n s o f d iffe r e n c e s
in values h e ld w ith comparison o f freshmen to s e n io rs and freshmen
to t r a n s f e r s .
55
To p a r t ly e x e m p lify , in a re c e n t study o f Michigan re s id e n ts
from the Upper Peninsula and Lower Michigan re g io n s , th e re are d i f f e r
ences 1n the te rm in a l value holdings by age, e d u c a tio n , and geographic
lo c a tio n (Grundstrom, 1975).
In the March 1975 s u rv ey , the top f iv e most im portant values
chosen w ith o u t ranking were as in d ic a te d in Figure 3.
Age Group3
Values
18-20 years
21-26 years
Happiness
Mature lo ve
♦Freedom
World o f peace
♦ ♦ E x c itin g l i f e
♦♦Mature love
Freedom
♦♦Com fortable l i f e
True frie n d s h ip
♦Fam ily s e c u rity
Figure 3. Top f i v e te rm in a l values chosen by Michigan
re s id e n ts in two age groups, 18-20 and 21-26.
Out o f two o f th e fo u r age groups, th e m a jo r ity o f th e
18-26 aged respondents were atte n d in g a L ib e ra l Studies
class a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity w ith a fem ale/m ale
r a t io o f 40:28 (Grundstrom, 1975, pp. 8 , 9 , 2 2 ).
♦Females ra te d the valu e more h ig h ly than males.
♦♦Males ra te d the v a lu e more h ig h ly than fem ales.
56
With lo c a tio n , mature love and true friendship were conmon
to the 18-20 y e a r-o ld Upper and Lower Peninsula re s id e n ts . S i m i l a r l y ,
freedom and happiness were the most im p ortan t from Upper and Lower
P e n in s u la .
Those people w ith some c o lle g e education chose fo r t h e i r top
f i v e : freedom, family security, mature love, happiness, and an exciting
life; whereas c o lle g e graduates p re fe rr e d : family security, happiness,
self respect, wisdom, and a comfortable life (Grundstrom, 1975, p. 2 3 ).
F u rth e r, as th e survey o f values was r e la te d to degree o f
energy use, the concluding r e la tio n s h ip was t h a t high energy "users"
were more l i k e l y to be r e a l i s t i c and p r a c tic a l and less I d e a l i s t i c and
e x c itin g . A lso, s o c ia l
in s t it u t io n s such as th e fa m ily , church, and
school have not had much bearing upon p ro vid in g a r e a l i s t i c ed u catio n
on th e energy issue (Grundstrom, 1975, p. 2 7 ).
The best a v a ila b le data d e a lin g w ith academic majors is F e a th e r's
(1970) comparative study o f 530 freshman A u s tra lia n students a t F lin d e rs
U n iv e rs ity in the majors o f H um anities, Social S tu d ie s , and S ciences.
I t was found th a t th e s tu d e n t's choice o f m ajor was re la te d to th e
r e l a t i v e importance assigned to d i f f e r e n t te rm in a l and in s tru m e n ta l
values (F e a th e r, 1973, p. 12 7). These re s u lts a re s im ila r to e a r l i e r
s tu d ie s using the A lIp o rt-V e rn o n -L in d z e y Study o f Values (Dukes, 1955,
p. 28) and vo catio n al cho ice o f people-environm ent (H o lla n d , 1 9 6 2 ).
Since the r e s u lts were o b tain ed ju s t p r io r to ac tu a l e n tra n c e
to th e m a jo r, th e re is in d ic a tio n th a t an in d iv id u a l's value system
h ie ra rc h y may in flu e n c e ed ucational choice r a th e r than the school major
shaping the in d iv id u a l's value system. Thus, th e more a c o lle g e student
57
is involved In the school the g re a te r chance f o r In te rv e n tio n upon
shaping the in d iv id u a l's value system. The tim in g o f a d m in is tra tio n
o f the value survey to freshmen then may have im portance. To t e s t f o r
s ig n ific a n c e o f d iffe re n c e s the ranks o f each value were tre a te d as
scores and ranked in o rd er across a l l s u b je c ts . The d iffe re n c e s in
th e means o f these ranks between majors were te s te d using th e K ru skal-
W alH s one-way a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e (F e a th e r, 1973, p. 1 3 2 ).
In c o n tr a s t, when comparing d iffe re n c e s in values between males
and fem ales , the median t e s t was used (F e a th e r, 1970, p. 1 3 3 ). Reason
fo r th e use o f two versus use o f one s ig n ific a n c e o f d iffe re n c e t e s t
was not g iv en .
Feather (1972) used 2 ,9 4 7 male and fem ale A u s tra lia n s e n io r
high school students to rank values according to themselves and what
they thought the school would emphasize. The re s u lts showed th a t
measures o f school adjustm ent were p o s it iv e ly re la te d to the e x te n t
stu d en ts' values matched school values (F e a th e r, 1972, p. 1 9 3 ). The
design o f the study provides a technique f o r matching student values
and p ro je c te d , as perceived by s tu d e n t, school va lu e s. M o d ific a tio n
o f th e design can be a p p lie d to th e present study by c o r r e la tio n o f
stu d en ts' own values w ith the s ta te d c o lle g e va lu e s.
The d ecisio n has
to be made about whether th e stu d en ts' perceptions o f school values are
in l in e w ith the s ta te d va lu e s. A c o r r e la tio n could be done between p e r
ceived and s ta te d school va lu e s. R esults o f F e a th e r’ s (1972) study may
have im p lic a tio n s f o r a s sis tan ce in guidance o f students to a p p ro p ria te
majors but the value systems o f student and major must be f i r s t known.
58
Summary
Values o f Home Economics and
Human Ecology
W ith the in c ep tio n o f Home Economics a t the beginning o f the
1900's th e p ro fe s s io n a l concern was fo r a q u a lit y l i f e f o r the fa m ily
and in d iv id u a ls . Bane, H i l l , and Budewig pointed out in the 1950's
th a t the c e n tr a l p ro fess io n al focus was on th e home and r e la t in g to
fa m ily needs w ith acceptance o f change. The American Home Economics
A ssociation then published Home Economics New D ire c tio n s in 1959
which re a ffirm e d the concern f o r a q u a lit y fa m ily l i f e . A decade
l a t e r , th e Home Economics p ro fe s s io n a l d ir e c tio n and value o r ie n ta tio n
were d iv e rs e as in d ic a te d a t th e 11th Lake P la c id Conference (1973)
and Y a n k e lo v itc h 's study (1974a) o f the p ro fe s s io n a l d ir e c tio n .
Y ankelovitch proposed th a t th e re should be long-range planning in
terms o f d e fin in g Home Economics,
A t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity in th e 1 9 6 0 's , Lee and Dressel
also suggested cu rricu lu m re v is io n when a Home Economics c u r r ic u la
e v a lu a tio n showed th a t th e re was a lack o f fa m ily o r ie n ta tio n . Six
steps were taken to c l a r i f y and implement a Home Economics p ro fe s s io n a l
p o s itio n a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity :
1. Q u illin g (1970)
id e n t if ie d the s ta tu s o f 1958-1969 Home
Economics philosophy;
2. Lorenz (7970) described Home Economics student backgrounds,
a t t it u d e s , and values in 1968-69;
3. Name and philosophy changed w ith th e t r a n s itio n from C o llege
o f Home Economics to C o lleg e o f Human Ecology in 1970;
59
4 . Human Ecology p o s itio n statem ents by T u rk , Hook, and Paolucci
(1 9 7 0 -7 1 ) had a focus on q u a lit y liv in g and exam ination o f
the re la tio n s h ip s between fa m ily and n ear-environm ent;
5.
In tro d u c tio n o f the Human E cological Systems Framework in
c o lle g e core courses and a p p lic a tio n 1n o th e r courses;
6. Vaines (1974) probed the acceptance o f th e Human E colog ical
Systems p e rs p e c tiv e in a n a tio n a l Home Economics C ollege
survey.
From 1960 to 1968, assessment o f student o r ie n ta tio n as
p re p ro fe s s io n a ls in Home Economics has been on a small group basis
(Fukishim a; A s t le ) . The Lorenz study on backgrounds, a t t it u d e s , and
values o f a re p re s e n ta tiv e group in 1968-69 d id not co n cen trate on
the value o r ie n ta tio n . Home Economics students expressed more s o c ia l
consciousness than o th e r Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity c o lle g e women.
Freshman majors d if f e r e d more on term in a l values than In stru m en tal
valu es. Upperclass majors d if f e r e d more on in s tru m e n ta l v a lu e s . By
m ajors, th e re was a d iv e r s it y in concern f o r the w e ll-b e in g o f people.
The Marcus study o f Human Ecology Alumni
(1969-1973) showed
th a t the main reason f o r c a re e r choice was an o p p o rtu n ity to help
o th e rs . C o llege o f Human Ecology fem ale students als o f e l t th a t th e
h ig hest c o n trib u tio n o f c o lle g e to t h e i r liv e s was in the personal
development s e c tio n .
Values in H igher Education
Over the years value stu d ie s o f c o lle g e students have shown
th a t value o rie n ta tio n s change in th e fo u r-y e a r academic term and
60
over the decades. Seniors have been found to have emerging value
p a tte rn s th a t fo llo w e d c u ltu r a l norms (A rs e n ia n , 1943; Todd, 1943).
Homogeneity o f value o rie n ta tio n was g re a te r among s e n io r students
than freshmen, sophomores, or ju n io rs (Jacob, 1957). A g ain , changes
in value p o s itio n were found from freshman to sen io r le v e l a t Michigan
S ta te U n iv e rs ity (D ressel and Lehmann, 1965) and se n io rs were more
o u te r-d ir e c te d and less t r a d i t i o n a l . C onfirm ation o f valu e change
and o r ie n ta tio n o f freshman to s e n io r le v e l has been given by Lehmann,
S in h a, and H a rn ett (1 9 6 6 ), and W illia m s (1 9 7 1 ). Freedman (1971) found
th a t students w ith in a m ajor from freshman to sen io r le v e l were con
s is te n t in t h e ir v a lu e o r ie n ta tio n .
Female students a t M ichigan S ta te
U n iv e rs ity were more concerned w ith in t e lle c t u a l and s o c ie ta l o b je c tiv e s
than male students but were also career-m inded (J u o la , 19 73 ).
M orris (1970) noted in a r e p lic a te d 1950 study t h a t c o lle g e s tu
dents s t i l l p re fe rre d a value o r ie n ta tio n o f Way Seven— a many sided
s e l f . However, students in 1970 were le s s t r a d i t i o n a l .
In the several
s tu d ie s from 1968 to 1973, Y ankelovitch observed students move from a
concern f o r so c ia l reform and r e je c tio n o f t r a d it io n a l ca reers to an
o r ie n ta tio n o f s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t w ith a conventional c a re e r. The change
in youth values was s im ila r to the fin d in g s o f Jacob (1 9 5 7 ), Hoge (1 9 7 0 ),
and M o rris (1970)
in th a t th ere was a w eigh ting towards p riv a c y and
decrease in obedience and re lig io u s emphasis.
Value change over time has shown l i t t l e evidence t h a t changes
are due to any one f a c t o r . Various c o n trib u tin g fa c to r s noted were
in d iv id u a l m a tu ra tio n , so c ia l environm ent, l i f e s ta g e s , vo c a tio n a l
61
choice, g en e ra tio n a l o r ie n ta tio n s , youth movements, sex type and
s o c ia liz a tio n by sex ty p e , and personal
l i f e exp eriences.
The Rokeach Value Survey
Findings repo rted were from p e r tin e n t stu d ies which employed
the Rokeach Value Survey. Reasons f o r in d iv id u a l d iffe re n c e s in value
s t a b i l i t y a re not c le a r but the v a ria b le s s e x , age, in t e lle c t u a l a b i l
i t y , and lib e r a lis m are known to in flu e n c e term in a l and instru m ental
value s t a b i l i t y . Women a re more s ta b le on the term inal and instrum ental
value systems than men.
Freshman c o lle g e students have the most s ta b le
value system and sophomores and ju n io rs have the le a s t s ta b le value
system. Those p re fe rr in g in t e lle c t u a l a c t i v i t i e s over s o c ia l a c t i v i t i e s
have a more s ta b le te rm in a l and instru m ental value system.
Developmental v a lu e p attern s are shown w ith flu c tu a tio n s in
p r i o r i t i e s over the age span.
In c o lle g e th e re is an in c re as e in
importance f o r the te rm in a l values: inner harmony, mature love,
salvation, self respect, and a sense of accomplishment. S im ila r ly ,
there is increased p r i o r i t y on the in s tru m e n ta l values: ambitious,
broadminded, imaginative, intellectual, logical, and responsible.
I t was found t h a t the choice o f m ajor was re la te d to the
r e la t iv e importance assigned to d if f e r e n t te rm in a l and instru m en tal
values when A u s tra lia n freshmen were compared in H um anities, Social
S tu d ies , and Sciences (F e a th e r, 19 70 ). F u rth e r, th ere were value
p r i o r i t y d iffe re n c e s between male and fem ale c o lle g e stu d en ts.
Another A u s tra lia n study in d ic a te d t h a t , w ith sen io r high school
s tu d en ts, measures o f school adjustment were p o s itiv e ly r e la te d to
the e x te n t students' values matched school values (F e a th e r, 1973).
CHAPTER I I I
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This study compares the personal values o f Home Economics and
Human Ecology undergraduate students a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity from
1968 to 1975. To s t a r t the overview o f the problem f o r study, a d is
cussion o f the problem under p resen t study and background l i t e r a t u r e
r e la t e d to the problem have been given in the l a s t two ch a p te rs.
In
t h is t h ir d c h a p te r, the design o f study is mapped o u t. Thus, t h is
ch a p te r includes a d e s c rip tio n o f d ata c o lle c t io n , an e x p la n a tio n o f
th e instrum ent used, a sketch o f th e subjects in th e sample, a statem ent
o f research hypotheses to be te s te d and an o u t lin e o f s t a t i s t i c a l te s ts
to be used in th e a n a ly s is o f th e d a ta .
C o lle c tio n o f Data
Data were c o lle c te d from Home Economics and Human Ecology
undergraduate fem ale students from F a ll term 1968 to Spring term 1975.
S ta rtin g w ith 1968, f o r the data c o lle c t io n from the 1968-69
Home Economics undergraduate sam ple, the Rokeach Value Survey, Form D,
was adm inistered im m ediately a f t e r the College Student Q u e stio n n aire in
a session w ith no tim e l i m i t . The two times s e le c te d fo r a d m in is tra tio n
were F a ll 1968 and A p ril 1969.
In th e F a ll 1968 group, freshman and
tr a n s fe r students were the s u b je c ts .
In the A p r il 1969 group, freshman
63
sophomore, ju n io r , and s e n io r students were th e su b jects and were
re p re s e n ta tiv e o f the p o p u la tio n .
For data c o lle c tio n o f the 1971-72 Hunan Ecology undergraduate
student sample, f i r s t , th e Rokeach Value Survey, Form D, was adm inis
te re d a t the end o f the F a ll 1971, W inter 1972, and Spring 1972 terms
in th e freshman course FE 110, Man and His Near Environment.
In each
term the students were te s te d in one session which fo llo w ed the w r itin g
o f th e f in a l exam ination f o r the course.
Second, the Value Survey, Form D, was adm in istered in one
session during a FE 401 S e n io r Seminar class period fo r both W inter
1972 and Spring 1972 term s.
The 1972-73 group o f su b jects was given the Form D Value Survey
in
the courses FE 110 and FE 401. A c o lle c tio n o f data was made in
FE
110 tw o -th ird s o f the way through the F a ll 1973, W in ter 1973, and
Spring 1973 term s; and in FE 4 0 1 , o nly in Spring 1973 term . A ll the
su b jects were handed the survey in class and asked to complete i t a t
home and re tu rn the survey two days l a t e r in th e next class session.
The 1973-74 group o f su b jects was given the Form F Value Survey
tw o -th ird s o f th e way through the course FE 110 in F a ll 1973, W inter
1974, and Spring 1974 terms and tw o -th ird s o f th e way through the
course FE 401
in Spring 1974 term . The Value Survey was adm inistered
a t th e beginning o f the c la s s in one session w ith a maximum o f 30
m inutes f o r the survey com pletion in FE 110 and FE 401. The surveys
were c o lle c te d im m ediately a f t e r com pletion.
The 1974-75 sample was given the Value Survey under the same
c o n d itio n s as the 1973-74 group o f p a r tic ip a n ts . The FE 110 course
used Form D and the FE 401 course used Form F,
64
Since the d ire c tio n s f o r com pletion o f th e survey are s e l f
e x p la n a to ry , general d ire c tio n s in a d m in is tra tio n e n ta ile d d is t r ib u t io n
o f the survey, guiding students to do the survey independently w ith o u t
t a lk in g or sharing and to fo llo w the d ire c tio n s w r itte n on the in s id e
o f the survey f r o n t cover. Guidance in requ esting th e student to
p ro vid e name an d /o r student number v a rie d w ith the sessions.
In Table 1 a sumnary o f th e Value Survey form used, sampled
groups, and tim e o f survey a d m in is tra tio n is g iv e n .
Table 1. Sumnary o f Data C o lle c tio n 3
1968-69
1971-72
1
Year
1972-73
Term
1973-74
1974-75
F W
S
F W
S
F W
S
F W
S
F W
S
Course
Level
Freshman
D1
S enior
D2
°2
°2
°3
°3
°3
F2 F2 F2
°2
°2
°2
D1
°2
°2
°3
P2
F2
D = Rokeach Value Survey Form D ad m in istered in
F = Rokeach Value Survey Form F ad m in istered in
1 = Survey a d m in is tra tio n in a sp e cial group session in a c la s s .
2 = Survey a d m in is tra tio n in a class session.
3 = Survey handed out and retu rn ed during a class but survey
s p e c ifie d term .
s p e c ifie d term .
completed o u ts id e the c la s s .
In b r i e f , both the a d m in is tra tio n o f the Rokeach Value Survey
and the form o f the Value Survey used has two p a rts .
65
Class and home s e ttin g s were used when a d m in is te rin g the Value
Survey. V a ria tio n in a d m in is tra tio n was because o f th e la c k o f w r it te n
s p e c ific a tio n s f o r c o n s is te n t a d m in is tra tio n and use o f th e Rokeach
Value Survey in the c o lle g e f o r fu tu re on-going b a s e lin e d a ta , and
e s p e c ia lly a t the time o f th e 1968-69 data c o lle c tio n . However,
in
1970 th e re was a verbal c o lle g e a d m in is tra tiv e agreement and r e in fo r c e
ment to co n tin ue using th e Value Survey w ith Human Ecology students f o r
ten y e ars.
Form D and Form F o f th e Rokeach Value Survey were used. Use
o f both survey forms stemmed p a r t ly from th e above a d m in is tra tiv e
reason and p a r t ly from the flu c tu a tio n o f a v a ila b le research funds
in the c o lle g e to support th e cost o f the surveys. During a period
o f a u s t e r it y , th e c o lle g e o f f s e t Form D o f the Value Survey, w ith a
minor change in recording in s tr u c tio n s , thus c re a tin g Form F o f the
Value Survey a t an accommodating co st.
Instrum ent
E v o lu tio n o f th e Rokeach Value Survey has a h is to r y o f p i l o t
te s tin g s , re v is io n s , expansions, and analyses o f respondent behavior
to instru m ent s tru c tu re and com position.
The instrum ent in a two-page b o o k le t form has:
a fro n t
id e n t if ic a t io n cover w ith spaces fo r b ir t h d a t e , p lace o f b ir t h , sex
ty p e , and name; in s tru c tio n s on the backside o f the f r o n t cover; a
f i r s t page w ith a column o f 18 d efin ed te rm in a l values (e n d -s ta te s o f
e x is te n c e ) a lp h a b e tic a lly l is t e d and a column o f 18 numbered spaces;
66
and a second page o f 18 defined in s tru m e n ta l values (modes o f conduct
o r means) and 18 spaces s im ila r ly arranged to the te rm in a l values.
To complete the survey in ap proxim ately 20 m in u te s, the
respondent is re q u ire d f i r s t to rank th e 18 te rm in a l values in o rd er
o f importance to s e l f , th e n , second, rank s im ila r ly th e 18 in stru m en tal
v a lu e s .
In Form D th e values a re p rin te d on adhesive-backed la b e ls
which can be peeled o f f and rearranged several tim es w ith ease. When
th e two sets o f values a re reranked in the p e rs o n a lly p re fe rre d o rd er
by the respondent, th e r e s u ltin g two new h ie ra rc h ie s re p res en t the
respondent’ s own te rm in a l value system and in stru m en tal value system.
In Form F th e respondent is given a mimeographed form o f
Form D Value Survey but is asked to rank each l i s t o f 18 values in
o rd er o f importance to s e l f by w r it in g down each v a lu e in the p e r
s o n a lly p re fe rre d o rd e r in the provided columns o f spaces.
The only d iffe r e n c e between Form D and Form F is the medium
o f expression o f resp o nd en t's valu e systems: placement o f p rin te d
values on gummed la b e ls in Form D versus han dw riting th e values in
Form F. Appendix A g iv es an example o f the Rokeach Value Survey,
Form 0 and Form F.
R e l i a b i l i t y . — The technique used to determ ine th e s t a b i l i t y
o f th e Value Survey was to c o r r e la te (Spearman Rank c o r r e la tio n ) th e
rank orderings o f th e respondent's v a lu e systems a t one s i t t i n g w ith
those rankings the respondent gave on a second occasion. For Form 0
th e median r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the te rm in a l value system is 0 .7 8 w ith a
th re e to seven week in te r v a l between te s t and r e t e s t o f c o lle g e
stu d en ts and s i m i l a r l y , the median r e l i a b i l i t y o f 0 .7 2 to 0 .7 0
67
fo r th e instrum ental valu e system. For Form F th e median r e l i a b i l i t y
f o r the term in a l value system is 0.61 w ith a three-w eek in te r v a l
between t e s t and r e t e s t o f c o lle g e students and s i m il a r ly , the median
r e l i a b i l i t y o f 0 .6 9 f o r th e instrum ental valu e system.
In Table 2 the median t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r Forms D,
E, F , and p aired comparison method o f the Rokeach Value Survey are
g iven .
Scoring. - - F o r computation o f the median rankings o f the
18 te rm in a l values and 18 instru m en tal values f o r each respondent
and subgroup o f respondents, the rank o rd erin g scores o f each value
are f i r s t ta b u la te d in fre q u e n c ie s . With knowledge o f th e frequencies
o f the rank scores on a v a lu e , the median o r m iddle score in the
d is t r ib u t io n then be c a lc u la te d .
Given the choice o f mean or median, th e median is the
a p p ro p ria te measure o f c e n tr a l tendency fo r o rd in a l o r ranking scale
o f measurement. An e x p la n a tio n f o r why the median is more ap p ro p ria te
than th e mean is given l a t e r in the a n a ly s is o f data se ctio n o f th is
ch a p te r.
A t t r i t i o n .--T h e g r e a te r ease in com pletion and g am e-like
c h a r a c t e r is t ic o f Form D due to the use o f gummed la b e ls gives less
a t t r i t i o n than Form F.
In Form F th e re is a tendency to sometimes
w r ite down a s p e c ific v a lu e tw ic e and consequently omit another
s p e c ific value.
Unique to Form D is the occasional m ixing to g e th e r o f te rm in a l
values and instrum ental values when re ra n k in g th e values in to two
h ie ra rc h ie s . F a ilu r e to complete a value h ie ra rc h y and omission o f
Table 2. Median Test-Retest R e lia b ilitie s fo r Form D, Form E, Form F, and Paired Comparison Method
o f the Rokeach Value Survey {Parrish, 1975; and Rokeach, 1973, p. 32)
Form
Description
N
Sample
Time Between
Test-Retest
Terminal
R e lia b ility
Instrumental
R e lia b ility
D
E
F
Paired
comparison
method
18 values, defining
phrases added,
gummed labels
18 values, defining
phrases added,
mimeographed version
of Form D reranked
values numbered
18 values, defining
phrases added,
mimeographed version
of Form D reranked
values handwritten
18 values, defining
phrases added
26?
26?
26
117
36
100
216
204
189b
32°
77
7th grade
9th grade
11th grade
college
college
college
college
college
3 weeks
3 weeks
3 weeks
3 weeks
4.5 weeks
7 weeks
2-4 weeks
14-16 weeks
college
Lansing adults
S. Australia
College
3 weeks
12 weeks
5 weeks
0.62
0.63
0.74
0.78
0.80
0.78
0.76
0.69
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.53
0.61
0,71
0.72
0.70
0.71
0.65
0.61
0.65
—
0.70
21d
college
3 weeks
0.61
0.69
30
college
5 weeks
0.87
0.60
aFrom McLellan (1970).
bFrom Homant (1970).
cFrom Feather (1972).
dFrom Parrish (1975).
69
one whole value h ie ra rc h y {more o fte n the second page o f in stru m en tal
va lu e s) are causes o f a t t r i t i o n comnon to both Form D and Form F.
Use.--T h e in h e re n t s im p lic it y o f the Rokeach Value Survey,
developed by M ilto n Rokeach and cohorts in the Department o f Psychology
a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity in the la t e 1 9 6 0 's , provides a b asis f o r
se ve ra l reasons f o r th e use o f th e instru m ent. The instru m ent is one
o f the few th a t sim ply and e a s ily o p e ra tio n a liz e s a value th e o ry through
th e use o f the two rank o rd er value scales used to measure te rm in a l and
in stru m ental valu e systems.
In a broader c o n te x t to past human behavior
research and th e o ry , Rokeach has not only d if f e r e n t ia t e d between b e l ie f s ,
a t t it u d e s , and values but a ls o c l a r i f i e d th e c e n t r a lit y o f values over
b e lie f s and a tt itu d e s to human behavior. The Rokeach Value Survey has
thus overcome th e h is t o r ic a l value instrum ent problem o f ad eq u ately
o p e ra tio n a liz in g value th e o ry .
Research to d ate suggests th a t in s tru c tio n s fo r survey comple
tio n are e a s ily grasped by respondents between the ages o f 11 and 90
and average tim e f o r survey com pletion is 20 m inutes. Thus, along
w ith low purchase c o s t, the ease o f survey a d m in is tra tio n im p lie s
e lim in a tio n o f tra in e d a d m in is tra to rs which in tu rn reduces research
c o s ts . When a d m in is te rin g th e survey to groups and over tim e , m a te ria l
c o s t, consistency in survey a d m in is tra tio n , and b re v ity in re q u ire d
com pletion tim e become c r i t i c a l fa c to rs in th e b rea d th , d e p th , and
c o n tin u ity o f d ata c o lle c t io n .
To e x e m p lify , th e data from Lorenz (1970) study on personal
values o f Home Economics students a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity during
1968 and 1969 can be u t i l i z e d in the c u rre n t study on personal values
70
o f Human Ecology student a t M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity to d a te . Hence,
an a d d itiv e lo n g itu d in a l study can be accomplished.
In tu r n , the data
from Lorenz* study and th is c u rre n t study can be added to a fu tu re study
on personal values o f Human Ecology students thus h elpin g to b u ild an
ongoing comprehensive u n iv e r s ity c o lle g e assessment over tim e . Fur
t h e r , the low m a te ria l cost o f the survey has allow ed the c o n tin u ity
o f survey a d m in is tra tio n over the years 1968 to 1975. Even th e n , budget
s trin g e n c ie s fo rced the use o f the les s-e xp en sive Form F survey.
L a s tly , refinem ent in v a lu e measurement and value change and
la c k o f in te rv e n in g u n c o n tro lle d v a ria b le s a re o th e r c r i t e r i a in in s t r u
ment use when studying group values over tim e. The undisguised Rokeach
Value Survey, through d ir e c t rank o rd erin g o f v a lu e s , provides separate
q u a n tita tiv e measures o f v a lu e s , value systems, and value change w ith
out the e x tra step o f sc o rin g . There is not a s ig n if ic a n t tendency to
respond to th e survey in a s o c ia lly d e s ira b le manner {K e lle y e t a l . ,
1972) and ranking o f values is not a ffe c te d by th e a lp h a b e tic a l o rd er
o f values (Cochrane and Rokeach, 1970) nor by importance o f the value
(Homant, 1967).
The two s p e c ific fe a tu re s about the Rokeach Value Survey are
i t s p ro je c tiv e n atu re and i p s a t i v i t y . 1 The Value Survey is p r o je c tiv e
as i t e l i c i t s in te rn a l responses. Rokeach noted t h a t ,
The respondent has only h is own in te r n a liz e d system o f
values to t e l l him how to rank the 18 te rm in a l and 18
in stru m ental va lu e s. Responses to the t e s t a re not
*The rank ordering o f 18 values c rea tes i p s a t i v i t y , which means
t h a t once 17 values are ranked , th e ranking o f the 18th valu e is decided
a u to m a tic a lly .
however, when in te r p r e tin g r e s u lts the i p s a t i v i t y should be considered.
There can be to le ra n c e o f t h is amount o f i p s a t i v i t y ;
71
suggested by th e stim ulus m a t e r ia l. Thus, the ranking
task is h ig h ly p r o je c tiv e in n a tu re ,
t i n c t iv e fe a tu r e being th a t the s tim u li a re words and the
o n ly responses e l i c i t e d from the respondent are numbers
from 1 to 18 [Rokeach, 1973, pp. 2 7 -2 8 ].
i t s most d is
,
.
,
Thus, c e r ta in m ethodological
lim ita t io n s are avoided:
the tim e
consuming and expensive attem p t a t c o n s is te n t in fe re n c e about values
from behavior d a ta ; and the respondent's u n w illin g n e s s , i n a b i l i t y , or
s e le c tiv e sharing o f own values (Rokeach, 1973, p. 2 7 ).
O p eratio n al D e fin itio n s
Meanings o f each value are given in the ac tu a l
in stru m en t,
lo c ate d in the Appendix.
Terminal value is represen ted by 18 d if f e r e n t words, each
p rin te d on a moveable gummed la b e l. The 18 words th a t re p res en t 18
term in a l values a re : a comfortable life, art exciting life, a sense of
accomplishment, a world at peace, a world of beauty, equality, family
security, freedom, happiness, inner harmony, mature love, national
security, pleasure, salvation, self respect, social recognition, true
friendship, and wisdom.
Instru m en tal value is represented by 18 d if f e r e n t words, each
p rin te d on a moveable gummed la b e l. The 18 d if f e r e n t words th a t rep
resen t 18 in s tru m e n ta l values a re : ambitious, broadminded, capable,
cheerful, clean, courageous, forgiving, helpful, honest, imaginative,
independent, intellectual, logical, loving, obedient, polite, respon-
sible, and self-controlled.
Value system is formed by th e respondent arrang ing e it h e r 18
te rm in a l values o r 18 in s tru m e n ta l values in an h ie ra rc h y o f personal
72
p re fe re n c e , w ith each value having a rank p o s itio n o f 1 to 18 on the
s c a le . A term in a l value system o r h ie ra rc h y is formed when 18 te rm in a l
values are ranked in a p re fe rre d o rd er by th e respondent. S im ila r ly ,
an in s tru m e n ta l value system o r h ie ra rc h y is formed w ith In stru m ental
valu es.
Subjects
Sample d is t r i b u t i o n . — The sample was composed o f Home Economics
undergraduate fem ale students e n ro lle d during 1968-69 and Human Ecology
undergraduate fem ale students e n ro lle d during 1971-1975 a t Michigan
S ta te U n iv e rs ity . The su b jects represented by l e v e l , th ree groups:
freshman n o n tra n s fe rs , tr a n s f e r s , and s e n io r n o n tra n s fe rs . The freshman
n o n tra n s fe r group had en tered the c o lle g e w ith in le s s than one y e a r and
the s e n io r n o n tra n s fe r group was in i t s fo u rth y e a r in the c o lle g e and
p rep aring to graduate w ith in less than one y e a r. The tr a n s fe r group had
e n ro lle d in the c o lle g e a f t e r changing choice o f c o lle g e o r u n iv e r s ity .
T ra n s fe r students were m ainly in t h e i r sophomore and ju n io r y e a r , how
e v e r, freshman and s e n io r tr a n s f e r students were a ls o in v o lv e d .
The m a jo r ity o f th e sample su b jects were aged 18 to 22 y e a rs .
Over the academic y e a rs , 1968 to 1975, the amount in each academic y e a r
f a l l i n g in to the 18 to 22 age range v a rie d from 8 7 .7 percent to 97.1
p erc en t.
The subgrouping o f students by major was: C h ild Development
& Teaching, Consumer-Community S e rv ic e s , Foods, General Home Economics/
Fam ily Ecology, Fam ily Ecology-Comnunlcation A r ts , Home Economics Educa
t io n , C lo th in g & T e x t ile s ,
I n t e r i o r Design, Human Environment & Design,
73
D ie t e t ic s , N u tritio n /R e s e a rc h , and R e ta ilin g o f C lo th in g & T e x tile s .
For p a rt o f the a n a ly s is o f data some o f the majors were c lu s te re d
to g e th e r as fo llo w s :
(1 ) Consumer-Community S e rv ic e s , Fam ily Ecology,
Fam ily Ecology-Communication A rts ; (2 ) Foods, D ie t e t ic s , N u t r it io n /
Research; and (3 )
I n t e r i o r Design, Human Environment A Design. Each
o f the th ree c lu s te rs o f majors was a f f i l i a t e d w ith o n ly one c o lle g e
departm ent. C lu s te rin g was done as some o f the majors in t h e i r sm alles t
c e ll s iz e were ju s t less than n in e , the s m a lle s t number o f dependent
v a ria b le s taken a t one time when doing th e m u ltiv a r ia te a n a ly s is o f
v a ria n c e te s t on the value systems. The m u ltiv a r ia te a n a ly s is o f
v a ria n c e w il l not accept a c e ll s iz e o f an independent v a ria b le sm aller
than the number o f dependent v a ria b le s being analyzed a t one tim e.
Home Economics and Human Ecology undergraduate male students
e n ro lle d during 1968 to 1975 were not included in the sample fo r two
reasons.
F i r s t , c o n tro l o f the sex type v a ria b le was needed because
sex type d iffe re n c e s e x is t when ranking the values in th e Rokeach Value
Survey.
In an A u s tra lia n sample, male c o lle g e students d if f e r e d s ig
n i f i c a n t l y from fem ale c o lle g e students ir r e s p e c tiv e o f school major
choice (F e a th e r, 1970a, pp. 1 3 3 -1 3 4 ).
In an American n a tio n a l s u rv ey , N= 1 ,4 0 9 , 12 o f 18 term inal
values and 8 o f 18 instrum ental values did s ig n if ic a n t ly separate men
from women (Rokeach, 1973, p. 5 8 ). Thus, c o n tro l was b u i l t in to the
research design o f th is c u rre n t study (K e r lin g e r , 1973, p. 257) by
c o n fin in g the sex type v a ria b le to only one o f the sexes, the female
sex.
74
Second, the male sample s iz e was inadequate:
the range o f
N was from a low o f one to a high o f nine f o r any given y e a r. This
s iz e o f male sample gave incom plete c e lls when attem p tin g to make
comparisons w ith the fem ale sample by subgroups. A ls o , a re p re
s e n ta tiv e male sample was not p o s s ib le . The a lt e r n a t iv e o f using
a la rg e n o n p ro b a b ility male sample was im possible w ith the low to ta l
male sample s iz e .
Thus,
i n a b i l i t y to o b ta in a s u ita b le male sample
by the two major means gave another reason to the omission o f male
su b jects in the Home Economics and Human Ecology undergraduate student
sample.
To summarize th e sample d is t r ib u t io n , by le v e ls , tra n s fe r s ,
and majors fo r each academic y e a r , the number and p ro p o rtio n in the
sample by percent and com parative p op u latio n pro po rtion s are shown
in Tables 3 , 4 , and 5.
Sample ty p e . — As a consequence o f sample d is t r ib u t io n and
survey a d m in is tra tio n design the o v e ra ll sample d e s c rip tio n type is
tw o fo ld . The 1968-69 sectio n o f the sample is a re p re s e n ta tiv e or
quota n o n p ro b a b ility sample since th e same p ro p o rtio n o f elements in
the p o p ulatio n was m aintained in the sample and th e re was no assurance
th a t ev e ry element had an equal chance o f being in clu d ed .
The 1971 to 1975 p a rt o f th e sample is a purposive nonproba
b i l i t y sampling due to the c o lle g e a d m in is tra tiv e fa c to rs mentioned
in th e data c o lle c tio n sectio n o f t h is ch a p te r. This 1971 to 1975
p a rt is nonrandom and one o f convenience since preformed groups by
course en ro llm en t were used. However, th e re was p in p o in tin g a t
s p e c if ic classes th a t would encapsule a la rg e p ro p o rtio n o f freshman
75
T ab le 3. Sample and Population D is tr ib u tio n by Levels o f Home Economics
and Human Ecology Undergraduate S tu d en ts, 1968-1975®
Sample
P o pu lation
N
%
N
%
% Sample to
Population
Yearb
1968-69:
Freshman n o n tra n s fe r
Senior n o n tra n s fe r
Total
1971-72:
Freshman n o n tra n s fe r
S e n io r n o n tra n s fe r
Total
1972-73:
Freshman n o n tra n s fe r
S enior n o n tra n s fe r
Total
1973-74:
Freshman n o n tra n s fe r
S enior n o n tra n s fe r
Total
1974-75:
Total
1968-1975
1971-1975
246
93
339
154
192
346
177
124
301
183
87
270
7 2 .6
2 7 .4
4 4 .5
5 5 .5
5 8 .8
4 1 .2
6 7 .8
3 2 .2
249
263
512
223
270
493
258
252
510
245
335
580
233
346
57$
4 8 .6
51 .4
45.2
5 4 .8
5 0 .6
4 9 .4
4 2 .2
5 7 .8
4 0 .2
5 9 .8
Freshman n o n tra n s fe r
S enior n o n tra n s fe r
159
79
6 6 .8
3 3 .2
1 ,494
1 ,155
2 ,6 7 4
2,162
aUndergraduate students a re female freshman non transfers and
fem ale senior n o n tra n s fe rs .
bYear is the academic y e a r , c o n s is tin g o f F a ll term o f one y e a r
and W inter and Spring term o f th e fo llo w in g y e a r.
Figures a re taken from th e u n iv e rs ity count on the f i f t h day o f
F a ll term o f each academic y e a r. See College o f Human Ecology Report
4401, 1968 to 1975.
6 6 ,2
7 0 .2
5 9 .0
4 6 .6
41.1
5 5 .9
5 3 .4
76
Table 4. Sample and Population D is tr ib u tio n o f Undergraduate T ra n s fe r
Students in th e C ollege o f Human Ecology, 1971-1975
b
Year
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
Sample0
N
%
58
14.4
131
136
100
3 0 .3
33.5
2 9 .4
Population^
N
%
336
4 4 .5
456
47.2
536
4 8 .0
516
4 7 .0
% Sample to
P opulation
14 .6
2 8 .7
2 5 .4
1 9 .3
Undergraduate tr a n s fe r students are fem ale and e n ro lle d in F a ll
term or Spring term o f each academic y e a r. T ra n s fe r students are from
freshman, sophomore, ju n io r , and s e n io r le v e ls .
k fe a r is th e academic y e a r , c o n s is tin g o f F a ll term o f one y e a r
and W inter and Spring term o f the fo llo w in g y e a r.
cPercentage o f tr a n s fe r students is based upon t o ta l sample s iz e
c o n s is tin g o f t r a n s f e r , freshman n o n tra n s fe r, and s e n io r n o n tra n s fe r
stu d en ts.
^Percentage o f tr a n s fe r students is based upon t o ta l p o p u la tio n
s iz e c o n s is tin g o f t r a n s f e r , freshman n o n tra n s fe r, and s e n io r n on tran s
f e r students.
S
a
m
p
e
l
1
9
7
2
-
7
3
P
o
p
u
a
t
i
o
n
l
S
a
m
p
e
l
1
9
7
1
-
7
2
P
o
p
u
a
t
i
o
n
l
S
a
m
p
e
l
1
9
6
8
-
6
9
l
P
o
p
u
a
t
i
o
n
0
9
1
50
62
56
6
2
2
0
1
2
.
4
1
6
.
2
1
2
.
1
5
.
9
25
4
5
52
34
1
7
.
8
7
9
1
5
.
5
6
3
1
2
.
4
1
6
.
6
4
1
1
3
.
6
4
2
1
4
.
0
1
1
.
6
4
2
8
.
5
1
3
.
0
36
1
0
.
4
72
32
80
4
9
1
4
.
1
80
1
5
.
7
1
0
7
2
1
.
0
1
0
.
6
4
1
1
3
.
6
59
1
9
.
6
i1!
18
4
0
3
.
5
;
5
1
0
1
0
0
1
2
.
0
3
0
1
1
0
0
1
6
.
2
83
1
6
.
8
8
9
1
8
.
1
8
1
1
6
.
4
1
4
.
2
52
1
5
.
0
54
1
5
.
6
54
1
5
.
6
CD
co
o
o
CO
-P>
cr>
o
o
1
0
.
1
1
0
,
0
33
39
6
.
4
1
1
0
2
1
.
5
1
1
,
5
8
1
2
3
.
9
no
OO
no
CO
cn
00
1
1
1
2
1
.
7
1
1
6
2
2
.
7
cn
—■
no
O
O
6
7
1
9
.
8
7
5
2
2
.
1
co
GO
co
O
O
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
,
1
9
6
8
-
1
9
7
4
a
T
a
bl
e
5.
S
a
m
pl
e
a
n
d
P
o
p
u
a
t
i
o
n
l
i
D
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
by
j
M
a
o
r
s
of
Ho
me
E
c
o
n
o
mi
c
s
a
n
d
Hu
ma
n
E
c
o
o
g
y
l
TO
o>
O '
03 C h ild Development
& Teaching
04 Consumer-Conwnuni t y
Servi ce
17 General HE/Family Ecol
23 Communication Arts
11 Foods
33 D i e t e t ic s
34/35 N u tritio n /R e s e a rc h
M
a
o
r
j
25 Home E Education
26 C lo th in g & T e x tile s
27 I n t e r i o r Design
32 Human Environment
& Design
40 R e t a i l in g of
C lo th in g & T e x tile s
T
o
t
a
l
LL
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
1 ^
N
*
N
%
| Z
I * *
I * *
Table 5—Continued
o
u
^ 1/1
> , +->
1_
**- <
>»
-*->
•r-
c
3 E
£
to C
£ b. o
\
O
UJ +J
CJ>
t X to
s.
u
Of > 0) E
C L . c E
O 0) V o
U I/IL 9 U
-w
O
i-. co
t— CM
V
1/1
01
cn\
c
o
I/) 4-»
O -r-
■f- L.
■M +->
tfl 01 3
T3 * J Z
O c
O) *i“
□ -C
°0
CO
o
Major
V )0)
X
0)
eO
C7)
O
o
in
CM
c
o
nj
O
*D
0)
CM
+j
c
C 0)
cr> E
■<- c(A O
0) t-
O •< -
>
S- c c
O lu cn
L0
L.
0>
o> to gj
4J E O
+>
C 3
« i * a
c m
c m c n
LO
(1)
+J
X
V
<«- h-
o
"0
C7>
c cn
**- c
<0 +J
+j o
V r -
a: u
o
Total
N
%
N
%
N
*
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
50 18.5
32 11.9
41 15.2
24
8.9
23
8.5
57 21.1
43 15.9
270 100
Year1
1973-74
Sample
Population
95 16.4
81 13.9
69 11.9
56
9.7
80 13.8
94 16.2
105 18.1
580 100
1974-75
Sample
48 20.2
27 11.3
40 16.8
8
3.4
21
8.8
54 22.7
40 16.8
238 100
Population
111 19.2
86 14.8
73 12.6
42
7.3
40
6.9
93 16.1
134 23.1
579 100
Undergraduate students are female freshman nontransfers and female senior nontransfers.
^Year is the academic year, consisting of Fall term of one year and Winter and Spring
term of the following year,
cFigures are taken from the u n ive rsity count on the f i f t h day of Fall term of each
academic year. See College of Human Ecology Report 4401, 1968 to 1975.
79
(FE 110) and s e n io r (FE 401) le v e l undergraduate stu d en ts. Thus, a
q u a s i-re p re s e n ta tiv e -a re a sampling w ith in th e realm o f a purposive
n o n p ro b a b ility sampling was a tta in e d .
Sample s iz e and re p re s e n ta tiv e n e s s .--S in c e the sample type is
o v e ra ll n o n p ro b a b ility or nonrandom th e re is a redu ctio n in the a b i l i t y
to g e n e ra liz e re s u lts beyond the s ize o f the sample. Hence,
in order
to do any kind o f g e n e ra liz in g beyond the s iz e o f the nonrandom sample,
the fa c to rs o f sample s iz e and re p res en tative n e ss to the pop ulatio n
take on s ig n ific a n c e .
The largeness o f th e sample s iz e helps to increase accuracy and
a t the same tim e reduce e r r o r s .
I t is known th a t s t a t is t i c s c a lc u la te d
from la rg e samples are more accurate (K e rlin g e r * 1973, p. 128) and th a t
the la rg e r th e sample the s m a lle r the e r r o r and v ic e versa (Compton,
1972, p. 191; K e rlin g e r, 1973, 1973, p. 1 2 8 ), as
i llu s t r a t e d in Figure 4.
Large
Smal 1
Smal 1
Large
S ize o f Sample
F ig u re 4. R e la tio n between sample s iz e and e r r o r
(K e r lin g e r , 1973, p. 1 2 8 ).
80
U n co n tro lled v a ria b le s w i l l o p erate more randomly In a la rg e
sample than in a small sample (Compton, 1971, p. 1 9 1 ). With the
sample a ls o being d iv id e d in to subgroups the la r g e sample reassures
c e ll com pletion and general adequate c e ll s iz e necessary when
comparing by m a jo r, l e v e l , and y e a r.
The subgroup s iz e ranges a r e :
(1 ) fo r majors from 8 to 81 ,
(2 ) f o r le v e l from 79 to 246, and ( 3 ) fo r y e a r from 337 to 432. Hence,
the amount o f sample e r r o r is low; however, the c e l l s iz e should not be
disregard ed when discussing re s u lts and degree o f g e n e r a liz a tio n s .
In b r i e f , th e sample is c la s s if ie d as la r g e and represents
41 to 70 percent o f the pop ulatio n in any given academic y e a r. The
general adequacy o f numbers provides f o r the most p a r t s a fe ty in having
a n o rm ally d is tr ib u te d sample which in tu rn provides a basis f o r making
c o n fid e n t conclusions about the sample and suggestions about the
p o p u la tio n .
For the most p a rt the sample is re p re s e n ta tiv e on a t o t a l and
subgroup basis to th e p o p u la tio n . By freshman and sen io r n o n tra n s fe r
le v e l
in th re e o f th e f iv e academic years th e re is a g re a te r p ro p o rtio n
o f freshmen and s m a lle r p ro p o rtio n o f seniors than the p o p u la tio n . By
t r a n s f e r le v e l one y e a r is underrepresented. The re p res en tative n e ss
o f th e sample c lo s e ly p a r a lle ls th e same p ro p o rtio n s in the p o p u latio n
by majors over the y e a rs .
Hence, e x te rn a l v a l i d i t y and c l a r i t y o f d iffe re n c e s among groups
over the years can be achieved. However, th e re is g re a te r e x te rn a l
v a l i d i t y (re p re s e n ta tiv e n e s s ) w ith th e majors and t o ta l groups by years
than w ith the subgroups by le v e ls . T h e re fo re , g r e a te r caution
in degree
81
o f g e n e r a liz a tio n must be taken when in te r p r e tin g the r e s u lts o f
le v e l comparisons than w ith th e major and t o t a l groups.
In comparison to p as t sample s ize s o f o th er stu d ie s using
the complete Rokeach Value Survey, th is sample is also the la rg e s t
o f a l l samples, N= 2 ,3 5 1 , and lo n g itu d in a lly the lo n g e s t, seven y e a rs .
The n ext la r g e s t sample is the N atio n al NORC Sample te s te d in A p ril 1968
by sex,
income, ed u c a tio n , ra c e , age, and r e l i g i o n , f o r American a d u lts
over the age o f 21, N = 1 ,40 9: males = 665 and females = 744 (Rokeach,
1973, p. 55 + ). However, an A u s tra lia n high school sample tes ted in
A p ril 1971 would be the a lt e r n a t iv e next la r g e s t sample, N= 2 ,9 4 7 ,
when considering the com pletion o f only h a l f the survey. Approxim ately
h a lf o f the subjects ranked th e term inal v a lu e s , N= 1,4 65 and the
rem aining subjects ranked th e instru m ental v a lu e s , N = 1 ,4 8 2 (F e a th e r,
1972, pp. 196-197).
Hypotheses
The data on stu d en t term inal and in s tru m e n ta l values can be
used f o r a b aselin e d e s c rip tio n o f undergraduate Home Economics and
Human Ecology fem ale students and as in fo rm a tio n fo r b as ic co n sid er
a tio n in curriculum developm ent, cu rricu lu m r e v is io n , and c o lle g e
program changes.
In hypothesis 1, a d e s c rip tio n o f th e Human Ecology students
over the la s t fo u r y e a rs , 1971-1975, in a broad composite assessment
can p ro vid e a general overview . This overview is p e r tin e n t since the
C o lleg e o f Human Ecology was e s ta b lis h e d f i v e years ago in 1970 and
l i t t l e d e s c rip tiv e b a s e lin e data on Human Ecology students e x is ts f o r
82
th is p erio d o f tim e. The d ata also can help to answer the c o lle g e
a d m in is tra tiv e q u estio n , "What are the values o f students in your
co lleg e? " Thus, hypothesis 1 can provide th e i n i t i a l overview o f
student term in a l and instru m en tal values in th e College o f Human
Ecology f o r the block p erio d 1971-1975 in one broad s tro k e .
However, a general assessment over th e years may n e ith e r
provide an average in d ic a to r nor show c le a r ly s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s
from y e a r to y e a r. Can the broad overview a c t as an accurate average
o f Human Ecology students? Can the overview in d ic a te a p a tte rn o r
p re d ic to r o f Human Ecology student values? Should th e re be s im ila r
i t i e s over the y e a rs , then the y e a r ly value d e s c rip tio n s may help to
v a lid a te th e general overview in d ic a te d in hypothesis 1. Hence, in
hypothesis 2 a comparison o f student values among the years 1971-1975
is done to show su p po rt, p r e d ic tio n , and tre n d s .
Turning to hypothesis 3, th e general corrment about freshman
students having p e rs o n a lity changes during t h e i r f i r s t y e a r a t u n i
v e r s ity leads to the q u e s tio n , "Are freshmen s ig n if ic a n t ly d if f e r e n t
by school term in t h e ir f i r s t academic year?" Since tr a n s fe r students
are t h e o r e t ic a lly not freshmen but do e n te r new to the C o lleg e o f Human
Ecology s im ila r ly to freshm en, th e re too may be d iffe re n c e s among
tr a n s fe r students when grouped by school term . Although freshman
and t r a n s fe r students e n te r the c o lle g e a t d if f e r e n t le v e ls and
p o s s ib ly fo r the same a n d /o r d if f e r e n t reasons, th e two groups, on
the one hand, may be h ig h ly s im ila r , and on the o th e r hand, may be
u n iq u e ly d if f e r e n t . Thus, th e d eterm in atio n o f d iffe re n c e s between
freshman and tra n s fe r students can help to guide fa c u lty ad visors in
83
making s u ita b le suggestions a p p lic a b le to in d iv id u a l student group
d iffe re n c e s . S im ila r ly , th e c o lle g e a d m in is tra tio n may be ab le to
make sounder program d ecisions on a broad s c a le based upon the concrete
evidence o f stu d en t group d iffe r e n c e s . So, f o r 1971-1975, hypothesis 3
attends to ( 1 ) th e comparison o f freshmen by F a ll and Spring school
terms in each y e a r and over th e y e a rs , (2 ) th e comparison o f tra n s fe rs
by F a ll and Spring school terms in each ye ar and over the y e a rs , (3 ) the
comparison between freshmen and tra n s fe rs over th e y e a rs , and ( 4 ) the
comparison o f th e combined freshman and tr a n s fe r groups over the years
and by school term over the y e a rs .
L a s tly ,
in hypothesis 4 w ith the c o lle g e o rg a n iza tio n change
to Human Ecology in 1970, has th e re been a change in personal value
d e s c rip tio n o f e n ro lle d students? Are Home Economics students d i f
fe re n t from Human Ecology students?
Is th e re a d e f in it e trend in
student value d e s c rip tio n o ver time? By comparing the Home Economics
students o f 1968-69 (students a t the College o f Home Economics to
College o f Human Ecology t r a n s it io n tim e) to Human Ecology students
o f 1974-75 (s tu d e n ts exposed o n ly to the C o lle g e o f Human Ecology
o rg a n iz a tio n ) th e re can be f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n and id e n t if ic a t io n
o f s t a b i l i t y o f student personal value o r ie n ta tio n s . Hence, in
hypothesis 4 , comparison is made between the te rm in a l and instru m ental
values o f Home Economics stu d en ts 1n 1968-69 and o f Human Ecology
students in 19 74-75.
The suggested hypotheses found in Chapter I are now s ta te d
below more s p e c if ic a lly in the general research hypothesis form .
84
Hypothesis 1
There are d iffe re n c e s in the personal values held by
undergraduate Human Ecology students by major and le v e l f o r the
one academic period 1971-1975.
1.1
There are differences in the values held by undergraduate
Human Ecology students by major for the one academic period
1971-1975.
1. 2
There are differences in the values held by undergraduate
Human Ecology students by level for the one academic period
1971-1975.
1.3.1 There are differences in the values held by freshman non
transfer undergraduate Human Ecology students by major for
the one academic period 1971-1975.
1.3.2 There are differences in the values held by senior nontransfer
undergraduate Human Ecology students by major for the one
academic period 1971-1975.
1.4
There are differences in values held by each of the four
college departments, comprised of the respective majors,
for the one academic period 1971-1975.
Hypothesis 2
There are d iffe re n c e s in th e personal values held by
undergraduate Human Ecology students among m ajo rs, le v e ls , and
academic years 1971-1975.
2.1
There are differences in the values held by undergraduate
Human Ecology students among the academic years 1971-1975.
85
2.2
There are differences in the values held by undergraduate
Human Ecology students among the majors in the academic year
1971-72, and similarly in the years, 1972-73, 1973-74, and
1974-75.
2. 3 There are differences in the values held by undergraduate
Human Ecology students between levels, freshman nontransfers,
and senior nontransfers, in the academic year 1971-72, and
similarly in the years 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75.
2.4
There are differences in the values held by undergraduate
Human Ecology students in each major among the academic years
1971-1975.
2. 5 There are differences in the values held by undergraduate
Human Ecology students in the freshman nontransfer level
among the academic years 1971-1975, and similarly, in the
senior nontransfer level among the years 1971-1975.
2.6.1 There are differences in the values held by freshman nontransfer
undergraduate Human Ecology students among the majors, in the
academic year 1971-72, and similarly, in the years 1972-73,
1973-74, and 1974-75.
2.6.2 There are differences in the values held by senior nontransfer
undergraduate Human Ecology students among the majors in the
academic year 1971-72, and similarly, in the years 1972-73,
1973-74, and 1974-75.
2.7.1 There are differences in the values held by freshman non
transfer undergraduate Human Ecology students in a major
among the academic years 1971-1975.
86
2. 7. 2 There are differences in the values held by senior nontransfer
undergraduate Human Ecology students in a major among the
academia years 1971-1975,
Hypothesis 3
There a re d iffe re n c e s in the personal values held by tr a n s fe r
and freshman n o n tra n s fe r undergraduate Human Ecology students in th e
years 1971-1975.
3.1
There is a difference in the values held between freshman
undergraduate Human Ecology students in Fall and Spring
term of each year 1971-19?5.
3.2
There is a difference in the values held between transfer
undergraduate Human Ecology students in Fall and Spring term
of each year 1971-1975.
3.3
There are differences in the values held by freshman under
graduate Human Ecology students in Fall term over the years
1971-1975.
3. 4
There are differences in the values held by transfer under
graduate Human Ecology students in Fall term over the years
1971-1975.
3. 5
There are differences in the values held by freshman under
graduate Human Ecology students in Spring term over the years
1971-1975.
3.6
There are differences in the values held by transfer under
graduate Human Ecology students in Spring term over the years
1971-1975.
87
3.7
There are differences in the values held between freshman and
transfer undergraduate Human Ecology students in the academic
year 1972-72, and similarly, in the years 2972-73, 1973-74, and
1974-75.
3.9
There are differences in the values held in the combined group
of freshman and transfer undergraduate Human Ecology students
over the years 1971-1975.
3. 9
There are differences in the values held by the combined group
of freshman and transfer undergraduate Human Ecology students
in Fall term over the years 1971-1975.
3.10 There are differences in the values held by the combined group
of freshman and transfer, undergraduate Human Ecology students
in Spring term over the years 1971-1975.
Hypothesis 4
There are d iffe re n c e s in the personal values held by under
graduate Home Economics students in 1968-69 and undergraduate Human
Ecology students in 1974-75 by m ajor and le v e l.
4.1
There are differences in the values held between Home Economics
students in 1968-69 and Human Ecology students in 2974-75.
4.2
There are differences in the values held between Home Economics
students of 1968-69 and Human Ecology students of 1974-75 by
level.
4. 3
There are differences in the values held between Home Economics
students of 1968-69 and Human Ecology students of 1974-75 by
major.
88
4. 4.1 There are differencee in the values held between freshman
nontransfer Home Economics students of 1968-69 and freshman
nontransfer Human Ecology students of 1974-76 in each major.
4.4.2 There are differences in the values held between senior
nontransfer Home Economics students in 1968-69 and senior
nontransfer Human Ecology students of 1974-76 in each major.
Design M atrices
According to the fo u r hypotheses, fo u r m a trice s a re suggested
f o r the design o f the study as i l l u s t r a t e d in Figures 5 through 8.
Major
Year
Level
1971-75
Freshman
n o n tra n s fe r
1971-75
Senior
n o n tra n s fer
F ig u re 5. H y p o th e s is 1 m a tr ix .
89
Level
Year
Major
Freshman
1971-72
n o n tra n s fer 1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1971-72
n o n tra n s fer 1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
Senior
Figure 6. Hypothesis 2 m a trix .
Level
Year
Major
Freshman
1971-72
n o n tra n s fe r 1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1971-72
1977-73
1973-74
1974-75
T ra n s fe r
F ig u re 7. H y p o th e s is 3 m a tr ix .
90
Level
Year
M ajor
n on ^/an sfer 19 6 8 - 6 9
S en io r
n o n tra n s fe r
1974-75
1968-69
1974-75
F igure 8. Hypothesis 4 m a trix .
A nalysis o f Data
Since the Rokeach Value Survey, Form D and Form F , re q u ire s
th a t the 18 values in th e term inal valu e l i s t and the 18 values in th e
instru m en tal value l i s t be arranged in two h ie ra rc h ie s according to
personal p re fe re n c e * the data are re p o rte d in rank o rd er form and
scoring o f the data is by frequ en cies and medians. Thus, f o r a n a ly s is
o f the d a ta , nonparam etric s t a t i s t i c a l te s ts a t th e o rd in a l
le v e l o f
measurement are re q u ire d .
Data C la s s ific a tio n
C la s s ific a tio n o f the data by o rd in a l
le v e l o f measurement is
chosen because, f i r s t , the rank o rd e rin g measurement o f values is
an o ther way o f expressing o rd in a l measurement. S p e c if ic a lly , rank
o rd er measurement o r o rd in a l measurement has form al p ro p e rtie s which
" in c o rp o ra te not o n ly the r e la t io n o f eq u ivalen ce (= ) but als o the
91
r e la tio n g re a te r than ( > ) . The l a t t e r r e la t io n is i r r e f l e x i v e ,
asym m etrical, and t r a n s itiv e " ( S ie g e l. 1956, p. 2 4 ).
Second, w ith o rd in a l s c a lin g many hypotheses can be tes ted
using the broad s e t o f nonparam etric s t a t i s t i c a l t e s ts . F u rth e r,
th e measurement requirem ent f o r nonparam etric te s ts uses th e median2
which is the most a p p ro p ria te s t a t i s t i c f o r c e n tra l tendency o f o rd in a l
s c a lin g . To use th e mean and standard d e v ia tio n and p aram etric s t a t i s
t i c a l te s ts w ith o rd in a l s c a lin g is in c o r re c t and in a p p ro p ria te . How
e v e r,
i t is p o s s ib le to make tra n s fo rm a tio n s and then ap p ly p aram etric
s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s , but some e f f ic ie n c y is lo s t in the transform ing
(F e a th e r, 1970, 1972).
S t a t is t ic a l T est C la s s ific a tio n
Nonparametric s t a t i s t i c a l te s ts are chosen because, f i r s t ,
p aram etric te s ts are in a p p ro p ria te sin ce s p e c ifie d co n d itio n s about
th e p o p ulatio n parameters are assumed to be held and a re not u s u a lly
te s te d . As a requirem ent by p aram etric t e s t s , the scores to be
analyzed must be a t le a s t in a measurement a t the in te r v a l s c ale le v e l.
2The most a p p ro p ria te s t a t i s t i c f o r d e s c rib in g th e c e n tra l
is the median because
tendency o f rank o rd er scores (o rd in a l s c a le )
"the median is not a ffe c te d by changes o f any scores which a re above
or below i t as long as the number o f scores above and below remains
the same" ( S ie g e l, 1956, p. 2 5 ). To augment, Siegel
(1 9 5 6 , p. 26)
has emphasized t h a t , "when o n ly th e rank o rd e r o f scores is known,
means and standard d e v ia tio n s found on the scores themselves a re in
e r ro r to the e x te n t th a t the successive in t e r v a ls (d is ta n c e s between
c la s s e s ) on th e scale are not e q u al. When p aram etric techniques o f
in fe re n c e s a re used w ith such d a ta , any d ecisio n s about
s t a t i s t i c a l
hypotheses are d o u b tfu l. P r o b a b ility statem ents d erived from the
a p p lic a tio n o f p aram etric s t a t i s t i c a l te s ts to o rd in a l d ata are in
e r r o r to the e x te n t th a t the s tru c tu re o f th e methods o f c o lle c tin g
data is not isomorphic to a r ith m e tic .
92
This study on th e ranking o f values by students is a t the o rd in a l
le v e l and not the in te r v a l
le v e l. F u rth e r* nonparam etric methods
w i l l use th e in fo rm a tio n in the sample more a p p ro p ria te ly than w i l l
the p aram etric method. The reason given is t h a t ,
i f the measurement is weaker than th a t o f an in te r v a l
s c a le , by using p aram etric te s ts the re s e a rc h e r would
"add in fo rm a tio n " and th ereb y c re a te d is to r tio n s which
may be as g re a t and as damaging as those introduced by
the "throw ing away o f in fo rm a tio n " which occurs when
scores a re converted to ranks [S ie g e l, 1956, p. 3 2 ].
Second, th e nonparam etric t e s t models do not s p e c ify the
c o n d itio n s about th e parameters o f the p o p u latio n from which the
sample is drawn (S ie g e l, 1956, p. 3 1 ). Thus,
less strong measures
can be used in nonparam etric te s ts than those re q u ire d f o r p aram etric
te s ts .
T h ird , re g ard less o f the shape o f th e pop ulatio n d is t r ib u t io n
from which the random sample was drawn, p r o b a b ilit y statem ent obtained
from most nonparam etric s t a t i s t i c a l te s ts a re exact p r o b a b ilitie s
(S ie g e l, 1956, p. 3 2 ).
F o u rth , the power o f nonparam etric te s ts can be increased
sim ply by in c re a s in g the s iz e o f N. The la r g e r the sample s iz e , the
more assuring the t e s t r e s u lts .
Nonparam etric te s ts have two major disadvantages.
F i r s t ,
in
comparison to p a r a lle l p ara m e tric te s ts under s p e c ifie d assumptions
the nonparam etric te s ts a re more w asteful o f d a ta . The power-
e ff ic ie n c y o f the nonparam etric t e s t is the way o f expressing the
degree o f w astefulness o f d a ta , e . g . , the 95 percent power e f f ic ie n c y
o f a nonparam etric t e s t would mean th a t "where a l l the co n d itio n s o f
the p aram etric t e s t are s a t is f ie d the a p p ro p ria te p aram etric t e s t
93
would be ju s t as e f f e c t iv e w ith a sample which is 5 percent s m a lle r
than th a t used in the nonparam etric a n a ly s is " ( S ie g e l, 1956, p. 3 3 ).
Second, unless s p e c ific assumptions are made about a d d i t i v i t y ,
th e re a re no nonparam etric methods f o r d ir e c t te s tin g o f in te ra c tio n s
in a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e (S ie g e l, 1956, p. 3 3 ). So, an a n a ly s is o f
va ria n c e (one-way and two-way a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e ) can be done w ith
nonparam etric s t a t i s t i c a l te s ts but th e re are lim ita tio n s to the degree
and com plexity o f a n a ly s is . There may be p le n ty o f nonparam etric
s t a t i s t i c a l te s ts but b asic designs f o r comparing groups remain more
s im p lifie d than the b asic designs f o r param etric s t a t i s t i c a l te s ts .
In th is c u rre n t study about stu d en t personal v a lu e s , the comparison
o f values by m ajo rs, or le v e ls , o r y e a rs , is an example o f a one-way
a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e . The comparison o f student values by majors
and le v e ls or by majors and years or by le v e ls and y e a rs , e x e m p lify
a two-way a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e .
S t a t i s t i c a l T est S e le c tio n
There is a choice o f nonparam etric s t a t i s t i c a l te s ts f o r the
data analyses o f comparing th e Rokeach values o f Home Economics under
graduate students and Human Ecology undergraduate students d urin g the
p erio d 1968-1975.
To determ ine summaries o f subgroup rankings o f values the
median measure o f c e n tra l tendency is used sin ce th e mean is i n
a p p ro p ria te to o rd in a l
le v e l o f measure ( S ie g e l, 1956, pp. 2 5 -3 1 ).
To t e s t f o r s ig n ific a n c e o f d iffe re n c e s among subgroups fo r
each valu e both the Extension o f the Median t e s t and K ru s k a l-W a llis H
94
one-way a n a ly s is of v a ria n c e t e s t are a p p ro p ria te f o r use. S iegel
(1 9 5 6 , pp. 193-194) p re fe rs the K ru s k a l-W a llis H t e s t because i t is
the most e f f i c i e n t nonparam etric te s t and has a 9 5 .5 percent e ffic ie n c y
when compared to the most powerful p ara m e tric F t e s t . Since th e K ruskal-
W a llis H te s t converts scores to ranks and th e Extension o f th e Median
t e s t converts scores to e i t h e r pluses o r minuses, the K ru s k a l-W a llis H
t e s t is more s e n s itiv e to d iffe re n c e s in shape o f d is tr ib u t io n s . The
K ru s k a l-W a llis H te s t may lend i t s e l f to m islead in g re s u lts thus making
the Extension o f the Median th e more dependable and more co n se rv ative
o f th e two te s ts . However, both te s ts when a p p lie d to the same data
g iv e n e a rly comparable r e s u lt s .
To am plify and e x e m p lify w ith some past cases, Lorenz (19 70 )
used Chi-Square fo r k independent samples when comparing Home Economics
undergraduate subgroups f o r s ig n ific a n c e o f d iffe re n c e s .
In comparison,
the Extension o f the Median te s t is e s s e n tia lly a Chi Square t e s t f o r k
samples.
Frequencies a re used w ith Chi-Square and medians d e riv e d from
fre q u e n c ie s are used w ith the Extension o f the Median t e s t . The use o f
th e Chi-Square te s t is more r e s t r ic t iv e s in ce the t e s t re q u ire s th a t
the expected frequencies
in each c e ll a re not too s m a ll, th a t i s , less
than 20 percent o f th e c e l l s have expected freq u en cies o f less than
f i v e and no c e ll has an expected frequency o f less than one (S ie g e l,
1956, p . 17 8 ).
Rokeach (1973) re p o rte d the use o f th re e s ig n ific a n e o f
d iffe r e n c e te s ts : M ed ian , K ru s k a l-W a llis H t e s t , and Newman-Kuels
t e s t . Thus, fo r the comparison o f values o f Home Economics and Human
Ecology undergraduate stu d en ts from 1968 to 1975, the Median t e s t is
95
chosen f o r comparison o f two independent groups and th e Extension o f
the Median t e s t is chosen f o r comparison o f more than two (k ) inde
pendent groups. The com parative d e p e n d a b ility and conservatism o f
the Median te s ts in su re more s a fe ty in degree o f accuracy in a n a ly s is .
To te s t f o r s ig n ific a n c e o f d iffe r e n c e among groups fo r
ranking a se t o f values (one set o f 18 te rm in a l v a lu e s , one se t o f
18 instrum ental v a lu e s ) th e m u ltiv a r ia te an alysis o f v a ria n c e is used.
Although a r a tio n a le f o r use o f nonparam etric s t a t i s t i c a l tests is
g iv e n , the param etric m u ltiv a r ia te a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e can be used,
given s p e c ific c o n d itio n s . When d e a lin g w ith one valu e system o f
e i t h e r the 18 te rm in a l values o r 18 in s tru m e n ta l v a lu e s , m u ltiv a r ia te
a n a ly s is o f variance w i l l not fu n c tio n p ro p e rly because the sco rin g ,
1 to 18 o f the 18 values in a system by ranking is ip s a t iv e . The la s t
value to be ranked o r scored is not f r e e l y scored as
i t takes on the
o n ly remaining sco re. However, when a v a lu e system o f 18 values is
subdivided in to n ine values and comparisons across groups are made,
then m u ltiv a r ia te a n a ly s is o f variance w i l l fu n c tio n .
In th is case
each o f the nine valu es has the o p p o rtu n ity o f being scored or ranked
from 1 to 18 and th e score o f the n in th value is f r e e l y chosen. Hence,
th e re is an employment o f an in te rv a l s c a le which accepts p ara m e tric-
s t a t i s t i c a l te s ts .
Thus, to compare groups on 18 valu e s o r a value
system a l l a t once, th e m u ltiv a r ia te a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e is l e g i t
im a te ly employed when th e system o f valu es is subdivided in to two lo ts
o f n in e values. R e s u lts o f the a n a ly s is o f the two su b lo ts o f values
are combined to g e th e r to a r riv e a t a conclusion about th e s ig n ific a n c e
96
o f d iffe r e n c e among groups when comparing the groups' value systems
o f 18 v a lu e s .
Although the nonparam etric Friedman two-way a n a ly s is o f variance
te s t was considered fo r comparing groups by valu e systems, th e t e s t was
re je c te d in th e end. The Friedman te s t is u se fu l f o r comparing small
sizes o f groups, however, since the t e s t is t h e o r e t ic a lly used w ith
re la te d groups, i t s use w ith independent groups as in th is stu d y,
then becomes d o u b tfu l. F u r th e r, the Friedman computer program a v a ila b le
a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity handles a sample s iz e up to 100, a s iz e
too small f o r t h is stu d y's sample. The Friedman m u lt iv a r ia t e a n a ly s is
o f varian ce computer program is p re s e n tly n o t a v a ila b le .
To determ ine homogeneity w ith in groups, the Kendall C o e ffic ie n t
of Concordance W is the most usefu l since i t is a nonparam etric te c h
nique and used w ith o rd in a l
le v e l o f measurement.
I t "measures the
e x ten t o f a s s o c ia tio n among several (k ) se t o f rankings o f N e n t it ie s "
(S ie g e l, 1956, p. 23 9 ).
A tw o -ta ile d p r o b a b ilit y le v e l o f .0 5 in general
is chosen fo r
determ ining th e s ig n ific a n c e o f d iffe re n c e among groups.
In past
research w ith comparison o f groups by sep arate values the range o f
reported s ig n if ic a n t p r o b a b ilit y le v e ls fo r s p e c ific values has been
.07 to .001
(Rokeach, 1 9 7 3 ). Some values have had a tendency to be
s ig n if ic a n t a t only the .05 le v e l w h ile o th e r values have had a tendency
to be s ig n if ic a n t a t the .01 and .001
le v e ls .
Too, not a l l values
in
e ith e r th e te rm in a l se t o r instru m en tal s e t have been found to be
s ig n if ic a n t when comparing groups.
97
T w o -ta ile d te s tin g is done since i t is d i f f i c u l t to hypothesize
w ith confidence about the unique c h a r a c te r is tic s o f the groups. Begin
ning in 1968 w ith data g a th erin g from the Rokeach Value Survey Form D
o n ly seven years has elapsed. Hence, the s p e c if ic Rokeach valu e theory
b u ild in g and establishm ent o f v a lu e holding p a tte rn s are s t i l l
in t h e ir
in fa n c y . G e n e ra liza tio n s about values o f p as t researched groups do not
t r a n s f e r com pletely to the p res en t group under study since th e groups
a re not the same and past groups a re in a d i f f e r e n t so cial tim e o r ie n
t a t i o n . Thus, th e d ir e c tio n o f t h is stu d y's r e s u lts is u n c e rta in and
u n p re d ic ta b le . An inadequate fo u n d atio n f o r p re d ic tio n has made a two-
t a i l e d te s tin g more a p p ro p ria te than a o n e -ta ile d te s tin g .
In b r i e f , f o r group comparison by v a lu e systems, a l l hypotheses
were te s te d using th e m u lt iv a r ia t e a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e . For group
comparison by separate values o n ly some o f th e hypotheses were s e lec ted
f o r te s tin g by the Median t e s t , Spearman Rank C o r r e la tio n , and C o e ffi
c ie n t o f Concordance. Reduction in hypotheses te s te d is caused by the
high co st fa c to r o f computer tim e .
At th is p o in t in tim e th e program V a lu te s t w ritte n by Charles
H o lle n and e s p e c ia lly made f o r a n a ly s is o f th e Rokeach Value Survey
d ata by separate v a lu e s , is not r e a d ily a v a ila b le . V a lu te s t is w r itte n
f o r th e 3600 computer and M ichigan S tate U n iv e r s ity operates o n ly the
6500 computer. However, V a lu te s t is p re s e n tly in th e m idst o f being
converted a t M ichigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity . Washington S ta te U n iv e r s ity ,
where M ilto n Rokeach is c u r r e n t ly lo c a te d , w i l l keypunch cards and
a n a ly ze any valu e survey data using V a lu te s t on t h e i r 3600 computer
f o r a fe e .
98
Suinna ry
The nonrandom but f a i r l y re p re s e n ta tiv e sample under study is
composed o f female Home Economics and Human Ecology undergraduate
students a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity from 1968 to 1975. Sample s iz e
is N= 2 ,3 5 1 . The le v e ls o f freshman n o n tra n s fe r, t r a n s f e r , and se n io r
n o n tra n s fe r and 12 majors a re re p res en ted . Data from the Rokeach Value
Survey Form D and Form F were c o lle c te d in classroom group s it t in g s fo r
fo u r out o f the f i v e academic years observed.
In the rem aining y e a r,
students responded to th e survey a t home and returned i t 48 hours l a t e r
in c la s s .
The o v e ra ll design o f the study compares students by m ajo rs,
le v e ls , and years on th e 36 dependent v a r ia b le s , personal v a lu e s , in
separate and group form . Since data a re a t the o rd in a l
le v e l o f
measurement, nonparam etric s t a t i s t i c a l te s ts are a p p lic a b le . To
compare groups by se p ara te v a lu e s , th e Median t e s t , C o e ffic ie n t o f
Concordance measures were employed. To compare groups by value systems,
18 values a t once, the values were i n i t i a l l y subdivided in to two lo ts
o f nin e to p erm it le g itim a te use o f th e p aram etric m u ltiv a r ia t e a n a ly s is
o f v a ria n c e t e s t . A tw o -ta ile d p r o b a b ilit y le v e l o f .05 was chosen fo r
d eterm in in g the s ig n ific a n c e o f d iffe r e n c e among groups.
Follow ing th is ch a p te r on design and methodology is Chapter IV
where the re s u lts o f th e a n a ly s is o f d ata f o r th is study a re re p o rte d
and summarized.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
The fin d in g s o f the study are re p o rte d by a statem ent o f the
n u ll hypothesis along w ith the re s u lts o f th e s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t . A
sumnary o f th e fin d in g s fo llo w s th e p re s e n ta tio n o f the 30 hypothesis
statem ents.
Throughout th e re p o rtin g o f th e r e s u lts o f each hypothesis t e s t ,
re fe re n c e is made to the dependent v a r ia b le , personal v a lu e . The p er
sonal value v a ria b le was analyzed in two m ajor ways:
( 1 ) by one value
a t a tim e and (2 ) by grouping o f the personal values in to two l i s t s ,
te rm in a l and in s tru m e n ta l. A lte rn a te ways to describe th e two l is t s
o f values were s c a le , h ie ra rc h y , o r valu e system, and a c c o rd in g ly named
e i t h e r term in a l or In s tru m e n ta l.
In a l l , th e re were 36 personal values
and when the values were d iv id e d in to the two groups o r l i s t s , the t e r
m inal value system had 18 s p e c if ic personal values and th e instrum ental
valu e system had 18 s p e c ific personal v a lu e s .
When a n a ly zin g th e personal values in group fo rm , th e ip s a tiv e
n atu re o f rank scoring o f th e values re q u ire d th a t the group o f 18 per
sonal values be subdivided in to two equal
lo ts o f nine personal values.
D iv is io n o f th e group o f 18 personal values was done by a lp h a b e tiz in g
th e personal values and then d iv id in g th e 18 values In to two equal
lo ts
by counting o f f th e f i r s t nine values and p la c in g them in one group.
99
100
The rem aining nine personal values o r la s t nine values were placed
in the second subgroup. Thus,when r e f e r r in g to re s u lts according to
whether th e dependent v a r ia b le , personal v a lu e , was in s in g u la r , group,
o r subgroup form , th e re were d i f f e r e n t t i t l e s fo r th e dependent v a r ia b le .
When th e dependent v a ria b le was in s in g u la r form , i t went by one o f 36
d e s c rip tiv e names as noted in F ig ure 9 . When the dependent v a ria b le
was grouped in to two groups o f 18 personal values each, i t was la b e le d
as te rm in a l value system ( s c a le , h ie ra rc h y , l i s t ) and instrum ental
value system (s c a le , h ie ra rc h y , l i s t ) . When the dependent v a r ia b le
was grouped in to two groups and each group subdivided in to two subgroups
o f nine personal values each, i t was id e n t if ie d as upper h a lf o f te rm in a l
value h ie ra rc h y ( s c a le )— UHTVH; low er h a lf o f te rm in a l value h ie ra rc h y
(sc ale )--L H T V H ; upper h a lf o f in stru m en tal value h ie ra rc h y ( s c a le ) —
UHIVH; and lower h a lf o f in s tru m e n ta l value h ie ra rc h y (s c a le ) — LHIVH.
C la s s ific a t io n is shown in F ig u re 9.
Nul1 Hypothesi s 1.1
There are no differences in the values held by undergraduate
Human Ecology students by major for the one academia period 1972-1975.
This hypothesis concerned the comparison o f seven academic m ajor
c lu s t e r s 1
in the C ollege o f Human Ecology during the one time period
1971-1975. To form a m a jo r, the same s p e c ific m ajor from the academic
d e t a i l e d d e s c rip tio n and r a tio n a le f o r m ajor c lu s te rs is given
on pages 72 -73 .
TERMINAL VALUE SYSTEM
A comfortable l i f e
An exciting l i f e
A sense of accomplishment
A world at peace
A world of beauty
Equality
Family security
Freedom
Happiness
Inner harmony
Mature love
National security
Pleasure
Salvation
Self respect
Social recognition
True friendship
Wisdom
Upper Half of
Terminal Value
Hierarchy (Scale)
(UHTVH)
Lower Half of
Terminal Value
Hierarchy (Scale)
(LHTVH)
INSTRUMENTAL VALUE SYSTEM
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
Imaginative
Independent
In te lle c tu a l
Logical
Loving
Obedient
P olite
Responsible
S elf-controlled
Upper Half of
Instrumental Value
Hierarchy (Scale)
(UHIVH)
Lower Half of
Instrumental Value
Hierarchy (Scale)
(LHIVH)
Figure 9. C la ssifica tio n o f 36 personal values by group.
102
years 1 9 71 -72 , 1 9 72 -73 , 19 73 -74 , and 1974-75 was c lu s te re d to form a
la r g e r s p e c ific m a jo r, 1971-1975. The seven m ajor c lu s te rs formed
were ( 1 ) C h ild Development & Teaching, (2 ) Consumer-Community S e rv ic e s ,
Family Ecology, Fam ily Ecology-Communication A r ts , (3 ) Foods, D ie t e t ic s ,
N u t r it io n , ( 4 ) Home Economics E ducation, (5 ) C lo th in g & T e x t ile s , (6 )
I n t e r i o r D esign, Human Environment & D esign, and (7 ) R e ta ilin g o f
C lo th in g & T e x t ile s . With a t o t a l sample s iz e , n = 1 ,0 8 5 , the mean
m ajor group s iz e was n = 155.
The dependent v a r ia b le , personal v a lu e , was grouped in to upper
and lo w er, te rm in a l and instru m en tal value s c a le s .
The re s u lts o f te s tin g th is hypothesis in terms o f the personal
value v a r ia b le by fo u r subgroups showed th e fo llo w in g :
Subgroup
M u lt iv a r ia t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2.6837
1.5435
2.0 41 3
1.8473
54, 5424.9
54, 5424.9
5 4 , 5424.9
54, 5424.9
£
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0002
Thus, th e re was r e je c tio n o f the n u ll hypothesis a t th e .05 alpha le v e l.
The conclusion was th a t the d iffe re n c e s among Human Ecology majors
during 1971-1975 were beyond chance e x is te n c e . As noted in Table 6
th e re were 14 personal values th a t crea ted a s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e a t
p < ,05+. The s ig n if ic a n t te rm in a l values were a comfortable life, an
exciting life, a sense of accomplishment, a world at peace, equality3
family security, social recognition, and true friendship. The
s ig n if ic a n t c o n tra s t instru m en tal values were ambitious, courageous,
forgiving, helpful, imaginative, and loving.
103
T a b le 6 . D iffe re n c e in Value Systems f o r M ajors* During 1971-1975
Term inal Value
A com fortable l i f e
An e x c itin g l i f e
A sense o f accomplishment
A w orld a t peace
A w o rld of beauty
E q u a lity
Fam ily s e c u rity
Freedom
Happiness
P*
.05
.01
.001
.005
.005
.001
—
Instrum ental Value
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
F orgivin g
H elp fu l
Honest
p **
.001+b
p+*
In n e r harmony
M ature love
N a tio n a l s e c u rity
P leasu re
S a lv a tio n
S e lf respect
S o c ia l re co g n itio n
True frie n d s h ip
Wisdom
.01
.05
Im a g in a tive
Independent
In t e lle c t u a l
Logical
Loving
Obedient
Pol i te
Responsible
S e lf c o n tro lle d
P*
.001
------
------
.001
.0 5
.001
.001 +
.001
.05
------
—
p * *
.01+d
p **
.001+'
aMajor 1 = C h ild Development & Teaching; M ajor 2 * Consumer-
Communlty S e rv ic e s , Fam ily Ecology, Fam ily Ecology-Communication A rts ;
M a jo r 3 = Foods, D ie t e t ic s , N u t r it io n ; M ajor 4 = Home Economics Education;
M a jo r 5 = C lo th in g & T e x tile s ; M ajo r 6 = I n t e r i o r D esign, Human E n viro n
ment & Design; and M ajor 7 = R e ta ilin g o f C lothing & T e x tile s .
^ M u ltiv a r ia te F = 2.6837; d f
* 5 4 , 5424.85.
cM u lt iv a r ia t e F = 2.0413; d f = 54 , 5424.85.
^ M u ltiv a r ia te F
* 1.5435; d f = 5 4 , 5424.85.
eM u lt iv a r ia t e F
* 1.8473; d f = 5 4 , 5424.85.
♦ M u ltiv a r ia te a n a ly sis o f v a ria n c e te s t f o r each va lu e .
* * M u lt iv a r ia t e an a ly sis o f v a ria n c e te s t f o r the valu e system,
n in e values a t one tim e.
104
Null Hypothesis 1 .2
There are no differences in the personal values held by
undergraduate Human Ecology Students by level for the one academic
period 1971-1975.
The focus o f th is hypothesis was on comparing freshman non
tr a n s fe r Human Ecology students to s e n io r n o n tra n s fe r Human Ecology
students during the tim e 1971-1975. To o b tain th e one group o f 673
freshman students f o r 1971-1975, freshmen came from the F a l l , W in te r ,
and Spring terms o f th e academic years 1971-72, 1 9 7 2 -7 3 , 1 9 7 3 -7 4 , and
1974-75. S im ila r ly , the one group o f 482 seniors came from th e same
terms and academic years as the freshmen. The n u ll hypothesis was
re je c te d when th e dependent v a r ia b le , personal v a lu e , was grouped by
term in a l and instrum ental value systems and r e s u lts from the m u lt i
v a r ia te a n a ly s is o f varian ce t e s t were:
Subgroup
M u ltiv a r ia te F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
4.9803
8.1234
7.9177
5.7893
9 , 1063
9 , 1063
9 , 1063
9 , 1063
£
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
Hence, w ith th e alpha le v e l se t a t .0 5 , the conclusion was th a t th e
personal value systems o f freshman n o n tra n s fe r students were s i g n i f
ic a n t ly d i f f e r e n t , p c .0 0 0 1 , from those o f s e n io r n o n tra n s fe r students
in Human Ecology d urin g 1971-1975.
The n u ll hypothesis was not re je c te d when the median t e s t was
a p p lie d to the sep arate personal values o f freshmen and se n io rs . With
105
the alpha lev el s e t a t .0 5 , 19 o f 36 values were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a t
p < . 0 5 , but 17 o f 36 were s i g n i f i c a n t a t p < .05+. The conclusion was
t h a t freshman students d id d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y , p < .0 5 + , from sen io r
students on only 17 personal values. W hile the 17 values a c t u a lly
v a rie d in degree o f s ig n ific a n c e from p <
.05 to p <
.0 0 0 1 , the
te rm in a l values t h a t d is tin g u is h e d th e two student l e v e l s were an
exacting life* family security, inner harmony, mature love, national
security, salvation, and true friendship.
The d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g i n s t r u
mental values were ambitious, capable, clean, courageous, imaginative,
independent, intellectual, obedient, polite, and self-controlled.
As shown in T able 7 , the s i g n i f i c a n t term in al values ranked
h ig h e r by seniors than freshmen were an exciting life (1 2 th r a n k ),
mature love (4th r a n k ) , and national security (17th r a n k ) .
Freshmen
gave the term inal v a lu e s , family security (7th r a n k ) , salvation (17th
r a n k ) , and true friendship (5th ra n k ) h ig her p re fe re n c e than sen io rs.
The o n ly s i g n i f i c a n t personal term in al value given th e same rank
p o s itio n but d i f f e r e n t median rankings by freshmen ( 4 . 7 ) and seniors
( 3 . 9 ) was inner harmony.
Of less importance to seniors than freshmen,
in Table 8 , were
the s i g n i f i c a n t in s tru m ental v a lu e s , ambitious (1 1 th r a n k ) , forgiving
(1 2 th r a n k ), and polite (18th ra n k ). Both freshmen and seniors gave
courageous 12th rank but w ith re s p e c tiv e s i g n i f i c a n t medians o f 11.2 and
1 0 .5 . S i m i l a r l y , obedient was ranked 18th but freshmen gave the value
a median ranking o f 1 6 .4 and seniors gave i t one o f 1 7 . 5 .
In t u r n ,
when compared to s e n io r s , freshmen placed lower p r i o r i t y on the
106
Table 7. Terminal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders f o r
N on tran sfer Undergraduate Students During 1971-1975
Terminal Value
N =
673
482
a
Level
Freshmen
Seniors
A comfort i ng 1 i fe
An e x c it in g l i f e
A sense o f accomplishment
A world a t peace
A world of beauty
E q u a lity
Family s e c u r it y
Freedom
Happiness
In n er harmony
Mature love
N ational s e c u r it y
Pleasure
S a lv a tio n
S e lf respect
Social re c o g n itio n
True f r ie n d s h ip
Wisdom
p * *
p * *
1 2 . 9 ( 1 4 ) b
1 2 .1 (1 3 )
8 . 6( 9)
9 . 6 ( 1 0 )
1 1 .3 (1 2 )
1 0 .4 ( 1 1 )
8 . 2 7)
6 . 2 ( 4)
4 . 9 ( 2 )
4 . 7 ( 1)
7 . 3 ( 8 )
1 6 .5 (1 8 )
1 3 .4 (1 5 )
1 5 .9 (1 7 )
5 . 2( 3)
1 5 .1 ( 1 6 )
6 . 4 ( 5)
7 .2 ( 6)
1 2 .4 (1 4 )
1 0 .4 (1 2 )
8 . 1 ( 8)
9 . 4 ( 9)
1 1 .4 (1 3 )
9 . 8 ( 1 1 )
9 . 8 ( 1 0 )
6 . 4 ( 5)
4 . 8 ( 3)
3 . 9 ( 1)
5 .7 ( 4)
1 6 .5 (1 7 )
1 3 .2 (1 5 )
1 7 .2 (1 8 )
4 . 9 ( 2)
1 5 .4 (1 6 )
7 -2 ( 6)
7 . 6( 7)
P*
.0001
-----
.0001
.001+*
.01
.0001
.05
.0001
.05
.0 0 7 d
Concordance c o e f f i c i e n t
.31
.35
aL e v e l : Freshman n o n tra n s fe r students and se n io r n o n tra n s fe r
students.
^Figures in d ic a te median rankings and*
in parentheses, composite
rank o rd ers.
cM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 4 .9 8 0 3 ; d f = 9 and 1063.
dM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 8 .1 2 3 4 ; d f » 9 and 1063.
•Median t e s t , d f = 1,
* * M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f variance t e s t f o r the v a lu e system,
nine values a t one time.
107
Table 8 .
Instrum ental Value Medians and Composite Rank Order f o r
N o n tran sfe r Undergraduate Students During 1971-1975
Instrum ental Value
N =
673
482
L e v e l*
Freshmen
Seniors
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
H elpful
Honest
Im aginative
Independent
I n t e l l e c t u a l
Logical
Loving
Obedient
P o li t e
Responsible
S e lf - c o n t r o l led
p * *
p * *
8 .5 ( 9)
6 .3 ( 4)
1 0 .9 (1 1 )
7 . 6( 6)
1 4 .3 (1 7 )
1 1 .2 (1 2 )
6 . 5( 5)
8 . 4 ( 7)
2 .8 ( 1)
1 1 .5 (1 3 )
8 . 5{ 8)
1 1 .8 (1 4 )
1 2 .9 (1 5 )
3 . 5( 2)
1 6 .4 (1 8 )
1 3 .2 (1 6 )
6 .2 ( 3)
1 0 .7 (1 0 )
1 0 .2 (1 1 )
6 . 1 ( 4)
9 . 2( 9)
8 . 1 ( 7)
1 4 .5 (1 6 )
1 0 .5 (1 2 )
7 -9 ( 6)
8 . 3 ( 8)
3 . 1 ( 1)
9 .1 ( 1 0 )
6 . 9 ( 5)
1 0 .8 (1 3 )
1 2 .7 (1 5 )
3 . 9 ( 2)
1 7 .5 (1 8 )
1 4 .7 (1 7 )
5 .7 ( 3)
1 2 .1 (1 4 )
P*
.001
.0001
.05
.001
.001+c
.005
.05
.05
.0001
.0001
.005
.001+d
Concordance c o e f f i c i e n t
.29
.32
aL e v e l: Freshman n o n tra n s fe r students and s e n io r n o n tra n s fe r
students.
^Figures in d ic a te median rankings and,
in parentheses, composite
rank orders.
cM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 7 .9 1 7 7 ; d f = 9 and 1063.
dM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 5.7 8 9 3 ; d f = 9 and 1063.
•Median t e s t , d f = 1.
* * M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f varian ce t e s t f o r the value system,
nine values a t one tim e.
108
fo llo w in g instrum ental values: capable (11th r a n k ) , imaginative
(13 th r a n k ) , independent (8 th rank) and intellectual (14 th ra n k ).
I t was a ls o concluded t h a t seniors were more homogeneous in
t h e i r ranking o f values since se n io rs had higher concordance c o e f f i
c ie n ts on both the term inal value system, W = .3 5 , versus the freshmen,
W = . 3 1 , and the instrum ental value system, W= . 3 2 , versus the freshmen,
W = .2 9 .
Null Hypothesis 1 .3 .1
There are no differences in the personal values held between
freshman and senior nontransfer Human Ecology students within a major.
The main concern o f t h i s hypothesis was to c o n tra s t the freshman
n o n tra n s fe r students w ith the s e n io r nontransfer students grouped in
one major over the 1971-1975 time p e rio d . With seven academic major
c l u s t e r s , th e re were seven d i f f e r e n t contrasts between freshmen and
s e n io rs . A ll the freshmen from a m ajor were p u lle d to g e th e r from th e
academic years 19 71 -72 , 1972-73, 19 73 -74 , and 1974-75 in order to form
one freshman n o n tra n s fe r major group, 1971-1975. S i m i l a r l y , sen io r
major groups, 1971-1975 were formed.
The n u ll hypothesis was n o t re je c te d when th e dependent
v a r i a b l e , personal v a lu e , was grouped by UHTVH, LHTVH, UHIVH, and
LHIVH and freshman and se n io r groups in a major were contrasted by
the m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e t e s t . With an alpha le v e l
set a t . 0 5 , r e s u lt s f o r the seven academic major c l u s t e r s were
as fo llo w s :
109
M a jo r 1. C h ild Developm ent & T eaching
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.6143
2 .5 6 2 0
2 .7 3 2 0
2 .0 7 8 9
9 , 194
9 , 194
9 , 194
9 , 194
£
.1134
.0084
.0051
.0332
The conclusion was th a t freshmen and seniors
in Major 1 were not
d i f f e r e n t on UHTVH, p < .1134.
M ajor 2. Consumer-Community S e rv ic e s , Family Ecology,
Family Ecology-Communication A rts
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.2259
2.9 64 0
1.1 20 4
2.1162
9 , 127
9 , 127
9 , 127
9 , 127
R
.2849
.0032
.3532
.0327
The r e s u lt s led to the conclusion th a t freshmen d if f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y
from seniors in Major 2 on t h e i r LHTVH, p < .0 0 3 2 , and LHIVH, p < .0327.
M ajor 3.
Foods, D i e t e t i c s , N u t r i t i o n
Subqroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.2781
0 .6 8 9 8
2.2 97 4
1.8 37 6
9 , 134
9 , 134
9 , 134
9 , 134
£
.2545
.7172
.0198
.0670
I t can be concluded th a t in M ajor 3 freshmen were only s i g n i f i c a n t l y
d i f f e r e n t , p < .0 1 9 8 , on the UHIVH.
M a jo r 4. Home Economics E d u ca tio n
Subqroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
76
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2.6117
3.0827
1.6870
1.9179
d f
9 , 90
9 , 90
9 , 90
9 , 90
£
.0100
.0029
.1037
.0592
With a p< .0100 on the UHTVH and a p< .0029 on th e LHTVH, the conclusion
was th a t freshmen were d i f f e r e n t from seniors in Major 4 only in the
term inal value system.
Major 5. Clothing & T e x t i l e s
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0.4980
2.2634
2.9263
1.5323
9 , 125
9 , 125
9 , 125
9 , 125
£
.8736
.0221
.0036
.0436
In the Major 5 , the freshmen and seniors were concluded as being
d i f f e r e n t from each o ther on t h e i r LHTVH, p< .0 2 2 1 , and UHIVH,
p < .0036.
Major 6.
I n t e r i o r Design, Human Environment & Design
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.5329
0.9106
2.2127
0.5281
9, 195
9 , 195
9 , 195
9 , 195
£
.1386
.5170
.0228
.8531
L i t t l e s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe r e n c e was shown between freshmen and s e n io rs in
M ajor 6 as the two groups were sep arate on only the UHIVH, p< .0 2 2 8 .
I l l
M ajor 7. R e t a ilin g o f C lo th in g & T e x tile s
Subgroup
M u lt i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2.0973
1.4589
1.3989
1.7871
d f
9, 150
9 , 150
9, 150
9, 150
E
.0331
.1683
.1934
.0751
M ajor 7 was concluded as having freshmen and se n io r r e t a i l i n g students
d i f f e r e n t only on th e UHTVH, p< .0 3 3 1 .
In b r i e f , as shown in Tables 9 and 10, freshman and senior
students in each o f the seven majors d id d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y on one
to th re e halves o f th e term inal and instrum ental v a lu e systems.
No s i g n i f i c a n t personal vafufe"was held in common among the
seven majors as a value th a t d is tin g u is h e d the freshmen from the s e n io rs
in a major. W ith in th e terminal v a lu e system, mature love was held in
cormon by Majors 1 , 2 , 4 , and 5; salvation was held in common by M ajors
4 , 5 , and 7; and exalting life was held in common by Majors 2 , 4, and 6 ;
family security was held in common by Majors 6 and 7 ; and true friend
ship was held in common by Majors 2 and 4. These te rm in a l values
were s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tra s ts a t p < .0 5 + . Equality, inner harmony, self
respect and wisdom were s i g n i f i c a n t te rm in a l value c o n t r a s t s , p < . 0 5 + ,
but were not held in common by any two majors.
W ithin the Instrum ental v a lu e system, the s i g n i f i c a n t v a lu e s ,
p < .0 5 + , th a t were held in common by th e majors were: capable by
Majors 1, 3 , 4 , 5 and 6 ; polite by M ajors 1, 2 , 4 , and 5 ; obedient by
Majors 1, 3 , 5 , and 7 ; forgiving by Majors 3 , 5, and 6 ; broadminded
by Majors 5 and 6; helpful by Majors 1 and 2; honest by Majors 4 and 7;
112
Table 9 . D iffe re n c e in Terminal Value Systems Between Levels3 in Each
M ajorb During 1971-1975
Major*3
1
p*
2
p*
3
p*
4
p*
5
p*
6
P*
7
P*
------
------
.05
—— —— ------
------
------
-----
------
------
.01
------
------
------
.05
------
-----
------
-----
.05
.05
.01
Terminal Value
A com fortable l i f e
An e x c i t i n g l i f e
A sense o f accomplishment
A world a t peace
A world o f beauty
E q u a lity
Family s e c u r ity
Freedom
Happiness
p * *
. 113C
.285d .255e
.0 1 0 f ,8749 .139**
.0 3 3 1
In n er harmony
Mature love
N ational s e c u rity
Pleasure
S a lv a tio n
S e lf respect
Social re c o g n itio n
True f r ie n d s h ip
Wisdom
.05
.01
-----
.01
-----
------
.05 —
------
------
-----
.05
------
——
.01
------
.05
-----
------
-------
------
.01
-------
.01
-------
.05 —
.01
.05
------
.05
p * *
.008j
.003k .7 1 71
.003m .022n .5 1 7 °
.168p
Note: Footnotes on next page.
113
F o o tn o te s f o r T ab le 9:
aL e v e l: Freshman n o n tra n s fe r students and se n io r n o n tra n s fer
students.
bMajor 1 = C h ild Development & Teaching; Ma j o r 2 = Consumer-
Community S e rv ic e s , Family Ecology, Family Ecology-Comnunication A r ts ;
M ajor 3 = Foods, D i e t e t i c s , N u t r i t i o n ; M ajor 4 = Home Economics Educa
t i o n ; Major 5 - C lothing & T e x t i l e s ; Major 6 - I n t e r i o r Design, Human
Environment & Design; and Major 7 = R e t a ilin g o f C lo th in g & T e x t i l e s .
cMu t i v a r i a t e
= 1.6143; d f = 9 and 194.
dMu t i v a r i a t e
= 1.2 25 9; d f = 9 and 127.
eMu t i v a r i a t e
= 1.2 78 1; d f = 9 and 134.
f Mu t i v a r i a t e
= 2.611 7; d f = 9 and 90.
9Mu t i v a r i a t e
hM
Mu t i v a r i a t e
= 0.4980; d f = 9 and 125.
= 1.5 32 9; d f = 9 and 195.
’ Mu t i v a r i a t e
= 2.097 3; d f = 9 and 150.
j Mu t i v a r i a t e
ku
Mu t i v a r i a t e
= 2.5 62 0; d f = 9 and 194.
- 2.9 640; d f
- 9 and 127.
] Mu t i v a r i a t e
= 0.6 89 8; d f = 9 and 134.
"Mu t i v a r i a t e
= 3.0 827; d f = 9 and 90.
nMu t i v a r i a t e
- 2.2 634; d f
9 and 125.
°Mu t i v a r i a t e
= 0 .9 10 6; d f = 9 and 195.
pMu t i v a r i a t e
- 1.4589; d f = 9 and 150.
♦ M u l t iv a r ia t e a n a ly sis o f va ria n c e t e s t f o r each va lu e .
* * M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly sis o f va ria n c e t e s t f o r the value system,
nine values a t one tim e.
114
Table 10. D iffe r e n c e Kin Instrum ental Value Systems Between Levels3 in
Each Major During 1971-1975
Instrum ental Value
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
H elpful
Honest
2
P*
1
P*
.05
.05
.05
.05
3
P*
.01
.05
Major**
4
P*
.01
-------
-------
.05
5
P*
.01
.05
.01
.05
6
p*
.01
.05
-------
.05
-------
7
P*
-------
.05
p **
.005
.353
.020
.104
.004
.023
.193
Im aginative
Independent
I n t e l l e c t u a l
Logical
Lov ing
Obedient
P o l i t e
Responsible
S e lf - c o n t r o ll e d
p **
.01
.01
.01
.05
.05
.05
-------
.01
-------
.05
.05
.05
.01
.05
-------
.05
.01
.033
.033
.067
.059
.144
.853
.075
N o te : F o o tn o te s on n e x t page.
115
F o o tn o te s f o r T a b le 1 0 :
aL e v e l: Freshman n o n tra n s fe r students and s e n io r n o n tra n s fe r
students.
bMajor 1 = C h ild Development & Teaching; M ajor 2 = Consumer-
Community S e rv ic e s , Family Ecology* Family Ecology-Communication A r t s ;
io n ; Major 4 = Home Economics Educa-
Major 3 = Foods, D i e t e t i c s , N u tri
s ; Major 6 = I n t e r i o r Design, Human
t i o n ; Major 5 = C lo th in g & T e x t i l
= R e ta ilin g o f C lo th in g & T e x t i l e s .
ment & Design; and Major 7
cMu t i v a r i a t e F = 2.7320;
d f
= 9 and 194.
dMu t i v a r i a t e F = 1.1204;
d f
- 9 and 127.
eMu t i v a r i a t e p = 2.2974;
d f
9 and 134.
f Mu t i v a r i a t e F = 1.6 87 0;
d f
9 and 90.
9Mu t i v a r i a t e p = 2.9263;
d f
9 and 125.
hMu t i v a r i a t e F = 2.2127;
d f
= 9 and 195.
1Mu t i v a r i a t e F = 1.3 98 9;
d f = 9 and 150.
JMu t i v a r i a t e F = 2 .0 7 8 9 ;
d f
9 and 194.
kMu t i v a r i a t e F = 2.1 16 2;
d f = 9 and 127.
] Mu t i v a r i a t e p = 1.8376;
d f
= 9 and 134.
"Mu t i v a r i a t e F = 1.9179;
d f
9 and 90.
nMu t i v a r i a t e F - 1.5323;
d f = 9 and 125.
°Mu t i v a r i a t e p = 0 .5 2 8 1 ;
d f
= 9 and 195.
pMu t i v a r i a t e p = 1.7871;
d f
- 9 and 150.
*Mu t i v a r i a t e analysis o f
varian ce t e s t f o r each value,
**Mu t i v a r i a t e an a ly s is o f
varian ce t e s t f o r the value system,
n in e values a t one tim e .
116
imaginative by Majors 2 and 4; and independent by Majors 5 and 7. The
fo llo w in g instrum ental values although s i g n i f i c a n t , p < . 0 5 + , were not
held as cornnon c o n tra s ts among m ajors: ambitioue, courageous,
responsible, and self-controlled.
Null Hypothesis 1 . 3 .2
There are no differences in the values held by freshman
non transfer undergraduate Human Ecology students by major for the
one academic period 1972-1975.
This hypothesis was concerned w ith comparing the seven
academic major c lu s te r s a t the freshman n o n tra n s fe r student le v e l
during 1971-1975. Major c lu s t e r s were formed in the manner as In d ic a te d
in hypothesis 1 . 1 , however, f o r t h i s hypothesis, 673 freshmen were
re ta in e d in the sample. The r e s u l t s o f comparing th e majors by the
fo u r subgroups o f the term inal and instrumental value systems w ith the
m u l t iv a r ia t e a n a ly s is o f va ria n c e t e s t were:
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.8943
1.1743
1.5501
1.4460
54, 3359.75
54, 3359.75
54, 3359.75
54, 3359.75
£
.0001
.1809
.0064
.0188
The n u ll hypothesis thus could n o t be re je c te d a t the alpha le v e l
.05 .
The conclusion was t h a t freshman majors d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the
UHTVH, p < .0 0 0 1 ; UHIVH, p< .0 0 6 4 ; and LHIVH, p < .01 88 . The freshman
majors did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the LHTVH, p < .1809. As shown
in Table 11, those personal values t h a t a c t u a lly caused the d if f e r e n c e
Freshmen
673
N =
Freshmen
673
N =
Seniors
412
Table 11. Difference in Value Systems fo r Majors by Level During 1971-1975
Terminal Value
A comfortable l i f e
An exciting l i f e
A sense of accomplishment
A world at peace
A world of beauty
Equality
Family security
Freedom
Happiness
p **
P*
.05
.005
.05
.005
—
.001
----
----
Seniors
412
P*
—
.005
----
----
.001
----
Instrumental Value
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
p**
a
.001 +
— b
.001 +
Inner harmony
Mature love
National security
PIeasure
Salvation
Self respect
Social recognition
True friendship
Wisdom
_______
----
----
----
------
------------
------
p * *
,181
Note: Footnotes on next page.
------------
----
------------
------------
— —
.05
f
.064
Imaginative
Independent
In te lle ctu a l
Logical
Loving
Obedient
Poli te
Responsible
S elf-control led
P*
_
—
—
—
—
.001
—
.005
c
.006
.001
—
—
-----
— —
——
------
—
P*
.005
—
—
—
—
—
.05
.01
— d
.011
.05
----
----
----
.01
—
—
p * *
n
.019
— h
.061
Footnotes fo r Table 11:
M ultiva riate F = 1.8943; df = 54 and 3359.75.
bM ultiva ria te F = 1.7313; df = 54 and 2028.91.
cM ultiva riate F = 1.5501 ; df = 54 and 3359.75.
^M ultivariate F - 1.5061; df = 54 and 2028.91.
eM ultiva riate F = 1.1743; df * 54 and 3359.75.
^M ultivariate F = 1.3140; df = 54 and 2028.91.
^M ultivariate F a 1.4460; df = 54 and 3359.75.
^M ultivariate F = 1.3205; df * 54 and 2028.91.
*M ultiva ria te analysis of variance te s t fo r each value.
**M u ltiva ria te analysis of variance te s t fo r the value system, nine values
at one time.
119
among majors were: a comfortable life, an exciting life, a sense of
accomplishment, a world at peace, equality, courageous, helpful, and
imaginative.
Null Hypothesis 1 . 3 . 3
There are no differences in the values held by senior
nontransfer undergraduate Human Ecology students by major for the
one academic period 1971-2975.
The comparison o f seven academic major c lu s te r s only a t the
s e n io r n o n tra n s fer le v e l was the concern o f t h i s hypothesis. The major
c lu s t e r s were formed in the same manner in d ic a te d in hypothesis 1 . 1 , but
only the 412 seniors were chosen.
The m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f varian ce t e s t , when a p p lie d to the
comparison o f majors by fo u r subgroups o f n in e personal values each,
y ie ld e d the fo llo w in g r e s u lt s :
Subgroups
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.7313
1.3140
1.5061
1.3205
5 4, 2028.91
5 4, 2028.91
5 4 , 2028.91
54, 2028.91
£
.0009
.0639
.0107
.0605
the alpha le v e l s e t a t . 0 5 , the n u ll hypothesis was not r e je c t e d .
The conclusion was t h a t s e n io r majors were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t
on the LHTVH, p< .0639 and LHIVH, p < .0605. However, the s e n io r majors
did d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y on t h e i r UHTVH, p < .009 and UHIVH, p < .0107.
As shown in Table 11, d is tin g u is h in g personal values f o r th e majors
were: a sense of accomplishment, family security, social recognition,
120
ambitious, forgiving, helpful, imaginative, and loving.
The only
s i g n i f i c a n t personal values t h a t were held in common by the s e n io r
majors and freshman majors were: a sense of accomplishment, helpful,
and imaginative. Thus, by deduction o f the th ree c i t e d personal v a lu e s ,
the remaining s i g n i f i c a n t personal values t h a t d is tin g u is h the majors
were unique to the se n io r l e v e l . S i m i l a r l y , when the th re e common
personal values are removed from the s i g n i f i c a n t values a t the freshman
major l e v e l , the remaining s i g n i f i c a n t values were unique as s e p a ra tin g
the freshman majors.
N u ll Hypothesis 1 .4
There are no differences in personal values held by each of the
four college departments, comprised of the respective majors, for the
one academic period, 1971-1975.
In t h is h yp oth esis, the focus was on comparing the fo u r c o lle g e
departments, Family Ecology, Family S C hild Sciences, Human Environment
& Design, and Food Science and Human N u t r i t i o n , in the one time lapse
1971-1975. Majors a f f i l i a t e d w ith a department were p u lle d to g e th e r
from each academic y e a r , 1971-72, 1 9 7 2 -7 3 , 1973-74, and 1974-75* to
form the group lab eled as a c o lle g e departm ent, 1971-1975. There were
258 freshman and se n io r n o n tra n s fe r Human Ecology students from the
Consumer-Community S e rv ic e s , Family Ecology, Family Ecology-Communica
t i o n A r t s , and Home Economics Education majors in the Department o f
Family Ecology (F E ). S i m i l a r l y , th e re were 204 students from the C h ild
Development & Teaching major in th e Department o f Fam ily & Child
Sciences (FCS). There were 533 students in the C lo th in g & T e x t i l e s ,
121
I n t e r i o r Design, and Human Environment & Design majors in th e Department
o f Human Environment & Design (HED).
L a s t ly , 160 students from the
Foods, D i e t e t i c s , and N u t r i t i o n majors were in th e Department o f Food
Science and Human N u t r i t i o n (FSHN). The n u ll hypothesis was r e je c te d
when th e dependent v a r i a b l e , personal v a lu e , was grouped by te rm in a l
and instrum ental va lu e system subgroups and the r e s u lts from the
m u l t i v a r i a t e an a ly s is o f variance t e s t were:
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
3.3102
1.8974
2.6563
2.6731
2 7 , 3333.79
27 , 3338.79
27, 3338.79
2 7 , 3338.79
£
.0001
.0035
.0001
.0001
Hence, w ith the alpha le v e l set a t . 0 5 , the conclusion was t h a t the
personal term inal and instrum ental value o r ie n t a t io n s o f the fo u r
c o lle g e departments were d i f f e r e n t from each o t h e r , p < . 0 0 5 + , during
1971-1975.
The n u ll hypothesis was not r e je c te d when the median t e s t was
a p p lie d to the separate personal values o f the departments. With the
alpha le v e l set a t . 0 5 , only 14 values were s i g n i f i c a n t , p < .0 5 + . The
conclusion was th a t the departments d id d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y , p < . 0 5 to
.0 0 1 , on o nly 14 o f 36 separate personal values.
In the te rm in a l value
system, as shown in T ab le 12, the 8 o f 18 values t h a t d is tin g u is h e d the
departments were: a comfortable life, an exciting Ufa, a sense of
accomplishment, equality, family security, inner harmony, salvation,
and wisdom. W ithin the instru m ental va lu e system, as shown in Table 13,
the co m p aratively few er s i g n i f i c a n t personal v a lu e s , 6 o f 18 v a lu e s ,
Table 12- Terminal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders fo r Departments8 During 1971*1975
Terminal Value
N 3
A comfortable lif e
An exciting li f e
A sense of accomplishment
A world at peace
A world of beauty
Equality
Family security
Freedom
Happiness
Inner harmony
Mature love
National security
Pleasure
Salvation
Self respect
Social recognition
True friendship
Wisdom
p * *
p * *
n ( i )
2S8
13.2(141
12.0(13)
8.0{ 81
9.8(11
11.7 12
9.3(10!
8.9( 91
6-6( 4!
5.2( 3)
4.2( 1]
7.0( 6
16.6(18
13.4(15
15.9(17,
5.1 2
15.5(16
6.8( 5
7.1 ( 7
Departments8
Department Contrasts
FCS (2)
HED (3)
FSHN (4)
1-2
1-3
1-4
2-3
2-4
3-4
1-2-3-4
204
533
160
P*
P*
P*
P*
P‘
P*
P*
13.6(15)
11.6(131
9. 9( 11;
8.5( 9
11.4(12
9.5(10,
7.8( 7’
6 .6( 6
4.5( 2)
3.8( 1]
5,8( 4
16.7(17
13.6(14
16.7(18
5.4( 3
15.4(16
6.3( 5
7.9( 8
12.0(14)
10,8(111
7.9( 81
10.0(10
11.1 13
11.0(121
9.4( 91
5.9( 41
4.5( 1)
4.9( 2]
6.4( 5
16.4(17]
13.1(151
16.7(18
5.1( 3
15.2(16
7.0( 6
7.7( 7
13.4(14)
11.8(13
8.6( 8
8.7 9
11.5(12
10.0(11
9.5(10
6.1( 4]
5.7( 3]
3.8( V
6.7( 7
16.1(17
13.7(15
16.7(18
4.6 2
14.7(16
6.6( 6
6.5( 5
.05
—
.05
.01 —
—
—
—
.05 —
.001
_
.
—
~—
—
—
—
.001
----
.001
.05
.005
.05
.005
---- —
—
----
—
----
----
.01
—
- ----
.005
.05
.01
—
.001
.005
.0Q1+C
—
—
.01
_
— -
.05
.05
—
—
—
.05
—
—
—
.05
—
—
—
—
----
—
----
.05
—
—
—
.05
.05
—
—
.05
.005+d
Concordance coefficie nt
.34
.38
.31
.34
40epartments: F£ = Family Ecology; FCS = Family & Child Sciences; HED « Human Environment & Design; and FSHN = Food
Science & Hunan N u tritio n .
bFigures Indicate median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders.
cM ultivariate F = 3.3102; df * 27 and 3338.79.
M u ltiv a ria te F = 1.8974; df * 27 and 3338.79.
•Median te s t; df * 1 and 3.
**M ultivariate analysis of variance test fo r the value system, nine values at one time.
Table 13.
Instrumental Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders for Departments* During 1971-1975
Departments*
Department Contrasts
FE (1)
FCS (2)
HED (3)
FSHN (4)
1-2
1-3
1-4
2-3
2-4
3-4
1-2-3-4
Instnmwntal Values
N ■
258
204
533
160
P'
P*
Ambitious
Broa
.0001
.0001
.0123
.4554
For the second comparison th en , the conclusion was t h a t the Human Ecology
students, freshman and sen io r n o n tra n s fe rs ,
in 1971-72 were d i f f e r e n t
from those in 1974-75 on the: UHTVH, p < .00 01 ; LHTVH, p < .0 0 0 1 ; and
UHIVH, p < . 0 1 2 3 . Only s ix term inal values se p arated , p < .0 5 + , the two
years a p a rt: an exciting life, a world at peace, family security,
happiness, social recognition, and true friendship. One instru m ental
personal v a lu e , cheerful d is tin g u is h e d the two years a p a r t , p < . 0 0 5 .
With the comparison o f the 1971-72 and 1974-75 y e a r s , the Human
Ecology students d id not change s i g n i f i c a n t l y on 66 percent o f t h e i r
ranking o f the f i r s t s ix term inal values: happiness, inner harmony,
self respect, freedom, mature love, and true friendship.
The values
129
happiness and true friendship remained in the top s ix p o s itio n s o f
the term in al h ie ra rc h y although they s i g n i f i c a n t l y changed in median
ra n k in g s, p< .0 5 . The l a s t th re e rank p o sitio ns o f th e term inal value
h ie ra rc h y (1 6 th , 1 7 th , and 18th) were maintained over the years by the
v a lu e s , social recognition, p< .0 5 , national security, and salvation.
The top fo u r ranked Instrum ental values in th e years 1971-72 and
1974-75 remained the same: honest, loving, broadminded, and responsible.
S i m i l a r l y , the instrum ental values t h a t occupied 1 6 th , 1 7 th , and 18th
p o s itio n s in the h ie ra rc h y were the same over the y e a rs : polite, clean,
and obedient.
In 1974-75 the Human Ecology freshman and s e n io r nontransfer
students have reduced t h e i r amount o f group concensus on ranking o f
va lu e s. The homogeneity o f ranking th e term inal values in an h ie ra rc h y
has gone from W2 = .3 3 to W2 = . 32. S i m i l a r l y , th e re was a decrease o f
homogeneity on instrum ental value ranking from W2 =
.31 to W2 = .29 .
Null Hypothesis 2 .2
There are no differences in the values held by undergraduate
Human Ecology students among the majors in the academic year 1971-1973,
and similarly, in the years 1972-1973, 1973-1974, and 1974-1975.
The focus in t h i s hypothesis was on the comparison across the
seven academic majors in an academic y e a r . Each m ajor was composed o f
freshman and senior n o n tra n s fe r Human Ecology students from a s p e c ifie d
y e ar. The selected years were 19 7 1 -7 2 , 1972-73, 1 9 7 3 -7 4 , and 1974-75.
2W = concordance c o e f f i c i e n t .
130
For the f i r s t comparison, th e majors were compared on t h e i r value
systems by the m u l t i v a r i a t e an a ly s is o f v a ria n c e t e s t as In Tables 15
and 16.
For the second comparison, th e majors were c a te g o riz e d by
t h e i r a f f i l i a t e c o lle g e department FE, FCS, HEO, and FSHN and were
compared on both value systems and se p ara te personal values in the
years 1971-72 and 1974-75.
For the f i r s t comparison by majors in a year the n u l l hypothesis
was not r e je c te d a t the .05 alpha l e v e l . Results f o r comparisons 1n the
fo u r y e a r s , 1971-72, 19 7 2 -7 3 , 1973-74, and 1974-75 were:
Majors in 1971-72
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.6628
1.3670
1.2739
1.3644
54 , 1692.37
54 , 1692.37
54 , 1692.37
54 , 1692,37
£
.0020
.0410
.0892
.0419
The conclusion was t h a t the seven majors 1n 1971-72 were d i f f e r e n t on:
UHTVH, p < .0 0 2 ; LHTVH, p < .0 4 1 ; and LHIVH, p < .0419 In 19 7 1 -7 2 . At the
p< .0 5 + , e ig h t values caused s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tra s t among m ajors: a com
fortable life, a sense of accomplisfvnentj a world of beauty 9 inner
harmony, social recognition, ambitious, and courageous.
Majors in 1972-73
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.6229
1.1181
1.1949
1.3947
54, 1462.91
54, 1462.91
5 4 , 1462.91
5 4 , 1462.91
£
.0033
.2612
.1602
.0324
131
Table IS. Difference In Terminal Value Systems Across Majors In a Year
Terminal Value
N =
A comfortable life
An exciting life
A sense of accomplishment
A world at peace
A world of beauty
Equality
Family security
Freedom
Happiness
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
Year
346
P*
.005
.01
.05
■ -
---
---
301
P*
.005
— —
---
---
.05
— —
---
207
P*
____
.01
.05
---
.001
---
---
238
P*
---
---
---
---
---
p**
.002'8
.003b
,005c
.748d
Inner harmony
Mature love
National security
Pleasure
Salvation
Self respect
Social recognition
True friendship
Wisdom
.01
---
---
---
.01
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
________
---
---
---
---
---
-—
____
---
---
---
---
.01
---
---
p**
.041e
.261f
.694®
. 104h
Multivariate F * 1.6628; df * 54 and 1692.37.
Multivariate F * 1.6229; df * 54 and 1462.91.
cMultivariate F = 1.6074; df - 54 and 1304.84.
Multivariate F = 0.8503; df - 45 and 969.32.
Multivariate F = 1.3670; df * 54 and 1692.37.
Multivariate F - 1.1181; df = 54 and 1462.91.
Multivariate F = 0.8925; df * 54 and 1304.84.
Multivariate F * 1.2824; df * 45 and 969.32.
*Multivariate analysis of variance test for each value.
**Multivariate analysis of variance test for the value system,
nine values at one time.
132
Table 16. Difference 1n Instrumental Value Systems Across Majors in a
Year
Instrumental Value
N =
1971-72
346
p*
1974-75
238
P*
Year
1972-73
301
1973-74
207
P*
.005
P*
.05
------
,05
.05
.05
.05
.05
p * *
a
.089
. 160b
.041°
.432d
.001
.001
.05
p * *
e
.042*
.032f
.1839
.246h
Ambitious
Broadmlnded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
Imaginative
Independent
Intellectual
Logical
Loving
Obedient
Polite
Responsible
Self-control led
Multivariate F = 1.2739; df = 54 and 1692.37.
Multivariate F = 1.1949; df * 54 and 1462.91.
Multivariate F = 1.3683; df = 54 and 1304.84.
Multivariate F = 1.0233; df = 45 and 969.32.
Multivariate F = 1.3644; df = 54 and 1692.37.
Multivariate F = 1.3947; df = 54 and 1462.91.
Multivariate F = 1.1753; df = 54 and 1304.84.
Multivariate F = 1.1418; df = 45 and 969.32.
*Multivariate analysis of variance test for each value.
**Multivariate analysis of variance test for the value system,
nine values at one time.
133
I t was concluded t h a t the seven majors in 1972-73 were
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on the UHTVH, p < .0033 and LHIVH p< .0324.
W ith in the value systems the v a lu e s , a comfortable life3 helpful 3
imaginative, were s i g n i f i c a n t l y v a ry in g among the m a jo rs , p < . 0 0 5 .
Majors in 1973-74
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.6074
0.8925
1.3683
1.1753
54, 1304.84
54, 1304.84
54 , 1304.84
54 , 1304.84
£
.0039
.6943
.0414
.1834
The r e s u lts o f comparing the seven majors on t h e i r v a lu e systems 1n
1973-74 led to th e conclusion t h a t o nly the UHTVH a t p < .0 0 3 9 , and the
UHIVH a t p< .0414 were varying beyond chance. W ith in th e value
h ie r a r c h ie s the s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tra s t values were: a sense of
accomplishnent, a world at peace, family security3 broadminded,
cheerful, courageous3 forgiving3 and loving3 p < . 0 5 + .
Majors in 1974-75
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHTVH
0.8503
1.2824
1.0233
1.1418
45, 969.32
45, 969.32
45, 969.32
45, 969.32
£
.7476
.1035
.4315
.2456
The conclusion was t h a t the s ix m a jo rs , Major 4 o m itte d , d id not d i f f e r
s in ce none were s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .05 l e v e l . W ith in the value system
comparisons o nly th e value social recognition showed s i g n i f i c a n t con
t r a s t , p < . 0 1 , among m ajors. For the second comparison as noted in
134
Tables 17 to 20, value systems and sep arate personal values by
departments in a y e a r , the r e s u lts were as fo llo w s :
Departments in 1971-72
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
df
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.9179
1.6034
0.9290
1.6237
2 7 , 976.1
2 7 , 976.1
27, 976.1
27, 976.1
£
.0034
.0268
.5699
.0237
The conclusion was t h a t the 1971-72 Human Ecology departments FE, FCS,
HED, and FSHN, w ith an average s i z e , n - 1 1 5 .3 , were d i f f e r e n t on the
UHTVH, p < .00 34 ; LHTVH, p< .0 2 6 8 ; and LHIVH, p< .0237. The departments
co n trasted on seven te rm in a l v a lu e s , p < .0 5 + , a comfortable life, a
sense of accomplishment, a world at peace, family security, inner
harmony, pleasure, and salvation.
The instrum ental v a lu e , inner
harmony was s i g n i f i c a n t a t p < .05 among the departments. Hence,
the departments v a rie d more on te rm in a l values than on instrum ental
values.
In paired-comparisons between departments FE was l e a s t s i m il a r
to FCS w ith fo u r s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tra s t v a lu e s , p < .0 5 + , a sense of
accomplishment, a world at peace, family security, and independent.
S i m i l a r l y , FE s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e d , p < . 0 5 + , from HED on the fo ur
v a lu e s , a comfortable life, equality, inner harmony, and pleasure.
FE v a rie d only by chance from FSHN. However, the l a r g e s t p aire d c o n tra s t
was between FCS and HED w ith s ix s i g n i f i c a n t v a lu e s , p < .05+: a com
fortable life, a sense of accomplishment, a world at peace, equality,
family security, and inner haxmtony.
The comparison o f FCS w ith FSHN
Table 17- Terminal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders fo r Departments* In 1971-1972
Terminal Value
N «
94
56
160
36
P’
P*
P*
P'
P*
P*
P*
FE (1)
FCS (2)
HED (3)
FSHN (4)
1-2
1-3
1-4
2-3
2-4
3-4
1-2-3-4
Departments*
Department Contrasts
A comfortable li f e
An exciting l i f e
A sense of accomplishment
A world at peace
A world of beauty
Equality
Family security
Freedom
Happiness
14.1(15}b 13.2(14)
12.6(13)
11.8(13)
10.3(11)
7.6( 7
5.21 3)
8.2( 9)
11.3(12)
10.8(12)
7.8( 8)
8.7(10)
10.4(11)
7-8( 9)
5,8( 4)
6.1( 4)
3.7( 1)
4.5( 2)
11.7(14)
10.5(11)
7.4( 7)
8.9( 9)
11.0(13)
10.9(12)
10.2(10)
6.7( 5)
3.9( 1)
Inner harmony
Mature love
National security
Pleasure
Salvation
Self respect
Social recognition
True friendship
Wisdom
p * *
P**
3,8( 1)
6.4( 5)
16.5(18)
13.9(14}
16.3(17)
5.4( 3)
15.8(16)
7.5( 6)
8 .0( 8)
3.81 2)
5.9 5)
16.3 17)
13.6 15)
17.5 18)
6.5 6)
15.8 (16)
6.8 7)
8.3
(10)
5.8( 4)
5.4( 2)
16.4(17)
12.7(15)
17.1(18}
5.8( 6}
15.4(16)
7-K 6)
8.3( 8)
13.2(15)
12.9(13)
6.5( 6)
7.0( 8)
13.0(14)
9.1(10) —
9.8<
11
5.5) 3)
5.2 2)
_______
5.5( 4)
6.6 7)
16.51 18)
12.5 12) —
16.3 17)
5.0 1)
14.5 (16)
7.9 9)
5)
6,5
—
_
.001
.05
_
_.
.001
.05 — —
.05
----- —
.05 —
—
.01 —
.01 —
.01 —
.01 —
,05 —
—
—
—
—
.05
.05
—
.05
.005C
.005
.05
—
.001
.05
—
----- —
----- —
- —
—
—
—
.05
.05
.027d
Concordance co e fficie n t
.38
,4
.31
.3
3
*Departments: FE * Family Ecology; FCS = Family I Child Sciences; HED * Human Environment I Design; and
FSHN * Food Science & Human N u tritio n .
^Figures indicate median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders.
M u ltiv a ria te F * 1.9179; df » 27 and 976.1.
M u ltiv a ria te F * 1.6034; df = 27 and 976.1.
•Median te s t, df * 1 and 3,
Table 18.
Instrumental Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders fo r Departments2 in 1971-1972
Instrumental Value
N ■
94
56
160
36
P*
P*
P*
P*
P*
P*
P*
FE (1)
FCS (2)
HED (3)
FSHN (4)
1-2
1-3
1-4
2-3
2-4
3-4
1-2-3-4
Departments2
Department Contrasts
Ambitious
Broa
.2307
.1902
.4102
.3944
The conclusion was t h a t from 1971 to 1975 M ajor 7 did not change
s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the term in al and instrum ental value systems.
The
157
value pleasure d id s i g n i f i c a n t l y vary among the f o u r years, p < . 0 5 ,
in Major 7.
In the second focus o f t h i s hypothesis, as shown In Tables 26
and 27, the r e s u l t s o f observing the four departments in 1971 and 1975
le d to the acceptance o f the n u ll hypothesis:
FE, 1971 to 1975
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.6030
1.9452
1.0876
1.6418
9 , 119
9 , 119
9 , 119
9 , 119
E
.1220
.0519
.3771
.1111
The conclusion was th a t FE v a r ie d beyond chance from 1971 to 1975 on
o n ly LHTVH, p < .0 5 . The value world at peace v a r ie d s i g n i f i c a n t l y in
the four y e a r s , p < .0 1 , w ith a change in rank from 9th to 12th p o s it io n
in 1974-75.
FCS, 1971 to 1975
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2 .0 1 8 6
1 .3 29 8
2.2761
1.0981
d f
9 , 94
9 , 94
9 , 94
9 , 94
E
.0455
.2322
.0236
.3719
I t was concluded t h a t FCS d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y in the four y e a rs on
UHTVH, p< .0 4 5 5 , and on UHIVH, p < .0236. Two v a lu e s th a t d i f f e r e d o ver
th e years were an exciting life and a world at peace, p < .05+.
Table 26. Terminal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders For Departments3 In the Years 1971-1972 and 1974-1975
Terminal Value
N *
94
35
p*
56
48
p*
160
115
p*
36
40
p’
1971-72
1974-75
1971-72
1974-75
1971-72
1974-75
1971-72
1974-75
FE
FCS
HED
FSHN
A comfortable lif e
An exciting lif e
A sense of accomplishment
A M r Id at peace
A world of beauty
Equality
Family security
Freedom
Happiness
14.1(15)** 13.3(15) ----
11.8(13) 10.9(H) —
9.7 10 —
7.6 7)
8.2( 9) 11.8(12)
.01
10.8(12) 12.1(13) —
8.8( 9) —
8.7(10)
8.4 8) —
10.4(11)
7,4( 7) —
6.1( 4)
6 .3( 4) —
4.5( 2)
13.2(14) 13.5(15) ----
10.3 11
12.6 13
.05
8.7 9 —
10.3 l l )
5.2( 3) 10.5(12)
.005
11.3(12) 11.2(13) —
10.3(10) —
7.8( 8
8.3 8) —
7.8{ 9
7.5 7
5.8( 4)
4.1( 2) ----
3.7{ 1)
----
11.7(14) 12.3(14)
10.7 11 —
10.5 11
7.9 8 —
7.4 7
8.9( 9) 11.2(12)
.01
11.0(13) 12.o(l3) —
10.9(12) 10.3(10) —
8.5 9)
10.2 10
,05
5.9( 4} —
6.7( 5)
----
5.7( 3)
3.9( 1)
----
11.513 —
9.3 8}
----
9.3( 9) —
.05
.05
13.2(15) 13.0(141
12.9 13
6.5( 6
7,o( 8)
13.0(14) 10.3(10)
9.1 10) 11,312)
9.8 11) 10.5 11 —
5.8( 3)
5.5( 3)
----
6.3( 4) —
7.2( 2)
P**
. 122c
.046d
.001+*
.289f
Inner harmony
Mature love
National security
Pleasure
Salvation
Self respect
Social recognition
True friendship
Wisdom
4.9( 2) —
3.8( 1)
6.4( 5)
7.3( 6) —
16.5(18) 16.6(18) —
13.9(14) 13,0(14) —
16.3(17) 13.3(16) ----
4.4( 1) —
5.4 3)
15.9 17 —
15.8 16
5.4( 3) ----
7.5( 6)
6.6( 5) —
8.0( 8)
3.2( 1) —
3.8( 2)
5.9( 5)
5.6 4) —
16.3(17) 16.9(18) —
13.6(15) 13.3(14) —
17.5(18) 16.8(17) —
6.5( 6)
5.2 3 —
15.8 16) 15.2 16) —
6.5 5) —
6.8 7)
7.3( 6) ----
8.3(10)
4,7( 2} —
S.8{ 4)
5.4( 2)
.05
7.3( 6)
16.4(17) 16.4(18) —
12.7(15) 13.1(15) —
17.1(18) 15.9(17) —
5.8 3
4.5 1) —
15.4 16) 14.5 16 —
----
7.1 6
----
8.3( 8)
6.9 5
7.7( 7)
5.5( 4)
3.1( 1) —
6.6( 7)
7,0( 7) —
----
16.5(18) 15.9(17)
12.5(12) 13.6(15) —
16.3(17) 16.8(18 —
4.7 2 —
5.0( 1)
14.5 16 —
14.5 16
6.3 5 —
7.9 9)
----
6.5( 6)
6.5( 5)
in
00
P**
.052 9
.232h
,008’
.460j
Concordance coefficient
.38
.36
.41
.36
.31
.30
.33
.32
Departments: FE » Family Ecology; FCS = Family & Child Sciences; HED = Human Environment & Design; FSHN - Food Science & Hwan
N utrition.
b.
Figures Indicate median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders
cM ultivariate F - 1,6030; df = 9 and 119.
M ultivariate F = 2.0186; df * 9 and 94.
M u ltiv a ria te F * 3.3864; df = 9 and 265.
M ultivariate F = 1.2353; df * 9 and 66.
M u ltiv a ria te F « 1.9452; df ■ 9 and 119.
M u ltiva ria te F » 1.3298; df = 9 and 94.
1M ultivariate F = 2.5660; df = 9 and 265.
M u ltiva rfa te F = 1.9858; df « 9 and 66.
•Median te st, df = 1.
**H ultivariate analysis of variance test for the value system, nine values at one time.
Table 27.
Instrumental Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders for Departments3 In the Years 1971-1972 and 1974-1975
FE
FCS
HED
FSHN
1971-72
1974-75
1971-72
1974-75
1971-72
1974-75
1971-72
1974-75
Instrunental Value
N =
94
35
P*
56
48
Ambitious
Broadnlnded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
Imaginative
Independent
Intellectual
Logical
loving
Obedient
Polite
Responsible
Self-control led
P*
_
- —
—
—
— —
----
----
----
—
—
—
9.7( 9)b 9.2( 9) _
5.7( 4)
10.4{11)
6.9( 7)
14.3(16)
10.0(10)
6.7( 5)
6.8( 6)
2.2( 1)
5.0( 4)
11.3(11}
----
7.2( 5)
----
15.8(17)
----
9.7(10)
----
7.3( 6)
8.4( 7) —
----
3,3( 2)
8,8( 8)
5,5? 4)
10.5(11)
7.0? 6)
15.0(17)
10.5(10)
7.0( 5}
8.3( 7)
2.4( 1)
9.0( 8)
7 5? 6)
10.1(10)
9.2( 9)
14.3(16)
11.0(13)
7.0? 5)
7.7( 7)
3.1( 1)
. 377c
.024d
11.3(12)
11.3(13)
8.5( 8)
8.8( 8)
11.7(14) 13.1(15)
12.6(13)
13.3(15)
3.9( 2)
2.2( 1)
16.2(18)
17.1(18)
14.4(16)
14.8(17)
4.8( 3)
5.6( 3)
13.1(14)
10.9(12)
- —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
12.0(13)
11.5(12)
10.2( 9)
12.8(15}
3.5( 2)
16.9(18}
15.0(16)
5.3( 3)
12.5(14)
_
.05
—
—
11.0(12)
6.5( 3}
11.3(14}
13,0(15}
3.9( 2)
17.1(18)
15.0(17)
6.5( 4}
10.9(11} —
- —
—
—
----
.1119
.372h
160
115
P*
36
8.6( 7) _ 11.5(13)
8.9( 8)
5.9( 3!
9 .6 (li;
7. i i s:
14.7(17
11.6(12!
7.7( 6!
9.4(10!
3.3( 1]
7.6? 5)
10.1(10)
9.1 ( 8)
14.3(17)
10.8(13)
7.3( 4)
9.3( 9)
2.4( 1)
9.1( 9]
8.0( 6)
8.4( 7
12.0(14
10.3(11)
12.6(15
12.9(15)
4.0? 2)
4.0( 2
16.9(18
17.1(18)
13.9?161 13.8(16)
6.3( 4
6.1( 3)
11.4(14)
11.6(13
40
P*
11.3 i 12)
6.0 4)
8.9 9)
6.5 5)
14,9 f17)
9.7 10)
7.5 7)
7.7( 8)
2.4( 1)
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
.988
11.5 13) _
—
—
— ^
7.3 I 6)
11.5 [H i
12.3 15
5.5 ' 2)
17.0(18) — _
14.5(16)
5.5( 3)
10.8(11)
- —
—
—
—
. 68C
5.5{ 3)
10.0(10)
7.8( 5)
15.7(17)
10.5(11)
8.5 6)
9.0? 8)
3.5( 1)
.05
—
.05
—
—
----
----
----
.089e
8.9( 7)
10.8(12)
13.0 16)
3.8? 2)
16.0(18)
12.5(15)
5.9( 4)
9.3( 9)
—
.05
—
—
—
—
—
- —
.2151
10.7(12) _ 12.2(14)
Concordance coefficient
.35
.37
.37
.30
.29
.29
.28
.30
aDepartments: FE = Family Ecology; FCS = Family & Child Sciences; HED * Human Environment & Design; FSHN » Food Science & Human
N utrition.
^Figures ndicate median rankings and, In parentheses, composite rank orders.
M ultivariate F = 1.0876; df - 9 and 119.
M u ltiv a ria te F = 2.2761 ; df = 9 and 94.
M u ltiv a ria te F = 1,7027; df = 9 and 265.
M u ltiva ria te F * 0.2368; df = 9 and 66.
M u ltiv a ria te F
* 1.6418; df = 9 and 119-
M u ltiva ria te F = 1.0981; df = 9 and 94.
’ M ultivariate F = 1.3436; df = 9 and 265,
M u ltiva ria te F 3 0.7295; df = 9 and 66.
•Median test, df 3 1.
**M ultivariate analysis of variance test for the value system, nine values at one time.
160
HED, 1971 t o 1975
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
3.3864
2.5660
1.7027
1.3436
9 , 265
9 , 265
9 , 265
9 , 265
R
.0006
.0077
.0885
.2145
The conclusion was t h a t HED changed on only the term inal value system,
p < . 0 0 7 + , from 1971 to 1975. However, the values t h a t in d ic a te d change
were: a world, at peace, family security , mature love, broadminded,
cheerful, and intellectual, p < .05+.
FSHN, 1971 to 1975
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.2353
0.9858
0.2 36 8
0.7295
d f
9 , 66
9 , 66
9 , 66
9 , 66
R
.2893
.4602
.9878
.6804
I t was concluded t h a t from 1971 to 1975 FSHN v a rie d only by chance on
both the te rm in a l and instrum ental systems. N e v e rth e le s s , the values
in c o n tra s t over the years were: a world of beauty and equality,
p < .05 .
To s im ria rize , the hig hest amount o f change from 1971 to 1975
was in HED w it h s ix values and two halves o f value systems t h a t v a rie d
beyond chance.
In between, FE and FCS v a rie d beyond chance over the
fo u r years on o n e -h a lf o f a value system and two va lu e s. The lowest
amount o f change was in FSHN w ith no s i g n i f i c a n t change in value
systems but w ith two s i g n i f i c a n t l y changed values.
161
While the fo u r departments v a rie d in the amount o f change beyond
chance from 1971 to 1975, th e re was no s i g n i f i c a n t values held in comnon
by a l l fo u r departments. However* the va lu e a world at peace was a
s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tr a s t, p < . 0 1 + , f o r th ree departments.
In 1974-75, a
world at peace ranked 12th p o s itio n in FE, 12th p o s itio n in FCS, and
12th p o s itio n f o r HED.
A world at peace d id not s i g n i f i c a n t l y vary
over the years f o r FSHN but was ranked in 10th p o s itio n in 1974-75.
Null Hypothesis 2 .5
There are no differences in the personal values held by
undergraduate Human Ecology students in the freshman nontransfer
level among the academic years 197l-19?5> and similarly* in the
senior nontransfer level among the years 1971-1975.
The concern in hypothesis 2 .5 was to compare the Human Ecology
freshman n o n tra n s fer students in an academic y e a r , sumner term o m itte d ,
w ith the Human Ecology freshman n o n tra n s fe r students in another academic
y e a r. S i m i l a r l y , Human Ecology se n io r n o n tra n s fe r students were com
pared.
For the f i r s t comparison, students came from the years 1971-72,
1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75.
In the f i r s t comparison, only the value
systems were tes ted over the four y e ars.
For the second comparison,
students came from the years 1971-72 and 1 9 7 4 -7 5 , the two ends o f the
time lapse in which the College o f Human Ecology has been e s ta b lis h e d
a t Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y .
In the second comparison, both the
value systems and sep arate personal values were analyzed.
For the f i r s t comparison, given an alpha le v e l o f . 0 5 , and the
fo llo w in g r e s u l t s ,
in Tables 28 and 29, f o r freshmen 1971 to 1975 and
162
Table 28. D iffe re n c e in Terminal Value System f o r L ev els3 Over the
Years“
1971 -1975
1971-72 and 1974-75
Freshmen
Seniors
Freshmen
Seniors
Terminal Value
N =
673
P*
482
P*
A com fortable l i f e
An e x c i t i n g l i f e
A sense o f accomplishment
A world a t peace
A world o f beauty
E q u a lity
Family s e c u rity
Freedom
Happiness
p * *
Inner harmony
Mature love
N ational s e c u rity
Pleasure
S a lv a tio n
S e lf resp ect
Social re c o g n itio n
True fr ie n d s h ip
Wisdom
.001
------
-------
.001 +
.001
.01
.05
.01
.001 +
-------
.001
.005
271
P*
.05
-------
.019
-------
-------
313
P*
.001
.005
.005
.001 +
.05
.001
.001
p **
.002
.665
.001 +
.455
Note: Footnotes on next page.
163
Footnotes f o r Table 2 8 :
a L ev e ls : Freshmen = Freshman n o n tra n s fer s tu d e n ts ; Seniors =
Senior n o n tra n s fe r students.
bY e a rs : Academic years 1971-1975 = 1971-72, 19 72-73, 19 73 -74 ,
and 19 74-75, Summer term o m itted .
cM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 2 .6 3 4 1 ; d f = 27 and 1931.10.
dM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 2 .2 4 2 2 ; d f = 27 and 1373.29.
eM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 4 .9 5 6 3 ; d f = 9 and 303.
^ M u lt i v a r i a t e F = 2 .2 6 3 6 ; d f = 9 and 261.
^ M u lt i v a r i a t e F = 1.9 8 9 0 ; d f = 27 and 1931.10.
bM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 0 .8 6 5 4 ; d f = 27 and 1373.29.
^ M u lt i v a r i a t e F = 3 .5 0 8 7 ; d f = 9 and 303.
^ M u lt i v a r i a t e F = 0 .9 8 2 7 ; d f = 9 and 261.
* M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f va ria n c e t e s t f o r each va lu e .
* * M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f varian ce t e s t f o r the value system,
nine values a t one tim e.
164
Table 29. D iffe r e n c e in Instrum ental Value System f o r Levels3 Over the
Years”
Instrum ental Value
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Fo rg ivin g
H e lp fu l
Honest
Im a g in a tive
Independent
I n t e l l e c t u a l
Logical
Loving
Obedient
P o l i t e
Responsible
S e lf - c o n t r o l led
1971-1975
1971-72 and 1974-75
Freshmen
Seniors
Freshmen
Seniors
N =
673
P*
.05
.005
482
P*
.05
.05
-------
-------
313
P*
.001
-------
-------
.05
-------
271
P*
-------
-------
p * *
.003
.219
.017
.128
.05
-------
-------
-------
-------
p * *
. 386
.598
.456
.321
Note: Footnotes on next page.
165
Footnotes f o r Table 29:
Levels: Freshmen = Freshman n o n tra n s fer stu d en ts; Seniors =
S enior non transfer stu d en ts.
bY ears: Academic years 1971-1975 = 1971-72, 19 7 2 -7 3 , 1973-74,
and 19 7 4 -7 5 , Summer term om itted.
cM u lt i v a r i a t e F = 1.9058; d f = 27 and 1931.10.
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 1.2016; d f
- 27 and 1373.29.
eM u lt i v a r i a t e F - 2.2 97 3; d f
f
M u lt i v a r i a t e F
1.5 58 4; d f = 9 and 261.
9 and 303.
^ M u ltiv a r ia te F = 1.0563; d f = 27 and 1931.10.
L
M u lt i v a r i a t e F = 0 .9 1 0 6 ; df
= 27 and 1373.29.
nM u lt i v a r i a t e F = 0 .9 7 7 7 ; d f
= 9 and 303.
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F - 1.1611; d f
= 9 and 261.
*M u lti
vari a te a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e t e s t f o r each v a lu e .
* * M u l t i
v a r ia te a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e t e s t f o r the value system,
nine values a t one tim e .
166
seniors 1971 to 1975, the n u ll hypothesis was not r e je c te d in regard
to d iffe r e n c e s over fo u r years in a l e v e l .
Freshmen 1971-1975
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2.6341
1.9 89 0
1.9 05 8
1.0 56 3
2 7 , 1931.10
27 , 1931.10
27 , 1931.10
27, 1931.10
£
.0001
.0019
.0034
.3859
The conclusion was th a t Human Ecology freshman n o n tra n s fe r students
d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on t h e i r UHTVH, LHTVH, and UHIVH, p < .005+.
Those personal values t h a t c o n trib u te d to the beyond chance v a r i a t i o n
were: a world at peace, a world of beauty, equality, happiness, self
respect, social recognition, ambitious, cheerful, and independent,
p< .005+. The average c e l l s iz e in each y e a r was n - 168.
Seniors 1971-1975
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2.2422
0.8 65 4
1.2016
0.9 10 6
2 7 , 1373.29
2 7 , 1373.29
2 7 , 1373.29
2 7 , 1373.29
£
.0003
.6646
.2192
.5975
I t can be concluded th a t the s e n io r n o n tra n s fe r students
in Human
Ecology w ith an average annual c e l l s iz e o f n * 1 2 0 .5 , d i f f e r e d beyond
chance o ve r the fo u r years o n ly on the UHTVH, p< .0003. The s i g n i f i
cant c o n tra s tin g values were a world at peace, broadminded, and
capable, p < . 0 5 + .
167
Since the freshmen varied beyond chance on th re e halves o f
the v a lu e h ie ra rc h ie s and seniors v a r ie d beyond chance on o n e -h a lf
o f a value h ie ra rc h y , the freshmen d id vary more than the seniors
over th e fo u r years 1971 to 1975. The only s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tra s tin g
value over the years f o r both freshmen and seniors was a world at
peace> p < .0 0 0 5 + .
For the second comparison,
in Tables 28 to 3 2 , the n ull
hypothesis was not r e je c te d in regard to d iffe re n c e s in two years
(1971-72 and 1 9 7 4 -7 5 ), but over a fo u r -y e a r span,
in a l e v e l . The
r e s u lt s o f comparison o f a lev el
in two y e a rs , f i r s t , by value system,
and second, by separate personal values were as fo llo w s :
Freshmen 1971-72 and 1974-75
Subgroup
M u lt i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
4.9563
3.5087
2.2973
0.9777
d f
9, 303
9, 303
9 , 303
9, 303
R
.0001
.0004
.0166
.4585
The conclusion was t h a t freshman n o n tra n s fe r students in Human Ecology
s i g n i f i c a n t l y changed from 1971-72 to 1974-75 on th e UHTVH, p< .0001;
LHTVH p < .00 04 ; and UHIVH, p < . 0 1 6 6 . However, when the s in g le values
were te s te d by the median t e s t , no personal values caused s i g n i f i c a n t
varian ce in the UHIVH. The s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tra s t values f o r freshmen
over th e years were: a world at peace, p < . 0 0 1 ; . family security,
p< .0 5 ; self respect j. p < .001; social recognition, p< .0 5 ; and true
friendship, p< .05.
Table 30- Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders fo r Freshman Students in the Years 1971-1972 and
1974-1975
1971-72
1974-75
1971-72
1974-75
Terminal Value
N =
154
159
P#
Instrumental Value
N =
154
159
p*
A comfortable li f e
An exciting l i f e
A sense o f accomplishment
A world at peace
A world of beauty
Equality
Family security
Freedom
Happiness
Inner harmony
Mature love
National security
Pleasure
Salvation
Self respect
Social recognition
True friendship
Wisdom
.001
—
—
— —
12.6(14)a 13.2(14)
11.3(12)
12.6(13)
8.5( 9)
8.9(10)
10.8(11)
7.8( 8)
11.7(13) —
10.3(12)
9.4(11)
10.7(10)
8.2( 8)
8.8( 9)
6.4( 3)
6,3( 5)
5.8( 3)
3.9( 1)
5.8( 2)
4.3( 1)
7.5( 7)
6.7( 4)
16.6(18)
16.6(18)
13.7(15)
12.9(15)
15.3(17)
15.4(16)
4.5( 2)
6.8( 5)
15.6(17)
14.5(16)
6.2( 4)
7.2( 6)
7.2{ 6)
7.8( 7)
- —
— —
.05
----
----
----
------------
------------
.001
.05
.05
Ambitious
Broadmi nded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
Imaginative
Independent
In te lle c tu a l
Logical
Loving
Obedient
P olite
Responsible
S elf-control led
8.3( 7)
6.1( 3)
10.6(11)
6 .8( 5)
14.8(17)
11.6(13)
6.9( 6)
9.6( 9)
3.1( 1)
11.5(12)
9.5 8
12.3(14)
12.3(15)
3.5{ 2)
16.2(18)
12.8(16)
6.4( 4)
10.2(10)
8.3( 7) —
7 .K 5) —
10,9(12) —
8.6( 9) —
14.9(17)
10.1(10) —
6.3( 4) —
8.0( 6) ----
2.4( 1) —
11.3(14) —
8.5 8 —
10.9(13)
13.1(15) —
3.5( 2) —
16.8(18) —
13.8(16) ----
----
5.9( 3)
10.8(11) —
Concordance c o e ffic ie n t
.30
.32
Concordance c o e ffic ie n t
.28
.30
aFigures indicate median rankings and, in parentheses, the composite rank orders.
“Median te s t, df = 1,
Table 31. Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders fo r Senior Students in the Years 1971-1972 and
1974-1975
Terminal Value
N =
192
79
P*
Instrumental Value
N = 192
79
P*
1971-72
1974-75
1971-72
1974-75
A comfortable l i f e
An exciting l i f e
A sense o f accomplishment
A world at peace
A world o f beauty
Equality
Family security
Freedom
Happiness
Inner harmony
Mature love
National security
Pleasure
Salvation
Self respect
Social recognition
True friendship
Wisdom
. .
12.9(14)a 12.1(14)
10.7(12)
7 .5( 7)
7.8( 8)
11.8 13
9.3(10)
10.5(11)
6.1( 5)
4.4{ 2)
4.1 ( 1)
5.6( 4)
16.3(17)
13.3(15)
17.5(18)
5.0( 3)
15.5(16)
7.4( 6)
8.3( 9)
_
9.7( 9) —
8.9( 8)
.05
.05
10.3(12)
- —
10.9 13
9.8(10} —
9.9(11} —
6.6( 5} —
5.3( 3)
3.5( 1)
5.9( 4)
16.2(17)
12.5(15}
17.3(18)
4.9( 2)
15.3(16)
7.4( 7)
6.9( 6)
_ —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
Imaginative
Independent
In te lle c tu a l
Logical
Loving
Obedient
Poli te
Responsible
S elf-controlled
_
11.1(13)
5.8( 3)
8.6( 8)
8.9( 9)
10.2(11)
----
5.6( 4)
----
9.5( 9)
7.3( 5)
.05
14.7 16) 14.4(16) —
10.6(11) —
10.3(12)
8.3( 6) —
7.9( 7)
8.5( 7) —
7.6( 6)
2.5( 1)
4.3( 2)
.05
10.1(10)
9.8(10)
8.6( 8)
6 .3( 5)
10.8(13)
10.9(12)
11.8(14)
13.2(15)
4 .2( 1)
4.1( 2)
17.5(18)
17.4(18)
14.6(17)
14.9(17)
5.8( 4)
5.5( 3)
12.2(15)
11.8(14)
.05
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
—
-------------
— 1
Concordance co e ffic ie n t
.38
.34
Concordance c o e ffic ie n t
.35
.30
aFigures indicate median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders.
•Median te s t, df * 1.
170
S e n io r s 1971-72 and 1974-75
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2 .2 6 3 6
0 .9 8 2 7
1 .5 5 8 4
1.1611
d f
9 , 261
9 , 261
9 , 261
9 , 261
&
.0187
.4547
.1281
.3205
I t was concluded th at s e n io r n o n transfer students in Human Ecology
s i g n i f i c a n t l y changed in t h e i r UHTVH, p < .0 1 8 7 , from 1971-72 to
1974-75. However, when s i n g l e values were te s te d by the median t e s t ,
three in s tru m e n ta l values, cheerful, honest, and intellectual, p < . 0 5 ,
appeared as s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tra s ts between years f o r s e n io rs , an
appearance n o t indicated when comparing on value systems. F u r th e r ,
the te rm in a l values th a t d is tin g u is h e d the sen io rs over the fo u r -y e a r
span were a sense of accomplishment and a world at peace, p <
.05 .
C u rio u s ly , when the f i r s t six and l a s t th ree ranked personal
values in th e terminal and instrum ental va lu e h ie ra rc h ie s were compared
across th e freshman and s e n io r le v e ls in 1971-72 and 19 7 4 -7 5 , as in
Table 3 2 , th e m a jo rity o f va lu e s were the same f o r both l e v e ls and not
s i g n i f i c a n t l y changed over th e years. The f i r s t six ranked term in al
values were happiness, inner harmony, freedom, mature love, self respect,
and true friendship. The l a s t three ranked term in al values ( 1 6 t h , 1 7 th ,
and 18th p o s it io n s ) were salvation, social recognition, and national
security.
The values freedom, self respect, true friendship, and social
recognition had only changed s i g n i f i c a n t l y , p < .0 5 + , f o r the freshmen
from 1971-72 to 1974-75.
For freshmen mature love was the valu e th a t
s h ifte d by chance from fo u r th rank p o s itio n to seventh rank p o s itio n
in 1971 to 1975.
171
Table 32. High and Low Ranked Values f o r Levels
in the Years 1971-1972
and 1974-1975
Freshmen
Seniors
1971-72
1974-75
1971-72
1974-75
N =
154
159
P*
192
79
P*
Terminal Value:
Happiness
In n er harmony
Freedom
Mature love
S e lf resp ect
True f r ie n d s h ip
S a lv a tio n
Social re co g n itio n
N a tio n a l s e c u rity
Instrum ental Value:
Honest
Loving
Broadminded
Responsible
Cheerful
F o rg ivin g
P o li te
Clean
Obedient
.05
.001
.05
.05
l a
2
3
4
5
6
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
16
17
18
3
1
5
7
2
4
17
16
18
1
2
5
3
9
4
16
17
18
2
1
5
4
3
6
18
16
17
1
2
4
3
5
7
17
16
18
-----------------
------
-----------------
'
1 ■
-----------------
.05
-----------------
3
1
5
4
2
6
18
16
17
2
1
3
4
9
6
17
16
18
aFigures in d ic a te composite rank o rd ers .
•Median t e s t , d f = 1.
172
The f i r s t s ix ranked instrum ental values were honest* loving*
}jroadminded* responsible* cheerful* and forgiving.
The l a s t th re e
ranked instrumental values (1 6 th , 1 7 th , and 18th p o s itio n s ) were
polite* clean* and obedient.
The value cheerful had only changed s i g n i f i c a n t l y , p< .0 5 ,
from f i f t h p o s itio n in 1971-72 to n in th p o s itio n in 1974-75, f o r the
s e n io rs . For freshmen cheerful was the value t h a t s h if t e d by chance
from f i f t h to n in th p o s itio n in 1971 to 1975.
For seniors forgiving
was the value t h a t s h i f t e d by chance from seventh to s ix th p o s itio n
in 1971 to 1975.
The homogeneity o f value ranking o f a value system by le v e l
over the years 1971
to 1975 has changed. On the term inal value
h ie r a r c h y , freshmen in c re as ed , W = .3 0 -> -.3 2 , and seniors decreased
in homogeneity, W= . 3 8 - * . 3 4 . For both le v e ls the s h i f t in homogeneity
was
in the opposite d i r e c t i o n .
On the ins tru m e n ta l value h ie ra rc h y , freshmen increased,
W= . 2 8 - * . 3 0 , and se n io rs decreased in homogeneity, W= .35 * - .3 0 .
For both le v e ls again the s h i f t in homogeneity was
in the opposite
d i r e c t i o n . Freshmen
increased in homogeneity o f value ranking by
two p o in ts f o r both the term inal and instrum ental value h ie r a r c h ie s .
Seniors decreased in homogeneity o f value ranking b y, r e s p e c t iv e ly ,
fo u r p o in ts and f i v e p o in ts on the term in al and instrum ental value
h ie r a r c h ie s . Hence, th e amount o f change in homogeneity in value
ranking o f a value system was tw ice as much f o r seniors as i t was
f o r freshmen from 1971-72 to 1974-75.
173
Null Hypothesis 2 .6 .1
There are no differences in the personal values held by freshman
nontransfer undergraduate Human Ecology students among the majors, in
the academic year 1971-1972, and similarly, in the years 1972-1973,
1973-1974, and 1974-1975.
This hypothesis was concerned w ith comparing the seven academic
major c l u s t e r s , as in d ic a te d in Tables 33 and 34, a t the freshman non
t r a n s f e r stu d en t le v e l
in the academic y e ar 19 71 -72 , and s i m i l a r l y in
1973-74. Years 1972-73 and 1974-75 were o m itted as a major in each y e a r
was below minimum c e l l s iz e necessary f o r t e s t in g o f the hypothesis by
the m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f va ria n c e t e s t on the fo u r subgroups o f the
term inal and instrum ental va lu e h ie r a r c h ie s . Results o f comparison o f
majors in a y e a r could not be compared i f th e re was a d i f f e r e n t mix o f
compared majors
in each y e a r . Hence, to a llo w comparison o f re s u lts
from y e a r to y e a r , only those years w ith adequate c e l l s iz e f o r the
seven academic major c lu s te r s were se lected f o r t e s t in g th e hypothesis.
The n u ll hypothesis was not r e je c t e d a t the .05 alpha le v e l w ith the
fo llo w in g r e s u l t s :
1972-1972 Freshmen
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.9232
1.2 37 9
0.8692
1.2728
54, 713.36
5 4, 713.36
54 , 713.36
54, 713.36
.0002
.1235
.7358
.0957
174
Table 33. D iffe r e n c e in Terminal Value System Among M ajors9 in Each
Year“ f o r L ev els0
Terminal Value
A com fortable l i f e
An e x c it in g l i f e
A sense o f accomplishment
A world a t peace
A world o f beauty
E q u a lity
Family s e c u r it y
Freedom
Happiness
Freshmen
Freshmen
1971-72
1973-74
P*
.001
.01
.01
-------
.05
P*
____
.05
.05
.05
-------
Inner harmony
Mature love
National s e c u r ity
Pleasure
S alvation
S e lf resp ect
Social re c o g n itio n
True fr ie n d s h ip
Wisdom
p **
.001 +
.020e
.01
-------
-------
-------
.0 5
p * *
.1 2 4 9
.8 1 3 h
. 0 0 9 1
Seniors
1971-72
P*
.01
.06 8
.0 5
Note: Footnotes on next page.
175
Footnotes f o r Table 33:
Major 1 = C hild Development & Teaching; Major 2 - Consumer-
Community S e rv ic e s , Family Ecology, Family Ecology-Communication A r ts ;
Major 3 = Foods, D i e t e t i c s , N u t r i t i o n ; M ajor 4 = Home Economics Educa
t i o n ; M ajor 5 = Clothing & T e x t i l e s ; M ajor 6 = I n t e r i o r Design, Human
Environment & Design; and M ajor 7 = R e t a i1ing o f Clothing & T e x t i l e s .
^Year: Academic years 1971-72 and 1973-74, Simmer term omitted,
cLevels: Freshmen = Freshman n o n tra n s fe r students; Seniors *
Senior n o n tra n s fer students.
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 1 .9 2 3 2 ; df = 54 and 713.36.
eM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 1 .4 5 7 2 ; d f = 54 and 86 1.2 3.
f
M u l t i v a r i a t e F = 1 .3 1 4 5 ; d f = 54 and 9 0 2 .1 .
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 1.2 37 9; d f = 54 and 713.36.
hM u lt i v a r i a t e F = 0 .8 2 4 0 ; d f = 54 and 8 6 1.2 3.
’ MuI t i v a r i a t e F = 1 .5 3 2 1 ; d f = 54 and 9 0 2 .1 .
♦ M u l t iv a r ia t e a n a ly s is o f varian ce t e s t f o r each v a lu e .
* * M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f v arian ce t e s t f o r the value system,
nine values a t one time.
176
Table 34. D iffe r e n c e in Instrum ental Value System Among M ajors3 in Each
Year& f o r Levels0
Instrum ental Value
P*
P*
P*
Freshmen
Freshmen
Seniors
1971-72
1973-74
1971-72
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgi ving
Helpful
Honest
Im ag in ative
Independent
I n t e l l e c t u a l
Logical
Loving
Obedient
P o lit e
Responsible
S e lf - c o n t r o ll e d
p * *
.05
.05
.05
.235e
. 047f
.01
.736d
.001
p * *
-096s
. 281h
. 2151
Note: F o o tn o te s on n e x t page.
177
Footnotes f o r Table 3 4 :
aM ajor 1 = Child Development & Teaching; Major 2 = Consumer-
Community S e rv ic e s , Family Ecology, Family Ecology-Comnunication A rts ;
Major 3 = Foods, D i e t e t i c s , M u t r i t i o n ; Major 4 = Home Economics Educa
t i o n ; Major 5 = Clothing & T e x t i l e s ; Major 6 = I n t e r i o r Design, Human
Environment & Design; and M ajo r 7 = R e ta ilin g o f Clothing & T e x t i l e s .
N e a r : Academic years 1971-72 and 1 9 7 3 -7 4 , Summer term om itted.
cL evels:
Freshmen = Freshman n o n tra n s fe r students; S eniors =
Senior n o n tra n s fe r students.
^ M u lt i v a r i a t e F = 0 .8 6 9 2 ; d f = 54 and 71 3.3 6.
eM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 1 .1 3 8 2 ; d f = 54 and 8 6 1 .2 3 .
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 1 .3 5 7 6 ; d f = 54 and 9 0 2 .1 .
^ M u lt i v a r i a t e F = 1 .2 7 2 8 ; d f = 54 and 71 3.3 6.
hM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 1 .1 0 7 3 ; d f = 54 and 8 6 1 .2 3 .
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 1 .1 5 2 8 ; d f = 54 and 9 0 2 .1 .
♦ M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f variance t e s t f o r each v a lu e .
* * M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f variance t e s t f o r the value system,
nine values a t one time.
178
The conclusion was t h a t the seven majors a t the freshman
n o n tra n s fer student l e v e l , w ith an average o f 22 cases, v a rie d s i g
n i f i c a n t l y , p < .0 0 0 2 , only on the UHTVH when the alpha le v e l was s e t
a t ,0 5 . To d i f f e r e n t i a t e the m a jo rs, the s in g le personal values t h a t
were causing s i g n i f i c a n t v a ria n c e , p < . 0 5 + , were: a comfortable life,
an exciting life, a sense of accomplishment, equality, inner harmony,
courageous, and imaginative.
1973-1974 Freshmen
Subgroup
M u lt i v a r i a t e
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.4572
0.8240
1.1382
1.1073
54, 86 1.2 3
54, 8 6 1.2 3
54, 86 1.2 3
54, 8 6 1 .2 3
p.
.0196
.8130
.2351
.2813
Here the conclusion was t h a t the freshman majors only v a rie d
beyond chance on t h e i r UHTVH, p< .0196. The s in g le personal values
t h a t created c o n tra s ts among majors were: a sense of accomplishment,
a world at peace, family security, and helpful a t p < .05+.
N u ll Hypothesis 2 . 6 . 2
There are no differences in the personal values held by senior
nontransfer undergraduate Human Ecology students among the majors in
the academic year 1971-1972, and similarly, in the years 1972-1973,
1973-1974, and 1974-1975.
The focus o f th is hypothesis was on comparing the seven academic
major c lu s te rs a t th e senior n o n tra n s fe r level
in th e academic y e a r
1971-72. Years 19 72 -73 , 19 73-74, and 1974-75 were om itted since more
179
than one major in these years was below adequate c e l l s iz e f o r te s t in g
by the m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f varian ce t e s t . Results across the
years a t the se n io r le v e l could not be compared when the mix o f majors
were d i f f e r e n t in type and number. Results als o could not be r e la t e d
to s i m i l a r r e s u lts a t the freshman n o n tra n s fer student le v e l as
in
hypothesis 2 . 6 . 1 . Thus, to r e t a i n complete and c o n s is te n t comparison,
only the seven majors in 1971-1972 were compared on t h e i r value systems.
The n u ll hypothesis was not r e je c te d since the r e s u lt s were:
1971-1972 Seniors
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
df
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.3145
1.5321
1.3576
1.1528
54, 902.1
54, 902.1
54, 902.1
54, 902.1
£.
.0675
.0094
.0473
.2146
The conclusion was t h a t the seven majors a t the s e n io r le v e l did d i f f e r
from each o t h e r beyond chance on t h e i r LHTVH, p < .0 0 9 4 , and UHIVH,
p< .0473. The UHTVH and LHIVH v a rie d o nly by chance. Those s in g le
personal values t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o n tr ib u te d , p < . 0 5 + , to c o n tra s tin g
the majors by value systems were: family security, inner harmony,
social recognition, cheerful, and clean.
The one s i g n i f i c a n t personal value t h a t was held in corrmon by
both le v e ls f o r c o n tra s t among majors was family security:
freshman
l e v e l - - p < .0 5 ; se n io r l e v e l - - p < .01 .
180
Null Hypothesis 2 .7 .1
There are no differences in the personal values held by freshman
nontransfer undergraduate Human Ecology students in a major among the
academic years 2971-1975.
The focus o f hypothesis 2 .7 .1 was on comparing the freshman
n o n tra n s fe r Human Ecology students in a m ajor in one academic y e a r with
the freshmen o f the same major in another academic y e ar. The academic
years compared were 19 7 1 -7 2 , 1972-73, 1 9 7 3 -7 4 , and 1974-75.
In t o t a l
th ere were seven academic major c lu s te rs ,* * as in d ic a te d in Tables 35
and 36.
In terms o f a freshman n o n tra n s fe r major over the y e a rs 1971
to 1975 and subgrouping o f personal values by upper and lower halves
o f term in al and instrum ental value systems, the re s u lts o f t e s t i n g the
hypothesis led to an acceptance o f the n u ll hypothesis a t th e
.05 alpha
l e v e l . For each major the r e s u lt s were as fo llo w s :
Major 1.
C hild Development & Teaching
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.5452
1.7462
1.2328
1.4672
2 7 , 263.5
2 7 , 263.5
2 7 , 263.5
2 7 , 26 3.5
£
.0457
.0147
.2036
.0686
The conclusion was t h a t freshmen in M ajor 1 d i f f e r e d over the fo u r
years o nly on the UHTVH and LHTVH. Major 1 freshmen did not d i f f e r on
t h e i r instrum ental values from 1971 to 1975. The v a lu e s, a sense of
M b id .
181
accomplishment> a world at peace> national security, and social
recognitiont d is tin g u is h e d the majors over the fo u r y e a r s .
Major 2. Consumer-Community S e rv ic e s , Family Ecology,
Family Ecology-Communication Arts
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0.7070
0.8856
1.0990
0.6895
27, 321.4
27, 231.4
27, 231.4
27, 231.4
£
.8582
.6325
.3420
.8752
The term in al and instrum ental value h ie ra rc h ie s o f M a jo r 2 when compared
from y e a r to y e ar a t the freshman l e v e l were sta b le and v a r i a t i o n o f
values from year to y e a r was only by chance.
Major 3.
Foods, D i e t e t i c s , N u t r i t i o n
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.2919
0.9500
0.9410
0.6546
27, 237.2
27, 237.2
27, 237.2
27, 237.2
£
.1598
.5400
.5529
.9056
S i m i l a r l y , i t may be concluded t h a t th e freshman l e v e l by Major 3 had
v a r i a t i o n in value o r ie n t a t io n s from y e a r to year o n ly by chance.
However, the value happiness was a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a s t , p < .05.
Major 4. Home Economics Education
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0.8795
0.9470
0.6664
1.1591
18, 72
18, 72
18, 72
18, 72
£
.6038
.5278
.8322
.3172
182
F u r th e r, the two value o r ie n ta t io n s o f freshmen in Major 4 were not
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t in the years 19 71 -72 , 1972-73, and 19 73-74.
Although not enough to c r e a te a d is tin g u is h in g value o r i e n t a t i o n , the
values a comfortable life, pleasure, and clean d if f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y
over the fo u r y e a r s , p < .05+.
M ajor 5. C lo thing & T e x t ile s
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
df
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.5928
1.1827
1.2357
1.5445
27, 278.1
27 , 278.1
27, 278.1
27 , 278.1
£
.0349
.2486
.2004
.0454
However, w ith the freshmen in Major B i t was concluded t h a t th e
d if f e r e n c e in the UHTVH and LHIVH was not by chance. The values
a comfortable life, family security, self respect, and forgiving were
s i g n i f i c a n t co n trasts f o r the y e a r s , p < .05+.
M ajor 6.
I n t e r i o r Design, Human Environment & Design
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.3727
0.9570
0.9636
0.8032
27, 432.9
2 7 , 432.9
27 , 432.9
27, 432.9
£
.1033
.5290
.5193
.7492
The conclusion was t h a t the two freshman value h ie ra rc h ie s in M ajor 6
have not v a rie d over the fo u r y e a rs . Any v a r i a t i o n in value systems
was by chance.
183
M a jo r 7. R e t a i l i n g o f C lo t h in g & T e x t i l e s
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2.2547
1.4476
0.7341
0,7978
18, 100
18, 100
18, 100
18, 100
£
.0058
.1265
.7687
.6984
Only the UHTVH was concluded as being s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t over the
years 1971-72, 19 73-74, and 1974-75 f o r freshmen in Major 7. A lso, the
values o f a sense of accomplishment and self respect were varying
beyond chance, p < . 0 5 + .
Null Hypothesis 2 . 7 .2
There are no differences in the personal values held by senior
non transfer undergraduate Human Ecology students in a major among the
academic years 1971-1975.
The focus o f hypothesis 2 .7 .2 was on comparing th e sen io r
n o n tra n s fe r Human Ecology students in a major in one academic y e ar
w ith the seniors o f the same major in another academic y e a r . The
academic years compared were 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75.
In t o t a l th ere were s ix academic m ajors, as shown in Tables 35 and 36.
M ajor 5 , Clothing & T e x t i l e s was om itted as th ree o f the fo u r years had
a c e l l s iz e less than n in e , the minimum number o f dependent v a ria b le s
taken a t one time when t e s t i n g w ith the m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f v a r i
ance t e s t on the value systems, nine values a t a tim e. The m u l t i
v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e w i l l not accept a c e l l s iz e o f an
independent v a r ia b le s m a lle r than the number o f dependent v a ria b le s
being analyzed a t one tim e.
P*
_
.005
.001
Terminal Value
A ctpfortable life
An exciting life
A sense of accomplishment
A world at peace
A world of beauty
Equality
Family security
Freedom
Happiness
Table 35. Difference In Terminal Value System Between Levels4 in Each Hajorb Over the Academic Years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75
(S w e r Term Omitted)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Freshmen Sen 1ors Freshmen Seniors Freshmen Seniors Frestnen Seniors Freshmen Freshmen Seniors Freshmen Seniors
Hajorb
P*
P*
P*
_
p*
P*
P*
P*
.01 _
P*
P*
P*
P*
P*
.05
----------
—
----------
—
----------
----------
.001
----------
----------
-------
.05
—
—
—
P**
,046c
.177d
,858e
.041f
.01
,05
.05
. 147h
.6041
.003J
. 03Sk
.1031
.271"
.006°
.350°
.05
.ISO9
Inner harmony
Nature love
National security
Pleasure
Salvation
Self respect
Social recognition
True friendship
Wisdom
.05
----
,05
----------
----
—
—
—
.01
—
—
----------
-----------
—
.05
P**
.015P
,580q
.633r
■029St
.540*
.146°
•528v+
Itote: Footnotes on next page.
.005
—
.05
.05
,Q32*+
—
—
.05
—
—
—
—
----------
.05
—
----------
.01
—
—
—
.249*
C
s
l
.6971*
.12744t
.115bb
Footnotes for Table 35:
aLevels: Freshmen 3 Freshman nontransfer students; Seniors = Senior nontransfer students.
^Hajor 1 = Child Development & Teaching; Itajor 2 = Consumer-Community Services, Family Ecology, Family Ecology-Comunication Arts;
Major 3 ■ Foods, Dietetics, Nutrition; Major 4 * Home Economics Education; Major 5 3 Clothing & Textiles; Major 6 * Interior Design, Hunan
Environment & Design; and Major 7 - Retailing of Clothing & Textiles.
cMult1variate F 3 1.5452; df * 27 and 263.5.
dHultivar1ate F > 1.2658; df ■ 27 and 263.5.
M ultivariate F
- 0.7070; df = 27 and 231.4
Multivariate F » 1.8014; df ■ 18 and 74.
^ W v a r la t e F
- 1.2919; df > 27 and 237.2.
Multivariate F
- 1.8014; df - 27 and 158.4
1Multivariate F = 0.8795; df « 18 and 72.
M ultivariate F » 3.4215; df * 9 and 40.
Multivariate F ■ 1.5928; df
27 and 278.1.
Multivariate F
* 1.3727; df * 27 and 432.9.
M ultivariate F « 1.2079; df 3 18 and 94.
Multivariate F
* 2.2547; df
18 and 100.
M ultivariate F
* 1.0909; df ■ 27 and 272.3.
M ultivariate F = 1.7462; df = 27 and 263.5.
Multivariate F = 0.9224; df
27 and 263.5.
rMult1var1ate F
* 0.8856; df = 27 and 231.4.
M ultivariate F = 1.9036; df = 18 and 74.
Multivariate F
* 0.9500; df
27 and 237.2.
L
8
5
“ Multivariate F
* 1.3255; df - 27 and 158.4.
vMultivar1ate F = 0.9470; df ■ 18 and 72.
Multivariate F = 2.3362; df
9 and 40.
xMultivar1ate F = 1.1827; df = 27 and 278.1.
M ultivariate F = 0,9570; df = 27 and 432.9.
M ultivariate F = 0.7991; df
18 and 94.
aa,
Multivariate F ■ 1.4476; df 3 18 and 100.
bbMul tivariate F = 1.3609; df = 27 and 272.3.
Emitted 1974-75.
t,
Omitted 1973-74 and 1974-75.
^Omitted 1973-74.
•omitted 1972-73.
•Multivariate analysis of variance test for each value.
♦•Multivariate analysis of variance test for the value system, nine values at one time.
Table 36. Difference 1n Instrumental Value System Between Levels3 in Each Majorb Over the Academic Years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75
(Sumner Term Onftted)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Freshmen Seniors Freshmen Seniors Freshmen Seniors Freshmen Seniors Freshmen Freshmen Seniors Freshmen Seniors
Hajor*
Instrumental Value
P*
P*
p *
p*
P*
P*
P*
P*
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
“-
H
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-
p **
\
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
«
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
%
—
—
.01
.001
.
.
.
.
.342*
.00Hf
!
J
—
.005
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
Imaginative
Independent
Intellectual
Logical
Loving
Obedient
Polite
Responsible
Self-control led
—
.05
.05
—
P*
P*
P*
P*
—
.05
P*
|
|
M
|
1
1
,832^
.254-j |
.5191
.396!*
.769n
.299°
-----
,005
p+*
. 069P
404q
.875r r
.015S+
.906*
.761u
.317V+
.283^
.045*
.749*
.634z+
.SBB33*
.409bb
Note: Footnotes on next page.
Footnotes for Table 36;
aLeve1s: Freshmen * Freshman nontransfer students; Seniors * Senior nontransfer students.
Major 1 - Child Development & Teaching; Hajor 2 « Consumer-Comnunity Services, Family Ecology, Family Ecology-Coamunlcatlon
Hajor 3 ■ Foods, Dietetics, Nutrition; Hajor 4 • Home Economics Education; Hajor 5 * Clothing ft Textiles; Hajor 6 « Interior Design,
Environment ft Design; and Hajor 7 * Retailing of Clothing ft Textiles.
Arts;
Hwan
M ultivariate F = 1.2328; df » 27 and 263.5;
M ultivariate F =■ 1.1414; df ■ 27 and 263.5.
M ult varlate F » 1.0990; df
- 27 and 231.4.
fHult1var1ate F - 3.0098; df ■ 16 and 74.
M ultivariate F » 0.9410; df ■ 27 and 237.2.
M uit varlate F ■ 0.6012; df
- 27 and 1S8.4.
*Nu1t1var1ate F * 0.6664; df > 18 and 72.
^Hultlvarlate F - 1.3265; df ■ 9 and 40.
M uit var1 ate F ■ 1.2357; df
* 27 and 278.1.
M ultivariate F - 0.9636; df • 27 and 432.9.
M ultivariate F ■ 1.0677; df ■ 18 and 94.
M uit varlate F « 0.7341; df
> 18 and 100.
M ultivariate F ■ 1.1347; df * 27 and 272.3.
M ultivariate F * 1.4672; df - 27 and 263.5.
M uit varlate F * 1.0484; df
* 27 and 263.5.
M ultivariate F = 0.6895; df - 27 and 231.4.
Multivariate F * 2.0805; df = 18 and 74.
M uit var 1 ate F » 0.6546; df
- 27 and 237.2.
M ultivariate F « 0.7889; df - 27 and 158.4.
Multivariate F ■ 1.1591; df = 18 and 72.
M uit varlate F « 1.2695; df
* 9 and 40.
Multivariate F = 1.5445; df = 27 and 278.1.
M ultivariate F * 0.8032; df * 27 and 432.9.
M uit variate F = 0.8538; df
* 18 and 94.
aMult1var1ate F » 0.7978; df = 18 and 100.
^Multivariate F * 1.0439; df = 27 and 272.3.
+0mitted 1974-75.
^Omitted 1973-74 and 1974-75.
Mnltted 1973-74.
M iltte d 1972-73.
*Hultivariate analysis of variance test for each value.
**Hult1 varlate analysis of variance test for the value system, nine values at one time.
188
In terms o f a se n io r n o n tra n s fe r m ajor over the years 1971 to
1975 and subgrouping o f the term inal and instrum ental value systems*
the r e s u lts o f t e s t in g the hypothesis led to an acceptance o f i t a t
the .05 alpha l e v e l . For each major the r e s u lts were as fo llo w s :
M ajor 1. C hild Development & Teaching
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.2658
0.9224
1.1414
1.0484
27, 26 3.5
27, 263.5
2 7 , 26 3.5
2 7 , 2 6 3 .5
E
.1771
.5797
.2920
.4038
I t was concluded t h a t se n io r students in Major 1 had term inal and
instrum ental va lu e h ie ra rc h ie s t h a t v a rie d only by chance over the
years 1971 to 1975.
M ajor 2. Consumer-Community S e rv ic e s , Family Ecology,
Family Ecology-Cofimunication A rts
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.8014
1.9036
3.0098
2.0805
18, 74
18, 74
18, 75
18, 75
£
.0410
.0285
.0005
.0150
The re s u lts led to the conclusion t h a t the s e n io r students in M ajor 2
were d i f f e r e n t in each o f the th re e years 19 7 1 -7 2 , 1972-73, and 1973-74
on both the upper and lower halves o f the te rm in a l and instrum ental
value h ie r a r c h ie s . The s p e c if ic values t h a t d is c r im in a te d , p < .0 1 + ,
the majors in the th re e years were: an exciting life, freedom, salva
tion, broadminded, cheerful, helpful, independent, and loving.
189
M a jo r 3.
Foods, D i e t e t i c s , N u t r i t i o n
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.3238
1.3255
0.6012
0.7889
2 7 , 158.4
27, 158.4
2 7 , 158.4
2 7 , 158.4
E
.1469
.1458
.9396
.7612
To c o n t r a s t , the conclusion was th a t sen io rs in Major 3 have only
v a rie d by chance over the fo u r y e a r s , 1971 to 1975, on t h e i r value
o r ie n t a t io n s .
Major 4. Home Economics Education
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
3.4215
2.3362
1.3265
1.2695
d f
9 , 40
9 , 40
9 , 40
9 , 40
£
.0034
.0320
.2543
.2832
r e s u lts led to the conclusion t h a t s e n io r students in M ajor 4 were
varying more than by chance in the years 1971-72 and 1972-73 on only
the term in al value h ie ra rc h y - Seven values did c o n tr ib u te to the
s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tra s t o f the majors from 1971 to 1973, p< .05+: a
world at peace, freedom, national security, self respect, true friend
ship, cheerfuly and loving.
Major 5.
I n t e r i o r Design, Human Environment & Design
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.2079
0.7991
1.0677
0 .8 5 3 8
18, 94
18, 94
18, 94
18, 94
£
.2711
.6966
.3964
.6337
190
On the o th e r hand, the value o r i e n t a t i o n s o f seniors in Major 6 v a rie d
only by chance over the years 1 9 7 1 -7 2 , 1972-73, and 19 7 4 -7 5 , however,
the values freedom, salvation, ambitious, clean> and imaginative d id
d is tin g u is h the y e a rs , p< .05+.
Major 7. R e t a ilin g o f C lo th in g & T e x tile s
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
df
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.0909
1.3609
1.1347
1.0439
27, 27 2 .3
27, 2 7 2 .3
27, 272.3
27, 2 7 2.3
£
.3499
.1149
.2991
.4094
The conclusion was th a t both the te rm in a l and in s tru m e n ta l value
h ie ra rc h ie s o f seniors in Major 7 were varying only by chance over
the years 1971 to 1975.
N u ll Hypothesis 3.1
There is no difference in the personal values held between
freshman undergraduate Human Ecology students in Fall and Spring term
of each year 1971-1975.
In t h i s hypothesis freshman n o n tra n s fer students in F a ll term
were compared, on the term inal and instrum ental v a lu e systems, to
freshman n o n tra n s fe r students in Spring term o f th e same academic y e a r .
The Human Ecology freshman personal va lu e comparison by term was done
in the academic years 1971-72, 1 9 7 2 -7 3 , 1973-74, and 1974-75.
In Tables 37 and 38, the r e s u l t s o f comparing freshman non
t r a n s f e r students over terms f o r f o u r years led to th e acceptance
o f the n u ll hypothesis.
191
Table 37. D iffe r e n c e
in Terminal Value System
Students Between F a ll and Spring Term o f Each Year
f o r Freshman N o n tran sfe r
N =
Terminal Value
A com fortable l i f e
An e x c it in g l i f e
A sense o f accomplishment
A world a t peace
A world o f beauty
E q u a lity
Family s e c u rity
Freedom
Happiness
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
105
P*
.05
164
P*
-------
140
P*
163
P*
.05
p **
.066aa
• 941b
. 367c
.997d
In n e r harmony
Mature love
Natio n al s e c u r ity
Pleasure
S a lv a tio n
S e lf respect
Social re c o g n itio n
True frie n d s h ip
Wisdom
.05
.05
p **
.303®
.05
.01
.05
.035
-------
.6189
.812h
N o te : Foot-notes on n e x t page.
192
Footnotes f o r Table 37:
M u lt i v a r i a t e F -
1.8723; d f = 9 and 95.
^ M u ltiv a r ia te F -
0 .3 8 5 4 ; d f
- 9 and 154.
cM u lt i v a r i a t e F -
1.0 98 9; d f
- 9 and 153.
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F - 0 .1 6 8 8 ; d f
= 9 and 130.
eM u lt i v a r i a t e F = 1.2017; d f
- 9 and 95.
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F -
2 .0 7 3 9 ; d f
- 9 and 154.
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F - 0 .7 9 9 3 ; d f
- 9 and 153.
^ M u ltiv a r ia te F - 0 .5 7 9 8 ; d f
= 9 and 130.
* M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f varian ce t e s t f o r each v a lu e .
* * M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f varian ce t e s t f o r the va lu e system,
nine values a t one tim e .
193
Table 38- D if fe r e n c e
in Instrum ental Value System f o r Freshman
N o n tran sfe r Students Between F a ll and Spring Term o f
Each Year
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
Instrum ental Value
N =
105
p*
164
P*
163
P*
140
P*
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
H elpful
Honest
Im aginative
Independent
I n t e l l e c t u a l
Logical
Loving
Obedient
P o l i t e
Responsible
S e lf - c o n t r o l! e d
p * *
. 611a
. 931b
.6 2 7 °
.337d
p * *
. 615 e
. 492 f
.7 0 5 9
.4 7 9 h
N ote: F o o tn o te s on n e x t page.
194
Footnotes f o r Table 38:
Mu t i v a r i a t e F = 0.8 07 4; d f = 9 and 95.
bMu t i v a r i a t e F
0 .4 0 4 9 ; d f
=: 9 and 154.
CMu t i v a r i a t e F
0.7 8 8 6 ; d f
= 9 and 153.
dMu t i v a r i a t e F = 1.1 43 7; d f
= 9 and 130.
eMu t i v a r i a t e F = 0 .8 0 2 7 ; d f = 9 and 95.
f Mu t i v a r i a t e F = 0 .9 4 0 2 ; d f
= 9 and 154.
9Mu t i v a r i a t e F = 0.7 03 9; d f
= 9 and 153.
hMu t i v a r i a t e F = 0 .9 5 7 1 ; d f
= 9 and 130.
♦ M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e t e s t f o r each va lu e .
* * M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e t e s t f o r the value system,
nine values a t one tim e .
195
Freshmen in F a ll & S p rin g Term , 1971-72
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.8723
1.2017
0.8074
0.8027
d f
9 , 95
9, 95
9 , 95
9 , 95
£
.0655
.3032
.6106
.6148
I t was concluded t h a t the 105 freshman n o n tra n s fer students in Human
Ecology d id not have s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t term in a l and instrum ental
value systems during F a ll and Spring term in 1971-72 when the alpha
le v e l was set a t .0 5 . While the two valu e systems between terms v a rie d
by chance, the values a sense of accomplishment, inner harmony, and
salvation did separate the freshmen by term a t p < .0 5 .
Freshmen in F a ll & Spring Term, 1972-73
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0.3 85 4
2.0739
0.4 04 9
0.9402
9, 154
9, 154
9 , 154
9 , 154
£
.9408
.0351
.9311
.4922
But in 1972-73 i t was concluded t h a t the 164 freshman n o n tra n s fe r
students in Human Ecology did d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the LHTVH a t
p < .0351
in F a ll and Spring terms. The s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tra s t values
f o r the freshmen in F a ll and Spring terms were mature love and
national security, p< .05 +.
196
Freshmen in F a ll & S p rin g Term , 1973-74
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.0989
0.7993
0.7886
0.7039
9, 153
9 , 153
9 , 153
9 , 153
£
.3669
.6175
.6273
.7047
The conclusion was t h a t the 163 Human Ecology freshman n o n transfer
students varied only by chance, where the alpha
le v e l was .0 5 , on the
two value systems between F a ll and Spring term in 1973-74. However,
the personal value an exciting life d id c o n tra s t the two terms a t
p < . 05.
Freshmen in f a l 1 & Spring Term, 1974-75
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0.1688
0.5798
1.1437
0.9571
9, 130
9 , 130
9 , 130
9 , 130
£
. 9968
.8118
.3370
.4786
S i m i l a r l y ,
in 1974-75 the 140 freshman n o n tra n s fe r students v a rie d
only by chance on the term inal and instrum ental valu e systems
in F a ll
and Spring term. No s in g le personal value co n tras ted the two terms,
which was a reduction in number o f c o n tra s tin g values between terms
from the previous years 1971-1974. The instrum ental values changed
by chance in a l l o f th e fo u r y e a rs .
197
N u ll H yp o th e sis 3 .2
There ia no difference in the personal values held between
transfer undergraduate Human Ecology students in Fall and Spring
term o f each year 1971-197b.
In th is hypothesis t r a n s f e r students in F a ll
term were compared
on th e term inal and instrum ental va lu e systems to t r a n s f e r students in
Spring term o f the same academic y e a r . The Human Ecology t r a n s f e r
stu d en t personal value comparison by term was done in the academic
years 19 72-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75. The 1971-72 comparison o f t r a n s f e r
student values could not be done since the 1971 F a ll term c e ll f o r
t r a n s f e r students was empty.
In Table 39, the re s u lts o f comparing the t r a n s f e r s ' value
systems in F a ll and Spring o f th re e years led to the acceptance o f
the n u ll hypothesis.
T ran sfers in F a ll & Spring Term,
1972-73
Subqroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.8910
1.9582
0.7953
0.5659
d f
9 , 121
9, 121
9 , 121
9 , 121
E
.0595
.0500
.6213
.8227
The conclusion was t h a t the 131, 1972-73 t r a n s f e r students in Human
Ecology v a rie d beyond chance on the LHTVH in F a ll and Spring term,
p < . 0 5 . S a l v a t i o n was the only value t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t l y , p < . 0 1 ,
c o n tra s te d the t r a n s f e r s ' value systems in F a ll and Spring term.
Table 39. Differences in Value Systems fo r Transfer Students Between Fall and Spring Term of Each
Year
1972-73 1973-74 1974-75
1972-73 1973-74 1974-75
N =
131
Terminal Value
P*
A comfortable l i f e
An exciting l i f e
A sense of accomplishment
A world at peace
A world of beauty
Equality
Family security
Freedom
Happiness
—
—
—
136
P*
—
—
—
—
—
100
N =
131
P*
Instrumental Value
_ Ambitious
— _
—
—
—
—
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
P*
—
—
136
P*
-----
100
P *
- —
—
—
.05
—
—
p**
.060*
.281b
.992°
p**
,621d
. 663e
.478f
Inner harmony
Mature love
National security
Pleasure
Salvation
Self respect
Social recognition
True friendship
Wisdom
.
—
—
—
—
—
—
.01
-------
-------
-------
■
—
—
--------
—
—
— —
—
—
Imaginative
Independent
In te lle c tu a l
Logical
Loving
Obedient
P olite
Responsible
S elf-controlled
----
------
-------
--------
-------
.05
—
--------
—
--------
—
___——
-----
.05
------
-------
-------
-------
p**
.0509
.663b
.8851
p * *
"
3
>
0
C
S
0•
J
,362k
.2561
Note: Footnotes on next page.
Footnotes fo r Table 39:
aM ultivariate F = 1.8910; df = 9 and 121.
M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 1.2328; df s 9 and 126.
cM ultivariate F = 0.2113; df = 9 and 90.
M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 0.7953; df = 9 and 121.
eM u ltivariate F = 0.7496; df = 9 and 126.
M u ltiv a r ia te F = 0.9600; df = 9 and 90.
gM ultivariate F = 1.9582; df = 9 and 121.
M u ltiv a r ia t e F = 0.7500; df = 9 and 126.
M u ltiv a r ia te F = 0.4793; df = 9 and 90.
M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 0.5659; df = 9 and 121.
M u ltiv a r ia te F = 1.1080; df = 9 and 126.
M u lt iv a r ia te F = 1.2846; df = 9 and 90.
*M u ltivariate analysis of variance test for each value.
**M u ltiva riate analysis of variance test fo r the value system, nine values at one time.
1
6
6
200
T ra n s fe rs in F a ll & S p rin g Term , 1973-74
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.2328
0.7500
0.7496
1.1080
d f
9 , 126
9 , 126
9 , 126
9 , 126
R
.2809
.6625
.6630
.3620
I t was concluded th a t the term inal and instrum ental value systems o f
136 t r a n s f e r students in F a l l and Spring terms o f 1973-74 were not
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t p < . 0 5 . However, as in 19 72-73, one v a lu e ,
imaginative d id c o n tra s t the value systems in the two terms a t p < .0 5 .
T ran s fe rs in F a ll & Spring Term, 1974-75
Subqroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0.2113
0.4793
0.9600
1.2846
d f
9 , 90
9 , 90
9 , 90
9 , 90
R
.9922
.8851
.4784
.2563
S i m i l a r l y , the conclusion in 1974-75 was t h a t the F a ll and Spring
term value o r ie n t a tio n s o f t r a n s f e r students were not d i f f e r e n t a t
p < . 0 5 . B u t, as in the previous years 1972-73 and 1973-74, one v a lu e ,
cheerful a t p < .05 did vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y between the two terms.
201
N u ll H y p o th e s is 3 .3
There are no differences in the personal values held by
freshman undergraduate Human Ecology students in Fall term over
the years 2971-1974.
The concern in hypothesis 3 .3 was c o n tra s tin g the term in a l and
instrum ental value systems o f F a l l term freshman n on tra n s fer Human
Ecology students in the years 1971 to 1974.
The r e s u lts shown in Tables 40 and 41, o f comparing the value
systems o f 462 F a ll freshmen o ve r the fo u r years led to the acceptance
o f the n u ll hypothesis:
Freshmen in F a ll Term, 1971-1974
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2 .1 9 8 0
1.9045
1.6045
1.0525
2 7 , 1314.87
2 7 , 1314.87
27, 1314.87
2 7 , 1314.87
£
.0004
.0036
.0261
.3916
The conclusion was th a t freshman n on transfers in F a ll term v a rie d
beyond chance o n ly on the upper and lower h a l f o f the term inal valu e
system and on th e upper h a l f o f the instrum ental value system a t
r e s p e c t iv e ly , p < .00 04 , p < .0 0 3 6 , and p < .0261.
The seven s i g n i f i c a n t
values in the term in al value systems th a t d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the F a ll
freshmen over the years were: a world at peace, a world of beauty,
equality, happiness, inner harmony, self respecty and social recognition
a t p < .05+. S i m i l a r l y , the in s tru m ental values ambitious, a t p < . 0 5 ,
and cheerful, a t p < .0 1 , were s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tra s ts f o r freshmen over
the fo u r y e ars.
202
T able 40. D iffe r e n c e in Terminal Value System f o r Freshman and
T ra n s fe r Students in Each Term Over the Years 1971-1975
F a l l
Spring
Freshmen3
Transfers**
Freshmen
T ra n s fe rs
N =
Terminal Value
A comforting l i f e
An e x c it in g l i f e
A sense o f accomplishment
A w orld a t peace
A w orld o f beauty
E q u a lit y
F am ily s e c u rity
Freedom
Happiness
462
P*
-------
.001
.01
.05
.05
64
P*
110
P*
____
-------
.01
361
P*
.01
.01
------
-------
p * *
.0 0 1 + c
. 767d
. 716e
.001+f
In n e r harmony
Mature love
N a tio n a l s e c u rity
P leasu re
S a lv a tio n
S e l f respect
S o c ia l re co g n itio n
True frie n d s h ip
Wisdom
.005
-------
.005
.01
-------
.05
-------
-------
-------
-------
.05
-------
p **
.004 9
.8 9 9 h
.3 8 6 1
.0 2 4 J
N o te : F oo tn otes on n e x t page.
203
Footnotes f o r Table 40:
Freshmen = Freshman n o n tra n s fe r s tu d e n ts ; T ran sfers = t r a n s f e r
students.
b
Years 1972-1975.
cMu t i
^Mu t i
v a r i a t e F
= 0 .7 3 5 9 ; d f = 18 and 106.
eMu t i
v a r i a t e F
= 0 .8 2 7 0 ; d f = 27 and 2 8 6 .8 5 .
f Mu t i
v a r i a t e F
= 2 .2 4 7 4 ; d f = 27 and 1019.90.
gMu t i
v a r i a t e F
= 1 .9 0 4 5 ; d f = 27 and 1314.87.
hMu t i
v a r i a t e F
= 0 .5 9 1 9 ; d f = 18 and 106.
1Mu t i
v a r i a t e F
= 1 .0 6 1 9 ; d f = 27 and 2 8 6 .8 5 .
^Mu t i
v a r i a t e F
= 1 .6 1 8 6 ; d f = 27 and 10 19 .9 0 .
*Mu t i
v a r i a t e o f a n a ly s is o f variance t e s t f o r each v a lu e .
**Mu t i
t i v a r i a t e o f a n a ly s is o f variance t e s t f o r the va lu e system,
nine values a t one time.
204
Table 41- D iffe r e n c e in Instrum ental Value System f o r Freshman and
T ra n s fe r Students in Each Term Over the Years 1971-1975
F a ll
Spring
Freshmen3
T ra n s fe rs 15
Freshmen
Transfers
110
P*
361
P*
.05
462
P*
.05
.01
64
P*
_ — „
-------
-----
-----
p **
.02 6°
.631d
. 237e
. 378f
.05
-----
-------
-------
-----
.05
— —
.128J
Instrum ental Value
Ambi tio u s
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
Im aginative
Independent
I n t e l 1ec tu a l
Log i ca1
Loving
Obedient
P o lit e
Responsible
S e lf- c o n t r o l led
p **
. 3929
• 441h
.8 9 2 1
N ote: F o o tn o te s on n e x t page.
205
Footnotes for Table 41:
aFreshmen = Freshman nontransfer students; Transfers = transfer
students.
bYears 1972-1975.
cMultivariate F = 1.6045; df = 27 and 1314.87.
Multivariate F = 0.8567; df = 18 and 106.
eMultivariate F = 1.1942; df = 27 and 286.85.
Multivariate F = 1.0630; df = 27 and 1019.90.
Multivariate F = 1.0525; df = 27 and 1314.87.
Multivariate F = 1.0228; df = 18 and 106.
Multivariate F = 0.6728; df = 27 and 286.85.
Multivariate F = 1.3189; df - 27 and 1019.90.
*Multivariate of analysis of vari ance test for each value.
**Multivariate of analysis of variance test for the value system
nine values at one time.
206
N ull Hypothesis 3.4
There are no differences in the values held by transfer
undergraduate Human Ecology students in Fall term over the years
1971-1974.
The focus in th is hypothesis was comparing the term in a l and
instrum ental value systems o f F a ll term t r a n s f e r students in Human
Ecology across the years 1971-1974.
As shown in Tables 40 and 41 the r e s u lts o f comparing the
64 F a ll t r a n s f e r s ' value systems over the f o u r years led to the
acceptance o f the null hypothesis:
T ra n s fe rs in F a ll Term, 1971 to 1974
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0 .7 3 5 9
0 .5 9 1 9
0 .8 5 6 7
1.0 22 8
0
0
O©*
K
18 , 106
18, 106
18, 106
£
.7673
.8986
.6305
.4413
I t was concluded th a t the t r a n s f e r s in F a ll term did not vary beyond
chance in the fo u r values o f the term inal and instrum ental value
h ie r a r c h ie s , when the alpha le v e l was set a t ,0 5 . No s in g le personal
value provided c o n tras t in v a lu e systems f o r t r a n s fe r s over the fo u r
y e a r s .
207
N ull Hypothesis 3.5
There are no differences in personal values held by freshman
undergraduate Human Ecology students in Spring term over the years
1971-1975.
In th is hypothesis the a t t e n t i o n was on comparing two value
systems o f the Spring term freshmen in Human Ecology across the years
1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975.
The r e s u lts o f comparing the te rm in a l and instrum ental value
systems o f FE 110 Spring term freshmen o ve r fo u r years le d to the
acceptance o f the n u ll hypothesis:
Freshmen in Spring Term, 1971 to 1975
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0.8270
1.0619
1.1942
0.6728
27, 286.85
2 7 , 286.85
2 7 , 286.85
2 7 , 286.85
P.
.7155
.3856
.2372
.8918
to hypothesis 3 . 4 , the conclusion was t h a t the two valu e systems
o f Spring freshmen o ve r the years 1972-1975 va rie d only by chance as none
o f the f o u r halves o f th e value systems were s i g n i f i c a n t a t p < . 0 5 .
However, the two values a world at peace and social recognition were
s i g n i f i c a n t co n trasts across the years a t re s p e c tiv e ly p < .01 and
p < .0 5 .
208
N u ll Hypothesis 3.6
There are no differences in the personal values held by transfer
undergraduate Human Ecology students in Spring term over the years
1971-1975.
In t h i s hypothesis the focus was on comparing the te rm in a l and
instrum ental v a lu e systems o f 361 Spring term t r a n s fe r s in Human Ecology
over fo u r y e a r s , 1972-1973,
The r e s u lt s o f comparing the two value systems of Spring t r a n s
f e r s in 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975 led to the acceptance o f th e n u ll
h yp o th es is:
T ran s fe rs
in Spring Term, 1971 to 1975.
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2.2474
1.6186
1.0630
1.3189
27,
27,
2 7 ,
2 7 ,
10 19 .90
1019.90
10 19 .90
10 19 .90
.0003
.0244
.3782
.1284
As in hypothesis 3 . 3 , the conclusion was t h a t th e two value systems
o f Spring tr a n s f e r s over the years 1972-1975 v a r ie d beyond chance on
the UHTVH a t p < .001+ and on the LHTVH a t p< .0 2 4 . The th re e te rm in a l
values t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the Spring tra n s fe r s o ve r the
years were: a world at peace, p < .0 1 ; equality, p < .0 1 ; and inner
harmony, p < - 0 5 . S i m i l a r l y , the instrum ental v a lu e broadminded a t
p < .05 was a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tra s t f o r tr a n s fe r s o ve r the fo u r y e a r s .
209
N ull Hypothesis 3.7
There are no differences in the personal values held between
freshman and transfer undergraduate Human Ecology students in the
academia year 1971-1972, and similarly, in the years 1972-1973,
1973-1974, and 1974-1973.
The focus in t h is hypothesis was on the comparison o f the
term inal and instrumental va lu e systems and se p a ra te values o f freshman
n o n tra n s fer and t r a n s f e r students i n , f i r s t , th e academic y e a r 1971-72
and, second,
in the year 1974-75.
To compare the value systems o f the freshmen and t r a n s f e r s in
1971-72 and in 19 74-75, a n a ly s is was by f i r s t comparing the freshmen
in the two years to the t r a n s f e r s in the two y e a r s ; second, th e y e ar
1971-72 o f freshmen and t r a n s f e r s to those in 1974-75; and t h i r d , the
y e a r to the l e v e l ,
i . e . , t e s t f o r in t e r a c t io n o f the two independent
v a ria b le s .
The t h r e e - p a r t r e s u lt s o f comparing freshmen and tr a n s f e r s on
value systems in the two years 1971-72 and 1974-75 led to the r e je c tio n
o f the n u ll hypothesis:
I . Years 1971-72 and 1974-75
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
7.9413
4 .7 30 8
2.4 60 4
1.5671
d f
9 , 391
9 , 391
9 , 391
9 , 391
£
.0001
.0001
.0098
.1231
2 1 0
The conclusion was t h a t the freshman and t r a n s f e r value systems in
1971-72 were d i f f e r e n t from those in 1974-75 on th e : UHTVH, p< .0001;
LHTVH, p < .0001; and UHIVH, p< .0098.
I I .
Freshmen 19 71-72, 1974-75 to Transfers 19 71 -72 ,
1974-75
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.1143
6.3480
3.5286
1.5631
d f
9 , 391
9 , 391
9 , 391
9 , 391
£
.3513
.0001
.0004
.1244
The conclusion was t h a t the two l e v e l s , freshman and t r a n s f e r did d i f f e r
s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the LHTVH, p< .0001 and on the UHIVH, p < .0004.
I I I .
In t e r a c t io n o f Levels & Years, 1971-72 and 1974-75
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0.9365
1.2340
1.4021
1.0050
9 , 391
9 , 391
9 , 391
9 , 391
£
.4932
.2725
.1851
.4353
The conclusion was t h a t th e re was no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n between the
le v e ls and the y e a rs , hence no in t e r a c t i o n o f the independent v a r i a b l e s ,
y e a r , and l e v e l .
Thus, freshmen and tra n s fe r s d i f f e r e d in the y e a r 1971-72 and
in 1974-75.
As shown in Tables 43 and 4 4 ,
in the y e a r 1971-72 freshmen
d i f f e r e d from tra n s fe rs on s ix values: a comfortable life, self
respect, ambitious, imaginative! lovingy and polite a t p < .05+.
Table 42. Terminal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders fo r Levels3 and Year**
1971
-72
1974
-75
Freshmen
Transfer
Freshmen
Transfer
Terminal Value
N =
105
58
P*
141
99
P'
A comfortable l i f e
An exciting l i f e
A sense of accomplishment
A world at peace
A world of beauty
Equality
Family security
Freedom
Happiness
.01
13.1(14)C 14.9(15)
12.2(15)
13.1(15)
6.8( 7) —
9.6(11)
6.5( 4)
6.8( 5)
10.3(11)
10.1(12)
7,0( 8) —
8.9(10)
10.9(12)
8,6( 9)
6.7( 5)
6 . K 2 )
3.5( 1)
3.6( 1)
13.0(14)
11.6(12)
8.6( 9)
10.8(11)
11.8(13)
10.7(10)
8.0( 8)
6.2( 4)
5.8( 3)
13.3(14)
12.1(13)
8.1( 8)
10.4(10)
11.8(12)
11.1(11)
8.6( 9)
6.2( 5)
5.1( 3)
------
------
------
Inner harmony
Mature love
National security
Pleasure
Salvation
Self respect
Social recognition
True friendship
Wisdom
p * *
p * *
6.7( 4)
6.9( 7)
16.6(18)
13.0(13)
15.2(16)
6.6( 3)
16.1(17)
6.8( 6)
7.8( 8)
5.2( 2)
7.3( 9)
15.7(17)
14.4(14)
16.7(18)
5.8( 3
14.9(16)
8.6(10)
6.8( 6)
------
------
------
.05
------
4.5{ 1)
7.6( 7)
16.7(18)
13,6(15)
15.1(17)
4.6( 2)
14.5(16)
6,4( 5)
7.2( 6)
.01
------
------
.05
3.2 ( 1)
5.2( 4)
16.2(17)
13.9(15)
16.8(18)
4.0( 2) —
14.8(16) —
7.1( 7) —
6.8( 6)
1971-72-73-74b
Fr & Tr
163-295-299-240
P*
—
.001
.005
.001
—
.01
.001+d
.001
------
------
------
------
.001
.05
—
.005e
Concordance c o e ffic ie n t
.31
.38
.31
.38
Note: Footnotes on next page.
Footnotes f o r Table 42:
aLevel: Freshmen or Fr = Freshman transfer students; Transfer or Tr = Transfer students.
Mear: Academic years, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, Summer term and Winter term
omitted.
cFigures indicate median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders.
M u ltiv a ria te F = 3.5249; df * 27 and 2877.35.
M u ltiv a ria te F = 2.0177; df - 27 and 2877.35,
•Median te s t, df = 1.
♦M ultivariate analysis of variance te s t fo r each value.
♦♦M ultivariate analysis of variance te st fo r the value system, nine values at one time.
Table 43.
Instrumental Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders fo r Levels3 and Year^
1971
Freshmen
-72
Transfer
1974-75
Freshmen Transfer
Instrumental Value
N =
105
58
P*
141
99
P*
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
Imaginative
Independent
In te lle c tu a l
Logical
Loving
Obedient
P o lite
Responsible
S elf-controlled
p **
p**
.05
—
7.9( 7)c 9.7(12)
4*7( 2)
6 .0( 3)
10.2( 9)
9.0( 8)
6 .6( 6)
8.5( 7)
15.3(16)
14.9(17)
11.8(13}
9.5(10)
7.0( 5)
6.0( 4)
8 ,3( 6)
8.9( 8)
2 * 4 ( 1) —
3.3( 2)
—
11.7(12)
10.3(11)
12.3(15)
12.3(14)
3 .K 1)
16.3(18)
13.2(16)
6.3{ 5)
10.3(10}
9.5{ 9)
9.5(11)
10.3(13)
11.8(14)
5.2( 3)
17.5(18)
15.6(17)
6.5( 4)
12.8(15)
.05
------
—
—
.05
------
.005
—
8.4( 7)
6.9( 5)
11.1(12)
8.7( 9)
14.9(17)
10.0(10)
6.2( 4)
7.9( 6)
2.3( 1)
11.4(14)
8.5( 8)
11.2(13)
12.9(15)
3,5( 2)
16,7(18)
13.6(16)
5.9( 3)
10.4(11)
.05
—
8 .9( 9)
6.1( 3)
8.8( 8)
9.7(10)
14.3(16)
11.6(14}
8.1( 6) —
8.8( 7)
2.5( 1)
—
—
—
________
11.3(13)
7.6( 5)
10.1(11) —
12.7(15) —
3.7{ 2) —
17.6(18)
14.5(17) —
6 .4( 4)
11.2(12) —
—
.05
Concordance c o e ffic ie n t
.31
.33
.30
.32
Note: Footnotes on next page.
1971-72-73-74b
Fr & Tr
163-295-299-240
P*
.01
——
—
.001
--------------
------
a
i
nOo
•
.05
—
—
—
—
.093e
Footnotes fo r Table 43:
aLevel: Freshmen or Fr = Freshman transfer students; Transfer or Tr = Transfer students.
^Year: Academic years, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, Summer term and Winter term
omitted.
cFigures indicate median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders.
^Multivariate F = 1.9952; df = 27 and 2877.35.
eM u ltivariate F = 1.3782; df = 27 and 2877.35.
•Median te s t, df = 1.
*M u ltiv aria te analysis of variance test for each value.
**M u ltiva riate analysis of variance test for the value system, nine values at one time.
215
In 1974-75 the freshmen and t r a n s fe r s co n trasted on the values mature
lovej salvation3 capable3 and obedient a t p
.05 +.
The homogeneity scores o f freshmen and t r a n s f e r s on the te rm in a l
value system from 1971-72 to 1974-75 had a constant average o f W = .34 :
f o r freshmen in both y e a r s , W= .3 1 ; and f o r t r a n s f e r s in both y e a r s ,
W= .3 8 .
When the homogeneity scores o f group ranking o f the instrum ental
value system were compared, the average concordance c o e f f i c i e n t f o r
freshmen and t r a n s fe r s
in 1971-72 was W= .32 and in 1974-75 W = .3 1 .
N u ll Hypothesis 3 .8
There are no differences in the personal values held in the
combined group of freshman and transfer undergraduate Human Ecology
students over the years 1971-1975,
In hypothesis 3 . 8 the concern was to c o n tr a s t the term inal and
instrum ental value systems o f the combined group o f freshman and t r a n s
f e r Human Ecology students in the academic y e a r 1971-72 to those same
combined groups in the years 19 7 2 -7 3 , 1973-74, and 1974-75-
In Tables 42 and 43, the outcome o f comparing the two value
systems o f the combined freshman and t r a n s f e r group across fo u r years
allow ed acceptance o f the n u ll hypothesis:
Combined Freshmen & T ra n s fe rs , 1971 to 1975
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
3.5249
2 .0 1 7 7 .
1.9952
1.3782
27 , 2877.35
27 , 28 77 .35
27 , 28 77 .35
27 , 2877.35
£
.0001
.0015
.0018
.0926
216
The conclusion was th a t over the years 1971 to 1975 the combined group
o f freshman and t r a n s f e r Human Ecology students v a rie d beyond chance on
th re e out o f fo u r halves o f the value systems: UHTVH, p< .001+; LHTVH,
p < . 0 0 5 ; and UHIVH, p< .00 5. The s in g le personal values in the te rm in a l
value system t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t l y v a rie d over the fo u r years were: a
world at peace3 a world of beauty3 equality3 happiness3 self respect3
and social recognition a t p < . 0 5 + . The s in g le instrumental values th a t
s i g n i f i c a n t l y v a rie d in ranking over the fo u r years were: ambitious3
cheerful3 and independent3 a t p < .05+.
Null Hypothesis 3 .9
There are no differences in the personal values held by the
combined group of freshman and transfer undergraduate Human Ecology
students in Fall term over the years 1971-1975.
The focus in t h i s hypothesis was on c o n tra s tin g the value
o r i e n t a t i o n o f F a ll term group of freshmen and t r a n s f e r s in 1971 to
those in 1972, 1973, and 1974.
The n u ll hypothesis was accepted, given the re s u lts of the
comparing o f the fo u r F a ll term groups from 1971 to 1974 on te rm in a l
and instrum ental value systems and shown in Table 44:
Combined Freshmen & T ra n s fe rs , F a ll Term, 1971 to 1975
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2.2 72 0
1.8804
1.6814
1.0068
2 7 , 1501.79
27 , 1501.79
27 , 1501.79
2 7 , 1501.79
£
,0003
.0042
.0159
.4550
Table 44- Differences in Value Systems fo r the Combined Group of Freshmen and Transfer Students
in a Term Over the Years 1971-1975
N =
Terminal Value
A comfortable l i f e
An exciting l i f e
A sense of accomplishment
A world at peace
A world of beauty
Equality
Family security
Freedom
Happiness
Fall
526
P*
—
.005
.01
.01
— .
.05
Spring
471
P*
_ _ _
.001 +
.05
.05
N =
Instrumental Value
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
Fall
526
P*
.05
.005
----
— ■ ■
Spring
471
P*
_
——
—
—
—
—
—
—
p * *
,001+a
.001+b
p * *
• 016c
. 214d
Inner harmony
Mature love
National security
Pleasure
Salvation
Self respect
Social recognition
True friendship
Wi sdom
.005
—
-----
—
.001
.01
------
------
.01
------
-----
-----
-----
,05
—
—
—
Imaginative
Independent
In te lle ctu a l
Logical
Loving
Obedient
P olite
Responsible
Self-controlled
------
----
----
------
----
------
------
.05
—
—
—
—
—
p * *
.004e
.018f
p * *
.4559
,156h
Note: Footnotes on next page.
Footnotes fo r Table 44:
aM ultiva riate F = 2.2720; df = 27 and 1501.79.
^M ultivariate F = 2.4235; df = 27 and 1341.16.
cM ultivariate F = 1.6814; df * 27 and 1501.79.
^M ultivariate F = 1.2067; df = 27 and 1341.16.
eM ultiva riate F = 1.8804; df = 27 and 1501.79.
^M ultivariate F - 1.6627; df - 27 and 1341.16
^M ultivariate F = 1.0068; df = 27 and 1501.79.
hM ultiva riate F = 1.2764; df = 27 and 1341.16.
*M ultivariate analysis of variance te st fo r each value.
**M u ltiva ria te analysis of variance te st fo r the value system, nine values at one time.
219
I t was concluded, as in hypothesis 3 . 8 , t h a t the combined group o f
F a ll freshmen and t r a n s f e r s did d i f f e r beyond chance from y e a r to
year on th e : UHTVH, p < . 0 0 1 + ; LHTVH, p < . 0 0 4 ; and UHIVH, p < .016.
Again, w ith the alpha le v e l set a t .0 5 , the nine s i g n f i c a n t personal
values t h a t contrasted th e F a ll term student value systems over the
years were: a world at peace, a world of beauty, equality, happiness,
inner harmony, self respect, social recognition, ambitious, and
cheerful, p < .05+.
Null Hypothesis 3.10
There are no differences in the personal values held by the
combined group of freshman and transfer undergraduate Human Ecology
students in Spring term over the years 1971~1975.
In th is hypothesis the concern was on comparing th e Spring term
freshman and tr a n s fe r students in 1972 to the combined group in 1973,
1974, and 1975 on the te rm in a l and instrum ental value systems.
From the r e s u lts reported in Table 44, f o r comparing Spring
freshmen and tra n s fe rs over fo u r years on two value systems, the n u ll
hypothesis was accepted:
Combined Freshmen & T ra n s fe rs , Spring Term, 1971 to 1975
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2.4235
1.6627
1.2067
1.2764
27, 1341.16
27 , 1341.16
27 , 1341.16
27 , 1341.16
£
.0001
.0181
.2144
.1564
220
S im ila r to the conclusion in hypothesis 3 . 8 , the conclusion in
hypothesis 3.10 was t h a t the value systems d i f f e r e d f o r the combined
groups o f Spring freshmen and tr a n s fe r s in the years 1972, 1973, 1974,
and 1975.
The UHTVH a t p < .001+ and the LHTVH a t p < .018 were the
p arts o f the value systems t h a t d if f e r e d beyond chance w ith the alpha
le v e l a t .0 5 .
Both the F a ll and Spring groups o f freshmen and t r a n s fe r s when
compared over the fo u r years had fo u r personal term in al values in conmon
th a t co n trasted t h e i r value systems over tim e: a world at peace,
p< .005+; a world of beauty, p< .0 5 + ; happiness3 p < .0 5 ; and salvation3
p < .05+.
N u ll Hypothesis 4.1
There are no differences in the personal values held between Home
Economics students in 1968-1969 and Human Ecology students in 1974-1975.
The focus in t h is hypothesis was on c o n tra s tin g the group o f
339 freshman and s e n io r n o n tra n s fe r students in th e academic y e a r
1968-69 to a s i m il a r group o f 238 students in 19 74 -75 , on t h e i r term inal
and instrum ental value o r i e n t a t i o n s .
From the r e s u lts o f comparing the two years on two value systems
as shown in Tables 45 and 46, the n u ll hypothesis was r e je c te d :
Years 1968-69 and 1974-75
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
5.9017
11.3053
3.3745
4.6400
9 , 567
9 , 567
9 , 567
9 , 567
£
.0001
.0001
.0005
.0001
221
T a b le 45 - T e rm in a l V alue Medians and Com posite Rank O rders f o r Freshman
and S e n io r N o n tra n s fe r U n d e rg ra d u a te S tu d e n ts In 1968-1969
and 1974-1975
Terminal Values
N =
339
238
1968-69
1974-75
A com fortable l i f e
An e x c it in g 1 i f e
A sense o f accomplishment
A world a t peace
A world o f beauty
E q u a lity
Family s e c u r ity
Freedom
Happiness
In n er harmony
Mature love
N a tio n a l s e c u r ity
Pleasure
S a lv a tio n
S e l f respect
S o cial re c o g n itio n
True f r ie n d s h ip
Wisdom
p **
p **
1 3 . 3 ( 1 5 ) a
1 2 .5 (1 2 )
8 . 4 ( 1 0 )
7 .1 ( 6 )
1 2 .9 (1 4 )
9 . 3 ( 1 1 )
7 . 5( 7)
6 .8 { 5)
5 . 2 ( 1)
6 . 6( 4)
5 . 4 ( 2)
1 4 .3 (1 6 )
1 4 .6 (1 7 )
1 2 .7 ( 1 3 )
5 . 7 ( 3)
1 5 .6 (1 8 )
7 . 9( 8)
8 . 1 ( 9)
1 2 .7 (1 4 )
1 0 .7 (1 2 )
8 . 7 ( 9)
1 0 .7 (1 1 )
1 1 .4 (1 3 )
1 0 .4 (1 0 )
8 . 7( 8 )
6 . 4 ( 4 )
5 . 7( 3 )
4 .1 ( 1)
6 . 7( 6)
1 6 .5 (1 8 )
1 3 .2 (1 5 )
1 5 .9 (1 7 )
4 - 7 ( 2)
1 4 .8 (1 6 )
6. 5( 5)
7-1 ( 7)
P*
.0005
.0001
.01
.05
.05
.001 +
.0001
.05
.0001
.0005
.005
.01
.05
.001
.05
.0 0 1 + °
C o e f f i c i e n t o f concordance
.28
.32
a Figures
in d ic a te median ranking and,
in parentheses, composite
rank o rd ers.
bM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 5 .9 0 1 7 ; d f = 9 and 567.
cM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 11 .3053; d f = 9 and 567.
•Median t e s t ; d f = 1.
♦ ♦ M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f varian ce t e s t f o r the value system,
n in e values a t one time.
2 2 2
T ab le 4 6 .
In s tru m e n ta l V alue Medians and Com posite Rank O rde rs f o r
Freshman and S e n io r N o n tra n s fe r U n de rgra du ate S tu d e n ts in
1968-1969 and 1974-1975
Instrum ental Values
N =
339
238
1968-69
1974-75
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
H e lp fu l
Honest
Im aginative
Independent
I n t e l l e c t u a l
Logical
Lov i ng
Obedient
Pol i te
Responsible
S e lf - c o n t r o ll e d
8 . 9 ( 8 ) a
6 . 7( 5)
1 0 .6 (1 0 )
7 . 0( 6)
1 2 .1 (1 3 )
1 0 .9 ( 1 2 )
6 .2 ( 4)
8 . 4 ( 7)
3 .1 ( 1)
1 2 .7 (1 6 )
1 0 .7 (1 1 )
1 2 .3 (1 5 )
1 3 .2 (1 7 )
3 .6 ( 2)
1 5 .6 (1 8 )
1 2 .2 (1 4 )
6.1 ( 3)
1 0 .3( 9)
8 . 9( 9)
6 . 8 ( 4)
1 0 .0 (1 0 )
S . 8( 8 )
1 4 .8 (1 7 )
1 0 .2 (1 1 )
7 . 3( 5)
8 . 2 ( 7)
2 . 8 ( 1)
1 0 .9 (1 3 )
7 . 8( 6)
1 0 .9 (1 2 )
1 2 ,8 ( 1 5 )
3 . 8 ( 2)
1 7 .0 ( 1 8 )
1 4 .1 (1 6 )
5 . 9( 3)
1 1 .4 (1 4 )
p **
p **
P*
------
.01
.0005
.05
.001+b
.001
.0001
.05
.0001
.0001
.05
,001+c
C o e f f i c i e n t o f concordance
.26
.29
a Figures in d ic a te median ranking and,
in parentheses, composite
rank o rd e rs .
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 3.3 7 4 5 ; d f = 9 and 567.
cM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 4.6 4 0 0 ; d f = 9 and 567.
•Median t e s t ; d f = 1.
* * M u 1 t iv a r ia t e a n a ly s is o f variance t e s t f o r the va lu e system,
nine values a t one time.
223
The conclusion was t h a t the 1968-69 group o f Home Economics freshman
and senior n o n tra n s fer students were d i f f e r e n t beyond chance, a t
p< .001+, from the 1974-75 group o f Human Ecology freshman and se n io r
n o n transfer students on the term in al and instrum ental value systems.
As in d ic a te d in Table 47, the comparisons o f the two years on
the separate personal values re s u lte d in 23 s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tra s tin g
values a t p< .05 to p < .0 0 1 . The f o u r term inal values t h a t d id not
vary beyond chance, when the alpha le v e l was s e t a t .05 were: a
comfortable life, a sense of accomplishment, freedom, and happiness.
The nine instrum ental values t h a t v a rie d by chance over the years were:
ambitious, broadminded, capable, courageous, helpful, honest, logical,
laving, and responsible.
The f i r s t f i v e ranked personal term in al values in the UHTVH,
happiness, mature love, self respect, inner hanvony, and freedom were
the same f i v e values in 1968-69 as in 1974-75. However, the median
rankings s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e d , p< .05+ on mature love, self respect,
and inner harmony.
The values happiness and freedom v a rie d only by
chance over the y e a rs .
The th ree term in al values t h a t were in the rank p o s it io n s , 1 5 th ,
1 6 th , 17th, and 1 8 th , o f the LHTVH f o r both 1968-69 and 1974-75 were:
national security, p < .0001; pleasure, p< .0 0 0 5 ; and social recognition,
p< .0 5 . The th ree l a s t te rm in a l values did vary beyond chance in t h e i r
rankings over the years but the values remained in the l a s t f o u r rank
p o s itio n s o f the LHTVH.
224
Table 47. Terminal and Instrum ental Value D iffe re n c e s f o r Freshman and
Senior Nontransfer Undergraduate Students in 1968-1969 and
1974-1975
1968-69
1974-75
N =
339
238
Pm
Terminal Values:
Happiness
Mature love
S e lf respect
Inner harmony
Freedom
A world a t peace
N ational s e c u rity
Pleasure
Social re c o g n itio n
Instrum ental Values:
Honest
Lov i ng
Responsible
Forgivin g
Broadminded
Cheerful
Im a g in a tive
Logical
Obedient
l ) a
5 .2 (
5 .4 ( 2)
5 .7 ( 3)
6 . 6( 4
6 .8 ( 5)
7 .1 ( 6)
1 4 .3 (1 6 )
1 4 .6 (1 7 )
1 5 .6 (1 8 )
3.1 ( 1)
3 .6 ( 2)
6 . 1 ( 3)
6 . 2 ( 4)
6 . 7( 5)
7 . 0( 6)
1 2 .7 (1 6 )
1 3 .2 (1 7 )
1 5 .6 (1 8 )
5 . 7{ 3)
6 . 7( 6)
4 . 7{ 2)
4 .1 ( 1)
6 . 4( 4)
1 0 .7 (1 1 )
1 6 .5 (1 8 )
1 3 .2 (1 5 )
1 4 .8 (1 6 )
2 -8 ( 1]
3 .8 ( 2)
5 .9 ( 3)
7 .3 { 5)
6 .8 ( 4)
8 . 8( 8 )
1 0 .9 (1 3 )
1 2 ,8 (1 5 )
1 7 .0 (1 8 )
----------------
.05
,01
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0005
.05
-
----------------
.05
.01
.001
— —
.0001
a Figures in d ic a te median rankings and,
in parentheses, composite
rank orders.
•Median t e s t ; d f = 1.
225
S i m i l a r l y , th e instrum ental values honest, loving, responsible,
forgiving, and broadminded remained in th e f i r s t s ix ranked p o sitio ns
o f the UHIVH from 1968-69 to 1974-75. While the instrum ental values
honest, loving, responsible, and broadminded va rie d by chance over the
y e a r s , the value forgiving s i g n i f i c a n t l y v a rie d , p < . 0 5 , changing from
the composite rank p o s itio n o f fo u r to f i v e in the UHIVH,
Only the instrum ental values logical and obedient remained in
th e range 15th to 18th rank p o s itio n o f the LHIVH over the e ig h t y e a rs .
N e ve rth eles s, the value obedient did v a ry beyond chance a t p < .0001
w ith a change in median ranking from 1 5 .6 to 17.0
In the te rm in a l value system, th e value true friendship
s i g n i f i c a n t l y changed, p< .00 1, rank p o s itio n from the eig h th p o s itio n
in 1968-69 to f i f t h p o s itio n in 1974-75.
In the o pp osite d ir e c tio n
the term in a l value salvation s h ifte d beyond chance, p < .0 0 5 , from the
13th rank p ositio n in 1968-69 to the 17th p o sitio n in 1974-75.
S i m i l a r l y , w it h i n the instrum ental value system th e re were
s i g n i f i c a n t value rank p o s itio n s h i f t s a t the upper and lower ends o f
the v a lu e hierarchy from 1968-69 to 1974-75.
In the UHIVH, the value
independent moved from eig h th to f i f t h rank p o s itio n a t p < .0001.
In
the LHIVH, the value polite moved downward from 14th to 16th rank
p o s i t i o n , p< .0001, and the value clean moved from 13th to 17th rank
p o s i t i o n , p < .0005.
The 1974-75 group o f freshman and senior n o n tra n s fe r Human
Ecology students were more homogeneous in t h e i r group ranking o f the
two valu e systems than the 1968-69 group o f freshman and senior non
t r a n s f e r Home Economics students. The concordance c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r
226
the group ranking o f the two value systems changed from W= ,2 8 and .26
to r e s p e c tiv e ly W= .32 and .2 9 .
Null Hypothesis 4.2
There are no differences in the personal values held between Home
Economics students of 1968-1969 and Human Ecology students of 1974-1975
level.
The concern in hypothesis 4 .2 was th e comparison o f 246 freshman
n o n tra n s fer Home Economics students in 1968-69 w ith 159 freshman non
t r a n s f e r Human Ecology students in 1974-75 on personal v a lu e s , as
term inal and instrum ental value systems and as separate e n t i t i e s .
P a r a lle l to the freshman le v e l comparison, the se n io r n o n tra n s fe r
students in 1968-69, n = 93, were compared to the 1974-75 s e n io rs ,
n = 79, on personal values.
As shown in Table 4 8 , the r e s u lt s o f comparing two freshman
value systems over the years led to the r e j e c t i o n o f the n u ll
hypothesi s :
Freshman N ontransfers in 1968-69 and 1974-75
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
5.0352
9.0644
3.4699
3.2602
d f
9 , 395
9 , 395
9 , 395
9 , 395
E
.0001
.0001
.0005
.0008
The conclusion was t h a t the Home Economics freshmen in 1968-69 held
a d i f f e r e n t value o r i e n t a t i o n from the Human Ecology freshmen in
1974-75, p < .001+. The freshmen s i g n i f i c a n t l y changed median rankings
Table 48- Difference in Value Systems by Level3 Between the Years 1968-1969 and 1974-1975
Freshmen
Seniors
Freshmen
Seniors
Terminal Value
A comfortable l i f e
An exciting l i f e
A sense of accomplishment
A world at peace
A world of beauty
Equality
Family security
Freedom
Happiness
P*
______
—
.001
.01
.01
.05
—
P*
.001
.05
—
.005
—
—
.05
—
—
Instrumental Value
P*
P*
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
—
—
.005
.001
■ —
—
2
2
7
p**
.00l+b
.001+c
p**
.001+d
.692e
Inner harmony
Mature love
National security
Pleasure
Salvation
Self respect
Social recognition
True friendship
Wisdom
.001
.005
.001
.005
.005
.01
.01
.001
-
.05
.001
—
—
—
—
—
—
Imaginative
Independent
In te lle c tu a l
Logical
Loving
Obedient
P olite
Responsible
S elf-controlled
.05
.001
.05
—
—
.005
.001
— —
—
.05
.01
--------------
--------------
.05
—
.05
—
p * *
.001+f
.001+9
p * *
.001+h
.1071
Note: Footnotes on next page.
Footnotes fo r Table 48:
aFreshmen = Freshman nontransfer students; Seniors = Senior nontransfer students.
^M ultivariate F = 5.0352; df = 9 and 395.
cM ultiva riate F = 3.7026; df = 9 and 162.
^M ultivariate F = 9.0644; df = 9 and 395.
eM ultiva riate F = 3.8852; df = 9 and 162.
^M ultivariate F = 3.4699; df = 9 and 395.
^M ultivariate F = 0.7184; df = 9 and 162.
^M ultivariate F = 3.2602; df = 9 and 395.
^M ultivariate F = 1.6422; df = 9 and 162.
♦M ultivariate analysis of variance te st fo r each value.
**M u ltiva ria te analysis of variance te st fo r the value system, nine values at one time.
2
2
8
229
o f 19 personal v a lu e s , p < .05 to p < .0001* The 12 te rm in a l values th a t
s h if te d p o s itio n beyond chance were: a comfortable life, an exciting
life, a world at peace, a world of beauty, equality, inner harmony,
mature love, national security, pleasure, salvation, self respect,
social recognition, and true friendship. The seven s i g n i f i c a n t
instrum ental values t h a t s h ifte d over the years w ith freshmen were:
cheerful, clearly imaginative, independent, intellectual, obedient>
and polite.
The r e s u lts in d ic a te d in Tables 48 and 49 f o r comparing the two
s e n io r value systems over the years led to the acceptance o f the n u ll
hyp oth esis:
Senior Nontransfers in 1968-69 and 1974-75
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UNIVH
LHIVH
3.7026
3.8852
0.7184
1.6422
d f
9 , 162
9, 162
9 , 162
9 , 162
£.
.0004
,0002
.6915
.1074
The conclusion was t h a t the 1968-69 Home Economics sen io rs were
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the 1974-75 Human Ecology seniors on the
UHTVH, p< .0004, and LHTVH, p< .0002. The term in al values th a t con
tr a s te d the seniors in the two years were: a comfortable life, an
exciting life, a world at peace, national security, and pleasure a t
p < * 0 5 + .
The s i g n i f i c a n t instrum ental values th a t separated the
seniors a p a rt by y e a r were: independent, obedient, and polite a t
p < .05+*
Table 49. S ig n ifica n t Value Differences Between the Years 1968-1969 and 1974-1975 in
Nontransfer Undergraduate Students
Freshmen
Seniors
1968-69
1974-75
1968-69
1974-75
N
246
159
P*
93
79
P#
Terminal Value
A comfortable l i f e
An exciting l i f e
A world at peace
A world of beauty
Equality
Inner harmony
Mature love
National security
Pleasure
Salvation
S elf respect
Social recognition
True friendship
Instrumental Value
Cheerful
Clean
Imaginative
Independent
In te lle c tu a l
Obedient
P o lite
a
12.9(14)
7.3( 6)
13.4(15)
8.9(10)
7-4( 7)
5.5( 2)
14.3(16)
14.6(17)
10.2(12)
6.2( 3)
15.7(18)
7.7{ 8)
6.8( 5)
11.4(13)
13.1(16)
10.9 10)
12.9(15)
15,2(18)
11.8(14)
11.3 12)
10.8 11)
11.7 13)
10.7 10)
4.3 1)
7.5 7)
16.6 18)
13.7 15)
15.3 17)
4.5 2)
14.4 16)
6.2 4)
8.6 7)
14.9 17)
11.2 141
8.5 8)
10.9 ,12)
16.8!! 18)
13.8(16)
.05
.0001
.01
.05
.001
.05
.0001
.01
.001
.005
.01
.001
.05
.0001
,01
.0001
.01
.001
.0005
14.3(15)
11.4(12)
6.6( 6)
12.1(14)
9.7( 9)
10.3(12)
—
—
14.1(14)
14.4(16}
------
------
16.2(17)
12.5(15}
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
------------
------------
------
------------
------
9.4(10)
6.3( 5)
16.4(18)
12.7(15)
12.5(18)
14.6(17)
.005
.05
.01
—
—
—
.0001
.01
------------
------
------------
------------
------------
------------
------------
,005
—
.05
.01
2
3
0
aFigures indicate median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders.
•Median te st ; d f = 1.
231
Thus, between 1968-69 and 1974-75, freshmen have changed on
both the term inal and instrum ental value systems, p c . 0 0 1 , whereas
seniors have only changed on the term inal va lu e system, p < .0 0 1 + .
Since the freshmen reranked s i g n i f i c a n t l y 19 values and s e n io rs
reordered s i g n i f i c a n t l y o nly 8 personal v a lu e s , the freshmen changed
tw ice as much as seniors on personal value rankings from 19 6 8 -6 9 to
1974-75.
In Table 50, th e re were seven s i g n i f i c a n t personal values held
in common by freshmen and seniors and which contrasted 1 9 68 -69 from
1974-75 by l e v e l : an exciting life, pleasure, independent, a world at
peace, national security, obedient, and polite, p< .05+.
For both
freshmen and s e n io rs , the seven comnon c o n t r a s t values s h i f t e d rank
p o s itio n s over the years in the same d i r e c t i o n and by ap p ro xim ately
the same number o f rank p o s itio n s . The personal values t h a t moved to
a h ig h e r p r i o r i t y p o s itio n were: an exciting life, pleasure,
independent w ith an average change in rank p o s itio n of 2 f o r freshmen
and 3 f o r s e n io rs . The personal values t h a t moved to a lo w e r p r i o r i t y
p o s itio n were: a world at peace, national security, obedient,
polite w ith an average change in rank p o s itio n o f 2 .3 f o r freshmen
and 2 . 8 f o r sen io rs. The freshmen changed rank positions o f values
from both the upper and lower halves o f th e two value systems whereas
the seniors changed ranked p o s itio n s o f f i v e o f eig h t values from the
lower h a l f o f the two valu e systems.
232
T ab le 50. Common Value Changes o f Freshman and S e n io r N o n tra n s fe r
U nde rgra du ate S tu d e n ts Between th e Years 1968-1969 and
1974-1975
Hiqher Ranked Values:
TemrinaI Value:
An e x c it in g
l i f e
Pleasure
Instrumental Value:
Independent
Lower Ranked Values:
Terminal Value:
A world o f peace
National s e c u rity
Instrumental Value:
Obedient
Poli te
1974-1975
Freshmen
Seniors
Rank*
Change
Rank
Change
( 1 2 )
( 1 5 )
( 8 )
( 1 1 )
( 1 8 )
( 1 8 )
( 1 6 )
+2
+2
+2
-5
-2
- 0
-2
< 9)
(15)
( 5)
(12 )
(17 )
(18 )
(1 7 )
+3
+1
+5
- 6
-3
-0
-2
a Figures shown are number and d i r e c t i o n o f rank orders changed
from 1968-69 to 1974-75 and,
in parentheses, composite rank o rd e rs .
233
N u ll H yp o th e sis 4 .3
There are no differences in the personal values held between
Home Economics students of 1968-1969 and Human Ecology students of
1974-1975 by major.
As the f i r s t focus o f t h i s hypothesis an academic major in
1968-69 composed o f freshman and s e n io r n o n tra n s fer students was
compared to the same major in 1974-75. Six majors were compared over
the fo u r years on the term in a l and instrum ental value systems.
M ajor 4 was om itted from comparison as the c e l l s iz e in 1974-75
was
inadequate f o r a n a ly sis by the m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f variance
t e s t .
The second focus o f t h i s hypothesis was the comparison o f a
c o lle g e department between the two academic years 1968-69 and 1974-75
on the two value systems and the separate personal v a lu e s . The fo u r
departments compared over the years were FE, FCS, HED, and FSHN.
With the f i r s t fo cu s, the r e s u lt s from comparing the value
systems o f a l l o f the seven majors between 1968-69 and 1974-75 led to
the acceptance o f the n u ll h yp o th es is , as in d ic a te d in Tables 51 and
52:
Major 1
in 1968-69 and 19 74 -75 --C h i Id Development S Teaching
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.3592
2 .6 0 9 8
2.3 39 6
1.1927
d f
9 , 58
9 , 58
9 , 58
9 , 58
.2279
.0133
.0252
.3172
234
Table 51. D iffe re n c e in Terminal Value Systems Between the Years
1968-1969 and 1974-1975 f o r M ajo rs3
Terminal Value
A co m fo rtable l i f e
An e x c i t i n g l i f e
A sense o f accomplishment
A world a t peace
A world o f beauty
E q u a lity
Family s e c u rity
Freedom
Happiness
Majors3
1
P*
____
-------
2
P*
-------
.05
-------
-------
-------
3
P*
.05
.05
.05
.05
5
P*
____
-------
6
P*
.01
.01
7
P*
.01
p * *
. 228b
.492C .110d
.826®
.023f
.13'
In n er harmony
love
Mature
N a tio n a l s e c u rity
P leasure
S a lv a tio n
S e lf resp ect
Social reco g n itio n
True fr ie n d s h ip
Wisdom
.01
.01
.05
.05
-------
-------
.05
-------
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
-------
p * *
.013h
.0041
. 0103
.161k
.02 41
.031
N o te :
F o o tn o te s on n e x t page.
235
F oo tn otes f o r T a b le 51:
Major 1 = C hild Development A Teaching; M ajor 2 = Consumer-
Community S e rvic es * Family Ecology, Family Ecology-Convnunication A r ts ;
Major 3 = Foods, D i e t e t i c s , N u t r i t i o n ; Major 5 = C lothing A T e x t i l e s ;
Major 6 = I n t e r i o r Design, Human Environment A Design; and Major 7 =
R e ta ilin g o f Clothing A T e x t i l e s .
bMu t i v a r i a t e f = 1 .3 5 9 2 ;
d f = 9 and 58.
cMu t i v a r i a t e F - 0 .9 4 9 7 ;
d f = 9 and 51.
dMu t i v a r i a t e p = 1 .6 8 2 4 ;
eMu t i v a r i a t e p c 0 .5 5 2 3 ;
d f
d f
9 and 69.
9 and 34.
^Mu t i v a r i a t e F - 2 .2 6 2 1 ;
d f
= 9 and 11.
^Mu t i v a r i a t e P = 1.5705;
d f
- 9 and 105.
hMu t i v a r i a t e p = 2 .6 0 9 8 ;
d f
= 9 and 158.
nMu t i v a r i a t e p = 3.1 6 7 3 ;
d f
= 9 and 51.
JMu t i v a r i a t e F = 2 .6 6 3 8 ;
d f
= 9 and 69.
Slu t i v a r i a t e F = 1.5814;
d f = 9 and 34.
] Mu t i v a r i a t e p = 2.2 5 0 5 ;
d f
= 9 and 11.
"Vlu t i v a r i a t e F = 2.0825;
d f
9 and 105.
*Mu t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f
varian ce t e s t f o r each v a lu e ,
**Mu t i v a r i a t e an a ly s is o f
va ria n c e t e s t f o r the value system,
n in e v a lu e s a t one tim e .
236
Table 52. D iffe r e n c e in
Instrum ental Value Systems Between the Years
1968-1969 and 1974-1975 f o r Majors®
Instrum ental Value
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
Majors3
3
P*
.01
-------
-------
1
P*
.05
.01
.05
2
P *
.05
-------
.05
.05
5
P*
6
P*
-------
-------
-------
-------
7
P*
-------
.05
-------
p * *
. 025 b . 0 4 3 °
. 298 d
. 647 e
. 8 0 8 f
.040
Im aginative
Independent
I n t e l l e c t u a l
Logical
Lov i ng
Obedient
P o lit e
Responsible
S e lf - c o n t r o l led
p * *
.05
.05
.05
.05
-------
.0 5
-------
.05
.05
.05
.05
.01
.05
.05
-------
.05
-------
. 31 7h . 0 1 0 1
. 523^ •oo
w
. 1 2 2 1
.370
N ote: F o o tn o te s on n e x t page.
237
F oo tn otes f o r T a b le 52:
aM ajor 1 = Child Development & Teaching; Major 2 = Consumer-
Community S e rv ic e s , Family Ecology, Family Ecology-Communication A r t s ;
Major 3 = Foods, D i e t e t i c s , N u t r i t i o n ; Major 5 = C lothing & T e x t i l e s ;
Major 6 =
d e t a i l i n g o f Clothing & T e x t i l e s .
I n t e r i o r Design, Human Environment & Design; and M ajor 7 =
bMu t i v a r i a t e F - 2 .3 3 9 6 ;
d f — 9 and 158.
cMu t i v a r i a t e F - 2 .1 3 2 8 ;
d f
9 and 51.
dMu t i v a r i a t e F = 1.2 19 4;
d f
- 9 and 69.
eMu t i v a r i a t e F
0 .7 6 6 8 ;
d f
9 and 34.
f Mu t i v a r i a t e F = 0 .5 8 4 4 ;
d f
9 and 11.
^Mu t i v a r i a t e F = 2 .0 5 7 5 ;
d f
= 9 and 105.
hMu t i v a r i a t e F = 1 .1 9 2 7 ;
d f
= 9 and 158.
nMu t i v a r i a t e F = 2 .8 0 2 9 ;
d f = 9 and 51.
j Mu t i v a r i a t e F = 0 .9 0 8 9 ;
d f
= 9 and 69.
kMu t i v a r i a t e F = 4 .7 9 0 8 ;
d f = 9 and 34.
^ Mu t i v a r i a t e F -
1 .6 0 5 4 ;
d f
= 9 and 11.
"Vlu t i v a r i a t e F
1 .0 9 9 8 ;
d f
— 9 and 105.
*Mu t i v a r i a t e a n a ly sis o f
varian ce t e s t f o r each value,
**Mu t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f
varian ce t e s t f o r the value system,
n in e v a lu e s a t one tim e .
238
The conclusion was t h a t Major 1 s i g n i f i c a n t l y v a rie d o ve r the
years on the LHTVH, p< .0133, and UHIVH, p< .0 2 5 2 , when the alpha lev el
was a t .05 .
The s ix personal values th a t co n trasted M ajor 1 over the
years were: salvation, time friendship, amibitous, cheerful, helpful,
and logical a t p < .05+.
Major 2
in 1968-69 and 1974-75--Consumer-Community Services e t a l .
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0 .9 4 9 7
3 .1 6 7 3
2 .1 3 2 8
2 .8 0 2 9
d f
9 , 51
9 , 51
9 , 51
9 , 51
£
.4917
.0042
.0434
.0095
I t was concluded th a t Major 2 v a r ie d beyond chance on LHTVH a t p < ,00 42 ,
UHIVH a t p < .0 4 3 4 , and LHIVH a t p < .0095. Values th a t s i g n i f i c a n t l y
d i f f e r e d between the two years
in Major 2 were: a world at peace,
national security, true friendship, clean, forgiving, honest, inde
pendent, polite, and self-controlled a t p < .05 +.
Major 3 in 1968-69 and 1974-75--Foods, D i e t e t i c s , N u t r i t i o n
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1 .6 8 2 4
2 .6 6 3 8
1.2194
0 .9 0 8 9
d f
9 , 69
9 , 69
9 , 69
9 , 69
£
.1100
.0104
.2977
.5228
M ajor 3 v a rie d beyond chance on o n ly the LHTVH a t p < .0104 between the
years 1968-69 and 1974-75. The personal values t h a t d if f e r e d across
th e years were: an exciting life, a cense of accomplishment, a world
239
of beauty, family security, mature love, pleasure, ambitious, and
independent a t p < .05+.
Major 5 in 1968-69 and 1 9 7 4 -7 5 --C lo th in g & T e x tile s
Subgroup
M u lt i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0.5523
1,5814
0.7668
4.1908
9 , 34
9 , 34
9 , 34
9 , 34
£
.8256
.1605
.6471
.0011
The conclusion was t h a t the LHIVH d id vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y , p< .0 0 1 ,
between the years 1968-69 and 1974-75 in Major 5. The s i g n i f i c a n t
c o n tr a s t values f o r the two years
in Major 5 were: national security,
salvation, self respect, logical, and obedient a t p < .05 ,
Major 6 in 1968-69 and 19 74 -75— I n t e r i o r Design e t a l .
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2.2621
2.2505
0.5844
1.6054
d f
9 , 11
9 , 11
9 , 11
9 , 11
£
.0230
.0238
.8076
.1223
I t was concluded t h a t Major 6 v a rie d beyond chance on the UHTVH a t
p < .0 2 3 0 and LHTVH a t p < .0238 over the years. The s i g n i f i c a n t con
t r a s t values were:
a world at peace, equality, national security,
pleasure, independent, intellectual, obedient, and polite a t p < .0 5 + .
240
M a jo r 7 in 1968-69 and 1974-75— R e t a ilin g o f C lo th in g & T e x t ile s
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.5705
2.0825
2.0575
1.0998
d f
9 , 105
9 , 105
9 , 105
9 , 105
f i .
.1337
.0375
.0400
.3695
F u r th e r, Major 7 v a rie d beyond chance from 1968-69 to 19 7 4 -7 5 , as w ith
Major 1, on the LHTVH a t p < .0375 and UHIVH a t p<.0400. The personal
v a lu e s , a world at peace, mature love3 national security* self respect,
social recognition* clean* logical, and polite did vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y
a t p < .05+.
In the second focus o f th is h yp oth esis, as shown in Tables 53,
54, and 55, the r e s u lts o f observing the f o u r departments in 1968-69
and 1974-75 led to the acceptance o f the n u ll hypothesis:
HED Department in 1968-69 and 1974-75
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
3.6785
4.7647
2.1624
1.8794
d f
9 , 270
9 , 270
9 , 270
9 , 270
£
.0003
.0001
.0290
.0551
The conclusion was t h a t HED v a rie d beyond chance from 1968 to 1975 on
the UHTVH a t p < .0 0 0 3 , LHTVH a t p< .0 0 0 1 , and UHIVH a t p < .02 90 . The
eleven values which v a rie d s i g n i f i c a n t l y , p< .0 5 + , between the two
years were: a world at peace, mature love, national security* salvation*
self respect* social recognition* cheerful* independent* obedient,
polile.
Table 53. Differences in Terminal Value Systems and Instrumental Value Systems Between the
Years 1968-1969 and 1974-1975 fo r Departments8
Terminal Value
FE
FCS HED FSHN
Instrumental Value
FE
FCS HED FSHN
A comfortable l i f e
An exciting l i f e
A sense o f accomplishment
A world at peace
A world of beauty
Equality
Family security
Freedom
Happiness
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
p**
.049b ,228c .001d .110e
p * *
.004f .0259 .029h .298
Inner harmony
Mature love
National security
Pleasure
Salvation
Self respect
Social recognition
True friendship
Wisdom
Imaginative
Independent
In te lle c tu a l
Logical
Loving
Obedient
P o lite
Responsible
S elf-controlled
p**
.001j .013k .0011 . 010m
p**
.004n .317° .055p .523
Note:
footnotes on next page.
Footnotes f o r Table 53:
departments: FE = Family Ecology; FCS = Family & Child Sciences; HED ■ Human
Environment & Design; and FSHN * Food Science & Human Nutrition.
M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 1.9594; df - 9 and 140.
cM ultivariate F = 1.6824; df = 9 and 69.
M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 3.6785; df - 9 and 270.
eM ultivariate F = 1.3592; df = 9 and 58.
M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 2.8514; df = 9 and 140.
M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 1.2194; df = 9 and 69.
M u ltiv a r ia t e F = 2.1624; df = 9 and 270.
M u ltiv a r ia te F = 2.3396; df = 9 and 58.
M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 3.6387; df = 9 and 140.
M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 2.6638; df = 9 and 69.
M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 4.7647; df = 9 and 270.
M u lt i v a r i a t e F - 2.6098; df = 9 and 58.
M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 2.8407; df = 9 and 140.
M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 0.9089; df = 9 and 69.
M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 1.8794; df = 9 and 270.
M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 1.1927; df = 9 and 58.
**M u ltiva ria te analysis of variance te s t fo r the value system, nine values at one time.
2
4
2
243
Table 54- S i g n i f ic a n t Value D iffe re n c e s Between the Years 1968-1969 and
1974-1975 in Department o f Human Environment and Design
1968-69
1975-75
N =
165
115
P*
Terminal Values:
A world a t peace
Mature love
National s e c u r it y
S alvation
S e lf re sp ec t
Social re c o g n itio n
Instrum ental Values:
Cheerful
Independent
I n t e l l e c t u a l
Obedient
Pol 1te
6 . 6 ( 5 ) a
5 . 3( 2)
1 4 .5 ( 1 7 )
1 3 .3 (1 5 )
6 . 6{ 4)
1 5 .6 (1 8 )
7 . 2 ( 6)
1 0 . 1( 9)
1 1 .7 (1 4 )
1 6 .0 (1 8 )
1 2 .2 ( 1 5 )
1 1 .2 (1 2 )
7 . 3( 6)
1 6 .4 (1 8 )
1 5 .9 (1 7 )
4 . 5( 1)
1 4 .5 (1 6 )
9 . 1 ( 8)
8 . 0 ( 6)
1 0 .3 (1 1 )
1 7 .1 (1 8 )
1 3 .8 (1 6 )
.0001
.05
.0005
.05
.001
.05
.05
.05
.05
.01
.01
aFigures in d ic a te median rankings and, in parentheses, composite
rank o rd ers .
•M edian t e s t ; d f = 1.
244
Table 55- S ig n if ic a n t Value D iffe re n c e s Between the Years 1968-1969
and 1974-1975 in Department o f Family Ecology
1968-69
1974-75
N =
115
35
Terminal Values:
An e x c it in g l i f e
Inn er harmony
N a tio n al s e c u rity
Instrum ental Values:
Broadminded
Clean
Courageous
P o lit e
S e lf - c o n t r o l led
1 3 .9 (1 6 )
7 . 6 ( 8)
1 3 .8 (1 5 )
1 0 .9 (1 2 )
4 . 9 ( 2)
1 6 .6 (1 8 )
7 .7 ( 6)
1 1 .6 (1 2 )
1 2 .4 (1 4 )
1 1 .7 (1 3 )
9 . 3 ( 9)
5 . 0( 4)
1 5 .8 (1 7 )
9 .7 ( 1 0 )
1 4 .4 (1 6 )
1 3 .1 (1 4 )
P*
.01
.05
.0001
.05
.0005
.001
.05
.05
a Figures in d ic a te median rankings and* in parentheses, composite
rank o rders.
•M edian t e s t ; d f = 1.
245
FE Departm ent in 1968-69 and 1974-75
Subqroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.9594
3.6387
2.8514
2.8407
d f
9 , 140
9 , 140
9 , 140
9 , 140
£
.0485
.0005
.0041
.0043
I t was concluded t h a t FE d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y over th e e ig h t - y e a r
span on a l l fo u r halves o f the value systems: UHTVH a t p < .0485;
LHTVH a t p< .0005; UHIVH a t p< .0041; and LHIVH a t p < .0043. The
e ig h t values th a t d i f f e r e d over the years were: an exciting life,
inner harmony, national security, broadminded, clean, courageous3
polite, and self-controlled,, p< .05+.
FSHN Department in 1968-69 and 1974-75
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.3592
2.6098
2.3396
1.1927
df
9 , 58
9 , 58
9 , 58
9 , 58
£
.2279
.0133
.0252
.3172
conclusion as shown in Table 56 was t h a t FSHN changed only on the
LHTVH a t p< .01 33 , and UHIVH a t p < .0 2 5 2 , from 1968 to 1975. Neverthe
l e s s , the s ix values t h a t in d ic a te d change were: a sense of accomplish-
mentj a world of beauty, equalityt pleasure> salvation, and ambitious,
p < .05 +.
246
Table 56. S i g n i f ic a n t Value D iffe re n c e s Between the Years 1968-1969 and
1974-1975 in Department o f Food Science and Human N u t r i t i o n
1968-69
1974-75
N -
39
40
Terminal Values:
A sense o f accomplishment
A world o f beauty
Equali ty
Pleasure
S a lv a tio n
7 . 3( 6 ) a
1 3 .6 (1 3 )
9 . 0 ( 1 1 )
1 5 .8 (1 8 )
1 1 .3 ( 1 2 )
9 . 3( 9)
1 0 .3 (1 0 )
1 1 .3 (1 2 )
1 3 .6 (1 5 )
1 6 .8 (1 8 )
P*
.05
.01
.05
.01
.01
Instrum ental Value:
Ambitious
7 . 0( 6)
1 1 .3 (1 2 )
.05
a Figures in d ic a te median rankings and,
in parentheses, composite
rank o rd e rs .
•Median t e s t ; d f = 1.
247
FCS D epartm ent in 1968-69 and 1974-75
Subqroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.6824
2 .6 6 3 8
1.2194
0 .9 08 9
d f
9 , 69
9 , 69
9 , 69
9 , 69
£
.1100
.0104
.2977
.52 28
concluded, as shown on Table 57,
t h a t from 1968 to 1975, FCS
v a rie d beyond chance on the LHTVH, p< .0104. However, the th re e
values in c o n tra s t over the years were: ambitious, logical, and
polite, p < .05.
Table 57. S i g n i f ic a n t Value D iffe re n c e s Between the Years 1968-1969 and
1974-1975 in Department o f Family and Child Sciences
1968-69
1974-75
N =
20
48
P*
Terminal Values
Instrum ental Values:
Ambitious
Logical
P o li t e
1 2 .5 (1 4 )
1 5 .8 (1 8 )
1 2 .9 (1 5 )
9 .0 ( 7)
1 3 .0 (1 5 )
1 5 .0 (1 7 )
.05
.05
.05
aFigures
in d ic a te median
rankings and,
in parentheses, composite
rank orders.
•Median t e s t ; d f = 1.
248
To summarize, the hig hest amount o f change from 1968-69 to
1974-75 was in HED w ith eleven values and th re e halves o f values t h a t
v a rie d beyond chance.
In between, FE v a rie d beyond chance over the
e ig h t - y e a r span on the fo u r halves o f the value systems and e ig h t
personal values. FSHN d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on two halves o f the
value systems and s ix v a lu e s.
The lowest amount o f change was
in
FCS w ith s i g n i f i c a n t change in only o n e - h a lf o f a valu e system and
th re e values. Thus, the departments have over the years 1968-69 and
1974-75 v a rie d in amount o f s i g n i f i c a n t change on th e term inal and
instrum ental value systems and separate personal values.
There is no common s in g le s i g n i f i c a n t value t h a t provided
c o n tra s t over the years f o r the fo u r departments. R a th e r, the s i g
n i f i c a n t c o n tra s t values f o r the departments were s p e c i f ic to the
department. Hence, th e re was not an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f common values
t h a t provided s i g n i f i c a n t change in department value systems. A l l th e
departments have shown a change in the value ambitious to the rank
p o s itio n o f 7 or 8 except in FSHN where the value ambitious has moved
s i g n i f i c a n t l y , p
.0 5 , to 12th rank p o s it io n . Too, a l l the departments
have upwardly reranked th e value a world of beauty in the 13th p o s it i o n ,
whereas FSHN has reranked the value in 10th p o s itio n in the term in a l
value h ie ra rc h y .
In 1968-69 the departments ranked the values in the term in a l
and instrum ental value systems w ith a range in group concensus o f W= .45
to W= .26 and in 1974-75 a W = .37 to W = .2 9 . Thus, the range in group
homogeneity o f value ranking in 1974-75 was a decrease from t h a t in
1968-69. The departments, FE and HED, in 19 74-75, have increased in
249
homogeneity from t h a t o f 1968-69 w ith an average in crease o f .055
p o in ts . The departm ent, FCS,
in 1974-75 decreased in homogeneity
from 1968-69 w ith
.06 p o in ts . However, the department FSHN in
1974-75 increased by .02 points on the instrum ental value system
and decreased by
.04 points on the term inal value system.
N u ll Hypothesis 4 .4 .1
There are no differences in the personal values held between
freshman nontransfer Home Economics students of 1968-1969 and freshman
nontransfer Human Ecology students of 1974-1975 in each major.
The focus o f t h is hypothesis was on the comparison o f the
term in al and instrum ental value systems o f a s p e c i f ic academic major
a t the freshman n o n tra n s fe r le v e l
in the academic years 1968-69 and
1974-75.
When th e re was inadequate c e l l s iz e in e i t h e r one o r both years
o f c e r t a in m ajors, the major was o m itted f o r comparison by value systems
over the years 1968-69 and 1974-75. The om itted majors were Major 1 and
Major 4.
The r e s u lt s o f comparison o f value systems o f freshman majors
in 1968-69 and 1974-75 led to th e acceptance o f the n u ll hyp oth esis,
as shown in Tables 58 and 59:
.
..
Major 2.
„
Freshmen in 1968-69 and 1974-75— { Services e t al
, Consumer-Community
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0.8979
3.2466
2.2020
2.1833
d f
9 , 38
9 , 38
9 , 38
9 , 38
£
.5366
.0052
.0438
.0455
250
Table 58. D iffe re n c e s in Terminal Value Systems Between the Years
1968-1969 and 1974-1975 f o r Freshman N ontransfer M ajo rs3
Terminal Value
A comfortable l i f e
An e x c itin g l i f e
A sense o f accomplishment
A world a t peace
A world o f beauty
Equa1 i ty
Family s e c u rity
Freedom
Happiness
2
P*
-------
.05
3
P*
------
------
M ajor3
5
P*
-------
6
P*
.01
.01
-------
7
P*
-------
.05
------
Inner harmony
Mature love
National s e c u r ity
Pleasure
S alvation
S e lf respect
Social re c o g n itio n
True frie n d s h ip
Wisdom
p **
. 537b
. 571C
.815d
.008®
.215
.01
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.01
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
-------
.001
-------
.05
p **
. 0059
.081h
. 0271
.058J
.024k
N o te : F o o tn o te s on n e x t page.
251
Footnotes f o r Table 58:
a.
Major 2 = Consumer-Community S ervices, Family Ecology, Family
Ecology-Communication A rts ; M ajo r 3 = Foods, D i e t e t i c s , N u t r i t i o n ;
M ajor 5 = C lothing & T e x t i l e s ; M ajo r 6 = I n t e r i o r Design, Human
Environment & Design; and Major 7 = R e ta ilin g o f C lo th in g & T e x t i l e s .
M ult
v a r i a t e F = 0 .8 9 7 9 ; d f = 9 and 38.
S u it
v a r i a t e F = 0 .8 5 6 2 ; d f - 9 and 41.
S u i t
v a r i a t e F = 0 .5 6 1 1 ; d f = 9 and 25.
eM ult
v a r i a t e F = 2.7 2 3 0 ; d f = 9 and 89.
f M u lt
v a r i a t e F = 1 .3 8 0 3 ; d f - 9 and 66.
9Mult
v a r i a t e F = 3 .2 4 6 6 ; d f = 9 and 38.
hM ult
v a r i a t e F = 1.8 79 0; d f = 9 and 41.
S u i t
v a r i a t e F = 2 .6 4 1 9 ; d f * 9 and 25.
S u i t
v a r i a t e F = 1 .9 3 0 2 ; d f - 9 and 89.
kM ult
v a r i a t e F = 2.3 31 7; d f = 9 and 66.
*Mul t
v a r i a t e analysis o f varian ce t e s t f o r each va lu e .
* * M u lt
v a r i a t e an alysis o f variance t e s t f o r the value system,
n in e v a lu e s a t one tim e .
252
Table 59. D iffe re n c e s in Instrum ental Value Systems Between the Years
1968-1969 and 1974-1975 f o r Freshman N o n tra n s fe r M ajors*
Instrum ental Value
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
2
P*
.01
.05
-------
3
p*
------ -
------
------
------
M a jo r3
5
P*
-------
6
p*
-------
7
P*
-------
.01
-------
.01
p * *
. 0 4 4 b
.611°
.12 8d
. 592e
. 0 9 0 f
Im aginative
Independent
I n t e l l e c t u a l
Logical
Loving
Obedient
P o li t e
Responsible
S e lf - c o n t r o l 1ed
p * *
.05
------
-------
.0 5
.05
-------
.05
.05
.05
.05
-------
.01
-------
. 0 4 6 9
. 569h
. G051
. 109^
.43 2k
N o te : F o o tn o te s on n e x t page.
253
Footnotes f o r Table 59:
Major 2 = Consumer-Comnunity S e rv ic e s , Family Ecology, Family
Ecology-Conmumcation A r t s ; M ajor 3 - Foods, D i e t e t i c s , N u t r i t i o n ;
Major 5 = Clothing & T e x t i l e s ; Major 6 = I n t e r i o r Design, Human
Environment & Design; and Major 7 = R e t a ilin g o f C lo th in g & T e x t i l e s .
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 2.2 02 0; d f - 9 and 38.
'M u lti
v a r i a t e F = 0 ,8 0 8 9 ; d f = 9 and 41
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
= 1.7557; d f = 9 and 25.
eM u l t i v a r i a t e F
= 0.8284; d f = 9 and 89.
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F
= 1.7 7 4 8 ; d f = 9 and 66.
^ M u lt i v a r i a t e F
= 2.1 8 3 3 ; d f = 9 and 38.
V jI t i v a r i a t e F
= 0.8 5 8 5 ; d f = 9 and 41.
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F
= 3.6 47 4; d f = 9 and 25,
^M ulti
v a r i a t e F
= 1.6 66 3; d f = 9 and 89.
k
M u lti
v a r i a t e F
- 1.0217; d f = 9 and 66.
* M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f variance t e s t f o r each value.
* * M u l t i
v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f varian ce t e s t f o r the value system,
n in e v a lu e s a t one tim e .
254
The conclusion was t h a t the freshmen in M ajor 2 varied s i g n i f i c a n t l y
only on the LHTVH, p< .0052* and UHIVH, p < .0 4 3 8 , from 1968-69 to
1974-75. The s ix v a lu e s , a world at peace* national security* true
friendship, clean, forgiving, and independent provided s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , p < .0 5 + ,
in Major 2 over th e years.
Major 3.
Freshmen in 1968-69 and 1974-75— { ^ ^ * . ^ e te t1 c s
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0.8562
1.8690
0.8089
0.8585
d f
9 , 41
9 , 41
9 , 41
9 , 41
£
.5705
.0829
.61 08
.5686
I t was concluded t h a t the freshmen in M ajo r 3 did not vary beyond chance
when the alpha le v e l was s e t a t .0 5 , on the f o u r halves o f th e term inal
and instru m ental value systems from 1968-69 t o 1974-75. However, two
s in g le values t h a t d id s i g n i f i c a n t l y v a ry over the years w ere: mature
love, p
.0 1 ; and responsible, p
.0 5 . Out o f the f i v e freshman level
majors examined, M ajor 3 was the only m ajor t h a t did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y
vary on any or p a r t o f the term inal and instrum ental value systems over
the y e a rs .
Major 5.
Freshmen in 1968-69 and 1974-75— C lothing & T e x tile s
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0.5611
2.6419
1.7557
3.6474
d f
9 , 25
9 , 25
9 , 25
9 , 25
£
.8 1 5 4
.02 66
.1 2 8 4
.00 5 0
255
Only the LHTVH a t p < .0266 and LHIVH a t p < .0 0 5 0 were s i g n i f i c a n t l y
varying from 1968-69 to 1974-75 a t the freshman le v e l
in Major 5.
S i m i l a r l y , the seven s in g le c o n tra s tin g values o f s ig n if ic a n c e over
the years f o r M ajor 2 freshmen were:
inner harmony, national security,
salvation, self respect, loving, polite, and self-controlled a t p < .0 5 .
M ajor 6.
Freshmen in 1968-69 and 1974-75— { I n *®r ™ r Desi9n
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2.7 23 0
1.9302
0.8284
1.6663
d f
9, 89
9 , 89
9 , 89
9 , 89
e.
.0075
.0576
.5918
.1091
The conclusion was t h a t the freshmen
in Major 6 were varying beyond
chance over the years on only the UHTVH a t p < .0075 when the alpha
le v e l was s e t a t .0 5 . But nine personal values d id c o n tra s t the two
years in M ajor 6 freshmen: a world at peace, equality, national secur
ity, pleasure, salvation, social recognition, independent, intellectual,
and obedient a t p < .05+.
Major 7. Freshmen in 1968-69 and 1974-75— ^ c fo th in g ^et^al
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.3803
2.3317
1.7748
1.0217
d f
9 , 66
9, 66
9 , 66
9 , 66
£
.2151
.0240
.0899
.4324
I t was concluded t h a t Major 7 freshmen were d i f f e r e n t in 1968-69 and
1974-75 on the LHTVH a t p < .0240. N e v e rth e le s s , s ix s in g le s i g n i f i c a n t
256
values t h a t contrasted the two years were a world at peace, inner
harmony, self respect, true friendship, clean, and honest a t p < .05+.
There were no s p e c if ic values t h a t were held in common as
co n tras ts between years by a l l the freshman m ajors. Nonetheless,
e ig h t values were held in common by two o r more freshman m ajors. The
value a world at peace was held in common as a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tra s t by
Majors 2 , 6 , and 7. S i m i l a r l y , the value national security was held in
common by Majors 2, 5, and 6. Values held in common by o nly two majors
were:
inner harmony by Majors 5 and 7; salvation by Majors 5 and 6;
self respect by Majors 5 and 7 ; true friendship by Majors 2 and 7;
clean by Majors 2 and 7; and l a s t l y , independent by Majors 2 and 7.
Null Hypothesis 4 .4 .2
There are no differences in the personal values held between
senior nontransfer Home Economics students in 1968-1969 and senior
nontransfer Human Ecology students of 1974-1975 in each major.
The concern in t h i s hypothesis was th e comparison o f the
term in a l and instrum ental valu e systems o f a s p e c ifie d academic major
a t the s e n io r n o n transfer le v e l
in the academic years 1968-69 and
1974-75.
Majors 2 , 4 , and 5 were omitted sin ce th e re was an inadequate
c e l l s iz e in e i t h e r one o r both years o f the s p e c if ic m ajor.
The re s u lts o f comparison o f the two valu e systems o f se n io r
majors in 1968-69 and 1974-75 led to the acceptance o f the n u ll
h ypothesis, as shown in Tables 60 and 61:
257
Table 60. D iffe r e n c e in Terminal Value Systems Between the Years 1968-
1969 and 1974-1975 f o r Senior N o n tran sfer Majors
Terminal Value
A com fortable l i f e
An e x c i t i n g l i f e
A sense o f accomplishment
A world a t peace
A world o f beauty
E q u a lity
Family s e c u rity
Freedom
Happiness
p **
In n er harmony
Mature love
N atio n al s e c u rity
PIeasure
S a lv a tio n
S e lf respect
Social re c o g n itio n
True fr ie n d s h ip
Wisdom
3
P*
.05
.05
M ajora
6
P*
.05
-------
7
P*
.01
------
------
. 081c
.437d
,006e
.05
------
.05
------
------
1
P*
-------
.101b
.05
-------
.05
p * *
.100f
.4169
. 250h
.2251
N o te : F o o tn o te s on n e x t page.
258
Footnotes f o r T ab le 60:
a*
Major 1 = C hild Development & Teaching; M ajor 3 = Foods*
D i e t e t i c s , N u t r i t i o n ; Major 6 = I n t e r i o r Design, Human Environment
& Design; and M ajor 7 = R e t a i l in g o f Clothing & T e x t i l e s .
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F - 1 .8 5 8 2 ; d f
= 9 and 28.
cM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 2 .1 4 3 9 ; d f
- 9 and 18.
^ M u lt i v a r i a t e F
1 .0 8 6 2 ; d f
- 9 and 12.
eM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 3 .3 9 1 6 ; d f = 9 and 29.
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 1 .8 6 3 7 ; d f
9 and 28.
® M u lt iv a r ia t e F -
1 .0 9 0 5 ; d f
= 9 and 18.
^ M u lt i v a r i a t e F -
1 .5 0 4 9 ; d f
= 9 and 12.
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F — 1 .4 2 1 9 ; d f
= 9 and 29.
*Mul t i v a r i a te an a ly s is o f variance t e s t f o r each value.
**M ul t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e t e s t f o r th e v a lu e s y s te m ,
n in e v a lu e s a t one tim e .
259
Table 61. D iffe r e n c e in
Instrumental Value Systems Between the Years
1968-1969 and 1974-1975 f o r Senior N o n tran sfe r Majors3
Instrum ental Value
Ambitious
Broadminded
Capable
Cheerful
Clean
Courageous
F orgivin g
Helpful
Honest
M ajo r9
6
p*
.05
-----
3
p*
.01
.05
7
P*
.05
1
P*
.0 5
.0 5
p **
. 062 k
.024c
. 568d
. 455e
Im ag in ative
Independent
I n t e l l e c t u a l
Log i ca1
Loving
Obedient
P o li t e
Responsible
S e lf - c o n t r o ll e d
p **
N o te : F o o tn otes on n e x t page.
.0 5
-------
. 278f
.835$
.676h
.737*
260
Footnotes f o r Table 6 1 :
aMajor 1 = C h ild Development & Teaching; Major 3 = Foods,
D i e t e t i c s , N u t r i t i o n ; M ajor 6 = I n t e r i o r Design, Human Environment
& Design; and Major 7 = R e ta ilin g o f C lo th in g & T e x t i l e s .
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 2.1 20 8; d f = 9 and 28.
cM u l t i v a r i a t e F = 2 .9 47 0; d f = 9 and 18.
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 0 .8 79 1; d f = 9 and 12.
eM u l t i v a r i a t e F
- 1.0096; d f = 9 and 29.
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F
= 1.3054; df = 9 and 28.
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 0.5296; d f = 9 and 18.
^ M u lt iv a r ia t e F = 0.7314; d f = 9 and 12,
^ M u ltiv a r ia te F = 0.6600; d f = 9 and 29.
* M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly sis o f v a ria n c e t e s t f o r each v a lu e .
* * M u lt iv a r ia t e a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e t e s t f o r th e v a lu e system ,
n in e v a lu e s a t one tim e .
261
M a jo r 1. S e n io rs in 1968-69 and 1
9
7
4
-
7
& T ea chin g
5
l 0^ Gnt
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.8582
1.8637
2.1 20 8
1.3054
d f
9 , 28
9 , 28
9 , 28
9 , 28
£
.1014
.1003
.0620
.2782
The conclusion was t h a t when the alpha le v e l was set a t
.0 5 , Major 1
seniors d id not vary beyond chance on e i t h e r the term inal o r instrumen
t a l valu e system from 1968-69 to 1974-75. However, f i v e personal values
did vary beyond chance over the years a t p < .05: national security*
true friendship, cheerful, helpful, and logical.
M ajor 3. Seniors in 1968-69 and ^9 7 4 -7 5 --
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
d f
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2.1439
1.0905
2.9470
0.5296
9 , 18
9 , 18
9 , 18
9 , 18
£
.0806
.4158
.0244
.8345
I t was concluded t h a t from 1968-69 to 1 9 7 4 -7 5 , seniors in M ajor 3 were
d i f f e r e n t on the UHIVH a t p < .0244. S in g le values t h a t p in p o in te d the
s i g n i f i c a n t co n trast f o r the Major 3 se n io rs over the years were: a
world at peace, family security* pleasure* ambitious, and cheerful*
p < . 05+.
262
M a jo r 6. S e n io rs in 1968-69 and 1974-75— I n t e r i o r Design e t a l .
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.0862
1.5049
0.8791
0.7314
d f
9 , 12
9, 12
9 , 12
9 , 12
£
.4366
.2502
.5679
.6755
S im ila r to Major 3 freshmen and Major 1 s e n io rs , Major 6 seniors did
not vary beyond chance on any p a rt o f the term inal and instrum ental
value system over the years when the alpha le v e l was s e t a t .0 5 .
N eve rth eles s, two s in g le personal values d id vary beyond chance over
the years in Major 6 s e n io rs : freedom a t p < .0 5 ; and ambitious a t
p < .0 5 .
M ajor 7. Seniors in 1968-69 and 197 4-7 5~ {? ei a i l™ 9 o f c 1 o th in 9
& l e x t i I e s
Subgroup
M u l t i v a r i a t e F
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
3.3916
1.4219
1.0096
0.6600
d f
9 , 29
9 , 29
9 , 29
9 , 29
£
.0059
.2246
.4551
.7372
The conclusion was t h a t Major 7 seniors
in 1968-69 were d i f f e r e n t from
those in 1974-75 on the UHTVH a t p < .0059:
the same conclusion f o r
Major 6 freshmen. The th re e s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tra s tin g values over the
e ig h t y e a r span were: a comfortable life a t p < .0 1 ; inner harmony a t
p< .0 5 ; and forgiving a t p < .05.
As w ith the freshmen majors from 1968-69 to 19 7 4 -7 5 , th e re were
no s p e c i f ic values t h a t were held in common as c o n tra s ts between years
by a l l the se n io r majors. However, the value ambitious was held in
263
common by Major 3 and Major 6 seniors and the value c h e e r fu l was held
in common by Major 1 and Major 3 s e n io rs . The values held in common
by s e n io r majors were not held in common by freshman majors.
Summary o f the Findings
Results from the comparison o f values held by Human Ecology
students by m a jo r, c o lle g e departm ent, and le v e l f o r the block period
1971-1975 in d ic a te d the fo llo w in g :
(1) Majors s i g n i f i c a n t l y v a rie d on the e n t i r e term in al and
instrum ental value systems.
(2 ) Freshman le v e l majors d i f f e r e d more than se n io r le v e l
majors on value systems. Freshman majors v a rie d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on
the upper and lower halves o f the term in al value h ie ra rc h y and lower
h a l f o f the instrum ental value h ie r a r c h y , w h ile s e n io r majors v a rie d
on upper halves o f the term in al and instrum ental value h ie ra rc h y .
Contrast values f o r majors and held in common by freshman and se n io r
majors were a sense of accomplishment, helpful, and imaginative.
(3 ) Freshmen were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from seniors on the
e n t i r e term inal and instrum ental value systems.
(4 ) The c o lle g e departments s i g n i f i c a n t l y v a rie d on the e n t i r e
term inal and instrum ental value systems. Highest homogeneity was in
Family & C hild Sciences and lowest homogeneity was in Human Environment
& Design.
For th e d e te rm in a tio n o f d iffe r e n c e s in personal values held by
Human Ecology students among m a jo rs, c o lle g e departm ents, l e v e l s , and
academic years 1971-72 to 19 7 4 -7 5 , the r e s u lt s were as fo llo w s :
264
( 1 )
In 1971-72 th e re were nine values th a t co n trasted the
m ajors: a comfortable life, a sense of accomplishment* a world of
beautyi equality* inner harmony* social recognition* ambitious*
courageous* and imaginative.
In 1974-75 the one c o n tra s t value was
social recognition.
( 2 ) The c o lle g e departments decreased in varian ce from 1971-72
to 1974-75 to the p o in t o f d i f f e r i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y on o n ly the personal
value family security in 1974-75. While Food Science & Human N u t r i t i o n
gave l e a s t preference to family security
in 11th p o s it i o n , Family E col
ogy and Family & C hild Sciences placed th e value in 8th p o s itio n and
Human Environment & Design in 9th p o s it io n . Department homogeneity
was g r e a t e s t in Family Ecology and l e a s t in Human Environment &
Design in 1974-75.
( 3 ) Value d iffe re n c e s between freshmen and sen io rs from
1971-72 to 1974-75 have decreased, r e s p e c t i v e l y , from 12 to 7
personal v a lu e s. By 19 74-75, freshmen ranked the values salvation*
family security* honest* and ambitious h ig h e r than s e n io rs . Seniors
ranked the values an exciting life* capable* and independent higher
than freshmen.
( 4 ) C ontrast among the academic years 1971-72 to 1974-75
was s i g n i f i c a n t on the e n t i r e term inal value system and the upper
h a l f o f th e instrum ental value system. S i g n i f ic a n t c o n tra s tin g values
over the fo u r years were: an exciting life* a world at peace* family
security* happiness* social recognition* true friendship* and cheerful.
265
Findings from the comparison o f freshman non transfers to
tra n s fe rs on personal values in F a ll and Spring term o f the years
1971-72 to 1974-75 were:
( 1 ) Freshmen s i g n i f i c a n t l y d if f e r e d from tr a n s f e r students
from 1971-72 to 1974-75 on the upper and lower halves o f the term inal
value h ie ra rc h y and upper h a l f o f the instrum ental value h ie ra rc h y .
The s i g n i f i c a n t co n trast values f o r the le v e ls
in the fo u r academic
years were: a world at peace, a world of beauty, equality, happiness,
inner harmony, self respect, social recognition, ambitious, capable,
and independent.
(2 ) By 1974-75 freshmen had only g r e a t e r s i g n i f i c a n t preference
f o r salvation and obedient w h ile tra n s fe r s had only g r e a t e r s i g n i f i c a n t
preference f o r mature love and capable.
( 3 ) N e ith e r freshmen nor tra n s fe r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t
in F a ll and Spring term o f each academic y e a r from 1971 to 1975. Fresh
men and tr a n s f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y varied over the years 1971 to 1975 in
F a ll and Spring terms.
For the d eterm in ation o f d iffe re n c e s in personal values held by
Home Economics students in 1968-69 and Human Ecology students in 1974-75
by m ajor, c o lle g e department,
l e v e l , and y e a r the r e s u lts were as
fo llo w s :
( 1 ) From 1968-69 to 1974-75 each m ajor changed s i g n i f i c a n t l y
on only p a r t o f the term in a l and instrum ental value systems. Contrast
values over the years f o r each major were unique to the m a jo r.
( 2 ) From 1968-69 to 1974-75 the f o u r c o lle g e departments
varied in s i g n i f i c a n t change on the te rm in a l and instrum ental value
266
systems. The Human Environment & Design department changed
s i g n i f i c a n t l y on 11 values, Family Ecology on 8 v a lu e s , Food Science
& Human N u t r i t i o n on 6 values, and Family & C hild Sciences on 3 va lu e s .
(3) From 1968-69 to 1974-75 freshmen have s i g n i f i c a n t l y changed
more than se n io rs .
Freshmen v a r ie d on the e n t i r e te rm in a l and i n s t r u
mental value systems w ith 19 c o n t r a s t values. Seniors va rie d on the
e n t i r e terminal v a lu e system w ith 8 c o n tras t v a lu e s .
For both f r e s h
man and senior l e v e l s , by 19 74-75, g r e a te r p refe re n c e was placed on
an exciting life, pleasurey independent, and less p reference was placed
on a world at peace, national security, obedient, and polite.
(4) Home Economics students
in 1968-69 s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e d
from Human Ecology students in 1974-75 on the e n t i r e term inal and
instrum ental valu e systems w ith 23 c o n tra s tin g personal values.
Highest f i v e p r i o r i t y terminal values were the same over the years:
happiness, mature love, self respect, inner harmony, and freedom.
H ig hest f i v e p r i o r i t y instrum ental values were th e same over the y e a rs :
honesty loving, responsible, forgiving, and broadminded. While the
values remained in the highest s ix ranked p o s it io n s , the rank p o s itio n
o f the value s h i f t e d over the y e a r s .
In Table 62 a summary o f th e s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s and r e s u lts f o r
each corresponding n u ll hypothesis
i s presented. An alpha le v e l o f
.05
was s e t f o r r e j e c t i o n o f each n u ll hypothesis.
Table 62. Simmary o f the N ull Hypothesis Tests
Hypothesis
S ta tis tic a l3
Procedure
Independent
Variable
Dependent
Variable
Value
of Test
S ta tis tic
df
P
Oecision
Ho 1.1
MANOVA
Majors:0 1971-1975
Ho 1.2
MANOVA
Median
Ho 1.3.1
MANOVA
Levels: Freshman
nontransfer to
senior nontransfer*
1971-1975
Levels in Major,
1971-1975
Major 1
M a - in * 9
n d jO r C
Major 3
Major 4
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHIVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2.6837
1.5435
2.0413
1.8473
4.9803
8.1234
7.9177
5.7893
1.6143
2.5620
2.7320
2.0789
1.2259
2.9640
1.1204
2.1162
1.2781
0.6898
2.2974
1.8376
2.6117
3.0827
1.6870
1.9179
54 5424.85
54 5424.85
54 5424.85
54 5424.85
9 1063
9 1063
9 1063
9 1063
9 194
194
9,
194
9,
194
9f
9, 127
9, 127
9, 127
9| 127
9, 134
9. 134
9, 134
9, 134
9, 90
9, 90
9, 90
9, 90
.0001
.0067
,0001
.0002
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.1134
.0084
.0051
.0332
.2849
.0032
.3532
.0327
.2545
.7172
.0198
.0670
.0100
.0029
,1037
.0592
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
2
6
7
Ma i
rwjor 0
Mainf C
"aJOr 0
U K a Jk M
Major /
Ho 1.3.2
MANOVA
Ho 1.3.3
MANOVA
Majors in Freshman
nontransfer le v e l,
1971-1975
Majors in Senior
nontransfer le v e l,
1971-1975
Ho 1.4
MANOVA
Median
Departments
1971-1975
Ho 2.1
MANOVA
Years, 1971-72,
1972-73, 1973-74,
1974-75
MANOVA
Median
Years, 1971-72,
1974-75
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UNIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0,4980
2,2634
2.9263
1.5323
1.5329
0.9106
2.2127
0.5281
2.0973
1.4589
1.3989
1.7871
1.8943
1.1743
1.5501
1.4460
1.7313
1.3140
1.5061
1.3205
3.3102
1.8974
2.6563
2.6731
3.0513
2.2301
1.5648
1.0737
5.0207
3.9763
2.3732
0.9801
9, 125
9, 125
9, 125
9, 125
9, 195
9, 195
9, 195
9, 195
9, 150
9, 150
9, 150
9, 150
54, 3359.75
54, 3359.75
54, 3359.75
54, 3359.75
54, 2028.91
54, 2028.91
54, 2028.91
54, 2028.91
27, 3338.79
27, 3338.79
27, 3338.79
27, 3338.79
27, 3338.79
27, 3338.79
27, 3338.79
27, 3338.79
9, 574
9, 574
9, 574
9, 574
.8736
.0221
.0036
.1436
.1386
.5170
.0228
.8531
.0331
.1683
.1934
.0751
.0001
.1809
.0064
.0188
.0009
.0639
.0107
.0605
.0001
.0035
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0003
.0319
.3623
.0001
.0001
.0123
.4554
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
2
6
8
Table 62--Continued
S ta tis tic a l3
Hypothesis Procedure
Independent
Variable
Dependent^
Variable
Value
of Test
S ta tis tic
df
P
Decision
Ho 2.2
MANOVA
Majors in year,
1971-72
Majors in year,
1972-73
Majors in year,
1973-74
Majors in year,
1974-75--Major 4
omitted
MANOVA
Median
Departments in
year, 1971-72
Departments in
year, 1974-75
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1,6628
1.3670
1.2739
1.3644
1.6229
1.1181
1.1949
1.3947
1.6074
0.8925
1.3683
1.1753
0.8503
1.2824
1.0233
1.1418
1.9179
1.6034
0.9290
1.6237
0.9644
1.3888
1.1725
1.0837
54, 1692.37
54, 1692.37
54, 1692.37
54, 1692.37
54, 1462.91
54, 1462,91
54, 1462.91
54, 1462.91
54, 1304.84
54, 1304.84
54, 1304.84
54, 1304.84
45, 969.32
45, 969.32
45, 969.32
45, 969.32
27, 976.1
27, 976.1
27, 976.1
27, 976.1
27, 660.7
27, 660.7
27, 660.7
27, 660.7
.0020
.0410
.0892
.0419
.0033
.2612
.1602
.0324
.0039
.6943
.0414
,1834
.7476
.1035
.4315
.2456
.0034
.0268
.5699
.0237
.5176
.0922
.2510
.3529
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
2
6
9
Ho 2.3
MANOVA
Median
Levels in year,
1971-72
MANOVA
Levels in year,
1972-73
MANOVA
Levels in year,
1973-74
MANOVA
Median
Levels in year,
1974-75
Ho 2.4
MANOVA
Major over the
years, 1971-72,
1972-73, 1973-74,
1974-75-Major 1
U3 4am O
naJOr L
Major 3
Major 4
« 107/1 7C
/
^Tear I9/4-/5
A i * J \
omi tted J
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
3.0849
5,3099
3.2802
3.5964
3.4986
2.8128
2.0003
3.2317
2.2441
1.0852
3.8072
1.6941
2.2444
1.9095
3.5272
1.1531
1.2896
1.3795
1.2712
1.2212
0.9649
1.2691
1.2924
1.0056
1,3492
0.8312
0.4579
0.4385
1.8391
1.1245
0.3563
1.3812
9, 336
9, 336
9, 336
9, 336
9, 291
9, 291
9, 291
9, 291
9, 285
9, 285
9, 285
9, 285
9, 203
9, 203
9, 203
9? 203
27, 561.38
27, 561.38
27, 561.38
27, 561.38
27, 389.07
27, 389.07
27, 389.07
27, 389.07
27, 429.96
27, 429.96
27, 429.96
27, 429.96
18, 188
18, 188
18, 188
18, 188
.0015
.0001
.0008
.0003
.0004
.0035
.0392
.0010
.0196
.3737
.0002
.0900
.0207
.0524
.0005
.3273
.1513
.0978
.1647
.2056
.5176
.1696
.1527
.4596
.1160
.7113
.9919
.9943
.0235
.3313
.9933
.1447
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
2
7
0
Table 62--Continued
Hypothesis
S ta tis tic a l3
Procedure
Independent
Variable
Dependent*5
Variable
Value
of Test
S ta tis tic
df
P
Decision
major o
major o
major /
MANOVA
Median
Departments in
years 1971-72
and 1974-75
FE
crc
urn
HtU
rcuki
F5HN
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.3160
1.0727
1.2773
1.3728
1.2347
1.0417
1.0059
0.9918
1.1955
1.2407
1.0409
1.0528
1.6030
1.9452
1.0876
1.6418
2.0186
1.3298
2.2761
1.0981
3.3864
2.5660
1.7027
1.3436
1.2353
0.9858
0.2368
0.7295
27, 365.71
27, 365.71
27, 365.71
27, 365.71
27, 619.79
27, 619.79
27, 619.79
27, 619.79
27, 470.85
27, 470.85
27, 470.85
27, 470.85
9, 119
9, 119
9, 119
9, 119
9, 94
9, 94
9, 94
9, 94
9, 265
9, 265
9, 265
9, 265
9, 66
9, 66
9, 66
9, 66
.1376
.3701
.1642
.1047
.1931
.4081
.4577
.4779
.2307
.1902
.4102
,3944
.1220
.0519
.3771
.1111
,0455
.2322
.0236
.3719
.0006
.0077
.0885
.2145
.2893
.4602
.9878
.6804
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
HO 2.5
MANOVA
MANOVA
Median
HO 2.6.1
MANOVA
Ho 2.6.2
MANOVA
Ho 2.7.1
MANOVA
Level over the
years 1971-72,
etc. to 1974-75
Freshmen
Cftn 1 rtl*C
je ll 1 Urb
Level over the
years 1971-72
and 1974-75
Freshmen
Ca >I 1 AW'f
Ocm ors
Freshman nontrans
fe r Majors in year
1971-72
Freshman nontrans
fe r Majors in year
1973-74
Senior nontransfer
Majors in year
1971-72
Freshman nontrans-
fers in a Major
over years 1971-75
Major 1
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
; LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2.6341
1.9890
1.9058
1.0563
2.2422
0.8654
1.2016
0.9106
4.9563
3.5087
2.2973
0.9777
2.2636
0.9827
1.5584
1.1611
1.9232
1.2379
0.8692
1.2728
1.4572
0.8240
1.1382
1.1073
1.3145
1.5321
1.3576
1.1528
1.5452
1.7462
1.2328
1.4672
27 1931.10
27 1931.10
27 1931.10
27 1931.10
27 1373.29
27 1373.29
27 1373,29
27 1373.29
9 303
9 303
9 303
9 303
9 261
9 261
9 261
9 261
54 713.36
54 713.36
54 713.36
54 713.36
54 861.23
54 861.23
54 861.23
54 861.23
54 902.1
54 902.1
54 902.1
54 902.1
27 263.5
27, 263.5
27. 263.5
27, 263.5
.0001
.0019
.0034
.3859
.0003
.6646
.2192
.5975
.0001
.0004
.0166
.4585
.0187
.4547
.1281
,3205
.0002
.1235
.7358
.0957
.0196
.8130
.2351
.2813
.0675
.0094
.0473
.2146
.0457
.0149
.2036
.0686
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
2
7
2
Table 62--Continued
Hypothesis
S ta tis tic a l3
Procedure
Independent
Variable
Dependent*5
Variable
Value
o f Test
S ta tis tic
df
P
Decision
Major l
M a j o r J
Major 4
Major 5
Major 6
Major 7
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHTVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0.7070
0.8856
1.0990
0.6895
1.2919
0.9500
0.9410
0.6546
0.8795
0.9470
0.6664
1.1591
1.5928
1.1827
1.2357
1.5445
1.3727
0.9570
0.9636
0.8032
2.2547
1.4476
0.7341
0.7978
27, 231.4
27, 231.4
27, 231.4
27, 231.4
27, 237.2
27, 237.2
27, 237,2
27, 237,2
18, 72
18, 72
18, 72
18, 72
27, 278.1
27, 278.1
27, 278.1
27, 278.1
27, 432.9
27, 432.9
27, 432.9
27, 432.9
18, 100
18, 100
18, 100
18, 100
.8582
.6325
.3420
.8752
.1598
.5400
.5529
.9056
.6038
.5278
.8322
.3172
.0349
.2486
.2004
,0454
.1033
.5290
.5193
.7492
.0058
.1265
.7687
.6984
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
2
7
3
Ho 2.7.2
MANOVA
Ho 3.1
MANOVA
Senior nontrans
fers in a Major
over years 1971-
1975—Major 1
Major 2
(Year 1974-75
omitted)
Major 3
Major 4
(Years 1973-1975
omitted)
Major 6
(Year 1973-74
omitted)
Major 7
Freshman nontrans
fers in Fall &
Spring term
1971-72
1972-73
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
UHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.2658
0.9224
1.1414
1.0484
1.8014
1.9036
3.0098
2.0805
1.3238
1.3255
0.6012
0.7889
3.4215
2.3362
1.3265
1.2695
1.2079
0.7991
1.0677
0.8538
1.0909
1.3609
1,1347
1.0439
1.8723
1.2017
0.8074
0.8027
0.3854
2.0739
0.4049
0.9402
27
27
27
27
18
18
18
18
27
27
27
27
9
9
9
9
18
18
18
18
27
27
27
27
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
263.5
263.5
263.5
263.5
74
74
74
74
158.4
158.4
158.4
158.4
40
40
40
40
94
94
94
94
272.3
272.3
272.3
272.3
95
95
95
95
154
154
154
154
.1771
.5797
.2920
.4038
.0410
.0285
.0005
.0150
.1469
.1458
.9396
.7612
.0034
.0320
.2543
.2832
.2711
.6966
.3964
.6337
.3499
.1149
.2991
.4094
.0655
.3032
.6106
.6148
.9408
.0351
.9311
.4922
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Table 62--Continued
S ta tis tic a l3
Hypothes i s Procedure
Independent
Variable
Dependent^
Variable
Value
o f Test
S ta tis tic
df
P
Decision
lQ71-7d
1 3/ J* /
1 Q7A 7K
1y/^-ZD
Ho 3.2
MANOVA
Transfers in Fall
& Spring term
1Q77 77
Iy /£ -/J
1077 7A
iy /
iy /4 -/b
Ho 3.3
MANOVA
Ho 3.4
MANOVA
Freshman nontrans
fers in Fall term
over the years
1971-1975
Transfers in Fall
term over the
years 1972-1975
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHIVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
1.0989
0.7993
0.7886
0.7039
0.1688
0.5798
1.1437
0.9571
1.8910
1.9582
0.7953
0.5659
1.2328
0.7500
0.7496
1.1080
0.2113
0.4793
0.9600
1.2846
2.1980
1.9045
1.6045
1.0525
0.7359
0.5919
0,8567
1.0228
9, 153
9, 153
9, 153
9, 153
9, 130
9, 130
9, 130
9, 130
9, 121
9, 121
9, 121
9, 121
9, 126
9, 126
9, 126
9, 126
9, 90
9, 90
9, 90
9, 90
27, 1314.87
27, 1314.87
27, 1314.87
27, 1314.87
18, 106
18, 106
18, 106
18, 106
.3669
.6175
.6273
.7047
.9968
.8118
.3370
.4786
.0595
.0500
.6213
.8227
.2809
.6625
.6630
.3620
.9922
.8851
.4784
.2563
.0004
.0036
.0261
.3916
.7673
.8986
.6305
.4413
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
2
7
5
Ho 3.5
MANOVA
Ho 3.6
MANOVA
Ho 3.7
MANOVA
Median
Ho 3.8
MANOVA
Ho 3.9
MANOVA
Ho 3.10
MANOVA
UHTVH
Freshman nontrans
fers in Spring term LHTVH
over the years
UHIVH
LHIVN
1971-1975
Transfers in Spring
term over the years
1971-1975
Levels in Year
1971-72 to levels
in year 1974-75
Level over the
Years 1971-72 and
1974-75: Freshmen
to Transfers
Levels to years
Combined Freshmen
& Transfers over
the years 1971-
1975
Combined Freshmen
& Transfers in Fall
term over the years
1971-1975
Combined Freshmen
& Transfers in
Spring term over
years, 1971-1975
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0.8270
1.0619
1.1942
0.6728
2.2474
1.6186
1.0630
1.3189
7.9413
4.7308
2.4040
1.5671
1.1143
6.3480
3.5286
1.5631
1.0050
1.4021
1.2340
0.9365
3.5249
2.0177
1.9952
1.3782
2.2720
1.8804
1.6814
1.0068
2.4235
1.6627
1.2067
1.2764
27, 286.85
27, 286.85
27, 286.85
27, 286.85
27, 1019.90
27, 1019.90
27, 1019.90
27, 1019.90
9, 391
9, 391
9, 391
9, 391
9, 391
9, 391
9, 391
9, 391
9, 391
9, 391
9, 391
9, 391
27, 2877.35
27, 2877.35
27, 2877.35
27, 2877.35
27, 1501.79
27, 1501.79
27, 1501.79
27, 1501.79
27, 1341.16
27, 1341.16
27, 1341.16
27. 1341.16
.7155
.3856
.2372
.8918
.0003
.0244
.3782
.1284
.0001
.0001
.0098
.1231
,3513
.0001
.0004
.1244
.4353
.1851
.2725
.4932
.0001
.0015
.0018
.0926
.0003
.0042
.0159
,4550
.0001
.0181
.2144
.1564
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
2
7
6
Table 62—Continued
Hypothesis
S ta tis tic a l3
Procedure
Independent
Variable
Dependent^
Variable
Ho 4.1
MANOVA
Median
Year 1968-69 to
year 1974-75
Ho 4.2
MANOVA
Level in year
1968-69 & 1974-75
Freshman
nontransfer
Senior
nontransfer
Ho 4.3
MANOVA
Major in year
1968-69 & 1974-75
Major 1
Major 2
Major 3
U -
* _ ^
Major 5
r
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
Value
of Test
S ta tis tic
5.9017
11.3053
3.3745
4.6400
5.0352
9.0644
3.4699
3.2602
3.7026
3.8852
0.7184
1.6422
1.3592
2.6098
2.3396
1.1927
0.9497
3.1673
2.1328
2.8029
1.6824
2.6638
1.2194
0.9089
0.5523
1.5814
0.7668
4.1908
df
P
Decision
9 567
9 567
9 567
9 567
9 395
9 395
9 395
9 395
9 162
9 162
9 162
9 162
9 58
9, 58
9, 58
9, 58
9, 51
9, 51
9, 51
9, 51
9, 69
9, 69
9, 69
9, 69
9, 34
9, 34
9, 34
9, 34
.0001
.0001
.0005
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0004
.0008
.0004
.0002
.6915
.1074
.2279
.0133
.0252
.3172
.4917
.0042
,0434
.0095
.1100
.0104
.2977
.5228
.8256
.1605
.6471
.0011
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Z
L
L
n a j u r d
Ma t ni" 7
m a jo r
f
MANOVA
Median
Department in
year 1968-69 &
1974-75:
FE
Ho 4.4.1
MANOVA
urn
ntu
r c u u
r 1HN
Freshman nontrans-
fe r level Major in
year 1968-69 &
1974-75: Major 2
Major 3
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
2.2621
2.2505
0.5844
1.6054
1.5705
2.0825
2.0575
1.0998
1.9594
3.6387
2.8514
2.8407
1.3592
2.6098
2.3396
1.1927
3.6785
4.7647
2.1624
1.8794
0.8979
2.6638
1.2194
0.9089
0.8979
3,2466
2.2020
2.1833
0.8562
1.8790
0.8089
0.8585
9 111
9 111
9 111
9 111
9 105
9 105
9 105
9 105
9 140
9 140
9 140
9 140
9 58
9 58
9 58
9 58
9 270
9 270
9 270
9 270
9 38
9 38
9 38
9 38
9 38
9, 38
9, 38
9, 38
9, 41
9, 41
9, 41
9* 41
.0230
.0238
.8076
.1223
,1337
.0375
.0400
.3695
.0485
.0005
.0041
.0043
.2279
.0133
.0252
,3172
.0003
.0001
.0290
.0551
.5366
.0104
.2977
.5228
.5366
.0052
.0438
.0455
.5705
.0829
,6108
.5686
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
2
7
8
Table 62—Continued
Hypothesis
S ta tis tic a l3
Procedure
Independent
Variable
Dependent^
Variable
Value
of Test
S ta tis tic
df
P
Decision
najur D
n a j O r 0
MajOr /
Ho 4.4.2
MANOVA
Senior nontransfer
level Major in
year 1968-69 &
1974-75: Major 1
U i i A i r ^
M a j o r J
M a j o r o
Major 7
2
7
9
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
UHTVH
LHTVH
UHIVH
LHIVH
0.5611
2.6419
1.7556
3.6474
2.7230
1.9302
0.8284
1.6663
1.3803
2.3317
1.7748
1.0217
1.8582
1.8637
2.1208
1.3054
2.1439
1.0905
2.9470
0.5296
1.0862
1.5049
0.8791
0.7314
3.3916
1.4219
1.0096
0.6600
9 25
9 25
9 25
9 25
9 89
9 89
9 89
9 89
9 66
9 66
9 66
9 66
9 28
9, 28
9, 28
9 , 28
9, 18
9, 18
9» 18
9, 18
9, 12
9, 12
9, 12
9, 12
9, 29
9, 29
9, 29
9, 29
.8154
.0266
.1284
.0050
.0075
.0576
.5918
.1091
.2151
.0240
.0899
.4324
,1014
.1003
.0620
.2782
.0806
.4158
.0244
.8345
.4366
.2502
.5679
.6755
.0059
.2246
.4551
,7372
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Reject Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
Accept Ho
aMANOVA - M u ltiva ria te analysis of variance te s t;
^UHTVK = Upper h a lf terminal value hierarchy;
LHTVH - Lower h a lf terminal value hierarchy;
UHIVH= Upper h a lf instrumental value hierarchy; and
LHIVH = Lower h a lf instrumental value hierarchy.
cMajor 1 - Child Development & Teaching;
Major 2 = Consumer-Community Services, Family Ecology, Family Ecology-Communication Arts;
Major 3 = Foods, D ie te tics, N u tritio n ;
Major 4 = Home Economics Education;
Major 5 3 Clothing & T extiles;
Major 6 * In te rio r Design, Human Environment & Design; and
Major 7 = R etailing o f Clothing & Textiles.
^Departments: FE = Family Ecology;
FCS = Family & Child Sciences;
HED = Human Environment & Design; and
FSHN = Food Science & Human N u tritio n .
2
3
0
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY
The o u t lin e o f Chapter V s t a r t s w ith s ta tin g the conclusions
corresponding to the questions asked in
the statement o f th e problem
in Chapter I . A discussion o f the fin d in g s and conclusions fo llo w .
L a s tly *
im p lic a tio n s r e la t e d to College o f Human Ecology program
and fu tu r e research recommendations are presented.
Conclusions
D e riv a tio n o f the conclusions f o r the study came from the
reported fin d in g s which in tu rn answered s p e c if ic n u ll hypotheses based
upon th e o r i g i n a l questions and o b je c tiv e s o f the study e s ta b lis h e d f o r
examination o f the problem.
At the outset th e n , f o r the problem o f study answers to six
questions were sought:
1. What is the value o r i e n t a t i o n and trend o f youth a tte n d in g
the c o lle g e o f Human Ecology?
2. Are students g e n e r a lly a l l the s^me o r do they d i f f e r by
subgroup or s p e c i f ic major o r le v e l?
3. Do c o lle g e departmental d iv is io n s r e a l l y d i f f e r ?
4. Are e n te rin g undergraduate students d i f f e r e n t in o r ie n t a t io n
from the g raduating students?
281
282
5. With c o lle g e name and program change in 1970 from Home Economics
to Human Ecology, i s th e re a d i f f e r e n t kind o f student o r i e n t a
t i o n , given a change in c o lle g e o r ie n ta tio n ? Hence, do the
1968-69 Home Economics students d i f f e r from the 1974-75 Human
Ecology students in gen eral? Do student value o r ie n ta t io n s
change over time?
6. Can p re d ic tio n s be made about groups and t h e i r o r ie n t a t io n s
and p r i o r i t i e s ?
In t u r n , the purpose o f the study was to compare the personal
values o f Home Economics and Human Ecology undergraduate female students
a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity over the time 1968-1975 and by the student
academic major a n d /o r c o lle g e department and le v e l s ta tu s .
Following the purpose o f the stu d y, the o v e r a ll design compared
students by majors and/or departm ents, l e v e l s , and years on 36 dependent
v a r ia b le s , personal values, in sep arate and group form.
Hence, d ata on the personal value o r ie n ta t io n s were c o lle c te d
w ith the Rokeach Value Survey, Form D and Form F, from Home Economics
female undergraduates in 1968-69 and Human Ecology female undergrad
uates from 1 9 7 1 -7 5 , a r e p r e s e n ta tiv e sample, n = 2 ,3 5 1 .
Findings re s u lte d from comparing groups f i r s t on va lu e systems
o f
18 va lu e s, subdivided in t o two l i s t s o f n in e , and t e s t in g the n u ll
hypotheses by ap p lyin g the m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a ly s is o f va ria n c e t e s t .
S i m i l a r l y , fin d in g s were d erived by comparing groups on sep arate p e r
sonal values and t e s tin g by use o f the Median t e s t and concordance
c o e f f i c i e n t .
283
Thus, the conclusions were as fo llo w s :
1.
In the l a s t y e a r , 1974-75, the Human Ecology freshmen and
seniors were concerned a t foremost w ith t h e i r own self-d evelo pm en t:
being competent, expanding s e l f , r e l a t i n g to o th e rs , and g a in in g s e l f
respect and i d e n t i t y . The s ix term inal values given p r i o r i t y were:
inner harmony, self respect, happiness, freedom, true friendship, and
mature love. Of second importance and g r e a t e r importance than in p r i o r
years (1 9 6 8 -6 9 ) to the Human Ecology students was the focus on being
o t h e r - d ir e c te d towards micro groups r a t h e r than a macro group. On the
macro group l e v e l , the values national security and a world at peace
are now ranked low on the term in a l value h ie ra rc h y a t , r e s p e c t i v e l y ,
18th and 11th p o s it io n , p < .0001. On the micro group l e v e l , the values
family security, ambitious, responsible, and capable average a composite
rank order p o s itio n o f 7 . 5 . There was no d e f i n i t e p o s itio n on a time
span f o r reaching end goals since th e re was expression f o r both immediate
and delayed g r a t i f i c a t i o n . R e s p e c tiv e ly , on the one hand the s i g n i f
icant values an exciting life and pleasure, p < .00 0 5 , were stressed more
and, on the o th e r hand, the values wisdom and inner harmony, p < .0 5 + ,
were also stressed more.
In b r i e f , the Human Ecology students have
s h ifte d t h e i r term inal goals to a s e l f conscious-awareness and d e v e l
opment o r i e n t a t i o n on a micro group l e v e l . However, the students s t i l l
considered th e dominant means to the ends as being honest, loving,
responsible, broadminded, forgiving, and independent.
F u r th e r , as
a group in the College o f Human Ecology, the students had g r e a t e r
agreement on t h e i r value o r i e n t a t i o n as th e re was an average increase
284
over the years o f 3.5 p o in ts in concordance to a c u rre n t W= .32 on
term inal values and W= .29 on
instrumental v a lu e s.
2.
Human Ecology undergraduate woman students d i f f e r e d by
majors and by level during 1971-1975. O v e ra ll from 1971-1975 the
majors in each academic y e a r have become less c o n tra s tin g .
In
1971-72 th e re were nine c o n tr a s t values: a comfortable life, a sense
of accomplishment, a world o f beauty, equality, inner harmony, social
recognition, ambitious, courageous, and imaginative, and d if f e r e n c e
on the te rm in a l value h ie r a r c h y , p < . 0 5 + , whereas, in 1974-75 there
was one c o n tra s t value social recognition and no d if f e r e n c e on the
term in al and instrum ental v a lu e h ie r a r c h ie s .
The two years 1971-72
and 1972-73 held in common th e s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tra s t values a comfortable
life, equality, and imaginative, p< .05+.
The two years 1973-74 and
1974-75 d id not hold any c o n tr a s t values
in common. However, in con
clusion o f the block perio d 1971-1975, majors s i g n i f i c a n t l y v a rie d on
both the te rm in a l and in s tru m ental value systems, p< .01+.
The comparison o f majors a t the freshman and s e n io r le v e ls f o r
the block perio d 1971-1975 le d to the conclusion th a t freshman majors
contrasted more than s e n io r majors. The freshman le v e l majors were
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on the UHTVH, UHIVH, and LHIVH, p< .0 5 + , w hile
the s e n io r le v e l majors were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , p < .0 1 + , on the
UHTVH and UHIVH. Contrast values among majors and held in common by
freshmen and seniors were a sense of accomplishment, helpful, and
imaginative. No conclusion was made about the d iffe re n c e s among majors
by le v e l f o r each year as th e re was incom plete in fo rm a tio n .
285
I t was concluded t h a t Human Ecology students during 1971-1975
d if f e r e d a t the freshman and t r a n s f e r le v e ls on the UHTVH, LHTVH, and
UHIVH, p< .005+. The two groups were d is tin g u is h e d by the term inal
values a world at peace, a world o f beauty, equality, happiness, inner
harmony, self respect, and social recognition, C o n tras t instrum ental
values were ambitious, capable, and independent. However, to d a te ,
1974-1975, freshmen d i f f e r e d from t r a n s f e r s on only f i v e values:
inner
harmony, mature love, salvation, capable, and obedient. Over the y e a r s ,
then, the c o n tra s t values changed f o r freshmen and t r a n s f e r s but the
q u a n tity was reduced only by one v a lu e . Transfers placed higher p r i o r
i t y on values concerned w ith s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t than d id freshmen.
When freshmen and tra n s fe r s were subgrouped by term w ith in
an academic y e a r , n e it h e r freshmen nor tra n s fe rs in F a ll term were
d i f f e r e n t from those
in Spring term. Thus, freshmen and tra n s fe rs
as two groups were the same throughout the academic y e a r .
3.
For the block period o f 1971-1975, the Human Ecology
departm ents, FE, FCS, HED, and FSHN, have d if f e r e d on both the te rm in a l
and instrum ental va lu e systems a t p < . 0 0 5 + . The departments v a rie d in
t h e i r amount o f group consensus on ranking o f the two value h ie r a r c h ie s
w ith FCS having the highest agreement and HED the low est agreement. The
department average concordance c o e f f i c i e n t was W= .33 w ith a range o f a
high o f W= .37 and a low o f W= .2 9 .
However, the departments have decreased in va ria n c e from 1971
to 1975 to a p o in t o f being homogeneous on both te rm in a l and ins tru m e n ta l
value systems.
In 19 74-75, family security was the o n ly value t h a t
separated the departments. The department FSHN placed the le a s t
286
p r i o r i t y , 11th p o s i t i o n , on family security and hence was the f a r t h e s t
away from the human e c o lo g ic a l systems’ focus on the f a m ily as an
ecosystem.
Departmental agreement on ra nking values v a rie d but remained
a t th e same average o f W= .33 and HED s t i l l was l e a s t homogeneous
W= .2 9 5 . Highest agreement was in FE w ith W= .365.
4.
The conclusion was th a t d u rin g the block period 1971-1975
freshman nontransfers d i f f e r e d from s e n io r nontransfers on both t h e i r
te rm in a l and in s tru m ental value systems a t p < . 0 1 + and on 17 personal
v a lu e s : an exciting life, family security, inner harmony, mature love,
national security, salvation, true friendship, ambitious, capable,
courageous, forgiving, imaginative, independent, intellectual, obedient,
polite, and self controlled.
When broken down by separate academic y e a rs , freshmen were s t i l l
d i f f e r e n t from s e n io rs on the two v a lu e systems. However, d iffe r e n c e s
between the two l e v e l s has been narrowed to f i v e values which have over
th e years been s i g n i f i c a n t co n trasts.
Freshmen tended to rank the values
salvation, family security, and ambitious higher than s e n io rs . Seniors
have tended to rank th e values capable and independent h ig her than
freshmen. Thus, th e d if f e r e n c e was t h a t freshmen tended to be more
i d e a l i s t i c than s e n io rs o r seniors tended to be more r e a l i s t i c in t h e i r
g o a ls about themselves.
The c o n tra s t values between l e v e ls may be an
i n d ic a t io n of a b as ic maturing o f u n i v e r s i t y women in th e average age
range o f 18 to 22 y e a rs r a th e r than an
in d ic a tio n o f c o n tra s ts between
l e v e l s in Human Ecology.
287
5. The Human Ecology students in 1974-75 were d i f f e r e n t from
the Home Economics students in 1968-69 since t h e i r term inal and
instrum ental value systems v a rie d a t p < .0 0 1 + and th e re was c o n tra s t
on 23 values. Over the y e a r s , freshmen were d i f f e r e n t on the two value
systems w ith 19 values in c o n tr a s t. Seniors changed only t h e i r term inal
value system and e ig h t v a lu e s. Hence, freshmen changed tw ice as much as
seniors from 1968-69 to 1974-75. However, w ith the c o n tra s t values held
in common by both freshmen and seniors the d ir e c t io n o f change and
amount o f change in rank p o s itio n s was s i m i l a r . Freshmen and seniors
changed over the years on the v a lu e s , an exciting life, a world, at
peace, national security, pleasure, independent, intellectual, obedient,
and polite.
The seven common c o n tra s t values may be an i n d i c a t o r o f
value change over the years in the College o f Home Economics/Human
Ecology an d /o r in campus youth.
The majors and c o lle g e departments have both p a r t i a l l y changed
on t h e i r valu e systems over the y e a r s , however, the groups have v a rie d
in amount o f change. The o rd e r f o r fo u r departments from h ig h e s t
amount o f change to lowest amount o f change in value o r ie n t a tio n s
was FE, HED, FCS, and FSHN.
6.
I t was concluded t h a t from 1968-69 to 1974-75, the sub
d iv is io n s a t freshman and s e n io r l e v e l , w it h in the C o lle g e , have
changed from being d i s t i n c t separate enclaves to homogeneous subgroups.
However, w ith c u rr e n t d iv is io n by academic majors the value social
recognition separated the seven groups. With d iv is io n by departments
the value family security separated the fo u r groups. Time has not
merged the freshman and s e n io r le v e l s . Freshmen s t i l l d i f f e r e d from
288
seniors in 1974-75 on the f i v e v a lu e s , family security, salvation,
ambitious, capable3 and independent.
In b r i e f , the value o r ie n t a t io n
o f Human Ecology students in 1974-75 could be c h a ra c te r iz e d by a concern
f o r s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t and development w ith an i n t e r e s t in being involved
a t the micro s o c ia l group l e v e l , however, the su b d ivis io n s o f Human
Ecology showed d iffe r e n c e s
in concern f o r social
i n t e r a c t i o n . The
Human Ecology students were s i m i l a r to the general tre n d in campus
youth towards concern f o r s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t . S p e c ific value d iffe re n c e s
or s i m i l a r i t i e s towards o th e r s o c ia l groups could n o t be determined.
Pi scussion
One o f th e problems in the data c o lle c t io n and a n a ly s is o f value
o r ie n t a t io n s o f people is the interdependent and d iv e rs e way in which
values are acq uired and held.
I t is d i f f i c u l t to c o n tro l f o r a l l f a c
to rs th a t c o n tr ib u t e to the o rd e rin g o f values in a h ie ra rc h y which
an in d iv id u a l may hold. Thus,
in the present study o f comparison o f
student personal values th ere has been d i f f i c u l t y in c o n t r o ll i n g f o r the
in flu e n c e o f the general campus youth and s o c ie ta l valu e o r ie n t a t io n s
upon the female students in Human Ecology. The f in d in g s have shown a
d e c lin e in the p r i o r i t y upon the values national security and a world
at peace.
There are doubts as to the two values being unique in d ic a to r s
akin to Human Ecology students as campus youth stu d ie s
in the 19 7 0 's .
Flacks (1 9 7 1 ), Lystad (1 9 7 3 ), and Yankelovitch (1974b) have in d ic a te d
a d e c lin e in r a d ic a l p ro te s ts f o r peace and c u rre n t s o c ia l
issues and a
w illin g n e s s to accept so c ia l ru le s o f school and work in o rder to g e t
ahead as youths have now recognized the l i m i t s o f power o f t h e i r
289
m in o rity group s ta tu s .
F u r th e r , the end o f th e V ie t Nam War and
m i l i t a r y d r a f t (Robinson, 1975) and s h i f t to the p o l i t i c a l e th ic s
o f Watergate and p r i o r i t i e s in i n t e r n a t io n a l n e g o tia tio n s o f raw
resources and p o l i t i c a l
in te rv e n tio n s have refocused the c o u n try 's
a t t e n t io n and p o s itio n on p r i o r i t i e s o f s u r v i v a l .
S i m i l a r l y , the trend o f Human Ecology students to be concerned
about s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t and self-d evelo pm en t is also p a r a l l e l to the
guestimate o f an increased humanistic tre n d in youth (L y s ta d , 1973).
However, the combination o f increase towards s e l f development and
concern f o r r e l a t i n g to a micro le v e l s o c ia l group may be unique to
Human Ecology. Accurate s o c ia l trends a re not a v a ila b le f o r compar
ison o f th e stu d y's sample to another group, hence hypothesizing is the
a l t e r n a t i v e c o n s id e ra tio n .
F u r th e r, the upward use in woman’ s rig h ts
and a peaking in 1975 w ith In t e r n a tio n a l Woman's Year is p a r a l l e l to
the c u rre n t higher ranking o f the values capable, ambitious, independent,
social recognition, and responsible. Does the decrease in ranking o f
the value cheerful ( l i g h t h e a r t e d , j o y f u l )
imply an increase in a
serious tone towards l i f e ?
When the 1968-69 Home Economics students as one group were
compared to the 1974-75 Human Ecology s tu d e n ts , the top f i v e ranked
values in the terminal and instrum ental valu e h ie ra rc h ie s remained in
the same b ra c k e t. Thus,
in o rder to compare the 1974-75 Human Ecology
female students to Rokeach's l a t e s t n a tio n a l woman sample in 1968, the
use o f the Home Economics 1968-69 group can be used as an in te rm e d ia te
l i n k to compare in another time p erio d. The 1974-75 Human Ecology
students then do d i f f e r from the American woman sample sin ce the
290
value p r i o r i t i e s a re in c o n tra s t. W hile the 1974-75 Human Ecology
women place p r i o r i t y on inner harmony, self respect, happiness,
freedom, true friendship, and mature love, the n a tio n a l sample o f
women p re fe rre d a world at peace, family security, freedom, salvation,
happiness, and self respect. S i m i l a r l y , w ith instrum ental v a lu e s,
both the 1968-59 Home Economics and 1974-75 Human Ecology students
placed p r i o r i t y on th e instrum ental v a lu e s , honest, loving, responsible,
forgiving, independent, and broadminded. However, the n a tio n a l 1968
female sample p r e fe r r e d honest, forgiving, responsible, ambitious,
broadminded, and courageous.
The c u rre n t Home Economics and Human Ecology student sample has
not been c o n tro lle d f o r d iffe re n c e s
in value o r ie n t a tio n s according to
d iffe re n c e s in age. However, a maximum o f 97 p e rc e n t, o r 97 times out
o f 100, o f the students do c lu s t e r in th e 18 to 22 y e a r age range.
Rokeach (1973, pp. 7 2 -8 2 ) has noted t h a t value p r i o r i t i e s do s h i f t w ith
age. Results from th e 1974-75 Human Ecology sample do f o llo w p a r t i a l l y
the age d iffe r e n c e p a tte rn s in value holding and thus an ex p la n a tio n f o r
p a r t o f the sample's value o r i e n t a t i o n is provided. To e la b o ra te on 13
i d e n t i f i e d developmental p attern s d u rin g the c o lle g e y e a r s , in the f i r s t
p a t t e r n , a sense of accomplishment, wisdom, and responsible do f a l l
i n t o
the middle to upper p a r t o f the value s c a le as p re d ic te d .
In p a tte rn tw o,
instead o f becoming moderately im p ortan t,
imaginative, intellectual, and logical remained less than moderately
im portant w hile inner harmony was given f i r s t rank p o s it io n .
291
In p a tte r n th r e e , a world o f beauty and polite a re o f les s e r
importance and in accord, however, true friendship is in discord by
being im portant in the f i f t h rank p o s itio n .
In p a tte r n fo u r , obedient is c o n s is te n t by being in 18th rank
p o s itio n during c o lle g e y e a rs .
In p a tte r n f i v e , an exciting life and pleasure do not fo llo w
the p a tte rn o f being a t the bottom o f the value h ie ra rc h y . Rather the
two values are in 12th and 15th p o s itio n s .
In p a tte r n s i x , self respect, ambitious, and broadminded do f i t
in to the c o r r e c t p o s itio n o f being o f major importance.
In p a tte r n seven, loving is in second rank p o s itio n as found
f o r e le v e n -y e a r-o ld s .
In p a tte r n e i g h t , mature love f i t s the sharp r i s e to an average
o f f i f t h p lace during c o lle g e y e ars.
And in p a tte rn n in e , a world at peace in 11th p la c e , family
security in 8 th place, and capable in 10th place are p a r a l l e l to the
c o lle g e y e a r p a t te r n .
For p a tte rn te n , independent rose to 6th rank p o s itio n in
opposition to the p a tt e r n 's sharp decrease in c o lle g e y e a rs .
In p a tte r n e le v e n , salvation is another value t h a t does not
fo llo w the c o lle g e year p a tte r n as i t is ranked 17th r a t h e r than 14th.
In p a tte r n tw e lv e , national security is s i m i l a r as i t is ranked
in 18th p o s itio n r a th e r than 17th p o s itio n f o r those in c o lle g e .
L a s t l y , the value honest over the years 1968-69 shows the same
s t a b i l i t y o f being ranked in f i r s t place over time and by groups. Thus,
from the comparison o f 1974-75 Human Ecology student valu e o r ie n t a t io n
292
to the developmental value p a tte r n s , the Human Ecology o r i e n t a t i o n is
f o r a p a r t a fu n c tio n o f age r a th e r than Human Ecology per se.
There is some chance e r r o r in the r e s u lts o f the present study
as some fa c to r s were not c o n t r o lle d . One e r r o r could be the v a r ia t io n
in general wording o f i n i t i a l d ir e c t iv e s a t the time o f th e survey
a d m in is tra tio n since th e re were a minimum o f f i v e d i f f e r e n t a d m in is tra
to rs over the e ig h t y e a r span. However, the respondent was d ire c te d to
read the s im p le, b r i e f , s e l f e x p la n a to ry d ir e c tio n s on the back o f the
f r o n t cover sheet o f the survey and then proceed to complete the survey.
The t r a d e - o f f may come from the f a c t t h a t the s t a r t i n g p o in ts f o r survey
a d m in is tra tio n were in varian ce but th e re was an immediate co n siste n t
course c o rr e c tio n by the respondents' reading d ir e c t io n s . Reader
m is in te r p r e ta tio n o f w r i t t e n d ir e c t io n s could be a f u r t h e r e r r o r .
S i m i l a r l y , since the survey can be q u ic k ly done in a s in g le
session o f 20 minutes by an in d iv id u a l u n assisted , the d iffe r e n c e s in
environmental s e ttin g s f o r survey co m p letion , e . g . , classroom versus
respondent's home, may have l i t t l e b earing upon the r e s u l t s . A t t r i t i o n
o f those surveys completed a t home was not g r e a te r than those done
in the classroom. However, discussion o f the survey w h ile completing
the survey would not have been c o n tr o lle d when done a t home. Value
a c q u is itio n and reranking can be in flu e n c e d and/or learned through
s o c i a l i z a t i o n , e . g . , sh aring d i f f e r e n t viewpoints and r a t io n a le s on
an issue. For purposes o f the study i t was assumed t h a t the environment
d iffe r e n c e would not be a s i g n i f i c a n t in flu e n c in g f a c t o r upon data
r e s u lt s .
293
In th e same way i t was assumed t h a t the eq u ivalen ce r e l i a b i l i t y
o f Form D and Form F o f the survey gave no s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e o f
re s u lt r e p o r t in g , aside from Form F 's increased a t t r i t i o n r a t e over
Form D due to r e p e t i t i o n o f w r i t in g o u t a value and thus o m ittin g
another va lu e .
I t i s p o s sib le t h a t th e re was a Hawthorne e f f e c t when a student
completed a valu e survey as a freshman and l a t e r as a s e n io r. R e l i a b i l
i t i e s over a th re e to fo u r y e a r span have not been done, hence no
a s c e rta in in g o f th e presence o f a Hawthorne e f f e c t can be detected.
The longest time span on r e l i a b i l i t i e s has been 14 to 16 months with
a median rho o f
.69 and .6 1 . Future research could e n t a i l the f o llo w -
through o f respondents from freshman to se n io r year to d e riv e the
consistency o r inconsistency in responding. However, change over time
due to age development must als o be considered.
There may be a b u i l t - i n bias i n t o senior stu d en t value o r ie n t a
tions as the c la ss theme in Spring term o f the years v a r ie d and students
would attem p t to s e le c t the term in which the class theme was o f personal
appeal. The s e n io r class v a rie d in W in te r and S p rin g , 1972-1975, from
consumer sc en e rio to e q u a l i t y o f women an d /o r m i n o r i t i e s . However, an
underlying theme o f the classes was e q u a l i t y . The consumer group had
o b j e c t i v i t y and a broad scope o f i n t e r r e l a t e d f a c e t s — government,
business, consumer. The woman's e q u a l i t y class d e a l t a ls o w ith the
basic humanistic issue o f r ig h t s and v o ic in g o f concerns f o r a group
but the empathy was personal and s in g u la r versus concern and group
comm unity-oriented.
In the woman's
issue the student can more e a s ily
express and a c t out a p o s itio n than in a consumer issue in cla s s . Thus,
294
the term inal value o r i e n t a t i o n f o r women's rig h ts and consumer arena
may have the same stance in freedom and e q u a lit y .
I t may be the
instrum ental value o r i e n t a t i o n t h a t is in c o n tra s t as the means to
express a p o sitio n may re q u ire d i f f e r e n t ve h icles since one class
was more in d iv id u a l and personal
in o r i e n t a t i o n than th e o th e r c la s s .
Erro r due to in c o r r e c t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of surveys can e x is t
since th ere was a post hoc i d e n t i f i c a t i o n plan w ith ou t a complete
an d /o r possible v a l i d a t i o n technique. V a lid a tio n t h a t was possible
allowed f o r an e r r o r o f an average, two out o f one hundred cases.
The primary area o f e r r o r would have been w ith in c o r r e c t academic
major i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Some c e r t a in t y o f student le v e l was determined
immediately by knowledge o f the term and le v e l o f the course and class
in which the survey was adm inistered.
L a s tly , since the sample is re p re s e n ta tiv e by major and less
by l e v e l , g e n e r a liz a tio n s to the C ollege o f Human Ecology population
can be made with s a f e ty and also since the sample includes 41 to 70
percent of the p op ulatio n in any one y e a r . However, when r e f e r r i n g
to the fin d in g s and subsequent conclusions about l e v e l s , the
w eighting in a s p e c if ie d d ir e c t io n should be remembered.
The class theme a t the time o f the senior student survey
a d m in is tra tio n should als o be considered when re fe re n c e is made
to s e n io r students.
295
Im p lic a tio n s
*
College Program
Since the Human Ecology students
lean towards a humanistic and
s e l f searching value o r i e n t a t i o n , they are in t e r e s t e d in r e l a t i n g to
other people and being in v o lv e d a t a micro group l e v e l . There is a
possible gap in the c o lle g e program since the Marcus (1974, 1975)
study in d ic a te d th a t the c o lle g e was p r o f i c i e n t in p ro vid in g alumni
with a s a t i s f a c t i o n in meeting s e l f development needs. The c o lle g e
program gap may be the lac k o f o p p o rtu n itie s and lea rn in g s t h a t express
the concept o f the r e la t io n s h ip o f a s tu d e n t,
in a fu n c tio n a l r o l e , to
a micro s o c ia l group, e . g . , a p ro fess io n al r o l e in r e l a t i o n to the
fa m ily .
O p p o rtu n itie s to ap p ly and c re a te relevance need to be increased
w ith in the c o lle g e program and courses.
The p o in t is w e ll taken when
reference is made to Y a n k e lo v itc h 's (1974a) observation about the c u r
rent b ip o l a r f u n c tio n a l/n o n fu n c tio n a l d ir e c t io n o f p ro fe s s io n a l home
economists.
I f youth are s e t t i n g p ro fess io n al tre n d s , the Human Ecology
students a r e being placed in an underdeveloped s i t u a t i o n a t the u n i
v e r s ity because they may not be provided w ith lea rn in g s t h a t c re a te
relevance e s p e c ia lly w ith a p ro fe s s io n a l focus. The question is now,
who makes the moves f o r change in the c o lle g e program— the p ro fess io n al
Human Ecologists?
- - t h e Human Ecology students?
- - a team o f stu d en t-
facul ty?
The College o f Human Ecology is an
in t e r f a c e between the Human
Ecology p ro fess io n and the community,
i . e . , between the people and t h e i r
296
environment. The c o lle g e has a d e f i n i t e r o l e to play in p ro vid in g a
two-way in fo rm ation flo w between the f a c t sources and f a c t use in the
environment, i . e . ,
lead paths and provide o p p o rtu n itie s to develop
a p p lic a tio n techniques f o r students.
At p re s e n t, FSHN has remained the most s ta b le c o lle g e
department in value o r i e n t a t i o n from 1968 to 1974, since th e re was
change on only th re e va lu e s. However, out o f the fo u r c o lle g e d e p a r t
ments, FSHN placed l e a s t preference on the value family security
in
1974-75, F u r th e r, family security was the only c o n tra s t value f o r the
departments in 1974-75. Thus, an exam ination o f the reasons f o r the
value p o s itio n va ria n c e and recommendations could be done since the
c o lle g e philosophy includes the f a m ily as the fo c a l so c ia l group.
Considering th e i d e a l i s t i c o r i e n t a t i o n o f freshmen, th e re is
a need to increase p r a c t i c a l experiences through group process and
a p p lic a t io n to re a l s i t u a t i o n s , i f p o s s ib le , in a p ro fess io n al
l i g h t .
T ra n s fe r students are d i f f e r e n t from freshmen in t h a t they
place the values c a p a b l e and i n d e p e n d e n t a t a higher p r i o r i t y p o s itio n
than freshmen, thus implying a more r e a l i s t i c p o s it io n . Hence, t r a n s
fe r s need to be considered as f a r t h e r along in t h e i r r e a l i s t i c s e l f
development than freshmen, i . e . , not to t r e a t l i k e freshmen. However,
since tra n s fe r s a re new to the physical environment o f the C o lle g e of
Human Ecology and p o s s ib ly the u n i v e r s i t y , th e re is a need f o r a human/
m a t e r ia l resource o r i e n t a t i o n to f a c i l i t a t e an easy, q u ic k , and
fu n c tio n in g e n try .
297
Future Research
P o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r f u tu r e research a re:
1. Continue to assess the value o r i e n t a t i o n o f freshmen in
FE 110, F a ll term and seniors in FE 40 1, F a l l , W in te r,
and Spring term o f every second y e a r .
2. Compare past C ollege value o r i e n t a t i o n to c u rre n t value
o r ie n t a t io n to determine the s t a b i l i t y o f the College
value o r i e n t a t i o n . Compare the College value o r ie n ta t io n
to other Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity C o llege value o r i e n t a
t i o n s , and i f p o s s ib le , a n a tio n a l sample.
3. Assess the value o r ie n t a t io n o f male students in Human
Ecology and compare w ith th a t o f female students in Human
Ecology.
4. Compare the Human Ecology f a c u lt y valu e o r ie n t a t io n to
t h a t o f students.
5. Compare the student perceived value o r i e n t a t i o n o f the
College o f Human Ecology to the s t u d e n t's own value
o r ie n t a t io n in o rd e r to measure the people-environment
f i t and hence degree o f a l i e n a t i o n .
Follow-up methods
o f c re a tin g a c lo s e r s tu d e n t-c o lle g e niche could be
developed e s p e c ia lly in the realm o f student ad v is in g .
6. Observe the developmental value p a tte r n s from freshman
to senior le v e l o f the same stu d en t.
298
7. Develop and e v a lu a te a value c l a r i f i c a t i o n and a p p lic a tio n
o f value o r ie n t a t io n course f o r undergraduates as p a r t o f
a s e l f development program and as p a r t o f understanding
c l i e n t s as a p r o fe s s io n a l.
8. On a n ational
l e v e l , compare the va lu e o r ie n t a t io n s o f other
c o lle g e s o f Human Ecology and/or Home Economics, p r e f e r a b ly
w ith freshmen in th e F a ll and se n io rs in the Spring. Use
another instru m ent, te s te d f o r r e l i a b i l i t y to examine
perceptions about the a p p lic a tio n o f Human Ecology
in a
p ro fess io n al r o l e a n d /o r the meaning o f the concept
{p ro fe s s io n a l f u t u r e d ir e c t io n s ) .
9. Use student fo re c a s tin g o f f u tu r e value o r ie n t a t io n o f
pro fession al Human E c o lo g is ts , o r impact o f s o c ie ty on
values to plan C o lle g e program changes f o r a c lo s e r
people-environment f i t .
APPENDIX
ROKEACH VALUE SURVEY, FORM D AND FORM F
VALUE SURVEY
BIRTH DATB___________________________________ SEX: MALE______________FEMALE
CITY and STATE OF BIRTH
NAME (HU. M ONLY IF Mouamo)
300
INSTRUCTIONS
O n H w iw x t p a s • o ra 1 8 v a lu m lis te d in a lp h a b e tic a l o d t r . Y o u r ta s k i» to
a rra n g e th a n in ordor o f th e ir im p o rtan co to Y O U , as g u id in g p rin cip les in Y O U 8
M s . Each v a lu e Is p rin te d on a g u m m ed la b e l w h k h can b e e a s ily p e e le d o ff a n d
pasted In th e boxes on th e le ft-h a n d side o f th e p a g e .
S tu d y th e lis t c a re fu lly a n d p ick o u t th e o n e v a lu e w h k h is th e m ost
Im p o rta n t fo r y o u . Peel it o ff a n d p aste It In Box 1 on th e le ft.
Then p ick o u t th e v a lu e w h k h is second m ost im p o rta n t fo r yo u . Peel it o ff
an d p a s te It in Box 2 . Then do th e sam e fo r each o f th e re m a in in g v a lu e s . The
v a lu e w h k h Is le a s t im p o rta n t goes In Box 1 8 .
W ork s lo w ly a n d th in k c a re fu lly . If you change y o u r m in d , fe e l fre e to ch an g e
yo u r a n s w e rs . The lab els p e e l o ff e a s ily a n d can b e m oved fro m p lace to p lo ce.
The en d resu lt should tru ly sh e w h o w you re a lly fe e l.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
301
A COMFORTABLE UFC
(a p w p tw u i Ufa)
:T
\
\
.. ■
A N EXCITING LIFE
(o stim u latin g , active U fa)
A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT
(la s tin g contribution)
A WORLD AT PEACE
(fre e o f w a r and conflict)
A WORLD OF BEAUTY
(boauty of nature and tfio arts)
EQUALITY (brotherhood,
eq u al opportunity fo r a ll)
FAMILY SECURITY
(ta k in g care o f loved ones)
FREEDOM
(independence, fre e choice)
HAPPINESS
(contentedness)
INNER HARM ONY
(freedom from Inner conflict)
MATURE LOVE
(sexual and sp iritu al intim acy)
NATIO N AL SECURITY
(protection from attack)
PLEASURE
(an en jo yab le, leisu rely life )
SALVATION
(saved, etern al life )
SELF-RESPECT
(self-esteem )
SOCIAL RECOGNITION
(respect, ad m iratio n )
TRUE FRIENDSHIP
(close com pqnioashie)
W ISDO M
(a m ature undorstandlna o f life )
WHEN YOU HAVE FINISHED, G O TO THE NEXT PAGE,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
13
1 4 .
15
16
17
1 8
302
A M B ITIO U S
(h ard -w o rkin g , asp irin g )
BROADM INDED
(• p w H iiln M )
CAPABLE
( w l l l ^ V I V M f VvrvCITTOf
CHORFUL
(lifh riw a rtM l, (o y fu l)
CLEAN
(n o a t, Hdy)
COURAGEOUS
(stan d in g up fo r your bulfofa)
FO R G IV IN G
(w illin g to pardon otfiors)
HELPFUL (w orking
fo r th o w o lfaro o f othors)
HONEST
(sincoro, tru th fu l)
IM A G IN A TIV E
(d a rin g , croaHvo)
INDEPENDENT
(so tf-ro llan *, n lf s u fficien t)
INTELLECTUAL
(in to llig o n t, roflecltvo)
LOGICAL
(consistent, rationa l)
LO V IN G
(affo ctlo n ato , tondor)
OBEDIENT
(dw H fol, roi poclfu l)
POLITE
(courteous, w olfonannovod)
RESPONSIBLE
(dopondablo, ro lia b lo )
SELF-CONTROLLED
(ro stralnod , to lf-d is c ip lin e d )
303
FORM F
SPRING 1975
F 'E t 401
VALUE SURVEY
BIRTH DATE______________________________ SEX: MALE______ FEMALE.
C ITY AND STATE OF BIRTH________________________________________
NAME.
STUDENT NUMBER_______________________________
MAJOR________________________;_____________ YEAR
COPYRIGHTED 1967 BY MILTON ROKEACH
304
INSTRUCTIONS
On th« next page are 16 values In alphabetical order. Your task is to
arrange the* in order of their importance to YOU, as guiding principles in
YOUR life.
Study the list carefully and pick out the one value which is the most
important for you. Print with pencil this selected value in Box 1 on the left
Then pick out the value which is second most important for you. Print
selected value in Box 2. Then do the same for each of the remaining values,
value which is the least important to YOU goes in Box 18.
Work slowly and think carefully. If you change your mind, feel free to
change your answers. The end result should truly show how you really feel.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
305
A COMPOKTAMI IM
\m pmpWOTV nWf
AN SXOTMO UP*
IV n m m v p f wnvv m i
A SOtS* O f ACCOMPUMMMT
(foafo^
A W OUD AT MACS
(fn t 4 war and «m R M
A W OUD O f BIAUVY
Q nw ty nf iwhwt and lfc» « rti|
EQUALITY dhrollii H>B>i
M|oal opportunity foe r i )
PAMAY SSCUKfTY
(tnfclng can of fo o d m m )
R H D O M
(Indi poodiiiti) fto o (M m )
HAPPINESS
INNER HARMONY
(flO odoM ffO R IlM O f c o n flic t)
MATURE LOVK
(ooxvai and oplritunl tnllaMcy)
NATIONAL SECURITY
tp v lV liN II TIVR W C K /
PLEASURE
( M
W l
* ------ *- • -
t—*-
1_ . IM _ t
M M H V V R V |
SALVATION
(oavod, Mwiw l Bfo)
S a M B P K T
V P n N V f N I /
SOCIAL RECOGNITION
IW iO TM W IV
n u s m m osH ip
( d M i
WISDOM
(a matnrn mAnOoodlog a t Hfo|_
WHEN YOU HAVE FINISHED, OO TO THE NEXT PAGE.
Below b another list o f 18 values- A rrange them In o rd e r o f im portance, the tam e as before.
306
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
AMBITIOUS
(hard-w orking, asp irin g )
BROADMINDED
(open m inded)
CAPABLE
CHEERFUL
(lig htheart ed, joyKH )
CLEAN
(neat, tid y )
COURAGEOUS
(standing up fo r your bettefs)
FORGIVING
(w illin g to pardon others)
HELPFUL (working
fo r the w elfare o f others)
HONEST
(sincere, tru th fu l)
IM AG INATIVE
(d arin g , creative)
INDEPENDENT
(self-relian t, self-su fficien t)
INTELLECTUAL
(in tellig en t, ref lective)
LOGICAL
(consistent, ratio n al)
LOVING
(affectionate, tender)
OBEDIENT
(d u tifu l, respectful)
POLITE
(courteous, w ell-m an n ered)
RESPONSIBLE
(dependable, re lia b le )
SELF-CONTROLLED
(restrained, self -dlecipllnod)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A rsenian , S. Change in e v a lu a t iv e a t t it u d e s during fo u r years o f
c o lle g e . Journal o f A p p lie d Psychology, 1943, 27^ 338-349.
A s t l e , M. H. P e rs o n a lity c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f students e n ro lle d in a
fa m ily l i f e course and a general (o r l i b e r a l ) education course a t
Michigan S ta t e U n iv e r s it y . Unpublished m a s te r's t h e s i s , Michigan
S ta te U n i v e r s i t y , 1967.
Bane, L. Values th a t count in home economics.
Journal o f Home
Economics, 1950, 42_, 1 3 -1 5 .
Bengtson, V. L . , and Lovejoy, M, C. Values, p e r s o n a lity and social
s t r u c t u r e . American 8 e h a v io ra l S c i e n t i s t , 16, 88 0-9 12 .
B ro d b e lt, S. Values in c o n f l i c t : Youth analyzes th eo ry and p r a c t ic e .
High School J o u rn a l, 1971, 55 , 63-77.
Brown, M. M. Values in home economics.
Journal o f Home Economics,
1967, 59, 769-775.
Budewig, C. O rig in and development o f the home economics idea.
Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , George Peabody College
f o r Teachers, 1957.
Byrd, F. M. A d e f i n i t i o n o f home economics f o r the 1 9 7 0 's .
Journal
o f Home Economics, 1970, 6 2 , 411-415.
Cochrane, R. , & Rokeach, M. Rokeach's value survey: A methodological
note.
159-161.
Journal o f Experimental Research in P e r s o n a l it y , 1970, 4 ,
College o f Human Ecology Report 4401. East Lansing: Michigan S ta te
U n i v e r s i t y , 1975.
Compton, N. H . , & H a l l , 0. A.
Foundations o f home economics re s e a rc h .
M in n e a p o lis , M inn.: Burgess Publishing Company, 1972,
Corey, S. M. A t t it u d e d if f e r e n c e s between c o lle g e cla s s e s : A summary
and c r i t i c i s m .
321-330.
Journal o f Educational Psychology, 1936, 27
307
308
Creekmore, A. M. The concept basic to home economics.
Journal o f
Home Economics! 1968, 60, 93-99.
Cross, K. P. C ollege women: A research d e s c r ip t io n .
Journal o f
N a tio n a l Association o f Women Deans and Counselors, 1966, 32,
“
D r e s s e l, P. L. O rg an iza tio n in higher e d u c a tio n , w ith special
relevance to home economics. Paper presented a t a meeting
o f Home Economics a d m in is tra to r s , Chicago, May 1968.
D r e s s e l, P. L . , & Lehmann,
I . J. The impact o f higher education on
student a t t i t u d e s , v a lu e s , and c r i t i c a l th in k in g a b i l i t i e s . The
Educational Record, 1965, 46^ 248-258.
Dukes, W. F. Psychological studies o f v a lu e s . Psychological B u l l e t i n ,
1955, 52, 24-50.
E a s t, M. Family l i f e by the year 2000.
Journal o f Home Economics,
1970, 62, 13-18.
The e c o lo g ic a l approach as a u n ify in g frame-work f o r undergraduate
programs in the C o lle g e o f Home Economics a t Michigan S ta te
U n iv e r s it y : P a rt B. Unpublished paper.
The Eleventh Lake P la c id Conference.
6 6, 8-11.
Journal o f Home Economics, 1974,
E p s te in , G. F . , & B r o n z a f t , A. L. Female freshmen view t h e i r ro le s
as women. Journal o f Marriage and F a m ily . 1972,
34, 671-672.
The f a m ily faces change.
Journal o f Home Economics, 1970, 62^, 314.
F e a th e r, N. T. Educational choice and student a t t it u d e s in r e l a t i o n
to term inal and instrum ental va lu e s . A u s tr a lia n Journal o f
Psychology, 1970, 2 2 , 127-144.
F e a th e r, N. T.
Journal of
Value s i m i l a r i t y and school adjustment. A u s tr a lia n
Psychology, 1972, 2 4 , 193-207.
F la c k , R.
The a c q u is it io n and development o f v a lu e s. Report o f
Conference, N a tio n a l
Development. Bethesda, M d ., May 1 5 -1 7 , 1968, 7.
I n s t i t u t e o f C h ild H ealth and Human
Flacks, R. Youth and so c ia l change. Chicago: Markham P u blishing
Company, 1971.
Freedman, M. B.
In flu e n c e o f c o lle g e experience on p e r s o n a lity
development. Psychological R e p o rts , 1961, 8 , 21-22 .
309
Freshman values undergo changes. College Management, 1971, 6^, 41.
F rie s e n , D. Value o r ie n t a t io n s o f modern yo u th , a comparative study.
Adolescence, 1972, 7., 265-271.
Fukushima, Y. D e s c rip tio n o f in te rp e rs o n a l values and r a t in g s of
students a t home management resid en ce. Unpublished m a s te r's
t h e s i s , Michigan S ta te U n iv e r s it y , 1966.
Grundstrom, V. Energy! energy! w h e re -fo re a r t thou? Unpublished
m anu scrip t, 1975.
H arp er, L. J. The s ta tu s o f home economics in higher ed ucation.
Journal o f Home Economics, 1975, £ 7 , 7 -1 0 .
Hechinger, F. M. C u lt o f the s e l f a t t r a c t s youth. The Montreal S t a r ,
June 2 0 , 1974, A -9.
H i l l , E. H. Human values in home economics.
Journal o f Home Economics,
1955, 47, 592-594.
Hoge, D. R. College stu d en ts' value p a tte rn s in the 1950's and 19 60 's.
Sociology o f Education , 1970, 44, 170-197.
H o lla n d , J. L. Some e x p lo ra tio n s o f th eo ry o f vocational choice.
Psychological Monographs, 1962, 76, No. 26.
Homant, R. V alues, a t t i t u d e s , and perceived in s t r u m e n t a lit y .
Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y , 1970.
Home economics new d i r e c t i o n s . Prepared by the Committee on Philosophy
and O b jec tives o f Home Economics. Washington, D .C .: American Home
Economics A s s o c ia tio n , June 1959.
Hook, N. C . , & P a o lu c c i, B. The f a m ily as an ecosystem.
Journal o f
Home Economics, 1970, 62, 315-318.
How your l i f e w i l l change. U.S. News & World R eport, March 3 , 1975,
7 8 , 3 2 -3 5 .
Jacob, P. E. Changing values in c o l l e g e . New York: Harper and Row,
1957.
J u o la , A. E. College perceptions and ex p ectation s o f e n te r in g MSU
students (OES Research Report No. 3 ) . East Lansing, MichT: O ff ic e
o f E v alu a tio n S e rv ic e s , Michigan S ta te U n iv e r s it y , 1973.
K e l l y , K . , S ilverm an, B.
I . , & Cochrane, R. Social d e s i r a b i l i t y and
the Rokeach value survey.
P e r s o n a l it y , 1972, 6 , 84 -87 .
Journal o f Experimental Research in
310
Keniston, K. Young r a d ic a ls . New York: H a rc o u rt, Brace and W orld,
1968.
K e rlin g e r , F. N. Foundations o f behavioral research (2nd e d . ) .
New York: H o lt , R in e h a rt and Winston,
I n c . , 1973.
Klerranack, D. L . , & Edwards, J, N. Women's a c q u is it io n of stereotyped
occupational a s p ir a t io n s . Socioloqy and Social Research, 1973, 57,
510-525.
Kluckhohn, C. Values and va lu e o r ie n ta tio n s
in th e theory o f a c t io n .
In T. Parsons & E. S h ils ( E d s . ) , Toward a general theory in a c t i o n .
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n iv e rs ity Press, 1952.
Kvaraceus, W. C. Working w ith youth:
some o p e ra tio n a l p r in c ip le s and
youth v a lu e s. B u l le t in o f N ational A sso ciatio n Secondary School
P r i n c i p a l s , 1964, 53 , 6 7 -7 1 .
Lake P la c id Year Report.
Journal o f Home Economics, 1974a, 6 6 , 50.
Lake P la c id Year Report.
Journal o f Home Economics, 1974b, 66, 50.
Lee, J. A . , & D re s s e l, P. L. L ib e ra l education and home economics.
New York: Teachers C o lle g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1963.
Lehmann,
I . J . , & Payne,
I . K. An e x p lo ra tio n o f a t t i t u d e and value
changes o f c o lle g e freshmen. Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l,
1963, 41_, 403-408.
Lehmann,
I . J . , Sinha, B. K . , & H a r t n e t t , R. T. Changes in a t t i t u d e s
and values associated w ith c o lle g e attend an ce.
Educational Psychology, 1966, 57, 89 -98 .
Journal o f
Lorenz, M. K. A d e s c r ip t iv e study o f the backgrounds, a t t i t u d e s ,
and values o f home economics students a t Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y .
Unpublished d octoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y , 1970.
Lystad, M. As they see i t . Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman P u blish in g
Company,
I n c . , 1973.
Marcus, P. M , , Bates, J. L . , & Dammers, L. S. College and c a r e e r s :
Seniors * perceptions (Report # 1 ). East L an sing , M ic h .: CoTTege
o f S o c ia l Science, Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y , 1974.
Marcus, P. M . , Bates, J. L . , & Dammers, L. S. College and c a r e e r s :
Alumni perceptions and experiences (Report J T f . E a s t Lansing,
Col leg e o f Social S cien ce, Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y , 1975.
311
M arty, M. E . , Rosenberg, S. E ., & G re eley , A. M. What do we b e lie v e i n ?
The stance o f r e l i g i o n in America. New York: M eredith Press, 1968.
McConnell, H. L. A c r i t i c a l analysis o f the im p lic a tio n s o f se lected
philosophies o f education f o r home economics education. Unpublished
d o cto ral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1965.
M cL ellan , D. D. V a lu es , values systems, and the developmental s tr u c tu r e
o f moral judgment. Unpublished m a s te r's th e s is , Michigan S ta te
U n i v e r s i t y , 1970.
Mead, M. Culture and commitment. Garden C i t y , N .Y .: N a tu ra l H is to ry
Press/Doubleday & Company, I n c . , 1970.
M o rris , C . , & S m all, L. Changes in conceptions o f the good l i f e by
American c o lle g e students from 1950 to 1970.
and Social Psychology, 1971, 20, 25 4 -2 6 0 .
Journal o f P e rs o n a lity
Orwig, J. P. An exam ination o f problems r e l a t i n g to standards o f value
judgment as expressed by a selected group o f basic c o lle g e students.
Unpublished d o c to ra l d is s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y , 1953.
P a r r is h , S. E. R e l i a b i l i t y o f Rokeach va lu e survey form F.
Unpublished p ap er, 1975.
Parsons, T . , & S h i l s , E.
( E d s .) , Toward a general theory o f a c t i o n .
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n iv e r s it y Press, 1962.
Q u i l l i n g , J.
I . The n a tu re o f the f a m ily p ro jected by th e home
economics p ro fess io n as evidenced through examination o f the
American Home Economics Association l i t e r a t u r e . Unpublished
d o c to ral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity , 1970.
Ray, E. M. P ro fes sio n a l
involvement in education.
Journal o f Home
Economics, 1970, 6 2 , 715-719.
Robinson, L. B. Youth values. Change, 1975, T_y 4.
Rokeach, M.
B e l i e f s , a t t i t u d e s , and v a lu e s . San F ran cisco : Jossey-
Bass, 196?T
Rokeach, M.
The n a tu re o f human v a lu e s . New York:
Free Press, 1973.
S c h le s in g e r, A. M. Our ten c o n trib u tio n s to c i v i l i z a t i o n s .
In
A. Karson and P. E. Gianakes ( E d s . ) , American c i v i l i z a t i o n since
World War I I . Belmont, C a l i f . : Wadsworth "fiibYi shing Company, I n c . ,
1968.
312
Seligman, D. Special kind o f r e b e l l i o n . F o rtu n e , 1969, 7 9 , 66 -69 + .
S i e g e l , S. Nonparametric s t a t i s t i c s f o r th e behavioral s c ie n c e s .
New York: M c G ra w -H ill, 1956.
Smith, H. P. Do i n t e r c u l t u r a l experiences a f f e c t a ttitu d e s ? Journal
o f Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51^, 469-477.
Smith, H. P. Personal values in the study o f l i v e s .
In R. W. White
( E d . ) , The study o f l i v e s . New York: Atherton Press, 1963.
Snyder, E. E. A lo n g it u d in a l an a ly s is o f th e r e la t io n s h ip between
high school student v a lu e s , social p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and e d u c a tio n a l-
occupational achievement. Sociology o f Education, 1969, 42_* 261-270.
S t. E r l i c h , V. The American way o f l i f e — value o r ie n t a t io n (73G4991).
S o cio lo g ica l A b s t r a c t s . 1973, 21_, 1098.
S t. M a r ie , S. The f a m ily faces chanqe.
Journal o f Home Economics,
1970, 62 , 10-11.
S t o u t, J. H. Changing stu d en t values: A ch a llen g e to h ig h e r education.
Journal o f Thought, 1972, l_9 247-249.
Thomas, W. L, Values and American yo u th.
Journal o f Home Economics,
1969, 61, 748-754.
Thomas, W. L. Value change and American yo u th . College Student
J o u rn a l, 1971, 5^, 135-137.
Todd, J . E. Social norms and the behavior o f c o lle g e s tu d e n ts .
New York:
teachers C o lle g e Bureau, 194T.
T o f f l e r , A. Future shock. New York: Bantam Book; Random House, 1970.
T u rk , J. College o f human ecology ch allen g es q u a li t y o f l i v i n g .
Extension B u l l e t i n o f Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y , 1971.
United Press In t e r n a t i o n a l & S ta te News. Congress increases pay of
s e l f , c o u r t , c a b in e t. S ta te News, August 1 , 1975, 1 6 9 , 1 + .
V ain es, E. L. An e c o lo g ic a l systems framework f o r home economics/human
the lin k a g e o f environment, energy and organism as fa m ily .
ecology:
Unpublished d o c to ral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y , 1974.
W a ls te d t, J. J. Women as m a rg in a ls . Psychological R e p o rts , 1974, 34,
639-646.
W h it e ly , P. L. The constancy o f personal va lu e s . Journal o f Abnormal
Social Psychology, 1938, 33 , 405-408.
313
W illia m s , R. M.
In d iv id u a l and group va lu e s . Anna!s o f American
Academy o f P o l i t i c a l and Social S cience, 1967, 3 7 l , 2 0 -3 T.
W illia m s , R. M. Values.
In E. S h ils ( E d . ) , I n t e r n a t io n a l encyclopedia
o f the s o c ia l sciences. New York: M ac m illa n , 1968.
W illo w e r, D. J. Values and edu catio nal a d m in is tr a tio n . Peabody
Journal o f Education, 1961, 39, 157-161.
Wood, T. D. Some c o n t r o ll i n g id e a ls o f th e fa m ily l i f e o f th e f u t u r e .
Lake P la c id Conference on Home Economics: Proceedings o f the s ix th
annual conference. Lake P l a c id , N . Y . , 1904.
Woodruff, A. 0 . Personal values and the d ir e c t io n o f b eh av io r.
School Review. 1942, 5 0 , 32 -42 .
Y a n k e lo v itc h , D. The changing values on campus. New York: Washington
Square P re s s , 1972.
Y a n k e lo v itc h , 0.
Image o f home economics p o la r iz e d . AHEA A c t io n ,
August 1974, 3 -7 .
( a )
Y a n k e lo v itc h , D. The new m o r a l it y : A p r o f i l e o f American youth in
the s e v e n tie s . New York: McGraw-Hi1 1 , 1 9 7 4 .
(FJ
Y a n k e lo v itc h , D . , & C la r k , R. College and noncollege youth values.
Change, 1974, 6 , 45-46+.