A SOCIOMITIIC STUDY OF DORMITORY FNENDSHIPS: 05 0.3005 FORMATION Am PREGNANT“! DWflOPMINT IN A WITORY M {or the boom oi M. A. W STATE COLLEGE hm“. Kennedy Mich 1943 H8 20¢, THS This is to certify that the thesis entitled A SOCIOIETRIC STUDY OF DORJIITORY FRIENDSHIPS: of Clique Structure and Personality Development in a Dormitory presented by Mrs. Lucille Kennedy Mick has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for WELLS—degree injociolcgy and.Anthropology Major professor Date—.4 #flig’ M495 MICHIGANLISBTfiémES E UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING, MI 48824-1048 PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 5/08 KIProj/Aoc&PrelelRC/DateDue.indd A SOCIOMETRLC STUDY OF DORMITORY FRIENDSHIPS: Of Clique Formation and Personality Development in a Dormitory by Lucille Kennedy Mick A THESIS Submitted to the Schoel of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology and Anthropology 1948 ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express her appreciation to all members of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology of Michigan State College, and especially to Dr. Orden C. Smucker who directed the dormitory friendships study and guided the writer both in the research and writing phases of the thesis preparation. Dr. Charles P. Loomis, head of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology and Dir- ector of the Social Research Service, and Dr. Edgar A. Schuler, Associate Director of the Social Research Service, gave assistance in the organization of the study. Dr. J. Allan Beegle and Dr. Duane L. Gibson, of the departmental staff, were particularly helpful in the statistical phases of the study: the former in the chi square analyses and the latter in the Pearsonian correlations. For their splendid co-operation which made this study possible, the writer is grateful to Mrs. Isabelle Gonon, Counselor for Women of Michigan State College: Mrs. Wanda Dewey, housemother for North Hall: the graduate counselor for North Hall; and the North Hall girls themselves. 13303306 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1 Introduction and Methodology 1 Importance of Dormitory Friendships in Person- ality Development 1 The Sociometric Approach to the Study of Benny itory Friendships 2 Locale of the Present Dormitory Study 4 Development of the Sociometric Study of North Hall Group Structures 5 2 The Friendship Pattern 10 Analysis of the Total Dormitory Sociogram. 10 Friendship Choices Received 15 Mutual Choices and Single Choices 17 Triangles and Squares 19 Cliques 20 Indeterminants and Hear-isolates 24 Inter-clique Choices 27 3 Correlates of Friendship Choice 28 Scholastic Average 36 Home Environment: Urban or Rural 37 Year of First Dormitory Entrance 38 Propinquity'within the Dormitory 39 Age 43 Academic Year 47 Religion 47 Major or vocational Choice 49 Sorority 49 Part-time Work 50 Chapter 4 5 6 iv Parent's Occupation Parents' Education Leisure Time Activities Dating Habits Organisations and Special Activities The Rejection Pattern Frequency of Rejection The Rejection Sociogram The Highly Rejected The Average Rejects The LOW'Rejects Inter-clique Antagonism Factors in Rejection Moral and Idealistic Attitudes Construction of the Attitude Scale Response to the Attitude Question Findings from.the Attitude Question The Re-test of Attitudes Attitudes as Correlates to Friendship and Rejection The Value of the Attitude Test Prestige Status Selection of Prestige Status Criteria Construction of Prestige Status Scale Characteristics of the Four Prestige Status Groups High Prestige Status Group Higher-ThanpArerage Prestige Status Group Ayerage Prestige Status Group Zero Prestige Status Group Prestige and Social Class Criteria Conclusions on Prestige Status Page 52 54 55 56 57 59 60 61 63 66 67 68 72 75 75 77 78 81 82 85 86 86 87 98 98 99 101 101 102 103 Chapter Page 7 Sociometry and Personality Development 108 Individual Adjustment 108 Personality Development within the Sub-group Structure 114 Personality Development within the Total Com- munity Structure 122 8 Conclusions and Implications 125 The Structure of Dormitory Interaction 125 Individual and Group Ditjferences in Interaction Patterns - 127 Sociometry as a Tool for Revealing Social Struct- ure, Interaction, '~and Personality Development 131 Implications 132 Bibliography - 133 Appendix A Appendix B Number 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 vi TABLES Number of Friendship Choices Made Distribution of Friendship Choices Analysis of Friendship Choices Analysis of the Total Sociometric Friendship Pattern of 10 Sub-groups in North Hall Analysis of 14 Possible Friendship Correlates Analysis of Religious Affiliation and Regularity of Attendance Unanimity of Choice According to Parental Occupa- tion Groups Friendship Choices Between Girls Participating in Common Activities Number of Rejections Made Distribution of Rejections Rejection Analysis by Sub-groups Rejections by Corridors Total Responses to Attitude Questions in the First test and in the Anonymous re-test Stratification According to Four Prestige Categories Total Sociometric Analysis of the High Prestige Group Total Socicmetric Analysis of the Higher-than- Arerage Prestige Group Total Sociometric Analysis of the Ayerage Prestige Group Total Sociometric Analysis of the Zero Prestige Group Correlations between the Prestige Status Scores and Five other Sociometric and Reputational Ratings Prestige and Social Class Criteria Page 12 16 18 22 48 53 58 60 61 69 72 83 89 91 92 93 94 96 104 vii CHARTS Chart 1 North Hall Room.P1an Chart 2 Individual Sociogram of Number 47 Chart 3 Diagnostic Profile Depicting Inter-personal and Reputational Performances Based on Six Sociometric and Four Prestige Status Indices SOCIOGRAMS The North Hall Friendship Pattern The North Hall Rejection Pattern Page 41 107 111 62 Chapter I Introduction and Methodology the Importance Presented here is a detailed, sooiometric study of of Dormitory Friendships in the relationships of one type of college social org- Personality Development. anisation. The college dormitory where students of one sex live together during the usual nine months of the regular aca- demic year and perhaps for as many as four of those years fufiiishes a compact, highly important field of study for the sociologist. Appli- cation of sociological principles of group adjustment in the college dormitory field is almost non-existent although fourteen years have passed since the epochal publication of Moreno's findings at the New {2) York State Training School for girls. That the primary group relationships are the most significant con- tributors to socialisation and personality developent is established in. the classic literature of sociology:3 Particularly important, then, are those primary relationships which during college life mst take the place of family and neighborhood. groups as well as the informal, comm- ity clique groups based on such factors as age, sex, class, and school grade. Perhaps there may be one or even a few friends from the home- town enrolled in the college where an individual matriculates, but for (I) Th'e dormitory is a very important part of the sub-culture known as the campus. Here is a unique social system with its own mores and folk- ways together with techniques for their transmission; a pattern of rit- uals, symbols, and traditions; a value structure; a hierarchy of power and stratification: and a set of culture objects. Ah. campus and its dormitories constitute a unique social system and specific sub-culture certainly worthy of the serious attention of the research sociologist, but to date it has been given rather scant attention. {See Angeli, Robert, C., The Cam us, D. Appleton Co., 1928 (2) HorenofT.’ 17,2550 Shall Survivet, Nervous and Mental Disease rub- lishing COe, washing'ton, be as, Igsze (3) especially, Cooley, C. 3., Social or anisation, Charles Scribners Sons, New York, 1909. Chapter 3. 2 the most part, the entering student is on his own. the quality of the relationships he or she establishes is one of the basic factors deter- mining wnat they get out of college. And if, as Moreno found, congen- iality is the iamcrtant culture medium for personality growth and ach- ievement, far-sighted educators might profitably give as much attention to their students' group adjustment as to the selection of their fac- ulties. The Sociometric Helen Jennings Bays! Approach to the Study of Dormit- "The emotional milieu of the self is affected cry Fr1endships. by the other selves with whom the self is in contact and the inter-personal experiences that take place between the self and others. If the self is inadequate in capacity to enter into relationships with other solves, the individual may find himself in a relatively neut- ral relationship to almost all the surrounding selves so that he is neither able to act upon them nor to be contacted by them, and to the extent that this is true the individual has fewer affective avenues for contributing his experience to the experience of others or to be enriched by theirs." (l) The sociometric method was used by Jennings and her co-worker, Hor- enc, as a means of discovering the nature of inter-personal relation- ships at the New York State Training School for girls. Other workers following the above application have used the sociometric method suc- cessfully on other groups. The Warner school of cultural anthropolog- ists used the method in their comunity studies of social class strat- i2) ification. Lundberg and Steele used %t in their study of the social 3) attraction patterns in a rural village. Zeleny studied group morale . (4) in the class room and later in an army air force flight training school. $14 Jennings, Helen, Leadership and Isolation,7.ongman Green andCc., . pe 6e (2) In particular, Warner, W.L., and Lunt, Paul S., The Social Life of _a_._ Modern Communité: Yale University Press, New Baum-1'94 . '— Davis, Allison; dner, Burleigh'l‘; and Gardner, lary; Deep South, Univ- ersity of Chicago Press, 1941. (3) Lundberg, George A. and Steals, liary,"Socia1 Attraction Patterns in a Village.", Sociometry 1, Jan. '38, pp. 375-419. (4) Zeleny, Leslie D. ”Sociometry of Morale", Amer. Soc. Rev. 4, Dec. '39, pp. 799-808. ”Selection of Compatible Flying Partners" Amer. J'our. Sou—52, Marchj47, pp. 424-431. , 3 He also used the sociometric technique for measuring social status and for selecting group leaders?) Loomis studied racial cleavage in two high schools of the Southwest and political cleavage in the Hancverian town of Rietse, Germany by the same methodf2)Ccok, in his study of a 10th grade class, was able to spot individuals needing special guidance through the sociometric technique with particular emphasis on socio- graphic presentation?) In her Leadership _qn_c_l_ Isolation, Helen Jennings used an analysis of sociometric data in a study of personality types: the overchosen personality type, the underchosen, and the average chosen. An analysis of prestige and personality development at Benningtcn Col- lege was made by Neweomb through the use of similar dates“ So Sociometry which Frans defines as "a method used for the discov- ery and manipulation of social configurations by measuring the attract- ions and repulsions between individuals in a group'(6)hu been utilised for many different types of groups and for as many purposes since Mor- eno's successful application of the method fourteen years ago. The sec- icgram is a graphical presentation of the sociometric data which re- veals the configurations and the total group structure as no statistical method can. 1(0ch and Jennings say of the sooiogram: (I) Zeleny, Leslie D., "Measurement of Social Status", Amer. Jour. Soc. 45, 1946, pp. 478.482e g , "Objective Selection of Group Leaders“, Soc. and Sec. its. 24, March-April 1940, pp. 326-336. (2) Loomis, Charles P., "Ethnic Cleavages in the Southwest as reflected in Two High Schools", Sociometry 6, Feb. '43, pp. 7-26. , "Political and Occupational Cleavages in a Han- cverian TIIIage, airman 2 Sociometry 9, Nov. '46, pp. 316-335. (3) Cook, Lloyd Allen, "Experimental Sociographic Study of a Stratified 10th Grade Class", Amer. Soc. Rev. 10, April '46, pp. 260-261. 24; Newccmb, Theodore, Personalit and Social Chan , Dryden Press, 1943. 5 Frans, J. 6., "Survey of SEoIcm'e'EFiF'Ti'é'EanueE, Sociometry 2, OOte '39. pe 76o 4 "(It) is not merely another means of schematic representation of data, but an invention fa- exploratory aims. It is an ac- curate reproduction of the results of a sociometric test on the level of inquiry and can well b compared with the con- structs in the geometry of spaces. It accomplishes our orig- inal search for a spatial science which would do for ideas, things, and persons wha the geometry of spaces accomplishes for geometric figures. From the earliest beginnings of sec- iometric work, charting the data in the form of a sociogram and following the sociogram as a trail has led from one dis- covery to another: to the tele, to the social atom, the net- work, and in this paper to a method of its own statistics. Quantitative analysis of choices is of limited value; it ap- pears as an artificial and abstract view of the configuration studied. Structural anal sis of the configurations as such gives a better picture.“ 1) Orden Smucker found in his studies as Stephens College that the sociometric method is admirably suited to the understanding of friend- ship patterns existing on the college campus?) He analysed these pat- terns in sociographic presentations for five dormitories at Stephens, a junior college for girls with an enrollment of approximately 2,200 students. With such a small number, it was possible for a Stephens girl to know at least slightly most of the other girls on the campus. Locale of the The llichigan State College campus where the present Present Dorm- itory Study. study was made is no geneinschaft totality. Claim- ing 13th place in 0.8. college enrollments, Hichigan State boasted a 1947 Fall term enrollment of 14,819 regular students, a Winter term (1948) enrollment of 14,251, and a Spring term enrollment of 13,822. The campus is now of the sise in which secondary contacts are dominant. Large classes often totalling well over a hundred, particularly in the required Basic College lectures, are not particularly conducive to the formation of friendships. Later, after work on the major is begun- (l) Moreno, J. L. and Jennings, Helen, ”Statistics of Configurations", 5061“” 1’ J“. '38. PP. 342-374. (2) Smuclcer, Orden C., A Socio ra hic Stud of the Friendshi Patterns on 3 College Cfius, unp'GbIIsEfi doctorfl tgefls'rfihio State Buiversfiy, T545. P s o s thesis have been published separately. See bibli- ography. 6 usually in the last two years of college-~there is more possibility of classroom friendships being established. However, the post-war diffi- culties of resolving doubled and tripled enrollments with already in- adequate facilities have resulted in overcrosding these classes, too. There remain the small organisations, the special activity groups, and the living quarters as possible locales for intimate friendship re- cruiting, and of these the latter, because of the daily routine of their interaction, are probably not important for the majority of students. llichigan State College maintains five large dormitories for its men stu- dents. For its men students, the college has five dormitories, each organised into two separate entities or wings which house from 150 to 206 girls each. One of these dormitories was not ready for occupancy this year, and another only opened its doors to women students during the Winter term. In order to accommodate about ninety more girls, the college has utilised for the past three years an off-campus donicilie . which had been at one time a residence hotel. Next year, this dormitory, North Hall, will no longer be needed for undergraduate girls. Instead, it will be reserved for graduate women students. Because of its sise and because it would not be possible later to study it as an undergrad- ' uate dormitory, Berth Hall was chosen as the site for the study here presented. Development of This study was proposed as an experiment by Mrs. Isa- the Sociometric Study of North belle Gonon, Counselor for Women at Michigan State Hall Group Structures. College. She had learned through one of his students of Dr. Snacksr's work in the dormitories at Stephens College. She hoped that the study would reveal techniques which could be used successfully by her dormitory housemothers and counselors in bettering the friendship 6 relationships and group adjustments of all girls living in dormitories. Mrs. Gonon also singled out North Hall for the initial study be- cause of its heusemother, Mrs. Wanda Dewey whose special interest is the personality development of the girls residing in the dormitory un- der her supervision. Her late husband was a professor of psychology, and she herself is doing graduate work in guidance and social service. Her interest in the study, her keen insight, and her observation of the girls' development and interaction over the three year period North Hall was used as a dormitory proved invaluable in interpreting and providing validation for the findings of the study. The North Hall girls themselves exceeded all hopes in their eager co-operation and interest in the study. Smoker found quite a bit of antagonism on the part of many girls at Stephens who were particularly incensed over the part of the questionnaire dealing with rejections. Slightly over eleven percent of the Stephens girls did not return their questionnaires. The girls of North Hall were introduced to the proposed study at dinner May seventh, 1948. Dr. Smoker, now of the Michigan State Col- lege faculty and chosen to supervise the study of the dormitory, ex- plained the sociometric method, showed the girls some sociograms from the Stephens study, and awakened the girls' interest in the possibility of improving the group adjustment of dormitory girls. He also intro- duced his cc-worker, the writer, who later that same evening, after the ten o'clock curfew for cc-eds, supervised the filling out of the quest- ionnaire at a special “house" meeting held in the living room and dim- ing room. The girls were given plain envelope in which to seal their completed questionnaires. They were assured anonymity as far as the in- dividual findings were concerned. Several of the girls stopped to ask 7 questions and to express their interest as they handed in their quest- ionnaires. Later, when a re-test of the attitude question seemed nec- essary for verification of the original findings, the girls were shown the capleted friendship sociogram in which each girl was represented by a number known only to the oo-workers. Eyen though the re-test was given during the last, pre-exam week of the term, the girls graciously complied when the reason for the re-test was explained--again at din- ner. It is possible that the success of the re—test was accounted for by the girls' interest in the sociogram. For fully an hour after din- ner, the table on which it was displayed was surrounded by different groups of girls who studied it intently to try to identify their own and other cliques. a few were so successful that they began trying to identify the individual members of the cliques. At this point the co- worker interceded, telling the girls that they would probably be suc- cessful given a little more time, but if they were allowed to continue, the anonymity promise made each girl would be broken. Seventy-five or 10075 of the girls answered the first questionnaire, and 74 girls took the re-test. The 75th girl had left school in the meantime. (1) 1h. questionnaire itself was developed by Dr. Smucker and the co- worker with the object of adapting the data to the needs d the Counselor for Women. Ssnacker's original questionnaire from Stephens was used as a guide. A new set of questions relating to prestige was devisedfmand questions dealing with dating habits and attitudes toward moral and id- ealistic behavior were added. Since the girls in their classes and in the dormitory are so often suhnitted to questionnaires for research car- ried on by several departments in the college, it seemed feasible to mks (1) See questionnaire in Appendix A. (2) Questions 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the questionnaire. 8 the questionnaire as brief and simple as possible. To cut it down.to its two page length, several questions which had been previously ans- 'wered in other questionnairei1)available to the researchuworkers were omitted. The completed questionnaire was given a preliminary testing on six dormitory counselors from.Mary Mayo Hall. Their reluctance to answer a part of the attitude question dealing with pre-marital sex relations necessitated a change in wording which will be dealt with more fully in Chapter 5e (lj' See Personal Data Blank and Student Activity Record samples in Appendix Be .. .Pa‘da'q ..-.,. .--__.._... — ., ‘. -. *A-~'... -w--«.—-M- -.-.—..--—_._..-_....s_..... .-.. ,__.._. 7...- A-._~V_. 7’ . n. r-.....,.-..--__.i...-.__..-__. -,_A_ l I I g ? CLlQUE l n -_‘ a--- :__ NE TRIANGLE \ ‘ | l , z 1' / / I “ . \ . p I/ ,7 \-. O /' \\ .‘\ , v I - ’ , , ,, / , r _- I THE NORTH HALL CLIQUE 5 / ‘ I FRIENDSHIP PATTERN / ! 1 V. .-_.-._._._..____..._ .. ____ Chapter 2 The Friendship Pattern Analysis of The friendship pattern of North Hall as seen in the sec-- the Total Dormitory iogram on page nine is based on the friendship choices Sociogram. made in answer to question six of the questionnaires "Who are your best girl friends in the dormitory? List one, two, three or more as you like. if you don't feel really close to any women in the dorm, write no name."(1) The questionnaire was filled out during the mid- dle of Spring term so that the great majority of the girls had lived in the dormitory together for at least two and one half terms, and had had ample opportunity to establish friendships. Only one girl, Ember 25, had entered new Spring term. Four other girls, Numbers 3, 11, and 22 and 30 had entered the dormitory for the first time Winter term. Alto- gether 75 or 10076 of the dormitory residents filled out the question- naires.2) ' A glance at the sociogram shown on page nine reveals immediately an unusual complexity of configurations. Few other sociograms published 3) to date reveal such complex, cohesive networks. Moreno and Jennings make note of mutual choices, chain relations, triangles, and squares, correlating the greater complexity of revealed relationships with in- creased secialisation. "The factor responsible for the increased trend toward mut- uality of choice far surpassing chance possibility is called tele. With increased tele the chance for a first dioice to draw a first choice is greater; likewise the chance for a second and third choice to draw a second or third choice is greater. In kindergarten and the first grade tele is weaker (1) Question 6 of the questionnaire; see Appendix A. (2) This was unusual response for a questionnaire. In her Social sur- ve _a_p_d Social Research, p. 57, Pauline Young says often there Is '0"in a )e response to a questionnaire. (3) 0p. cit. 11 than in the 4th, 5th and 6th grades, but it is still more than chance. .he increasing number of pair relations with increasing maturing of the participants and the age of the configuration in which they are, suggest that an objective social process is functioning, with transference as psycho- patholcgical outgrowth and empathy as aesthetic outgrowth.” If the above is true, it would seem logical that college age groups, particularly these limited to a single sex, would tend to exhibit greater mutuality of choice and a tendency to develop more complex social relationships than younger groups in elementary and even secondary schools. in a sociometric study Beckerunmade in a small town consolidated high school this year, the most complex structure revealed in the sociogram of friendship choices was a tri- angle. Smcker in his sociograms of frieniship choices in five dorm- itories at Stephens found mutual pairs, triangles, squares, and a few star clusters in which a number of girls choose one very popular girl and also make choices among themselves. Although he found a number of clique structures numbering five or more individuals, none matched the complexity or cohesiveness of Clique 'l in North Hall. Very few ap- proached the cohesiveness of the largest group in North Hall, Clique 6, which had the least intra-clique unanimity of friendship choice. The Stephens girls made an average of 2.8 friendship choices; North Hall girls made an average of 5.23 such choices. Smucker used the same ques- tion for eliciting friendship choice responses as that used in North Hall except that the North Hall choices were limited to those in the dormitory and the Stephens choices could be drawn from the entire Steph- ens enrollment which was more feasible in a smaller college. Other investigators have limited the number of friendship choices ' to a specified number such as three or five. Some of these also have (1) Becker, Myron G. and Leonie, Charles P., "Measuring Rural Urban and Farm and Non-Farm Cleavages in a Rural Consolidated School", to be published in a forthcoming issue of Sociometry, 1948. 12 their subjects rank their ---------- --- Table l ------- -------- ' friendship choices as Moreno ' Number of (1) ' Friendshi Choices m. and Jennings describe. While ' No. or oices ' Students Made Totals the unspecified number of ' U U ' 3 l 3 friendship choices gives the ' 2 2 4 ' 3 S 9 subject more freedom and al- ' 13 4 5: ' 7 5 3 lows for differentiation of ' 30 6 180 ' 6 7 42 social expansiveness, it can- ' 6 8 48 ' 1 9 9 not be claimed that the ques- ' l 10 10 ‘ :75 Totals 392 tionnaire was free of psych- ological limitations. A certain number of spaces for friendship choices had to be provided; the North Hall questionnaire allowed six spaces. The analysis of the number of choices made by each girl shown in Table 1 shows that 30 or 40% adhered strictly to this spatial limitation. Another limitation of the question itself might be revealed by the close inspection of girls Number 22, 12, and 28 on the friendship socio- gram. Numbers 22 and 12 chose no one, and Number 28 chose only one girl, her roommate, who reciprocated. Although the question definitely spec- ifies close friendship, it cannot cmand a single definition or limit- ation of closeness. The above girls placed an exclusively high value on me they called . close frlolfllhlp. Said m:- 28 who tied for the highest prestige rating in the dormitory and was chosen by seven girls other than the one with whom she reciprocated, "I like all those girls. I go around with then and with other girls in the dormitory, but they aren't my very alga; friends. My only close friend is this girl here.” And she indicated her roommate with obvious affection. at the other an- treme, Number 70 says of her friends in Clique 1 that the friendships (I) up. cit. 13 in this group are not very intimate. "Few of then will last after the girls leave college“, she says. Helen Jennings' suggestion that the friendship choice question be framed as a choice for sons specified activity or relationshiéuwould undoubtedly allow for greater uniformity of interpretation, but it straitjackerts friendship to a single situation. For instance, it was considered by the co-workers to franc the friendship question: If you had your choice of the girls in the dormitory with whm you would like to sit at the dinner table, which girls vould you choose? Here it was learned that practical considerations such as the necessity for two shifts in the dining roon because of space and five o'clock and six o'clock classes on the campus and the fact that some ten or twelve girls did not eat in the dining room with the others but helped in the kitchen and dining roon during the regular mealtime linited a conpletely free choice of friendship on that basis. Looking again at the sociogram on page nine, another somewhat un- usual observation can be made of the North Hall friendship pattern con- cerning what Moreno and Jennings call the sociodynsmic effect. This socicdynsnic effect or the tendency for a few to be overchosen and a greater nunber to be underchosen or not chosen at all is typical of nost sociometric data. Moreno and Jennings say, "The frequency distrib- ution of choices shosn by sociometric data is comparable to the frequen- cy distribution of wealth in a capitalistic society." “The sociodynsnic effect", they continue, "apparently has gen- eral validity. It is found in some degree in all social aggreg- ates, whatever their kind, whether the criterion is search for nates, search for employment, or in social-cultural relations. It is found in populations of children as soon as they begin to develop societies of their own, as well as in adult populations, (1) Jennings, Helen, "Sociometry in Action", Survey 84, sz. '48, pp. 41 14 in groups of various levels of chronological age and men-- tal age and in populations of different races and nation- alities. Its effect may change in degree, but it is univ- ersally present, appearing like a halo effect inherent in every social structure. It may be pronounced where differ- ences of any sort are intensely felt by the participants, whether these are aesthetic differences, racial differences, sexual differences, economic differences, cultural differen- ces, or differences between old and young." (1) That the socicdynamic effect my be antagonistic to the formation of networks of friendship relations was recognised by the sane workers: ”The relationship between sociodynanic effect and the devel- opment of networks appears to be complex. Sometimes its ef- fect is simply negative. The greater the sociodynanic effect, the larger the number of isolates and the larger the umber and volume of nost chosen, the less choices are free for chain relations and network formation.” (1) The existence of the star, the overchosen person, and the cluster of star satellites is an effect of sociodynanics. Likewise, the pres- ence of a large number of near isolates is a socicdynanic effect at the opposite extreme. At Stephens, Snucker found several examples of such stars and isolates. One of his stars had 14 single choices directed toward her, nade two single choices herself, and had one reciprocated choice. Another had 10 single choices coming to her and had four lutual choices. A third rated nine single choices, had four nutual choices, and made one choice which was unreciprocated. One of his isolates was chosen by only one and made no choices herself. Another made four choi- ces, but {eceived none; a third nade nine choices, and received but one 2) . . in return. The friendship choice sociogran clearly shows that the soc icdynsnic effect has not been great enough to stultify network forntion in North Hall. The great najority of girls is well organised into definite net- works of friendship relations. Only ll girls out of the 7:: could not (1) Op. Cite, pp. 360-362e (2) Op. Cite, Pe 152a 15 be placed with comparative certainty in one of the organised nuclei. Among these 11 are five classified as ”indeterminants" because choices they made and received went into or came fron two or more cliques in such a way that there was no clear indication of membership in a single clique. The remaining six girls have been classed as near isolates al- though only one is unohosen. That one girl, Number 26, should not nec- essarily nerit the tern "isolate”, however, because it is probable that hers was a temporary isolation which was ended before the tern's close. She is the girl who entered the dormitory new only five weeks before the questionnaires were filled out. She explained on her questionnaire that she did not know any of the girls well enough yet to have made friends. Four weeks later she told the writer that she could list friends then, and the housenother was certain that she would have received friendship choices as well at that later date. Friendship There are in the total structure significant differences 22:3,; in the number of frienddlip choices received. Table 2 showing the distribution of friendship choices reveals that the number of choices received varies from 12 to sero. Forty-seven or 62.66%, at the girls received not ncre than two choices above or two choices be- low the lean of 5.25.(1)Eleven girls, or 14.67% received more than two choices above the Mean, and 17 girls, or 22.677. received less than two choices below the Kean. Although there were a few more 'poor" girls than "rich" girls in friendship choice, the difference is not phenomenal. floreover, the friendship sociogram reveals a distinction which din- inishes still more the sociodynanic effect in the North Hall friendship (l) The stratification for fiiendship choices received was arbitrarily done by using two choices above and below the loan as the Average Chosen group limits. Because of the distribution and the small number of subjects the nethod used by Zeleny and Jennings placing the limits at 1 8D above and below the mean was impractical. 16 pattern. iable 2 reveals no— ----- - ------ Table 2 ---------..--- Distribution of Friendship Choices. NOs O 0. 0 thing about the source of the 8 8 8 choices goin to the hi ' Girls Choices 8 shly k1) ' Highly Chosen . chosen. Moreno and Jennings ' i ii 8 lake a distinctiai between the ' i 13 8 person with popularity and the ' 3 8 ' Average Chosen person with power. ihe power- ' 1.2 2 8 m1 individual will have my ' Ian 12 55.? 8 choices caning to her from mt- ' 13 4 ' Underchosen side as well as from inside her ' g g 8 own network. A glance at Clique l ' i 3 8 8 in the friendship pattern socio- gren will reveal a large network of 10 participants with nsny and choices between then. It is sig- nificant that five of the 11 girls who were highly chosen cane from this large, cohesive clique: Ember 74 who received 12 choices, Hul- ber 63 who received 11 choices, lunber 40 who received 10 choices, and Nunbers 9 and b3 who received nine choices each. In all, there were only 13 choices caning into this clique from outside: Four of then went to lunber 74; two each went to Hunbers 40, d6, 55, and 63; one went to lunber 9. Pros this analysis and a conparieon with other girls who have as my or more outside choices as these highly chosen girls of Clique 1, it should be apparent that here is no great concentratim of power. The nenbers of the clique itself account for by far the greater share of the choices given the highly chosen. The other six highly chosen girls are nenbers of cliques of stated sise as follows: Dunbar 23 who received 10 choices, lunbers 15 and 19 who received nine choices, and Nunber 45 who received eight choices all (1) 0p. cit. 17 cone from Clique 6 which has 13 members; lunbers 28 and 38 who received eight choices each, cone fron Clique 7 of seven nembers and the Square of four members respectively. Choices received by then from outside their own sub-groups were as followe: Hunter 23, five choices; Number 15, no choices; Number 19, one choice; Number 45, no choices; Nunber 28, three choices: Number 38, five choices. These out-group choices do not represent a particularly high concentration among the highly chosen, al- though these 11 girls representing 14.67% of the population account for 23 or 21.7}. of the 106 choices which were not intra-clique. In short, the sociodynanic effect is present, but it is not highly significant. If the frequency distribution of choices is comparable to that of wealth in . capital istic country, one might say thht the North m1 friendship distribution nore closely resenbles the wealth distribution in a Scandin- avian dsnocracy than in the nore highly capitalistic democracy in the United States. lutual choices on the frienddiip sociogran are indicated Iutual Choices and by connecting the pair of reciprocals with a double line. Single Choices Single, or unreciprocated choices are indiceted by single lines with the arrow pointing to the person chosen. the sociogran reveals the large nunber of nutual choices within the network formations. In all, there were 392 friendship choices node in North Hall. Of these, 272 or 69.5;- were nutual or reciprocated choices \which neans that there were 136 nutual friendship pairs). Slucker found 57% of the friendship choices ends at otephens were nutual although one of the five dormitories studied had only 41;. of its choices reciprocal. One hundred and twenty single or unreciprocscted choices were nade at North Hall, accounting for 30.5}. of the total choices. The analysis of the nutual and single choices in Table 3 indicated the sources of these choices. it will be seen that choices between roosnates account for 54 of the nutual choices and intra- 18 Table 3 ANALYSIS OF FRIENDSHIP CHOICES Mutual Choices A. Indeterminant or near-isolate 261I Romate nutuals 8 B. Inter-clique nutual choices 14 Recs-ate nutuals 0 C. Intra-clique nutual choices 232 Roommate nutuals 46 Total roonmate nutuals 21; total nutual choices 272 Single or non-reciprocal choices A. Indeterminant or near isolate 38wI Roomate choices 3 B. Inter-clique choices 28 Roommate choices 2 C. Intra-clique choices 54 Roommate choices 0 Total Romate singles E Total single 35 non-reciprocal choices 120 Total Rec-sate choices 53 Total nunber 2; single plus mutual friendship choices 392 t Total nunber of choices ksingle or mutual) node and received by indeterminants or near-isolates. 19 clique mtual choices account for 232 or 85.3,. of the total 272. The sociogran does not reveal a single isolated pair of mtual friends. At North Hall every one of the 136 pairs or at least one of the members of (1) the pair also belongs to a more caplex structure or sub-group. Triangles Two triangle structures and one square strmture are pic- and Squares tured in the friendship sociogram. The two triangles of three reciprocating friends have been designated as the S.W. Triangle and the N.E. Triangle as a description of their respective positions on the sociogrsn. It is the opinion of Mrs. Dewey, the house-other, that these triangles are composed of a pair of isolated girls who were drawn together because of their isolation plus another isolated girl when the pair adopted. Nenbers of the SM. Triangle are all Freshmen. Nunbers 43 and 6 were the original pair, and they adopted the Winter tern new- coner, Number 11. Shortly after the questionnaire was filled out, Nu- ber 11 dropped out of school, and the pair was left to function by it- self. ‘i'here is only one outside choice directed into this triangle, and it is given to Nunber 43. Outside choices into this group, then, are equal to only .33 per capita which is the index of the group's out- side attraction. In contrast, Nunbers 6 and 11 nade four choices each outside the group while Number 43 made one reciprocated choice. The six choices the girls nade among themselves divided by the total num- ber of choices they nade represents the group's closed-clique exclusive- ness which is .40 or 40%. The [J- Triangle is composed of two Juniors who forned the orig- inal pair of roomates, Nunbers 5 and 48, and a proudly independent (l) Hereafter whenever the tern sub-group is used, it refers to a friende group of tires or nore nenbers. 20 Sophomore, Number 62, whom they adopted this year when she entered the dormitory for the first time. The two Juniors have lived in the dormitory since it Opened in the Fall of 1946. Number 5 made two meciprocated choices outside the group; Number 48 made none and received none; Number 62 made two unreciprocated choices outside the group and received two single choices from outside. The total group thus received two outside choices or a percapita outside at- traction of .66. Their closed-clique exclusiveness was 607.. The Square as a group presents a contrast to the triangles be- cause it has the highest percapita outside attraction of any of the structures in the dormitory. it is composed of Numbers 35, 38, 39 and 69. It lacks one choice of being completely reciprocal, so its unanimity of choice is 91.675. These girls are all Freshmen: two of then are roe-mates and the other two would like to be. rhey make 11 choices within the group and 10 outside, so theirs is . 52, closed clique. Thirteen choices are directed into this group from outside, making a percapita outside attraction of 3.25. Number 38 received five outside choices, and her total of eight choices gives her the honor of being the only Freshman among the highly chosen for friend- ship. All structures including five or more persons were arbitrar- Cliques ily desigiated as cliques. The friendship choice sociogram revealed seven such cliques which were numbered for convenience of ref- erence. Table 4 presents an analysis of the total sociometric friend- ship interaction cf the cliques as well as the other three structures. it records what the sociogram clearly reveals: the sise of the sub- group, the number of intra-olique choices, the number of cut-clique 21 choices made by each group, the number of individuals chosen outside the group, and the number of outside choices coming into the group. The table also shows the percent of Intra-clique Unanimity which the actual intra-clique choices represent for each group, the percent Closed-clique Exclusiveness, the Index of Cohesion, the ~ndex of Out- side Attraction, the Intra-clique Friendshi Probability, and the Total Friendship Probability for each group.“ It will be seen that there were three groups which had complete unanimity of intra-clique choices: the two triangles and Clique 2, both of which are conparetively small sub-groups. The 77.7% unanim- ity of intra-clique choice found in Clique 1 is not surprising after viewing that complex structure in the sociogram. For a large clique of 10 members, it is . unique example of unanimity of friendship choice. The Index of Cohesion for this group, 8.3, is the highest for any of the groups in the dormitory. The highest index of cohesion Lundberg and Steele found sven in the inner rings of the groups they charted in their village study was 4.832) This index measures the centripetal-centrifugal tendency and according to the above workers, '.shows the forces drawing a youp apart or outward as balanced against the forces that hold it together, namely the forces of intra-activity, plus the forces passing upon it ”on outside.” It was mentioned earlier that Smucker did not find any such com- plex or cohesive a structure as Clique l in his studies of the five dormitories at Stephens. Nention should be nade here of the fact that (1) See Table 4, page 22 for explanations and formulae for these terms. (2) Lundber , George A. and Steele, Mary, “Social Attraction Patterns in, a Village , Sociometry 1, Jan. '38, pp. 375-419. Group 01-1 01-2 01-3 01-4 01-5 01-6 01-7 Square SW Tri IE Tri (1) \2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) \8) (9) (10) 22 Table 4 Analysis of the Total Sociometric Friendship Pattern of 10 Sub-groups in North Hall Sise Ca Co Io Ci (1) (2) (3) (4) 13 H he mum-succcamcno 10 13 FOOOIQIFQQQOI IFCDONGOIQQOIO' mofigg $0 (5) 77.7 100.0 83.3 75.0 60.7 41.7 71.4 91.6 1 100.0 2 100.0 cos (6) .96 .71 .76 .70 .89 .90 .91 .52 .40 .60 Cohe- sion (7) so (8) 1e30 e60 e67 1e20 1.26 1e53 1e43 5e25 e33 e66 Pa (9) 6.99 4.00 4.17 3.00 4.26 5.00 4.28 2.75 2.00 2.00 Pai (10) 8.29 4.60 4.84 4.20 5.50 6.63 6.71 6.00 2.33 2.66 Ca refers to intra-clique choices. Co refers to out-clique choices nade by the group. Io refers to number of out-clique individuals chosen by the group. Ci refers to the total number of outside choices coming in. fiD’refers to the percent of the total possible number of intra- c1ique choices (Unaninity) thich the actual intra-cli e choices represent. The formula is: Ca . N is number 0 girls in group. I(N'I’ Lundberg and Steele (11) refer to this same percentage as the Ratio of Interest. CCE stands for Closed-clique Exclusiveness, and it is found by dividing the intra-clique dhoices by the total choices made by the group : Ca/Ca+Co. Cohesion or the Index of Cohesion is a neasure used by Lundberg and Steele. It is a measure of centripetal-centrifugal tendency and shows the forces drawing a group apart or outward as balanced against the forces that hold it together, namely the forces of intra-activity, plus the forces passing inward upon it from out- side. The formula is: Ca+Ci Lundberg and Steele i or +01 used this index in Co 0 their village study ‘16 of eight groups who were pictured on as many charts. The indices of cohesion for the entire charts ranged from 2.6-3.l: for the in- ner ring of each chart, the indices ranged from 2.0-4.8. A0 is the Index of Outside Attraction and represents the total the average number of choices coming into a group from outside. The formula is: Ci/H. Pa is the Intra-clique Friendship Probability which is derived from the number of girls in the group minus one tines the $0. The complete formula is: l-l (Ce/3(H-l). Pai is the Total Friendship Probability and is the sun of the Index of Outside Attraction and the Intra-elique Friendship Prob- ability. (11) 0pc Ofke 23 Stephens is a junior college'with only a two year college course for its students. Therefore, there was, at most, less than two years of interaction going into the formation of the Stephens sub-groupal struc- tures. All but three of the girls in Clique 1 have lived in the dorm- itory since it cpened, so they have had almost three years in which to form and strengthen their network. This bears out the statement made by lorenc and Jennings which was quoted at the beginning of on. chap- ter that there is an increasing number of pair relations with increas- ing nturing cf the participants and the age of the configuraticn. In contrast to Clique l is the even larger structure, Clique '6, which has 13 members. Home of the girls in this clique has lived in the dormitory three years. All but four entered in the Fall of 1946, and the others, two of them Freshmen and two Sophomore transfers, ent- ered in the Fall of 1947. This clique, then, with a little less than two years in which to develop their group before the sociographic pic- ture was made, more closely equals the Stephens clique conditions. There was only 42.37. unanimity cf intra-clique friendship choice in Clique 6. That it has the lowest unanimity percentage of all the sub-groups in the dormitory is not surprising in view of its sise. However, this clique had a 6.60 index of cohesion, fourth highest among the groups analysed. An examination of the columns in Table 4 representing Closed-clique hclusiveness, cos, and Outside Attraction, 1., bears out only slightly the suggestion of Lundberg and Stealinthat there is probably a negative correlation between the two. In the cases of the two triangles, whose members as explained earlier were originally near-isolates, it is under- standable that their lack of closed-clique exclusiveness is not rewarded by a high outside attraction. The Square, however, has the second low- Wt. 24 est percent of exclusiveness and the highest outside attraction. Clique l which had half of its mere on the highly chosen list has only a 1.3 outside attraction percapits, but it was fourth highest in this category and first (96%) in the closed-clique exclusiveness cat- egory. Clique 6 was third highest in the exclusiveness category and second highest (with 1.53) in the outside attraction percapita. .Table'3 which shaed that 232 mutual choices and 54 single choices, or 72.676 of the total number of friendship choices, were intra-olique choices of the ten groups, suggested to the writer a possible high cor- relation between friendship choices received and the sise and the friendship choice unanimity of the group to which a given individual belonged. The Tetra-clique Friendship Probability, Pa, was calculated for each group by the formula, N-l (ca/1(N-l ). The Pearsonian correl- ation 'r" between this probability and the actual choices received was .66 with‘a Co-efficient of Contingency of .45 or as; and an Index of Efficiency of 2675. The latter index shows that knowing the intra- clique friendship probability has a 26% advantage over simply knowing the friendship choice mean for the entire dormitory. The Total Friend- ship Probability, Pai, which is the sum of the intra-clique frieniship probability and the index of outside attract ion, has a higher correl- ation of .74. The .36 co-efficient of contingency derived from this relationship reveals that more than half the time the total friendship probability would be the same as the actual friendship choices received. The index of efficiency is 337.. Indetermin- Not all the girls in Earth Hall could be placed with fité'figlflfl a reasmable degree of centsinty in one of the sub- groups. Sae were near-isolates who either showed desire for acceptance in a given group and were not accepted or mowed no desire for accept- ance in a group and were not accepted. number 28, for examle, showed 25 no desire for acceptance in to a clique. She chose only her roommate, 'lumber 7. live girls in Clique 7, however, chose her, so she was placed in that clique. Her roomsate, besides choosing her, chose as friends three girls in Clique 5 and one other girl in Clique 7, but no one ex- cept her roommate chose her. Number 7 is therefore classed as a near- isolate. Number 58 did not reveal in her one friendship choice an at- traction for any special clique. She chose an ex-rcomate, Number 16. Her present roonate, Ember 1, was the only one who chose her. So, Number 58 is also a near-1e">1ate even though it may be by preference. lumber 34 has one mtual choice with Number 18 of Clique 4 and she is chosen by Number 6 of the SM. Triangle, a choice which she does not reciprocate. Bomber 34's other 5 choices are unreciprocated, and four of these are directed into Clique 6 from which she gets no choices. Number 47 is chosen only once by a girl in Clique 1, although she makes four choices into the group and two choices to Indeterminants 36 and 44 which are unreciprocated. She is also the most highly rejected girl in the dormitory. Number 22 chooses no one although she is chosen once by a girl in Clique 2 and once by a girl from the 8.17. Triangle. She would not have to remain a near-isolate if she didn't want to: she has entry into Clique 2 because she lives among them in their isolated cor- ridor. New to the dormitory the Winter term of 1948, she had made one close friend who left the dormitory when she married at the beginning of Spring term. The questionnaire caught her before she had had a chance to make a friendship adjustment to changed conditions. The rea- son for Number 25's isolation was explained on page 15. Her temporary isolation is an example of Mrs. Dewey's practical observation that it is unfortunate for a new girl toenter a dormitory late in the school year unless there is another new girl with whom she can tie up in the 26 period of loneliness before she is accepted into an established group. The indeterminants are differentiated from the near-isolates by the fact that they do not seek acceptance from a single group and their ac- ceptances are not received from members of a single group. In some cases it was difficult to make the distinction between near-isolate and indeterminant. Number 26, for example, is the graduate student counsel- or for the dormitory who gave splendid assistance to the co-workers in this study. She made two choices which were unreciprocated and received two which she did not reciprocate. All four choices came from or went into different groups. Her position does not permit her to show special attraction to girls whom she might like to befriend. Neither would she be able to participate as a member of a sub-group. Number 8 made six choices, two of which went to Clique 3, two into the Square, one into the saw. Triangle, and one to indeterminant number 36. m but one of these choices were reciprocated and she received two other choices as well: one from indeterminant Number 44 and one from another member of the Square. Numbers 36 and 44 are rocmates who choose each other and lumber 8. They also choose Number 12 of Clique 5 and Number 33 of Clique 4 who do not reciprocate. lumber 44 makes an unreciprocated choice of Number 38 in the Square an! number 36 makes an unreciprocated choice of Ember 62 of the LE. Triangle. Both girls receive choices which they do not reciprocate from the near-isolate, Number 47, and Number 44 receives . single choice from am» so of Clique 3. ’ Both girls are Freshmen and Mrs. Dewey says that their friendship intonation does not show a group orientation. Ember 55 was the president of the dormitory at the time the questionnaire was filled out. She made seven choices which showed no special group preference: two went to Clique l, 27 two went to Clique 6, one of which was reciprocated, two went to Clique 7, and a reciprocated choice went to her roomate in Clique 4. A choice from Number 6 of the 5.17. Triangle she did not reciprocate. She does not display youp orientation in friendship relations as in- dicated by her friendship choices. Inter- The friendship interaction of the North Hall sub-groups 3:832; has been described as well as that of the eleven individ- uals who do not fit into those structures. ihe description of the total friendship pattern of the dormitory would not be complete, how- ever, if mention were not made of the inter-clique friendship inter- action. Table 3 reveals that 14 of the mutual choices and 28 of the single choices, or 10.7}. of the total choices, are inter-clique choices. Compared with the nutcr- of intro—clique choices, inter-clique activity appears to be little developed. iet the sociogram proves that there is not a single closed structure. There are friendship choices going out and choices going in to every group. Although the girls clearly reveal sub-group orientation in their friendship choices, unsolicited remarks from the girls betray a consciousness of cohesion of the total dormitory structure. They praise their dormitory because of its friendliness, be- cause everybody here knows everybody else. "It's not like that in other dormitories", they say. "They are so large that you don't know anybody outside your own corridor. with a small dormitory like this, it's different. We'll hate to leave North Hall next year, but we're all getting rooms near each other in the new dormitory, so maybe we'll have a little north m1 there, too.” 28 Chapter 3 Correlates of Friendship Choice In the last chapter the structure of the friendship groupings was analysed. lo attempt was made to explain the why of the particular formatims. The "why' of friendship choice and the groups which are the sociometric unifestations of these choices will be probed in this chapter. The cc-workers considered many possible correlates to friend- ship choice: whether or not a given pair were roan-ates, propinquity in the dormitory, age, academic year, the year the girls entered the dormitory, major or vocational choice, dating habits, scholarship, lei- sure time activities, home environment, class, religion, certain be- havior and idealistic attitudes, outside activities and organisations, and whether or not the girls worked part time to defray a portion of their total college expenses. There was some difficulty in arriving at a anasure of social class, since stratification criteria vary with every comnity. College groups which draw their mubers from many communities usually build up their own stratification systems. whether or not a student's social class pos- ition in college is a reflection of her social class position in her commnity is an interesting speculation, but the impossibility of dev- ising sets of class criteria adaptable to the questionnaire method and on a state or national level makes it impractical. usher amde an of- fort to class the girls at Stephens according to their parents' econo- mic positions by having them state their fathers' occupations and an approximation of their annual salaries. He found a lot of antagonism to this question and his returns were we inadequate that he considered his findings of doubtful value?) For the lorth Hall study, Smucker and (1) Op.cit. 29 the writer decided to dispense with an analysis of class as such. In- stead, it was decided to substitute information regarding the parent's occupation and the educational status of the parents. 1'11. information activities and organisations was not drawn from the dormitory questionnaire. In an effort to make the questionnaire as brief as possible, it was decided to get the information from the college Stu- dent Activity Reoorflucards which every student was supposed to fill out during Spring term registration. This proved to be a poor ccononw for several of the North Hall cards were missing from the files and more of thu were not filled out. Since the information on this possible cor- relate was so inadequate, it does not appear in Table 5, but is consid- ered briefly at the end of the chapter. The information on moral and idealistic attitudes which was obtained from question 13 of the question- naire will be considered in a separate chapter. All the other correlates are analysed according to the friendship group frame of reference in Table 5. Four of the possible correlates have been considered separately for the group as a whole by means of the chi square analysis. This analysis which measures cleavage bet- ween groups as determined by their friendship choices has been used to measure cleavage between girls from rural and urban enviroments: bet- ween girls in four levels of scholastic achievement: betwoen girls liv- ing in the five separate corridors of the domitory: and between girls who first entered the dormitory during the first year, the second year. and the third year of its existence as a dormitory. These analyses fol- low in the succeeding pages. Any chi square total of more than five may be considered signifi- (1, Sec smle card in Appendix B. 30 Scholastic Average c ations for Chi Square measures of Cleavages between girls having d fcrent Scholastic Aserages, based on choices for Friendship. Four Scholastic groups: Excellent, 2.0-3; Good, 1.6-1.99; Average, 1-1.493 Poor, .5-.99. \1) ‘Direetiongof’ ‘Ictual o. co , o. quares \2) Choice Choices,_f Choices, f' gf—f‘)3/f' IL; ‘cmr: 15 gigisié§0 choices 1. Poor to poor 28 18 5.55 2. roor to Average 40 43 .21 3. Poor to Good 21 23 .17 4. Poor to Excellent 1 6 4.17 a. Poor choices to Av., Good, Excel. 62 72 1.37 A. Total Poor Chi Squares Dill. Of 1,2,3,4e 3 d: 10e10 e02 B. Sum.of Chi Square items (1+a), 1 df 6.92 .01 ‘Iiira e: 55 IrIs, 189 choices IT‘ verage o Peor £31_ 38 1.29 6. Average to Awerage 102 89 1.90 7. Average to Good 45 49 .33 8. Aweragc to Excellent ll 13 .31 b. Average choices to Poor, Good, Excel. 87 100 1.69 c. Total Average'chi Squares Sun or 5.6.7,8e 3 df 3e83 e30 D. Sun.of Chi Square , items (6+b), 1 df 3.59 .02 l—_.. condt next page (1) These scholastic averages represent the girls' own.eva1uation and were taken fren.thc answers to question 5 in the questionnaire. See Appendix A. (2) In every case, P is greater than the probability. The P for D. means that less than.twc times out of 100 would this cleavage be due (to chance. 31 'Direction of ‘Iétual No. ‘EEpected‘fl3:_"UEI‘Sq§ares ‘ghoice Choices,_f Choices, f' (fgf'g /f' P Good: 19 1r1.,_89 choices 9. Good to Door 19 18 .06 10. Good to Average 43 42 .03 11. Good to Good 23 23 .00 12. Good to Excellent 4 6 .67 c. Good choices to Peer, Av., Excel. 66 66 .00 E. Total Good Chi Squares: items 9,10,11,12. 3 df .76 .90 F. Sum.of Chi Square items (11+c) .00 .99 Ifiiellentx 5 IrIs,gZI choi§gg 13. Excellent ioPoor ’1 5 3.20 14. Embellent to Average 13 ll .36 15. Excellent to Good 8 6 .67 16. Embellent to Excellent 2 2 .00 d. Excellent choices to . Poor. AVG, 6006. 22 22 .00 G. Total Excellent choices Chi Square items 13, 14' 15' 16. 3 at 4.23 .30 H. Sum of Chi Square items (16+d) 1 df .00 .99 I. Sum.of Chi Square items 8, D, F, H. 3 df 10.51 .02 'J. Total Chi Square items A, C, E, Ge 12 (if 18e92 e10 32 Home Environment: Urban or Rural Comtation for Chi Square measures of Cleavages between Girls coming frm Urban and Rural Environments, based on choices for Friendship Dfrecticn Actual Ho. Fiesta No. CHI ngares of Choice Choices, f Choices, 1" Lf-f‘ jf' P"I Urban: 5f irls, Wchoices I. Urfi :50 Urban 226 209 1.38 2. Urban to Rural 63 80 4.59 A. Total Urban Chi Squares Sum of items (1+2) 1 df 5.97 .02 M grs,_ choices 3e Rur 0 Urban 69 74 e34 4e Rural to Rural 34 29 e86 B. Total Rural Chi Squares Sum of items (3+4) 1 df 1.20 .30 C. Sum of Chi Square . items A and B, 1 df 7.17 . .01 It Less than P percent of the time would these cleavages occur by chance. 33 . Year of Dormitory Entrance Computations for Chi Square measure of Cleavage between Girls who entered the Dormitory the first, second, or third year. (l945-‘46, first year; 1946-‘47, second year: l947-‘48, third year) ‘Directien Actu o. cc 0. qgares . of Choiceii, Choices, f Choices, f' (f-f')A/f' P First: 18 girls, 115 choices 1. First to First 76 28 75.57 2e First to Second 27 32 e78 3. First to Third 12 55 33.62 a. First choices to Second and Third 39 87 26.48 A. Total First Chi Squares: _ Sun 0: 1. 2, 3e 2 d: 109e97 e01 B. Sum.of Chi Square ' items (1+a) 1 df 102.05 .01 Sbcond: 21 irls, 97 choices 4. Second to First 29 23 1.56 5. Second to Second 42 27 8.33 5. Second to Third 26 47 9.38 b. Second choices to First and Third 55 70 3.21 C. Total Second Chi Squares: 8m Of 4’ b. 6. 2 at 19.1? .01 D. Smm of Chi Square items (5+b) 1 df 11.54 .01 Third: 36 1:13, 180 choices 7. Third 55 First 23 43 9.30 8. Third to Second 24 50 13.52 9. Third to Third 133 87 24.25 0. Third choices to First and Second 47 93 22.75 E. Total Third Chi Squares: Sum Of 7, 8, 9e 2 df 47e14 e01 F. Sum of Chi Square items (9+c) 1 df 47.07 .01 m. o 1 Square items B, mm 160.56 .01 E. Total Chi Square items A, C, E. 6 df 176.28 .01 t Less than P percent of the time‘would the above cleavages be due to chance. 34 Propinquity in the Dormitory Computations for Chi Square measures of Cleavage between Girls living in.Corridors A, B, C, D, and E of North Hall. 'Direction Actual No. Expected No. CHI 5 arcs of Choice _:; Choices, f Choices, f' (fbf'l /T' P A: 14gir1s, 93 choices e O I 82 18 227e55 2e A.t0 B 7 22 10e23{ 3e A to C 3 22 11e86 4. A'to D 1 22 20.05 5e A'to E 0 9 9e00 a. A choices to B,C,D,E. ll 75 54.61 A. Total A Chi Squares: Sum of l,2,3,4,5. 4 df 278.69 .01 B. Sum of Chi Square items kit!) 1 df 282.16 .01 F: 18 girls, 86‘3hoices e O A 4 16 9e00 7. B to B 60 20.6* 75.36 8. B to C 2 a 20.6 16.80 9. B to D 19 20.6 .12 10. B to E 1 9 7.11 b. B choices to A,C,D,E. 26 66.2 24.41 C. Total 8 Chi Squares: m or 6.7,8'9’100 4 df 108.39 .01 D. Sum.of Chi Square items 7+b 1 d: 99.77 e01 C: 18 gir1s, 85 choices e O A 2 16 12.24 120 C to B 6 20e3 10e07 13. C to C 74 20.3 142.05 14. C to D 1 20.3 18.35 15. C to E 2 8 4.50 c. C choices to A,B,D,E 11 64.6 ' 44.47 E. Total C Chi Squares: Sum.of 11,12,13,14,l5. 4 df 187.21 .01 F. Sum.of Chi Square items (13») 1 df - 186.52 .01 con't. on next page I Contrary to orthodox procedure, decimals were used in f‘ because of difficulties presented by three of the groups being analysed have ing the same number. 36 Direction of ‘Ictual No. Expectzd Ho. Chi ngares Choice Choices, f Choices, f' (f-f')g/T' P , D: 18 irIs,194 choices 16. D‘to A 3 17 11.53 17. D to B 21 23 .17 18. D‘to C 0 23 23.00 19. D to D 70 23 96.04 20. D to E 0 8 8.00 de D to Agm’Ee 24 71 31e13 G. Total D Chi Squares: H. Sum.of Chi Square items (19+d) 1 df 127.17 .01 E. 7 IrIs, 34 choices tle to A 2 7 3e59 22. E'to B 3 8 4.13 23. E to C 5 8 1.13 24c E to D O 8 8.00 25. E'to E 24 3 147.00 e. E choices to A,B,C,D. 10 31 - 14.23 1. Total E Chi Squares: ' Sum.of 21,22,23,24,25. 4 df 163.85 .01 J. Sum.of Chi Square ' items (25+e) 1 df . 161.23 .01 K. Sum.of Chi Square items B,D,F,H,J. 4 df 856.85 .01 L. Total Chi Square items A,C,E,G,I. 20 df 876.85 .01 * Less than P percent of the time would these cleavages occur by chance. \1) 36 icant and the greater the total chi square, the greater the cleavage for the correlate being analysed and the greater significance may be attached to that correlate as an answer to the “why'of friendship choice. Scholastic The chi square computations on cleavage between girls Average having_different scholastic averages do reveal a Bigr nificant cleavage. The sum.of the chi squares B, D, F, and H (each of which tested the hypothesis that a given scholastic average group made its friendship choices without reference to whether the girls chosen were of the same scholastic average group or not) tests the hypothesis that North.Hall friendship choices are not affected by similarities in scholastic averages. For North Hall this chi square sum is 10.51 (with three degrees of freedom). Since the measure is statistically significant, the prObability (P) indicathng'that less that two times out of a hundred would such a cleavage occur by chance, the hypothesis is disproved, and it may be concluded that friendship choice in North Hall is more frequent between girls having similar scholastic averages than between girls having different scholastic averages. The sum.of chi squares for A, C., E, and G test the hypothp esis that friendship choices are independent of the scholastic rating of the girls chosen. The sum.of these chi squares is 18.92 (with 12 degrees of freedom). This is also statistically significant although the cleavage might occur by chance up to 10 times out of a hundred. Even so, the hypothesis is disproved. Although the above analysis does prove that friendship choice tn (1) According to Croxton and Cowden, lied General Statistics, Prentice Hall, Inc., New York, 1941. Pp. - 87. 37 North Hall is more likely to be a function of similarities in schol- astic averages than not, a careful comparison of the chi square anal- ysis of the four scholastic average groups reveals an interesting fact. Do the girls with good and excellent averages display a greater cleavage in their selection of friends than the girls with only av- erage or poor scholastic averages? They do not! Both groups showed no cleavage at all in their friendship choices. The girls with poor averages and the girls with only mean averages have chi square totals of 10.10 and 3.83 respectively. This reveals for North Hall an inverse relationship between scholastic average and the tendency toward cleav- age in friendship choice. The analysis of scholastic averages among friendship groups in Table 5 shows some variations within cliques, but there is a tendency toward similarity. V The answers to question 1 of the questionnaire Home Environment: Urban or Rural allowed for a comparison not only of the type of environment, i.c., whether it was rural farm, rural non-farm, or urban, but also for a comparison of the sise of the community with which each girl was associated. Although the complete information is tabulated for a comparison by friendship groups in Table 5, the simpler compari- son of rural and urban cleavages was the only one suited to the re- quirements for chi square analysis. The sum of the chi squares for the urban and rural \rural farm and rural non-farm; groups was 7.17 which is significant, although not highly so, at the one percent level. Comparison of the total urban chi squares with the total rural chi squares (5.97 and 1.20 respectively, reveals a greater tendency toward cleavage on the part of the urban girls. This is shown to some extent 38 in Table 5 where it is revealed that four groups totalling 23 girls are completely urban in their membership. rear of First Do girls in dormitories choose their friends from Dormitory Entrance among those who entered the dormitory at the same time they did, or do they reorganise their friendship relationships with each arrival of newcomers into the dormitory? The chi square analysis on page 33 proves that the former practice is far more likely to be true. The hypothesis that friendship choices are made without reference to whether or not the friends chosen entered the dormitory about the same time as the chooser is disproved by the sum of the chi squares for those who entered the dormitory in the school years 1945- '46, l946-‘47, and 1947-‘48. The sum of the chi squares for these groups is 160.66 which 1. significant at the one percent level. Sim- ilarly the hypothesis that friendship choices in North Hall are indep- endent of considerations regarding the time the girls entered the dorm- itory is disproved by the total of chi square items A, C, and E which is 176.28 and significant at the one percent level. Comparison of the chi square totals of the girls who entered the dormitory the first, second, and third years of its existence reveals a much greater clea- vage in the group which entered the dormitory the fit at year, most of the members of which have lived in the dormitory the three full years. This group, totalling 24% of the dormitory membership, made choices responsible for 62.5% of the total dormitory cleavage. it does not follow, however, that the second year girls showed more cleavage than the third. 0n the contrary, the total of chi square items for the sec- ond year group was 19.17 as compared with the third year total of 47.14. 39 The column on year of dormitory entrance in Table 5 gives visual evidence of the validity of the chi square analysis. There are vari- ations in year of dormitory entrance within.the cliques, but they are few. Propinquity The height of pr0pinquity in the dormitory'would be that within the Dormitory of the roommate relationship. Table 3 revealed that 54 roommates chose each other and five others chose their roommates as friends even.thcugh their choices were not reciprocated. Since there ‘were three girls who had no roommates to choose, the unanimity of friend- ship choice among roommates at North Hall was 81.9%.(1) Probably the next degree of propinquity in a dormitory‘would be residence in the same corridor. Chart 1 which shows the floor plan of North Hall reveals five corridors. The rooms across the front of the dormitory on the second floor and the rooms adjoining each corner have been designated as Corridor A. These are the choicest rooms in.the dormp .itory and are usually rated by upperclassmen. The rooms in the North corridor of the second floor belong to Corridor B; the rooms in the South.corridor of that floor belong to Corridor C. The first floor cor- ridors, D and E, are on.the North and south sides of the dormitory re- spectively. Do the friendship choices reveal cleavages between girls living in different corridors? The chi square analysis on pages 34 and 35 indicates that they do in a very significant manner. The total of the chi squares for Corridor A is 278.69: for Corridor B, it is 108.39; for Corridor C, it is 187.21: for Corridor D, it is 138.74: for Corridor s, it is 163.85. The sum.of these chi squares is 876.85, giving indisputable evidence to the fact that friendship choices in.North Hall are not independent of place of (1) *Dr. Smncker found that the Stephens girls chose their roommates 63e275 0: th. time. 40 residence in the dormitory. The sum of chi squares B, D, F, H, and J which is 856.85 proves that friendship choices between girls living in the same corridor are more frequent than friendship choices between girls living in different corridors. All these totals are significant at the one percent level. Corridors B and D revealed the least amount of cleavage in their friendship choices in the dormitory. The reason for this is interest- ing and can be deduced by examining the chi square items in each of these groups. It will be seen that the B choices of D girls and the D choices of B girls almst equal the expected number of choices, and the chi squares representing the cleavage in these choices is the low- est in the entire set of computations. Therefore the comparatively low cleavage ratings for the girls in these corridors is accounted for by the fact that they choose eachother.u) What does this astounding cleavage of girls in the same corridor mean? Does prepinquity in the dormitory make for friendship choices or do the friendship choices determine the propinquity of girls who choose each other? Arguments could be made for both Opinions. At North Hall, upperclassmen who lived in the dormitory the year before have first choice of the rooms and may choose their roommates. mt- ering freshmen and transfer students are assigned to the remainder of the rooms at randcan unless a pair of girls from the same hanctown makes a special request to room together. One month after the opening of the school year and at the beginning of each term thereafter, the girls are permitted to change'their rooms and their roomtes if agree- ments are made with all parties concerned. “Seldom”, says Mrs. Dewey, \l) A convenient fire escape connects these two corridors at their western ends. 41 Chart 1 North Hall Room Plan 54 a 65 C 3 a 61 41 a 51 C 2 a 23 o o r r 21 a 66 r 30 a 56 37 a 57 r 5 a 48 i Court ~ 1 d d 7 a 28 o 1 a 58 - 12 a 33 o 36 a 44 ___ r __‘7 .__ r 27 a 75 C 31 a 73 62 a 69 B 8 a 38 T I q 5 a 43 ' Bath ' Smoker I Bath I 35 a 39 I I I I 14 a 40 -------- - ----- - Corridor A ---- --------- ----- '70 a 74 I I T T T 'F 16 A 55 ' 10 a 64 '46 a 53 '. 26 1 ' 47 ' 9 a 63 I I I I I I Second Eider ___ 49 s 72 52 29 a 59 19 A 67 _‘ Court empty 71sec ‘ 13am 134125 11 a 22 Cook 4 a 15 42 a 45 Dietitian 17 a 24 50 a 68 Kitchen ' Small ' Switch ' Bath. ' Parlor ' Board ' Bath. 32 A 60 I Dining ' Room Living Room, Lobby f : I --- Housamother First Floor 42 "does a move involve only two changes. One nove brings about a chain of changes which affect maybe eight or 10 people." There were many such changes in North Hall during the school year 1947-1948, but only 15 of the 75 girls changed from one corridor to another. And it can- not be maintained that all of these 15 changes were occasioned by friendship preferences in another corridor. Often it was necessary for one girl to make an "accomodstion' move in order to let her roen- mate have another roomate of her choice in with her. Sometimes two girls wanting to room together would take any empty rocn available re- gardless of its position. Sometime a girl would move anywhere to room with any one who had no roomte in order to get away from an un- desirable romate. Among the 18 girls who have lived in the dormitory three years, are three pairs of roommates who were assigned to each other as enter- ing Freshmen and have lived together ever since. Two other pairs were assigned to the same corridor, became roomtes after the first month, and have lived together ever since. Among the 21 girls who have lived in the dormitory two years are three pairs who have lived together since their first assigmaent in the dormitory. Ameng the 36 girls who ent- ered the dormitory this year, there were five pairs who finished out the year with their originally assigned roomates. The remainder of the girls did not necessarily make changes because of personal inclin- ation. Every term there are changes in dormitory membership. Girls leave the dormitory to go home, to marry, to go to a sorority house, or to go to another school. Other girls take their places. Obviously, a girl left without a roommate must make some adjustment. Either she teams up with another girl in the same circumstances with than she has either a friendly or neutral relationship, or she takes her chances on 43 a new girl assigned to her. Some of the roommate friendship pairs of Clique 1 are examples of the former situation. Number 70, a member of one such pair, also explained how a few second year girls became meme bers of their predominantly third year clique. "Oh, those girls lived next door or across the hall from one of us. They‘d stop in to talk and maybe sometime they‘d be invited to one of our parties if we liked them. Pretty soon we'd be borrowing clothes frmn each other. Little by little they became more accepted until finally they were members of the gang just as much as the rest of us." The evidence does not show that it is friendship which causes pro- pinquity'exolusivelyz nor does it uphold the opposite. Only a long- time, close study of dormitory relationships could determine the pre- cedence of either factor. Although Hrs. Dewey has had to approve and make arrangements for all the many changes from.original assignments during the three years of the dormdtory‘s existence, she is convinced of the importance of propinquity tn friendship choice. “It almost frightens me", she says, “when I think of the importance of a chance assignment in the dormitory. That chance assigmnent may result in friendships which will make or break a girl's career in college. I am.enough convinced of this that uhen.my daughter enters a donn- itory a year from next Fall, I'd like to make certain that she won't be a victim.of chance.‘. The analysis of other possible determinants of friendship is found in Table 5 where visual comparisons can be made between members of the different sub-groups. Differences in age are related to differences in academic year Age and the year of first entrance to the dormitory. The age given in Table 5 is the age at the time that the Personal Data Blank (from which this item.was taken) was filled out. This was during the month of October, 1947, shortly after the Opening of Fall term. For the .man bu Age Parent's Parents' Leisure Time Mr bu Dfimg Haws Occupation Education Activities Efigel M m 00 JSJJJSSJJJ 4241222245 2,4 23332219 44.44.624.392 1333212371 19 H m m m m m m m M M w N w 2 Unwe ‘% 17 m E FFFFF fi3133 7.7.4; 17324 13212 n N M n w Efi®e3 4.11222 . 750 De. 5 64.4. a. 9’) 4.4233 54.722 @04 5T1 W m JJJJS 53313 53513 m m m m W % afifigfi R IFJJJJJF fol-4.34.334. s e. s s I I s 33453-054. 53664.62 T3312454. m m N m N m N w 66 m n 65 N 1 we t o FFJJSFF 4.432422 5244743 If m m m N N N 54 fl 3 n fl % m 44 Table 5 Analysis of 14 Possible Friendship Correlates Nuns Scholastic Religion Major Sorority Propine entered Part-time Home ber Awerage qquity Dorm. 'Wbrk Res. Clique 1 1 1:519 Titholic Social. A T 145 Swtin ms '14 l-l.49 Methodist Sccicl. A F '45 U-7 lO 1-l.49 Methodist Elemm. A F '46 Kitch. U—4 46 l.5-l.99 None Art GemPhiB A F '45 wad. U-7 74 l-l.49 methodist Bus.Ad. GamPhiB A F '45 Kit.pt U-5 4O l-l.49 Presbyter. Journal. SigKap A 'W '47 0-7 64 .5-.99 Episcopal Art A F '46 wad. U-4 53 1-1.49 Methodist Phys.Ed. GamPhiB A. F '45 wad.pt 0-7 70 e5-099 cath0110 Elamm. A F '45 Kitept U-7 63 1.33-1.99 Lutheran ChildDOVe A F '45 S'Me U-7 Clique 2 ___‘ ‘ 20 e5'e99 Lutheran BHBeAde E F '47 RF-Y 52 .5e.99 Methodist Hed.Tech. E F '47 U—3 71 .5-.99 None E F '47 RNF-3 72 .5—.99 Protestant ChildDev. E F '47 U-6 49 l-l.49 Protestant n F '47 U-7 'CIIque 5 I, e5-e99 Protestant PeSeMUBfO T i ll, U-T 5O .5-.99 Baptist D F '47 U-7 60 l.5-l.99 None HomeEcon. ZetTauA D F '47 Kitch. RF-l 24 l-l.49 Methodist HomeEcen. D F '47 RF-3 32 l-l.49 EpiscoPal ChildDev. ZetTauA D F :47. RF-3 68 1-1.49 Baptist voice D F '47 Oldchtel RF-3 Clique 4’ T6 “l—l.49 mirisScfen. r fW,p - 57 1-l.49 Ch of Chri. Phys.Ed. B F '45 Kitch. U-3 18 1-1.49 Protestant Instdigt. D r '45 Kitch. U-7 37 l.5-l.99 Methodist Dietetics B F '45 Kitch. RF-3 33 2-2.49 Congggggt. Fochutri. B F '45 Kitch RNF-z 'Ufique 5 12" 131.49 ‘PrOtestant wSpanish. ‘PKapDeIta ‘1f:— '“4F7'45 PKit.p' Tfifif' 30 .5-.99 Presbyter. HMEOOHe C W '48 U-3 66 1-1.49 Episcopal KapKapGam. C F '46 U-4 21 1-1e49 Evangcl. SOOeAnthe C F '45 U-4 75 1'1e49 Presbyter. Elana}. C F '45 U-7 65 l-l.49 Methodist 75c. H.E. C F '45 RF-3 27 l-l.49 Presbyter. veo. H.E. C F '45 U-7 1 l-l.49 Protestant ClothTex. C F '47 RNF-Z Clique {Sevenl 54 *1- .19 rresbyter. P.S.l[usic T—‘T'TF UT 73 1e5-1e99 Presbyter. PeSeMLlBiO C F '47 U-7 3 1-1.49 Catholic Radio C W"48 U-4 28 1.5-1.99 Episcopal Accounting C F '45 Registrar U-4 61 .c-.99 Presbyter. SocialSer. C F '46 U-4 56 .5-.99 Presbyter. SocialSer. C F '47 U—7 31 1.5-l.99 Presbyter. Int.Deccr. AlChiO C F '47 U-3 Nump Age Parent's Parents' Leisure Time Dating Academic ber Occupation Education Activities Habits rear CqugeGgSix) a... 9 9 4 1 9 3 J 59 18 l 2 3 J 2 23 3 3 3 So t 19 18 l 2 3,4,5 1 SO 42 19 3 2 3,6,7 2 So 23 27 3 4 4 So t 67 20 2 2 3,4,5,6,10 l J 4 18 3 2 2,6,7 1 F 15 18 3 5 2,6,7 4 F 45 19 3 4 7 2 So 13 18 3 2 3 So 41 19 2 4 2,4,5 3 So 51 19 3 3 7,9,15 5 So The Sqaare ' '39 18 f 7 Tfi, F—T— 38 17 3 5 7 2 F 69 17 3 5 3,4,8,lO 1 F ‘ '32W—T—i 18 3 7 6 ,7 1 F e e 1‘ an T6 43 ‘1 6 . 4,5,7 6 F ll 17 e 6 F 6 19 5 6 7 1 F fieEe Triangle ' I r 48" 20 3 3 2,4,5,6,7,IZ 2 J 62 21 3 5 6,7 3 so 5 21 3 2 l J Indeterminants ‘55 19 2 5 2,4,7’ 6 So 44 17 2 5 5,7 5 F 36 17 4 4 3,4 4 F 8 l7 4 6 3,7 1 F 26 26 4 2 2,3,6,7 3 G 'fieareisolates - 3" T 2,7i8,16 T F 7 19 2 4 3,4,5,7 2 J 34 25 5,6,7 4 So 47 ' l9 4 4 2,3,5 4 So 58 20 1 6 7 6 J 25 28 3 9 3 4 F Parent's Occu ation: 1, Professional; 2, Semi-professional and Managerial; 3, Clerical, Skilled irades, Retail Business; 4, Farmers, Animal husbandry, Horticulture: 5, semi-skilled, Minor Clerical and Minor Business; 6, slightly skilled trades and other occupations requiring little training or ability; 7, Day laborers, all classes including factory workers not listed in Other groups. tarants' Education: 1, Both parents college graduates or better: fame parent colfege graduate or better; 3, Both parents attended college; 4, One parent attended college: 5, Both parents high school graduates; 6, one parent high school graduate; 7, Both parents at- tended high'schoolx a. One parent attended high school 3 9, Neither attended high school. 45 Table 5 Can't. Num- Scholastic Religion Maj or Soror ity Pr0pin- mt ered Part-t ime Home ber Average JuitL Dorm. Work Res . 'CliqugFG'(Six) 29‘ 1-1.49 Presbyter. Ret.Buy. ChiO D F46 Kitch. BEETS 59 l-l.49 Presbyter. Bus.Ad. D F '46 Kitch. U-4 2 l.5-l.99 Chris.Sci. Elem.Ed. Ohio B F '47 Kit.pt U-7 l9 .5-.99 Chris.Sci. 2yr ter. D F '46 Kitch. RNF-l 42 l-l.49 Methodist Elem. Ed. SigKap D F ' 46 U-7 23 l.5-l.99 Methodist Bus.Ad. B F '47 U-5 67 1"]. e49 Lutheran REC e Buy. D F ' 46 Kit opt U4 4 l.5-l.99 Lutheran Art D F '47 Kitch. U-6 15 l-l.49 Lutheran Art D F '47 Kitch. 0-7 45 l-l.49 Catholic D F '46 Kit.pt RNF-Z 13 1-1.49 Methodist PreLaw SigKap D F '46 Kit.pt U-5 41 2-2.49 Chris.Sci. Ret.Buy SigKap B F '46 U-5 51 l-l.49 Methodist Elem.Ed. SigKap» B F '46 RNF-3 We #3 '59 . 5- .99 None lied .Tec . B F '47 TI—3 38 .5-.99 Episcopal vet.ued. B F '47 RNF-l 69 1-1.49 Presbyter. B F '47 U-5 35 .5-.99 Lutheran Art B F '47 U-2 S.W. Trian‘le 43 I.5-1.99 Catholic 5 F '47 U-5 ll l-l.49 Protestant ' E W"48 v-3 6 2:2 e49 Cathcl 10 211' Tor e O W ' 48 U-7 a e Ee Trian T9 — 43 1- .49 Methodist Ret.Buy. “Lif- “:FI'45 047 62 l.5-l.99 Catholic Chemistry ZetTauA B F '47 U-5 5 l.5-l.99 None Soc&Jour. B F '45 U-5 Indeterminants ‘55 1.5.1.99 Methodist HomeEcon. WET I IV 146 Etch. U37 44 l.5-l.99 Presbyter. Med.Tech. B F '47 U-7 36 1-1.49 Protestant Vcc. HeEe B F '47 Rf—l 8 l.5-l.99 lbthodist lath Ed. B F '47 Hospital RF-Z 26 2 . b-§ Congre Eat . H1 at e Coun. A F ' 47 Counselor RIP-4 Fear-isolates , 1.5-1.99 None Art M v43 may 7 l.5-l.99 Methodist ElemeEd. A c p '45 Registrar RNF-4 34 2-2.49 Protestant Zoology D F '47 U-2 47 1-l.49 Methodist Flor-Soil A F '46 wad. U-2 58 1.5-1.99 Catholic Med.Tech. AlDelThe C F '46 Vthlinic U-7 25 Jewish D s '43 u-7 Leisure time Activities 2 1, Art; 2, Cards; 3, Literature; 4, Handworks FIE—inc; 6, DancTngF'T, Sports; 8, Dating; 9, Committee work; 10, Social activities; 11, Movies; 12, Radio; 13, Photography; 14, Religious active ities: 15, Journalism; 16, "Gabbing". Dating Debits: Propinquity: Corridors within the dormitory. See question 12, Questionnaire, Appendix A for key. See Chart 1, p. 41. 46 most part, Freshman girls were 17 or 18; Sophomore girls were 18 or 19; Junior girls were 19 or 20; and Senior girls were 20 or 21. There were only five girls. whose ages were over 21: Number 2, an ex-Wave, was 233 Number 34, an ex-Army Nurse, was 25; Number 26, the graduate student counselor and an ex-Red Cross worker in Europe, was 26 ; Num- ber 23, previously employed by a government agency, was 27 3 and Num- ber 25, an ex-Wac, was 28. Numbers 2 and 23 made excellent group ad- justments in Clique 6, the former receiving six total friendship choices and the latter 10. While Number 34's comparatively poor group adjustment might conceivably be due to her difference in age, Mrs. -owey says the more probable reason is the rigidity of her per- sonal ideals and her intolerance of others who do not measure up to them. The fact that it was Clique 6, the same clique which accepted Numbers 2 and 23, which did not reciprocate her choices lends credence to the opinion that age was not the important factor in her near-iso- lation. Number 25 received no friendship choices, but she was new to the dormitory at the time the questionnaire was answered. She later made friends according to the housemother. Nmber 26, the graduate counselor, was in no position to single out girls of a particular group for her friendship relations. Because they are college girls and for the most part fall within the college age group limits, there are few great differences in age at North Hall. Differences of one, two, three, and \for Clique 6) four and seven years in the ages of all the individual sub-group mem- bers excepting those in Clique 4, lead one to the conclusion that 233 similarity in age is not one of the more important factors in dormitory friendship choice. 47 Academic year and the year of first dormitory entrance Academic Year go hand in hand for most girls, and the correlation bet- ween the two categories would undoubtedly be very high. In North Hall the difference was accentuated by the fact that the dormitory had been in existence for only three years. Therefore the Senior girls entered the dormitory the same year the Juniors did. Transfer students probably account for a large share of the difference in any dormitory. The chi square analysis for cleavages among girls of dif- ferent academic years would be almost as high as that for the year of first dormitory entrance, but a close comparison of the two colums in table 5 will reveal a justification for choosing the latter category and uphold its slight edge over the academic year as a correlate of friendship choice. This is truefor North Hall; in other dormitories the two categories might easily be synonymous. Bogardus and Otto in their study of the similarities and Religion dissimilarities of chums found that girls placed religion first as a dissimilarity between themselves and their chums?) But Helen Richardson's study of community of values as a factor in friend- ships of college and adult women indicated more evidence for resemb- lance between friends in religious values than in other values?” Ans- wers to question 4 in the questionnairgs) furnished the information regarding particular religious affiliation and the regularity or ir- regularity of attending church. The column for religion in Table 5 (1 ) Bogardus, E.S. and Otto, P. , "The Social Psychology of Chums", Sociol. and Soc. Res., 14, 1940, pp. 456-460. (2) Richardson, Helen, "Commity of Values as a Factor in Friend- ships of College and Adult Women”, Jour. Soc. Psych. 11, 1940, pp. (3) See Appendix A. (303-312) 48 Table 6 Analysis of Religious Affiliation and Regularity of Attendance Be'nominet ion ’NimVer ltt end Attend afraid—- Affiliated RegularLy Sometimes Not at all Methodist 17 14 Presbyterian 13 Protestant Catholic Lutheran None Episccpal Christian Science Congregational Baptist Church of Christ Evangelical Jewish I¢Tota1s 1 1 HHI—‘I—‘N HQNU‘IM HHOIOII-‘OI 05" 01 1 41 3 fiHI—‘HNNFU‘O’GG’ID 2i reveals the many differences of religious affiliation within the friend- ship groups. Altogether, 51ers were 13 religious denominations listed in Nerth HallEI)Table 6 above shows the number of girls affiliated with each of these religious denominations and the regularity or irregularity of church attendance. The influence of religion.as a factor in friend- ship choice would logically be greater for those who attended church regularly. Of all the denominations listed above, the only one which received regular attendance froa.all its affiliates was the Catholic. The friendship choices of the eight Catholic girls, each of whom attended church regularly, were examined to see if they chose each other as friends. Between these eight girls, there were two pairs of mutual choices, each pair coming from a cannon friendship group. There were, than, four choices between these Catholic girls out of a possible 56. The unanimity of friendship choice among this group of Catholic girls who attend their church regularly was .07 or seven percent M is almost exactly'the same as the unanimity of friendship choice for (1) Actually there were only 11 bona fide denominations. The "'nones and.the "Protestants" ‘were used as religious categories in analysis. 49 the dormitory i3. 5 whole. The importance of religion as a correlate 1) of friendship choice was nor: demonstrated in North Hall. Major or Table b does not reveal great similarities in major or Vocational Choice vocational interest among the several friendship groups. This is quite easily explainable for groups at Michigan state college where all Freshmen and most Sophomores are enrolled in the Basic Col- lege where the majority of course selection is either prescribed or limited to a choice between two or three Basic College courses. Choice of a major is not usually made until the beginning of the Jun- ior year. By that time friendship groups in dormitories have already been established. The information regarding the major or vocational interest was taken from the Personal Data Blanks?) Does membership in the same sorority influence friend- Sorority ' ship choices? Only 18 out of the 75 girls indicated that they belonged to a sorority. There were three Gamma Phi Betas in Clique 1 and one Signs Kappa. However, the three former did not choose their sorority sister, Number 5b, who also lives in the same corridor with them. Number 5b chose two of her three sorority sis- ters in Clique 1. Although two of the four Sigma Kappas in Clique 6 chose their sorority sister, Number 40 of Clique 1, she chose only one of them. Even the four Sigma Kappas in Clique 6 itself were three choices short of unanimity of friendship choice. There were also in Clique 6 two Chi Omegas who chose each other. In Clique 3 a pair of roomates are Zeta Tau Alphas, but four other girls belong to no sor- ority. One of the two Zeta Tau roommates chooses her sorority sister (1 ) For unanimity comparisons see that of sub-groups on page 22. the unanimity of choice for the five corridors whose cleavage was meas- ured on pages 34 and 55‘ was: A, .44; B, .20; C, .243 D, .23; E, .57. l 50 Number 62 of the N.E. Triangle, and Number 62 chooses only the soror- ity sister who did not choose her. Among Clique 5's eight members are one Kappa Delta and one Kappa Kappa Gama. An outsider said that this clique had dropped the Kappa Delta since she became so immersed in her sorority, because as a group they attach little importance to sororities. However, the friendship choices belie this observation; five of the girls in the clique chose her, and she chose no one. There is only one sorority member in Clique 7, and she is the dormitory's only Alpha Chi Omega. Altogether, sorority membership is responsible for very few of the friendship choices in North Hall although sorority sisters do choose each other more often than not. It is the opinion of Mrs. Dewey and the graduate counselor that sorority membership is more greatly influenced by the friendships which are made in North Hall. In the dormitory. history there have been several instances in which one girl in a given group will be asked to join a sorority, and she later will succeed in having her roommate or another member of her group asked to Join. Part-Time ‘ Michigan State College offers opportunities in part-time Work employment for one of its students who would themselves defray part of the cost .of their college expenses. The dormitories in particular have Openings for their residents to help in the kit- chen and dining room or on the switchboard. Is there a cleavage in friendship choice between girls who work part-time and those who do not? The part-time work column in Table 5 shows that working or not working is predominantly a friendship group division. The informa- 51 tion regarding part-time work was taken first from the Personal Data records which were filled out in October of 1947. To bring these records up to date, Mrs. Dewey, the housemother. supplemented that in- formation from her own knowledge of the girls' employment since the records were filled out. For the most part, work Opportunities were reserved for those of upperclassman status. These girls have first chance at the jobs, and Freshman girls are advised to keep their time for their studies until their adjustment to college work permits then to take on extra responsibilities. All but two of the members of Clique 1 work either on the switch- board cr in the kitchen. In the Freshman Clique 2, no one works. Clique 3 which is composed of four Freshmen and two Sophomore transfers records part-time work only for the two latter. the four Juniors and one Senior in Clique 4 all work in the kitchen although one only works part time. No work was reported for the six Juniors and two Freshmen of Clique 6. All but four of the 13 girls in Clique 6 work in the dormitory kitchen, although four of them work only when they're needed or to take someone's place. In the predominantly Freshmn Clique 7, only a Junior, Number 28 works. She works in the Regi strar's office as does her near-in late roomte, Number 7. No one in the Square or the S.W. Triangle works; these are Freshman friendship groups exclusively. Only the Saphcmore member of the N.E. Triangle works, and she in the kitchen. Among the indeterminante and near-isolates, one works in the kitchen, one at the college hospital, one in the hegistrar's office, one on the switch- board, one in the college veterinary clinic, and one is dormitory coun- 'selcr. Although there is an obvious cleavage of friendship choices bet- ween those who work and those who do not, it is doubtful if working or 62 not working is the primary factor in the cleavage. Working in the dormitory is largely an upperclassman opportunity, and it is likely that members of already formed groups influence each other to take advantage of it. In practice, girls “work in to jobs" by acting as substitutes for their friends when called upon to do so. . For the classification of parent's occupation, use was Parent's \1) Occupation made of the Goodenough-Anderson scale which adopts the occupational divisions of the 1920 0.8. Census. Lundberg and Steele used this census scale in their village studyfnnd their practice of using the higher occupational status in cases where both parents worked was also followed here. The Goodenough-Anderson scale is composed of seven groups: 1, Professional; 2, Semi-professional and Managerial; 3, Clerical, Skilled trades, Retail business; 4, Farmers, Animal Hus- bandry, Horticulture; 6, Semi-skilled, Minor clerical, and Minor bus- iness; 6, Slightly skilled trades and other occupations requiring lit- tle training or ability; 7, Day laborers and all classes, including Factory workers, not listed in other groups. The information used for the parent's occupational classification was taken from the Personal Data records which the girls had filled out themselves. There were a few cases in which the description of the parental occupation necessitated what the writer considered an obvious overrating, but in every case, the girls' interpretations were strictly adhered to. Nmuber 70 might have provided her father with a higher rat- ing if she had specified as did all other girls whose fathers mrked in factories the particqu type of work he did. (l) Goodenough, Florence and Anderson, John, Eermntal Child Study The Century 00., New York ami London, 1931, pp. 501-503. ‘2) Op. cite 53 It can be seen in Table 5 that there is no concentration within the cliques of a particular parental occupation group except in the case of the Square. The parental occupations for these four girls all fell in group 3, which fact is not too significant because over 40» of all the North Hall parental occupations fell in this group. For the most part, similarities in parent's occupational status seemed to have little bearing on.triendship group membership. But since occupation is such an important determinant of class, a further analysis was made to determine the unanimity of friendship choice within the parental occu- pation groups. Occupation groups 7, 5, and 6 were combined for this analysis since there were only five in the combined grouping. Further combinations would have rendered the frame of reference meaningless. Iable 7 below records this analysis and reveals that the average unsnp imdty’of choice on the basis of parental occupation groups was only .076 or 7.6%. Comparison with the unanimity of choice for the dormit- ory as'a whole (.071 or 7.1%) indicates the insignificance of the par- ental occupation factor as a determinant of friendship choice. Table 7 unanimity of Choice Accordin to Parental Occupation Groups No. "IntraéG' o ected ‘TotaI’Pos- Groupg <§§£}' Choices gghoices Chciges sible Chs. U N\U) l 10 ‘10 ~ 56 8 90 .11 1.100 2 l3 9 77 13 156 .058 .754 3 32 73 157 67 992 .074 2.368 4 ll 11 56 8 110 .10 1.100 5 6 7 5 0 29 2 20 .000 .000 N50! equals 5.322 equals .076 or 7.62 , which is the average unanimity of choice on the basis of parental occupation groups. C Unanimity:of choice for the dormitory as a whole: U equals NkN-l, 392 equals 392 equals .071 or 7.3» 7 5c50 64 ihe Personal Data records furnished the information re- Parents' Education garding the educational attainments of both parents. For purposes of classification, a scale was devised to provide the inform- ation on the parents' joint educational status: Group 1, both parents college graduates or better; Group 2, one parent college graduate or better; Group 3, both parents attended college; Group 4, one parent attended college: Group 6, both parents high school graduates: Group 6, one parent high school graduate; Group 7, both parents attended high schools Group 8, one parent attended high school: Group 9, neither par- ent attended high school. Forty-nine or about two thirds of the 73 girls who gave informa- tion regarding their parents“ education repcrted that there had been some college training in the parental background: in two cases, both parents were college graduates or better; in 18 cases, one parent was a college graduate or better: in 11 cases, both parents had attended college: and in 18 cases,“ one parent had attended college. Of the re- maining 24 girls, 10 reported thatboth parents were high school grad- uates; eight said that one parent was a high school graduates four said that both their parents had attended high school; and only two said that‘neither parent had attended high school. All four of the latter parents were born and educated in "the old country". The column listing the parents' educational status group in Table 6 shows that no friendship group represents a cleavage based on that category. Moreover, comparison with the parental occupation column indicates more dissimilarities in parental education status than in parental occupation status within the individual friendship groups. 65 Liking for and participation in the same leisure time Leisure Time Activities activities seemed to the co-workers a highly probable correlate to friendship choice when the dormitory study was first be- gun. The information regarding these activities was taken from the Personal Data records which asked the girls to list their hobbies as well as their leisure time activities. Since sans girls listed the same interests in bath categories and Others listed the ease interest under either category, both categories were incorporated in the lei- sure time activities column in Table 5. In all, there were more par- ticularised activities than there were girls, so for easier compari- son, several related activities were combined under one heading. There remained 16 types of leisure time activity: 1, Art: 2, Cards; 3, Literature; 4, Handworks 5, Music: 6, Dancing: 7, Sports: 8, Dat- ing: 9, Camittee work; 10, Social activities; 11, Movies: 12, Radio; 13, Photography; 14, Religious activities: 15, Journalism: 16,"Gab- hing“. For almost half of the girls, i.c., the 36 newcomers in the Fall ' of 1947, the listing of the above activities was made before the friendship groups had formed. Nevertheless, for all the friendship groups, upperclassnnn or Freshen, the fact that there appears to be some similarity of interests within a given clique is balanced by the observation of similarities between the cliques as well. For instance, some members of every group except the Square and the S.W. Triangle re- cord In interest in playing cards. In all the groups except Clique 2 and the two triangles, there are two or more girls who like to read. Similar genealisations can be made for handwork, dancing, and sports. The remaining activities are personal interests which have little or no group backing. From all this it would seem that similarity of leisure 56 time activities as recorded cannot be a leading determinant of friend- ship choice in North Hall. In a later chapter it will be shown that most of the sub-groups develcp a “gestalt“ or configuration of attrib- utes which differentiate it from the others, but it will be seen that this is a product of group development, of the molding of individual interests to those of the group. Number 70 said of her Clique 1 that the girls in it had no particular interests in common, yet the dorm- itory housemother has observed that this same clique stands out as a "talking it over” group. It also seemed possible to the co-workers that girls who Dating Habits dated a great deal might be more likely to choose each other than girls who never dated at all. Girls remaining faithful to boy friends back home or in another school might keep each other company on week end nights when other girls are out having a good time with the opposite sex. Question 11 of the questionnairinwas designed for the purpose of classifying girls according to their dating habits: 1, Date two or more men regularly: 2, Date one man steady, others oo- casionally; 3, Date 1 man steady; 4, date one or more men occasionally; 5, Date men rarely; 6, Other (specify). No friendship group showed exactly the sane type of dating habits for all its members although Clique 2 comes the closest to complete similarity. Four of the five girls stated that they date one man steady, and the other claimed that she dated two or sore men regularly. From the self-ratings, it would appear that the great majority of North (2) Hall girls date quite regularly. Only 14 girls said that they dated E1) See questionnaire, Appendix A 2) Mrs. Dewey corroborated this. She believes that there is more dat- ing at North Hall than at any other dormitory. She explains this by pointing out the small sise and the consequenty primary nature of the relationships which favor girls getting dates for each other. 67 occasionally one or more men. Only four admitted that they dated rarely. Of the three who checked "6", two had boy friends at home or in another school, and one very frank girl said she never dated. But these girls who date occasionally, rarely, or not at all are found in almost every friendship group amng girls who date regularly. Clique 2, the Square and the LE. Triangle are the only exceptions according to the self-ratings; according to lire. Dewey's observations even these three sub-groups are not exceptions. If similarity in dat- ing habits is a determining factor in friendship choice, more inform- ation than that available frail self-ratings would be necessary to sub- stantiate it. If the information were availableJ dating men from the same sub-groups or fraternities might be a possible determinant. There are a few individual instances of this factor in North Hall as well as the dating habits factor. Number 30, a Freshman in the predominantly Junior Clique 5, became associated with that sub-group originally be- cause she and a Junior member double dated with a pair of men friends. Number 56's choice of friends from several sub-groups was explained by Hrs. Dewey: "She has a boy friend at a school in the East, so she doesn't date here. Week-end nights she'll go out with any girl in the dormitory who hasn't got a date.” Chapter 6 will reveal a difference between the self-rating of dating habits and the girls' rating of each other in regard to popular- ity with men. Organisations As noted at the beginning of the chapter, the inform- and Special Activities ation gathered from the Student Activity Records which were supposed to have been filled out by all Spring term students of the college was disappointingly ”spotty“. However, an analysis was 58 made of the friendship choices of the members of any organisation or activity group in which more than one North Hall girl indicated par- ticipation. Table 8 below shows that out of a possible total of 86 friendship choices based on common participation in an organisation or activity, there were 12 friendship choices made. _A_l_l_. of these choices were either for romates or ccmon sub-group friends, ind- icating a possibility that established friends might have influenced each other to participate in the organisation or activity. The total unanimity of choice for common participation was .14 or 14%. Although this represents a higher unanimity of friendship choice than was found in the parental occupation or religious groups, it is much less than the unanimity of choice within the separate North Hall corridors. Table 8 Friendship Choices Between Girls Participating in Common Activities. Organisat ion fiber Possible Nuflur Aotuaifwumber or Activity Participatirg Friendship Che. Friendship Chs. 3a“ Club 3: 5 0 Big Sister Cl. 2 2 0 MS Council 3 6 0 Intra-llural Sports 5 20 2 Home Ec. Club 7 42 8 Uefle Committee 2 2 0 Glee Club 2 2 O ”The Spartan“ 2 2 0 "Wolverine" 2 2 2 P.E.l[. Club 2 2 0 ”Totals 36 86 T2 Chapter 4 The Rejection Pattern Although many workers have used the sociometric method to secure positive choices for friendship or work groups, few have completed the sociometric picture of a community by securing the negative choices. Moreno and Jennings found such data valuable in locating'tension'with- in a communitysl) Smucker found that it not only focused attention on tension areas, but spotted individuals in need of personal guidance and situations which would benefit by counselling on a group basis?) How- ever, the fear of antagonising those questioned by asking them.to list ‘their negative choices is undoubtedly responsible for the nonpinclusion of this valuable data in many cases. Lundberg and Steele(3)specific- ally note that they did not ask for negative choices in.their village study for fear of jeopardizing the entire study. Smuchcr who did ask for the negative choices in his dormitory study at Stephens mentions the antagonism that the question.created toward him.and toward the study. He says that he could scarcelwaalk across the campus without being up- braided for requesting such information. The determination to include question seven in the questionnaire for the North Hall study was matched with many misgivings. The ques- tion was approximately the same as the one used at Stephens: "It is an obvious fact that we do not like everyone equally 'well. List here the names of dormitory girls whom you doth like so well, wouldn't like to run around with, or feel that your personalities clash. List one, two, or more as you wish. If there is no acquaintance distasteful to you, write no name." ‘7 (1) Jennings, H. H. “Leadership and Sociometric Choice", pp. 408-10, Readigfis in Social Psgphology'by'Nowoomb, Hartley and Others, Henry 0 .50. 6' 01' , O (2, Op. cit., p. 108 (3) Op. Gite 60 Six spaces were allowed for the negative choices, the same as for the friendship choices. The girls were prepared for the question by Smuck- er in his dinner-time explanation of the study which preceded the fill- ing out of the questionnaires. He showed them a negative sociogram and pointed out its usefulness. Nevertheless, it was with great surprise that the co-workers learned that there were no overt protests or evid- ences of antipathy over the inclusion of the question. The housemother and the graduate counselor were asked to be on the alert for reactions against the question, but they reported none. One third of the North Hall girls made no rejections. Frequency of Rejection This was exactly the same negative response which Smoker found at Stephens. However, the North Hall girls made more rejections than did the 311-1. at. Stephens. One hundred and fifty-nine rejections were made at North Hall. This was an average of 2.12 re- jections per capita. rhe Stephens average within a single dormitory was .9331) Table 9 shows the number of rejections made by each of the 75 girls. Comparing the number who —= — Table 9 -- ---------- failed to make a negative choice ' ' Number of Reject ions Made ‘25) with the number who failed to ' No. Girls No. Rejects T551— ' 25 O 0 make a positive friendship choice ' 7 1 7 ' 10 2 20 (3), the ratio of 5.23 friendship ' 13 3 39 ' 11 4 44 choices to 2.12 rejections is more ’ 5 5 25 ' 6 4 24 understandable. Even so, this ' 75' Totals T59 I ratio of about two to one is pract- ' \2) ically the same as that Jennings found. Comparison of Table 9 with Table 1 indicates greater frequency of friendship choice than rejection. (1) 0p. cit. (2) Op. cit., Leadership 253: Isolation, pp. 58-9. 61 Comparison of the distribution of rejections with that of friend- ship choices discloses even greater contrasts. Although Table 10 shows that the two most highly rejected received the same number of rejections as the two most highly chosen received friendship choices, the number reheiving no rejections constitutes alnnst one half of the total population. Just one less than two thirds of the girls at North Hall received no rejections or no more than one rejection. One hundred and seven or 67.3% of the total rejections were for 15 or 20% of the North Hall girls who received more than four rejections. In contrast to the large percent of mutual friendship choices, there were only 12 rejections which were reciprocal-does than eight percent of the total. Of these six pairs of mutual rejections, four claimed one girl, Nmnber 60, as a member. Three of the four girls who reciprocated her rejections worked with her in the kitchen, and the fourth was a roomate of one of thethree. Three of the four also lived in the same corridor with her. Five other girls rejected her, too, of when four worked in the kitchen with her. Only one of the five lived in the same corridor. Number 60, the housemother says, is quite bossy in the kitchen. ---------- Table 10 --------- To facilitate the in- The Rejection Distribution of Rejections u Sociogram teresting comparison : 3mm. flimRejectsfiT-om— of friendship choices with rejection!, 1 :2 3. 1?» the rejection pattern sociogram on I g g 1: page 62 arranges the girls in their : g s 11(8) friendship group positions. Except : ‘21 g i: for the Square, the friendship groups, : 1 £89 32 the indeterminants, and the near-iso- : :ll. :2 l: . 75 Tot'Els T59" late. ‘1‘. found in ‘pproxmt91y the ---- --------- --- ------ ------ ‘. I” M CLIQUE 7 NE. TRIANGLE ° '?e~~.,D‘HNI;-v.té PATTERN THE NORTH HALL REJECTION / 4N Li's ...... .1: I. CLIQUE 2 63 same position they occupied in the friendship sociogram. The mmbers of the Square have been placed out of the line of fire in the upper left hand corner because they are non-scubatants: they reject no one and no one rejects then. The positions of the individual girls with- in a friendship group are not the same as in the friendship choice sociogram. The girls with the higher number of rejections were placed in positions more vulnerable to outside rejections. Probably the most striking contrast which the rejection sociogram reveals when compared with the friendship sociogram is the centripetal- centrifugal one. In the latter sociogram the friendmip choices go from members of the group to within the group whereas in the former sociogram, the rejections are directed almost entirely outside the group. There are only three intra-clique rejections, and all are foum in Clique 6. One of these intra-elique rejections was reciprocated by a friendship choice. . Another interesting observation which can be made of the total soc- iogram is the comparatively uniform direction of flow of rejections from one group to another. .he tension areas within the dormitory are bared in their naked relief. If the tension areas are inmediately observable in the The Highly Rejected rejection sociogram, a second inspection reveals the pres- ence of a number of unpopular "stars“ upon whom the rejections leading to a group are focused. In Chapter 2, it was noted that there were no particularly powerful friendship stars who stood out among their peers. Although one girl in Clique 1 received 12 choices, another in the same group received 11 choices, two others received 10 choices, and two re- ceived nine choices. But there is little doubt about the unpopularity of the unpopular stars. However, none in North Hall was as unpopular 64 as the most rejected girl smoker found at Stephens. This girl re- ceived 22 rejections from girls in the dormitory where she lived. There were 110 girls living in the dormitory. She also received 32 more rejections from the four other dormitories participating in the Stephens study?) The circles in the rejection sociogram represent four classes of rejected or not rejected girls. Those who received no rejections or no more than one are represented by the smallest circles. These are the low rejects. As Smuoker pointed out, a lone rejection is based on a personality clash of two individuals without reference to the larger pattern?) The second smallest circles represent girls having two, three, or four rejections. They are referred to as the average rejects. The next larger circle represents girls having five, six, or seven re- jections. These girls are the higher-then-average rejects. , The larg- est circles were reserved for girls having eight or more rejections. They are called the high rejects. This is a purely arbitrary classif- ication made to fit the data. The stratification procedure which places one division line one standard deviation below the mean and another one standard deviation above the maimdid not adapt itself to the skewed nature of the rejection data. The highly rejected girls including both the higher than average rejects and the high rejects numbered 15, or 20% of all the North Hall girls. They received 67.376 of the total rejections. All but two of these highly rejected girls were members of well organised cliques. The two others were classified as near-isolates. One of these near- (11 Op. cit., p. 115 £2) Op. cit., p. 108 3) Helen Jennings who used that procedure says that any stratifica- tion procedure is necessarily arbitrary. Leadership and Isolation, D. 67s 65 isolates, Number 47, received 12 rejections--the highest number in the dormitory. She received only one friendship choice although she made six choices. Number 34, the other near-isolate, received six rejections. She was chosen as friend twice, but received no choices from the group intowhich she directed four of her six choices. Two of her rejections came from this same group. For these girls there is no haven from their unpOpularity within the dormitory except, perhaps, from the individuals who choose them. The other girls all have havens within well organised groups which accept them. Number 71 who re- ceived ll rejections was chosen as friend by the other four members of Clique 2. Numbers 3, 45, 59, and 60 all received nine rejections. Num- ber 5 was chosen as friend by four members of her Clique 7. Number 45 was chosen by eight members of her Clique 6, thus meriting the double distinction of being one of the highly chosen girls as well as one of the high rejects. Number 59 of the same clique received four friend- ship choices from the group. Nmnber 60, the bossy girl in the kit- chen, received seven friendship choices: five from her Clique 3 and two from outside the group. Number 66 received eight rejections and her romate, Number 21, received seven rejections. They received five and six friendship choices respectively from members of Clique 5. Number 13 also received seven rejections: she received five friend- ship choices from Clique 6. ‘Three girls besides Number 54 received six rejections: Number 46 who received five friendship choices from Clique 3. and two from outside: Number 29 who received three friend- ship choices from Clique 6; and Number 42 who received seven friend- ship choices from Clique 6. Number 32 who received five rejections was chosen friend by the other five members of Clique 3, and Num- 66 ber 62, who was also rejected five times, was chosen by the two other members of the N.E. Triangle and by two outside the group. Altogether, the thirteen highly rejected girls who were also mem- bers ef well organised cliques totalled 69 friendship choices or an average of 5.3 friendship choices per person. The average for the dormitory as a whole was 5.23, so it cannot be said that these girls are underchosen. Even adding the two rejects who were not members of organised groups, the highly chosen average 5.1 friendship choices. However, the source of their friendship choices is almost exclusively from within their own sub-groups. Only three of the highly rejected clique manbers received choices from outside their groups, and the total of outside choices for the 13 girls was only six. Therefore, their friendship choices may reflect popularity within their sub- groups but not power within the total dormitory community. The pres- tige status of these highly rejected girls will'be considered in a later chapter. Among the 11 average there were also two rejects who The Average Rejects did not belong to organized sub-groups. One of these, the graduate counselor, received three rejections. Number 22, a near- isolate, received four rejections. These girls rated two friendship choices each. The other nine girls-~Number 75 with four rejections, Numbers 10, 49, 53, and 67 with three rejections each, and Numbers 16, 61, 68, and 73 who received two rejections each--rcceived friendship choices ranging between four and nine. Their friendship choices tot- alled 54, or an average of six per person. Only four of the total friendship choices were from outside their own sub-groups, so the av- erage rejects had little more outside power than did the highly re- jected. The average number of friendship choices for the 11 average 67 rejects, including the two who did not belong to cliques, was again 5.3, approximately the dormitory average. The 13 lone rejects, girls who received only one rejection, The Low Rejects were classified with the girls who received none. A lone rejection is usually a reflection of a personality clash between two persons and is not a group problem. And yet, even though this group of lone rejects claims two of the highly chosen for friendship-Num- ber 23 with 10 choices and Number 28 with eight-wit. has only a 4.7 average of friendship choices. This is lower than the average for either the highly rejected girls or the average rejects. Their 12 friendship choices from outside their own sub-groups, however, are more than the combined total of the other two reject groups. To round out the comparison, the total number of friendship choices received by the 36 girls who received no rejections was 204. This is an average of 5.7 friendship choices per person. Four of the no-reject group were indeterminants and two were isolates. The remaining 30 received 50 friendship choices from outside their own sub-groups for an average of 1.67. From this rather tedious analysis, it should be apparent that for North Hall being highly rejected has little correlation with be- ing underchosen. The important finding is that the highly rejected are not chosen as often as friends by members outside their own sub- groupe as the low rejects. The lone rejects and the no-rejects who belonged to organised sub-groups averaged 1.48 outside friends as determined by choices they received. The highly rejected belonging to sub-groups averaged only .46 outside friends--less than one third 68 as many as the low rejects. Their friendship relationships are re— stricted to narrow orbits in which their potential power as particip- - ating members of the larger total group remains undeveloped. It has been observed that all but five of the highly Inter-clique Antagonism rejected girls, the average rejects, and the lone re- jects were members of sub-groups. Is it possible that rejections I might be a reflection of inter-clique antagonisms rather than inter- personal repulsions? Table 11 compares the sub-group standings on rejections made and received. It also compares the number making and receiving rejections within each group with the total number oom- posing the group. Theoretically, if there were no differences between the sub-groups in regard to rejections made and rejections received, each group would have the sane percent of the total rejections made and received as its membership's percent of the total population. In other words, Clique I with 10% of a total population should make 10% of the rejections and receive 107.. By comparing these three percent- age columns in Table 11, one learns that Clique 1 made 3.3% less re;- jections than expected and received 4.5% less than expected. Clique 2 made 47. more rejections than expected and received 2.17. more rejections than expected. Clique 3 made 4.37% more rejections than expected and received. 2.37% more. Clique 4 made 2.776 more rejections than expected and received 4.8% less than expected. Clique 5 made 8.2% less reject- ions than expected and received 1.67. more than expected. Clique 6 made 4.7% more rejections than expected and received 9.1% more than expected. Clique 7 made 1.8% less rejections than expected and re- ceived a trifling .176 more than expected. The Square which made no .00H m m HH MH mm .OCH mmH cm .CCH mm mHmeoe Epoa L3H its m c... e 1...-um .35 o 0 mm .0; c H mm .o; H H m N. e02 H H H mm .ou H o N 4m .02 H NH H a: .0; mmpmHomHlawoz H is H .3 m .55 H30... 0 e .3 .2 o m 0m .0; o H m .on c m mm .0; H m c @m .on memCHsaopowaH .2 H N a E a m .H m E 2.3 m.H m m m.H m H .q m .Hae .mnm .o o .o o o m.m J m worm H.m H u N mH m.a NH m m.m a a mstHo H.0N N m H m NH .mm mm HH m.aH HH 0 .seHHo m.NH H H H. H CH m.m H m p.0H m m mseHHo m.H H H m H.m mH m .a.o m H msHHHo m.cH H H H eH m.mH om m .w w m msmHHu .m H H n ~.C a N. x w msnfl . m... . . . H m a 3m . Em mpoewmm Hm mum arm H n.0om ma.H#um mow; .gom mHLHo Hmeop mpommom .02 09 .oo< mpomn them How mCOHpooh MCHpoow Hmpoe mo Mt w oopoowoa mnemama‘ tom .02, now no u mom .on set .oz. Mo H panama muoamsmwm . maooamlfinm hQ mHmmHoco COHpoowom HH wHLme 70 rejections and received none accordingly'made 5.3 less than expected and received 5.3 less than expected. The S.W. Triangle made 2.8% less and received 2.7% less rejections than expected: and the N.E. Triangle made 1.67t more and received .476 more rejections than expected. As for the indeterminants as a whole, they made 2.7%imore rejections than ex- pected but received 4.8% less than expected. The near-isolates as a group made 1.4% more and received 6.5%.more rejections than expected. From.the above analysis it is possible to pick out groups which feel antagonistic toward others and groups whose behavior creates anp tagonism. This is of’major significance for those interested in.man- aging the group process. Of all the groups, Clique 6 and the near- isclates, with 9.1% and 6.5fi.more rejections received than expected, stand out as the groups whose behavior creates antagonism. But the near-isolates are'not a group in fact: they are near isolated indivh iduals. They could create antagonism only as individuals. Clique 6, however, is an interacting group in fact. By looking in the persons rejected column.of Table 11, one finds that eight of its 13 members 'were rejected: two by one individual, one by 2-4 individuals, three by 5-7 individuals, and two by eight or more persons. Here is one group with enough rejected individuals to warrant a question as to whether the rejections caning into it are reflections of inter-per- sonal repulsion or group repulsion. True, there are five in the group who received no rejections and two who received only one, but it is possible that the rejected are guilty merely of cver-amphasis of group characteristics which repel and thus become symbolic of their sub- group. The data available here are not sufficient to prove or dis- prove either theory. Close observation is needed to supplement the sociometric findings. Similar examinations of the foci of repulsions '11 going into other groups reveal that one or two persons are responsible for most of the rejections received, and in some of these cases the inter-personal antagonism is clearly apparent, according to the house- mother. Although it is possible that there is no such thing as antagonism against a sub-group as a whole, group dislike of an individual or one or more individuals in a different sub-group cannot be dismdssed. Smucker found many examples at Stephens of two or more members of a group rejecting the same person or persons. The rejection sociogram ‘with its fairly uniform flow of rejection lines from one group to amp other is an objective verification of this tendency. Number 47, for example, receives her 12 rejections from.five different groups and one near-isolate, but seven of those rejections come from.Clique 6. Rune ber 71 in Clique 2 was rejected by three of the five girls in Clique 4 and by'a pair of roommate indetermdnants. Number 60 received four of her nine rejections from.members of Clique 6 and all but two of than from girls with whom.she worked in the kitchen. number 66 received four rejections from Clique 2 and four from Clique 1. Her roommate, number 21 received three of her seven rejections from Clique 2 and three from Clique 7. Four girls from.Clique 3 and two from.the N.EL Triangle rejected Number 29 of Clique 6. Her roommate, Number 69, was rejected unanimously by the N.E. Triangle and by three members of Clique 3. Another girl from.Clique 6, number 45, was rejected by four girls from.Clique 3 and by two indeterminant roommates. Number 13, also from Clique 6, received four rejections from.Clique 7 and two from the same pair of roommate indeterminants. It is apparent that a great deal of the tension created by repul- 72 sions or antagonism are products of group interaction, and personal guidance for the highly rejected might well be supplemented by group a) therapy in cooperative efforts to achieve harmony and understanding. Smoker noted several factors entering into the re- Factors in Rejection jection process at Stephens. He found in particular that high skill in attracting friends was matched with skill in avoid- ing antagonism?) This finding was repeated at North Hall. Of the 11 girls composing the highly chosen groups: only three received any re- jections. One of the three received one rejection, one received three rejections, and one received nine rejections. Snmcker's related find- ing that average chosen girls were rejected sore often than low chosen girls was found to be only slightly true of North Hall: the difference was not great. lbs 17 underchosen girls received 2.12 rejections each while the 47 average chosen girls received 2.36 rejections each. Smoker also found that propinquity was almost as important in the rejection process as it was in friendship choice. This tendency was noticed in only two of the North Hall corridors, C and D. In corridor 0 live the great majority of the members of Cliques 6 and 7 and the 8.1. Triangle. Out of 37 rejections which went into Corridor C which in- cludes 18 girls or 24,. of the total dormitory population, 14 rejections Table 12 Rejections by Corridors Corridor No. Girls htra-cor.7eficts* Outside Rejects. MEI E. A 14 2 29 31 B 18 2 7 9 C 18 14 23 37 D _ 18 21 . 42 63 E 7 O 19 19 jot—ale 75F 359 120 159 1- Rejections received (1) Interesting endeavor along this line by L.A. Cock, 0p. cit. (2) Op. Cite Ppe 202-5e (3) See page 16, this study. 73 or 3575 of the total 37 came from within the corridor. Near-isolate Number 58 of Corridor C placed all four of her rejections within one clique which also lived in Corridor C. Corridor D is occupied largely by girls from Cliques 3 and 6 who were found to reject each other. Sixty-three rejections went to the 18 girls of Corridor D who make up 24,. of the dormitory population. Twenty-one or one third of these rejections came from within the corridor. Corridors A and E are each occupied almost exclusively by members of one clique, so it is not sur- prising that there are few intra-oorridor rejections in them. The sev- en girls in Corridor E made no rejections among themselves although they received 19 rejections from outside. Corridor A has 14 members, 10 of whom belong to Clique l. knong the 31 rejections received by girls in this corridor, two were from within. Three others came from a girl who had lived in Corridor A until the beginning of Spring term. Corridor B which has 18 girls proved an interesting contrast to Corrid- ors C and D which include the same number of girls. Three of the five members of Clique 4, four members of Clique 6, the Square, the N.E. Triangle, and three of the indeterminants apparently live together in this corridor in harmony. There were only two rejections within the group, both going into the triangle, and there were only seven reject- ions from outside. For another type of propinquity, that of working together, there appeared to be sme correlation with rejection. Twenty girls in North Hall help in the kitchen either full or part time. Full time is con- sidered as 14 hours weekly. These 20 girls received 57 rejections, and 24 or 42;» of them were rejections among themselves. A random dis- tribution of their rejections received would have found only 15 coming from among themselves. Therefore, there is evidence of antagonism 74 based on the prepinquity of working relationships. This antagonism is centered on two girls, Nunh'ers 60 and 62, who are responsible for 17 of the 24 intra-kitohen rejections. Number 60 received seven of the kitchen rejections and made two; Number 62 received four and made three. Another factor which Smucker found in the rejection process at Stephens was that of rejected girls rejecting each other. That factor received such slight corroboration in the North Hall study that it is deemed insignificant. Out of the 115 rejections received by the highly rejected, 26 were rejections of each other. Chance distribution would have been responsible for 23 of these rejections of each other. Smuck- er also found that rejected girls reject each other more often than they choose each other for friend. North Hall highly rejected girls chose each other as friends 21 times as compared with their 26 reject- ions of each other. It was found at North Hall as at etephens that some highly rejected girls make no rejections themselves. Four of the highly rejected girls made no rejections. These number less than one third of the highly rejected group. it will be remembered that exactly one third of the girls in the entire dormitory also made no rejections, so little significance may be attached to this rejection phenomenon. One other factor which the co-workers thought might be important in the rejection process will be considered by itself in the next s chapter. Chapter 5 Meral and Idealistic Attitudes \1) Question 13 in the questionnaire was really an afterthought. with the completion of the first draft of twelve questions, it seemed that one vital factor in the friendship choice and rejection process had not been covered. There was nothing which wauld reveal overt or covert attitudes toward problems vital to college-age girls. Surely these attitudes toward things were as important correlates to friend- ship and rejection as the background factors already included. Construction 'lith the decision made to include a question on.at- of the Attit- ude Scale titudes, the choice of a scale suitable for the su?; jects to be tested proved a difficult one. Newcomb‘s P.EbP. scale( used a decade or more ago'was excellent for a community like Benningr ton College where the orientation favored intense interest in and non- conservative attitudes toward national and international issues. But for a state supported institution where such issues and attitudes are politically explosive, it did not seem.too well adapted. Attitude tests for prejudice such as Allport's and Kramer's(3zwere considered, but most of the girls had been subjected to such scales in.their Basic College courses and had probably learned the answers prescribed by the ”correct social attitude". The Allport-Vernon.test for personal val- uei4zwes closer to what the co-workers had in mind, but their search was really for a scale of attitudes covering personal problams con- fronting college girls in their day to day lives in the dormitory and on the campus. (1) See Appendix a (2 ) 0p. cit. (3) Allport, G.W. and Kramer, B.M. "Some Roots of Prejudice", Jour. of Psych. 22, 1946. pp. 9-39. ' (4) Allport, G.W. and vernon, P.E. "A.Test for Personal Values", Jour. Abn. a Soc. Psych. 26, 1931. pp. 231-248. 76 Their attitudes toward smoking, drinking, sex relations, and of- ficial restrictions are reflected in gossip and hashing-it-over ses- sions several times a week. Might not these sane attitudes be re- flected‘in friendship relations and avoidances? It also seemed pos- sible to the writer that the attitudes of girls toward woman's social status might be a factor in cleavage. Smucker wondered if overstrict adherence to truth or complete disregard for truth might not be fac- tors compatible with rejection. Counselor Gonon was interested in learning whether the attitudes toward public 'smooching' had group or individual orientation. Altogether, here were seven factors of particular and personal importance to the college girl which could help determine whether friendship choices or rejections were correl- ated with attitudes toward them. At first a Likert-type(1)scale of questions was drawn up, but five variations for a single answer would have made analysis diffic- ult for the small number of subjects involved in the experiment. At the suggestion of Dr. Edgar Schuler cf the Michigan State College Soc- ial Research Service, a method was evolved whereby three main types of attitude toward a given factor would be open to choice by the sub- jects: a somewhat ultra ultra-conservative attitude with overtones of an intolerant, authoritative tendencfi’a fairly liberal, conven- tional attitude with overtones of a tolerant, democratic tendency: and a definitely non-conservative attitude with overtones of intoler- ant tendency. Statements were designed to fit the above three at- titudes toward all seven factors chosen. The statements concerning (1 ) The Likert scale was used by Newcomb, op. cit.. To every statement, the subject may agree, slightly agree, be in doubt, slightly disagree or disagree. (2) This tendency has been described for the anti-democratic person- ality by Prenkel-Bruswik, Levinson, and Sanford, "The Antidemooratic Personality", pp 531-541 Readin s in Social Ps cholo , Newcomb, Hart- ley and Others, Henry Hol an mmt'hfi'fl 77 pro-marital sex experience were suggested by one of Seaman's moral judgnent questiongjand the statements concerning woman's status were suggested by an unpublished manuscript of the writeé'zind by an article by Nottingham?” Response The entire questionnaire was given as a pro-test to the gttgthSde six dormitory counselors of Mary Mayo Hall. They expres- Question sed satisfaction with all attitude statements excepting those concerning pre-marital sex activity. In the original question- naire, the three choices of attitude on that factor were: I don't care to be associated with girls who engage in pre-marital sexual intercourse. I see nothing wrong in an engaged couple having pre- marital sexual relations providing they are free of guilt feelings. _ I see no reason why any young people should be restricted 53 something as natural as sexual expression. The six counselors were almost unanimous in their insistence that none of the attitudes given resembled their attitude toward the subject. They insisted that they could not choose the second statement unless their disapproval of pro-marital sex experience for themselves was def- initely established. After the co-workers and the counselors had dis- cussed the question at some length, it was decided to reframe the first two statements as follows: I avoid association with girls who engage in pro-marital sexual intercourse because I don't care to be identified with them. I don't approve of pre-marital sex experience generally, but I certainly wouldn't condom an engaged couple for such practice. Wm, "Moral Judgnent: A Study in Racial Frames of Ref- erence", Amer. So. Rev., 12, Aug. 1947, p. 405. {2) Mick, Lucille Kennedy, "Toward Democracy in the Family", unpub. Ms. 3) Nottingham, Elisabeth K., ”Effects of Two World Wars on Middle- class Women , Amer. Soc. Rev., 12, Dec, 1947, pp. 666-675. ‘78 The third statement was left as it appeared in the original. Preced- ence for the three different types of attitude was alternated in the seven series of statements so that each set of attitudes would be con- sidered independently without the "halo" foreknowledge that the second one was probably the safer choice. But even with part 0 of question 13 reframed, it still pussled many of the North Hall girls when they came to it. Several of them quest- ioned the writer to make certain that their checking of a particular attitude statement would not imply that they approved of pro-marital sexual intercourse. A few checked the fairly liberal statement and then added in pencil, "I wouldn't condemn, but 1 still wouldn't approve." A few others doctored up the statement to suit themselves. lost of these were classed as “didn't answer" in the analysis. The few who didn't change the spirit of the attitude were allowed. There were no apparent difficulties with the other attitude questions althougi a few were not answered. For the most part, the North Hall girls regarded question 13 with open minds. They had been told that the attitude question was purely experimental to see if these attitudes were important in friendship. A few girls stOpped afterward to have the writer explain exactly how the attitude questions might be useful in a study of friendship. Only one girl was heard to mutter ”silly questions“ as she returned to her room. If the co-workers had entertained any illusions Findings frus the Attitude Question about finding definite differences in attitude to account for the several groupings of friends, they were quickly dis- illusioned after a quick glance through the answers checked. Only 79 rarely were the conservative attitudes found checked, snd almost never were the definitely non-conservative attitudes checked. Eighty-one and five tenths percent of the answers checked were for the liberal, conventional attitude. In the case of smoking, all ‘75 girls thought that "smoking is not a moral issue, but is a matter of personal taste on a par with eating chocolates and chewing gum." A little difference in opinion on the question of liquor resulted in only 58 agreeing that "drinking intox- icating liquors is a matter of personal inclination; abolitionists have no right to impose their will on those who disagree with them.‘. Four- teen thought "the legal prohibition of the sale and consumption of liq- nor is desirable because the use of such beverages is physically and morally harmful". Two thought that "if people would forget their out- moded inhibitions and take a drink now and then, this world would be a happier place". One didn't answer. Fifty-seven agreed with the statement, "I don't approve of pre- marital sex experience generally, but I certainly wouldn't condom an engaged couple for such practice." Fifteen would avoid association with girls who engage in pre-marital sexual intercourse "because I don't care to be identified with them“. Not one checked the altern- ative, “I see no reason why any young people should be restricted in something as natural as sexual expression". Three were classed as "didn't answer". The question of smooching revealed the most difference in attit- ude of all the seven factors. Thirty-two felt that "something should be done about the public "smooching" on the campus because "it is dis- gusting and reflects on the college". Thirty-three thought that pub- 80 lic "smooching" was a matter of personal feeling affecting only the people involved. Five thought that "Public 'smooching' is all right; it is natural and nothing to be ashamed of"El)Five did not answer. "Certain circumstances such as protecting individuals from shock or unnecessary grief justify slight alterations of the truth", agreed 73 of the total 76. Only one thought it sinful and wrong to tell falsehoods under any or all circumstances. One also thought that this is a rough, competitive society and the important thing is the end to be gained rather than adherence to truth. It was suprising that only eight of these college women thought that women have as much right to a job outside the home as men and the care of children and household duties should be a co-operative enter- prise. Sixty-six agreed that a woman is entitled to work outside the home _i_f her husband doesn't object and she doesn't neglect her child- ren and the care of the home. Only one, however, agreed with the statement, "Woman's place is in the home: if she wants to work, she shouldn't marry. “ Sixty-four realised that there were certain restrictions in our society today, but didn't find them particularly disturbing. Six thought there were too many restrictions, and three thought there should be more restrictions on behavior. (1) Dr. Duane Gibson of the Michigan State College Sociology and Anthropology department insisted that the non-conservative alter- native cn smooching wasn't consistent with the other non-conservative attitudes. He said that there wasn't much difference between the liberal and the non-conservative statements. A consistent non-con servative statement, Gibson said, would have read, "I'm proud to smooch in public. It's hypocritical to be ashamed to show your own true feelings." The writer agrees with Gibson, but never thought of such an attitude until it was pointed out. 81 With the exception of the smooching question, the response was Bu overwhelmingly in accord with "the correct social attitude" that its validity as an indication of individual attitudes was doubted. The smooching question involved a conflict between two attitudes: the attitude of college level youth that smooching is a natural and acceptable sexual outlet and the attitude of taste which reflects concern for the embarrassment of outsiders. The former is almost a cultural imperative of college youth. Despite the promise of anon- ymity, the girls might have feared to indicate their own personal at- titudes on a questionnaire bearing their names. these fears might have been responsible for such an unusual conformity. Hrs. Dewey, the housemother,made a more positive suggestion as the reason‘for North Hall conformity. North Hall girls, she said, because the dormitory is so small, are allowed a maximum of self-dis- cipline and a minimum of official restrictions. Whereas girls in other dormitories are given late minutesu)for infractions of the im- posed rules, North Hall girls electtheir own Standards Chairman and comittee who determine the standards necessary for the smooth func- tioning of the dormitory. Once these staniards are decided upon, the girls are placed on an honor system of maintaining them. In the ind- ividual cases involving repeated disregard of the standards, the com- mittee steps in to remind and counsel. Since the girls have been al- lowed so much freedom, Mrs. Dewey says, they have become more conser- vative and tend to adopt the conventional mo'res. The H.420“ Nevertheless, in order to determine the validity of 0‘ Attitudes the attitude response, a re-test of question 13 on attitudes was found desirable. This time, it was decided to omit the (l) Accumulation of 15 late minutes brings forfeit of a week-end night with late permission. ‘ 82 names from the questionnaire so that there would be no question of anonymutyt In that way, the validity of the previous test could be established only through the total responses to the individual attit- ude series. Again during the dinner hour, the North Hall girls were told the reasons necessitating another test on the attitude question. They were also invited to inspect the completed friendship choice sociogram.as soon as they had answered their questionnaires. As each girl handed in her completed questionnaire, she was asked to check off her name from the list of dormitory girls so that it could be certain that every girl 'who had filled out the previous one had also turned in the second ques- tionnaire. In the meantime one girl had left the dormitory, so there were only 74 questionnaires in the re-test group. Table 13 in which the total responses for the three attitudes COD! cerning each factor is given for both the original test and the re-test show! that there was almost no deviation from the first set of responses. The absence of any identification made almost no difference. The cor- relation of the total responses of the first test with those of the second was .995. The responses of the 75th girl who hadn't taken the re-test were, of course, subtracted from the first test totals for the purpose of correlation. Most of the deviations from.the first test re- sponses were toward greater conformity with the conventional liboral attitude. The similarity of the responses in the attitude test Attitudes as Correlates t0 made almost impossible the establishment of attitudes Friendship and Rejection as major correlates of either friendship or rejection. Even among those who deviated from the conventional attitude, there was little association of girls who had chosen each other as friends. 83 Table 13 Total Responses to Attitude Questions in the First test and in the Anonymous re-test Attitudes first test lie-test Smoking 1 0 2 2 74 72 3 O 0 Drinking ' l 2 4 2 57 62 3 l4 8 DA 1 0 Pro-Marital intercourse l O 0 2 57 62 3 14 11 DA 3 1 Public Smooching l 5 O 2 33 43 3 31 29 DA 5 2 Truth 1 l 2 2 72 71 3 l l Woman's Status 1 8 7 2 65 67 3 1 0 Restrictions l 6 4 2 63 69 3 3 1 DA 2 O 1 is for the non-conservative attitude: 2 is for the liberal attit- ude: 3 is for the ultra-conservative attitude. DA means didn't \answer- 84 Among the '14 abolitionishs were girls from every sub-group except Clique 4 and the two triangles. One girl from Clique 2 and a high reject of Clique 3 were for everybody taking a drink now and then, but two of the other four members of Clique 2 were among the abol- itionists and three of the other five girls in Clique 3 were among them. Among the 15 girls who would avoid girls engaging in pre-mar- ital sex relations were members of every sub-group except Clique 4 and the N.E. Triangle. Members of every sub-group except Clique l and all the indeterminants and near-isolates except one thought something should be done about public smooching. The four girls who thought public smooching all right did not choose each other even once. The one girl who thought that the end to be gained was more important than the truth just happened to be the highest reject in the dormitory. The tales she tells about herself are probably the main cause of her rejection, but the suspected absence of truth is a small thing compared with the tremendous boredom of repetition. m- cng the eight girls believing in equality of marriage partners in regard to working opportunities and home responsibilities are five friendship choices out of a possible 56, giving this group a slight edge over the eight Catholic girls in unanimity of friendship choice. ihe one girl who believed that woman's place is in the home gets her training by keeping to her roan and also keeping it so tidy and spot- less that no one would think of stepping inside for fear of mssing it up. Even so, she's rejected only once and the two other girls of her triangle like her. There were two friendship choices among the six girls who thought there were too many restrictions in our present day society, but there were none smug the three who thought there ought to be more of them. 85 The Value of If the attitude test was disappointing as far as the Attitude Test the search for a dependable correlate to friendship choice and the rejection process was concerned , it was not without value. it offered some evidence in opposition to the popular idea that college groups are hotbeds of radical ideas and notorious for sexual licentiousness. The response to the question on pro-marital sexual intercourse showing conformity to conventional standards was surprising, but it should not have been too surprising for anyone who \1) had read the Kinsey report. (1 ) Kinsey, Alfred C., Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 76.3. Saun- ders Co., Philadelphia, 1916. Chapter 1.0-.- The Kinsey report is, of course, about the sexual behavior of the male. But chances are that college level women go with college level men, and the heterosexual behavior of the latter probably gives some indication of the heterosexual behavior of the former. Regarding at- titudes toward pre-marital intercourse, Kinsey found that 62.5,. admit- ted restraints on moral grounds as compared with 22.8,. of males of the high school education level and 18.9). of males of the grade school ed- ucation level.\p.364; He also found that the frequency of any kind of sexual eutlet was lower for the college level male in both the 16-20 and the 21-25 age groups than it was for the other two educational level males. The prevalence of petting and petting to climax among college level males accounts for more of the heterosexual outlet than intercourse. Sixty-one percent of the pro-marital college level males reach orgasm through petting as against 32% of the hi school level males and 16% of grade school level males. (p. 346) Even those who et to climax (46%), have intercourse (42%), or homosexual experience {11%) derive less than seven percent of total (sexual) outlet from such sources: over 90% is from solitary sources", Kinsey says of the unmarried college level male aged 16-20. (p.695) Of the college level males aged 21-25 and unmarried, hardly more than one half have inter- course and they derive only 15% of their total sexual outlet from it. Sixty-nine percent of the total sexual outlet of college level males in the 21-25 age level depended upon solitary sources. (p. 701) Only 15% of unmarried college level men have intercourse with weekly regularity. One third to one half have intercourse once or twice or maybe two or three times a year before they marry. Many have intercourse only with one girl whom they subsequently marry. Very few have pre-marital intercourse with more than a half dozen girls. Only two thirds of college level males have any pre-marital intercotzrse. Pe 347a) Chapter 6 Prestige Status Of particular importance to any study of friendship and personal- ity development is the factor of prestige status. Smucker found a high 1) correlation between friendship choice and prestige status at Stephens, and Newcomb's study at Bennington revealed over and over again.the ex- pressed hope of women.students to attain prestige in their college re- lationships. At Stephens, Smucker derived a.prestige status scale through ans- 'weres to six guess-who items and through choices for representative to a.mwthical all-college conference. Equal ratings were given the seven criteria. Guess-who items were both positivetand negative, and students ‘were invited to name one, two, or more girls to fit each of the followb ing categories: Best dressed, best groomed g Has few intimate friends lost likeable, easy to know lost unapproachable, somewhat snobbish Outstanding,campus leader Somewhat crude, unpclished Newcomb used a single prestige status criterion at Benningtcn. It was a question.similar to the one Smncker_used asking for choices for the Bennington(College representative who would attend a national college 2) conference. Selection of For the North Hall study it was decided tentatively Prestige Sta- tus Criteria to use just one prestige status criterion although other criteria were provided for in the questionnaire for purposes of comparison and possible inclusion.in the scale if it was deemed advis- 21) 013. Gite 2) Op. Gite 87 able later. Question 8 of the questionnaire provided the choices used in constructing the prestige status scale. If the United Nations should play host next summer to rep- resentatives from every college in the world in an effort to promote worldwide friendship and understanding among the world's leaders of the future, who would best represent the WOMEN of Michigan State College? What four women from dormitory would you nominate to the panel from which the $8.0. women stu ent representatives are chosen? Remember that the college will be judged by the appearance, personal- ity, and ability of these women. The alternative prestige criteria were provided for in questions 9, 1) 10, and 12 of the questionnaire: What girls in your dormitory would you rate as being most pular with other girls? What girls in your dormitory would you rate as being most popular with men? Name some girls in your dormitory who, according to your best judgment, have the combination of qualities such as sympathetic understanding, willingness to help, sense of humor,‘ and mature judgnent necessary for a good dormitory counselor. Construction The range of choices for the prestige criterion of Prestige- .Status Scale was from 28 for two girls to acre for 32 girls. Fifteen girls received one choice each. The mean number of choices was 3.5 and the median was one. With such a skewed distribution, it was again difficult to adapt the scale to a division based on the standard deviation from the mean. Newcomb had encountered almst the same type of distribution in answer to his prestige question. Like him, the co-workers decided on fixing arbitrary limits for the prestige status groups which fitted the data at handfz The girls were divided into four prestige status groups accord- ing to the number of choices each had received fa- the prestige crit- erion: the. sero prestige group for all those who had received no choices: the higher-than-average (ETA) prestige group for those re- (1) See questionnaire, Appendix A. (2) OPe Cite p. 46e 88 ceiving two to seven choicesz~the average prestige group for all those who received one choicgli and the high prestige group for those receiv- ing eight or more choices. Distribution of choices in the three alternative prestige criteria was similar in all cases to that in the prestige criterion used in the scale. Accordingly, the same limits were imposed on a 'four group clas- sification for each of the alternative criteria. Table 14 shows the distribution into four groups of the number of girls and the total number of choices for all four prestige categories. The reliability of the selected prestige status criterion was con- sidered dependent on a correlation of it with the alternative criteria. Moreover, it was decided that friendship choices and rejections should also be considered in establishing the reliability of the single basis for prestige status. Choice for one category might not necessarily mean choice for another, and it was difficult to judge with certainty the importance of each category to the girls concerned. A girl night not be chosen for the United Nations conference representative because she'd never had an opportunity to prove her ability, but she might be very popular with women and with men. Another girl might not have been chosen as popular with men because she had a boy friend back home and eschswed all dates on the campus. Still another might be very pop- ular with men but not with women. Perhaps there might even be one who might be highly respected for her ability but disliked heartily by a large number of her peers. So still another correlation was made bet- ween the selected prestige criterion and the total sociometric status. This sociometric status index includes the total of all the choices made for each girl-«choices for prestige, p0pularity with women, popu- (1) Although the mean for prestige was 3.5, it was deemed advisable to use the median figure, one, for the average criterion because of the skewed distribution. 89 Table 14 Stratification According to Four Prestige Categories L 3::lfimber e o- o a o. of Girls tal Group Choices Ranked according to number of choices received for U.N. representative. High (8-28) 10 13.3 179 sHTA (2-7) 18 24. , 68 Average (1) 13 22.7 15 ero (U ) 3 e ‘zTotals ‘73 'T662' ‘23; Ranked according to number of choices received for popularity with women High (8-34 12 16. 202 ETA (2-7) 16 21.7 42 Average {1) 1b 20. 15 Zero (0) 32 42.7 0 mtafs 75 166 e 7559' Ranked according to number of choices received for popularity with men. High (8-43) 11 14.7 198 ETA (2-7) 09 ‘ 12.0 25 Average \1) 13 17.3 13 Zero 0 42 56. 0 Totals '75' IIKfir' '236' Ranked according to number of choices received for counselor. High (8-32) 08 10.7 130 ETA (2-7) 15 20. 55 Average (1) 22 29.3 22 Zeros \U) 30 40. 0 “Totals '73 I66. 267 a HTA.stands for higher-than-average. 90 laxity with.men, for counselor and friendship-~minus the rejections. Tables 15, 16, 17, and 18 show these sociometric status indices toge- ther with their sources for each of the prestige status groups: High, Higher-than-Average, Average, and Zero. For convenience of reference and comparison each girls' academic year and sub-group membership is indicated. A comparison of the high prestige group's rating in all the cat- egories reveals that its members may rank comparatively loW'in certain ones as individuals, but as a group they rank high in the majority of them. Numbers 28 and 46 who tied for the highest prestige score of 28 had to forfeit the highest rank in the sociometric status index to Number 46's roommate, Number 53,'who had received only 19 prestige choices. Number 28 received only one choice for popularity with.men, and Number 46 received only three choices and a single choice for pop- ularity with women and counselor respectively. “Number 53's lower nump ber of choices for counselor was sufficiently offset by the highest number of choices for popularity with women and the second highest number of choices for popularity with men to achieve for her the high sociometric status index. Other high prestige status girls fared less 'well in the comparison. Number 66 who looked so promising with her 24 choices for prestige has only a 35 sociometric status index. She has eight rejections, only one choice for popularity with.men, and only three for popularity with women. Number 34, the near-isolate, with a sociometric status index of only 17, .15: rejections, only two friendship choices, and zero pepularity with women, must really have ability to receive eight choices for prestige and 12 for counselor against such heavy odds. 91 Table 15 Total Sociometric Analysis of the High Prestige Group (8-28 choices given them for prestige) No. Aoad. Sub- Prestige PWW PWM. Counp Friend Rejec- SS Score year group Choices Che. Chs. selor Choices tions Total 28 J 01-7 28 15 1 31 8 - 1 82 46 J 01-1 28 3 18 l 7 - 6 51 66 J 01-5 24 3 1 10 5 - 8 35 23 So 01-6 22 12 O 32 10 O 76 53 J 01-1 19 34 32 4 9 - 3 93 55 So Ind. 19 11 O 8 3 O 41 41 So 01-6 12 3 1 1 6 O 25 2 So 01-6 10 4 l 14 6 - 1 34 63 J 01-1 9 27 8 10 ll 0 55 34 So 151- Iso _§ __1 __g __1_2_ __2_ _-_-_§_ __I_l_7_ Totals 179 113 64 123 67 -25 510 Random Distrib- (35) (35) (31) (27) (52) ‘(-21) (158) 'ution The High Prestige girls comprise 13.3» of the total community. Since there are 10 girls in the group, the mean for all totals may 'be found by placing the decimal one digit to the left. ‘Abbreviations: PWW: Papularity with women, choices for. PWM: Papularity with Men, choices for Counselor: Choices for counselor Total 83 Score: Sum of choices for prestige, PWW, PWM, Counselor, and Friend minus the rejections. Table 15 Total Sociometric Analysis of the Higher than Average Prestige Group (2-7 choices given them.for prestige) No. Acad. Sub- Prestige PWW PW]! Coun- Friend Reject- Total 88 year Group choices Che. Chs. selor choices ions Score 4 2 01-6 7 1o 45 o 4 ' -1 63 7 J n-I... 7 o- o 5 1 -1 12 15 So 01-6 6 o 9 1 5 -7 14 40 6. 01-1 6 8 1 7 10 o 52 55 6 01-4 5 o o 15 6 o 24 14 6 01-1 4 1 o o 7 o 12 16 J 01-4 4 2 o 1 4 -2 9 26 G Ind. 4 o o 5 2 -5 6 72 F 01-2 4 18 11 o 4 o 57 12 J 01-5 5 5 12 2 7 o 27 49 2 01-2 5 16 o 1 5 -5 22 16 J 01-4 5 2 o 5 4 o 14 5 J NDJ 2 1 o 1 2 -1 5 20 F 01-2 2 4 1 1 5 o 15 21 J 01-5 2 2 o 5 6 -7 6 38 F Square 2 20 o 1 6 o 51 67 J 01-6 2 4 2 4 7 -5 16 68 3. 01-5 2 1 26 4 5 -2 38 'Ttt.1. '66 "52 '167' '56 '62 256' '56: Random.Distrib- (63) (62) (57) (so) (94) (-38) (265) 333323. scores 3.78 5.11 6 3.11 5.11 -1.67 21.5 The 18 girls in the Higher-than-Average Prestige group comprise 24% of the total community. For abbreviation key see Table 15 93 Table 17 Total Sociometric Analysis of the Average Prestige Group (one choice given each for prestige) No. Aoad. Sub- Prestige PWW PW]! Coun- Friend Rejec- Total SS year group Choices Che. Chs. selor Choices tions Score 1 F 01-5 1 2 o o 7 - 1 9 25 P N-Iso 1 o o 2 o o 5 27 J 01-5 1 o o o, 5 o 6 35 F Square 1 21 O O 5 O 27 57 J 01-4 1 1 o 4 4 0 1o 47 J N—Iso 1 0 9 1 l -12 - 9 51 So 01-6 1 o 6 2 7 o 18 52 F 01-2 1 1 2 o 4 o 6 57 J 01-4 1 o o 1 4 - 1 5 56 J N-Iso 1 1 o o 1 o 2 59 J 01-5 1 1 o 1 4 - 9 - 2 62 So NE-T 1 o o o 4 - 5 o 65 J c1-5 1 o 1 o 5 o 7 74 J 01-1 1 10 1 2 12 o 26 75 J 01‘5 .1. .1 .1. .3. .6. :_i __7. Totals 15 ' 56 15 15 69 -52 116 eBannom.Distrib- (52) (52) (47) (42) (79) (-52) (256, ution Average totals 1 2.53 .87 l 4.6 - 2.13 7.87 The 16 girls in the Average Prestige Group comprise 2075 of the total community. (See footnote Table 15 for explanation of abbreviations) 94 Table 18 Total Sociometric Analysis of the Zere Prestige Group (No choices given.them.for prestige) no. Acad. Sub- Prestige PWW PW]. Coun- Friend Reject- Total 83 year Group Choices Chs. Chs. selor Choices ions Score 3 J Cl-7 O 2 O O 4 - 9 - 3 6 F SW-T O 0 0 1 2 - l 2 8 F Ind. O O 2 l 7 O 10 9 J Cl-l O 1 O 2 9 0 12 10 J Cl-l 0 2 O O 6 - 3 5 11 F SW-T O 0 O O 2 - l l 15 F Cl-6 0 2 O l 9 0 12 17 F Cl-3 O O 2 1 3 O 6 19 So Cl-6 O O 0 0 9 0 9 22 F N-Ise. 0 O 1 1 2 - 4 O 24 F Cl-3 0 O O 1 3 0 4 29 J 01-6 0 0 2 O 3 - 6 - 1 30 F 01-5 0 O 2 O 3 0 5 31 F Cl-7 0 l 1 O 7 - 1 8 32 F Cl-3 O O O O 5 - 6 - l 36 F Ind. O O 0 O 4 O 4 39 F Square 0 O O O 5 0 5 42 So Cl-6 0 2 ‘ 17 1 7 - 6 21 43 F SW-T O O O 0 3 O 3 44 F Ind. O 0 0 0 4 O 4 45 So Cl-6 0 O 12 O 8 - 9 11 48 J NE—T 0 O O l 2 - 1 2 50 F Cl-3 0 O 1 1 6 0 8 54 F Cl-7 0 l 3 0 5 0 9 56 F Cl-7 0 0 1 O 4 0 5 60 So Cl-3 0 O O 1 7 - 9 - l 61 So Cl-7 O l O 0 6 - 2 5 64 So Cl-l 0 1 0 O 6 - 1 6 69 F Square 0 O l O 6 0 7 70 J Cl-l O O O 1 6 - l 6 71 F Cl-2 O 1 7 O 5 -11 2 73 F Cl-7 0 2 O 0 6 - 2 6 Wife 6 T6 ‘52 1'3 1‘5? 2'75 1'72 Random Distrib- (112) (110) (101) (66) (167) (-68) (504) ution ' AVOI'EEO SOOI'O' 0 e5 1e63 e41 5e13 " 2e28 5e38 The 32 acre prestige girls comprise 42.7% of the total community. See Table 15 for abbreviation explanations. 95 Examination of the lower prestige status groups exposes several cases in which the total sociometric status index surpasses those of several in the high prestige status group. In table 16 Number 4, for example, just misses the high prestige status group by one choice; she has the fourth highest sociometric status index in the dormitory. Of course, 43 of the total score of 63 comes from popularity with men, but her 10 choices for pepularity with women place her in the high group for that category, too. This girl is only a Freshman; with only one year of accumulated prestige, she has done well. Three Other Freshmen in this group would bear watching as potential leaders: Num- ber 72 with a sociometric status index of 37, of which 11 choices come from popularity with men and 18 from popularity with women: Number 49 whose index of 22 includes 16 choices for pepularity with women but none for popularity with men: Number 38 with a sociometric status index of 31, of which 20 choices come from popularity with women. Anong those of average prestige (they received only one choice for prestige) are only two whose sociometric status indices are over 20. One is a Freshman whose 21 choices for popularity with wanen contrib- uted heavily toward the total. The other, Number .74, with a total in- dex of 26 is the Junior who received the highest number of friendship choices in the dormitory. In her case there is little correlation bet- ween friendship choice and prestige; she received only one choice as representative to the U.N. conference, only one choice for popularity with men, and only two choices for counselor. Her ten choices for pop- ularity with women placed her in the high group for that category, but there were nine others who were considered more p0pu1ar with women by the dormitory as a whole. In this average prestige group are two 96 negative sociometric status indices. Number 47 with a negative nine rating owes this lowest place in the sociometric status scale to the dubious honor of having the highest number of rejections in the dorm- itory. Among the 32 girls in the zero prestige group is only one with a total sociometric status index of more than 20. Seventeen choices for popularity with men contributed heavily toward her total of 21. Her seven friendship choices were offset by six rejections. There are four negative sociometric status indices in this group. As might be ex- pected, all of these girls were among the highly rejected. Table 19 Correlations between the Prestige Status Scores and Five other Sociometric and Reputational Ratings Ether Ratings Correl- Starfiard Woment Index of ations (1) Errors of Determ- Forecasting ination (2) Efficiency (3) 1. PW .58 1 .057 .34 .19 2e rWM e65 :- e055 . 042 .24 3. Counselor .57 + .057 .32 .18 4. Friend .64 "+' .055 .41 .25 5. Sociometric .80 E .046 .64 .40 Status Index * (l) Pearsonian correlations, all 373 df and significant at 1% level. (2) The coefficient of determination tells one the percent of the time one could predict the Y variable from knowledge of the X variable. In the above cases, the I variable is always the prestige choices; The Y variables are numbers 1,2,3,4, and 5. (3) The index of forecasting efficiency is the percentage of advantage of knowing the 1 variable over simply knowing the mean of the 1 variable as a means of predicting Y. If one wanted to predict the sociometric index, knowing the exact number of choices for prestige would have a 407. advantage over knowing the mean for prestige, or 3.5. III The sociometric status index is the sum of the choices for prestige, PWW (popularity with women), PWM (popularity with men), counselor, and friendship minus the number ‘of rejections. 97 Despite these variations in rank for the different categories, there is a fairly high positive correlation between the chosen pres- tige status criterion and the other criteria. Table 19 shows the Pearsonian correlations between the prestige status criterion.and pop- ularity with women, popularity‘with.men, choice for counselor, friend- ship choice, and total sociometric status index. Also shown are the standard errors, the coefficients of determination, and the indices of forecasting efficiencyil) It will be noticed that although the single alternative criteria never show over a .65 correlation "r" with the prestige status ratings, the combined totals of all the sociometric ratings show a correlation of .80 with the prestige status ratings. Therefore, it may be concluded that the selected prestige status criterion, i.c., choices for represen- tative to the United Nations conference, is a fairly reliable one for the determination of prestige status rank within the dormitory. An- other interesting corroboration of the reliability of the prestige step tus criterion.may'be made by a re-examination of Table 15. In this table appear the ratings in all seven sociometric categories for the 10 girls in the high prestige status group. The total scores for the group are also shown for each category. Below the total scores and in parentheses are the expected totals, the expected number of choices in each category which these ten girls would have received if all the choices exceeded the expected number of choices in every case, includ- ing rejections. As a group, they had five times as many prestige choices as expected, more than three times as many choices for popular- ity with women, over twice as many choices for popularity with men, (1) See notes 1, 2, and 3 on page 96. 98 over four times as many choices for counselor, and their total soc- iometric status scores were more than three times higher than the chance distribution would have allowed. Comparison of total friend- ship choices and rejections with the expected totals do not show such phenomenal variations, but the high prestige girls received more than their chance share of both. Characteristics of The High Prestige Status Group is made up exr the Four Prestige Status Groups clusively of upperclassmen. There are five Juniors and five SoPhomores. Three of the latter are older girls who have had working experience of near-professional calliber. Number 2 was a WAVE and Number 34 was an officer of the Army Nurse Corps dur- ing norld war 11. Number 23 had had several years' experience in government service. The two younger OOphomores, Numbers 41 and So, have reputations as excellent students, and Number 55 was the presid-. ent of the dormitory at the time the questionnaire was filled out. ihe other girls all have enviable records of service in positions re- flecting leadership in the dormitory. Probably the highest honor and the greatest responsibility is attached to the position of A.W.S. rep- resentativif) Numbers 66 and 28 have had this position for the 1946- 847 and the 1947-'48 school years respectively, the latter showing un- usual ability in that capacitye Positions requiring little less re- sponsibility and carrying almost as much honor are president of the dormitory and standards chairman. Number 53 has been.dormitory pres- ident twice and standards chairman once. Numbers 46 and 63 have been standards chairmen, the latter for two terms. The social chairman is responsible for all the social activities in the dormitory. Through (l) The Associated WOmcn Students' Council is made up of one rep- resentative from every dormitory and sorority house as well as rep- resentatives at large. They make the rules and set the standards by which women students of the college are governed. 99 . her committees, she must work with and gain the support of many girls. Number 46 has served in this capacity twice. Numbers 28, 63, and 53 have been secretary of the dormitory, the two former also having ser- ved as treasurer. Numbers 23, 41, and so have been vice-presidents of the dormitory. It is easy to see that high prestige is associated with leader- ship and service for the total dormitory group. It is also associated with maturity and good judgment. Sixty percent of the total choices for counselor went to the 10 girls in the high prestige group. These girls represent only 13.376 of the total dormitory p0pulation yet they were given 68% of the choices for prestige, 447. of the choices for popularity with women, and 2776 of the choices for popularity with men. Their total sociometric status score is more than three times the ex- pected one. Although this high prestige group claims four of the highly chosen for friendship girls, their mean number of choices is only 1.4 above that for the entire dormitory. As for rejections, it is strange but true that there were three girls in this group among the highly rejected and the group's rejection average is the highest of any of the prestige status groups. This may be a reflection of the struggle for status. The Higher-Than-Average Prestige Status Group is made up of 18 girls who represent 24% of the total dormitory membership. Their pres- tige status ratings ranged from seven to two. Among them were the graduate student, the two Seniors, seven Juniors, three Sophomores, and five Freshmen. For the upper-classmen, membership in this group means that in the competition for prestige status they were in the running, but they failed to make the high prestige grade. But for the five Fresmnen, membership means recognition of their high prestige poten- 100 tialities. The total of the sociometric status scores for this group was 385, about 100 above the expected total. The mean sociometric status score was 21.4 for members of this group, but the mean for the five Freshmen in the group was 33.2. In the three alternative pres- tige categories, PWW, PWM, and chaice for counselor, there was a tot- al of ten high ratings for this group of 18 girls. Four of the five Freshmen were responsible for seven of them. "Of course", the upper- classmen.might say, "that's because they're pepular with men. Fresh- men girls are always more popular with men because they're new here and haven’t settled down to one man." It is true that three of their high ratings are for PW], but four of them are for PWW, and in that category the five Freshman girls are responsible for 68 of the total 92 choices received by the group. The most important significance of this higher-than-average group is this dynamic representation of new girls surging ahead to prestige pre-eminence and older girls set- tling back to second place. How do thse girls earn their higher-than-average prestige rat- ings? The only dormitory office cpen to Freshmen.the first and second terms is Firewarden. Number 72 held that office. Spring'tenm, after having worked hard on party committees the first two terms, Nump ber 72 was made social chairman. The other Freshmen all worked on committees and were active in dormitory sports. Number 33, a Senior, 'was once standards chairman for the dormitory and has the reputation for being a good student. Number 7 although chosen only once as friend is roommate of high prestige Number 28 and is also respected as a good student. Numbers 40 and 14, Sophomore and Senior members respectively of Clique l are associated in dormitory activities with high prestige Numbers 46, 53, and 63 of the same group. 101 The Average Prestigg Status G_rgup of 15 girls who received a single choice for the prestige status criterion includes nine Juniors, two Sophomores, and four Freshmen. As a group these girls have very few high scores. One Freshman received 21 choices for popularity with women and a ‘Junior received ten choices. These two girls, Num- bers 35 and 74 respectively, have the only sociometric status scores over 20. Number 74's single choice for prestige is surprising in view of the fact that she had the highest number of choices for friend- ship in the dormitory. That she has failed for three terms her Basic College comprehensive examinations may have had some influence on her failure to achieve higher prestige status. She has had opportunities as dormitory treasurer and social chairman to display her ability. This group's totals in all‘the sociometric categories except re- jection fails to equal the expected totals. The group has exactly as many rejections as one would expect from chance distribution. The total sociometric status score is exactly one half the expected score from chance distribution. In this group are found for the first time negative sociometric status scores. Altogether, it must be admitted that this group's claims for prestige distinction are relatively weak. Just as a single rejection cannot be said to merit the stigma of group disapproval, so a single choice for prestige is insufficient indication of group respect. The _Z_e_i_'_o_ Prestige Status 9.12.22 includes 32 girls or 42.7% of the entire dormitory population. Twenty of them are Freshmen : six are Sophomores; and six are Juniors. A quick glance at Table 18 discloses a paucity of choices in all of the prestige categories. There are only two‘high scores in the lot and both are for popularity with men. One 102 of these girls with 17 choices for PWM has the only tOtal sociometric score over 20, and her nearest competitors in.the group have total sociometric scores of only 12. If the Aterage Prestige group totals in the various categories were short of the expected totals, those of the Zero group are even shorter except in the case of friendship choices. The fifteen girls in.the Average group were 10 choices short of the expected number of friendship choices, but the 32 girls in the Zero group were only three choices short of the expected nump ber. Two of the girls who were among the highly chosen for friendship are in this group. As for rejections, the Zero group resenbles the High Prestige group in that they were the only ones which had more rejections than.wou1d have been expected by chance distribution. The 10 high prestige girls had four more rejections than expected, and the 32 zero prestige girls had only five more rejections than expected. Seven of the 15 highly rejected-~no more than the expected number--belong to the Zero Prestige group. There were five negative total sociometric status scores among the zero prestige totals. The group as a whole could claim.little more then.one third the expected total sociometric status score. Failure to achieve prestige recognition is by no means conclusive for the 20 Freshmen. For the upperclassmen, failure to achieve recog- nition is more conclusive: the Sophomores have half of their college life behind them and the Juniors have only one more year in which to change their more established patterns of interaction. Prestige and Is high prestige on the college campus or in the' Social Class Criteria dormitory a reflection of social class position in the home town? This question was pondered when the study was first 103 undertaken. Although it was impractical to try to determine the class status of each girl, the parental occupation is considered an important determinant of social class. Table 20 compares the parental occupations of the eight girls who had either negative or zero sociometric status scores with the eight girls who had the highest sociometric status scoregf) It would be hard to say that the parental occupations of either group suggest slightly higher social status than the other. ihe parental occupations of the low prestige girls suggest rural influences in all but three of the cases while the high prestige parental occupations are almost exclu- sively associated with urban culture. In many cases the girls' des- cription of the parental occupation is inadequate and indefinite for class considerations. The addition of the working parent's educationad status reveals almost no difference between the two groups. The avail- able data do not suggest that criteria important in determining social class are also determining factors in prestige stratification at North Hall. High prestige seems to be a function of upperclass- Conclusions on Prestige Status man rank, yet that rank itself does not confer high prestige on its possessors. 0n the contrary, many aspire but few suc- ceed. High prestige is reserved mainly for those who serve the whole and develcp leadership through their efforts. In North Hall ability to attract friends does not necessarily gurantee high prestige. It is true that a positive correlation of .64 was found between choices for prestige and choices for friendship, but a slightly larger correlation coefficient was found in the relation- ship between friendship choices received and the size and unanimity of (l) The SS scores were used rather than the prestige scores because there were 32 who had zero prestige. It will be remembered that there -was a correlation of .80 between the two criteria. 104 Table 20 Prestige Status and Social Class Criteria (Comparison of 8 Lowest Sociometric Status Girls with.the 8 Highest in regard to Parental Occupation & Education In descending order of 8.8. Score Number ’Sociometric ’Parental Working Parenth of Girl Status Score Occupation 1 Educational Status 53 93 Electrical Engineer 3 yrs. college 28 82 City Treasurer High School grad. 23 76 Train Dispatcher 2 yrs. college 4 63 Medical Service Rep- 4 yrs. college resentative 63 55 Lutheran Minister 4 yrs. college 46 51 Salesman 2 yrs. college 55 41 Draftsman High School grad. 68 38 Tool and machine 4 yrs. college 22 O Salesman 2 yrs. college 62 0 Buyer ‘ High School grad. 60 - 1 Farmer 9th grade 32 - 1 Fanmer, 4 yrs. college 29 - 1 Dairy 4 yrs. college 59 - 2 Engineer 4 yrs. college 3 - 3 Lumberman 2 yrs. college 47 - 9 Farm.Manager 2 yrs. college choice of the sub-group to which a girl belongs. The difference bet- 'ween the four prestige status groups for the average number of friend- ship choices is not phenomenal. Nor is the decline in average nuns ber of friendship choices consistent with the decline in prestige sta- tus: the High Prestige group had an average of 6.7 friendship choices; the Higher-Than-Average Prestige group had an average of 5.11 friend- ship choioes; the Average Prestige group had an average of 4.60 friend- ship choices; and the Zero Prestige group had an average of 5.13 friendship choices. 105 High prestige does not confer immunity to rejection. Three of the highly rejected girls are found in the high prestige group. They apparently had not mastered the ability to lead without creating ant- agonism. Although rejection might be associated theoretically with low prestige, the 32 zero prestige girls received only five more re- Jections than might have been expected in chance distribution of the total number of rejections. ihere is little difference in the rejection averages for the four prestige groups, but the High Prestige group led even in this category. The High Prestige group had an aver- age of 2.5 rejections 3 the Higher-than-Average group had an average of 1.67 rejections: the Average Prestige group had an average of 2.14 re- jections: and the average for the Zero Prestige group was 2.28. The available data did not, show that prestige stratification in North Hall was a function of social class or important determinmts of that factor. Chapter 7 Sociometry and Personality Develcpment Sociometry can well provide the counselor or the person interested in group management and individual guidance with objective tools for measurement of criteria upon.which such guidance depends. Methods have been devised to spot weakness and strength in the individual's personal adjustment to community life and in the sub-group pattern of behavior which.molds the individual's personality to it. From.the identifica- tion of characteristics calling for correction or those worthy of cup ulation in terms of ideal types, it is just a step to the control of individual adjustment and the group on which that adjustment depends. ‘ The friendship choices and rejections directed to an Individual Adjustment individual are means of showing how an individual rates ‘with her peers. Comparison of the individual's rating in both res- pects with that of others in the community gives insight into that part of the personality which attracts or repels. The individual‘s conception of her own adjustment to her community may be inferred from.her choices and rejections of others within the community. After that, a comparison of the individual's ideas of her own adjustment with that of the group verdict on her adjustment not only reflects the girl's insight into her community adjustment but suggests goals to work toward and means of arriving at them. One means of portraying an individual‘s adjustment to her commune ity is through the individual sociogram. Chart 2 on page 107 shows such a sociogram of the adjustment--or rather, maladjustment--of Hump ber 47 to the dormitory community. The single, unbroken lines going 107 011th Individual Sociogram of Ember 47 Friendship Choices _____ R ejections *Number 40's rejection is repeated, showing her first with her sub- group snd then with the rejectors. 108 out from.the center of the circle are her friendship choices. The The braken lines going out from.the center of the circle are her re- jections of others, and are the sources of the tension she feels, the foci of her feelings of dislike and personality clash. The single line coming into the circle fonms a double one with one of Number 47's outgoing lines, showing mutuality of choice. There are six lines go- ing out and only one coming in, so Number 47's conception of her ad- justment to the group is at considerable variance with the group's_ac- ceptance of her. The intensity of the total group's nonpacceptance of her is demonstrated not merely by the absence of single, unbroken lines coming into the circle but also by'the mass of broken lines of reject- ion and dislike directed from.the outside to her. The absence of lines reveals indifference: the broken lines reveal hostility. The identif- ication by number and sub-group of the foci and sources of the choices and rejections further discloses that the group to which she aspires is for the most part indifferent to her: one accepts and one rejects her. Host of the hostility is from outside the sphere of her attraction. But the absence of mutual rejections shows that she is unconscious of or indifferent to dislike directed to her, and the same is true of those toward when.she directs her feelings of dislike. The individual sociogram is an excellent instrument for showing an individual's adjustment to her community, but compariscn with others in the community entails reference to other sociograms. Zeleny has worked out methods of comparison through the determination of individ- ual social adjustment ratios and morale quotients:1) He has also de- vised formulae for the interpretation of sociometric data which reveal (1) 0p. cit. See footnote 4, page 2. 109 (2) individual characteristics of interaction. Smucker has utilised some of these formulae and devised others of his own for use in an instru— ment which not only measures the intensity of all these interaction traits at a glance but also compares it with the community average of each and every trait considered. This instrument is the Sociometric Index Profile. It measures the following interaction characteristics according to index numbers provided by the given formulae: 1. 2. 3. 4o 6. 7. Social Intensity which measures the volume of positive and negative interaction. ‘ S.I. equals the sum of the acceptances and rejections div- ided by the number of cases in the community minus one. Compatibility which is the index of the volume of mutual friendship choices. C. equals the number of mutual friendship choices divided by the number of cases in the community minus one. Sociality is determined by the number of friendship choices the subject makes toward other subjects. S. equals the number of positive choices made by the subject divided by the number of cases in the community minus one. Social Acceptance is a measure of the subject's acceptance by other members of the community. S.A. equals the total of the friendship choices received by the subject (single and mutual ) divided by the number of cases in the community minus one. Social Re‘ection is an index of the volume of rejections re- ceived by the subject. S.R. equals the number of rejections received by the subject divided by the number of cases in the community minus one. Negative Sociality measures the volume of rejections made by the subject toward other subjects. N.S. equals the number of rejections made by the subject divided by the number of cases minus one. Prestige Status is an index of the individual's prestige status within the community. P.S. equals the prestige status score divided by the number of cases in the community minus one. T2) Tp. cit. See footnote 4, page 2 regarding compatible flying part- ( ners. 110 8. POpularity with Men is an index of community opinion re- garding a subject's pOpularity with men. P.M. equals the total number of choices received for PM! divided by the number of cases in the community minus one. 9. Papularity with Women is an index of community opinion re- garding a subject's popularity with women. P.W. equals the total number of choices received for PWW divided by the number of cases in the community minus one. 10. Counselor Preference is an index of community attitude toward a subject in the role of counselor. C.P. equals the number of choices received for counselor divided by the number of cases in the community minus one. With the calculation of each interaction or reputational index for every individual in a given community, the mean index for each may be determined for the community as a whole. It follows that the plotting of the mean interaction indices together with the individ- ual interaction indices on a scale offers a visual means of compar- ing the individual pattern or profile with that of the community av- erage. Individual guidance directed toward the improvement of ind- ividual performance in approaching or surpassing the mean perform- ance will not only help improve on the individual's adjustment to the community but will raise the level of the total group adjustment as well. Chart 3 is a sociometric profile. It shows the interaction per- formance of Number 74, the most highly chosen girl for friendship in the dormitory. The unbroken line compares her performance with that of the dormitory average which is indicated by the broken line. It can easily be seen that she is far above the average in social inten- sity, compatibility, social acceptance, and social rejection. Social rejection and negative sociality are negative indices, so a sero per- formance on either indicates a better performance than a negative score. 111 Chart 3 Diagnostic Profile Depicting Inter-personal and Reputational Perform- ences Based on Six Sociometric and Four Prestige Status Indices. Student No. 74 Dormitory North Hall Date May '48 --—-—- lleen index for dorm. .m:_'_ Individual student index. —" Socimetric Index PnEige Index mJe.mhI &HSJ.,&J.H$JCM%IEL BJfiCJN 8:9 10 ’—V I I I I '_ I I I I “1 . 2 19' 18! U: 16: \ 15: 14: 13: R: 11: m. 3:4J5 6 7 - .>> onandnoonq odwéwmow y----T---o- I I I I I I I I I I I -‘C‘.‘fl‘-d“ P \ 'l I ) nag-.1--¢-+L--d'-:n/coo-4L-—-J ICVIOOUJ q 7 “‘-‘-- \ L adwdpmoz m mumba W0 HZMONMW OOHOOM H a ee-eeeceases-enceocccuoeeo-C-e-eneean\ee- q es Queue-needenee-ee‘ee‘pOCc-nn-een‘ ocnnq-n-‘do-ndfinnnofi-oou I I I I L I I I I l I I I I J; I I I I 8.1.: Secial Intensity Co.: Compatibility 8.: Sociality S.A..: Social Acceptance S.R.: Social Rejection N.S.: Negarive Soc- iality C.P.: Commnity Prestige P.I.: Popularity with lien P.W.: Popularity with Women C.P.: Counselor Preference. 112 As for the therapy needed to achieve an improved individual ad- justment, that is the problem for the counselor or the worker trained in guidance. To complete the sociometric x-ray diagmsis, trained ob- servation should be used as a guide to the identification of behavior characteristics responsible for poor or only average adjustment. Other, more objective guides might be implemented to supplement or corroborate the observations. Guess-who items such as those which follow permit the members of the community themselves to indicate the exact reasons for their approval, disapproval, or indifference. The least friendly girl in the dormitory The girl who always talks about herself The girl most interested in the problemmers The girl most careless in habits of personal cleanTi'fi'e-s's— The girl who always looks like "a million"____ —— Most interesting conversationalist_____ Mrs. Dewey, the housemother who is interested in guidance and is taking graduate work in that field, has often used her observations in the dormitory to help girls who want to be helped and come to her with their problems. One of near-isolate Number 58's main difficulties as far as attractiveness to others was concerned was an exceedingly of- fensive body odor of which she herself was quite unconscious. When ef- fective measures for control of this difficulty were suggested, Number 58 was very grateful and put them into effect immediately. Number 41, a brilliant student with about a 2.5 average, was at first resented by the other girls because she didn't mix and was apt to sit in judgnent. When she came to Mrs. Dewey to ask her what she could do to make the girls like her more, she was urged to expand her interrelationships, to relax in the company of other girls, and to offer help. She has shown a lot of improvement in her two years at school although there is room 113 for much more. She seldom offers to help unless she is asked; even so, her initiative is hmproving. None of the North Hall girls re- jected her; she received 12 choices for prestige, but she received only three choices for popularity With women and one for counselor. If Number 41's ability as a student is to be matched by equal ability as a leader, she will need guidance and encouragement to better her interpersonal relationships. Number 47's displeasing personality and inability to effect a good adjustment in the dormitory are understandable products of un- happy home experiences which channeled her interests into too great a concentration on herself. Although she craves affection and pres- tige, she is unconscious of or has failed to master the techniques nec- essary for the fulfillment of her desires. She is unable to keep a roommate. She quarrels and fights with them. She is known as the most boring girl in the dormitory. She talks about £3; family, about .225 farm, about the family Packard. She doesn't talk about these things just once; she talks about them.over and over and over agahn. This irritating habit has been pointed out to her, and she sincerely wants to improve. One night she came into Mrs. Dewey's apartment all smiles after a blind date. "0h, Mrs. Dewey", she cried, "I had the most wonderful time tonight! And do you know what? I didn't talk about myself once all evening: But however sincere her intentions, she eventually regresses back to her old irritating pattern. This year, Hrs. Dewey, sensing her desire to belong and to rate, placed her among the girls of Clique 1 right next door to Numbers 46 and 53 whose support was enlisted. This was an ef- fective move because these girls had high prestigel They had what Nump ber 47 admired and what she sought for herself. In her attempts to amp 114 ulate them and become accepted by the members of the clique, Number 47 has shown.much improvement this year. Number 53 who had the most choices for popularity with women and the highest sociometric status index in the dormitory chose her as a friend. Only one member of the clique rejected her. All year she has been included in the informal parties which the clique gave. Hrs. Dewey,'who observed the same pro- cess culminate in the once-rejected Number 70 being accepted finally as a full-fledged member of Clique l, thinks that given another year of close association with this group, Number 47, too, would become accepted. Personality Objective means of revealing sub-groupal patterns of Development ‘ 'within the interaction have been discussed before in Chapters Sub-group , Structure two and four. The size of the sub-group, the unanimp ity of choice within the group, the extent to which it is exclusively a closed clique, the cohesiveness, and the out-clique attraction--all of these characteristics of sub-group interaction may be determined through the utilization of friendship choices. Likewise, areas of tension and evidences of group dislike of an individual or individuals in other groups are revealed through the sociometric rejections. The recognition of individual sub-groups and the acceptance of themras a most important agent in the college socialization process are in themselves important steps in the group management process. utilis- ation of the sub-groupal socialization machinery in therapeutic programs for improving community morale and replacing tension with harmony is an interesting and fruitful possibility. Cook tried some experiments along this line in a tenth grade class. One strong, recalcitrant sub-group 115 was in the process of disintegration by the time the initial experi- ment had been completed. In the same class a potential leader was spotted. with the help of her sub-group allies, these potentialities were so developed that she threatened the hitherto uncontested queen position held by a dominating and somewhat self-satisfied girltl) Within and among the various sub-groups of North Hall there are differences in morale and in the social adjustment of the group. Soc- iograms like the friendship sociogram on page 9 reveal clearly that some girls are not as well adjusted to a given group as others. Also observable are differences in compatibility among the different sub- groups. These differences reflect variations in adjustment of indiv- idual group members to each other. Zeleny showed that group adjust- ment could be controlled by means of shifts of some of a given group's more maladjusted menbers to other groups where they might find more acceptanceEZ) Such therapy within a dormitory would of necessity have to be ac- complished with the consent and understanding of the individual concern- ed. in North Hall, Mrs. Dewey believes that there are girls who would like to break away from their sub-groups, from the sub-group behavior patterns with which they are associated and to which they are more or less bound if they want “to belong". Each sub-group has its own est- ;12, its configuration of behavior patterns. Group acceptance demands that the individual conform to its configuration. In the process of conforming, the individual is molded by the group. As an aspect of the above process, it was found that every clique had a central behavior pattern, a common core of interest by which it U) Op. Cite (2) 0p. cit. See footnote 4, page 2 re: Morale. 116 could be identified. For example: The girls in Clique l are known as “society girls“. They "go out" a great deal and some of them are prominent socially on the campus. They manage to get their work done without much study, so they have parties, play a lot of bridge, and are inteterate night hawks. Al- though they have few particular interests in common, they like to talk and "hash things over". All the girls are quite self-sufficient so there is no group leader as such. Number 46 has great prestige and plenty of ability. But the sub-group and the dormitory itself are only a part of her busy campus life. She spreads herself thin among such varied activities as the Pan-Hellenic Council \whose delegate she was to the national convention) and wholehearted assistance in a fringe area community project. The girls in Eteshman Clique 2 are often referred to as the "Reh- rah girls“. They go around with boys who drive convertibles and they swoosh up to the dormitory entrance with all horns tooting. As a group they are noisy, do not respect the rules, lack coperation, and have untidy rooms. They, too, are society girls and sophisticates. They are extravagant in their spending of money. Most of them have beer on their breaths when they come in at night although they are under age. They do not study and they do not get their school work done. Instead they play bridge. At least one of them, Number 72, was reportedly ”flunking out" at the end of Spring term. And yet, this girl displayed exceptional potentialities for prestige and leadership. Mrs. Dewey was convinced of her general ability, and she had a few talents in which she was exceptional. Another member of the group, Number 49, told the housemother that she thought she would try to get 117 _ away from the gang when she entered the new dormitory next Fall so she could get her work done. She was the only member of the clique who had a scholastic average of one or better. Both of these girls delib- erately joined the group, however. ”We were living upstairs at first, but we didn't like it there", Number 49 told the writer. "Those girls up there, they were too serious. They didn't want to do anything except study. We thought the girls down here had a lot more fun, so as soon as we had a chance, we moved in here. Clique 3 is in Corridor D of the first floor. Members are mostly Freshmen although two of them are new, transfer students. These are more serious and quiet girls. With the exception of Number 68 , they are not beautiful or even good looking and they don‘t date very much. Number 68's rather "sexy“ appearance is deceiving although she does attract men. She does not go out with drinking or "fast" men, how- ever. As a group, the girls are quite unsophisticated. They do not play bridge and they spend little money. The girls in Clique 4 are all three year "old timers”. They are serious girls, quiet and dignified. Number 53 is quite self-righteous, having high personal standards by which she judges others. Number 37 is a shy, country girl whose wide family connections made up almost the total of her social interaction before she came to college. None of the girls belongs to a sorority. They date very little. Originally Clique 5 of Corridor C was made up of old timers, too. Most of them are Juniors, and Mrs. Dewey thought there had been some ill feeling between this group and Clique 1. These girls take life quite seriously. They play little bridge, but they do like to knit as they gather together. Freshmen Numbers 1 and 30 were adopted by the group. Number 30 was assigned to the first floor corridor occupied by 118 Clique 2, but she didnft like the girls there. :refering the more serious ones upstairs, she moved up when Numbers 49 and 72 moved down. There are no drinkers among the girls of Clique 5 and they don‘t smocch--at least not in public. Most of the Clique 6 girls are second year girls although a few new ones were added to the group this year. ihey also live in Corri- dor D for the most part, although four of them live on the floor above in Corridor B. Number 2 once lived in Corridor D but moved upstairs with Number 23 as an accommodation. Communication between the two floors is facilitated by an outside fire escape at the west end of both corridors. Since the four Corridor B girls live in the two nest rooms of the corridor, this is very convenient. These girls play bridge sometimes, but not as often as the girls in Cliques l and 2. They get their studying done. Uutside of these common traits and the fact that many of them.work in the kitchen, their observed simp ilarities a.‘ . group end. There are a few maladjusted girls in the clique; some of the girls drink; and some of them.have common inter- ests in the Sigma Kappa sorority. ihe girls in Clique 7 resemble those of Clique 2 in many ways, but they don‘t like each other. Most of the girls are Freshmen. If Number 28 belongs to the clique, it is because she has been drafted into it through the admiration of the younger girls. She joins in with them as they sit around and eat popcorn. They talk and knit and play pinochle. Although these girls don't "go out“ much, they "fool around" in Corridor C and stay up until very late at night. Two of the girls have serious emotional problems. Both of them drink too much. One has quite frequent temper tantrums and once drew a knife 119 on another girl. The other girl is a grand stand player; she'll do anything for effect. ihe four Freshman girls of the Square are the complete opposites of the Clique 2 girls. ihey are shy and very unsophisticated. De- spite their shyness, they are friendly with many girls outside their own group. ihey are particularly active in dormitory sports. They have made excellent adjustments to dormitory life in one year. At the beginning of the year, Number 38 threatened to be a serious emotion- a1 problem. rrobably to please her father, of whom she is very fond, she tried to take the reputedly "tough“ veterinary course. it was too hard for her. when she "flunked" chemistry and her boy friend was killed in an accident, she suffered a breakdown. Since then she has developed a keen interest in sports and is considering majoring in physical education. Her first year prestige score and her membership in the highly chosen for friendship group are testimonials of a fine group adjustment. The two triangles, as mentioned before in the second chapter, are somewhat rejected girls who found each other. The N.E. Triangle con- sists of two Juniors (who have been in the dormitory since it opened and have roomed tOgether all that time except for the first month) and a Sophomore new this year. They do not mix very much with the other girls. Number 48 in particular goes to bed early and is so meticulous about her room that no one feels comfortable in it. The girls are all hard workers. They concentrate largely on their studies and do a min- imum of ”fooling around". Number 62, the Sophomore, is the more color- ful character. She is proudly-malmost fiercely--independent. She pays her own way and she does her share--no more. Every morning she pulls up one of the two window shades in the room which is shared by a member 120 of the Square. When she cleans the room, she cleans her side exactly to the center--and no further. The Freshman Triangle is a counter- part cf the upperclassman one in many respects. Number 6 is a very good student. Her choices as friend of four upperclassman girls with some measure of prestige reflect aspirations outside her narrow sub- group sphere. 'It can be seen that there are differences between the cliques in their behavior patterns. The above descriptions of sub-group behavior were obtained from.the housemother and the graduate counselor. Mrs. Dewey's ideas of clique membership coincided almost exactly with that which appears in the sociogram as a result of the sociometric friend- ship choices, thus providing validation for the findings. The few exceptions might be noted here for reference. Number 8 was classed in the sociogram as an indeterminant; Mrs. Dewey still considered her as a member of Clique 3 among whose members she had lived for the first half of the school year. Her friendship choices show that she still interacts with the group, but there are so many choices into and from other groups that she must have established a different pattern of relationships when she moved from.Corridor D to Corridor B. Mrs. Dewey didn't feel that Number 28 really belonged to Clique 7, although she corroborated fully the circumstances leading to her inclusion. Nor did she think that Number 16 really belonged to Clique 4. She had once be- longed, but her stay in the dormitory has been interrupted periodically so that she could earn money to continue her education. Two of the old gang come to see her in her very pleasant room at the front of the building, but she doesn't interact with the clique in their principal locale. Although she admitted that Number 58 was a very self-suffic- ient girl “who walks alone", Mrs. Dewey had considered her as a memp 121 ber of Clique 5. However, the only objective evidence of friendship ties with the group is the single choice of Number 58's roommate for her. Discussing the influence of pr0pinquity on clique organization and the attendant molding of personality and behavior patterns of the girls involved, the housemother and the graduate counselor spec- ulated about what might have been had clique membership and interaction been controlled through effective group guidance. "That Number 72 case is really a tragedy", Mrs. Dewey said. "Had she been assigned to Corridor B or even to Corridor D, it would have made a lot of difference in her development. I'm.sure she wouldn't be flunking out. That girl had tal- ent, and I'mrcertain she had loads of abilityb-if only she had used it instead of concentrating on a good time." But if there are a few cases in which membership in a certain clique results in.unfortunate personality development, there are many others for whom membership in a sub°-group has meant the realisation of latent and unsuspected potentialities. As an example of what a clique can do for a girl, the housemother likes to cite the case of Number 70. "When Number 70 first came to North Hall in the Fall of 1945, she was so different from.most of the other girls that she “was quite isolated. She rocmed with another Catholic girl who was also isolated for the same reasons. Number 70 is the daughter of Polish immigrants; her father works in a Detroit factory. Number 70's English was poor. When poor grades resulted in a check-up on her reading ability, it was found that she couldn't even read a paragraph and get the correct meaning from it. She was untidy in appearance; she displayed little knowledge of the elements of personal cleans liness and taste. The room was a hovel. "When her roommate failed to return the second year, Numr ber 70 was placed in a room.among the girls of Clique l. Nump ber 74 of that clique had lost her roommate, too, and they were assigned together. For almost a year, Number 70 occupied the same satellite position which Number 47 had this year. Out of kindness, she was included in the parties. Gradually she made changes in her habits and in her appearance as she tried to 122 emulate these girls whom.she admired. This year she has been accepted as a full-fledged member of the group and although she is not as outstanding as a few of the others, she has dev- eloped the same configuration of traits which distinguish Clique 1 girls from the others. Her scholarship still shows need for improvement. \The writer noticed that she still spells like she must have pronounced her words when she ent- ered the dormitory.) However, she has made remarkable progress considering her relatively poor background." Personality In Chapter 2 a distinction was made between popularity Development 'within.the and power in friendship relations. It was pointed out Total Commun- ity Structure that girls with power do not limit their interaction to a small, intimate sub-group, but extend it to members of the larger community group as well. If the state and the nation have a right to expect leadership and service from those who have had the advantages of higher education \particularly those in state institutions supported largely by public approPriations), it seems logical that they should expect their institutions of higher learning to develop in their stu- dents attitudes and habits commensurate with those expected of them. The dormitory offers almost unlimited opportunities for the develop- ment of leadership and service. Sociometric analysis offers an ob- jective measurement of the development of the desired traflzs. Through the choices received from.the different prestige status criteria, each girl is judged according to the power, the leadership, and the service she has rendered by those who are in the best position to judge--her dormitory associates. No doubt, there are some whose attitudes are isolationist, for whom participation in a common world even in a leadership capacity is frightfully bourgeois and too, too de trop. But these are negative attitudes. Mereover, they are acquir- ed like any ocher attitudes, and can be replaced through community em- 123 phasis on more positive values. However, it is apparent from such studies as Newcomb'gl) that most girls aspire to the leadership role, and yearn for recognition and the opportunities which foster it. For many girls failure to achieve prestige and power is due to lack of confidence, hesitancy in taking the initiative, and--above all--in procrastination. Surely, these are failings which would profit by ef- fective guidance--not only individual guidance but sub-group guidance as well. Exploitation of existing sub-group ffgces would reinforce the individual member's efforts to help herself.) Sociometry provides the tools of measurement on which such guid- ance depends. Tables 15, 16, 17, 18 in the preceding chapter demon- strated vividly the need of the great majority for help and encour- agement. Even in the high prestige group there is need for able guid- ance if its members would realize their full potentialities. This group incurred the highest average of rejections of all the prestige groups. During the Freshman year, it is possible to spot the girls who are developing power on their own initiatives. New avenues of develcpment should be encouraged on them. As for their less effective sisters, guidance should be directed immediately toward the development of initiative and power. The same is true of the upperclassmen who are still holding back and drifting into the mire of apathy. ihe sociometric data found in the tables mentioned above could be transferred to more manipulable tools for individual guidance. Indiv- idual prestige sociograms could be devised which would reveal improve- ment between successive utilisation of the sociometric questionnaire. (1) Op. Gite (2) For further develcpment of this point see: Smucker, Orden C., "The Campus Clique as an Agency of Socialization", Jour. Educational SOCiOle, NOV. 1947, pp. 163-169. 124 The second half of Smucker's Sociometric Status Profile (see Chart 3, page 111) would ShOw the same progress and would also compare it with that of the dormitory as a group. The reputational half of Number 74's profile shows that she needs to develop her facility for making friends into leadership channels. Chart 3 shows that although she is a Junior, she has only one choice for prestige. She did excel in popularity for women, but her relative- 1y poor showing in the PWM and choices for counselor categories indicate goals to work toward. With the periodic use of the sociometric questionnairetl)the writer concludes with Zeleny "that morale in both its group and individual as- pects can,'within limits, be measured and controlled"t2) The writer fur- ther concludes that with this same instrument, individual personality development may also be measured and analyzed for guidance purposes in terms of socially desirable goals. ‘1) Successive applications of the sociometric questionnaire would undoubtedly necessitate the construction of new questionnaires, pref- erably geared to specific dormitory criteria for judging. (2) 0p. cit. See footnote 4, page 2 re: Morale. Chapter 8 Conclusions and Implications In the foregoing sociometric study of North Hall, a small girls' dormitory in one of the largest colleges in the country, the findings seem to organize themselves into three distinct classes: those re- garding the structure of dormitory interaction; those revealing ind- ividual and group differences in interaction patterns: and the use- fulness of sociometry in portraying these patterns and in.measuring personality development as well. Outside of these three groups of findings, there are certain implications important in the field of higher education. The Structure The sociometric friendship choices as portrayed on of Dormitory Interaction the friendship sociogram.revealed conclusively that the total dormitory friendship pattern is the sum.of interaction with- in the several sub-group structures and interaction outside these structures. Seventybtwo and six tenths percent of the friendship choices were intra-clique choices. The remainder were divided between inter-clique choices and choices involving the 11 girls out of the total 75 who could not with certainty be placed in a particular sub- group. The sub-group structures were found to differ in size, unanimity of choice within the individual sub-group, in closed-clique exclusive- ness, in cohesion, and outside attraction. There was some evidence indicating that the more complex and cohesive structures are functions of long and continued residence in.the dormitory. In other words, there is a positive correlation between complexity and cohesiveness on 126 the one hand and age of the configuration on the other. Also found -was a significant relationship indicated by a correlation co-efficient of .66 between the number of friendship choices received and the size and unanimity of choice of the sub-group to which an individual be- longed. In the search for correlates of friendship choice, the influence of time of entrance to the dormitory (which in the majority of cases would coincide with the academic year, and pr0pinquity were found to be the greatest. The cleavage due to propinquity (as measured by a total of 856.85 chi squares, significant at the one percent level, is greater than that due to time of dormitory entrance \as measured by a total of 160.66 chi squares, significant at the one percent level) but shifts within.the dormitory detract from.some but by no means all of the influence of propinquity. Other factors found to influence the sub-group structure to a much smaller degree included environment (a cleavage represented by 7.17 chi squares, significant at the one percent level), scholastic averages (a total dormitory cleavage represented by 10.51 chi squares, significant at the two percent level), and perhaps part-time work with- in the dormitory. As far as the latter factor is concerned, it is more probable that girls within existing sub-groups influence each other to take these part-time jobs. Although not submitted to chi square anal- ysis, it appears that such factors as religion, major or vocational choice, parent's occupation, parents' education, leisure time activb ities, dating habits {as estimated by the girls themselves), and org- anisations and outside activities have little influence on sub-group membership or on friendship choice itself. The corollary to this con- 127 clusion, therefore, is that the individual's performance and behavior in the immediate social milieu is the significant factor in friend- ship choice. Although the 18 girls who said they belonged to a sor- ority chose their sorority sisters more often than not, the influ- ence of the sororities on the total sub-group structure in North Hall 'was not great. In fact, there is some basis for the belief that in North Hall, at least, the dormitory sub-groups have more influence on sorority membership than the sorority has on sub-group membership. The absence of data on the larger dormitories made impossible an objective comparison between the structures of interaction in large and small dormitories. Subjective observations of the housemother and girls in North Hall claimed a greater average amount of total dormitory interaction for the smaller unit. Claims that "It's much friendlier here”, that "We all know each other in North Hall", that "I'd much rather live here than in one of the bigger dormitories", and that "The girls of North Hall have more dates than girls in other dormitories" seem.to indicate advantages in smaller housing units. This suggests again the importance of primary group relationships in personality de- velopment. individual and Along with variations from zero to ten in number Group Differences in Interaction of friends chosen, there were similar variations Patterns in friendship choices received. The most highly chosen girl received 12 choices and the most underchosen girl received none. Four, five, six, or seven friendship choices were received by 62.66» of the girls; 14.67%»of them.received between eight and twelve choices; and 22.67» received less than four choices. it was signifi- 128 cant, however, that even among the highly chosen girls, the great maj- ority of the friendship choices were intra-clique ones. Their power outside their individual sub-groups was higher than the average, but it was not phenomenal. These girls representing 14.67,. of the popula- tion received 21.7,. of the choices which were not intra-clique. From this analysis, it was concluded that no great concentration of power existed in North Hall. The ratio of rejections to friendship choices in North Hall was approximately the one to two ratio found by Jennings and also by cnmcker at Stephens. There was an average of 5.23 friendship choices made as compared with an average 2.12 rejections made, with one third of the population failing to make any rejections. The range of the rejections received was from zero for 36 girls \48,. of the population) to twelve rejections for one girl. As at Stephens, few of the rejec- tions were reciprocated. out of a total of 169 rejections, only six pairs of mutual rejections were found. Although it was not definitely established that there was inter-clique rejection as such, the socio- gram and the detailed analysis revealed a tendency toward group rejec- tion of an individual or more than one individual in a different sub- group. Rejections received by a highly rejected individual might come from several sub-groups, but a disproportionate share of them would come from a single sub-group. Differences between cliques in the aver- age number of rejections made and received were very apparent in the sociogram. 0f the three corridors housing more than one sub-group, two of them furnished evidence supporting the theory that propinquity is a factor in rejection, too, although not as important as in friendship. ihe high number of rejections among girls working in the kitchen sug- 129 gested that working propinquity was indeed an important factor, but fur- ther analysis showed that two of the 18 individuals involved were re- sponsible for almost three fourths of the total kitchen rejections. It was not demonstrated at North Hall as it was at Stephens that projected girls are underchosen girls. All but two of the fifteen highly rejected girls \they had from 5 to 12 rejections; belonged to organized sub-groups whose members accepted them. The 13 highly re- jected sub-group members had the same average of friendship choices as the dormitory average. Including the two non-sub-group members, the friendship choices of the highly rejected averaged 5.1 as against the 5.3 dormitory average. One girl in the highly rejected group was also a member of the highly chosen for friendship group. However, eight of the 11 highly chosen for friendship girls received no rejec- tions at all, the two others receiving one and three rejections. On the other hand, the 17 underchosen girls received the same average number of rejections as the dormitory as a whole. The average chosen girls received a slightly higher average of rejections-~2.36 as come pared with the 2.12 dormitory average. Question 13 of the questionnaire which concerned attitudes toward smoking, drinking, pre-marital sexual relations, public "smooching", strict adherence to truth, the social status of women, and restrictions proved disappointing as a possible correlate to rejections and even to friendship choice. However, it was established fairly conclusively through an anonymous re-test which showed a.99.5 correlation with the original that the overwhelming majority of North Hall girls (assuredly an insignificant segment of the total feminine college population) held professed conventional attitudes toward these values which were in ac- cord with.the "socially approved" attitudes. 130 High prestige status was not shown to be reserved for the highly chosen for friendship. Nor were the highly rejected barred from.meme bership in the high prestige group. Although they received an aver- age of 6.7 friendship choices each, two of the ten members of the high prestige group were among the underchosen for friendship. Only four were highly chosen for friendship. Three of the high prestige status group were among the highly rejected; only four were not rejec- ted at all. These high prestige status girls had the highest average of rejections of the four prestige groups in the dormitory. The single prestige criterion as used by Newcomtlzwas found to have a positive relationship with three alternate prestige criteria as indicated by correlation co-efficients ranging from .54 to .65, but it registered a correlation co-efficient of.80 with the total socio- metric status index which was the sum of the choices for the prestige status criterion, the three alternate prestige status criteria, and friendship minus the rejections. Thus, it was concluded that it was a fairly reliable indicator of prestige status in the dormitory. Although high prestige was feund to be reserved for upperclassmen, the Freshman members of the next high prestige status group were found to make a much better showing in all the sociometric and reputational categories except that of choices for counselor than the upperclassmen of that group. The mean sociometric status index score was 21.4 for members of the total Higher-Than-Average Prestige group; the mean score of the Freshman members of the group was 33.2. Among the high prestige determinants, recognized leadership in the dormitory as manifested by positions calling for responsibility, ser- vice, and ability was most predominant. Other determinants included 131 high scholarship and relative maturity bolstered by service in world “war 11 and in government service. No definite relationship was found between prestige status and two of the important criteria of social class. Thus it appears that acquired prestige in the dormitory is a function of individual performance there. Runners-up in the HTA.pres- tige group were active on dormitory committees and in dormitory sports. Sociometry as It was well established in the North Hall study a Tool for Re- vealing Social as it has been in numerous other studies that Structure, In- teraction, and Sociometry is a tool which reveals with xprayb Personality Development like exactness the social structure of a group. Membership and nonpmembership in the various sub-groups as revealed in the sociometric process corresponded almost exactly with the house- mother's observations over a three year period. The sociometric data on rejections effectively pointed out the high tension areas in the dormitory. Not only did they reveal the areas, but they indicated with measured force the individuals and groups inwolved. Sociometric tools including raw data tables, sociograms, individ- ual sociograms and profiles were shown to provide efficient and visual measurement of personality development in many of its aspects. The original use of the sociometric questionnaire pointed out each indivb idual's ability to make friends, her liabilities in inspiring antagone ism, and her prestige status. Through comparison with the performance of others in the same personality aspects and with that of the dormitory average, personalities defficient in certain qualities are exposed and needed guidance therapy is indicated. Successive applications of the sociometric questionnaire-~although preferably'not the same, identical questionnaire-~might reasonably be expected to show progress in person- ality development throughout an individual's college career. (1) 0p. cit. 132 The implications of this study are few but pointed. Implications First is the great need for guidance in personality development if the leadership and service expectations are to be reap lized appreciably. Great universities provide distinguished faculties and expensive classroom.and laboratory facilities so that students need not flounder in an unguided wilderness in their search for knowh ledge. How unfortunate and how wasteful is the ineffective utiliza- tion of that knowledge! Is it not equally important that these univa ersities provide guidance in the techniques necessary for the greatest returns on the higher educational investment? The second implication is that the college dormitory or other housing units provide an already existing and most effective labora- tory for guidance in personality development and training for future community leadership and service. The third implication confirms the hypothesis upon which this study is based, namely, that sociometric tools for the identification of social structure within a community and for the measurement and diagnosis of individual personality devb elopment are reliable and objective ones. 133 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, G.W. and Kramer, B.M., "Some Roots of Prejudice", Journal of Psychology 22, 1946, pp. 9-39. Allport, G.W. and Vernon, P.E., "A Test for Personal Values", Jour- nal of Abnormal Psychology 26, 1931, pp. 231-248. Angell, Robert. C., The Campus, D. Appleton Co., 1929. Becker, myron G. and Loomis, Charles P., "Measuring Rural Urban and Farm.and Non-Farm.C1eavages in a Rural Consolidated School: to be published in forthcoming issue of Sociometry, 1948. Bogardus, E.S. and Otto, P., "Social PsycholOgy of Chums", Sociol- ogy and Social Research 14, 1936, pp. 260-270. Cook, Lloyd Allen, "Experimental Sociographic Study of a Stratified 10th Grade Class", American Sociological Review 10, April '45, pp. 250-2610 Cooley, Charles H., Social Organization, Charles Scribners Sons, Haw York, 1909. Chapter 3. Corey, Stephen M., "Changes in the Opinions of Female Students after One Year at a University", Journal of Social Psychology 11, 1940, ppe 341-3b10 Croxton and Gordon, Applied General Statistics, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York, 1941. Davis, Allison; Gardner, Burleigh; and Gardner, Mary, Deep South, University of Chicago Press, 1941. Frans, J. G., "Survey of Sociometric Technique", Sociometry 2, Oct. 1959' p. 76. Goodenough, Florence and Anderson, John, Experimental Child Std dy, The Century 0., New York and London, 1931. Jennings, Helen H., Leadership and Isolation, Longman's Green and Co., New York, 1943. , "Sociometry in Action", Survey 84, Feb. '48, Ppe 41-44e Kaufman, Harold F., ”Prestige Rank in a Rural Community", Sociametry 8, May '45, pp. 189-198. Kinsey, Alfred C., "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, W.B. Saun- ders Co., Philadelphia, 1948. Chap ter IO. 134 Loomis, Charles P., "Ethnic Cleavages in the Southwest as reflected in Two High Schools", Sociometry 6, Feb. '43, pp. 7-26. , "Political and Occupational Cleavages in a Han- overian'Village, Germany", Sociometry 9, Nov. '46, pp. 316-333. Lundberg, George A. and Steele, Mary, "Social Attraction.Patterns in a Village", Sociometry 1, 1938, pp. 375-419. Moreno, J.L., Who Shall Survive?, Nervous and Mental Disease Pub- lishing 00., Washington D. C., 1934. and Jennings, H.H., "Statistics of Configurations", Sociometry 1, Jan. '38, pp. 342-374. Newcomb, Theodore, Personality and Social Change, Dryden.Press, New York, 1943. , Hartley, Eugene, and Others, Readin s‘in Soc- ‘ial Psychology, Henry Holt and Co., New Ybrk, 1947 Nottingham, Elizabeth K., "Effects of Two world'Wars on Middle- Class Women", American Sociological Review 12, Dec. '47, pp. 666-675. Richardson, Helen, "Community of values as a Factor in Friendship of College and Adult WOmen" , Journal of Social Psychology 2,1940, pp. 303-312. Seaman, Melvin, "Moral Judgment: ‘A Study in.Racia1 Frames of Ref- erence", American Sociological Review 12, Aug. '47, pp. 404-411. Smucker, Orden C., A Socio a hicS of the Friendshi Patterns on a Colle e Campus, unpu s e doc uoral-"thesis, Ohio Egate Uni- versi y, 94b. 3 ‘} Abatracts of1D66toral Dissertations, No. 50, The Ohio State University Press, 1946. ,"Prestige Status Stratification on a College Camp pus , Journal of Applied Anthr0pology 6, Summer 1947, pp. 20-27. , "The Campus Clique as an Agency of Socialization" , Journal of Educational Sociology 21, Nov. '47, pp. 163— 169. , "Group Tension", Sociometry 10, Nov. '47, pp. 376- 383: 'larner, W.L. and Lunt, Paul S., The Social Life of a Mbdern Commun- 135 Young, Pauline V., Scientific Social curveyp and Research, Prent- ice-Hall, Inc., New Xork, 193 . Zeleny, Leslie Day, "Sociometry of Morale", American Sociological Review 4, 1939, pp. 794-808. , "Objective Selection of Group Leaders“, Sociol- ogy and SocialfiResearch 24, Nov.-Dec. '39, pp. 326-336. , "Measurement of Social Status“, American Jour- nal of Socialogy 45, Jan. '40, pp. 578-582. , "Selection of Compatible Flying Partners", Am- erican JOurnal of Sociology 52, March '47, pp. 424-431. ,6 :_5+5~:-5.-—- ppm -.~' . .6363,- rvug'? 17.: .1 T717351" APPENDIX 8 .6}. l" .‘. .’.-.14. \r .5 ”4.. 45 "L, 8. .'.5Jaau- :- .'. . .. aha-54%.».- IJ . ibis is a (1555.55.63: to 623266 .no the impor- t: .636 of 6‘66: r5361? cry 65266366136662.6565 5.1+. .'./3 36136661661163 (lav: +0"7'°~nt of 6016.033 V'LO; 6.661. P13 3.36 66616-366? 1565.611 qucr: tier-7. vi 1".6 We 35;; time q'acstiorn 5 wire in the envelope. seal. and return it only to tha- 6' 2:61:33 63.: 66626.3. 65:15.0 brou glut it to 3,7-cu. fig; 23.1.“... of it 5.3.2:}; 1069 166 '3’; 111 35'}; f3}: Six-12+ 6.636.655: 2.: inert 0". a research 3653;056:633 cps .613.01 .61 2;; L26: 66005.31 "6256>c6.(..11 6 5:61:26: 6);? this 603615;.gs. '67:: are great 6+3qu 536).? your cooperatim.merricam Smuc.;:6,5r. 32603516 cu; 33.11; 3.15:5: 1. 1365666) Roms (3'131‘311‘6'616133 (56:79:66 you spam: the longest 533.620 1?"? the; 5 years prior to 0631165336: anti-trace) 56,33,633 .- - CH,- '51: the type of Ire-6616363666265 and. size of your hams ccmzmni t}; as (163631.663 66.3765: 13mg Con-“6'21 “r 63956263 . (1)6 6:615:61 farm (1)1363 than 10‘3".er (+)..J 000- S50 0 30...... (2)nxral :- Oilwfgt-l‘lfi 5( 2);..1CO 2500 __ -.. (5)5:,3 000 .. 26:04:03 (3)66rban 53;. 23:0 -~ 10.63.70 (6)::73.oso -+ 1 ++Jo,-.a ......... ........... ('?’)c'6'6r 1, 5.3670 COD 2. 363655.606? room 6651536561: ' Roommates "aur acrmity. if any. Hun... O - Check your class: (l)Freshmanm__;(2)Soph. 3(3).mnior___ ;(1&)Scnior___;(5)Grad.__ Religious affiliation “Attend regularly” gSometime-s___ cht at {-7.1}. KM o. In which category would you 966:; your present scholastic average falls? Chcck cno. .5 .. .99“; 1 - 1.149“; 1.5 =- 1.§~9_3_; 2 - 2.169“; 2.5 - 3____. 6. $7110 are your best girl friam’v: in the dog's-1'30””? List cue. two. times or mars :66 you. 1:6 662., If you don"t fool 23.35614? c .083 to any none-3.121 the (105-11min 310313;... (1) (3)617) ..... (2,) ( :(o) 4‘ .i'uav'sd \31 o 7. It- is an obvious fact that we do not 13.-.563 @‘J'Cfifgflfie sqaally well. List 1:13:55.) {:13 3666:6366 of 61636632155062; girls .73 066 you 6,6561% Iii-:65 (60 6:63.11. V7231€1193~L17553 to :"5'1 -r:'5';i-.:5'.'. 6.3.5:. or £361 that your pr ~"365'5'5li 69 01.25.6333. List one. 25765. or E11151?" as 765'. 6 '6:"i:1._ ii than: is no "curinawc dwtastoxfll to you, Y-II‘ 33 no name. (3.) {3.15.___ (33) (2) _____.,........ <5“. ...-...- 5'5) .I S. If tns {In-itei Nation :63... 3': .3;; host 11:33:73 surnar to r» +3rcsa'15ati'+‘.s from +6.5, ’66: _ l {is in 6:65.65 world 55:5. 6.6 ef’:‘=;rt t6 promote UCE‘mdf'lf'I} . friend. hip 6.15.41 6: 5. "+6. ."-- 351' 3 1350 world" 3 3.6662636 rs of ’66:: future, 6613c 1603...}. ‘6‘ 6335; repress: .t 6.313 7 of 333.6 :higan 81,3. 32. Calla: 65? W16. 5.5:. 66555“ 1105;;th £653.55. your (166153129537 “.01-,1 61 you 3.3,)... inats to the pan-31 frc: 161616315. the 16.8. 0 women 6.5'166’1365‘5 ropmsuntat; 6:653 am 63705555 Ran-amber that the cc .1656 will be 516635661 by ths aytpmsmncs. 3.365536013661155 . Hind. #16167 ability of these woman. (1) 6'3) (2),- _ (15) " 'Oru-u-ua - 9“. "3’ “J! 10““ L‘“- ‘.' 9.. 6712:»: girls in your 6153253656 cry would 3" 6: rate as bsing most popular with othmr girl: (1)__ (2) What make-.53 thoss girls popular? 10,, What girls in your dormitory 661551161 3(60556 rate as being 6:56:25; popular with men? (1 3 (2) (I6) "' _. (J45! o‘t‘u O 3 ) _. m P“ \_;5+l “ '} ‘I “. .'a‘ .6; e " ‘.‘ :65.“ O ”"3 I- ‘.‘-i- 0!” ..v ular- “ ‘.'.F) m'- .- u-n‘ I '3 1 I" n. \ ‘4'...” ' 5.‘ ‘I I “.' .' , h-- f. ..1‘ :6 o. a .‘. 'v .'.. ~ ’ ‘ . " ‘ £6.63. -66-): 8U::C'J-»‘5--‘=;E§, 53.6:- .+..+. 60 Gone 3., 6.66615 175119.660 "::6iasoo:6:7.z2+'-:" :“ :+ "I ‘¢‘ . 1'- . . ' '- . '3 ‘. 5 ~11 I! ‘ 'I D— - ‘1 r V ‘.‘. i.“ " ’.' u " - v 4.3113143 3) }( 513.363 6%. - (5.3...3 ‘.1-+Li.=.+':j 8.210 I".....'.-" .. 95.5; (1‘1 '61:? 066.'.10;fi5. '- {I a v r' L‘ r 'l-I"..' .' ‘ . 9'» ..M n- I - I 3. 61"... if: “:11 13.5.13 66 ... .333 258 a. .66-12.66.66): o; pes'mr 66.1 fouling 6:323. {if 91 \ _., . 61' ' +3 1’66?) 33'in '66 5. 6'6 .‘.. u 1“,»). 56 I7 % 3_ ‘ (q of qr, on) .9, (0 '... _ , A. . ' .- o. «T5533 ‘55 float-3 .'.. mo } .-. :36.- T .5. ..5 6.6+ 2732.62. £5.13 656.256.5312. 66“- ‘1 .5- ._ .+'w -_ c u .. ! :3 v _ - 63:16-21 +. 5.157 La 5..+.+'6.36 .."5++.6'16'; 60:61.21: (31:65.7..16) 631:) 1156") :5. men £1315} “.123 .6} .9: .'.-.. ..1 '6 - z.. .5 5 . 7 M 6.63.4.6... .. an... 9.»: -- 5.6. 5:16. (31‘ .+5. :5 6062-166 6'65 .'2 0635-'C]9::r:-:+5.'315+'7'+ 53256652526 "162.5 'I . . I. ‘\‘.§' .' ’.’h'ld + 'rrrr'n' 1e: ' " - :5 + + 2-1 .+ 7'. .4 ' -L 6 .+.+ . A. 65266 56;...56; 66') '56'06'5. (09.616.665.66 6+5. .6 6.65-6.53 if he? i5 {Winged 63.753573: ’1 F o.’>._ : . 34. , ."‘ .. 5,: . - 3L , .. .. -. :60. 33.15 666656.61 +. 215;. 6.630 53.52 G»:..1di‘6fn £613. 61265 care of 54166: 36.57.6636. I 1 o _-" ,6. ”‘3" 1 ‘.‘: " “- " ' .‘ ‘U y, .3 . _. “ )2 gm. 5...... I 636)....6566‘7 6.56:5. 6.5-6) “1'63 126376? 'Etoo Koch 1:6263'.+6"-‘6c':-35' 75. 6:5 . I . ' ‘..! 5' .'., _ g I,“\' . a 1 .. _.,. a r +' 1655+!" 3'? ‘3.- 3:5 (5+1! (=65 “BI-IL? 31 1'2": “(+325 06.: 521 6:55;:r a: 25.6”}, 25:36; '5' 675'. > - o - . .- I ..~,-.- ,'" .. l . .. r I V. ‘.‘ 5.6.6333 36.56.6563 06 1:15.646 6 ' 1')'+:i..'5.“t".2.=.'6'. .. 9' .- . '. as '.11" 1* . .i '. ,. w .'L. . “ ,ml ‘ . .12 .3616,- :..\ , I h;:.}..'.§ +6": 2...... 536. .-;:‘;t.5 old }.,5.'.-'-.‘, 117133;, 1'33; }I‘ir_";i’.ig:1g {53.57. 6+5. p.53 1. ‘ c ‘J .53 I. ‘ '. »A.6 .-' '.'. .- ‘u l 3- - '.‘ .u' v-qv c . pr f» ‘C {ZL-l Pam-3.3? 4 ml: 61:..56:.C,.+'6.++.5‘.+‘.5 66') ten-Liz). ‘.’-1." '9' H"!- '.':i‘ u 5.2"“.- .‘.LV: '10113,‘.Q7L"€ '1‘QC“ 6'. {LL 5(- 945C 33.16 "'26 ' - .‘.?2‘3. '.‘).LC! 5.1111793 if '1 "10"“: 56141; 3” :5 all " ..5. v. ’L h' ‘ r‘ .- ' . '6 .V --,6 1135.626». 6516+. 6606161662 5.5.5 1:55. ’.‘ 24 J (.5:- no tat‘ c3- Ho -g i p Q 3 ' .'.... .1-:..-' :7 .,'I 2~ -.-+ .'.” .5- 5 . -. , ...+.;; ....z..+.+,,.5.3.6..6...-5.6o 56:62.56 85.536361: 0." Pt '7 5 .13 - 35-152.? 55-13353 d166:*"6.3.+n66 of 6'63 63:62:13.5... +-"+~-+'~‘ ”+5.. 6+ +5- ”5 . . . . .-...6..+..1...++1 -- 3+.) 50 55'3"”! xé‘J-m: +55 C5615: 11".?(161’ 65:1? 6);" 3.3.1 (“6" ‘6‘7.- .. a- . f. - ‘6 . .9 ' 3:61;“; (IL-C1... vhf“) 311.1 ‘35.:6...) thing '3' '8 V' J. ‘l o I i ' f 3 I. A " at. ‘ ‘1‘: -ll ':' \ " " I! I ‘ ‘3 1“ , ..- I, .a- . ‘L ’+. » ~ , ‘ . V": 6 . I . '.. 5 . n 5‘, ~ 5 (1 ., - ‘.‘ ‘ 3:. .+ .’.- ‘.‘“ ‘.' .‘.- f , 1...... "‘ . '- .'La 6. hi5 a. ; ‘d h". "‘ ) ~ 3 ARI. ‘ L; (E :1 ""r 1" .‘. ii‘lw ‘ L'r- .' ' . 5 0' I... i" ‘.‘ \‘(5i 5' lj'l't' -~’”: . ’5’ v \r‘ ‘ L, .. " |~ ..a‘ ' ~ 5 1 w 9‘ .5 '.- ‘ _n. “ ,. :. ..66 $161,} (5.: :'.+.- '.5 ' f "+ .5». \~—."«_‘-\, J . ’ Arm-arc» I ‘ ‘ . ' pvt.- _. s . - F D‘- It 1': "t... n 5 . . r‘ '1 ' l I I ~ ""1‘Q '6 "I '.‘ "' h’ '.‘ " ‘ " ‘ "' \ ‘ ‘ '.' 7 ' 32.5.6.3 7363613 {#1913 13.3. 7( 6.]...| ‘.' :. Haifa 1.37“!) '3‘ ‘.'»; (In. 6'3,C‘-C6,+66.+'.6..6...+ , hf) , 6.13.33 .1363211) .-‘..'.~ '66-'5'5'2: , f5: ' s! ' ‘ ' . {'1 ’ « .‘ .o . , . I” n ' - , -.- 3- n ' . ‘ .. ‘ In .3 . . 3.20 3431: 23.11.6931 5'3}- (113331331163!) t)‘~l~4£ C413 ‘f-t)’. ‘.r‘ ~3A3JCEIJ (:5 ll‘I’”+ ‘.‘).L “Hr: '3 '5‘}. 1"" 5 $‘5.31q'. .3 1, "52‘ f) :5!“ ~ ‘ I 0 -"~ q ‘ ‘IL-n '.. h -. 1 .v 5 f” 5‘ - a. 3+ r I. . - v.0”! a o 'I .' .66.-1636': 01 1362.25.26. at o. 1:62.67 6:265 Q1335. 56.-3'6 :2. -922' .6637: .6 .6603. 6+.6+.~'+'..§.€+:365,5.5 .3051" 6 V,- . fa to, . I a“ ‘ n‘:4‘ 6. 0' u. ~1 '.' “I ‘ r ' ' 11.55.. 55567. M513: 65315636 01" 21525.0 6 '3 5012+. 6766321. 6...,66.6“.'g;~:+++'f.161'.53 51.1) 2‘ 355.3 ' 3.66615: 25.-"5 I ) 77‘ 51 , . (-53 . . ‘.. __ __ "a... "'-...g-c‘ - 91..., now . bu-me" mm*tn‘¢w- ‘1'”! MW! m‘mlvvu- '9 {2) I." .'1 -‘_-‘-‘ A —_ —-—— ”nmw- ”firm-y'aas-“m " . " "!‘hml v.- _WAM-IM MCI-n -mi’w v \5-‘4 ‘ ‘5‘ -e‘ ." Q‘n.’ .~ 5 . .~- . ‘ '.. "- 0 I‘n ) p of "-0 l h . 3:1 "r' fOOczoa 512717 “-1.01147'3 (‘5 g Driu‘ ‘-L.}‘.L{_;1 i’?‘ . (3.?ng .-- (:1; ‘1' .‘.; ‘.‘v ‘.5?! .111 y :'-n {313331. (’.‘,1‘ ' h E f... ‘ .I‘ . \ ‘- '.'. p l q a- .‘1- .:. .. .‘. 4. Q q ."l — .‘. o“- I“. .; v« 5 .I . 6.03» 6.9232215? ..365335603656663 35:65.66- .66.-6.6646. on 6.62.65. ‘6: 1.562.164: rl..r-+C5.1-=3636'3+1; --( 0 q ‘ O .- 9 O '- f‘ ' on». ' g + _ fie {31.26. 656-. 36.656661. 2663.02: ‘1.,.(..\ 0: 77.6156 6.;.:=nf+.+6g£ fid-"Cfl? 65"; 23.13153. 6, ,. I . ‘6 u . f , ., 3: ’9 ~ .-+." - [’.. ,1 . , ..- 61.6.63 5.1.71 T1152} 06(6) 61 ‘ 6766’} D 1.8 65.. 12.? 6’55... 5’. ”(37205. 11.63%": 53) 6."1'.C1;I}36‘:1 213333.. 6'; . . ’_ - I“ - , I n o .- '.‘.o .. I- u \ ........-. 5350366227 .66.: 6602: 0. m6 " '3. 1mm, 1666:» 6.6.6.3 '.5 ' of '+:~.+'+:65::.+6+;. 5:6; +6.5 2' ‘ . ' Iii- a“ 40". on I 7 ' n- \ "566.63 6956:6952; thi’fi-ni .363 +36 1 C —.5+g'_5 6:25.... . h ‘\ ”f ‘u .. ' o -0 D - Isa a P 631.6.6:I'-..’+.:5..‘§ .+.n 0.5.. can“ '.5: 1361-:2‘63 5:3 "v 12‘? 55 +.' 65- T€;"3(“au’. 166212.55.'-.T.i<5.6 . _ p " ,v , ,I '. : , .. .-. 4 ..1. _- . L: . . 5* v ‘ ch"?Q) n'} ‘.‘L‘vg It '(3 (‘5‘ n.) {‘0 L.‘- .‘.- '1‘ ‘45/4.4.30)“ (:x': I‘Vil.‘ 3-(: ‘.’-J "c d-” F'r;;-,()e :2‘3. 2;; 2' '.".:,.o' 3 I 5s : ’.4 .‘ 5 . . ‘.. .- \‘i ‘M’ -. I." . t + a "’1 - '1‘ I‘l‘ 3‘ D 9 on N’ - " «"- i... “7663 3:16;; W. {111. .6. J: .233 6613.61 C51 16:66:00.6. --.?‘6;'-..: 6.3.51. C: .3 ml; 91.3 9. 64.1.?) .....\. .. .. , ! .'.: ". . .... ...’+ . 31.1331, +.+:I...:-+ ‘ C ’.+ (.6 ”7+; lit-.'. L56"- ;3. 11...,5LJ55. 32" ,_'.‘-.'+ {7636-}. {‘.‘p 2., .-3 " "5531"“ .3 I..' 3. u, f +,5+‘+ .. i" '... ,‘ ,.... .. -.-. .'.. ,o v e -- ~ - “a.-.” .5. .6 - 36.3.3. p u 6.... 0.3. ton-.33. O .5..+.'5.‘ i.+r-.‘,3.e 6;“... (.'.);L 5.. +76: 1,) .6155.“ 3A ”KC-1131‘ "L -'_', -,’-” ‘ (A t 6 1' l a. 51 0 v 4:- ..‘ . ’ r: A, r 5'1’5 ‘5“ +3.63 61.30 65.. 6.615.271 12:2. '-‘ 1‘5'330'2‘5 3.63 33.563625 6626'}. 23:662.? ..3‘ ’ '1. ‘ . - Q '.'- no man. s . 1'" 5 - .. w 5+" a) .- ‘. “'5' ' " 5' '5 ' '- " . .. ‘ ....... 35? 6.1.6266 ..-..,1.+..o (5 o. 15.+2+:;+-.-..6...6°.+.to... 66-3; 56...:5-:+.'.6-szz.-.:5+ 66656.3 611.1...3‘, 2633:. I (,6: A ~ 5 . . . .1: ... L 25,- .. -,.... 1 . , ammon 6. (30:51 61.3.66 65.66 55-21333 2:... 5.35163 1.52. 6.+...~.=_+:.1 92:62:65.6). '..? o 1 +5: ~ , .‘ ‘y y , .. .h '.- [b '.. n “ '.‘ * p,” .- ‘. . , "I f ' —-+...-.+ .6. 6116703u+6 {affingiiwlml 63116.6. 11,1.1Jré 23"20 55):;3,‘,‘;3';!.;7 1!” 1'52‘6 E;'*3I1315?3. [651.1 6333:??f71 ‘3 .‘. v '7 ‘ .- ‘ 1, + L" - u .- ‘1 t - N «“1“ a A. .0»- " v Jun-.11.)! I. can't 63:63.6) 6+0 6 .3) 57.0. 6561.43.69.) 6.1.6 :5. 63:56.16. N r ‘6‘. j-" |) Ingn run-1;- 3+ "," ;.+_. v; v .+ . ‘7 " ’ .’ _ .......... ’5 C5") 555‘ '95 "I 5555*. -,-. 3:- 91-63; .'6~'e“}'319 ...+.o+...o 67:5. r0558; 16:66 63. 5.31 "63.69.15. 1""! 7", PERSONAL DATA BLANK APPENDIX B Michigan State Coeds Home Student No. Year in school: Fr. 50. Jr. Sr. Home Address Tel. No. Age Year graduated from high school fiv Faculty counselor (if no preference) Major field #__ Enrollment officer (if preference) Minor field_, ._#_ :other A Student Counselor 4i Father's name A; Country of birth L Age Fath ' occu tion in‘ Education: §£§22_§£§221 fll£h_§£h22l 92ll§£2 er 5 pa V” 8 or below 9-10-11-12 l~2~3~4 Vether's name Country of birth A . Age_u_u_ flacher's occupation Education: Q!§Q§.§£h§9l High Lchool QQllCZ? 5 8 or below 9-10-11-12 l-2u3~4 Sunber of brothers Ages Number of sisters Ages -'“Iorah ____PLANs when do you expect to get out of college? College experience elsewhere and for how long? L_Why did you transic:?___ Are you planning to take a four year program toward a degree? Two year terminal? One year? "Special student"? Do you wish to work toward an advanced degree? 1.12m _____PLANS lave you already made a vocational choice? La your family in sympathy with your ambitions? whom do you feel helped you most in making your present and future plans? (check) Family A Teacher Friends Counselor High school principal Others (list) he Do you feel you need help in choosing a vocation?___In planning your school program?___ STUD? HABITS Do you usually need to study hard? Does your work usually come easily to you? Do you worry about not being able to complete assignments? Do you find it hard to settle down to studying? ' )0 you like to work alone? or with others? Can you study with the radio on? Can you arrange your time to study adequately and still have time for fun? o_i Do you want help in planning a time schedule? )0 you encourage others when they need help? cn-vd-n - .‘. n ‘.' '-b o 0 n n .‘ ‘.‘—n b -. , ~ I . . » ‘.‘ p. .‘.-l ”0'- . . .. 1.... ... «dun ‘... -'. yu- - . . a . . r -v ‘ ‘..-I. '-‘ .0‘ .. . - .v 0.. e...“ . v . . . . - o . O 0 Q . . .— ‘ ...- .. -- . e u- - .. .- .. .o .,- . 53..-. . .. .... . . . I - ‘ . a .-. . - t , . . . I . -'.. _ . oe—- an ~ -~ I I, ll . .. u . . l . l ~1- I‘m a v. .- .. .. , \ f . .,. ‘ . M. S. C. Student Activity Record Fr So Jr Sr Grad i947-48 Veteran C] Non-Veteran C] Circle One :1 Female [3 Religious Prat. ne Student 'C] Part Time E] Married: Yes C] No C] Student No. 2 place a checl: (V) betore the following organizations of which you are a member, also activities in which you have or will be participating in ar. It an otticer place an X before name of organization.) TO BE FILLED OUT BEFORE GOING TO AUDITORIUM lLS: rure . Ed. Club . Eng. Club . Council ha Zeta . Soc. of Agron. 9 Alpha Sigma :k and Bridle ry Club '. Seminar Club :1 Tech Club estry Club Club rt, Club Farm Bureau ppa Alpha Sigma idscape Club SC. Entomology Alpha x; ultry Sc. Club ama Gamma Epsilon Agriculture (Cont'd) ___Wi|dlife Cons. Club ___Xi Sigma Pi Bus. 8 Public Service _' utel Assoc. ___l=;lice Sc. Assoc. ___Public Adm. Club _Scabbard 8- Blade ._Siqma Delta Chi ___Siqma Epsilon __Sigma Gamma 'Upsilon .___Signal Corps ROTC ._Spartan Guard __Theta Sigma Phi Home Economics ____.Home Ec. Club .___Home EC. Club Bd. .___Home Mgt. House __Omicron Nu Engineering “Alpha Chi Sigma __._Am. ln. Chem. Eng. ___Am. In. Elec. Eng. .__Am. Soc. Civil Eng. _Am, Soc. Mech. Eng. __Enq. Assoc. __.Met. Eng. Society __ Tau Beta Pi Vet. Medicine ___Alpha Psi ____.Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. _Gamma Phi ___Vet. Council Science ‘ Arts ___Alpha Delta Pheta ___A|pha Epsilon Rho __Delta Phi Delta Science l Arts (Cont'd) - ..Dionvsians _. -Junto -_ -Kappa Alpha Mu __HKaor>a Della Pi __Le Tricolore _ ___Phi Alpha Theta ___Pi Kappa Delta .__.Pi Mu Epsilon ___Pre