”OPINIONS ON CLOTHING, APPEARANCE AND SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE AS FACTORS“ . IN GROUP .CIOHESl-GN .01: :2 NINTH. GRADE GIRLS Thesis for Hue Degree of M. A. _ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Madelyn Clair: Williams '1 9. .63 ,ino L 451 _ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII :II I , III 3 0109§ 1 i [p gan Stat niversit‘y C MlChi U I ‘ . '\;C 1" \ o ‘ I 5 . r r . ’- ' LIBRARY PLACE N RETURN BOX to move this checkout from your mood. TO AVOID FINES Mum on or baton duo duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ._ _J__ :lllL—:—II:I —I——-—— ——-I l:_—_:_:| T—IF—TV—I MSU I. An Affirmative Wad Opponunlty Institution ABSTRACT OPINIONS ON.CLOTHING. APPEARANCE AND SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE ~AS FACTORS IN GROUP COHESION 0F NINTH GRADE GIRLS by Madelyn Claire Williams The purpose of this exploratory study was to deter- mine if opinions on clothing, appearance and group acceptance were factors which contributed to group cdhesion or lack of cohesion in a p0pulation of 154 ninth grade girls. The study was conducted in a Midhigan community. Social acceptance categories of isolate, mutual pair member and reciprocal friendship structure member were estab- lished by answers to a near-sociometric question based on the criterion of choosing a "best friend." ”Warner's Index of Status Characteristics was used to determine social class categories of each member. Other data were obtained by an Opinionnaire and a structured interview schedule. An objective evaluation of each participant was completed by the interviewer.. The instruments contained open-ended questions on general acceptance, clothing and-appearance. Madelyn Claire Williams The data were descriptively analyzed to show similar— ities and differences among the three categories of reciprocal friendship. Stone's terminolOgy of review and program were uti- lized in the analysis. Review refers to responses made about the wearer of clothes by others, and program pertains to responses made about the wearer of clothes by the wearer, These were interpreted to include the review and the program of the self and one's group. The analysis of reSponses showed in general that the individual reciprocal friendship structure members had a greater amount of cohesiveness within their own groups than did the other categories of group membership in terms of clothing, appearance and group acceptance. The data in terms of review revealed that when all the girls responded to general acceptance, "clothing" was considered the attribute first in importance in describing the characteristics of the most popular girl. Clothing was mentioned second and looks third in importance in describing how to "get in" with the popular girls, as well as the characteristics on which a new girl would be judged. Madelyn Claire Williams The isolates mentioned clothing and appearance items proportionately more and concurred more frequently on the influence of clothing on popularity, than did the other girls. The isolates and mutual pair members were more parent oriented in terms of clothing approval and suggestions made by someone regarding their clothing. Reciprocal friendship members exhibited a relatively higher amount of cohesion in their opinions than did the isolates or mutual pair members. The reciprocal friendship members mentioned that "proper action to others" was important for popularity in one's own group. Two-thirds of all girls wanted to change something about themselves, but only one-third of them thought they could make more friends by doing this and only a small pro- portion thought this would allow them to make a different impression on others. These findings support the working hypothesis that members of a group have similar opinions regarding clothing, appearance and group acceptance which contribute to the groups' cohesion, and that these opinions are different than those of non-group members or members of other groups. OPINIONS ON CLOTHING, APPEARANCE AND SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE AS FACTORS IN GROUP COHESION OF NINTH GRADE GIRLS BY Madelyn Claire Williams A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Textiles, Clothing and Related Arts 1963 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer gratefully acknowledges the following: Dr. Joanne Eicher for her inspiring enthusiasm in the initiation and direction of the research. Dr. Mary Gephart for her helpful suggestions about the project. Dr. Duane Gibson for his insightful suggestions about the study, Mr. Lee Kinney, principal, and Mr. Jack Down, counselor, at East Lansing High School for releasing the student records for examination and for allowing the original study to be conducted in the school. Without their valuable cooperation the larger study or this portion would not have been possible. Miss Arlene Bjorngaard and Miss Hazel Ogilvie for their many hours of assistance with the data. The writer's family and colleagues in the University of California Agricultural Extension Service without Whose encouragement and confidence this study might not have been accomplished. ii TABLE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . Chapter I II III INTRODUCTION . CONTENTS Statement of the Problem Review of the Literature Structure and Position The Sociometric Test Analysis Summary METHODOLOGY . . Selection of Community Instruments Pretest Administration of the Instruments Operational Definitions of Social Acceptance and Social Class Definition of Terms Structural Description The Sociogram .Analysis of Data POPULATION DESCRIPTION Social Class Index of Status Characteristic Components Other Descriptive Measures Summary iii Page ii vi 21 39 Chapter 'Page IV ,ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO REVIEW . . . . . 59 Summary V _ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO‘PROGRAM . . . . 82 Summary v1 ACCEPTANCE AND APPRAISAL or POPULARITY AND DRESS . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . 115 Comparison of Those Selected as Most Popular and Grade Point Averages Summary VII SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . 123 Summary Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Social Class Distribution of ISC Weighted Ratings by Social Acceptance Categories of Ninth Grade Girls, East Lansing High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2 Percentage Distribution of P0pulation by Social Class and Reciprocal FriendShip Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4O 3 Association of Girls Chosen as "Most Popular" with Categories of Reciprocal Friendship and the 17 RFS's . . . . . . . 116 4 Association ofGirls Chosen as “Best Dressed" with Categories of Reciprocal Friendship and the 17 RFS'S . . . . . . . 118 5 Association of Girls Chosen as "Not Dressed Right" with Categories of Reciprocal Friendship and the 17 RFS?s . . . . . . . 120 '5 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page A Reciprocal Friendships . . . . . . . . 37 B Reciprocal Friendships and Indicators of Cohesion in Terms of Review . . . . 81 C Reciprocal Friendships and Indicators of thesion in Terms of Program . . . . 114 D Reciprocal FriendShips and Appraisal of Popularity and Dress . . . . . . . . 122 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem Research indicates and public Opinion further reflects the feeling that today's adolescents' conspicuous concern with clothing and appearance is evidence of super- ficial values, However, studies Show that during the early teen-age years in the United States, a new awareness of the self deveIOps, accompanied by the formation of strong peer group ties.1 The clique is typical of the peer group where youths join together in a common effort to learn acceptable group norms and values in order to establish an identity.2 Studies of cohesion have neglected the influence of clothing and appearance on group maintenance of teen-age cliques. lElizabeth Hurlock, Adolescent Development, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book C0,, Inc., 1959), p.3. 2David Gottlieb and Jon Reeves, Adolescent Behavior in Urban Areas, Michigan State University Bureau of Research and Publications, East Lansing, 1962, Part III. 3Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander, Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, 2nd edition (Evanston, 111.: Row, Peter- son and C0,, 1960), pp. 69-92. 1 The concern of this study is the relationship of the influence of clothing and appearance to group cohesion and acceptance of teen-age girls. It is part of a largeristudyl in which upper and lower social class (isOlates and group members) ninth grade girls were interviewed with regard to differences in their opinions concerning the importance of clothing, appearance and group membership.2 An analysis was done of the girls' clothing as related to actual and ideal role behavior.3 The entire population, including members and non-members of groups will be examined separately. It is hoped that this study will further understanding of peer group acceptance and cohesion to the importance of clothing and appearance to ninth grade girls. lJoanne B. Eicher, "Ninth Grade Girls' Attitudes and Behavior Related to Role, Appearance, Social Class and Group Acceptance." (Research in progress for Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station.) 2Arlene Bjorngaard, "The Relationship of Social Class and Social Acceptance to Clothing and Appearance of a Selected Group of Ninth Grade Girls"(unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1962). 3Betty Wass, "Clothing as Related to Role Behavior of Ninth Grade Girls" (unpublished Master's thesis, Michi- gan State University, 1962), Review of the Literature Selected literature will be reviewed in this chapter dealing with the major areas of adolescent peer groups, the social aspects of clothing and appearance and sociometric studies. Adolescent Peer Groups and Clothing and Appearance Most authorities on adolescence emphasize the im- portance of peer group influence on adolescent social development. The peer group is considered as significant as the family and the school in adolescent socialization. The efforts of these groups are all directed toward conformity while there is also the urge to be unique, to achieve individ— uality, but within the narrow frame of the group's pattern. One of the typical adolescent peer groups is the clique. Bossard defines the clique as a small, exclusive, non—kin, informal, face-to-face social group. There are no rules but there is a common set of values.3 Typically the lDexter C. Dunphy, "The Social Structure of Urban Adolescent Peer Groups," Sociometry, XXVI (1963), p.230. 2Carolyn Tyron, "The Adolescent Peer Culture." Forty-Third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part I. Adolescence. (Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1944) p.218. 3J. H. S. Bossard, The Sociology of Child DevelOp— ment (Nengork: Harper and Bros., 1949), p.496. clique consists of three or more members who share in mutual admiration and affection for each other. An adolescent culture which values social acceptance in such ways as cliques and social groups often places emphasis on clothing and appearance. Hurlock points out that the "right" kind of clothes help the adolescent identify with the group and gives him security in knowing that his appearance does not differ from that of the group.1 Gordon indicates that clothing enhances one's opportunities for social accept- ance because of its high visibility.2 Goffman emphasizes the importance of clothing and appearance in expression of the self by impression management. Cartwright and Zander indicate the cohesiveness of any group is determined by both the attractive and repelling features of the group to its members.4 They report a dearth of systematic studies which have explored the factors involved in increasing or decreasing group cohesiveness. 1Hurlock, op. cit., p.246. , 2C. Wayne Gordon, The Social System of the High School (Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1957), pp.1l4-117. 3Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Every- day Life (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1959). 4Cartwright and Zander, op. cit., p.89. 51bid.. p.91. Coleman found that certain attributes were necessary in order to be in the leading crowd in the schools he studied. They were, ”having a good personality," "good looks," "nice clothes," "good reputation," "being friendly," "being neat," ”having money," "good grades," and "coming from the right neighborhood."l Reports by Cannon, Staples and Carlson, as well as by Moore revealed a positive relationship between clothing and appearance and popularity among adolescent girls.2'3 Masumoto discovered a tendency for students to designate the well-dressed students as the p0pular ones. The importance of clothing behavior is validated by the study conducted by Wass, Her respondents indicated that all the roles which they might assume were affected by their 1James S. Coleman, The Adolescent Society (New York: Free Press, 1961), p.40. 2Kenneth L. Cannon, Ruth Staples, and Irene Carlson, "Personal Appearance as a Factor in Social Acceptance," Journal of Home Economics, XLIV (1952), pp.710-713. 3Kathleen A. Moore, "Fashion Leadership Designation and Related Factors Among a Group of Adolescent Girls" (un- published Master's thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1962), p.73. 4Sachiko Masumoto, "The Relationship of Dress and Behavior Associated with Dress to the Social Participation of the Adolescent Boy and Girl" (unpublished Master's thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1962), p.131. dress. A change in dress often followed a change in role, and might even have caused the role change. Bjorngaard's study analyzed social class and social acceptance differences concerning Opinions about the impor— tance of clothing, appearance and group acceptance among ninth grade girls. The girls appeared to be more alike than different in their views. They generally agreed as to who was most pOpular, best dressed and poorly dressed. However, she did note some evidence as to differences between group members and isolates. Upper social class group members seemed more aware of clothing, and placed greater emphasis on conformity than did the lower social class isolates.2 Stone's research emphasized the importance of appear- ance in social interaction. "The appearance covers many things, including body size, shape, reputation and image, clothing, stance and facial expression....Appearance means identifications of one another."3 Stone's theoretical frame- work organized such identifications into "program" and "review." Program refers to responses made about the wearer lWass, 0p. cit., p.68. 2Bjorngaard, op. cit., pp.l46-147. 3Gregory P. Stone, "Appearance and the Self," Human Behavior and Social Processes: An Interactionist Approach, ed. Arnold M. Rose (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1961). pp.86, 92. of clothes by the wearer; and review to responses made about the wearer by others. "When program and review coincide, the self of the one who appears...is validated or established; when such responses tend toward disparity, the self of the one who appears is challenged, and conduct may be expected to move in the direction of some redefinition of the challenged self."l Sociometric Studies The presence of structure is inevitable in every group, community and society. A number of human beings cannot interact for any period of time without forming an interactional structure. One way of studying group interaction and structure is the sociometric method. Moreno declared that this technique ”inquires into the evolution and organization of groups and the position of individuals within them. One of its special concerns is to ascertain the quantity and expansion of the psychological currents that pervade the pOpulation."2 Sociometric methods of investigating how an indi- vidual is evaluated by his peers have been effectively used in a variety of situations--schools, camps, gangs, villages, lIbidu p.92. 2J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive? (Beacon, N.Y.: Beacon House, Inc., 1953), p.51. communities, industries, and the military. Bronfenbenner states of the sociometric test: One of the most ingenious devices for the study of social status and structure is the sociometric test. The technique permits the analysis of the framework of group organization and identification of persons dominant in the group structure, of cliques, cleavages, and patterns of social attraction and repulsion...Sociometry is the method for discovering, describing and evaluating social status, structure and development through measuring the extent of acceptance or rejection between individuals in groups. Helen Hall Jennings, who worked closely with Moreno in applying sociometric tests to school groups, described the instrument as focusing upon the organization and the psychological structure of a group.2 Moreno has said it is an "instrument to measure the amount of organization shown by social groups."3 Jennings concluded after much practical use of the test that it is well fitted for the task of pene- trating beneath the overt manifestations of group life to the invisible network of interrelations on which they are built.4 lUrie Bronfenbrenner,"The Measurement of Sociometric Status, Structure and DevelopmentJ'Sociometry Monographs,No.8 (Beacon, N.Y.: Beacon House, 1945), p.3. 2Helen Hall Jennings, Leadership and Isolation (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1950), p.10. 3Moreno, o . cit., p.432. 4Jennings, loc. cit. The test might more accurately be called a choice situation, because individuals are asked in a given social group to name other individuals in the group with whom they wish to associate, wish to avoid, or those to whom they feel indifferent. Along with the sociometric test, the sociogram has proven a helpful tool for the social sciences. It is a "map" in which individuals are symbolized by circles, squares, etc., and the relations among them, as expressed in a socio- metric test, are symbolized by lines or arrows Which represent attractions or rejections. Hence the configuration or structure of a group may be diagrammatically shown. The pur— pose of the diagram is to provide a picture of the sociometric structure according to the criteria used, and thus enable the researcher to determine quickly the status of any member of the group, in order to identify the cliques, cleavages, stars, and isolates. Structure and Position Position in a group is important since people exhibit characteristic differences in action and reaction and in the extent to which they initiate interaction or acquiesce to lO interaction initiated by others. Stogdill defined position by the predictability of action and reaction operating as a stimulus to predictable reaction by other members of the system.1 When this definition is applied to the position of each member it becomes apparent that the structure of an interaction system is determined by the reciprocal actions and reactions of its members. Members of animal as well as human groups eXhibit a remarkable sensitivity to both position and structure of groups. Gronlund has shown that members of human groups not only have a fairly accurate perception of their own positions, but also of the position of other members in a group. Group dynamicists have done a good deal of research in group structure and position within groups. As Deutsch pointed out, people in his field have used the term position to refer to the functions a member performs in a group, to an individual's locus in a communication network, to a person's ability to induce forces, to a person's prestige in 1Ralph M, Stogdill, Individual Behavior and-Group Achievement (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959), p.25. ‘ ‘ ' V .2Norman E. Gronlund, “Sociometric Status and,Socio- metric Perception," Sociometry, XVIII (1955), pp.127-128. 11 a group, etc. He cited a study by Gerard which has provided insight into the diversity of meanings of position. Gerard conceptualized the position of a person in a group as a locus which describes his relationship to other group members with respect to a single dimension. At any given time each member may have one and only one position on a specified dimension." A dimension is defined as (a) being able to communicate with, (b) having power over, (c) having more skill than, etc. In some settings an individual may find one dimension more salient than another, hence that locus becomes more important for him at a given time. Leavitt used differently structured groups in his work on the behavior of small groups and their patterns of communication. He worked with structures which he referred to as circles, chains, Ys, and wheels when he showed how the position of the person affected his behavior.2 1Morton Deutsch, "Field Theory in Social Psychology," Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I, ed. Gardner Lindzey (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing, Co., 1959), p.218. 2Harold J. Leavitt, "Some Effects of Certain Communi- cation Patterns on Group Performance," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXXXIII (1951), p.46. 12 TheSociometric Test Pure sociometric tests specify the following criteria: (1) that the limits of the group be made known to the subjects, (2) that their choices or rejections be un- limited, (3) that each choice or rejection be made in terms of specific criteria, (4) that the results will be used to restructure the group and that the subjects should be told their choices or rejections will play a decisive role in this, (5) that the test will be done in private, and (6) that the questions should be at the level of understanding of the members of the group. Only a small portion of the studies conducted adhere to these criteria. Those that are modified from the above are usually called near-sociometric or quasi-sociometric. However, when no criterion is involved in the choice, as in "Who is your best friend?", or "Whom do you like best?", the data may best be described as neither sociometric nor near— sociometric, but rather as projected "liking" reactions in an undetermined setting.l Bjernstedt found in a study of 100 representative sociometric investigations that only 11 , lAke Bjernstedt, Interpretations of Sociometric Choice Status (Lund, Sweden:- CWK Gleerup, 1956), p.36. 13 percent of the studies indicated adherence to criterion (4) above, that of restructuring the group. In the same study he was interested in finding out to what degree rejection reports were used. Sociometrists feel strongly concerning this topic. It is therefore interesting that he found 50 percent had used positive choice only, while the other 50 percent had used both positive and negative. It appears that asking "Whom do you like least?" is a somewhat artificial question, which according to a number of investigators, might cause discrimination, intolerance, and resentment. Most peOple are not interested in those with whom they do not wish to associate. However, rejection reports have a place when the investigator has a diagnostic or therapeutic aim in mind. In such a situation, Jennings has argued that "the negative aspect of choice merits equal consideration with the positive."2 Another frequent modification of the "pure" socio— metric test is in the number of choices the individual is required to make. Frequently the number is three. If the 1Ibid., P.49. 2 . . Jennings, o . c1t., p.21. l4 investigator wishes to distinguish between such people as the isolate (the isolate being the person who neither chooses nor is chosen) and those who choose but are not chosen it is best to have an unspecified number of choices. Analysis Proctor and Loomis discussed the principle methods of analysis of sociometric information: graphic, matrix, index, and statistical analysis. Graphic analysis is done by means of the sociogram, where circles or squares are used to represent group members, and various kinds of lines represent their choices or rejec- tions within the group which serve to hold the individuals together to form a group. Numerous terms are employed to describe a person's choices and locus within the group, and these will be described in the section on definition of terms. The accuracy of the sociogram depends on the investigator, in that there are no external checks upon the adequacy of the diagram drawn. 1C. H. Proctor and C. P. Loomis, "Analysis of Sociometric Data," in Marie Jahoda, et a1., ed., Research Methods in Social Relations. Part II (New York: Dryden Press, 1951), pp.563-569. 15 Matrix analysis is similar to the graphic type in that all the data can be observed at once. In this method an N x N table is used in which the sociometric choices or rejec— tions are summarized. The main advantages of this analysis are that different investigators produce similar data, and the data are in a form conducive to statistical treatment. Index analysis makes the quantification of individual choice relationships possible. The most frequently used index is that of a person's sociometric status. This is ob- tained by the sum of acceptances minus the sum of rejections a person receives, divided by one less than the group size since no individual will choose himself. This serves to determine the relative status of each individual in the group with reference to the criterion of choice. It can also give unique results which are conclusive if sufficient cases are collected to warrant statistical analysis. Statistical analysis of sociometric data yields pre- cise results. Proctor and Loomis mentioned that the compu— tational intricacies of this approach can become quite extensive, and demand a considerable statistical knowledge . . 2 from the investigator. lIbid., p.582. 21bid., p.585. l6 Validity and reliability are regarded as necessary measures in the social sciences. However, in sociometry the situation is unique. Test validity refers to the notion that a test should measure what it is supposed to measure. In sociometric tests, the results of the test are in terms of choice behavior. Goode and Hatt state "the findings indicate that the independent criterion of case studies and behavior observation provide satisfactory indications of the validity of sociometric tests."1 Moreno has pointed out that the test should provide incentives and motives primarily for the subject, rather than the tester.2 This means that the subjects should know that their choices will have meaning for them in securing changes in such things as seating arrange— ments, workmates, etc. It is in this manner that validity has meaning in sociometric analyses. The concept of reliability is based on the assumption of internal consistency and stability.3 "Jennings, ...gives lWilliam Goode and Paul Hatt, Methods in Social Research (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.,.l952), p.255, citing Jennings, o . cit., pp.27-31. 2Moreno, op. cit., pp.240-245. 3Pauline M. Pepinsky, "The Meaning of Validity and Reliability," Journal of Educational and Psychological Measurements, IX (1949), pp.42—49. 17 ample evidence that 'choice position' is slow to change and that sociometric measurements may therefore be considered reliable.“1 Summary Social acceptance is important to the adolescent peer group. Research findings emphasize the importance of appear- ance, manners and nice clothes in social acceptance of adolescent groups. Studies have been done on social class, social accept— ance as viewed through clique membership and social isolates, and clothing behavior; but little knowledge is available on the relationship of these factors in adolescent life. Sociometric methods have been successfully utilized with many different kinds of populations to inquire into the evolution and organization of groups and to the position of individuals within them. When presented diagrammatically the results of a sociometric test provide a picture of the structure according to the criteria used, and enable the researcher to determine quickly the status of any member of the group, such as to identify cliques and isolates. lGoode and Hatt, loc. cit. 18 Pure sociometric tests require adherenCe to specific criteria which if not followed cause the tests to be termed near-sociometric. If no criteria are followed, they are termed projected liking reactions in an undetermined setting. Analysis of sociometric data is accomplished by means of graphic, matrix, index or statistical methods. The results can be considered valid and reliable. The use of sociometric methods will help us better understand the impor- tance of clothing to adolescents. Common opinions of clothing and appearance may represent a single element in the total matrix of elements which produce cohesion in any group. If this general position is correct, it would be expected to obtain the same situation with that element of cohesion which may occur in the broad category of impression which is represented by clothing and appearance. Although an exploratory study, a working hypothesis has been developed from these ideas and will be tested. The hypothesis is that members of a group have similar opinions regarding clothing, appearance and group acceptance which contribute to the groups' cohesion. These opinions are different than those of non-group members or members of other groups. 19 It is the purpose of this study to investigate the relationship of group and non—group membership as indicated by a near—sociometric test with ninth grade girls' views concerning clothing, appearance and group acceptance in a high school with social class extremes. This study has utilized the same data as Bjorngaard who analyzed only the upper and lower social classes; in this study the entire population of ninth grade girls in one school will be examined. Data for the study will be examined by means of'a near—sociometric analysis of the population which has been correlated with responses to clothing, appearance and group acceptance. The responses will be analyzed in terms of Stone's theoretical framework of program and review. Chapter II will discuss the methodology of the study. A description of the population in terms of group and non-group membership will comprise Chapter III. Chapters IV and V will analyze the data concerning the relationship of group and non-group membership with Opinions concerning clothing, appearance and group acceptance of ninth grade girls in terms of review and program. Chapter VI will discuss the girls' selections of those they appraised as 20 "most popular," "best dressed," and "not dressed right." Chapter VII will include the summary and recommendations of the study. CHA PTER I I METHODOLOGY The relationship of adolescent clothing behavior to group membership has been relatively unexplored. Thus an exploratory study was deemed apprOpriate for this in- vestigation. In selecting a research design, Selltiz says that the exploratory study has the purpose of discovering ideas and insights Where little information is available.1 Many exploratory studies have the purposes of formulating a problem for further investigation and of developing hypotheses.2 The selection of individuals representing different positions in the social structure helps to produce a well— rounded view of the situation. In addition, those individ- uals who fit well or do not fit well in a given situation provide insight into the characteristics of the community.3 lClaire Selltiz, Marie Jahoda, Morton Deutsch, and Stuart W. Cook, Research Methods in Social Relations (New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1960), p.50. 21bid., p.51. 31bid., p.63. 21 22 These preceding factors served to define the area of investigation--namely, the position of the individual in terms of group membership and the relationship of opinions on clothing and appearance to this position. Selection of Community The community in which the study was administered was East Lansing, Michigan, which adjoins Lansing, in south central Michigan. The location isatypical in many respects due to the fact that Michigan State University is located in East Lansing. The University affects the pOpulation in such characteristics as level of education, age, mobility, occupa- tion and income. According to 1960 census information;l East Lansing's pOpulation consisted of 30,198 residents, including college students. 0f the persons who were twentypfive years of age and over, residents in East Lansing had a median of 15.8 years of schooling compared to 10.8 for the entire state. The median age was 22.2 years, while the state median age was 1U. S. Bureau of the Census, Michigan General Popu- lation Characteristics, 1960 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1960). 23 28.3 years. Of the residents, 50.7 percent have moved into their present homes since 1958. The median income in East Lansing was $7,152, while the median income for the state was $6,256. Twelve and two— tenths percent of East Lansing residents had incomes under $3,000 While 31.7 percent had incomes over $10,000. White collar workers predominate according to the census. Seventy-one and nine-tenths percent were employed in White collar jobs while only seven percent were in manu- facturing industries. East Lansing had only one high school, a co-edu- cational public school with a total enrollment of 1,103. Two years prior to this investigation the school district incorporated Towar Gardens, an area of low income working class families, into their school system. Thus, socio- economic extremes existed in the school pOpulation, which provided the major purpose in conducting the study at this location. 24 Instruments A questionnaire and an interview which included a rating by the interviewer, were used for collecting data. Questions pertinent to this study were selected from these instruments. From the questionnaire the items chosen for this study pertained to personal information about the respondent and her family background; and the girl's friendship choices. See Appendix A. From the Open-ended interview schedule, items that pertained to Stone's framework of program and review were chosen. According to Stone, review reSponses are comments "made about the wearer of clothes by others, and program responses are those comments made about the wearer by the wearer."1 See Appendix B. All information from the rating by the adult inter- viewer was used which included an objective evaluation of each girl's appearance as viewed by these adults. See Appendix B. 1Stone, 0p. cit., p.92. 25 Pretest The questionnaire was pretested by administering it to 24 students in a twelfth grade home economics class at Charlotte, Michigan, since the original intent was to use it with twelfth grade girls. COOperation from the school originally contacted was withdrawn and permission was granted by the principal at East Lansing High School to study the ninth grade girls. When the ninth grade counselor at East Lansing High School read the instrument, he said it was within the level of comprehension of his students. The inter— view schedule was pretested by administering it to four ninth grade girls in the Okemos, Michigan, community. Minor changes were made in the instruments as a result of the pre- tests in order to allow for the approximate length of time necessary for answering the questions, the interpretations high school girls would have of the various questions, and the types of responses which could be expected. Administration of the Instruments The instruments were administered to 152 of the 154 girls in the ninth grade at East Lansing High School, the entire population of ninth grade girls with the exception of 26 two girls who were not available for either instrument. Both instruments were administered by other researchers in the 1962 spring semester. Part of the data was used in the two other studies.l'2 The questionnaire was administered to 140 ninth grade girls during one home room period when they were assembled in the school cafeteria. Twelve girls were absent and were given the questionnaire at a later date. The questionnaire was presented in two sections. The first part sought personal information about the respondent and her family background and consequently a pledge of anonymity was given by the researcher.3 The first section was the only one where the student would place her name and this was in an envelope which she could seal. The second section was coded with a number which matched the first section in order that the responses would correspond with the personal information of the respondent. 1Bjorngaard, op. cit., Ch. 6. 2Wass, op. cit., Ch. 5. 3 . . The pledge of anonymity has not been broken, Since in assigning a number to each individual, the findings become anonymous and are reported as such. 27 The interviews and ratings by the interviewer were conducted at the school by three trained interviewers. The interviews were limited to seventy minutes, the length of one class period, and were given to the entire population of ninth grade girls. Operational Definitions of Social Acceptance and Social Class Social Acceptance A near-sociometric question was included in the questionnaire and was used as the basis for determining the social acceptance category of each girl as one whose friend- ship choices were reciprocated or not reciprocated. The girls were asked to write the names of their two "best girl friends" in the ninth grade at East Lansing High School with whom they shared secrets. Additional spaces were given if they wanted to list more than two names. Appendix A. Each informant was given a code number and her best friend choices were recorded on a matrix chart. If her best friend was in another grade or another school this was noted. Reciprocated choices were circled and joined with a line, and distinctions were made between her first two and more choices. 28 From the matrix chart a sociogram was constructed to show only the reciprocated friendships of each ninth grade girl to the entire group. Three major categories of social acceptance were established. The sociometric analysis showed the composition of the ninth grade class to consist of a total of 17 reciprocal friendship structures ranging in size from three to 27 members. The average size of the structure was 5.35 girls. Of the 154 ninth grade girls, 113 were members of reciprocal friend— ship structures, 18 were members of a mutual pair, and 23 were isolates. The term reciprocal friendship structure has been used instead of clique. Clique is used in the literature to refer to a group of three or more persons built around a nucleus of individuals whom they chose.1 Two of the struc- tures in the present study were large and did not have the centralized characteristics of a clique thus the term reciprocal friendship structure seemed preferable. Social Class The method of determining social class membership was Warner's Index of Status Characteristics. Martindale lColeman, op.cit., p.183. 29 refers to the Warner method as one which can be applied to small cities like East Lansing.1 Three components of Warner's Index of Status Characteristics2 were used to determine each girl's social class ranking. Ordinarily a fourth index is used, that of the source of income which could not be used in this study since it was not included in the questionnaire. The researchers felt the girls would not know this so it was omitted from the instrument. The three indices used were: father's occupation, dwelling area, and type of house. Each index was rated on a seven point scale. The rating was multiplied by the appropriate weight: (a) occupation times five, (b) dwelling area times three, and (c) house type times four. The computed sum was the ISC score for the family.3 Due to the nature of East Lansing as an "educational community,” some changes were made in the occupational ratings. Warner has indicated that this is advisable in certain cases. lDon,Martinda1e, American Society, (Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1960), p.397. 2Warner's Index of Status Characteristics will be referred to as ISC. 3W. Lloyd Warner, Marcia Meeker, and Kenneth Eells, Social Class in America (Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1949) I P0185. 30 The specific classifications used here were designed for a particular community; certain modifications might be necessary in other communities. In a large city, with a number of large business concerns, a different monetary value might be assigned to each category of proprietors. There may be a change in the status, and consequently in the rating assigned to a mayor, high school principal, etc., depending on the size of the community. However, while there might be a change in the range allowed within any category, the general method of classification and the framework developed here will have general use and can be applied to all communities. The father's occupation was obtained from the ques— tionnaire and was rated according to Warner's Revised Scale for Rating Occupation. It was verified by checking school records and the city directory. The residential area was rated on a seven point scale by four individuals-—an economist, a sociologist, a . 2 real estate agent, and the researcher of the preVious study. The houses were also rated on a seven point scale by two or more individuals. The social acceptance categories as determined by the near—sociometric test are shown in Table 1 in relation to the social class distribution. Bjorngaard studied the lIbid., p.158. 2Bjorngaard, op. cit., p.29. 31 Table 1. Social class distribution of ISC weighted ratings by social acceptance categories of ninth grade girls, East Lansing High School ISCl Iso- Mutual 2 Weighted late Pair RFS RFS RFS RFS RFS RFS RFS Ratings Members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 12-17 1 l 1 3 18-22 1 2 5 23-24 25—33 7 4 6 3 4 1 7 34—37 4 2 1 ' 1 4 38-50 6 4 7 2 3 l 8 51-53 1 54-61 2 62-66 1 2 1 67-69 1 1 70-84 3 3 l l 2 Totals 23 18 3 15 6 8 4 4 27 lISC rating based on occupation, dwelling area and house type. 2 . . . RFS refers to ReCiprocal Friendship Structure. Each RFS was given a number for identification. 3 . . Number of girls in each category. 32 RFS RFS RFS RFS RFS RFS RFS RFS RFS RFS Totals 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 6 l 1 1 l l 13 1 l l 2 3 2 1 6 1 l 2 51 1 3 l l 18 6 2 2 1 1 43 1 2 1 3 4 2 1 11 4 8 6 4 5 7 3 3 3 3 154 33 upper social class isolates and group members (defining a group member as anyone with a reciprocated friendship) and lower social class isolates and group members. These cate— gories are represented on the table by double lines, indi- cating the middle social class girls which she omitted. "Upper" social class includes scores from 12-37, "middle" includes scores from 38-61, and "lower” encompasses scores from 62-84. Definition of Terms The near-sociometric question determined friendShip choices in terms of the criteria of sharing a secret. A socidgram was used as a method of graphically describing the girls' reciprocated choices. The following terms1 were devised to describe the individual in terms of her recipro— cated choices, or lack of the same by the present researchers: ISOLATE: An individual who had no reciprocated 1Most of these terms are commonly used by sociome- trists. The four categories of isolates, although suggested by Houser, have been develOped by the present researchers. Leah Houser, ”A Sociometric Test of Aspects of Reference Group Theory in a Study of Prejudice Among Youth" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1956), pp.57-58. 34 friendships. There are four types of isolates. Isolatel= pure isolate, whose lack of choices received matches her lack of choices made. Isolate2= ignored isolate, makes choices but receives none. Isolate3= self isolate, makes no choices but receives some. Isolate4= confused isolate, the choices made and received do not match. RECIPROCAL FRIENDSHIP STRUCTURE:l A sociometric diagram of individuals whose choices of friends were returned. This study includes the following types: Mutualeair - A reciprocated choice of two members, hence a dyad. Triangle - Three individuals whose choice of each other forms a cdhesive unit. Chain - An open series of mutual choices. 1For convenience, Reciprocal FriendShip Structure will be abbreviated as RFS. It refers to all structures with the exception of mutual pairs. 35 Wheel - Two chains which have a central common member. Complex Structure — Consists of a cluster of dyadic relationships. ACCURATE PERQEIXER: An individual who had all choices recipro- cated, or who neither chose nor was chosen. This category was developed by the present researchers during analysis of the recipro- cated (and thus unreciprocated) choices. Structural Description The near-sociometric analysis of the population formed five kinds of configurations when graphically pre- sented, as is shown below: Reciprocal Friendship Number of Number of Categories Individuals Structures Isolates 23 -- Mutual Pairs 18 9 Triangles l6 5 Chains l6 4 Wheels 19 3 Complex structures 62 5 Totals 154 26 36 The Sociogram The sociogram, Figure A, graphically describes the relative position of each of the 154 ninth grade girls with respect to her reciprocated friendship choices or lack of the same. These were determined by the near-sociometric question and resulted in the structures shown. Each circle represents an individual whose code number appears in the center. The lines which connect many of the circles represent reciprocated choices. Also indicated in each circle is the girl's social class rank as was determined by her family's ISC rating. See legend in Figure A. Each RFS has been assigned a number for identification purposes. Analysis of Data In order to test the relationship between the independent and dependent variables, the categories of iso- late, mutual pair and RFS were cross—tabulated against the various aspects of clothing behavior (dependent variables). The responses to the questions, interviews, and ratings by the interviewer were coded and punched on IBM cards. The cross-tabulation was done on the IBM tabulating machine. 3&5 «83: ~33 o E O O 0 SI a I 3.8 138 ER: .' A, as! ads ’, o2 ‘ a PR E a O “my. SI SI II I|I @ ‘I’ n H 38 Data from these runs were plotted on the sociograms which were used as worksheets. From these, the data were trans- ferred to tables for comparison. It was not possible to use the chi square test of significance since more than 20 percent of the theoretical frequencies were under five.1 Therefore, the analysis has been done by descriptive methods. The data have been analyzed according to program and review. Those questions interpreted as program items were: 5, 10, ll, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29. See Appendix B. Those questions representing review items were: 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, l7, l8, and 19. See Appendix B. Three other questions were used which pertained to naming those girls who were: (1) most pOpular, question 7, (2) best dressed, question 13, and (3) not dressed right, question 18, all in Appendix B. lSidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1956), p.110. CHAPTER III POPULATION DESCRIPTION This chapter describes the population of this study by comparing the reciprocal friendship categories with the following: respondent's social class components, whether the mother works, father's educational level, number of siblings, church affiliation, location of elementary school attended, grade point average, honor roll membership, number of club memberships, and the rating of the respondent's appearance by the interviewer. These factors were analyzed separately in order to control their effect on the findings in the next chapter dealing with clothing, appearance and group acceptance. Social Class An analysis of the composition of the population according to the reciprocal friendship categories and differ- ences in social class categories as measured by Warner's Index of Status Characteristics follows. See Table 2. 39 40 Table 2. Perce tage distribution of p0pulation by social class and reciprocal friendship categories ReCiprocal Friendship Social Class Categories Categories Lower Middle Upper Totals % % % (No.) % Isolates 23.5 12.5 14 (23) 15 Mutual Pair Members 29.5 12.5 8 (18) 12 RFS Members 47.0 75.0 78 (113) 73 Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100% 100% (Number of students) (17) (48) (89) (154) (154) 1The term "upper" for East Lansing does not have the same meaning as Warner's upper class. Upper in reference to this location also includes upper middle and indeterminate. The lower social class here consisted of indeterminate upper- 1ower to lower-lower class according to Warner's social class equivalents. Of the total population, 15 percent of the girls were isolates, 12 percent were mutual pair members, and 73 percent were RFS members. Eleven percent of the total number were rated as lower social class, 31 percent as middle social class, and 58 percent as upper social class. There were proportionately more isolates and mutual pair members in the lower social class than in middle or 41 upper social classes. Proportionately more girls in each social class category were members of an RFS. Two RFS's were predominately lower social class. RFS 1 was 100 percent lower social class, and RFS .5 was 75 percent lower social class. Two RFS's were predominately middle social class; RFS 9 had 75 percent in this category, and 67 percent of girls in RFS 15 were also rated here. One hundred percent of girls in RFS's 6, 8, 13,.14, and 17 were members of the upper social class. More than 65 percent of all girls in RFS's 3, 7, 12, and 16 were rated as upper social class members. . . 1 Index of Status Characteristic Components The three components of Warner's Index of Status Characteristics have been tabulated and compared according to each of the categories of reciprocal friendship. Seventy percent of the girls' families were from the two highest rated categories of occupational level. Sixty-three percent of isolates were in the two highest 1Each component of the ISC is rated on a scale of l to 7. In all cases a rating of l is high and 7 is low. The reader is referred to the Bjorngaard thesis for a complete description. 42 categories, as were 50 percent of mutual pair members, and 75 percent of RFS members. These first two categories largely represent profeSsional and semi-professional employ- ment levels. Rated in category 3 were the following: 15 percent of all girls, 13 percent of isolates, 16 percent of mutual pair members and 11 percent of those in RFS's. The remainder were gradually dispersed down the scale, as is shown below: Reciprocal Friendship Occupational Scale Categories 2 3 4 5 6 7 Totals Isolates 8 6 3 1 - 4 - 22 Mutual Pair Members 5 4 3 l 4 - 1 l8 RFS Members 51 33 17 5 5 2 - 113 Totals 64 43 23 7 9 6 1 1531 lRaw scores have been used in the tables, whereas in the discussion percentages are used. This has been done in order not to distort the true figures, since in the case of the triangles, which have only 3 members, 67 percent might be misleading. Figures in all tables are based on those girls for Whom data were available. In some cases not all girls responded. The following RFS's consisted of a high percentage of similar backgrounds, for 75 percent of those from RFS 6 and 8, 80 percent of RFS 12, and two—thirds of girls from 43 RFS's 14, 15, 16, and 17 were rated in the first two cate- gories. RFS 1 girls showed consistency here for 100 percent of them were rated in the fifth category. Forty percent of the population lived in houses that were rated 4 on the scale, which was the mid-point, Whereas 17 percent were rated in category 3, followed by 11 percent in category 2, 18 percent in category 5 and 8 percent in category 6. Nearly equal distribution of the scores occurred on either side of the mid-point house type score of 4. Propor- tionately more isolates were ranked in categories 3 and 4 than were mutual pair members and RFS members. More RFS members were represented in both category 1 and 2, as is shown below: Reciprocal Friendship House Type Score Categories 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Totals Isolates l l 5 9 3 2 l 22 Mutual Pair Members - — 3 5 4 5 1 18 RFS Members 4 16 19 44 22 8 — 113 Totals 5 17 27 58 29 15 2 153 44 House type ratings given by the researchers placed 75 percent of RFS 6 girls in category 2, and 67 percent of those in RFS 14 in category 3. The raters placed 75 percent of those in RFS ll, 67 percent of those in RFS l6. and 17 in category 4. The mutual pair category was the only group that had no members in category 1 or 2, and generally had more members below the average than any of the other categories. The scores for dwelling areas showed a wider distri- bution than those for house type, and the majority, or 40 percent, was in category 3. This was one rank higher than that for house type, indicating that the girls' families, on the whole, lived in an area more highly rated than their type of home, as is shown below: Reciprocal Friendship Dwelling Area Score Categories 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Totals Isolates 2 1 9 3 4 1 2 22 Mutual Pair Members - l 6 6 3 l 1 18 RFS Members 12 8 46 26 13. 2 6 . 113 Totals 14 10 61 35 20 4 9 153 45 Five percent of the total pOpulation named their mother as the main financial supporter. In 27 percent of the families the mother was a secondary financial contributor. Four percent mentioned receiving financial support from someone other than the mother or father, as is shown below: Reciprocal Mother Other Financial Support Friendship is main Cateories support Father Mother Other Total Isolates 2 O 6 2 8 Mutual Pair Members 2 2 5 0 7 RFS Members 4 l 30 l- 32 Totals 8 3 41 3‘ 47 In terms of the categories of reciprocal friendship, those in RFS's had fewer other financial supporters than did the isolates or mutual pair members. Whereas 36 percent of the isolates and 39 percent of the mutual pair members had a secondary contributor, only 29 percent of the RFS members named such a person. The occupational ratings of these secondary finan- cial supporters ranked considerably lower than those of the main contributors. Five percent were in category 1, 21 per- cent in category 2, while in rating the main financial 46 source, 70 percent were in categories 1 and 2. The largest percentage in this analysis appeared in category 4, and amounted to 37 percent of the total, as is shown below: Reciprocal Friendship Occupational Rating Categories 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Totals Isolates — - l 3 1 - - 5 Mutual Pair Members 2 5 1 - - - - 8 RFS Members - 3 8 11 1 - 2 25 Totals 2 8 10 14 2 - 2 381 'lNine girls did not respond to this question. Other Descriptive Measures Two-thirds of the girls' main financial supporters had graduated from college. The high proportion of isolates whose fathers were college graduates might have been due to the high mobility of their families. Bjorngaard stated of her sample of this population that "the upper social class . . 2 . was more mobile than the lower soc1al class." These girls 2Bjorngaard, op. cit., p.33. 47 may not have been in the school long enough to have become a group member. The distribution is shown below: Reciprocal Friendship Educational Level Categories Grade Some High Some Col- Some Dont Totals School Grade School High lege Col- Know Grad- SChool Grad- School Grad— lege uate uate uate Isolates 2 - l 2 l4 2 1 22 Mutual Pair Members - — 2 2 12 1 l 18 RFS Members 2 l 13 2 76 ll 7 112 Totals 4 l 16 6 102 14 - 9 152 The average number of children in the families represented in the study was 2.43. No major differences were found between the various categories of group and non—group membership and number of siblings, as is shown below: Reciprocal FriendShiP Number of Siblings Categories 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Totals Isolates 4 6 6 3 2 - - - 1 22 Mutual Pair Members - 6 5 4 2 l - - - 18 RFS Members 9 33 28 30 9 2 — 1 - 112 Totals 13 45 39 37 13 3 _- 1 l 152 48 Eighty-two percent of the total population Were Protestant; 11 percent were Catholic; two percent were Jewish: and five percent listed no preference. Proportionately more isolates were Catholic than the other categories of recipro- cal friendships, as is shown below: Reciprocal Friendship Religious Preference Categories Protes- Catholic Jew— None Totals tant ish Isolates 15 5 1 l 22 Mutual Pair Members 16 2 - - 18 RFS Members 93 10 2 7 112 Totals 124 17 3 8 152 As mentioned previously, it is possible that many of the Catholic girls attended a parochial elementary school, and were new to the public schools, which might have been a reason for their lack of group membership. One RFS had 75 percent Catholic membership. This was the only group Showing a predominance of Catholics while, because of the high pro- portion of Protestants, there were many RFS's predominantly or totally Protestant. 49 Forty—nine percent of the girls in the class had attended only one elementary school in East Lansing; 10 per— cent had attended two or more in East Lansing; 15 percent had attended one outside of East Lansing; and 25 percent had attended two or more in East Lansing or elsewhere, as is shown below: Reciprocal Friendship Number and Location of Grade School Categories H O“ a) O‘ O'I 0) O G) C.‘ H C.‘ G H H "-4 0 vi H "'4 O ' (D U) c m E e m o m E A,c .4 -H c -H c ,o c C - 3 m m H m u m m H m o .u OIJ o h: 0.; A O m 0 a o O 4.) 9 :H E o m (V m .4 m (V-H w Isolates 10 2 4 6 22 Mutual Pair Members 9 1 3 5 18 RFS Members 48 11 14 23 96 1 Totals 67 14 21 34 136 1Data were not available for 18 girls. Four of the smaller RFS's showed homogeneity in that the girls had attended the same elementary school. Three of these, RFS's l, 10 and 17 were composed of girls who had attended only one elementary school in East Lansing. All the 50 girls from RFS 14 attended two or more schools in East Lansing. No other marked relationships were found. A comparison of the girls' grade point averages and honor roll membership revealed similarities and differences. Grades for all types of courses at this school received equal credit. Four points were given for each A; 3 for each B; 2 for C; 1 for D, in figuring the grade point averages. No points were given for an F. Those with grade point averages for the academic year of 3.5 or over were on the Honor Roll. Twenty—four of the girls were on the Honor Roll, three were isolates, three were mutual pairs, and 18 were in RFS's. The distribution of grades for the class as a whole showed the following averages: three percent had A, 37 per- cent had B, 46 percent had C, 12 percent had D; and one percent had F averages. Sixteen percent of the total class members were on the Honor Roll for the year, as is shown below: 51 Reciprocal Friendship Grade Point Averages Categories (2 U m u H n m o I: o u . . . m o (V «I e; a .4 - I I I n m 11 o c: C) o .8 0 r4 N In q: B Isolates 2 4 9 8 - 23 (.0 \l U1 H 9.: 0‘ Mutual Pair Members — RFS Members — 11 53 42 4 110 Totals 2 18 69 55 -5 1491 1Figures for five of the girls were not available. Analysis according to group and non-group membership of the isolates revealed 13 percent were on the Honor Roll, and 26 percent were D and F students; 19 percent of the mutual pair members were on the Honor Roll and another 19 percent were D and F students; 16 percent of the RFS members were on the Honor Roll, while 10 percent were D and F students. All the girls in RFS's 11 and 15 had the same grade point averages. Over 65 percent of the members of 7 RFS's had similar grades. 52 The only consensus in Honor Roll membership was in RFS 14 in which 100 percent of the girls were on this list. Only one percent of the girls belonged to no clubs, whereas a third belonged to one club or organization. “The largest category of isolates and mutual pair members belonged to two clubs, whereas the largest group of RFS members belonged to one club, as is shown below? Rempmcal Friends’hlp Number of Club Memberships Categories 0; 1 2 '3 4 Totals Isolates 1 7 11 l 1 21 Mutual Pair Members 4 3 6 3 1 17 RFS Members 10 4O 22 22 17 111 Totals 15 50 39 26 19 149 Four of the RFS's (RFS 1, 6, 15 and 16) had 65 per- cent of their members belonging to one club and RFS 17 to one club. All members of RFS 11 and 14 belonged to the same runmber of clubs. Each girl was rated objectively on her appearance by one of the three interviewers. Three categories Were origi— nally used in the ratings, (1) above average, (2) average, and (3) below average. See rating schedule in Appendix B. 53 An above average rating indicated the girl was outstanding in all aspects of appearance. An average rating meant that all aspects of appearance were neat and acceptable. A below average rating indicated that one or more aspects of the girl's appearance were not acceptable. Only two of the girls were rated above average, an indication that the interviewers were perhaps using adult standards to judge adolescents. These have been grouped with the average ratings; hence leaving two categories, i.e., average and below average, with 57 percent of the girls rated average and 43 percent below average, as is shown below: Reciprocal Friendship Rating by Interviewer Categories Above average Below and average average Total Isolates 9 13 22 Mutual Pair Members 8 10 18 RFS Members 67 40 107 Totals 84 63 1471 1Seven of the girls were not available for this rating. Since proportionately more isolates and mutual pair members were rated below average than were RFS members the 54 natural corollary is that a girl who was a member of an RFS would have a better chance of being rated as average than would girls in the other categories. Those girls who were among the 43 percent of the total class rated below average were rated down for specific reasons. See Appendix B. Many were rated down for more than one reason. One hundred items that lowered the rating of the 63 girls rated below average were checked. Thirty- eight percent had clothing as the major reason for a low rating. Hair was the second most frequent reason for a low rating on which 24 percent of the girls were checked. In 23 percent of the cases, the reason for low rating was a poor figure. Fifty percent of the isolates, 32 percent of the mutual pair members. and 36 percent of the RFS members were given low ratings because of their clothing. The second most frequent reaSOn for low ratings was hair. Thirty-two percent of the isolates, 26 percent of the mutual pair members, and 20 percent of those in the RFS's were marked down for this reason. Figure was the third most frequently mentioned negative aSpect checked by the interviewers. Fourteen 55 percent of the isolates were rated down for figure, as com- pared to 21 percent of the mutual pair members and 27 percent of the RFS members. Make—up was responsible for only seven percent:0f the total problems and complexion for only eight percent. These are all shown below: Reciprocal Friendship Reason for Below Average Categories Appearance Cloth- Hair Make Figure Com- .Totals ing up plexion Isolates 11 7 - 3 1 22 Mutual Pair Members 6 5 1 4 3 l9 RFS Members 21 12 6 16 4 59 Totals 38 24 7 23 8 100 All girls in RFS's 1, 5 and 17 were rated below average, and all in RFS's 6, 13, 15 and 16 were rated average, hence these groups showed much internal consistency. Summary The pOpulation for this study consists mainly of middle and upper social class girls. The majority of these girls were members of a reciprocal friendship structure. 56 There were two distinct lower social class groups in the school, RFS 1 and 5. RFS members were rated higher in terms of the occu— pational rating of the main financial supporter than were the other groups. Isolates generally ranked higher than members of mutual pairs. Proportionately fewer mutual pair members were from upper social class backgrounds than were the isolates or RFS members. Proportionately more isolates than mutual pair members or RFS members lived in homes that were ranked 3 and 4 according to the scales used. Dwelling area scores were gen— erally higher than house type scores for the pOpulation as a whole. However, there were more isolates and mutual pair members than RFS members in the lower categories. Two-thirds of the main financial supporters of the girls were college graduates, while the rest were equally distributed among the occupational categories. The average number of children in the families was 2.43, and no outstanding differences were found between this and the categories of reciprocal friendships. Since 82 percent of the girls were Protestant, the groups were generally homogeneous in terms of religion. Pro- portionately more isolates were Catholic than any of the other 57 groups. In one RFS, number 6, three of the four girls were Catholic. This was the only RFS to show mudh agreement in terms Of religion other than Protestant. Since there was a Catholic school nearby which goes only to the eighth grade, perhaps this is the reason there were more Catholic isolates and one RFS composed mainly of Catholic girls. The majority of girls attendedelementary schools in East Lansing only. More isolates and mutual pair members had attended elementary schools Outside Of East Lansing. In RFS l and 14 all of the girls had only attended sChool in.East Lansing. Analysis of the girls' grade point averages showed that pr0portionate1y more RFS members had averages in the range of 2.0 to 3.9 than did isolates or mutual pair members. Fewer RFS members were in the range of 1.0 to 1.9 than were isolates and mutual pair members. Proportionately more mutual pair members were members of the Honor Roll and were followed in descending order by RFS members and isolates. All members of RFS 14 were on the HOnor Roll. The largest majority of girls belonged to one club or organization. RFS members generally belonged to more clubs than did the other girls, except in the category of 58 belonging to two clubs, where isolates outnumbered the others. All girls in RFS ll belonged to the one club and all girls in RFS l4 belonged to four clubs. PrOportionately more girls from the RFS category were rated as being average, whereas more girls from the mutual pair and isolate categories were rated as being below average on appearance by the interviewers. The inter- viewers were in total agreement that RFS l, 5 and 17 were below average, and that all girls in RFS 6, 13, 15 and 16 were average when rated on appearance. The main reason the interviewers gave for assigning a below average rating was clothing. This was followed by hair. More isolates were given a below average rating because of clothing and hair than were either of the other categories of reciprocal friendship. The next chapter will analyze the girls' responses to questions on clothing, appearance, and group acceptance by categories of reciprocal friendship in terms of Stone's framework of review. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO REVIEW The responses in the next two chapters have been presented to show similarities and differences among the categories of reciprocal friendship and the members' Opinions on general acceptance, clothing and appearance. The responses have been analyzed according to Stone's theoretical framework of program and review. Program refers to responses made about the wearer of clothes by the wearer; whereas review pertains to responses made about the wearer by others.1 Program and review in this study will include the program and review Of the self and one's group. Review responses are discussed first since this is the order in which they occurred in the interview. The interview schedule was constructed in this manner because it was considered easier to elicit responses concerning others, prior to asking the girls questions about themselves. The first questions in the schedule were constructed to see if the girls would spontaneously refer to clothing lStone, pp. cit., p.92. 59 60 and appearance. The remainder specifically asked about clothing, appearance and group acceptance. In all instances where multiple reSponses occurred the six highest responses are reported as they ranked in order for all girls to find out whether clothing and appearance were important attributes in group acceptance. The reported percentages reflect the disproportionate number Of girls in the RFS categOries. Because of the large number of RFS members, the total percentages for all girls in the study were weighted by the RFS groups. Not only have the isolate, mutual pair and RFS categories been examined and presented in tabular form in Appendix C and D, but so have the Specific RFS's been examined. They will be referred to when members of the RFS agree two-thirds or more of the time. Because of the varying sizes of the RFS's from three to 27, two-thirds was selected as the prOportion which indicated group cohesion. Although 100 percent agreement might be more indicative of cohesion in the smaller RFS's, this is unrealistic for the larger RFS's. Therefore, two- thirds was selected as the cut—Off point, for it includes two out of three members in an RFS Of three, and three out Of four for an RFS of four members. 61 General Acceptance The girls were asked, "If a new girl came to East Lansing High School and wanted to get in with the popular girls, what would be the best way to do this?"1 The main response by 44 percent Of all girls was to "be friendly, talk to them." This was followed in order by "clothes," "looks," "personality," "be onself" and "actions are important“ as shown below: Reciprocal Friendshingategories Isolates Mutual RFS 'All Pair Members Girls Members % %. % % What would be the best way for a new girl to get in with the popular girls? Be friendly, talk to them 59 50 40 44 Clothes 27 22 28 26‘ Looks 13 22 27 24 Personality 18 28 23 23 Be herself . 4 ll 22 18 Actions important 18 22 17 18 All categories of reciprocal friendship agreed that ”be friendly, talk to them” was the best way to gain accept- ance with these girls. "Clothes” was second in importance 1The complete interview schedule will be found in Appendix B. 62 for the isolates and RFS members, but the mutual pair members ranked “personality" in this second position. More than 67 percent of the members of RFS 3, 10 and 11, agreed about the need to "be friendly, talk to them" as a way for a new girl to get in with the popular girls. Only in RFS 14 did over 67 percent of the girls agree on "clothes." In none Of the RFS groups did more than 67 percent of the members agree concerning the importance of "looks." Two out of three of the girls in both RFS 14 and 17 agreed that "personality" was an important way to get in with the popular girls. The girls were asked on what characteristic.they thought a new girl would be judged When coming to their school. Fifty-seven percent of all girls mentioned "person- ality." Other attributes mentioned in descending order were: "clothes," "looks," "way she acts,“ "neatness" and friend— liness” as shown below: 63 Reciprocal FriendShip Categories Isolates Mutual RFS All Pair Members Girls Members % %. %. % Characteristics on which a new girl would be judged: Personality 36 50 62 57 Clothes 45 39 62 56 Looks 45 50 56 54 Way she acts 68 66, 46 . 52 Neatness 18 28 30 -28 Friendly 36 22 18 21 The three categories of reciprocal friendship placed different emphasis on these attributes. The RFS's were in greater agreement concerning "personality" and "clothes." Isolates and mutual pair members named "the way she acts" as being the most important way a new girl would be judged. In analyzing the individual RFS's two of them were totally agreed that "personality" was important. These were RFS 3 and 9. RFS's 2, 7, 12, 14 and 15 had at least 67 percent of their members who believed "personality" was most important. ~ RFS 1, 6 and 14 were 100 percent agreed that "clothes" would be important. Four RFS's showed cohesion for at least 67 percent agreed on the response "value of clothes." 64 These were RFS 4, 5, 7 and 16. RFS 3 was the only group that had 100 percent agree— ment concerning "looks." Members of RFS 4, 6, 7, 11, 14 and 17 agreed concerning "looks” in over 67 percent Of the instances. While 100 percent Of RFS 1 members agreed that the "way she acts" was important, girls in RFS 5, 6, 10, 13 and 15 were over 67 percent agreed concerning this response. Two-thirds of girls in RFS's 15 and 17 were the only ones who agreed On "neatness." When the girls were asked What characteristics they considered in choosing a friend they responded in the follow— ing manner: the six highest responses for all girls were in the following descending order: "the way she acts," "person— ality," "interests,” "friendly," "looks" and the ”way she thinks." The responses are shown as follows: Reciprocal Friendship Categores Isolates Mutual RFS All Pair Members Girls Members % %. ‘% ‘% Characteristics used in choosing a friend. Way she acts 55 50 46 48 Personality 27 66 48 47. Interests 32 56 40 41 Friendly 27 ll 21 21 Looks 18 28 14 16 Way she thinks 14 17 16 15 65 The isolates generally agreed that the "way she acts" was the most important characteristic. The mutual pair members and those in RFS's were more likely to agree about the value of "personality." Five of the RFS's were over 67 percent in agreement about the importance of the "way she acts." These were RFS l, 7, 10, 12 and 17. One hundred percent of the members of RFS 11 and over 67 percent Of the girls in RFS 3, 8, 13, 14 and 15 mentioned ”personality." Two out Of three of the girls in both RFS 14 and 15 referred to the criterion Of "interests.” There was no consensus in any individual RFS about the responses to "friendly," ”looks," or the "way she thinks." When asked to mention the characteristics of the most pOpular girl in the ninth grade, the largest proportion, 55 percent, of all girls named "clothes." This was followed by "being nice to everyone," "personality," "looks,” "friendliness" and ”interest in school," as shown in the following: 66 Reciprocal Friendship Categories Isolates Mutual RFS A11 Pair Members Girls Members % % % % Characteristics of most popular girl: Clothes 59 56 54 55 Nice to everyone 32 33 46 43 Personality 27 44 44 41 Looks 41 50 38 40 Friendly 45 28 ‘ 39 39 Interest in school 23 50 27 29 There was consensus among the three reciprocal friendship categories, for all of them listed "clothes" more than any of the other items. However, they did differ in the second item of importance. Isolates named "friendliness" as the second most important characteristic; whereas the mutual pair members mentioned "looks" and the RFS members named "being nice to everyone” in this secondary position. "Clothing” was named by 100 percent of the girls in RFS 14, 15 and 17, and by over 67 percent in RFS 4 and 7. "Being nice to everyone" was mentioned by all members of RFS 15, and by over 67 percent in RFS's 1 and 3. "Personality" was listed by more than 67 percent in RFS l, 9 and 13. 67 All members of RFS ll mentioned "looks"I as being important. This was also listed by more than 67 percent of those in RFS 4, 15 and 17. One hundred percent of those in RFS 17 listed "friend- liness" as being an important characteristic. This was also mentioned by two-thirds of those in RFS 3. None of the individual RFS's were over 67 percent in agreement about ”interest in school” as a characteristic for the most pOpular girl. Clothing and.Appearance Sixty percent of the students agreed that the popular girls' clothing was different from the clothing of the others. Proportionately more isolates thought this way than did mutual pair members, and slightly more mutual pair members were agreed concerning this than were the RFS members. When they were asked how the clothing of the popular girls differed, the greatest proportion, 24 percent, said that they had "more clothing." This was followed by these responses in descending order: "more fashionable clothing," "neat and cared for clothing," "money,” "better quality clothing" and "more matching co-ordinates," as is shown below: 68 Reciprocal Friendship Categories Isolates Mutual RFS All Pair Members Girls Members % %. % % Clothing of pOpular girls is different from others? Yes, sometimes 73 61 57 60 NO 27 39 43 40 How? More clothing 32 17 24 ' 24 More fashionable clothing 18 11 22 20 Neatness and care of clothing 36 17 18 20 Money 14 17 22 20 Better quality clothingl4 28 10 12 More matching co-ordinates 13 4 4 6 The RFS members were the only reciprocal friendship group that thought "more clothing" was the most important difference. Isolates mentioned "neat and cared-for clothing" as the main difference, while mutual pair members named "better quality clothing.'I In the specific RFS's, all of the girls in RFS 4 stated that there was no difference, while all the girls in RFS 14 said there was a difference. More than 67 percent of these RFS members agreed there was a difference: 1, 2, 8, ll, 15 and 16; more than 67 percent of RFS 3 and 17 felt there was no difference. 69 When the individual RFS's were asked what the difference was, all members of RFS 14 agreed that it was "more clothing," and more than 67 percent Of RFS 8 girls agreed on this also. Only RFS 15 contained girls who were over 67 percent agreed about the response "more fashionable clothing." None of the RFS's were over 67 percent agreed on these three responses: “neat and cared—for clothes,” "better quality clothes" or ”more matching co—ordinates." Three-fourths of the members of RFS l,all lower social class girls, indicated 67 percent agreement on the response “money." Seventy-four percent of the girls agreed that clothing influenced a girl's popularity at East Lansing High School. Proportionately more of the isolates felt this way (82 percent) than did mutual pair members (78 percent) or RFS members (71 percent). When asked why they thought this way, more of the girls answered in terms of "dress right," followed in rank order by "other,” "amount Of clothing," "easier to be popular when well dressed,” ”first impression," and "popu— lar kids have the latest styles." This is shown below: 7O Reciprocal Friendship Categpries Isolates Mutual RFS A11 Pair Members Girls Members % %. % % Does clothing influence - a girl's popularity? Yes 82 78 71 74 No 18 22 29 26 Why? Dress right 17 29 52 ‘39 Other - 21 31 16 Amount of clothing 11 ‘ 14 28 16 Easier to be popular if well dressed 50 7 20 16 First impression 6 29 23 14 P0pular kids have latest styles ll 21 23 14 The three categories of reciprocal membership differed in their opinion as to which response was uppermost. Proportionately more isolates responded to "easier to be popular if well dressed,” an equal number Of mutual pair members responded to "dress right," and "first impression" and the greatest majority of RFS girls responded to "dress right." Only one RFS, number 8, eXhibited over 67 percent agreement in terms Of "dress right.” "Amount Of clothing" was the consensus of over 67 percent of those in RFS 15 only. 71 RFS 1 girls agreed over 67 percent that it was "easier to be pOpular if dressed well." None of the individual RFS's agreed over 67 per— cent with the responses pertaining to ”first impression" or "popular kids have the latest styles." The norms of the pOpulation were established when they were asked how their group compared.with the others in dress. Seventy-two percent of the girls stated that their group was "average," 19 percent said "better than average," and 9 percent said "not so well.“ No isolates said their group was "better,” but 22 percent of the mutual pair members and 21 percent Of RFS members said their groups were "better" dressed. Ten percent of the isolates, five percent of the mutual pair members. and 10 percent of RFS members said their group was "not so well" dressed. Ninety percent of the isolates, 73 percent of mutual pair members and 69 percent of RFS members stated that their groups were average compared to the other groups, as shown below: 72 Reciprocal Friendship Categories Isolates Mutual RFS All Pair Members Girls Members % %. % % How does your group compare with the other groups in dress? Average 90 73 69 72 Better -— 22 21 19 Not so well 10 5 10 9 RFS's 3, 5, 9, 15 and 16 agreed 100 percent that their groups were "average." Sixty-one percent of the girls indicated that they did not think the manner in which their best friend dressed was a reflection upon themselves. A majority of all cate- gories of reciprocal friendship gave a "no" response. The greatest proportion of responses for the re- mainder of those in all categories Of group and non-group membership was that of "reputation by association." This response was followed in order, by these: "influences acceptance," "they like you, not your friends," "I don't care that much," "I don't know" and "other." This has been tabulated as follows: 73 Reciprocal Friendship Categories Isolates Mutual RFS All Pair Members Girls Members % %. %. % Is the way your best friend dresses a reflection on you? NO 50 66 63 61 Yes 41 33 37 37 Why? Reputation by association 36 33 35 35 Influences acceptance —- -- 4 3 They like you - not your friends -- 5 l 3 I don't care that much 4 -- -l 3 I don't know 4 -- -- 1 Other 4 -- -- l Nine of the RFS's exhibited more than 67 percent consensus in that they did not think the manner in which their best friend dressed.was reflected upon them. These were RFS l, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17. In RFS 10, all of the girls agreed to a "no" response. The only consensus of RFS members was in terms of "reputation by association," on which over 67 percent of girls in RFS 8 agreed. The girls were asked if there were girls in the ninth grade who did not dress right, and if so why? The greatest majority (75 percent) said there were. 74 The most frequent response as to why the girls were not dressed right was "wrong combinations" followed by "in- adequate care," "out—Of—style," "improperly fit," "dress the best they can for the money" and "inappropriate for the occasion.” This is shown as follows: Reciprocal Friendship Categories Isolates Mutual RFS I All Pair Members Girls Members % % % % Are there 9th grade girls Who do not dress right? NO 18 22 27 25 Yes 82 78 73 75 If yes, why? Wrong combinations 39 27 38 37 Lack Of cleanliness and care 55 33 23 27 Not fashionable 33 23 24 25 Improperly fit 17 23 23 22 Dress best they can for money 11 13 20 18 InapprOpriate for occasion 33 9 14 16 The isolates felt that "inadequate care" was the most important characteristic; whereas both the mutual pair and RFS members indicated that "wrong combinations" was proportionately more important. The only appreciable agreement within the individual RFS groups was in terms of the response "out-Of-style" to which 100 percent of girls in RFS 11 agreed. 75 When they were asked to describe these girls who were not dressed right, the greatest proportion of the girls responded that they were ”poor families." This response was followed in descending order by: "don't care about their appearance," "unkempt," "nice," "poor grades and school attitude" and "wild” as shown below: Reciprocal Friendship Categories Isolates Mutual RFS 'All Pair Members Girls Members % %. %» % How would you describe these girls? Poor families 27 39 26 28 Don't care about appearance 22 16 24 23 Unkempt 22 16 13 15 Nice 18 16 10 12 Poor grades — school attitude 14 6 ll 11 Wild l4 , ll 10 10 Proportionately more mutual pair members than iso- lates or RFS members responded in terms of "poor families." However, all Of the categories of reciprocal friendship were agreed that this term best desribed the girls. The only agreement within the RFS's was in terms of the response referring to "poor families" which more than two-thirds Of the girls in both RFS l4 and 17 responded. The 76 same approximate percentage of RFS 6 members responded to "they don't care about their appearance.” The majority (80 percent) said they did not have friends who were "not dressed right." This was the same response given by the majority Of the isolates (77 percent), mutual pair members (66 percent) and RFS members (82 per- cent). Thus, more mutual pair members (33 percent) had friends who they said were "not dressed right," than either Of the other categories of reciprocal friendship. All Of the RFS's were 67 percent or more in agreement that they did.ppp have friends who were I'not dressed right." This is shown below: Reciprocal Friendship_Categories Isolates Mutual RFS All Pair Members Girls Members % % % % Do you have friends who do not dress right? NO 77 66 82 80 Yes 18 33 18 20 Why? Lack of fashion 9 11 10 10 Improper fit 4 11 6 6 Lack of neatness 9 ll 5 6 Wrong combinations 4 ll 4 5 Lack of cleanliness and care 4 -- 4 I 4 Inappropriate for occasion -- ll 3 3 77 The girls were asked why these girls' clothes were "not right." The highest proportion of all who responded, 15 girls, replied in terms of "lack of fashion,” which they named as being the reason these friends were “not dressed right." This same reSponse was named by the greatest propor— tion of isolates, mutual pair members, and RFS members. The next five highest responses dealt with: ”improper fit," "lack of neatness," "wrong combinations," "lack of cleanli- ness and care" and "inappropriate for occasion," in that order. Only one RFS showed a consensus of Opinion in terms of reasons for friends being poorly dressed. This was RFS 11 in which 75 percent of its members named "lack of fashion" as the reason for not being "dressed right." Summary In the girls' review Of others they mentioned cloth- ing as the first attribute in describing the characteristics of the most popular girl. When asked how to "get in with the popular girls" and the characteristics on which a new girl would be judged, clothing was the second most frequent response, with "looks" third. The only question which did not elicit a response of 'clothing‘ was that concerning the 78 characteristics used in choosing a friend, although "looks" was mentioned by a small prOportion of all categories of reciprocal friendship. This section showed that the isolates in general had proportionately stronger feelings regarding the importance Of clothing and appearance than did the population as a whole or the mutual pair or RFS members as groups. Proportionately more isolates than either mutual pair or RFS members considered their group as being "average" when compared to the dress of other groups. Pr0portionate1y more of the mutual pair members considered their group "better" dressed than did the other categories of reciprocal friendship. One—tenth of the isolates and RFS members thought their group to be "not as well dressed" as compared to only one-twentieth of mutual pair members. Isolates had stronger feelings concerning the in- fluence of clothing on popularity, for proportionately more of them thought it was important than did the mutual pair or RFS members. Conversely, more RFS members than the other categories of reciprocal friendship thought clothing was not influential in terms Of popularity. 79 The majority of the population, 75 percent, agreed that there were girls in the ninth grade who were "not dressed right." The isolates concurred more frequently than did the other categories, that there were girls who were improperly dressed. On the other hand, RFS members agreed more frequently than the other categories of reciprocal friendship that there were po_girls who were "not dressed right." These girls were generally described by all groups as being from "poor families." The term most frequently used to describe these girls' clothing was that they were not in "fashion.” The specific RFS's were analyzed separately to determine the cohesion in terms Of Opinion of each of the six highest responses. These were compared with those Of the isolates and mutual pair categories. There were 73 possible responses to the 11 questions on review. The individual RFS's were in 100 percent agree- ment concerning 40 different items, and 67 percent or more Of the RFS members agreed concerning 117 different responses. The summarized data may be found in Appendix C and the sociogram on page 81. 80 Thus, in terms Of review Of others' clothing, appearance and general acceptance, more RFS members were agreed than were isolates or mutual pair members. The isolates, however, reflected stronger feelings concerning these attributes than did the other reciprocal friendship categories. These findings lend support to the working hypothesis in terms of review, that members of the same group'have similar Opinions concerning clothing, appearance and group acceptance which contribute to the groups' cOhesion and differ from those held by non-group members or members of other groups. uo>fiooumm eususuo< has: ~83: ~33 @©O mmmfio aswoom QZUQHH \xnm .II @I@ . HA. . . /,,.I \IJ .. . 2: :2 mm ”g (, KUI ,1. emouoHOmH @I U \) aaum ¢I< . L . Emma mm; mew/3V 0 \ Ammmv naousHOmH @ Q LII. mNH ‘ Kl. D _ ha y ma ”MAM “WWW rnnu\ @ NaousHOcH elm Hid I NH mum HmousHONH KI'. mm ‘ $2238 060 Go uauaouuwu :« one: .uooouoa ooH csnu umoa usb .mnonfioa noouw mo eyes we advance so um .onconmmu use so macaw ea usquvumu acouuoa ooa u< .ueoaooums as: once» auawu mo sonar: oru canvass“ uumnasz seawonoo mo mucumoaucH BMH>mm mo mzmmH zH onmszu no mmOH