Group Title: relationships between role conflict, satisfaction and the dropout potential of college students
Title: The Relationships between role conflict, satisfaction and the dropout potential of college students
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00097739/00001
 Material Information
Title: The Relationships between role conflict, satisfaction and the dropout potential of college students
Physical Description: x, 86 leaves : illus. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Ritt, Lawrence G., 1938-
Publication Date: 1970
Copyright Date: 1970
 Subjects
Subject: Student adjustment   ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis - University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaf 85.
Additional Physical Form: Also available on World Wide Web
General Note: Manuscript copy.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00097739
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000566061
oclc - 13621605
notis - ACZ2488

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 3 MBs ) ( PDF )


Full Text

























































THE UNIVERSE F FLORIDA
'ULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREME



















ed

nts r who gave

t ir y p the

d e

valuable c ter program and to

r assis lecti ent subjects from the



to press W debtedness to all of the members of

committee for th distance guidance and support:

drey Schumacher .D. -- Chairman

njamin Barger, P .

ichard Anderson, POD.

Dr. Hugh Davis, Ph.D.

Dr. Bruce Thomason, Ph.D.

especially to thank my chairman, Audrey Schumacher, for her

inued encouragement and Ben Barger, without whose substantial

tanc: this study might never have been completed.

Lastly, I want to thank my wife, Judy, for all of the tangible

intangible ways in which she helped me in my struggle to complete

this st Her patience and selflessness never diminished during the

course oT this endeavor.















TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................... ii

LIST OF TABLES ........................................ v

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................... vi

ABSTRACT .............................................. vii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .............................. 1
The Relationships Between Satisfaction and Dropout
Potential ..................................... 8
The Relationships Between the Discrepancy Variables 9
The Relationships Between the Discrepancy Variables
and the Satisfaction and Dropout Potential
Variables ..................................... .12
The Relationships Betwdlen Total Discrepatcy and the
Satisfaction and Dropout Potential Variables ..... 15

CHAPTER II: METHOD ................................... 16
Test Construction Procedures ..................... 16
Subjects ......................................... 22
Administration of the Scales .................... 24
Operational Definitions of the Discrepancy Measures
and Scoring Procedures ........................... 26

CHAPTER III: RESULTS ................................. 30

CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION ............................... 44
Intergroup Conflict Areas Identified on the
Expectations for the Role of Student Scale (ERSS) 44
The Relationships Between Satisfaction and Dropout
Potential ..................................... 46
The Relationships Between Objective Conflict,
Subjective Conflict and Distortion ............ 48
The Relationships Between Discrepancy, Satisfaction
and D opout Potential ......................... 49

CHAPTER V: SSMAARY .................................... 55,






41














LIST OF TABLES



Table Page

1 MEAN RESPONSESTO EACH OF THE ERSS ITEMS BY THE STUDENT,
FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION GROUPS ..................... 31

2 VALUES OF F IN COMPARING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
RESPONSES OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION
GROUPS TO THE 30 ITEMS ON THE ERSS .................... 32

3 ERSS ITEMS WITH SIGNIFICANT F VALUES BETWEEN GROUPS ... 34

4 PARTIAL CORRELATIONS: Level II Conflict and Level I
Satisfaction/Dropout Potential ........................ 36

5 PARTIAL CORRELATIONS: Level II Conflict and Level II
Satisfaction/Dropout Potential ........................ 37

6 PARTIAL CORRELATIONS: Level III Conflict and Level II
Satisfaction/Dropout Potential ........................ 40

7 PARTIAL CORRELATIONS: Level III Conflict and Level I
Satisfaction/Dropout Potential ........................ 41



















Page
HIPS -EN EL ACTION
TENTIAL ......... ..... 7

IPS BETWEEN ROLE DISCREPANCY ELEMENTS ... 10

SHIPS BETWEEN SCALE V ITEMS, SCALESAND
.... .... ...... ...... .......... ......... 17

SH I BETWEEN DISCREPANCY MEASURES AND
F THE ERSS ................................ 27





























vi a






II0yra^ertation Presented to the Graduate Council of
the y of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Reqr'ements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ROLE CONFLICT,
SATISFACTION AND THE DROPOUT POTENTIAL OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

By

Lawrence Gerald Ritt

June, 1970

Chairman: Audrey S. Schumacher, Ph.D.
Major Department: Psychology

This study was concerned with investigating the relationships

between: a) three measures of role conflict (objective conflict, subjU

tive conflict and distortion); b) student role satisfaction; and c) t

student's anticipated probability of dropping out of the university.

Objective conflict was operationally defined as the difference

between a student's own expectations for-the role of student and the

actual expectations for student behavior held by members of three refer-

ence groups (other students, faculty members and administrators).

Subjective conflict was defined as the difference between a

student's own expectations and the expectations he attributed to members

of the reference groups.

Distortion was defined as the difference between the expectations

that the student attributed to the reference groups and the expectations

actually held by the reference groups.

Three test instruments were constructed in pilot research: 1) the

Student Satisfaction Scale (SSS); 2) the Dropout Potential Scale (DPS);

and 3) the Expectations for the Role of Student Scale (ERSS). Significant
















































F as
nona

be dissat

relations

active conflict and

changeable measure

portion (i.e ac

signific Mr

obieimme conf li


e mic

anticipated

reasons.

faction

f the university report a

academic reasons.

emic and

rsity.

ne asp t (academic

Ialso likely to


stations)

conflict






C. hips between the discrepancy measures and

measures of satisfaction and dropout potential:

1. Total discrepancy (i.e., the sum of subje

objective conflict and distortion) appears to b

gross a measure to predict either satisfaction

dropout potential.

2. Subjective conflict is highly correlated with tota

satisfaction; however, it does not appear to predict

dropout potential.

3. Objective conflict does not correlate significantly with

either total satisfaction or total dropout potential.

4. Distortion appears to be the best predictor of tha

total anticipated probability of dropping out of the

university. It also correlates highly with the poten-

tial for dropping out for nonacademic reasons.

Two unexpected findings emerged in this study:

1. Objective conflict was positively correlated with the

probability of dropping out of the university for academic

reasons. It was suggested that this finding might reflect

the effects of a general college competence variable which

was not included in this study, a variable which correlates

significantly with both objective conflict and academic

dropout potential.

2. Inaccuracy in attributing expectations to others (i.e.,

distortion) was significantly positively correlated with

total satisfaction, suggesting the possibility that "being





















'7 ~














1 INTRODUCE


A significant amount of research has n

the relationships between student perceptions of t

ments and their sati swon with elements of th

(1963) College and UnWOity Environment Scale (C

College Characteristics Index (CCI), rd Pervin Ru s (197

actional Analysis of Personality and Environment (TAPE) all emp

student perceptions. 0

Most research to date has focused upon the subjective

attitudes and perceptions of a single element of the c

students. None of the studies have focused upon the rela

student attitudes and perceptions and the attitudes and

other.members of the college community (e.g., faculty and

Pervin (1968) noted the need for research that "..

analysis of where members of each group (students, ulty and a

tion) perceive discrepancies and, perhaps more importantly, where

members of the three groups agreed and disagreed in their percep

Role conflict has been defined in multiple, often contradict

fashions in the literature. Most definitions make reference to the

incompatible expectations to which a person occupying a given social

position is exposed. Distinctions are commonly made between conflict




a-I



























Grant

Gross,

Sict



(1965)

.ten-


between

d that


officiI

ling the

onfl I

nce beti

as been


rig-

Dresent.

received

lie,

uch










Or SUCn loualb witrial

Kraut report coen object

tive confli nor distortion; however,

significantly positi at ship between objective ubje

flict when low distor n was present.

This study icerned with three aspects of role screpanc

1. the subj ive role conflicts of college students

measured y the discrepancy between their student ro

expectations and their perceptions of the studentTole

expectations held by faculty members, university admini-

strators and other students,

2. the object ve role conflicts of college students as

measured by the discrepancy between the student's actual

student role expectations and the actual student role

expectations held by faculty members, university admini-

strators and other students, and

3. distortion as measured by the discrepancy between the

student's perception of the expectations held by faculty

members, other students and university administrators and

the actual student role expectations held by these groups.

Role satisfaction refers to a subjective evaluation of the

meaningfulness of a role. Kraut (1965) studied the relationship between

aspects of salesmen's role conflicts (subjective, objective, and distor

tion) and their role satisfactions. He reported that role conflict was

negatively related to satisfaction with "job, organization and particu-

larly with the manager." He found that the effects of role conflict were
















ck

IS-



ege. The s ffer-

Assessment o rsonality and

istr t to determine how

the octeristics of students

college itself and the charac-

Sthat the discrepancies

'st 0I," self and college

ctive conflicts) were signi-

ot is ;ith college and his reported

g out hey further reported that the

n student and ege environment characteristics,

potential for dropping out were greater for nonacademic

ic satisfaction, and more for dropping out for nonacademic

than for academic reasons.

satisfaction and potential for dropping out may also

the actual and perceived role discrepancies that students

e. Discrepancies in student role expectations between a student

students, a student and faculty members or a student and admin-

could constitute a significant area of personal conflict for

t; the student would not agree with other signi cant persons

ge environment about how he should behave. a










F Perv 0) f adyd demonstr
"lack of fit" pe ty characteristic

environmental is related to.overal

probability of dro b current study at

a "lack of fit" re expectations for the student e is si

related to satisfac n and dropout potential.

This study is concerned primarily with student role expectat

in the area of student nonacademic responsibility and freedom. This

area of expectations appears to be one in which discrepancies occur --

or are perceived as occurring -- between students, faculty and admin-

istrators.

Subjective (perceived) conflict, objective (actual) conflict and

distortion (inaccuracies in attributing conflict) were independently

related to dissatisfaction and to dropout probability. Previous research

on dissatisfaction and college dropouts has focused predominantly on

subjective conflict, rarely on objective conflict or on the distortion

phenomenon. The significance of distortion has been amply demonstrated

in other areas of research (Kraut, 1965; Wheeler, 1961; and, Biddle et

al., 1966). Biddle and Kraut both reported that subjective and objective

conflict were not interchangeable measures of discrepancy and both used

"distortion" concepts to account for the differences.

If similar findings were obtained in the current study, it would

suggest that at least three "lack of fit" phenomena may account for

student dissatisfaction and dropping out:

1. Real differences between students and other members of the

college community regarding expectations, characteristics

or attitudes (Objective Conflict),




































these








Ins

opp inn



+ genera
















FIGURE9



THE RELATIOTjL J EEN ELEMENTS
SAT ISFACTION AIt-D ROUT POTENTIAL


LEVEL I


LEVEL II


Academic Satisfaction

Nonacademic Satisfaction TOTAL SATISFACTION

General Satisfaction 4



Dropout Potential (Academic)

Dropout Potential (Nonacademic) TOTAL DROPOUT POTENTIAL

Dropout Potential (General)














s Betwe crepancy Va



Role discrepancies may be studied at three levels

This study is concerned with two of these levels of analyst

2 illustrates these analysis levels.

Level I represents the lowest level of analysis. s le

each type of conflict (subjective, objective and distortion) is focus

on a specific reference group (student, faculty or administration).

Analysis at Level I was not a primary concern in the current invest

gation. Very little is known about the relationships between gross

measures of discrepancy; at the current state of knowledge, it would be
i4
highly speculative to generate hypotheses regarding the relationships

between measures as specific as those found at Level 1.

Level I! represents grouping by type of conflict. Each of the

three elements at Level II represents the combined locus (student,

faculty and administration) of a particular type of discrepancy (subjec-

tive conflict, objective conflict or distortion). -These elements may

be studied as they relate to each other and as they relate to the

elements of satisfaction and dropout potential.

Neither Wheeler (1961) nor Kraut (1965) found any significant

relationship between their measures of subjective conflict and their

measures of objective conflict. These researchers indicated that these

two measures tend to operate somewhat independently of one another;

there does not appear to be a meaningful relationship between the actual

discrepancies to which a person occupying a given role is exposed and













































ANCY














Several investigators (Kraut, 195, and idle et al., 1966)

employ concepts similarhavi theo distortion as a third measure of role

conflict. The distortion concept represents the discrepancy between







attributed (subjective) expectations and actual (objective) expectH

therefore, it tends to bridge the conceptual gap between objective n-
flict and subjective conflict. Since distortion is defined using one
component from eac of the other two conflict measures, it mightalso be press

in definingxpected to significantly correlate currenwith both of these measure to test this
hypothesis.

Several investigators (Kraut, 1965, and Biddle et al., 1966)

employ concepts similar to distortion as a third measure of role c

flict. The distortion concept represents the discrepancy between

attributed (subjective) expectations and actual (objective) expect






therefore it tends o significant relative the conceptual gap between total objective n-

lict and total subjective conflict. nce distortion is defined using one
component from each of the other two conflict measures, it might be

expected to significantly correlate with both of these measures.



Hypothesis IV

There is no significant relationship between total objective

and total subjective conflict.



Hypothesis V

Total distortion is significantly positively correlated with

both total subjective conflict and total objective conflict.













































th











flict is




w


Pervin and Rubin (1970) report that "lack of fit" (i.e., conflict)

is more likely to be related to nonacademic satisfaction than to academic

satisfaction. The ERSS items are focused primarily on nonacademic role

expectations.



Hypothesis VIII

Total subjective conflict is negatively correlated with nonacademic

satisfaction and is not significantly related to academic

satisfaction.

A number of investigators (Wheeler, 1961; Kraut, 1965; and

Biddle et al., 1966) concerned themselves with measuring phenomena

similar to distortion. Biddle noted that inaccuracies in attributing

expectations could generate serious problems for the various role mem-

bers within any given social system since they would be behaving

towards one another on the basis of misinformation about what others

expect of them; such behavior might be expected to have negative effects

on all members of the social system. The current study is concerned

with the possible negative effects of distortion upon students; speci-

fically, the relationship between students' distortion regarding the

definition of the role of student and the anticipated probability of

students' dropping out of the university. It is expected that as

distortion increases, the anticipated probability of dropping out

increases. Earlier researchers (Pervin and Rubin, 1970) reported that

"lack of fit" between student and college characteristics particularly

influenced student nonacademic dropout potential; similar findings are

expected in the current study.


















4-
















Leve

conflict, objective

(students, faculty str

to be an accurate pr oth n

however, it was not e ed to predi



Hypothesis XI

Total discrepancy Ficantly negatively corr

total satisfaction; as total discrepancy increases, sati

decreases. A I -



Hypothesis XII

Total discrepancy is significantly negatively correlated wi

nonacademic satisfaction; as total discrepancy increases, r

academic satisfaction decreases.




























items

(Pervin

tems of

es with them, how

sl of FlorTda?";

the administration at the

11 ... isfied are you

at the University of Flori

S were combined into a single scale in the final

bined scale wasolled Scale V (Appendix A).

rates the relationship between items, scales and

combined scale. Items I through 4 constitute the

tial Scale. Item 2 constitutes the "Dropout Potential for

i" subscale; the "Dropout Potenoa] For Nonacademic

ale consists of items 3 and 4. Item 1 is a general,

dropout potential item.


I A



















THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SCALE V ITEMS, SCALES AND SUBSCALES



SCALE ITEM NUMBER SUBSCALE

1
2 ------- ACADEMIC DROPOUT POTENTIf
DROPOUT POTENTIAL --3 --- SUBSCALE
SCALE I 4 NONACADEMIC DROPOUT POTEt
SUBSCALE


5* --
6 -- -
7*
8* -- ACADEMIC SATISFACTION SUI
STUDENT SATISFACTION -- 9
SCALE 10*
11*
12; --- NONACADEMIC SATISFACTION
13*- SUBSCALE
14 ---
15
16*
17*
18*
19


SCALE


* indicates that the response
the item.


inuum was inverted in scoring 1


cont


































F
the
ted
e tted
:y felt
hers ity









asked students to focus on six general "areas of concern": 1) university

policy-making; 2) scholarly endeavors; 3) the relationship between stu

dents and society; 4) student-peer relationships; 5) student-faculty

relationships; and, 6) student-administration relationships.

A section was also provided to allow students to express other

feelings they might have regarding how students should behave.

The second part of this questionnaire requested the students to

indicate agreement-disagreement on a four-point scale (strongly agree,

agree, disagree, strongly disagree) with each of the statements they

made, so as to indicate:

1. their own personal degree of agreement-disagreement

with each of their statements;

2. how they felt "most students" would rate the statement;

3. how they felt "most faculty members" would rate the

statement; and

4. how they felt "most administrators" would rate the

statement.

These subjects provided a pool of 486 statements. From this

statement pool, 38 items were abstracted that met two criteria:

1. two or more subjects provided similar statements, and

2. each statement received a "conflict score" of 2 or more

from at least two subjects.

The "conflict score" was computed from the students' ratings of

the statements they had made. The "conflict score" of a particular sub-

ject to a particular statement consisted of: 1) the difference between

his "own personal feelings" rating and the "most students" rating, plus
































I as
meetings"

Iass


itinuum


ati ng


ing the ERSS









e feelings to

s udent It they would

Scale ri lings to "mos t

and Scoa IV attribute feelings to "most collei

administrators.

Appendix D s the four sets of instructions for ehe

Appendix E contains the ERSS.

Test-retest reliability studies of the ERSS, the SSS and DPS w

conducted using thirty of the freshmen male subjects included in

primary study. The inter-trial interval between testing ses

fourteen days.

In this pilot study, the test-retest reliability for th

found to be .91, the reliability of the SSS was .90, and that of

was .83. All of these coefficients are significant beyoadthe .001

level (29 df). A

















ersity

(N


or 1ic to


the student subject

It was felt that freshmen

role expectatgns for themselves

all dropout rate than upperclass-

ibility that male and

vi~os differently and/or have

iffe by faculty members, adminis-

nd/or other students. These phenomena "re outside of the

am of concern in this investigation, and, therefore, only

n men were sampled in this study.

All freshmen men enrolled in introductory psychology courses

received a letter (Appendix F) explaining the general nature

research and requesting their participation. Thirty-two of the

student subjects were volunteers from these courses. Thirty of

ase subjects served as the test-retest reliability group and completed

e test booklet twice with a two-week inter-trial inerval.





L a









9
dent subjects were drawn from

dormitory a tory resident advisor assisted in select

students for p n in the study. They represent a broad

sampling of the Ents from several dormitories and multiple floors

and sections of these dormitories.

The thirty faculty members who served as the faculty subject

group were randomly chosen from the full-time teaching faculty of

University College. All freshmen at the University of Florida are

enrolled in University College; therefore, all members of the faculty

group have some direct teaching contact with the freshmen student

population from which the student subjects were drawn.

The intent in selecting members of the administration group was

toexclude persons who did not have legislative, as well as enforcement

functions vis-a-vis freshmen male students. Operationally, this

excluded all deans and directors of colleges other than University

College, all graduate school deans and all administrators concerned

primarily with female students. It included the president and vice

presidents of the University, the dean and assistant deans for student

development, the dean and assistant deans of University College, the

registrars and assistant registrars and the director of housing and his

administrative assistants. The total population (N = 30) of adminis-

trative personnel who met these criteria were asked to participate.






















nd a messed

is scale. The

complete only

r the role of

the SSS or DPS.

mem .administrators were

dy. Des ared follow-up con-

se groups return completed

s o e a minister group a d three faculty

d from the final study for this reason. Therefore,

the faculty group was 27 and the administrator group



student subjects received group administration of the scales.

was required to complete all four for$s (Scales I, II, III

the ERSS, and the DPS and SSS (Scale V). This task took

ty and forty-five minutes.

the student subjects received Scale I as his first task

s his final task. The order of presentation of Scales II,

was controlled so that an equal number of students received

of the six possible oris of presentation of these thrp scales.










Inrr PpeCdueL- .ned to eliminate the possibility o

response set towa* a particular reference group.























r
differences

act's response o an


the reference groups

to Figure 4, the
ict at Level I are


ts = Z(A E)=

+ (a30 e30)]
e I e conflict with facupl -i ) h=

-fl) + (a2 f2) 30)
Objective conflict with = Z(A G) =

al 91) + (a2 92) + 0)].'
conflict is defined as the sft of the differences
to sign) between a student suit's response to an
3le I of the ERSS ("Parsonally held expectation") and his
m D 6















FIGURE 4


TME RELAT MHIPS BETWEEN DISCREPANCY MEASURES
IWD THE SCALES OF THE ERSS


ERSS SCALE DESCRIPTION OF MEASURE ITEMS SUM OF ITE

SCALE I (A student's personally ala2 ... a30 A
held expectations)

Sa
SCALE II (Attributed by a student bb2 .. b30 B
to other stuilets) db
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- -- ----- 4w -------

SCALE III (Attributed by a student Clc2 ... c30 C
to faculty rpmbers)


SCALE IV (Attributed by a student djd2 ... d30 D
to the administration)


SCALE I (Student group mean) ele2 e. e30 E

SCALE I (Faculty group mean) flf2 *** f30 F

SCALE I (Administration group 9l92 9g30 G
-mean)


a




























FT~ent

expectations
nean response


pr... + (i)J

= (C F) =
S... + (c30 f30)]


-ton wi1

kw +


. Lev
(student, fa dministr

Jhe following types of Level


i) otfa part


Flevels II and

rence groups

of conflict.













r To
Total disc
as the sum of the threLevel
4
be derived from Figure 4:
Total discrepancy


le Level III me' l"
isures. The following


= E[(A El + A FI +l ) I
+ IA C + IA DI) + (IB E
+ ID G )].


- e'


e e I


a a



























ns, the

= 25)4nd

ychology

res d~ in Table 1.



d Ward,

uterized

is. that an

ntt groups

is focu udent/ t.trp s mi n-

y/adminis

Sof F which ar sented in T ate the

Sells of disa which defi conflicts

ding expe or th ent.

tes that: a) no item shows s t disagree-

three pairs of groups (studP ent/

-ration and faculty catration s~ can

















MEAN CH OF THE ERS
NO ADI INI STRAT RO



Item # Students (N=32) Faculty (N=27) Administrati


1 3.28 31 3.32
2 3.28 4 .27 3.2
3 3.81 3.69 3.64
4 3.22 e 3.24 2.96
5 2.06 1.74 1.73
6 2.59 2.04 1.88
7 1.71 1.26 1.12
8 2.41 .20 2.12
9 2.88 2.63 2.96
10 1.25 3.37 3.48
11 1.47 p 1 6 1.88
12 3.31 4 3.4o
13 1.56 2.04 2.17
14 1.34 1.22 1.24
15 1.50 1.85 3
16 2.78 2.22 2.50
17 3.19 2.73 2.56
18 3.44 2.59 2.96
19 2.69 2.33 2.65
20 1.34 1.56 1.36
21 3.41 2.93 2.24
22 2.72 3.04 2.50
23 2.84 2.56 2.36
24 2.19 3.23 3.16
25 3.44 3.37 3.40
26 2.41 1.81 1.96
27 1.63 2.04 2.36
28 3.34 2.77 3.21
29 3.13 2.85 3.23
30 3.16 2.65 2.38















0




w


disagreement between both faculty/students and faculty/administra

c) 1 item shows significant disagreement between both administration

students and administration/faculty; d) 7 items show significant disa-

greement between both faculty/students and administration/students;

e) 4 items show significant disagreement between administration/students;

f) 2 items show significant disagreement between faculty/students; and.

g) 1 item shows significant disagreement between faculty/administration.

The 16 ERSS items that provide these significant group conflicts are

listed in Table 3.

Data analysis for the purposes of hypothesis-testing consisted

of a series of partial correlations. Four partial correlation matrices

are of primary interest. These are shown in Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Two other matrices were generated; however, these were not used

to test any hypotheses in this study. These secondary data are con-

tained in Appendix H.

It should be noted that the Dropout Potential Scale scoring

procedures are such that a high score indicates a low anticipated

probability of dropping out of the university. Therefore, positive

correlations with total, academic or nonacademic dropout potential

should be interpreted as if they were negative correlations and negative

correlations should be interpreted as if they were positive correlations.

Table 4 contains the partial correlation matrix of Level II

conflict measures and the Level I satisfaction and dropout potential

measures.

Table 5 contains the matrix of Level II conflict measures and

Level II satisfaction and dropout potential measures.































r n rules of conduct.
policy changes if all

where he may in ract
ts a
uni earning areas" t are
o the ev life o the student -- courses that

le courses to take; he
force~ o en required courses."
the same rights, privi eges and obligations on-campus
s off-campus.
required to at ss meetings.


inistration and Faculty/Administration F values significant

---------------------------------------------------

GE STUDENT SHOULD ...

respect the rights of others, but beyond that, he should be
free to behave as he pleases.


nt/Faculty and Faculty/Administration F values significant
(p < .05)


A COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD .

28. ...have an active voice in policy decisions of the university.










3 continued.



Student/Administration F values significant (p < .05)
......................................................................

A COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD ...

16. ...be able to question the competence of a faculty member and
implement his removal if he is found to be incompetent as a
teacher.
17. ...not accept a university ruling that he considers unjust and
should seek to change it by any peaceful means open to him.
20. ...not play any part in establishing housing policies, choosing
dorm advisors or setting rules for university students living
in on-campus housing.
23. ...respect faculty members because of their higher degrees of
learning.


Student/Faculty F values significant (p < .05)


A COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD ...

11. ...have no real power to change university policies.
26. ...insist that he receive as much of a faculty member's time as
he needs to achieve his own personal academic goals.


Faculty/Administration F values significant (p < .05)


A COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD ...

22. ...seek knowledge during his stay at the university; grades,
degrees and future careers are secondary to the pursuit of
knowledge.





































> > l
S-n


U.-
o*








































S 00 o .
C0

S--


























O 000
-X c O







O) v
l C CC C a -
















*u 0 o -


.>- C u -, o


C.4 .. 0 .... 4A .0 s

II- 0 U C L 1
O



















C 0 0 0 u- 0






o u -' ON --. V
O 3 I I I n












> U z .- -- C- ; C4
.- u- (D w o U O oo
(D 0 C- U N 0 o U tn 0) 0 0
I-- L.)O I-I I a_-- m- <





























N ~ u\ -3 L















TABLE 5


Level II Confl


PARTIAL CORRELATIONS
ict and Level II Satisfaction/Dropout Potential


1 2 3 4
Total Total Total Total
Subjective Objective Distortion Dropout
Conflict Conflict Potential

2. Total Objective
Conflict .09
3. Total
Distortion .61** .47**
4. Total Dropout
Potential .19 .28 -.29*
5. Total
Satisfaction -.34* -.15 .30* .61**


* denotes a correlation that is
level.
** denotes a correlation that is
level.


significant at greater than the .05

significant at greater than the .01


Note: Interpretation of all correlations with academic dropout potential,
nonacademic dropout potential and total dropout potential requires
an inversion of sign (e.g., positive correlations should be
interpreted as negative correlations).












or dropout potential, nor is it correlated with either total satisfaction

or total dropout potential. This hypothesis was not fully supported by

the data in this study, since total objective conflict was significantly

positively correlated with academic dropout potential (Table 4:

r24.13567 = .32, p < .05, 43 df).

Hypothesis VII was confirmed. In Table 5, total subjective

conflict is significantly negatively correlated with total satisfaction

(r]5.234 = -.34, p < .05, 45 df). In this same table, subjective

conflict is not significantly correlated with total dropout potential

(r14.235 = .19, p > .05, 45 df).

In Table 4, there are no significant correlations (p > .05,

43 df) between total subjective conflict and any of the Level I dropout

or satisfaction elements (rl4.23567 = .09, r15.23467 = -.06, '16.23457

= -.09, r17.23456 = .05); therefore, Hypothesis VIII is not confirmed.

Hypothesis IX predicted that subjects with high total distortion

would respond with a high probability of dropping out of the university.

In Table 5, the correlation between total distortion and total dropout

potential (r34.125) is reported as -.29, significant beyond the .05

level (45 df). Hypothesis IX was confirmed.

An unexpected finding was the significant positive correlation

between total distortion and total satisfaction (Table 5: r35.124 = .30,

p < .05, 45 df). This correlation suggests that as a subject's role

distortion increases, his overall satisfaction increases.

In Table 4, the correlation between total distortion and

nonacademic dropout potential is significant (r35.12467 = -.29, p < .05,

43 df). There is no significant correlation between distortion and


















po, nonut Potential




Tota Total
Discrepa Dropout
Potential



.57 **


a correlation that is significant at greater than the .05

pretation of all correlations with academic dropout
1, nonacademic dropout potential and total dropout
pntial requiresan inversion of sign (e.g., positive
relations should be interpreted as negative correlations).

















I
















TABLE 7


Level III Conflict


PARTIAL CORRELATIONS
and Level I Satisfaction/Dropout Potential


2
Academic
Dropout


3
Nonacademic
Dropout


Potential Potential


4
Academic
Satisfaction


2. Academic Dropout
Potential
3. Nonacademic
Dropout
Potential
4. Academic
Satisfaction
5. Nonacademic
Satisfaction


.33*

-.18


-.18 .5D~


* denotes a correlation
level.
* denotes a correlation
level.


that is significant at greater than the .05

that is significant at greater than the .01


Note: Interpretation of all correlations with academic dropout potential,
nonacademic dropout potential and total dropout potential require
an inversion of sign (e.g., positive correlations should be
interpreted as negative correlations).


1I
Total
Discrepancy


-.05

-.15

.13


_I__~ ___ I~
I~~ _


.50**














rela-Tbns of total discrepancy,

ion and total tential.

is XI predicted a significant negative correlation

discrepancy and total satisfaction. In Table 6, this

nation (r13.2 = -.16) is not significant (p > .05, 47 df). Thus,

thesis XI is not confirmed. The correlation between total conflict

d total dropout potential (rl2.3 = .11) was also not significant at

e .05 level.

Table 6 provides additional data to support Hypothesis I; the

correlation between total satisfaction and total dropout potential

(r23.1 = .57) is significant beyond the .01 level.

Table 7 contains the partial correlational matrix of total

discrepancy, academic and nonacademic satisfaction and academic and

nonacademic dropout potential.

Hypothesis XII predicts a significant negative correlation

between total discrepancy and nonacademic satisfaction. This correla-

tion is not significant (r15.234 = .13, p < .05, 45 df); therefore,

Hypothesis XII is not confirmed.

Table 7 does provide additional support for Hypotheses II and

III. Academic dropout potential and academic satisfaction are signi-

ficantly positively correlated (r24.135 = .33, p < .05, 45 df) and

nonacademic dropout potential and nonacademic satisfaction are signi-

ficantly correlated (r35.124 = .36, p < .05, 45 df).




I -43-





Table 7 also contains data to support the unexpected phenomenon

of a highly significant relationship between academic and nonacademic

satisfaction (r45.123 = .50, p < .01, 45 df).


















USSIO N W

u Conflict Areas Identified on the
-i or the Role of Student Scale
ERSS



noted the need for research to identify where

dents, faculty and administrators agreed and disagreed in their

options and attitudes. Using the applied multiple linear regres-

approah, sixteen ERSS items were identified in this study (Table

that appear to represent areas of intergroup conflict between stu-

ts, faculty and administration.

The primary conflict area between students and other members of

he university community (faculty and administration) was disagreement

ncerning the degree of autonomy, freedom and responsibility that

should be vested in the role of student. The student subjects tended

to ascribe behaviors to the role of student that were less subject to

external restraint than were the behaviors ascribed to the student role

by either the faculty or administration subjects.

The faculty group and administration group significantly disagreed

in ascribing academic goal behaviors to the role of student. The faculty

subjects feel that students should strive for "knowledge," as opposed

to "grades, degrees and future careers"; whereas, the administration

subjects tended to stress the career-oriented aspects of student behavior.









regard st
ment of ity community e
freshman administrator
tions reg r freshmen). Future r ch s
the qualities of such university y confli
within the community and their effect on all
There are also important research questions regarding in iv
differences in quality and extent of group conflicts.
The ERSS can be a useful instrument for us in
conflict in college communities. It demonstrated tes
at the .001 level and appears to differentiate areas of con
the university community.






















aA
















t of

ted.

e expectation at satis-

eport a tendency towards dropping

dissati students.

were a so confirmed; students who report

roppi t for academic reasons tend to also

egic aspects of the university

nts report a high probability of dropping

ns report low satisfaction with the nonaca-

ects of the uMIi'ersity (Hypothesis IIll).e

significant relationships were found to exist between academic

ntial and nonacA em dropout potential; however, the corre-

ween academic and nonacademic satisfaction was significant at

.01 level. These findings suggest that: 1) students are able to

differentiate their probable reasons for dropping out the university

to the categories "for academic reasons" and "for nonacademic (per-

sonal) reasons"; and 2) students do not differentiate between academic

and nonacademic satisfaction (i.e., when a student is dissatisfied with

the one aspect, academic or nonacademic, of the university, he is likely

to also be dissatisfied with the other aspects.).

Additional research is needed to investigate the relationships

that may exist between these satisfaction and dropout potential measures

and actual student behaviors.






major questions for inv


1. To wh tent do students who report a high dropo
potential and/or low satis5E4ion actually drop
the university?
2. What are the relationships between the focus (acade
and nonacademic) of dropout potential/satisfaction an
actual student dropout behaviors? Which -- if any --
of the four Level I measures best predict student
dropout behaviors?
3. How are these DPS and SSS measures related to other
able student data (e.g., grade point average)?






1










i























Kraut, 1965)

to operate inde-

no meaningful relationships

ich a ilg a given

rol ancies which he perceives as oper-

be c a predicted that

and objective c ce t measures would

ning f student. The data in this

action. l nificant correlation was found

jectiveL ict.

s (Biddle, Rosencranz, Tomich and Twyman, 1966,

1965 sed concepts similar to "distortion" as a third

of role conflict. Since distortion is defined using one com-

om eac he other two conflict measures (i.e., the attributed

ns c of subjTctive conflict and the actual expectations

ent of objective conflict), it was expected that distortion would

fi~ly positively correlated with both of these measures.

his study support that expectation. Distortion was found

o sig ificantly correlated with both subjective conflict and objec-

Iconflict; whereas these measures were not significantly correlated

r ach other.












The Relations e screpancySatisfaction and DrJA Poten



It was thought total discrepancy (the sum of objective

conflict, subjective c flict and distortion) was too general a measure

to effectively predict dropout potential (total, academic or nonaca-

demic), an expectation supported by the data in this study. It was

hypothesized, however, that total discrepancy and total satisfaction

would be significantly negatively correlated (Hypothesis XI). This

hypothesis was not confirmed.

In addition, the data on the relationships between total

discrepancy and nonacademic satisfaction failed to support Hypothesis

XII; total discrepancy was not significantly negatively correlated with

nonacademic satisfaction.

The obvious conclusion that can be drawn from these findings is -

that the total discrepancy score is too gross a measure to effectively

predict either dropout potential or satisfaction.

A number of significant relationships were found between the

Level II discrepancy measures and satisfaction (academic, nonacademic

and total) and dropout potential (academic, nonacademic and total).

The most unexpected finding in this study was the significant

positive correlation between total objective conflict and academic

dropout potential. This finding led to a rejection of Hypothesis VI

which predicted no significant relationships between objective conflict

and any of the satisfaction or dropout measures. The most baffling

aspect of. this finding, however, was the positive direction of the

































n cofle-
potc tial.

ademic

e) Such a

-e gra

Is-





er the





def ns o












alsati I th o s

correlation be conou

These fi with those re ot

investigators (Kraut, 1965, a ross, McE i and Mason, I

appears that subjective conflict is an accate pred* f

tion, but has no significant relationship with the

in behavior such as dropping out of the university.

Hypothesis VIII was not confirmed; no significant correla

was found between subjective conflict and nonacademic satisfac

This finding is not consistent with the findings of Pervin and

(1970), who reported that "lack of fiiwbetween student charact

and perceived college characteristics was related to both nonacad

satisfaction and dropout potential. It is consistent with er findings

in this study, however; students do not differentiate between academic

and nonacademic satisfaction. When the correlations between all other

conflict, satisfaction and dropout measures are held constant, there

is a significant positive relationship between academic and nonacademic

satisfaction.

The measure of distortion appears to be the best predictor of

student dropout potential. Hypothesis IX was confirmed; students with

high distortion scores report a high probability of dropping out of the

university. To a significant extent, they also report a high probability

of dropping out for nonacademic reasons (Hypothesis X). This finding

does support Pervin and Rubin's (1970) contention that "lack of fit"

between student and college is related to student nonacademic dropout


























re also

at they





1 conflicts

from, a

on that can

ad" effect).

ge fr

predict

tive

to satisf r sa;isfaction

made a.

atements

se discrepancy

s of ctitial:

discrepa ion (aca-

, nonac 0 ial













sat otf d otentic p ny ot

sat tion or t potential measure .

3. Obje ive conflict does not correlate significantly

with either total satisfaction or total dropo

tial. It is significantly positively correlated

the potential for dropping out of the university fo

academic reasons. It is suspected that this cor

may be accounted for by a variable such as general

lege competence that could be significantly corre

with both objective conflict and academic dropout

potential.

4. Distortion is significantly negatively correl th

both total dropout potential and nonacademic dropout

potential. Distortion also correlates positive

total satisfaction. This means that as a st

total distortion increases, his total dropout potential

increases, his nonacademic dropout potential Ireases

and his total satisfaction increases. This latter cor-

relation suggests the hypothesis that satisfaction is

significantly related to "being out of touch" with real

conflicts. It is possible that distortion may be the

best predictor of both total satisfaction and total

dropout potential.



































eas:




asures

average,



riables

t




eturn




screpant

rsity com-
















CHAPTER V

SUMMARY



This study was concerned with investigating: 1) the relationship

that exist between three measures of student role conflict (subjective

conflict, objective conflict and distortion); 2) the relationships

between student satisfaction and the anticipated probability of dropping

out of the university; and 3) the relationships between student role

conflict and student satisfaction and dropout potential.

Three test instruments were constructed in pilot research:

1) the Student Satisfaction Scale (SSS); 2) the Dropout Potential Scale

(DPS); and 3) the Expectations for the Role of Student Scale (ERSS).

The SSS and DPS were adaptations of the satisfaction/dropout potential

scales on the TAPE (Pervin and Rubin, 1970).

The ERSS was constructed from items regarding the role of

student elicited from a group of 28 freshman and sophomore men. The

30 items chosen for inclusion in the ERSS were those that elicited the

greatest subjective conflict from these subjects.

Significant test-retest reliability coefficients were obtained

for all three test instruments.

Three groups of subjects from the University of Florida were

utilized in the primary study: 1) freshman male students (N = 50);

2) faculty members (N = 27); and 3) administrative personnel (N = 25).
























greater
ity




academic and
e University.
L t ademic
likely to









2. Distortion (i.e., inaccuracies in attributing expectati

operationally accounts for the differences between s

jective and objective conflict. This finding is consis-

tent with those of other researchers (Kraut, 1965, and

Biddle et al., 1966).

C. The relationships between the discrepancy measures and the

measures of satisfaction and dropout potential:

1. Total discrepancy (i.e., the sum of the subjective con-

flict, objective conflict and distortion scores) is not

an effective predictor of either satisfaction or dropout

potential. It appears to be too gross a measure to have

any meaningful predictive validity.

2. Subjective conflict is highly correlated with total

satisfaction; however, it does not appear to predict

dropout potential.

3. Objective conflict does not correlate significantly with

either total satisfaction or total dropout potential.

4. Distortion appears to be the best predictor of the total

anticipated probability of dropping out of the university.

It also correlates highly with the potential for dropping

out for nonacademic reasons.

Two unexpected findings emerged in this study:

1. Objective conflict was positively correlated with the

probability of dropping out of the university for academic

reasons. It was suggested that this finding might reflect

the effects of a general college competence variable



































jdenti-

nt s dentifies

ati udent Scale which the

iffer ners. These data

within the university com-

and students hold

ns for students.

search were generated from this

he relationships that exist

s emp s study and such v les as

dropout beh de point average, a sex and

similarly, re ht also b were



























APPENDICES



















I









































t of the
ersit for any 4
uired


9INITELY
OT

e tim ege


3 4 TELY
NOT

ome aca-
an e, etc.)?
re

3 8 INITELY
MOlT









4. How often do yoS lW' about dropping out of the university for
nonacademic reasons & personal reasons, transfer, leave of absence
etc.)? Do not include financial reasons here.

FREQUENTLY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEVER

5. All in all, in terms of your own needs and desires, how satisfied
are you with the academic aspects of the University of Florida?

COMPLETELY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 COMPLETELY
SATISFIED DISSATISFIED

6. All in all, in terms of your own needs and desires, how satisfied
are you with the nonacademic aspects of the University of Florida?

COMPLETELY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 COMPLETELY
SATISFIED DISSATISFIED

7. All in all, in terms of your experiences with them, how satisfied
are you with the faculty at the University of Florida?

COMPLETELY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 COMPLETELY
SATISFIED DISSATISFIED

8. All in all, in terms of your experience with them, how satisfied
are you with the administration at the University of Florida?

COMPLETELY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 COMPLETELY
SATISFIED DISSATISFIED

9. All in all, in terms of your experiences with them, how satisfied
are you with the other students at the University of Florida?

COMPLETELY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 COMPLETELY
SATISFIED DISSATISFIED

10. So far, what kinds of times have you had at the University of
Florida?

GREAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 POOR
TIMES TIMES

11. How often do you feel out of place at the University?

NEVER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MOST OF
THE TIME

12. Do you think your academic experiences at college would have been
more rewarding if instead of the University of Florida, you had
attended another university or college?

DEFINITELY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 PROBABLY
NOT
























AT ALL
'ONSIBLE

the


F adminis
a? ^


4 5


W 'IPLETELY
P UNCOMFORTABLE

plues of the

11 OPPOSITE
VALUES

hles and regulations

11 COMPLETE
DISAGREEMENT


su disagree with the Univhity of Florida on
sue

2 3 5 6 7 8 9 .Uf I COMPLETE
AGREEMENT



.A














PPENDIXIV W


DENT EXPECTATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE


PLEASE DO NOT' WTE YOUR NAME ANYWHERE ON THIS QUESTIONNAIRE
(All responses to this questionnaire will be completely anonymous


INSTRUCTIONS: WRT I
You are participating in a study that is designed to determine
what various male college students feel are appropriate behaviors fo
themselves and other male college students at the University of Flor
In other words, you are being asked to express how you personally fe
male college students should behave.
At th1e tp of each of the following pages, you will find a brief
series of ques ions outlining a broad area of concern to most students.
Please attempt to relate these "concern areas'" to your own life, your
own personal cJ2riences at the University of Florida and your feeli
about how stee lts should behave in order to attain their own person
goals and achieve their own personal satisfactions while attending the
University.
Each'Icocern area" outline is followed by three "incomplete I
sentences" tleat read as follows:
STATEMENT # (sample)
A MALE C -LEGE STUDENT SHOULD


-- =^--I-~

Your task wil ire to complete these statements. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL
THREE STATEMEWIS ON EACH PAGE!












A
















(He s fo Pages 1-7)

PAGE

1 What role should a student p establishing universe
policies? What are appropri ehaviors for students to engag
in regarding defining and imp renting policies dealing with
such issues as "the purpose o he university," rules o d
conduct, university curriculum (course) planning, etc? o
should students make their feelings about these issues own?
What responsibilities do students have regarding university
policies? What freedom should students be allowed? I

2 What role should a student play as scholar? How should he behav
in the academic setting? What should he hope to get out of h'
academic experience at the University of Florida and how shou
he achieve his goal? What are his academic responsibilities?
What freedom should he be allowed?

3 What role should a student play as a "citizen of the campus" and
as a "citizen of the world?" What are his responsibilities as a
citizen? How should he meet these responsibilities? What
freedom as a citizen should he be allowed?

4 What role should a student pity in his interactions with
university administrators? How should a student behave towards
university administrators? What are his responsibilities in his
interactions with university administrators? What freedom should
he be allowed in these interactions?

5 What role should a student play in his interactions with other
students? How should a student behave towards other students?
What are his responsibilities in his interactions with other
students? What freedom should he be allowed in these interactions?

6 What role should a student play in his interactions with faculty
members? How should a student behave towards faculty members?
What are his responsibilities in his interactions with faculty
members? What freedom should he be allowed in these interactions?

7 This page has been provided to give you the opportunity to express
any other feelings that you might have about how students should
behave. If the preceding pages did not allow you the opportunity
to express some feelings about student behavior, please use the
spaces below to do so.
































e





















e

or
hat
ly
the
ment










To what e each
this state
I personally would
STRONGLY AGREE
Most students would
STRONGLY AGREE. AGREE
Most faculty membelwould
STRONGLY AGREE w AGREE
Most university administrators would
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE


h 6


DISAGREE

DISAGREE


V,


a


ft






















1 LGLY


Ol""GLY

IONGLY


DISAGREE


DISAGREE


DISAGREE


E


rs wou

inist



you ch


y would -
Y AGREE

ts would
JII EE g E


AGREE SRNGLY DISAGREE


fol b would agree with



DISd EE STRONGLY DISAGREE


DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGRE


DISAGR V IRONGLY DISAGREE

DISAGR NGLY DISAGREE



of t Following agree with


DISAGR ONLY DISAGREE


DISAGREE


E


E


E


E













lo ty members would
AGREE 0 AGREE

Most unJ sl ministrators w
STRON LY AIT AGREE







































































et i ngs

eCIC




















13*
a e he m
stu s

30 ...not be req to a
meetings

28 ...have an active voice cisions
of the university. 8

17 ...not accept a unive t
he considers unjust an
change it by any peaceful ns
to him.

7 ...resort Cd violent ac o uence
policy changes if all else fails 6
18 ...demand that cwu e
"learning areas" that are ap
to the everyday life of the
courses that teach about the
world."
289 ...not play a part in establish
housing policies, choosing dorm rs
or setting rules for university ts
living in on-campus housing. 5

19 ...not regard faculty members o r ege
administrators as different from 'body
else and should not treat them any
differently. 4 5
26 ...insist that he receive as Ih of a
faculty member's time as he needs to
achieve his own personal academic goals. 5




pill




























5 3.0


4 .5

ki

nd abid
4 3.2

s and
rs i ty. 4 3.2

mbers Mbcause of
f learning. 4 3.2

tact with the
ring his stay at the
3 3.3

feelings about university
g student government
ng letters to the
3 3.0

joining a fraternity. 2 6.0

o question the competence of
mber and implement his removal
found to be incompetent as a
2 6.0








-=cont in


ERSS NUMBER OF MEAN
ITEM SUBJECTS CONFLICT
# A MALE C E STUDENT SHOULD ... RESPONDING SCORE
WITH ITEM
5 ...realize that most students want good
grades and will hurt anybody who gets in
the way of their achieving good grades. 2 4.0
9 ...realize that he is fortunate to be in
college and should act accordingly. 2 3.5
NI ...not study all the time. 2 3.5
NI ...not accept all that is taught as
fact. 2 3.5
NI ...not obey university rules that they
personally don't believe are fair and
just. 2 3.5
NI ...actively socialize with other
students. 2 3.5
NI ...have the training necessary to engage
in a career when he finishes his
undergraduate work. 2 3.0
NI ...demand freedom from outside
intervention in university affairs. 2 3.0

indicates context of item was changed to invert scoring continuum.
NI indicates an item that was not included in the E.R.S.S.






1



























pe

ace.
by




a ued AG
AGR


s t


the s the t of Do





n, you icate t xte reement/
ueel mxI ee a "ach


d t ess your lw al feelings, but
u t most col ts feel male


respond
ank sDa















right of that statement. These numlb an be interpreted as
follows:

Most college students would STRONGLY DISAGREE
Most college students would DISAGREE
Most college students would AGREE
Most college students would STRONGLY AGREE

Write one number in the space to the right of each item. Do n
leave any spaces blank.
........................................................................

SCALE III: INSTRUCTIONS

In this section, you are asked to indicate the extent of agreeme
disagreement that you feel most faculty members would express to each
statement.

You are not being asked to express your own personal feelings,lbut
rather should indicate how you think most faculty members feel male
college students should behave.

You can indicate how most faculty members would respond to each
statement by writing a number (1, 2, 3 or 4) in the blank space to the
right of that statement. These numbers can be interpreted as follows:

Most faculty members would STRONGLY DISAGREE = 1
Most faculty members would DISAGREE = 2
Most faculty members would AGREE = 3
Most faculty members would STRONGLY AGREE = 4

Write one number in the space to the right of each item. Do not
leave any spaces blank.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SCALE IV: INSTRUCTIONS

In this section, you are asked to indicate the extent of agreement/
disagreement that you feel most university administrators (deans, etc.)
would express to each statement.

You are not being asked to express your own personal feelings, but
rather should indicate how you think most university administrators feel
male college students should behave.








































9


















THE EXPECTATIONS FOR THE ROLE OF STUDENT


[Instructions inserted here (see Appendix D)]


1. A college student should attempt to change things in
society that are immoral or wrong.

2. A college student should express his feelings about
university issues by attending student government
meetings and writing letters to the school newspaper.

3. A college student should be free to question any ng
that a faculty member says without fear of failing the
course or other reprisal.

4. A college student should use nonviolent protest methods
(pickets, rallies and protest meetings) to change "bad"
university policies if he cannot implement such changes
by existing mechanisms.

5. A college student should realize that most students want
good grades and will hurt anybody who gets in the way of
their achieving good grades.

6. A college student should be free to establish and enforce
his own "rules of conduct."

7. A college student should resort to violent tactics to
influence policy changes if all else fails.

8. A college student should avoid joining a fraternity.

9. A college student should realize that he is fortunate
to be in college and should act accordingly.




a


01
















22. A college s lge is s
at the unive degrees and fu eer
are secondary it of knowledge

23. A college student should respect faculty mem
because of their higher degrees of learning.

24. A college student should not have complete freedom i
selecting courses to take; he should be forced to e
for some "required courses."

25. A college student should make his feelings about f-Jor
university issues known to the administration.

26. A college student should insist that he receive
of a faculty member's time as he needs to achieve hi
own personal academic goals.

27. A college student should not have the same rights,
privileges and obligations on-campus as he has off-
campus.

28. A college student should have an active voice in p
decisions of the university.

29. A college student should have greater contact with the
administration during his stay at the university.

30. A college student should not be required to attend
class meetings.




















is M




































ber of
roximately
rst question-
naire can be


rticipate in
le g the
arti-
t help
tribute to lack


"sign in
e will bel!l the


p.m. in 01, B


.m. I


onnai r
you t d both even
on ei monday night, M
YLme a as abovi













I hope to see


Larry Ritt,
Doctoral Stu
Psychology


P.S. If your schedule prohibits your attending either nex
Tues. evening, please leave a note in my box in the
study room (next door to the Psy gy Department
Bldg. E) stating times when you a free. I will ar
special session when you may complete the first ques
40


1































































h this c

rat i n










































-L o .









,, < L |] w



O 0o D 4






Q oL- co oo _
O. * 4






So o ( 0






.0





0 O O O - OI -
L, 0 0 ... 0 *- *-
0u 0
+J4I-*-









._.
0 (J 0 0O L-

S0- 0 c C c o0 *-. 0
0J 0J 0 0 0 - 0 0

U ) u .- .- .- 44 r0-
4 > 4- - 0 0 0 E f 4
o 4 > r- L- .- 1- C CO 0 3 E
440vav 0 14 -aaUO O 00

an-- o 3 aC- o -o -
-- L -o 0 iI t 0 0 0L 4 -0 4 = -0 1 2IL.- 1)44
0o0 E 0 .-I u E in 1L) 0In (U 4 44 C 4 M 44 C 44
z) f0 Dj .4jo r _o -o .- 4+ .- ._- )o u 0 O O U U O (
/n LL. L < Ocn O lL. o0 <0 n Ll 0 L2 m < < D- = o- < (L 2 L/I












































cm
- e


C)-~- -


Cc


N.


0


I e



0 F0 0


I I





- e eq 0

S D- m C


CA L 0
N~-L~I


> > O O O -: c
S L- 0 0 0

p 0 M (D c c c r- CL
S> > -> - -
C CC4- 4- 4- C C




U OOm e C -
0 0- 0 0-- .- C_
Sr c -- Ic C L. -- 4-
C)- ) C a ) U U C 0 C) 0 0 C C vI
I :3 a)-n- -) 0 C) ( 3 Q 4 t 44 fi 44.-C ) Cu C-
-0 -0 E f l n E v v v E (n :3V u L 4 '
) 3m U nuO 4. m u .U--4 .- 0- 000
t o 0) O L- 0 < Li- < )


4-,4-






C)

cc
a -
oo










0 0
c c
mm




en



t)

00
4-4-


~a-~fLyN
C,h




















Biddle, B.J., Rosencranz, H.A., Tomich, E., & Twy
Inaccuracies in the Role of Teacher. In Biddle, .J.
E.J. (Eds.) Role Theory. New York: Wiley, 1966, 302-31

Bottenberg, R.A. & Ward, J.W. Applied M ple Linear Regres
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas: Air Force Systems Comn

Gross, N., McEachern, A.W. & Mason, W.S. Role Conflict and its
Resolution. In Maccoby, E.E., Newcomb, T.M. & Hartley, E.L.
(Eds.) Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, 195
447-459.

Kraut, A.E. A Study of Role Conflicts and Their Relationship to
Satisfaction, Tension and Performance. Dissertation, 1965,
University of Michigan.

Pace, C.R. CUES: Preliminary Manual. Princeton, New Jo ey:
Educational Testing Service, 1963.

Pervin, L.A. The College as a Social System: Student P ions
Students, Faculty and Administration. J. Educ. Re 968, 61
281-284.

Pervin, L.A. & Rubin, D.B. Student Dissatisfaction with C g
the College Dropout: A Transactional Approach. J. S
In Press. (A mimeographed copy of this study was received rom
the senior author, 1970.)

Stern, G.G. Activities Index and College Characteristics Index:
Scoring Instructions and College Norms. Syracuse, N.Y.:
Psychological Research Center, 1963.

Wheeler, S. Socialization in Correctional Communities. Amer. Socio.
Rev., 1961, 26, 697-712.























year,
ology.


ychology from the
rsuedaork towards the


W lted in the
outhshore Mental

played as a
s since


chua Count)


ried Judith
. Sarah Me


as born 2,


9


New
1969.












member


&of Arts and
partial ftl

PhMosophy.


June, 1970


Dea, Gaduate School
Dean, Graduate School


4


Supervisory Committee:


Chai rman


-4




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs