Citation
A comparison of self-concepts, peer relationships, persistence and extracurricular involvement of University of Florida freshmen with differing housing

Material Information

Title:
A comparison of self-concepts, peer relationships, persistence and extracurricular involvement of University of Florida freshmen with differing housing
Series Title:
A comparison of self-concepts, peer relationships, persistence and extracurricular involvement of University of Florida freshmen with differing housing
Creator:
Haulman, Stephen Russell
Publisher:
Stephen Russell Haulman
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
College freshmen ( jstor )
College students ( jstor )
Colleges ( jstor )
High school students ( jstor )
Homes ( jstor )
Housing ( jstor )
On campus students ( jstor )
Place of residence ( jstor )
Self ( jstor )
Self concept ( jstor )
City of Sanford ( local )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
04522001 ( OCLC )
022471310 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










A COMPARISON OF SELF-CONCEPTS, PEER RELATIONSHIPS, PERSISTENCE
AND EXTRACURRICULAR INVOLVEMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FRESHMEN
WITH DIFFERING HOUSING ARRANGEMENTS


















By

Stephen Russell Haulman


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1978















This dissertation is dedicated with deep appreciation

to my parents, Colonel and Mrs. Clement Raymer Haulman;

my fiancee, Janet Minturn; and my son, Richard Scott

Haulman; who have supported me with their encouragement,

understanding and love during the most critical period of

my graduate studies.













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The writer wishes to express his appreciation to

Dr. Ralph Kimbrough for his guidance as Chairman of the

writer's Supervisory Committee and particularly for his

suggestions and encouragement throughout the preparation

of this dissertation. The writer also wishes to express his

gratitude to Dr. Harold Riker for the inspiring leadership

and guidance given during the writer's graduate studies

and early years as a professional. Dr. Riker's thoughtful

and constructive comments throughout the preparation of this

dissertation are very much appreciated. The writer also

wishes to thank Dr. James Wattenbarger for the encouragement

he has given throughout the writer's doctoral studies.

Special recognition and appreciation is warmly extended

to Mrs. Rebecca Lovely for her outstanding work in typing

the drafts and final copy of this dissertation. Her patience,

throughtfulness and continued willingness to help throughout

the months of preparation of this dissertation are very much

appreciated. The writer also wishes to thank Dr. Michael

Nunnery for his guidance during the formative stages of this

dissertation. Special appreciation is extended to Mike Conlon

for his assistance with computerized statistical analyses and

for his patience in teaching the writer about certain methods

of statistical analysis.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . iii

LIST OF TABLES ...... . . . . . . vii

LIST OF FIGURES. . . . ... . . . . ix

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . .. . . x

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION . .... . . . . . . 1

Background and Justification for
the Study. . . . . . . . 1

Statement of the Problem. . . . .. 2

Significance of the Study . . . . 3

Scope of the Study. . . . . . . 6

Limitations of the Study. . . . . 8

Assumptions ...... .. . . . . . 8

Definition of Terms . . . . . 9

Procedures. .... . . . . 11

Description of the Sample. .. . 11

Design of the Study. . . . . .. 14

Collection of Data . . . . .. 14

Instruments ..... .... . . . 15

Analysis of the Data . . . . .. 21

Organization of the Research Report . .. 22









TABLES OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)


CHAPTER

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.


Selected Characteristics of Freshman
Students . .. . . .. . . 23

Selected Educational Benefits and the
College Experience . . . ... 29

Self-Concept . . . . . . . 29

Relationships with Other Students. . 32

Extracurricular Experiences. .. . . 35

Persistence in College .. . ... . 37

Impact of Different Types of Housing
Arrangements on College Freshmen . . 40

Research Approaches for Measuring the
Impact of Differing Living Environments. 45

Conclusions from the Literature . . .. 47


III. RESULTS OF THE STUDY . . . .

Response of Sample Participants .

Student Persistence in College. .

Changes in Students' Self-Concept

Relationships with Peers. . .

Participation in Extracurricular
Activities . . . . .

Chapter Summary . . . . .


IV. DISCUSSION OF THE DATA. . . .

Persistence . . . . .

Self-Concept. . . . . .


page

23


. . . 50

. . . 50

. . . 52

. . . 55

64

. . . 64
.. *66

. . . 75


. . . 78

. . . 78

. . . 82








TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)


CHAPTER

IV.
(CONT'D)


page

89


Relationships with Peers . . .

Participation in Extracurricular
Activities . . . . .


V. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .

Findings . . . . . . . .

Conclusions . . . . . . .

Implications of the Study . . . .

Suggestions for Further Research . .


APPENDICES

A SAMPLE COVER LETTERS AND ADDRESS
INFORMATION SHEET . . . . ..

B BARRETT-LENNARD RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY

C ACTIVITIES QUESTIONNAIRE . . . .


BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . .. ... . . ..


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . .


101

102

104

106

114


118

121

124


126


131












LIST OF TABLES


TABLE PAGE

1 Data on Reduction in Number of Eligible
Sample Participants . . . . . .. 51

2 Student Persistence by Residence Group ... 53

3 Persistence Among Females and Males. . . ... 53

4 Female Students' Persistence by Residence
Group . . . . . . . .. . . 54

5 Male Students' Persistence by Residence
Group . . . . . . . . . . 55

6 Estimates for Total Positive and Positive
Subscores on the Posttest of the
Tennessee Self Concept Scale. . . . .. 57

7 Results of t tests on Estimates of Selected
Parameters for the Regression Model . .. 58
2
8 R Values Calculated for the Barrett-Lennard
Relationship Inventory. . . . . .. 65

9 Results of t tests on the Estimates of
Parameters for the Regression Model . .. 66

10 Level of Participation in Campus Organiza-
tions Reported by Residence Group . . .. 67

11 Participation in Academically-Related
Organizations by Residence Group. . . . 68

12 Participation in "Other Organizations."
by Residence Group. .. ... . . .... 69

13 Students' Leadership Roles by Residence
Group . . . . . . . . . . 70

14 Leadership Roles Held by Females and Males . 70


vii








LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D)


TABLE PAGE

15 Participation in Intramural Sports
Competition on Campus by Residence
Group . . . . . . . . . . 72

16 Totals of Students by Residence Group
Who Visited the Museum or Gallery . . . 73

17 Totals of Students by Residence Group
Who Attended a Dance or Party on
Campus. . . . . . . . . 74


viii












LIST OF FIGURES


FIGURE PAGE

1 Regression Model . . . . . . ... 56

2 A Comparison of Identity Scores of
Subsample Groups. . . . . . . 59

3 A Comparison of Personal Self Scores
of Subsample Groups . . . . . ... 60

4 A Comparison of Family Self Scores of
Subsample Groups. . . . . . . .. 61

5 A Comparison of Social Self Scores of
Subsample Groups . . .. . . 62













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Education



A COMPARISON OF SELF-CONCEPTS, PEER RELATIONSHIPS, PERSISTENCE
AND EXTRACURRICULAR INVOLVEMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FRESHMEN
WITH DIFFERING HOUSING ARRANGEMENTS

By

Stephen Russell Haulman

June 1978


Chairman: Ralph B. Kimbrough
Major Department: Educational Administration


The problem of this study was to determine whether

significant differences existed in enrollment persistence,

self-concept, peer relationships, and participation in

extracurricular activities when University of Florida fresh-

men who lived on campus, at home, or in other off-campus

housing were compared. A longitudinal research design was

used during the 1976-77 academic year with a sample of 300

students selected through use of stratified systematic

sampling techniques. Over 68% of the eligible sample

participants returned completed materials.

Data on persistence were gathered from registration

records. Pretests and posttests of the Tennessee Self Concept

Scale and the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory were

used to collect data on self-concepts and peer relationships







respectively. An Activities Questionnaire was designed to

gather data on extent of involvement in campus organizations,

leadership roles held by freshmen, and participation in

certain other extracurricular activities. Data on persis-

tence and participation in extracurricular activities were

analyzed using the chi-square test for significance.

Regression analysis techniques were used to study data

gathered on self-concepts and peer relationships. A regres-

sion model was constructed using three factors (sex, type

of residence and pretest scores on the instrument) and

estimates were computed for each parameter of the model

using the S.A.S. program.

The major findings are summarized as follows: 1. Signi-

ficant differences were found among males, but not females,

according to where they lived. Males who lived on campus

had a significantly higher level of persistence and males

who lived at home had a significantly lower level of persis-

tence when residence groups were compared. 2. Changes in

self-concept occurred among sample participants during their

freshman year. 3. Significant differences were found in

aspects of self-concept among groups with differing housing

arrangements. These differences were identified on the

identity, family self and social self subscales of the

Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 4. No significant differences

were found among the residence groups in students' percep-

tions of certain qualities of their relationships with

peers as measured by the Relationship Inventory. 5. Signi-

ficant differences were found among residence groups in

xi







participation in academically-related organizations and in

certain other organizations, such as the University Band and

R.O.T.C. Campus residents were far more involved in these

organizations than other students. 6. Significant differences

were found by residence group and by sex in leadership roles

held during the freshman year. Campus residents held leader-

ship roles far more often than other students. Males held

leadership roles in greater numbers than females. 7. Signi-

ficant differences were found among residence groups in

three other extracurricular activities. Students who lived

at home participated less in intramurals, were less likely

to have visited campus cultural centers during their freshman

year, and were more likely to have attended a dance or party

on campus in comparison with other students.

The results of this study indicate that a campus

residence hall was the best place for a freshman male to

live to maximize his chances of persisting at the University

of Florida. Data analysis also suggests that living at

home may be the best choice for a female to maximize her

chances of persisting, although the results were not signi-

ficant at the .05 level.

The results of this study tend to support the notion

that a diversified campus housing program, with leadership

committed to building residence hall environments that are

conducive to personal development, can offer important

support systems and opportunities for growth through


xii







interaction with peers in various activities as well as

needed assistance for students with developmental problems.






Chairman /


xiii












CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


Background and Justification for the Study

In the early seventies, pioneering research studies were

conducted by Arthur Chickering on the impact of differing

housing arrangements on college freshmen. Through these

studies, using longitudinal data gathered from many institu-

tions of higher education by the American Council of Education,

Chickering concluded that significant differences exist

among college freshmen who live on campus, at home, or off

campus away from home that cannot be attributed to preexisting

differences among the student groups.

The differing impact of various types of housing arrange-

ments on the self-concepts of freshman students and on their

persistence in college were among the principal findings

of Chickering (1975). Among other significant differences

found to exist among those living on campus, at home, and

off campus away from home were the extent of participation

in college life and relationships with other students.

The researcher believes that the self-concepts of

students and student persistence in college are matters of

considerable significance to students, parents, faculty and

staff, and have implications for society as well. Because of

their importance to a successful college experience, the writer

has referred to these two principal factors in his study as

educational benefits. Also, because the two other factors

1







cited from the Chickering studies appear to be related to

self-concept and/or persistence, as has been suggested in

the literature, they have also been referred to as educa-

tional benefits.


Statement of the Problem

The problem of this study is to determine, through

research conducted on one campus, whether significant

differences exist in selected educational benefits (self-

concept, persistence in college, relationships with other

students, participation in college life) arising from

differing housing arrangements. The study compares unmarried

entering freshman students at the University of Florida who

lived on campus, at home, or in other off-campus housing

during the 1976-1977 academic year. The focus of the investi-

gation is on the following questions:

1. Is there a difference in persistence in college

among students who live on campus, at home, or in

other off-campus housing?

2. For those who persist in college, is there a

change in self-concept among students who live

on campus, at home, or in other off-campus housing

and, if so, does this change differ on the basis

of residence?

3. For those who persist in college, is there a

difference in relationships with peers among

students who live on campus, at home, or in other

off-campus housing?







4. For those who persist in college, is there a

difference in participation in extracurricular

activities among students who live on campus,

at home, or in other off-campus housing?


Significance of the Study

The study is of significance in that there are three

prevailing points of view regarding college housing among

administrators in higher education. These can be described

as the traditional approach, the educational approach, and

the "no housing" approach.

The traditional approach to residence hall operation is

to provide adequate living facilities, essential services,

and a regulated lifestyle for residents supervised by college

officials. Facilities are designed to meet the basic needs

of students for satisfactory sleeping and study space. Staffing

is, for the most part, nonprofessional. Staff members

operating under this approach to housing generally regard

their function as almost exclusively in the areas of admini-

stration, upkeep of facilities, and supervision of student

behavior. The services supplied to students in this setting

are very limited. These include facilities repairs, cleaning

services, and key service; with some housing operations also

providing food service and/or linen service for residents.

Organized activities of a social, recreational or educational

nature are generally not found within the residence halls

on a campus characterized by the traditional approach.

Rather, such opportunities are provided elsewhere on or near







the campus by other service units of the institution or by

formal or informal student organizations.

The belief that college housing is a setting offering

educational benefits to campus residents is the basis for

a second approach to residence hall operation. This

educational approach reflects a commitment to building an

environment conducive to learning and personal development.

With leadership of the campus housing program provided by

professional educators, priority is given to the creation of

opportunities within the campus residential setting that

build social skills, supplement classroom learning with other

learning experiences, and provide other avenues to personal

growth. Housing facilities are designed to meet not only the

basic needs of students to study and sleep, but also to provide

appropriate common areas for the broad range of social, educa-

tional, and recreational activities that are an integral part

of life in residence communities. Leadership in articulating

this philosophy has been provided by Riker (1965). In

expounding on educational purposes, he noted that many adhere

to the

Time-honored but unwarranted assumption that
learning is a product of just the classroom,
occurring solely as the result of action and
reaction among the teacher, the student and
their subject. The accumulating indications
are, however, that many factors influence
learning and that most of them are outside
the classroom. The student society, for
example, appears to be a significant force
affecting behavior. For this reason, the
student residence becomes an important means
of working with this society. The theories
about learning are many, and the evidence
regarding the factors involved is far from
conclusive. Even so, the wise course of







action is to experiment with housing as a
factor in learning because of the over-riding
importance of finding better ways to insure
student success at college. (p. 2)

A third point of view regarding student housing that is

prevalent among administrators in higher education is that

the institution has no obligation to provide campus housing

for students. This point of view toward housing reflects an

even broader belief that the college or university should

assume little or no responsibility for the student outside

of the classroom. Such an approach to student life, partic-

ularly toward campus housing, has become prevalent among

institutions of higher education established in the 1960's

and 1970's, most of which were planned as commuter institutions

located in close proximity to population centers.

There has been little evidence from which one could

draw conclusions as to the relative merits of these three

approaches to the housing of students. One review of the

research in the area has concluded that "research designed

to study the effects and impact of different student housing

programs is lacking" (Robinson & Brown, 1961, p. 360). A

later review of the literature revealed a continuing absence

of evidence regarding the merits of campus housing in contrib-

uting to the education of students (Williams & Reilley, 1972,

p. 212), although some research results notably by Chickering,

have been reported since that time.

Much attention has been focused on the educational

impact of college housing since the 1960's, when lawsuits

challenging compulsory on-campus residence requirements were







filed against a number of colleges and universities. While

numerous educators have testified as to the merits and values

of campus living, few research studies .to either support or

refute such testimony have been available.

A study of this type was further needed because the

Division of Housing at the University of Florida has been,

in the mid-seventies, in a state of flux in its philosophical

approach to residence hall operation. Research conducted at

this particular institution on whether or not there are

significant differences in certain educational benefits

arising from differing housing arrangements may prove very

useful in helping to shape decisions on the future course of

student housing on this campus.

The study described herein is significant in light of

the prevailing differences of opinion regarding the housing

of students, court decisions on the issue of compulsory on-

campus residence requirements, and the particular situation

existing at the University of Florida in the mid-seventies.


Scope of the Study

The following contraints have been observed in conducting

this study:

1. The research was confined to a sample of a population

of unmarried freshman students who began their

college work in September of 1976 and who met admis-

sions requirements of the University of Florida.

In selecting the sample, this population was divided

into six subpopulations according to sex and







expected place of residence. Groups 1M (males)

and IF (females) included students living at home.

Groups 2M and 2F included students living off

campus away from home. Groups 3M and 3F included

campus residents. To assure adequate representation

of the first two relatively small subpopulations,

a stratified systematic sample of 300 students was

drawn. Of the total sample of 300 students who

were initially chosen, 50 were selected from each

of the six groups.

2. Measurement of self-concept was confined to pretest

and posttest scores on the positive scales of the

Tennessee Self Concept Scale administered in August

of 1976 and April of 1977.

3. Measurement of persistence in college was confined

to a count of the number of students in the sample

registering for one or more courses at the University

of Florida for the 1976-77 Fall, Winter and Spring

quarters.

4. Measurement of participation in college life was

confined to comparison of each group's after-only

scores on a researcher-developed questionnaire on

extracurricular activities, which was administered

in April of 1977.

5. Measurement of relationships with other students

was confined to pretest and posttest scores on the

Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (revised)

administered in August of 1976 and in April of 1977.







Limitations of the Study

The following limitations of this study were recognized:

1. Only to the extent that other populations possess

a similar pattern of characteristics of the speci-

fied population of entering freshmen at the Univer-

sity of Florida are the results generalizable beyond

the sample studied.

2. Data-gathering materials were distributed individu-

ally to each person in the sample. The setting in

which the data for this study were collected was

not under the direct control of the writer; therefore,

some opportunities existed for variations in how

participants completed the instruments.

3. The researcher confined his comparisons among housing

groups strictly to three broad categories: those who

lived at home, those who lived off campus away from

home, and those who lived on campus. There was no

attempt made to compare differences within a single

category i.e., no attempt was made to draw compari-

sons among groups from different residence halls.


Assumptions

The writer made certain assumptions for the purposes

of this study. First, the sample participants responded

honestly when completing the instruments sent to them.

Second, the sample participants accepted as truthful the

researcher's assurances that respondents would in no way be

identified individually. Third,systematic samples drawn







from the lists of students for the three strata have yielded

representative cross sections of the subpopulations.


Definition of Terms

Admission requirements. A cumulative high school grade point

average of 2.0 or better and a Florida Twelfth Grade

Test score of 300 or better (or equivalent SAT score for

out-of-state students) were required for acceptance as a

freshman at the University.

At home student. A student who lived at home with his or

her parents or with a grandparent, aunt or uncle while

attending the University.

Campus resident. A student who resided in a campus residence

hall while attending the University. Inasmuch as those

who lived in an on-campus fraternity house, sorority

house or a residence hall reserved 'for athletes could,

at best, constitute less than 1% of the freshman

population and because their living environment might

have been very different from other freshmen, such

individuals were excluded from the sample.

Educational benefits. Selected developmental factors related

to the educational process that were chosen for study.

These include self-concept, persistence in college,

participation in college life, and relationships with

other students.

Off campus away from home student. A student who resided

off campus, but not with his or her parents, grand-

parent(s), aunt or uncle while attending the University.






10
Students in this category resided primarily in apartments

shared with one or more other students. Inasmuch as

those who lived in a fraternity or sorority house off

campus could, at best, constitute less than 1% of the

freshman population and because their living environment

might have been very different from other freshmen,

such individuals were excluded from the sample.

Participation in college life. The extent of participation

in extracurricular activities during the freshman year

as measured by a researcher-developed questionnaire.

Persistence in college. The tendency of a student to continue

his/her studies at the University as measured by a count

of the number of students who registered for one or more

courses for the Fall, Winter and Spring quarters.

Relationships with other students. The student's perceptions

of the nature of his relationships with peers as measured

by the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (revised).

Residence requirement. Any requirement for students to live

on campus (except a requirement to continue a housing

obligation voluntarily contracted for by the student)

that is imposed by an institution of higher education.

Self-concept. The attitudes one holds toward himself/herself

as measured by the positive scales of the Tennessee

Self Concept Scale.







Procedures


Description of the Sample

An admittance list was obtained from the Admissions Office

at the University of Florida on August 9, 1976, and was used

to define the population. This list was a then-current

roster of incoming freshmen admitted to the University for

the upcoming Fall quarter. It was arranged in alphabetical

order and included home addresses, high school grade point

averages, Florida Twelfth Grade Test scores, social security

number, sex, marital status, housing code, birth date, and

information concerning the status of each prospective student's

application for admission. The list was coded to eliminate

from the sample those students who did not meet admission

requirements for freshmen entering the University (those

admitted by petition) and to eliminate those students who

were married.

Each person on the list of remaining students was

assigned to one of the six subpopulation groups. If the

housing code next to a student's name indicated that he or

she had paid the campus housing prepayment or requested a

delay in payment, he or she was assigned to Groups 3M (males)

or 3F (females), which included students likely to be campus

residents. If the housing code next to a student's name

indicated that he or she would not be living on campus, then

the student's home address was checked. If the student's

home was within reasonable commuting distance of the campus

in the judgment of the researcher, then he or she was assigned

to Groups 1M or IF, which included those students likely to





12


be living at home. All .other freshmen were assigned to

Groups 2M or 2F which included those students likely to be

living off campus away from home.

A stratified systematic sample of students was drawn

from the coded list.. While it was impossible to determine

in advance the exact size of the subpopulations within the

total population, Groups 3M and 3F were expected to include

a large majority of the population and Groups 1 and 2 were

expected to be relatively small as had been the case in

previous years. To assure adequate representation of

Groups 1 and 2, stratified sampling was used. Of the total

sample of 300 students who were initially chosen, 50 were

selected from each of the six groups. Systematic sampling

procedures were used by the researcher. Since the alphabetized

admit list was not ordered in any manner associated with the

factors to be studied, systematic sampling procedures were

expected to yield a representative cross section of the

population.

Some minor changes in the number of sample participants

from each group, as well as in the total number of students

in the sample occurred prior to and during October of 1976,

when verification of place of residence was made for all of

those included in the sample. Verification proceeded according

to this plan: First, the most current alphabetical roster

of students in campus housing available from the Division of

Housing was reviewed in early October. Full names and social

security numbers were checked for all sample participants.

Those who appeared on this roster, regardless of initial








subsample assignment, were listed in Groups 3MA (males)and

3FA (females) which included those sample participants who

were actually assigned to campus housing for the fall quarter.

The "anticipated place of residence" data sheets,

included in pretest materials returned by sample participants

after being sent to their home addresses in August, were then

reviewed. Verification by telephone, mail, or visit was

attempted for those sample participants not already assigned

to Groups 3MA and 3FA. Those found to be living off campus

away from home were assigned to Groups 2MA and 2FA.

Updated local address information was then obtained

from the Registrar's Office on sample participants whose

addresses had not already been verified. When such updated

address information was found to exist, verification by

telephone, mail or visit was attempted. Sample participants

were then assigned appropriately to Group 1MA, 1FA, 2MA or

2FA.

The remaining sample participants were contacted by mail

or telephone through the permanent home addresses these

students had provided to the Registrar's Office. The new

information gained was used to assign persons to Group 1MA,

1FA, 2MA, or 2FA.

Those initially selected for the sample who did not

actually enroll for the Fall quarter or who enrolled but

did not complete pretest instruments mailed in August by

October 15 were dropped completely from the sample. The

researcher made repeated attempts where necessary to obtain

pretest instruments from enrolled sample participants by








this date. The reduction in enrolled sample participants

as a result of failure to complete pretest instruments was

kept to a minimum through exhaustive follow-up by the

researcher.


Design of the Study

The research design selected by the researcher to study

student persistence in college, self-concept and relationships

with other students can be depicted as follows:

0 X 0

O Y 0

O Z O

where X = at home living experience

Y = off-campus living experience away from home

Z = on-campus living experience

0 = testing of sample participants

The research design selected by the researcher to study

participation in extracurricular activities can be depicted

as follows:

X O

Y 0

Z 0


Collection of Data

Pretest materials were mailed to persons selected for

the sample in August of 1976, prior to enrollment. These

materials included a general information sheet requesting

assistance with the study and assuring confidentiality of

each individual's responses, a data sheet requesting








information on plans for Fall quarter residence while attending

the University; the Tennessee Self Concept Scale and answer

sheet; the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (revised);

and a stamped, addressed return envelope.

Posttest materials were distributed in April of 1977 to

those Fall enrollees who returned useable pretest materials

and who persisted at the University. These materials

included a cover letter, the Tennessee Self Concept Scale

and answer sheet, the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory

(revised), a questionnaire on involvement in extracurricular

activities, and a return envelope.

Samples of the general information sheet and the data

sheet sent to students with pretest materials, as well as the

cover letter sent to students with posttest materials, are

included in Appendix A. A sample of the pretest of the

Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (revised) is included

in Appendix B. The Activities Questionnaire, used on a

posttest-only basis, is included in Appendix C.

Extensive personal follow-up was provided for collection

of both pretest and posttest materials to secure a high

rate of return of materials.


Instruments


Tennessee Self Concept Scale

This instrument was developed by William H. Fitts in

1955. The scale was standardized by Fitts (cited in Harrell,

1976) on a total of 1091 persons representing all social,







economic, intellectual, and educational levels from sixth

grade through the Ph.D. degree.

The scale consists of 100 items. These items were

designed to guide an individual in describing himself or

herself in terms of the following: (1) this is what I

am; (2) this is how I feel about myself; and (3) this is

what I do. There are nine scales representing the

following dimensions of the self-concept: total positive,

identity, self-satisfaction, behavior, physical self,

moral-ethical self, personal self, family self, and social

self. These are referred to as the positive scales of

the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. The positive scales

as well as the distribution and total variability scores

were used in this study.

A "counseling" version and a "clinical and research"

version of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale are available.

The instrument itself does not differ, but far more sub-

scores are available on the latter version for certain

clinical and research purposes. The counseling version

of the scale was used in this study.

Two scoring methods are available for the instrument,

a hand-scored method and a computer-scored method. The

latter scoring method was most appropriate for the study,

so the optical scan version of the instrument was used.

The instrument has a Likert-type scale of five choices

ranging from completely false to completely true.








Test-retest reliability data developed by Fitts (1965)

with a sample of 60 college students over a two-week period

are as follows: Total Positive 0.92, Distribution 0.89,

and Total Variability 0.67.

Validity of the instrument was demonstrated by Fitts

(1965), using four procedures: content validity, discrimi-

nation between groups, correlation with other personality

measures, and personaltiy changes under particular conditions.

Content validity was established through use of a jury of

seven clinical psychologists to analyze individual items.

Only items on which the psychologists reached favorable

consensus regarding content were incorporated in the final

version of the instrument. Studies on a variety of groups

have established the effectiveness of the scale in discrimi-

nating between such groups as psychiatric patients and non-

patients. Comparisons of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale

with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

yielded high correlation ratios. Personality changes

resulting from psychotherapy (Ashcraft and Fitts, 1964)

and from detrimental life experiences (Gividen, 1959)

were measured by the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. "There

is considerable evidence that people's concepts of self

do change as a result of significant experiences. The

Tennessee Self Concept Scale reflected these changes in

predicted ways, thus constituting additional evidence for

the validity of the instrument" (Fitts, 1965, p. 30).







Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory

This instrument was developed by G. T. Barrett-Lennard

in 1962 to measure certain dimensions of a client's percep-

tions of his therapist's attitudes and responses. The

Relationship Inventory was prepared in two parallel forms

differing only in third-person pronouns (Barrett-Lennard,

1962; Hanson et al., 1966). The group form of the instrument

was used in this study following the Wiebe-Pearce revision

of Barrett-Lennard's original inventory. This revision

consisted of 32 items and 4 subscales (see Appendix B).

The group form of the instrument measures perceptions of

group facilitativeness through a total scale score. Subscale

scores measure positive regard, empathy, congruence, and

unconditionality of regard for others in the group.

The items in the revised inventory are classified

in the following groups:

Level of Regard: 1,6,8,10,14,17,21,28,29,31

Empathetic Understanding: 3,4,11,15,18,26,30

Congruence: 2,5,7,9,12,19,22,23,25,27

Unconditionality of Regard: 13,16,20,24,32

Split half reliability coefficients ranged from .82

to .93 and test-retest reliability correlations ranged

from .86 to .95 for scores analyzed by Barrett-Lennard.

Internal consistency reliability coefficients for the

four subscales have ranged from .82 to .95 in analysis

by other researchers. Lanning (1971) has reported stability

coefficients for the total score of .93 to .95.








Based on an item analysis of the instrument, Weibe

and Pearce (1973) recommended a shorter, more discriminating

instrument to include only those items correlated most

strongly with the subscale on which they appear. Toppe

(1977), using this revised inventory, found that the

computed intercorrelations for scale scores and the total

score in his investigation were all positive and significant

beyond the .001 level.

Construct validity for the scale has been established

through classification of items by five judges. Only

those 85 items on which consensus was reached regarding

classification were used in Barrett-Lennard's final form

of the inventory. Barrett-Lennard's research also estab-

lished predictive validity, demonstrating that the inventory

discriminated, as predicted, between clients who improved

and who did not improve as a result of therapy. "Studies

with less severely disturbed clients, such as students,

report significant positive relationships between perceived

facilitativeness and positive client change. Predictive

validity, therefore, has been established for relatively

normal populations" (Toppe, 1977, p. 18).


Activities Questionnaire

A survey of the theoretical writings and research

studies on participation in extracurricular activities

was conducted. Through this survey, it was determined

that there were three principal aspects of extracurricular

involvement that needed to be addressed in this research.








These aspects were level of participation in campus organiza-

tions, leadership roles in campus organizations held by

freshmen, and participation in other college-related extra-

curricular activities.

An Activities Questionnaire was developed for use on

a posttest-only basis after a search of available standardized

instruments failed to locateone suitable for this study.

Three sections of the questionnaire were developed. The

first section was designed to list categories of organiza-

tions. In this section, respondents were to indicate their

level of involvement (Not at All, To a Small Extent, Fairly

Extensive or Very Extensive) in each type of organization.

The second section was designed to determine whether or

not the respondent had been selected for or had assumed a

leadership role in any campus organization since the start

of his or her freshman year. A "yes" or "no" response was

called for and a space was provided for the respondent to

name the organizations) if an affirmative response was

made. The third section of the questionnaire was designed

to determine whether or not a respondent had participated

in certain other University-related extracurricular activi-

ties of a cultural, social or recreational nature during

the course of his or her freshman year. A "yes" or "no"

response was requested in this section of the questionnaire.

A draft of the instrument was developed, reviewed by

several professors, and revised prior to distribution with

posttest materials. Because of the nature of this information

being sought, high reliability can be expected from the







instrument. All of the items contained in the instrument

refer to different aspects of extracurricular involvement;

therefore, it can be concluded that the Activities Question-

naire is a valid measurement of participation in extra-

curricular activities. The Activities Questionnaire is

included in Appendix C


Analysis of the Data

Analyses of the research questions in the statement of

the problem were accomplished through the use of descriptive,

inferential and correlational statistics. The inferential

statistical technique of chi square was used to test the

significance of any differences that existed among the sub-

sample groups on persistence and participation in extra-

curricular activities. The .05 level of significance was

used to evaluate the chi-square tests for contingency

tables. Regression analysis was used to predict posttest

scores for students in the sample on the Tennessee Self

Concept Scale and the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory.

A regression model was constructed using three factors

(sex, type of residence and pretest scores on the instrument).

Using a S.A.S. computer program, estimates were computed for

each parameter of the model. F tests were conducted to

determine how good the model was in predicting posttest

scores. The t tests were conducted on the hypothesis that

each parameter equalled zero. The .05 level of significance

was used to evaluate the results of these t tests. Descrip-

tive statistics were used in describing pretest and posttest








scores of the subsample groups where significant differences

were found on the positive scales of the Tennessee Self

Concept Scale.


Organization of the Research Report

This study is reported in five chapters. Chapter I

contains an introduction, a statement of the problem, the

significance of the study, scope of the study, limitations,

assumptions, definition of terms, and procedures. A review

of the literature is provided in Chapter II. An analysis

of the data is presented in Chapter III. Chapter IV is

devoted to a discussion of the data. In the final chapter,

Chapter V, conclusions and their implications are presented

along with suggestions for further research.













CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


In order to provide an orderly presentation of selected

research findings and theoretical writings from the profes-

sional literature as background for this study, this chapter

is divided into four sections. The first section includes

information on selected characteristics of freshman students.

The second section reviews writings and research findings on

certain educational benefits associated with the college

experience. The results of research on the impact of

different housing arrangements on college freshmen are

reviewed in section three. The fourth section of the

chapter presents information on several research methods

that have been used to measure the impact of different

living environments on students.


Selected Characteristics of Freshman Students

Sanford (1962), Freedman (cited in Sanford, 1962) and

others, in writings about student development, have generally

preferred to refer to the adolescent stage of development

or to personal growth during the college years rather than

to the developmental changes during the freshman year. In

a book entitled College and Character, Sanford maintained

that "at no stage can the development of a man's personality

be defined simply by either his chronological age or his








academic status" (Sanford, 1964, p. 86). Instead, Sanford

(1962), Heath (1969) and others have described a stage of

late adolescence, which includes most freshmen, but also

some high school students and college sophomores, as well

as a minority of college upperclassmen.

McConnell and Heist (cited in Sanford, 1962) and others

have elaborated on the wide diversity of freshmen in terms

of academic ability, personality characteristics, interests,

values and socioeconomic background. According to Alfert

(1968), students starting college vary in initial level of

development as well as in the pace of development during

their stay. Despite the tremendous variety of individual

backgrounds represented by the freshman population, there

are some generalizations that can be gleaned from the liter-

ature that are said to apply to freshman students.

Prominent researchers in the field of student development,

including Chickering (1974) and DeCoster (1970) have referred

to The American College, edited by Nevitt Sanford, as a

major contribution to the literature and a useful source of

information on freshman characteristics. In a chapter on

the developmental status of the freshman, Sanford (1962)

draws an interesting parallel:

The freshman's psychological situation is essen-
tially a picture of an authoritarian personality
structure. Authoritarianism in personality is a
particular pattern of relationships among impulse,
conscience, and ego (Sanford, 1956b). It is a
pattern in which strong impulses are directly
opposed by an alert, rigid, and punitive conscience.
The ego has to devote so much energy to restraining
impulses that its other functions are not well
performed; it has been able to integrate little
of the primitive conscience with itself, so that
the latter continues to function more or less as
a foreign body. This state of affairs at the








core of the personality is reflected at the sur-
face in characteristic ways: in stereotyped
thinking, intolerance of ambiguity, punitive
morality, submissiveness toward the powerful and
dominance toward the weak, conventionality, anti-
intellectualism, hostility toward people perceived
to be different from oneself. The freshman inhibits
impulse by being morally strict with himself and
others. He is ready to meet stiff requirements,
to work hard, to conform with what he takes to be
the prevailing standards of behavior--and he is
inclined to be somewhat intolerant of those who do
not. An element of perfectionism, of striving
for purity of thought and action is characteristic
of the freshman. (p. 261)

Newcomb and Feldman (1969) reviewed thirty-seven studies

on changes in authoritarianism during the college years.

Results of these studies were consistent--seniors were, on

the average, less authoritarian than freshmen. In almost all

studies, these differences were relatively large and statis-

tically significant. Of the longitudinal studies comparing

freshman and sophomore students on authoritarianism, all

reported that sophomores are, on the average, significantly

less authoritarian than they were as freshmen.

Plant (1965) has found that a decrease in authoritarianism

is in evidence in this age group whether individuals have been

enrolled in college or not. Newcomb and Feldman noted that

decreases in authoritarianism in college students appears to

be more reliable and larger than for those in the same age

range who are not attending college. They concluded that:

As of now, the most that may be surmised is that
colleges in general, and particular colleges
differentially, may select or attract students
who are differentially "open" to changes in
authoritarianism; and that these colleges provide
environments that differ both among themselves
and as compared with non-college environments -
in respect to influences likely to change existing
states of authoritarianism. One way in which







college environments differ from non-college
environments is that the former appear to
facilitate decreases in authoritarianism more
than the latter. (p. 32)

Sanford (1962) noted that freshmen have not had time

to develop a system of values rooted in personal experiences--

another feature of the authoritarian personality structure.

The values of the entering freshman are supported,
typically, by his family and home community; he is
dependent upon this support, but, at least in the
very beginning of the college career, the support
is adequate enough so that the freshman is able to
present a picture of organization and self-contain-
ment. (p. 262-3)

Data from the 1976 Student Information Forms, published

by the American Council on Education, have indicated that

many entering freshmen have unrealistic expectations regarding

their chances of changing major field, failing one or more

courses, and completing degree requirements on time. Morstain

(1972) commented positively on the ultimate outcome once these

expectations are shattered for many:

Undoubtedly, there is much confusion and ambiguity
if students are in situations that might be incon-
gruent with their expectations about education and
their role in it, but this confusion can be helpful.
If it enables students to think about their education
and to establish personally relevant goals, the
initial confusion has served its purpose. (p. 286)

This shattering of initial expectations and the resulting

confusion can have a major impact on a student's confidence

in his or her abilities. According to Larson and Laramee

(1976),

There is often an initial shock to students who
come to college having been leaders in their high
schools, churches, and communities. The competi-
tion for extracurricular leadership roles, higher
standards for academic work, and the more hetero-









generous value systems of the new environment may
leave them without the familiar support systems
from which they had drawn recognition, encourage-
ment, and purpose. The hope that "things will get
better" is realized by some students, but others
do not soon regain the confidence they once felt
in a more familiar environment. (p. 48)

Against this background of high academic expectations,

increased competition, greater exposure to differing value

systems and (for many) the loss of support systems, Sanford

(1964) elaborated on the freshman's initial view of self

in College and Character:

Closely related to the freshman's authoritarian
propensities is his uncertain self-esteem. He
does not know what he can do, how good he is,
or what to think of himself. On the one hand he
is happy to remember his parents' faith in him,
the accomplishments of high school and the plaudits
received there, and, perhaps particularly, the fact
that he was chosen for admission to his college.
On the other hand, he suspects that he is now
playing in a different league, and he knows that
the major tests of life still await him. In his
uncertainty, he vacillates between overestimation
and underestimation of himself. His inclination
is to stick to patterns of behavior that have
been rewarded in the past and to display such
confidence as he can muster. (p. 87-8)

Freshman students can also be characterized as demon-

strating increasing tolerance and flexibility of thinking.

Gough (1958) has found that college freshmen score between

high school freshmen and graduate students on these factors,

using the California Psychological Inventory.

Newcomb and Feldman (1969), on the basis of a review of

the literature on student characteristics and how these change

during the college years, concluded that developmental change

is gradual over the college years rather than pronounced in

any particular year. They found that studies on patterns of








change reflected fairly consistently a steady decline in

authoritarianism as well as a decline in political, economic

and social conservatism.

In commenting further on patterns of change, Newcomb

and Feldman supported the widely held view that the impact

of the college experience is greatest upon students during

their freshman and sophomore years. Yet, they also cited

some reasons why this pattern is not consistently true:

For some dimensions the early college years may
indeed provide the greatest impetus of change,
but other areas of potential change may not become
salient or relevant to students until their later
college years. Likewise, at some colleges the
challenges of the early years may be greater than
those of the later years, whereas structural arrange-
ments of other colleges may create greater pressures
for change on upper division than on lower division
students. (p. 101)

Newcomb and Feldman also noted that individual differences

play an important role in determining when change takes place

during the college years.

For some,'change may be almost immediate, for others
there may be a longer period of "working through,"
with observable change being evidenced only in
later college years. It is even possible that some
students find the challenges of their freshman year
so heavy that they become resistant to change, only
to become less defensive and more likely to change
in their junior or senior year. (p. 101)

In The Student in Higher Education, the writers concluded

that the freshman student "generally has an open mind, is eager

to work, and willing to learn . the freshman year is of

critical importance because it is the time when the student's

enthusiasm, curiosity, and willingness to work can be snuffed-

out or reinforced" (The Committee on the Student in Higher

Education, 1968, p. 45).







Selected Educational Benefits
and the College Experience


Self-Concept

One of the major developmental needs of freshman students,

as was identified by The Committee on the Student in Higher

Education, is the enhancement of self-concept (p. 11).

Erikson (1950) also identified the achievement of a personal

sense of identity as the main growth task of the adolescent

stage of development. He described achievement of identity

as a gradual process involving exploration and trying out of

alternative values and goals and resulting in a commitment

to a particular set of values. Segal (1967) has commented

on the implications of various residence settings for achieve-

ment of identity in maturing college students.

But different settings allow different kinds of
testing, trying, and doing, and the choice of
one or another setting suggests different strat-
egies and tactics in terms of the primacy of
different needs with the person. (p. 309)

Segal has pointed out that the living arrangements of

college students differ in the extent to which the process

of achieving identity is "worked through directly within

the concept of family, with greater or less emphasis on

peer culture as a critical factor, with variation in who sets

the rules and for what" (Segal, 1967, p. 309). He noted

that each setting offers possibilities for personal growth

toward maturity as well as opportunities to avoid the

trials inherent in achieving identity.








Powell, Plyler, Dickson and McClellan (1969), Sanford

(1964), Chickering (1969) and others have studied the concept

of self as it relates to the college experiences of students

and have acknowledged its significance in terms of impact on

student development. The self-concept consists of "all of

the beliefs, attitudes and opinions which an individual

holds about himself" (Purkey, 1967, p. 3)

Rogers (1951) described self-concept in a more detailed

manner:

The self concept may be thought of as an organized
configuration of perceptions of the self which
are admissible to awareness. It is composed of
such elements as the perceptions of one's charac-
teristics and abilities; the percepts and concepts
of the self in relation to others and to the
environment; the value qualities which are perceived
as associated with experiences and objects; and
goals and ideals which are perceived as having
positive or negative valence. (p. 136)

This organized configuration of perceptions of the self,

according to Rogers, unifies the individual's personality

and regulates his behavior. So long as perceptions of self

remain firmly organized, and no contradictory material is

even dimly perceived, then the self is seen as "worthy and

acceptable, and conscious tension is minimal" (p. 191).

Wylie (.1961), in a comprehensive survey of the literature

on self-concept, concluded that self-concept theories are in

many ways ambiguous, incomplete, and overlapping. As a result

of her review of pertinent research literature, she noted

that no one theory has received a large amount of systematic

empirical exploration.








In a research bulletin entitled The Self and School

Achievement, published in 1970, Purkey summarized numerous

studies on the topic and concluded that there is a strong

relationship between a student's concept of self and his

performance in school--and in life:

Students who feel good about themselves and have
confidence in their abilities are those who are
most likely to succeed. Conversely, it appeared
that those who see themselves and their abilities
in a negative fashion usually fail to achieve
good grades. Academic success or failure appears
to be as deeply rooted in concepts of self as it
is to measured mental ability, if not deeper.
(p. 14)

In research in the area of student development at

Haverford College, it was found that "no student reported

that he had not changed his conception of himself as a

consequence of his college experience" (Heath, 1968, p. 222).

Heath, who provided a model of the maturing process for

the college years and beyond, had this to say about the

freshman experience:

The freshman is "shocked" by the demands of
the college. He becomes unstable and dis-
organized, though, in a "good" college that
provides adequate supports, not enough to
regress seriously or withdraw. That is, a
good college helps its students to remain
educablee." Disorganization and confusion
are painful; without them, students may
never make efforts to understand. The
freshman becomes more aware of his own
inadequacies, questions his competence and
values, and despairs. By the end of his
freshman year, his self-concept has shifted
from being "God's gift to humanity" to being
a person of little value. (p. 175)

Sanford (1967), in writing about student change in

college, noted that students did not rate themselves high







on personal stability and integration (as reflected by

student comments about self-concept) in ratings made during

the first semester of college. He attributed this situation

to the many adjustment problems faced by freshmen during this

period. His data reflected a sharp increase in personal

stability and integration from the first to the second semester

of the freshman year. In an earlier text, Sanford (1964)

also noted how vulnerable freshmen are to others' perceptions

of them. Freshmen are particularly subject to the influence

of peers, whose approval is needed to bolster self-confidence.


Relationships with Other Students

According to a number of studies reviewed by Newcomb and

Feldman (1969), students about to begin college lifP have high

expectations that academic and intellectual experiences will

be an extremely important source of satisfaction for them.

However, in a longitudinal study, King (cited in Newcomb and

Feldman, 1969) found that by their senior year, most Harvard

students in reflecting upon their college experiences, felt

that their greatest satisfactions had come from interpersonal

activities and personal growth rather than from academic and

intellectual activities. Wallace (cited in Newcomb and Feldman,

1969) reported similar results in a study of freshman students.

He found that while getting the highest possible grades and

learning as much as possible were the most important and

most widely held goals among students entering college, the

importance of these goals declined sharply before the end

of the first year of college attendance, while the importance

of relationships with peers received much greater emphasis.








Maxon and Malone (1977) noted that the increase in the

influence of the peer group is a function of a changing

culture. In describing the increasing power of the peer

group in shaping values, they have said, "Today, however,

due to his frequent contact with peers, plus the increasing

absence of his parents from the home, the peer group has

provided the model that has become as important a socializing

agent as the home" (Maxon and Malone, 1977, p. 191).

Relationships with other students can profoundly affect

individual patterns of development. The importance of these

relationships with peers was recognized by The Committee on

the Student in Higher Education (1968):

Just as the friendship group controls production
on a factory assembly line and cohesiveness in a
military squad, so the student friendship group
helps determine what is learned in the college,
how it is learned, and what effect both knowledge
and the learning experience have on the student's
total personality. While our knowledge of how
the friendship group can contribute positively
to the educational process is still meager, the
importance of peer group influence is so obvious
that we must rapidly acquire more knowledge of
how it works and integrate it into the educational
experience--hopefully, without attempting to
manipulate it. (p. 13)

Powell, et al. (1969), Newcomb (1964) and others have

also recognized the strong influence of peers. Newcomb

described the isolation from contact with more mature adults,

which the freshman who is away from home typically experi-

ences through greatly reduced contact with parents and

infrequent contact with faculty outside the classroom.

Against this background, Newcomb commented on peer group

formation and the impact of such groups on students:








Such a combination of circumstances is hardly
calculated to aid the. student in his search for
identity, precisely at the time when he is least
certain about it. Small wonder, then, that
students tend to be drawn together; their common
problems and their relative isolation from non-
students make them ready material for the forma-
tion of strong peer groups. Membership in a peer
group is more likely to influence directly students'
capacities, or basic personality traits. (p. 141)

Sherif and Sherif (1964) have described the manner in

which relationships with peers are established and maintained

by adolescents. They cited two major reasons for peer group

formation. First, social ties with peers are formed to aid

individuals in developing self-concepts that are more con-

sistent and well-defined. Second, social relationships are

formed with peers to provide support systems that can help

individuals cope with the problems of everyday living.

Sherif and Sherif have described the factors which determine

the degree of influence which a peer group has on an

individual:

The extent to which such an informal formation
becomes the center of the universe for an
individual member is proportional to the degree
of disruption of other ties (family, school,
and other social establishments), and propor-
tional to the degree that the group and its
activities serve as vehicles for joint action
towards the fulfillment of goals he feels
denied otherwise (social, financial, sexual,
and so on). To this extent, the individual's
concerns over social acceptance or rejection,
his concern to prove himself as a person who
counts, his very conception of the kind of
person he is, revolve in no small part around
"being somebody" in this group of his own
choosing.








Extracurricular Experiences

In an historical account tracing the development of

student extracurricular activities, Koos (1940) described

the then-current attitude of educational administrators

which was "to recognize positive educational values in

the extra-curriculum, to promote pupil-initiated projects,

and to capitalize for educational growth the natural, social

and creative propensities of youth." Although a later review

of the literature by Gilligan (1967) reflected periodic

changes in emphasis and support given to student activities,

an appreciation of the value of, and commitment to, such

activities remained in evidence.

The values of extracurricular experiences have been

noted by many, including Koos (1940), Frederick (1965) and

Lloyd-Jones, et al. (1938). Lloyd-Jones has articulated

these values in a concise manner:

SExtra-curricular activities offer the opportunities
for students to develop good qualities-of leaderships
and fellowships. They offer the opportunity to
serve the institution; to experience and to help
create good fellowship and social good will; they
further self-realization and all-round growth. They
assist students in adjusting to their student world
and in learning the qualities of good citizenship.
(p. 186)

Erikson (1950) has cited both the search for identity and

for peer support as factors motivating students to participate

in extracurricular activities in college. Weston and Stein

(1977) have also pointed out the role that involvement in

extracurricular activities can play in the development of a

person's self-concept. They have described the college years








as one of the final steps of adolescents in the process of

identity development and have noted that participation in

extracurricular activities can provide opportunities for a

student to test his or her abilities, values and interests.

This testing can play an important part in developing or

.clarifying a person's self-concept.

In research on participation in extracurricular activities,

Weston and Stein (1977) found that participation in college

activities was definitely related to female students' self-

concept. They noted that participation should be seen as

having at least three dimensions: number of organizations

in which membership was held, degree of involvement within

those organizations, and leadership functions. Extent of

involvement was more of a predictor of identity achievement

in college women than other dimensions of participation,

according to Weston and Stein.

Iffert (1957), Goble (1956), Harnett (1965), Vaughan

(-1968) and others have studied the relationship between

-academic success and participation in extracurricular activ-

iities. Research has indicated not only that the two are

/ mutually-supportive, but has also demonstrated that partici-

pation in extracurricular activities appeared to favorably

"influence chances of academic success in college.

Astin (1975) studied the relationship between persistence

and student participation in extracurricular activities.

He found that participation in extracurricular activities is







significantly related to staying in college. Astin concluded

that his findings supported the theory that student persistence

to some extent depends on the degree of personal involvement

in campus life.


Persistence in College

Studies by Iffert (1957), Astin and Panos (1969) and

others have found no significant differences in attrition

rates for college men and women, although they do not withdraw

for the same reasons. "Researchers have found consistently

that the reasons given for dropping out differ between the

sexes . men tending to cite internal and academic reasons

while women more frequently mentioned external and nonacademic

ones" (Cope and Hannah, 1975, p. 16).

Summerskill (1962) reviewed the literature published

between 1913 and 1957 on student attrition in higher education.

Based on this review of 35 studies, Summerskill reached this

conclusion:

Colleges lose, on the average, approximately half
their students in the four years after matriculation.
Some 40% of college students graduate on schedule
and, in addition, approximately 20% graduate at
some college, some day. (p. 631)

Kauffman (1966) also reviewed the literature on student

attrition, including studies published more recently than

those reviewed by Summerskill. Kauffman was not able to locate

a single conclusive study of attrition in higher education

and found no precise data available on the causes of attrition.

Among the reasons for attrition noted by Kauffman were these:

motivation and expectations and their interaction with institu-

tional environments and values; academic incompetence or






38
unsuitability related to type of institution or major field

of study; financial circumstances; personal or emotional

adjustment problems.

Both Astin (1975) and Cope and Hannah (1975) have

concluded that student attrition and student persistence

in college are primarily a product of experiences of students

in the college environment. Cope and Hannah have concisely

stated their conclusions based on reviews of the literature

on persistence and their own research:

Most quantitative research (such as admissions
data) is without value in either predicting
withdrawal or understanding the reasons for
discontinuance, since such research considers
a limited number of variables, usually easily
quantified, such as high school grade point
averages, college entrance test scores, parents'
income, socioeconomic class background, partici-
pation in high school activities, and the like.
In addition, the reasons for discontinuance are
usually complex, overlapping, often have nothing
to do with the student, and in some instances
may not even be recognized by the student.
Changed vocational choice, poor choice of the
college in the first place, meeting a loved one
and transferring to be with him or her, dissatis-
faction with the college, fulfilling less than
degree expectation, and other multifaceted issues
are involved in withdrawal.

It seems clear too, that there is no dropout per-
sonality, only individual personalities interacting
with different campus environments, at various
times in their mutual and changing lives. (p. 102)

Based on a review of previous studies, Astin (1975)

identified the following student background characteristics

that may be used in predicting which freshmen persist and

which do not. These factors are ability, high school grades,

socioeconomic status, educational aspirations, and the

student's own predictions on chances of his or her completing






39
college. Astin's own research findings supported the theory

that student involvement is a key factor in persistence.

Astin has developed a theory of college persistence which

holds that:

A student's tendency to drop out of college is
inversely related to the degree of direct involve-
ment in the academic and social life of the insti-
tution. Backing this notion are the positive
effects on persistence of participation in extra-
curricular activities, work-study and other on-
campus employment, participation in ROTC and
honors programs, and dormitory living. The
strong relationship between academic performance
and persistence is also, in a sense, additional
support for this theory, given the assumption
that getting good grades is a sign of student
involvement in the academic life and environment
of the institution. (p. 176)

Chickering (1974) has forseen ways in which we can better

deal with the problem of attrition in preventive ways through

use of improved mental measurement techniques:

It will not be long before it will be possible to
assess and to chart individual cognitive maps that
characterize in rich, complex and comprehensive
ways, major modes of perceptual, cognitive, social
and interpersonal functioning. The contours of
these maps will reflect major areas of individual
strength and weakness and by so doing will allow
each individual to conceptualize more clearly
his own unique characteristics, and more importantly,
these contours will provide guidelines by which
each person can take more effective charge of his
own education and personal development. (p. 101)

Chickering has concluded that more definitive information

on the nature of the person, as well as a better understanding

of the consequences of particular academic and environmental

alternatives for persons with particular "contours," may

allow a significant raising of the "success rate" of higher

education beyond the mere 50% of those who enroll in college

and actually reach graduation.








Impact of Different Types of Housing Arrangements
on College Freshmen

Astin (1975), in a multi-campus study using data

collected from 1968-72 through the Cooperative Institutional

Research Program, reported his findings on the impact of

residence on student persistence in his book Preventing

Students from Dropping Out. Astin found that "living in

a dormitory as a freshman is associated with reduced dropout

probabilities" (p. 91). For students in public universities,

Astin found that living in a campus residence hall rather

than other accommodations appears to reduce the dropout rate

among freshman students by about 12%. In analyzing the

effects of living at home with parents and living in other

off-campus facilities, Astin concluded that residence at home

with parents had a negative impact on persistence while

residence in other off-campus accommodations is associated

with increased persistence for men and decreased persistence

for women (p. 93).

Perhaps the most significant research studies conducted

prior to the mid-seventies on the impact of various types

of housing arrangements on college freshmen were reported

by Chickering (1974) in his book entitled Commuting versus

Resident Students. Chickering studied the characteristics

of freshman students who live on campus, those who live at

home, and those who live in other off-campus accommodations.

He compared the groups as to college experiences and sought

to discover what differences, if any, existed in learning

and personal development among the groups.








In studying student characteristics, Chickering used

multiple regression analyses on student responses to a

questionnaire developed by the American Council on Education

(ACE). A random sample of 5351 students was selected from

a population of 38,000 students from a wide variety of

institutions of higher education. The population consisted

of those who had responded to a follow-up questionnaire at

the end of their freshman year. Chickering found that

within the public universities:

Substantial differences occur between commuters and
residents in parental occupation, income and educa-
tional background; in high school achievements,
experiences and activities; and in long-range aspira-
tions; but the two groups are similar in degree
plans. (p. 49)

Multiple regression analyses were undertaken on responses

by students to items on college experiences contained in the

ACE questionnaire. 'For these analyses, a random sample of

5351 students was drawn from a population of 26,806 students

who completed both the initial and the end-of-freshman-year

questionnaires. From his analyses, Chickering concluded that

campus residents have more social experiences with college

peers, show greater persistence in college, and have more

frequent contact with faculty both inside and outside of the

classroom setting than students who lived.at home.

Chickering also reported marked differences in partici-

pation in extracurricular activities between campus residents

and students who lived at home. Of the 27 items analyzed

on the ACE questionnaire related to extracurricular experiences

in college, campus residents scored higher on 24. Students








who lived at home played more chess and watched television

more frequently. Campus residents participated in R.O.T.C.

programs more than those who lived at home. Chickering,

writing about students who live at home, notes:

Compared with dormitory residents, substantial pro-
portions never in the course of their college career
attend a meeting of some college organization, par-
ticipate in student government, attend political
meetings or lectures, or attend a concert, play or
art film. (p. 63)

Data from the questionnaire relating to self-concept

were also studied using stepwise multiple regression analyses

for students living at home. Chickering found that:

In general, therefore, after differences in back-
ground characteristics and difference in self-
perceptions at entrance are taken into account,
students who live at home during the freshman year
rate themselves lower on many important characteris-
tics and abilities, than students who live under
other conditions. Thus, during the freshman year,
the self-esteem of these commuting students suffers
in comparison with their residential peers. (p. 67)

He has found this group significantly lower on self-perceptions

of leadership ability, social self-confidence and popularity

in comparison with freshmen living on campus, who are also

dealing with the problems of transition to college.

Chickering also reported studies that have found major

differences between students who lived at home and campus

residents in their relationships with other students. In

one study, campus residents scored higher than students who

lived with parents on every questionnaire item concerning

social relationships with other students. Based on another

study, he concluded that students who lived at home "were not







as widely acquainted with other students and had fewer close

friends at the college" (Chickering, 1974, p. 64).

Graff and Cooley (1970) investigated whether or not

students living at home and on-campus students differed on

adjustment to college. The College Inventory of Academic

Adjustment was used in this study. The sample consisted of

185 campus residents and 116 students who lived at home.

After-only measures at the conclusion of one semester's

enrollment, holding ability levels constant, revealed one

major difference-that students who lived at home had lower

self-concepts than campus residents. No differences between

the two groups were found to exist in ability or achievement

levels, or their relationships with peers and faculty.

Arbuckle (1957) studied whether there were any significant

differences in the changes which occur among college women

with differing housing arrangements. He used matching

techniques to equate two groups (27 nonresidents and 35

residents) by age, intelligence, socioeconomic background

and religion. Among his findings were that positive changes

occurred in self-confidence among women in both housing groups.

These changes were significant at the .05 level. He also

found significant positive change among those in the nonresident

group, but not in the resident group, in their relationships

with others using the Hestan Personal Adjustment Inventory and

the Gordon Personal Profile.

Astin (1973), using data collected in a multi-campus

study from 1966-70, concluded that campus residence exerts








a consistently positive effect on the self-concepts of

students. He also found through this study that

Living in a dormitory clearly increased the
chances that students would be satisfied with
their overall undergraduate experience, par-
ticularly in the area of interpersonal contacts
with faculty and other students. (p. 207)

Stewart (1969) compared freshmen on one campus who

lived in campus housing and freshmen who lived at home

using a pretest, posttest design. During the first week

of classes in the fall, 281 beginning freshman students,

divided into categories by on-campus or at home residence

and by sex, completed Part I of the College Student Question-

naire. Family social status was indicated to be a major

difference, with campus residents found to have higher

family social status than students who lived at home.

Part II of the College Student Questionnaire was

administered to the sample during the last few weeks of

the Spring Quarter. Significant differences were found

to exist between the groups who lived on campus and at

home in extracurricular involvement, with campus residents

experiencing more involvement. No differences were found

between these groups on a number of other factors, including

satisfaction with relationships with other students.

Barton (1972), using a cross-sectional design, studied

the effects of place of residence upon value development in

college students. With a random sample of 108 freshmen and

149 seniors, Barton also found differences on the Extracurricular

Involvement Scale of the College Student Questionnaire (Part II)

among students according to where they lived. He concluded








that campus residents were more involved in college activ-

ities than students who lived at home, but that no generalized

differences existed between the values of students with

differing housing arrangements.

Stark (1965) and Sprague (1969) found no significant

difference in extracurricular participation among students

with differing housing arrangements. Sprague attempted to

determine whether or not differences existed in certain

intellectual and nonintellectual factors among university

freshmen based on place of residence. His study involved

a sample of 108 freshmen who had been enrolled for a full

academic year. A personal data questionnaire also found no

significant difference in occupational level of parents or

in self-concept among students as a function of either sex

or place of residence while at college.


Research Approaches for Measuring the Impact
of Differing Living Environments

Research studies cited in the previous segment of the

review of literature contain many instances of conflicting

results. Such findings do not provide sufficient basis

for predicting the outcome of further research. Theories

are often useful for predicting the results of further

investigation, yet the conflicting results of prior research

may cause a researcher to be reluctant to make predictions

based on a particular theory. Researchers have recognized

that it is unnecessary for a study of this type to base

anticipated outcomes on any explicit theory. As noted by

Feldman, "The investigator may say something like the








following: 'Here are some interesting dimensions that may

(or may not) be affected by the college experience; lets

compare college class levels to find out'" (Feldman, 1972,

p. 61).

A number of research designs are available for use in

measuring the impact of differing living arrangements on

college students. The cross-sectional design is one "which

evaluates change over time by comparing at the same point in

time different people representing different stages of

development" (Fox, 1969, p. 440). Data can normally be

collected and analyzed more simply and within a short period

of time with this approach. Cross-sectional studies are also

free of an external threat to validity, interaction of testing

and the residence experience. The major weakness of the

cross-sectional approach is its assumption that different

groups are,in fact, comparable.

Another way to measure the impact of differing living

arrangements on students is through the use of a longitudinal

design, which involves studies of the same persons at two

or more points in time. Fox (1969) concisely noted the

advantages and disadvantages of this approach:

The major strength of the longitudinal design
is that it avoids the assumption of compara-
bility of different groups by using the same
respondents at every data-collection interval.
Its weaknesses are the length of time required
to obtain the complete set of data and the
difficulty in maintaining contact with, and
reassembling, the respondents throughout the
length of the study. Some researchers also
add the weakness that continued exposure to
the data-collection instruments and the
research produces a degree of sophistication
or test-wiseness in the respondents which is
reflected in the data. (p. 442)








Feldman (1972) described the two-stage, input-output

approach used by Astin, Chickering and others to study the

impact of different environments:

The background of students entering college
and their values, orientation, and personality
characteristics are considered as input. An
"expected output" based on these input charac-
teristics is computed. The effects of this
expected output is then statistically removed
from students' "observed output," producing a
residual output now independent of input charac-
teristics. Measures of the characteristics of
institutions of higher education are then
related to this residual output to determine the
extent to which they explain variation in the
output beyond that explained by the input
characteristics, thus determining the nature
and strength of college influences. A related
procedure is the following: a stepwise regres-
sion is carried out in which all input variables
are entered into the regression, after which
the environmental variables are permitted to
enter. (p. 211)


Conclusions from the Literature

Freshman students are a diverse group in terms of

academic ability, personality characteristics, interests,

values, and socioeconomic background. Although research

findings cited are not consistent, some evidence has

indicated that campus residents participated more in

activities in high school and may have advantages in

academic ability and socioeconomic background as a group

when compared to college students living at home.

Most freshmen are in the adolescent stage of develop-

ment, a stage which also includes some high school students

as well as some college-age students beyond the normal

freshman age range. This stage is characteristized in part

by inexperience in many areas and decreasing authoritarian





48

behaviors. Increasing tolerance and flexibility of thinking

develops as individuals progress through this stage of

development. Freshmen are said to be, for the most part,

motivated and open to new ideas and challenges.

The self-concepts of college students may often suffer

a slump during the first part of the freshman year, then

may frequently improve during the latter part of that year.

Research studies on self-concept and its relationship to

place of residence are conflicting, but the weight of the

evidence seems to show campus residents as generally posi-

tively affected by the residence experience. The self-

concepts of students living at home seem to be negatively

affected by their continued residence at home while

attending college.

Peer groups are important to individual development.

Research cited is not at all in agreement on whether or

not differences exist among students on campus and students

at home in their relationships with peers. While inter-

action patterns may be the same, students who lived at

home appeared to associate less with other students at

the college and more with noncollege persons than is the

case for campus residents.

Participation in extracurricular activities in college

seems to have a positive effect on academic success and

persistence in college. There is no consensus reported in

the research on whether or not levels of participation are

the same among groups having differing housing arrangements.







Persistence appears to be essentially a product of the

experience of students in the college environment. Research

cited constantly indicated that there is a greater persis-

tence among campus residents than among students living at

home. There are indications that living off campus away

from home has a positive influence on persistence for men,

but the reverse may be true for women.

Based on a review of research approaches, a study of

longitudinal design appears appropriate for a study of

selected educational benefits for student groups representing

three types of housing arrangements on one campus.














CHAPTER III
RESULTS OF THE STUDY


The purpose of this study was to determine whether

there are significant differences in certain educational

benefits (persistence, self-concept, peer relationships,

and extracurricular involvement) for beginning University

of Florida freshmen who live on campus, at home, or in

other off-campus housing. This chapter includes a review

of participant response and findings on the impact of

differing housing arrangements on student persistence at

the University, changes in self-concept during the freshman

year, changes in students' perceptions of their relation-

ships with peers, and involvement in extracurricular

activities.


Response of Sample Participants

The initial size of the sample was 300 students,

including 50 females and 50 males who lived at home, 50

females and 50 males who lived off campus away from home,

and 50 females and 50 males who lived in campus residence

halls. Presented in Table 1 are figures on the number

of persons dropped from the sample and the reasons why

these persons were dropped.







Table 1
Data on Reduction in Number of
Eligible Sample Participants



Students Who
Lived Off Students Who
Students Who Campus Away Lived On TOTAL
Lived At Home From Home Campus
Females Males. Females Males Females Males
Initial Size of Subsamplesa
and Total Sample 50 50 50 50 50 50 300
Persons Dropped from the Sample
for the Following Reasons:
Did Not Enroll at the
University 11 11 12 15 2 1 52
Did Not Remain Enrolled for
the Fall, Winter and
Spring Quarters of the
1976-77 Academic Year 3 9 8 4 7 2 33
Ineligible by Place of
Residence 3 1 0 5 2 6 17
Ineligible by Marital
Status 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Total Number of Persons
Dropped From Sample 18 21 21 24 11 8 103
Persons Enrolled for all Three
Quarters of the 1976-77
Academic Year and Eligible
by Residence and Marital
Status to Remain in the
Sample 30 27 29 27 37 47 197

aThis row of data indicates the size of the subsample that was selected based on preliminary
classification of the population by residence group. Some reclassification of participants
to other subsample groups occurred once address verification was completed in the Fall of 1976.







Although the sample was drawn from an updated roster

furnished by the University's Office of Admissions shortly

before the start of the 1976 fall quarter, over one-sixth

of the persons in the sample failed to enroll for the fall

quarter and were dropped from the sample. A substantial

majority of those who did not enroll were from the subsample

groups expected to live at home or off campus away from home.

Practically all of the persons in the sample who had made

arrangements for on-campus housing did enroll. Persons

whose places of residence were not included in the definitions

of the three types of residence settings to be compared, as

defined in Chapter One of this study, were dropped from the

sample. Since only unmarried beginning freshmen were to be

studied, the one person who was identified during the course

of the study as being married was also dropped.

Of the 197 students remaining in the sample, 41 (21%)

failed to return pretest materials and another 22 (11%) failed

to return posttest materials. Complete pretest and posttest

data were collected from the remaining 134 students, who

represent 68% of the 197 persons in the sample.

The following sections of Chapter Three are devoted to

the analysis of the research questions listed in the statement

of the problem. In each section, the research question is

restated and pertinent findings are described.


Student Persistence in College

The first research question posed in this study concerned

student persistence: "Is there a difference in persistence at







53

the University among students who lived on campus, at home, or

in other off-campus housing?" The total number of students

who enrolled in the fall, the number who persisted through

the spring and the number who did not persist are presented

in Table 2 by sex and by type of residence.


Table 2
Student Persistence by Residence Group


Students
Living Off
Students Campus Away Students Living
Living At Home From Home On Campus
Females Males Females Males Females Males
Total Enrolled in
September 33 36 37 31 44 49
Total Who Persisted
Through Spring
Quarter 30 27 29 27 37 47
Total Who Did Not
Persist Through
Spring Quarter 3 9 8 4 7 2
Note. N=230


The chi-square statistic was used in the analysis of

these data to determine whether or not there was a significant

difference among these groups on persistence at the University.

Table 3 contains data on persistence comparing males and

females in the sample.


Table 3
Persistence Among
Females and Males


Females Males
Students Who Did Persist
Actual Number 96 101
Expected Number 97.64 99.36
Students Who Did Not Persist
Actual Number 18 15
Expected Number 16.36 16.64








The chi-square statistic was .381 with 1 degree of

freedom, which indicates that there was not a significant

difference in persistence between females and males.

Table 4 provides information concerning student persis-

tence among females in each residence group. The chi-square

statistic was 2.066 with 2 degrees of freedom, which indicates

that there was no significant difference in persistence among

female students that can be attributed to differing housing

arrangements.


Table 4
Female Students' Persistence
by Residence Group


Females
Living Off Females
Females Campus Away Living On
Living At Home From Home Campus
Students Who Did Persist
Actual Number 30 29 37
Expected Number 27.79 31.16 37.05
Students Who Did Not Persist
Actual Number 3 8 7
Expected Number 5.21 5.84 6.95


Table 5 contains information concerning student persis-

tence among males in each residence group. The chi-square

statistic was 8.058 with 2 degrees of freedom, which indicates

that there was a significant difference in persistence among

male students according to where they lived.








Table 5
Male Students' Persistence
by Residence Group


Males
Living Off Males
Males Living Campus Away Living On
At Home From Home Campus
Students Who Did Persist
Actual Number 27 27 47
Expected Number 31.34 26.99 42.66
Students Who Did Not Persist
Actual Number 9 4 2
Expected Number 4.66 4.01 6.34


One may show from the data that, for this sample of

freshman males, those who lived on campus had a signifi-

cantly higher level of persistence at the University and

that those freshman males who lived at home had a signifi-

cantly lower level of persistence among the three groups.

In this study, persistence at the University differed

significantly for males, but not for females, according to

type of residence. Male students who lived at home had a

significantly higher attrition rate, while attrition was

significantly lower for male students who lived on campus.


Change in Students' Self-Concept

The second question posed in this study was: "For

those who persist in college, is there a change in self-

concept among students who lived on campus, at home, or

in other off-campus housing and, if so, does this change

differ on the basis of residence?"

Regression analysis techniques were used to determine

whether or not there was a change in self-concept among

those studied and if so, whether this change differed on








the basis of residence. Three factors (sex, type of residence

and score on the pretest of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale)

were used to predict posttest scores on the Tennessee Self

Concept Scale. The regression model used in this study

appears in Figure 1.


Y=00 + 01Xi + 02X2 + 83X3 + 4X1X3 + 05X2X3
+ Before [6g + 7X1 + 88X2 + 09X3

+ B10X1X3 + B11X2X3] +4

where y = actual value of the posttest score
X1 = 1 if off campus away from home, 0 if otherwise
X2 = 1 if on campus, 0 if otherwise
X3 = 1 if respondent is female, 0 if otherwise
00"-11 are parameters of the model
E is random error

Figure 1
Regression Model





F tests indicated that this model was significant at the

.05 level. The R2 figures calculated for the total positive

and the positive subscales of the Tennessee Self Concept

Scale were high, indicating that the regression model was a

good predictor of posttest scores. R2 figures for the positive

scales ranged from .993 to .997.

If there was no change in self-concept among sample

participants, then posttest scores would remain essentially

the same as pretest scores. The estimates of slope computed

using regression analysis techniques would be close to 1.00

if these scores were equal. As shown in Table 6, none of

the estimates of the eight positive scales computed in this








study was close to 1.00, indicating that there were changes

in self-concept among sample participants during their

freshman year.


Table 6
Estimates for Total Positive and Positive Subscores
on the Posttest of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale


Total Positive .77
Identity .61
Self-Satisfaction .65
Behavior .84
Physical Self .83
Moral-Ethical Self .71
Personal Self .84
Family Self .72
Social Self .87


For each of the sections of the Tennessee Self Concept

Scale used in this study, t tests were conducted on the

hypothesis that each parameter contained in the regression

model equalled zero. The results of t tests for each

parameter for certain subscales of the Tennessee Self Concept

Scale are reported in Table 7. Parameters are listed in this

table in the order of inclusion in the model. Tests are

for single elimination against the full model. These tests

yielded significant results at the .05 level on certain

parameters of four positive subscales: identity, personal

self, family self and social self.








Table 7
Results of t tests on Estimates of Selected Parameters
for the Regression Model


Name of Personal Family Social
8 Parameter Identity Self Self Self
B8 Males at home .003 .367 .034 .433
81 Males off campus .580 .059 .032 .124
82 Males on campus .981 .321 .424 .926
63 Females at home .125 .036 .696 .009
B4 Females off campus .412 .075 .555 .030
B5 Females on campus .038 .066 .363 .197
86 Before/Males at home .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001
87 Before/Males off campus .515 .073 .037 .105
88 Before/Males on campus .884 .414 .563 .988
69 Before/Females at home .147 .047 .747 .013
810 Before/Females off campus .431 .075 .484 .021
811 Before/Females on campus .039 .090 .360 .176

Note. p<.05.


No significant differences in scores could be attributed

to differences in sex or in type of residence as a result

of testing parameters on the total positive section or the

other four positive subscales of the instrument. Similarly

no differences in the total variability score or distribution

score were found that could be attributed to differences in

sex or type of residence.

The first subscale yielding significant results on

certain parameters was the identity scale. The data in

Table 7 show that the t tests for the parameters for this

subscale were significant for o0, 65, 6 and 811.

Figure 2 illustrates the finding that female sample

participants who lived on campus and had low identity scores

on the pretest did not perform as well on the identity scale

of the posttest as other sample participants who had low

identity scores on the pretest. Females who lived on








campus and who had high identity pretest scores performed

almost as well on the identity section of the posttest as

other sample participants with high identity pretest scores.



160


Other sample
participants -


- Females Who Lived
on Campus


20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Pretest Scores


Figure 2
A Comparison of Identity Scores
of Subsample Groups


The second subscale yielding significant results on

certain parameters was the personal self scale. The data

in Table 7 show that the t tests for the paramters for

this subscale were significant for 83, 6g, and B9. Figure 3

illustrates the finding that female sample participants


140


120


a) 100
0

80
U)
00
4-1
-J 60
4O
0

40


20


0


-20 -









with low personal self pretest scores had significantly

higher personal self posttest scores than males with low

personal self pretest scores. For sample participants with

high personal self pretest scores, however, males scored

higher on the personal self posttest than females.


Males -


- Females


40 60

Pretest Scores


100


Figure 3
A Comparison of Personal Self Scores
of Subsample Groups


100






80 -






o 60

U)
U)
440 -
-p
4J







20 -





0








The third subscale yielding significant results on

certain parameters was the family self scale. The data

show in Table 7 that the t tests for the parameters on

this subscale were significant for 0B, 1, Be and 87.

Figure 4 illustrates the finding that sample participants

who lived off campus away from home and who scored low on

the family self pretest scored higher on the family self

posttest than sample participants who lived at home or on

campus and who had low family self pretest scores. For

students with high family self pretest scores, however,

those who lived at home or on campus had higher family

self posttest scores than those who lived off campus away

from home.

80 Students Who Lived
at Home or On -
Campus

Students Who
60 / Lived Off
/ Campus Away
Q/ From Home

n4





0
20-









20 40 60 86 100
Pretest Scores
Figure 4
A Comparison of Family Self Scores
of Subsample Groups








The fourth subscale yielding significant results on

certain parameters was the social self scale. The data in

Table 7 show that the t tests for the parameters on this

subscale were significant for 83, 4, 86, B9 and B10o

Figure 5 illustrates the finding that of the females

with low social self pretest scores, those who lived at home

and on campus scored higher on the social self posttest than

females who lived off campus away from home. Results on the

social self posttest were similar for females who lived off

campus away from home who had low social self pretest scores

and for men who had low social self pretest scores regardless

of residence. Of the students with high social self pretest

scores, females who lived off campus away from home scored

higher on the social posttest than females who lived at

home or on campus and who had high social self pretest scores.



100

m Females Who Lived
k 80 Off Campus Away
0 All Males
o From Home
60 Females Who Lived
-P 60
(U At Home or On
W Campus
W 40
40
o

20


0
20 40 60 80 100 120
Pretest Scores

Figure 5
A Comparison of Social Self Scores
of Subsample Groups





63

The following results can be drawn from the data collected

and analyzed on self-concept:

1. Changes in self-concept occurred among sample participants

during their freshman year.

2. When compared with other students who had low identity

scores on the pretest, females who lived on campus had

lower identity scores on the posttest. However, when

compared with other students who had high identity

scores on the pretest, females who lived on campus

scored about as high on the post test.

3. When those students who had low personal self scores

on the pretest were compared, females had higher

personal self scores than males on the posttest.

4. When compared with students in other residence groups

who had low family self scores on the pretest, students

who lived off campus away from home had higher family

self scores on the posttest. However, when compared

with other students who had high family self scores

on the pretest, students who lived off campus away from

home had lower family self scores on the posttest.

5. When compared with other students who had low social

self scores on the pretest, females who lived on campus

and at home had higher social self scores on the posttest.

Of the students with high social self scores on the

pretest, females who lived on campus and at home had

the highest social self scores on the posttest, followed

by males, who were followed by females who lived off

campus away from home.








Relationships with Peers

The third research question posed in this study was:

"For those who persist in college, is there a difference in

relationships with other students among students who live

on campus, at home, or in other off-campus housing?"

Regression analysis techniques were used to determine

whether or not there was a change in relationships with

peers among sample participants and, if so, whether this

change differs on the basis of residence. Three factors

(sex, type of residence and score on the pretest of the

Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory) were used to predict

posttest scores on the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory.

The regression model used in these analyses is the same as

that used in predicting posttest scores on the Tennessee

Self Concept Scale and is illustrated in Figure 1.

F tests of the regression model were conducted. The

R2 figures calculated for the four scales of the inventory

and the inventory as a whole are reported in Table 8. This

table indicates that the regression model was not as good

a predictor of posttest scores on the Barrett-Lennard

Relationship Inventory as it was for posttest scores of the

Tennessee Self Concept Scale.








Table 8
R Values Calculated
for the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory


2
Scales R
Scale 1 .705
Scale.2 .280
Scale 3 .477
Scale 4 .311
Total Scale .538


Table 9 reports the results of t tests conducted on

the hypothesis that each parameter in the regression model

equalled zero. Tests are for single elimination against the

full model. No significant differences (p<.05) in scores

could be attributed to differences in sex or in type of

residence as a result of testing parameters on the four

scales of the inventory as well as the inventory as a whole.

A description of the instrument is included in Appendix B.

The pretest scores for the first and third scales were

highly significant predictors of the posttest scores for

each respective scale. The pretest score for the second

scale, however, was of no value as a predictor of the post-

test score for that scale. Pretest scores for the fourth

scale and for the total scale were significant at the .04

level as predictors of the respective posttest scores.









Table 9
Results of t tests on the Estimates of Parameters
for the Regression Model


Name of
Parameter
Males at home
Males off campus
Males on campus
Females at home
Females off campus
Females on campus
Before/Males at home
Before/Males off campus
Before/Males on campus
Before/Females at home
Before/Females off campus
Before/Females on campus

Note. p<.05.


Scale 1
.9289
.0453
.5415
.0576
.5282
.6985
.0003
.2183
.5710
.1299
.9777
.7246


Total
Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale
.1558 .8570 .3895 .7832
.6035 .6124 .2384 .9847
.6295 .3266 .4452 .1524
.1553 .1044 .8517 .5133
.3987 .5574 .7189 .9650
.0439 .7465 .6386 .6245
.9861 .0090 .0446 .0448
.3648 .6432 .2174 .6891
.9899 .4389 .8020 .2240
.1269 .0788 .8793 .4797
.6561 .7744 .2311 .4137
.0673 .1450 .5253 .1315


Except for protests, no factors or combination of factors

contained in the model as constructed had a significant effect

on the prediction of posttest scores on the scales of the

Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory.


Participation in Extracurricular Activities

The fourth research question posed in this study was:

"For those who persist in college, is there a difference in

participation in extracurricular activities among students

who live on campus, at home, or in other off-campus housing?"

A researcher-designed Activities Questionnaire, administered

as a posttest, was returned by 134 sample participants.

The chi-square statistic was used in the analysis of these

data to determine whether or not there was a significant

difference among those in the subsample groups according to

type of residence.








Table 10 contains information from the first section

of the questionnaire, which measured level of participation

in campus organizations. No significant difference among

the groups was found to exist in the level of participation

in student government-related organizations, social frater-

nities or sororities, campus service organization or campus

religious organizations.


Table 10
Level of Participation in Campus Organizations
Reported by Residence Group



Students
Living
Students Off Campus Students
Type of Level of Living At Away From Living
Organization Participation* Homea Home On.Campusc
Student 0 33 26 28
government- 1 11 3 8
related 2 3 2 8
organizations 3 2 4 6
Social 0 43 30 39
fraternity 1 3 2 4
or sorority 2 3 2 2
3 0 1 5
Campus 0 42 28 38
service 1 4 4 9
organization 2 1 3 3
3 2 0 0
Academically- 0 46 26 36
related 1 3 8 7
organization 2 0 1 5
3 0 0 2
Campus 0 38 31 40
religious 1 4 2 2
organization 2 1 2 3
3 6 0 5


*O=not at all,l=to a

Note. N=134
an=49
b
n=35
Cn=50


small extent,2=fairly extensive,3=very extensive








A significant difference was found among the groups in

the level of participation in academically-related organizations,

such as professional clubs and honor societies. Table 11

illustrates the findings that students who lived at home

participated less than was expected (expected levels of parti-

cipation were calculated using chi square). Students who

lived off campus away from home participated more than was

expected (though this was at the "to'a small extent" level

of participation). Campus residents in the sample exceeded

expectations at all levels of participation, particularly at

the "fairly extensive" and "very extensive" levels.


Table 11
Participation in Academically-Related Organizations
by Residence Group


Students
Living
Students Off Campus Students
Level of Living At Away From Living
Participation Response Homea Homeb On Campusc
Actual 46 26 36
Not at all Expected 39.5 28.2 40.3
To a small Actual 3 8 7
extent Expected 6.6 4.7 6.7
Fairly Actual 0 1 5
extensive Expected 2.2 1.6 2.2
Very Actual 0 0 2
extensive Expected 0.7 0.5 0.7
Note. N=134
n=49

n=35
n=50


A significant difference was also found in participation

in the "other organizations" category. Most responses in

this category specified R.O.T.C. or the Gator Band. There








was less participation than expected in such organizations

among students living at home or off campus away from home.

Campus residents greatly exceeded the response that was

expected for participation in such organizations, as is

shown in Table 12.


Table 12
Participation in "Other Organizations"
by Residence Group


Students
Living
Students Off Campus Students
Living At Away From Living
Response Homea Home On Campus
Did not Actual 46 32 39
participate Expected 42.8 30.6 43.7
Actual 3 3 11
Participated Expected 6.2 4.4 6.3
Note. N=134
an=49
b
n=35
n=50


The second section of the questionnaire was designed to

determine whether or not persons in the sample had been

selected for or assumed a leadership role in a campus

organization during the course of their freshman year.

Significant differences were found among the groups by

type of residence on this section. Table 13 shows that

while students who lived off campus away from home held

leadership roles in the numbers expected, students who

lived at home fell short of expectations and students who

lived on campus exceeded expectations.








Table 13
Students' Leadership Roles
by Residence Group


Students
Living
Students Off Campus Students
Living At Away From Living
Response Homea Home On Campus
Was not selected
for or did not Actual 42 23 26
assume a leader- Expected 33.3 23.8 34.0
ship role
'Was selected for
or assumed a Actual 7 12 24
leadership role Expected 15.7 11.2 16.0
Note. N=134
an=49
b
n=35
Cn=50



While all categories of the questionnaire were tested

for differences between females and males, this is the only

category where such differences were found. Table 14 reports

the responses to this section of the questionnaire by sex.

As shown in Table 14, freshman males were selected for or

assumed leadership roles in significantly greater numbers

than freshman females in the sample.


Table 14
Leadership Roles Held
by Females and Males


a b
Response Femalesa Malesb
Was not selected for or did Actual 57 34
not assume a leadership role Expected 50.3 40.7
Was selected for or assumed Actual 17 26
a leadership role Expected 23.7 19.3
Note. N=134
n=74
n=60







The final section of the Activities Questionnaire was

designed to assess participation in other extracurricular

activities, such as intramurals, attendance at campus

cultural and social events, visits to cultural centers on

the campus, employment while enrolled as a student and other

University-related extracurricular activities. The chi-

square statistic was calculated for each of the six

categories in this section of the instrument. A description

of the instrument is included in Appendix C. Significant

differences among the residence groups were found for three

of these categories. The chi-square statistic was also

calculated for females and males on each of the six cate-

gories in this section of the instrument, but no significant

differences were found to exist between the sexes.

The first category that yielded significant results

among the residence groups was the response to the question:

"Do you participate in intramural sports competition on

campus?" The chi-square statistic was 6.115 with 2 degrees

of freedom, which is significant at the .05 level. Table 15

contains the actual and estimated numbers of sample partici-

pants in each residence group who participated in intramural

sports on campus. Data in this table indicate that sample

participants who lived off campus away from home and those

who lived on campus participated in intramural sports

competition on campus in numbers greater than expected.

Participation was less than expected among those who lived

at home.









Table 15
Participation in Intramural Sports Competition on Campus
by Residence Group


Students
Living
Students Off Campus Students
Living At Away From Living
Response Homea Homeb On Campus
Actual 44 35 49
Participated Expected 46.8 33.4 47.8
Did Not Actual 5 0 1
Participate Expected 2.2 1.6 2.2
Note. N=134
a
n=49
n=35
cn=50


The second question in this section in which significant

differences were found asked: "Have you visited the Florida

State Museum or the University Gallery since the start of the

1976 Fall Quarter?" The chi-square statistic was 23.781 with

2 degrees of freedom, which is significant at the .0001 level.

Table 16 contains the actual and estimated numbers of sample

participants in each residence group who visited the museum

or the gallery. The data in this table show that sample

participants who lived on campus and who visited either of

these cultural centers greatly exceeded the number expected.

Those who lived at home who visited the museum or the gallery

fell far short of the number expected. The actual number of

sample participants who lived off campus away from home and

who had visited the museum or gallery equalled the

expected number.








Table 16
Totals of Students by Residence Group
Who Visited the Museum or Gallery


Students
Living
Students Off Campus Students
Living At Away From Living
a b c
Response Homea Home On Campus
Actual 28 27 49
Visited Expected 38.0 27.2 38.8
Actual 21 8 1
Did Not Visit Expected 11.0 7.8 11.2
Note. N=134
a
n=49
b
n=35
Cn'50


The final question in this section in which significant

differences were found asked: "Have you attended a dance or

party on the campus since the start of the 1976 Fall Quarter?"

The chi-square statistic was 7.336 with 2 degrees of freedom,

which is significant at the .026 level. Table 17 contains

the actual and estimated numbers of sample participants in

each residence group who attended a dance or party on campus.

The data in this table indicate that sample participants who

lived at home exceeded the number expected to attend these

social functions and that sample participants who lived off

campus away from home or on campus fell short of the number

expected to participate in these activities.





74

Table 17
Totals of Students by Residence Group
Who Attended a Dance or Party on Campus


Students
Living
Students Off Campus Students
Living At Away From Living
Response Homea Home On Campus
Actual 19 6 9
Attended Expected 12.4 8.9 12.7
Actual 30 29 41
Did Not Attend Expected 36.6 26.1 37.3
Note. N=134
n=49

n=35
Cn='50



The results gleaned from the analysis of responses to

the Activities Questionnaire can be summarized as follows:

Differences among those sampled by residence group occurred

in level of participation in academically-related organizations,

such as professional societies and honor societies. Partici-

pation was highest and most extensive for campus residents in

the sample. Those who lived off campus away from home parti-

cipated more than those at home, but the level of involvement

of both of these groups was low. Differences in participation

in "other organizations," such as R.O.T.C. and the University

Band, were also found among the residence groups. Campus

residents participated in such organizations far more than

was the case among others in the sample.

Students who lived off campus held leadership roles in

the numbers expected (as calculated using chi square).

Students who lived at home fell short of expectations and

students who lived on campus exceeded expectations. Freshman








males were selected for or assumed leadership roles in

significantly greater numbers than freshman females in

the sample.

In other extracurricular activities, a greater propor-

tion of students in the sample who lived off campus away

from home or on campus participated in intramural sports

competition than those who lived at home. Those who lived

on campus visited the Florida State Museum or the University

Gallery in greater numbers than expected, while fewer of

those who lived at home than was expected had visited

the museum or gallery. Of those who lived on campus or

off campus away from home, fewer than was expected had

attended a dance or party on campus; however, a greater

number of those who lived at home than was expected had

attended such a campus social event.


Chapter Summary

This chapter includes a review of participant response

and findings on the impact of differing housing arrangements

on student persistence at the University, changes in self-

concept during the freshman year, changes in students'

perceptions of their relationships with peers, and involve-

ment in extracurricular activities.

An initial sample size of 300 entering freshman students

was reduced by 52 who were admitted, but did not enroll at

the University. This was further reduced by 18 persons in-

eligible by place of residence or marital status to remain

in the sample. The 33 students who did not remain enrolled







for all three quarters of their freshman year were included

only in the study of persistence among residence groups.

Both pretest and posttest data were collected from 134

students, who represent 68% of the 197 persons enrolled for

all three quarters.

In this study, persistence at the University differed

significantly for males but not for females, according to

type of residence. Male students who lived at home had

a higher rate of attrition which was significant at the

.05 level, while attrition was significantly lower for males

who lived on campus. There was nosignificant difference in

persistence between females and males.

The following are among the findings of the analyses

of data on self-concept:

Changes in self-concept occurred among sample participants

during their freshman year. Significant differences at the

.05 level were found to exist according to type of residence

among students who had low identity scores or low personal

self scores on the pretest of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale.

Students also differed on the basis of residence on the

family self scale and the social self scale of the Tennessee

Self Concept Scale.

No significant differences were found in relationships

with other students when comparing those sample participants

who persisted in college by residence group.

Differences were found to exist among students with

differing housing arrangements in participation in extra-

curricular activities. Significant differences at the .05







level were found among the residence groups in level of

participation in academically-related organizations, such

as professional clubs and honor societies; and in "other

organizations," such as R.O.T.C. and the University Band.

Campus residents were involved far more extensively in

college activities than students in other residence groups.

Freshmen who lived on campus held a greater number of

leadership positions in college organizations than freshmen

in other residence groups. This difference was significant

at the .05 level. Freshmen who lived at home held signifi-

cantly fewer leadership positions. Freshman males were

selected for or assumed leadership roles in significantly

greater numbers than freshman females in the sample.

Significant differences at the .05 level were found among

the residence groups on participation in certain other

extracurricular activities, including intramural sports,

visits to campus cultural centers, and attendance at social

functions on campus.













CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION OF THE DATA


This chapter contains a discussion of the data presented

in Chapter III. These data are examined in relation to the

previous research and theoretical writings included in the

review of the literature.

This chapter is divided into four sections. Each

section is devoted to a discussion of the findings relating

to a particular research question posed in Chapter I.

In the first section, the results of comparing levels of

persistence at the University among subsample groups are

discussed. The second section is devoted to a discussion of

the impact of various residence settings on the self-concepts

of students in the sample. The third section provides a

discussion of the findings of that part of the study which

dealt with relationships with peers. The results of com-

paring subsample groups on their extent of involvement in

extracurricular activities is discussed in the fourth section

of this chapter.


Persistence

The first research question contained in the statement

of the problem asked: "Is there a difference in persistence

in college among students who lived on campus, at home, or

in other off-campus housing?" There was a consensus in the








literature on this question. Research by Astin (1975),

Chickering (1974), and others suggest that campus residence

enhances persistence.

In this study, significant differences in persistence

were found for males, but not for females, according to

type of residence. Male students who lived at home had a

higher attrition rate which was significant at the .05

level, while attrition was significantly lower for male

students who lived on campus. The rate of attrition of

males who lived off campus away from home was in between

the other two residence groups.

For men, the results of this study agree totally with

research by Astin and others. One may show from the data

that the best place for freshman males to live in order to

minimize attrition is in campus residence halls. One may

also show from the data that the chances for dropping out

of college are significantly higher for freshman males who

live at home.

Differences were found in persistence among females

according to type of residence. Although these differences

did not reach the .05 level of significance, they neverthe-

less suggest that living at home during the freshman year

may increase the likelihood that a female student will

persist at the University. Incidence of attrition was

found to be greatest among freshman females who lived off

campus away from home. Results of this study agree in part

with research by Astin (1975) and others, who have found the








environment off campus away from home to be associated with

the highest levels of attrition and campus residence to be

associated with the lowest levels of attrition among freshman

females.

Although the impact of residence setting was shown

through this study to be different for females and males,

this research found no overall difference in persistence

between the sexes. This finding is consistent with previous

research by Panos and Astin (1969), Iffert (1957) and

others, who found no differences in persistence levels

between females and males.

What factors may be operating that would explain the

differences between the sexes on levels of persistence in

various residence settings? Astin (1975) has speculated

that differences in the degree of personal autonomy and

independence given to females and males during their high

school years may be a factor. Parents allow male students

greater opportunities for exercising independent judgment

and experiencing personal autonomy than they allow female

students, according to Astin. He concluded that these

differences are at least partially responsible for the

differing levels of persistence associated with types of

residence for female and male students.

One might expect females and males to react differently

in various residence settings in terms of persistence based

on findings of a review of the literature by Cope and Hannah

(1975). "Researchers have found consistently that the reasons

given for dropping out differed between the sexes . men







tending to cite internal and academic reasons while women

more frequently mentioned external and nonacademic ones"

(Cope and Hannah, 1975, p. 16).

Astin (1975) cited student involvement as a key factor

in persistence. He proposed a theory of college persistence

which holds that a student's tendency to drop out of college

is inversely related to his or her degree of direct involve-

ment in the academic and social life of the institution.

Based on Astin's theory of college persistence, one would

expect that the higher level of persistence found to exist

among campus residents would have resulted from their greater

involvement in campus organizations and activities.

The present study provided this theory to be true at

the University of Florida. Significant differences at the

.05 level were found when students who lived on campus and

students who lived at home were compared in levels of

participation in academically-related organizations, such

as professional clubs and honor societies. Table 11 illus-

trates the finding that students who lived at home partici-

pated less than was expected, while those who lived on campus

exceeded expectations at all levels of participation,

particularly at the "fairly extensive" and "very extensive"

levels. Similar results were found in the "other organiza-

tions" category, which included R.O.T.C. and the University

Band. Table 13 also shows similar results in comparing

these two groups on the number of persons who were selected

for or assumed a leadership role in a campus organization

during their freshman year.







Thus, this study provides additional evidence to support

the proposition that type of residence does have a significant

impact on persistence of college freshmen, specifically male

freshmen. The findings of this study also provide additional

support for Astin's theory of college persistence.


Self-Concept

The second research question contained in the statement

of the problem was: "For those who persist in college, is

there a change in self-concept among students who lived on

campus, at home or in other off campus housing and, if so,

does this change differ on the basis of residence?"

Although there is no consensus in the literature avail-

able on the effects of differing housing arrangements on

the self-concepts of students, most of the research tends

to indicate that campus residents differ significantly

from other students in positive self-concept change.

Graff and Cooley (1970), in comparing campus residents

with students who lived at home, found that those who lived

at home "tended to be more beset by lack of self-confidence"

(p. 56). Astin (1973) also found significant differences

between these two groups and concluded that residence on

campus has a consistently positive impact on self-concept.

Chickering (1974) found that students who lived at home,

in comparison with students who lived on campus, rated them-

selves significantly lower on social self-confidence, popu-

larity, and public speaking and leadership abilities.








Studies by Sprague (1969) and Arbuckle (1957) found no

significant differences in self-concept for students with

differing housing arrangements.

This study found significant differences in certain

aspects of self-concept among students who lived at home,

off campus away from home and on campus. These aspects were:

identity, family self and social self, which are three of

the positive subscales of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale.

Although the same instrument was used in Sprague's study,

the data of the present study failed to support Sprague's

findings.

The identity subscale describes the basic identity

of sample respondents, or who a person is as he or she sees

himself or herself. Scores on the identity subscale differed

significantly for females who lived on campus as compared

with other subsample groups. Females who lived on campus

who had high identity pretest scores scored almost as well

on the identity section of the posttest as other sample

participants with high identity pretest scores. Females

who lived on campus who had low identity scores on the pre-

test, however, did not perform as well on the identity scale

of the posttest as other sample participants who had low

identity scores on the pretest. This particular finding

does not support Astin's conclusion that residence on

campus has a consistently positive impact on self-concept.

Rather, the results of this study indicate that a female

entering college with a poor identity seems to be affected

more positively by living at home or off campus away from

home.





84


One interpretation of the findings of this study is

that peers in the residence setting may have a negative

effect on females with low identity scores on the pretest.

As Segal (1967) noted in his description of the residence

hall setting, "The pressure in this setting is the

confrontation of the students with an intense peer-culture

experience . ." (p. 309). This strong peer influence

may not be what is needed for an entering freshman female

who already has poor perceptions of herself as a person.

Another explanation is that exposure to a wider variety

of persons and values than may have previously been encoun-

tered is a source of inner conflict for a person whose

identity is not yet well-developed. Still another explana-

tion is that the absence of parents meant loss of a critical

support system for which no adequate substitute was avail-

able in the residence halls. This absence of an adequate

substitute may influence the behavior patterns of these women

with poor identity scores. Those students with low initial

identity scores who lived off campus away from home may have

an adequate support system in the small, personally-chosen

peer group with whom they share their apartment.

The personal self subscale of the Tennessee Self

Concept Scale describes persons' sense of self-worth, their

feelings of personal adequacy, and their perception of their

personality apart from their body image or interpersonal

relationships. Significant differences at the .05 level

were found between males and females on this subscale.

Males had higher personal self scores than females. No








differences were found, however, that could be attributed

to differences in place of residence. The fact that males

and females differed significantly on this subscale indicates

that comparisons by sex should be made when analyzing the

impact of differing housing arrangements on students.

The family self subscale describes persons' perceptions

of self in relation to their closest circle of associates.

For students with low family self pretest scores, those

who lived off campus away from home scored higher on the

family self posttest than those who lived at home and those

who lived on campus. For students with high family self

pretest scores, however, those who lived at home or on

campus had higher family self posttest scores than those

who lived off campus away from home.

In order to interpret these findings, the reader must

understand that for those who lived off campus away from

home and for those who lived on campus, the pretest and

posttest instruments for this subscale reflected relation-

ships with two different "circles of associates." For almost

all students in the sample, the pretest involved perceptions

of self in relation to their immediate family prior to the

start of the freshman year. On the posttest, however, the

instrument was completed by campus residents in terms of

their relationships with those living in close proximity

to their rooms in the residence hall. For those off campus

away from home, the posttest instrument was completed in

terms of their relationships with persons with whom they

shared an apartment.







These findings can be interpreted as follows: For

those students who lived off campus away from home who had

low family self pretest scores, perceptions of self in

relation to those with whom they shared an apartment were

much improved over their pretest perceptions of self in

relation to family members at home. For those with low

initial perceptions of self in relation to family members,

the act of having joined a small, personally-chosen peer

group in sharing an apartment off campus proved to be

better than either remaining at home or living on campus

insofar as improvement in scores on the family self post-

test was concerned.

For students with high family self pretest scores,

those who remained at home did better on family self post-

test scores than those off campus away from home. Scores

of campus residents were not significantly different on

the posttest than students who lived at home. Those who

had strong initial positive perceptions of self in relation

to family members did even better on the.posttest of the

subscale if they remained at home or lived on campus.

For those at home, the family support system seemed to

strengthen self-concept as the freshman year progressed.

For those on campus, it may be that this initially strong

self-concept arising from family relationships, or other

factors, enables these students to seek out particular

persons (from the many in their living group) with whom

to build a new, strong peer support system. Those off








campus away from home may have found the choice of the few

persons they shared apartments with to be too limited,.

hampering their ability to build as strong a support system

or "circle of associates" as they found in their family

group.

The social self subscale of the Tennessee Self Concept

Scale describes a person's sense of personal adequacy in his

social interaction with others in a broader manner than in

the family self subscale. Females with low social self

pretest scores who lived at home or on campus did better

on the social self posttest than females with similar pre-

test scores who lived off campus away from home.

This is an interesting finding in light of the previous

discussion of family self scores. Fitts (1965) described

the high intercorrelation of positive scores of the

Tennessee Self Concept Scale and reported a correlation

of .73 between family self and social self scores. Many

students with low family self pretest scores also had low

social self pretest scores. One might expect the living

situation off campus away from home to have a similar impact

on both family self and social self posttest scores of this

group of students. However, this is not the case.

This finding can be interpreted to mean that many of

those living off campus away from home have made a choice

to grow toward maturity largely within the context of a small,

personally-chosen peer group rather than the family setting

at home or the more intense and diverse peer relationships

characteristic of residence halls. This idea of choice




Full Text
8
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations of this study were recognized:
1- Only to the extent that other populations possess
a similar pattern of characteristics of the speci
fied population of entering freshmen at the Univer
sity of Florida are the results generalizable beyond
the sample studied.
2. Data-gathering materials were distributed individu
ally to each person in the sample. The setting in
which the data for this study were collected was
not under the direct control of the writer; therefore,
some opportunities existed for variations in how
participants completed the instruments.
3. The researcher confined his comparisons among housing
groups strictly to three broad categories: those who
lived at home, those who lived off campus away from
home, and those who lived on campus. There was no
attempt made to compare differences within a single
category i.e., no attempt was made to draw compari
sons among groups from different residence halls.
Assumptions
The writer made certain assumptions for the purposes
of this study. First, the sample participants responded
honestly when completing the instruments sent to them.
Second, the sample participants accepted as truthful the
researcher's assurances that respondents would in no way be
identified individually. Third, systematic samples drawn


TABLES OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
CHAPTER page
II.REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. 23
Selected Characteristics of Freshman
Students ...... .... 23
Selected Educational Benefits and the
College Experience ...... 29
Self-Concept ..... 29
Relationships with Other Students. ... 32
Extracurricular Experiences. 35
Persistence in College ......... 37
Impact of Different Types of Housing
Arrangements on College Freshmen .... 40
Research Approaches for Measuring the
Impact of Differing Living Environments. 45
Conclusions from the Literature 47
III.RESULTS OF THE STUDY. ............ 50
Response of Sample Participants 50
Student Persistence in College 52
Changes in Students' Self-Concept ..... 55
Relationships with Peers 64
Participation in Extracurricular
Activities 66
Chapter Summary 75
IV.DISCUSSION OF THE DATA. 78
Persistence 78
Self-Concept 82
v


52
Although the sample was drawn from an updated roster
furnished by the University's Office of Admissions shortly
before the start of the 1976 fall quarter, over one-sixth
of the persons in the sample failed to enroll for the fall
quarter and were dropped from the sample. A substantial
majority of those who did not enroll were from the subsample
groups expected to live at home or off campus away from home.
Practically all of the persons in the sample who had made
arrangements for on-campus housing did enroll. Persons
whose places of residence were not included in the definitions
of the three types of residence settings to be compared, as
defined in Chapter One of this study, were dropped from the
sample. Since only unmarried beginning freshmen were to be
studied, the one person who was identified during the course
of the study as being married was also dropped.
Of the 197 students remaining in the sample, 41 (21%)
failed to return pretest materials and another 22 (11%) failed
to return posttest materials. Complete pretest and posttest
data were collected from the remaining 134 students, who
represent 68% of the 197 persons in the sample.
The following sections of Chapter Three are devoted to
the analysis of the research questions listed in the statement
of the problem. In each section, the research question is
restated and pertinent findings are described.
Student Persistence in College
The first research question posed in this study concerned
student persistence: "Is there a difference in persistence at


17
Test-retest reliability data developed by Fitts (1965)
with a sample of 60 college students over a two-week period
are as follows: Total Positive 0.92, Distribution 0.89,
and Total Variability 0.67.
Validity of the instrument was demonstrated by Fitts
(1965), using four procedures: content validity, discrimi
nation between groups, correlation with other personality
measures, and personaltiy changes under particular conditions.
Content validity was established through use of a jury of
seven clinical psychologists to analyze individual items.
Only items on which the psychologists reached favorable
consensus regarding content were incorporated in the final
version of the instrument. Studies on a variety of groups
have established the effectiveness of the scale in discrimi
nating between such groups as psychiatric patients and non
patients. Comparisons of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale
with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
yielded high correlation ratios. Personality changes
resulting from psychotherapy (Ashcraft and Fitts, 1964)
and from detrimental life experiences (Gividen, 1959)
were measured by the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. "There
is considerable evidence that people's concepts of self
do change as a result of significant experiences. The
Tennessee Self Concept Scale reflected these changes in
predicted ways, thus constituting additional evidence for
the validity of the instrument" (Fitts, 1965, p. 30).


Table 1
Data on Reduction in Number of
Eligible Sample Participants
Students
Lived At
Who
Home
Students Who
Lived Off
Campus Away
From Home
Students
Lived On
Campus
Who
TOTAL
Females
Males.
Females
Males
Females
Males
Initial Size of Subsamplesa
and Total Sample
50
50
50
50
50
50
300
Persons Dropped from the Sample
for the Following Reasons:
Did Not Enroll at the
University
11
11
12
15
2
1
52
Did Not Remain Enrolled for
.the Fall, Winter and
Spring Quarters of the
1976-77 Academic Year
3
9
8
4
7
2
33
Ineligible by Place of
Residence
3
1
0
5
2
6
17
Ineligible by Marital
Status
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Total Number of Persons
Dropped From Sample
18
21
21
24
11
8
103
Persons Enrolled for all Three
Quarters of the 1976-77
Academic Year and Eligible
by Residence and Marital
Status to Remain in the
Sample
30
27
29
27
37
47
197
aThis row of data indicates the size of the subsample that was selected based on preliminary
classification of the population by residence group. Some reclassification of participants
to other subsample groups occurred once address verification was completed in the Fall of 1976.


6
filed against a number of colleges and universities. While
numerous educators have testified as to the merits and values
of campus living, few research studies to either support or
refute such testimony have been available.
A study of this type was further needed because the
Division of Housing at the University of Florida has been,
in the mid-seventies, in a state of flux in its philosophical
approach to residence hall operation. Research conducted at
this particular institution on whether or not there are
significant differences in certain educational benefits
arising from differing housing arrangements may prove very
useful in helping to shape decisions on the future course of
student housing on this campus.
The study described herein is significant in light of
the prevailing differences of opinion regarding the housing
of students, court decisions on the issue of compulsory on-
campus residence requirements, and the particular situation
existing at the University of Florida in the mid-seventies.
Scope of the Study
The following contraints have been observed in conducting
this study:
1. The research was confined to a sample of a population
of unmarried freshman students who began their
college work in September of 1976 and who met admis
sions requirements of the University of Florida.
In selecting the sample, this population was divided
into six subpopulations according to sex and


APPENDIX C
ACTIVITIES QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire is designed to assess the level of
involvement of freshman students at the University of Florida
in campus organizations and certain types of extracurricular
activities. Your answers will be treated confidentially by
researchers at the University and results will be reported
only in summary form representing groups of freshman students.
Please place an "X" in the appropriate spaces below to
accurately reflect your level of involvement in the following
organizations or activities:
A. Student Level of Participation
Organizations Not at To a small Fairly Very
all extent Extensive Extensive
1.A student
government-
related
organization
(i.e., student
senate, execu
tive branch
including sub
cabinet, college
council, area
council, SPG,
ACCENT)
2.A social
fraternity or
sorority
3.A campus
service
organization
4.A professional
organization
or society
representing
a particular
academic field
5.A campus
religious
organization
6.Other (specify)
124


76
for all three quarters of their freshman year were included
only in the study of persistence among residence groups.
Both pretest and posttest data were collected from 134
students, who represent 68% of the 197 persons enrolled for
all three quarters.
In this study, persistence at the University differed
significantly for males but not for females, according to
type of residence. Male students who lived at home had
a higher rate of attrition which was significant at the
.05 level, while attrition was significantly lower for males
who lived on campus. There was no significant difference in
persistence between females and males.
The following are among the findings of the analyses
of data on self-concept:
Changes in self-concept occurred among sample participants
during their freshman year. Significant differences at the
.05 level were found to exist according to type of residence
among students who had low identity scores or low personal
self scores on the pretest of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale.
Students also differed on the basis of residence on the
family self scale and the social self scale of the Tennessee
Self Concept Scale.
No significant differences were found in relationships
with other students when comparing those sample participants
who persisted in college by residence group.
Differences were found to exist among students with
differing housing arrangements in participation in extra
curricular activities. Significant differences at the .05


60
with low personal self pretest scores had significantly
higher personal self posttest scores than males with low
personal self pretest scores. For sample participants with
high personal self pretest scores, however, males scored
higher on the personal self posttest than females.
Pretest Scores
Figure 3
A Comparison of Personal Self Scores
of Subsample Groups


55
Table 5
Male Students' Persistence
by Residence Group
Males
Living Off Males
Males Living Campus Away Living On
At Home From Home Campus
Students Who Did Persist
Actual Number 27 27 47
Expected Number 31.34 26.99 42.66
Students Who Did Not Persist
Actual Number 9 4 2
Expected Number 4.66 4.01 6.34
One may show from the data that, for this sample of
freshman males, those who lived on campus had a signifi
cantly higher level of persistence at the University and
that those freshman males who lived at home had a signifi
cantly lower level of persistence among the three groups.
In this study, persistence at the University differed
significantly for males, but not for females, according to
type of residence. Male students who lived at home had a
significantly higher attrition rate, while attrition was
significantly lower for male students who lived on campus.
Change in Students' Self-Concept
The second question posed in this study was: "For
those who persist in college, is there a change in self-
concept among students who lived on campus, at home, or
in other off-campus housing and, if so, does this change
differ on the basis of residence?"
Regression analysis techniques were used to determine
whether or not there was a change in self-concept among
those studied and if so, whether this change differed on


The third subscale yielding significant results on
certain parameters was the family self scale. The data
show in Table 7 that the t tests for the parameters on
this subscale were significant for 80> $i> 86 arK^ 87.
Figure 4 illustrates the finding that sample participants
who lived off campus away from home and who scored low on
the family self pretest scored higher on the family self
posttest than sample participants who lived at home or on
campus and who had low family self pretest scores. For
students with high family self pretest scores, however,
those who lived at home or on campus had higher family
self posttest scores than those who lived off campus away
from home.
o
o
vi
S 40
-P
P
w
o
cu
20 -
20 40 60 80 100
Pretest Scores
Figure 4
A Comparison of Family Self Scores
of Subsample Groups


114
of entering freshmen at the University of Florida are the
results generalizable beyond the sample studied. Sample
size is another factor to consider, particularly in light
of the number of persons in the initial sample who did not
enroll in September of 1976 as expected and the number of
persons who did not return pretest or posttest materials.
The nature of the instruments and the fact that no attempt
was made to control the settings in which the data were
collected are other factors that limit the reader's ability
to generalize on the basis of the results obtained.
Suggestions for Further Research
In the course of collecting, analyzing and interpreting
the data for this study, the researcher identified a number
of suggestions for further research. One area for further,
investigation is that of the impact of various residence
settings on minority students, particularly black students,
as compared to other students. On the basis of a number of
comments which were written on instruments collected, there
is a need to determine whether the impact of certain living
arrangements is different for these students.
Further research is needed to identify major factors
in each type of living environment that positively or nega
tively affect persistence. Some experimental studies could
be designed to assess the effects of modifying the campus
living environment in selected residence halls in certain
ways in an effort to reduce attrition among entering freshman
students, especially females.


95
related organizations (such as preprofessional organizations
or honor societies) and in the "other organizations" cate
gory, which included R.O.T.C. and the University Band. No
significant differences were found in involvement in student
government-related organizations, social fraternities, or
sororities, campus service organizations, or campus religious
organizations.
This study supported the findings of Chickering (1974)
that there are substantial differences between students who
lived at home and campus residents in extracurricular activ
ities and experiences, yet it failed to support his conclusion
that "Compared with dormitory residents, substantial propor
tions (of students living at home) never in the course of
their college career attend a meeting of some college organi
zation or participate in student government" (p. 63). The
data in Table 15 show that, while participation was not as
great among students who lived at home, the differences
between those at home and those who lived on campus were not
significant for most types of campus organizations. The
findings of this study do, however, support Chickering's
finding that students who live at home have less frequently
participated in R.O.T.C. programs.
Chickering also drew the conclusion that substantial
proportions of students who live at home never attend
lectures, concerts or plays in comparison with students
who live on campus. The data developed by this study
failed to support Chickering's conclusion. A roughly


45
that campus residents were more involved in college activ
ities than students who lived at home, but that no generalized
differences existed between the values of students with
differing housing arrangements.
Stark (1965) and Sprague (1969) found no significant
difference in extracurricular participation among students
with differing housing arrangements. Sprague attempted to
determine whether or not differences existed in certain
intellectual and nonintellectual factors among university
freshmen based on place of residence. His study involved
a sample of 108 freshmen who had been enrolled for a full
academic year. A personal data questionnaire also found no
significant difference in occupational level of parents or
in self-concept among students as a function of either sex
or place of residence while at college.
Research Approaches for Measuring the Impact
of Differing Living Environments
Research studies cited in the previous segment of the
review of literature contain many instances of conflicting
results. Such findings do not provide sufficient basis
for predicting the outcome of further research. Theories
are often useful for predicting the results of further
investigation, yet the conflicting results of prior research
may cause a researcher to be reluctant to make predictions
based on a particular theory. Researchers have recognized
that it is unnecessary for a study of this type to base
anticipated outcomes on any explicit theory. As noted by
Feldman, "The investigator may say something like the


92
Although the nature of contact with peers may be different
for students in these residence settings, one of the findings
of this study is that their perceptions of peers on factors
such as genuineness and empathy are essentially the same
regardless of their living situation.
Did students in different settings "travel different
roads leading to the same destination"? Would continuing
differences in the extent and intensity of contact with
peers over a more extended period of time than was the case
for both this study and that of Graff and Cooley yield
different results? One interpretation of the data in this
study is that while students' perceptions of peers on certain
qualities have been found to be the same regardless of
residence group, this finding of no differences may not
remain the case, as suggested by Astin (1973), over a more
extended period of time.
Another interpretation of the data is that sufficient
time was allowed in the study for significant differences
to develop in students' perceptions of peers and that it is
unlikely that differences will emerge later as a function
of differing residence settings.
Still another interpretation of the data can be made if
the assumption is accepted that persons' perceptions of their
relationships with others are a function of how they see them
selves. One of the findings of this study is that there are
changes which take place in the self-concepts of students
during the freshman year and that there are significant
differences in certain aspects of self-concept that can be


130
Toppe, C. M. A cross-sectional study of the effects of
teacher facilitativeness, group facilitativeness,
and length of time in group upon students 1 perception
of selves. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Florida, 1977.
Vaughan, R. P. Involvement in extracurricular activities
and dropout. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1968, 9, 60-61.
Weibe, B. and Pearce, W. B. An item-analysis and revision
of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory. Journal
Of Clinical Psychology, 1973, 2_9, 495-97.
Weston, L. C. and Stein, S. L. The relationship of the
identity achievement of college women and campus
participation. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1977, 18 (1) 21^24~! '
Williams, D. E. and Reilley, R. R. The impact of residence
halls on students. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1972, 13 (5), 402-410.
Wylie, R. C. The self concept. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 1961.


CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION OF THE DATA
This chapter contains a discussion of the data presented
in Chapter III. These data are examined in relation to the
previous research and theoretical writings included in the
review of the literature.
This chapter is divided into four sections. Each
section is devoted to a discussion of the findings relating
to a particular research question posed in Chapter I.
In the first section, the results of comparing levels of
persistence at the University among subsample groups are
discussed. The second section is devoted to a discussion of
the impact of various residence settings on the self-concepts
of students in the sample. The third section provides a
discussion of the findings of that part of the study which
dealt with relationships with peers. The results of com
paring subsample groups on their extent of involvement in
extracurricular activities is discussed in the fourth section
of this chapter.
Persistence
The first research question contained in the statement
of the problem asked: "Is there a difference in persistence
in college among students who lived on campus, at home, or
in other off-campus housing?" There was a consensus in the
78


cited from the Chickering studies appear to be related to
self-concept and/or persistence, as has been suggested in
the literature, they have also been referred to as educa
tional benefits.
Statement of the Problem
The problem of this study is to determine, through
research conducted on one campus, whether significant
differences exist in selected educational benefits (self-
concept, persistence in college, relationships with other
students, participation in college life) arising from
differing housing arrangements. The study compares unmarried
entering freshman students at the University of Florida who
lived on campus, at home> or in other off-campus housing
during the 1976-1977 academic year. The focus of the investi
gation is on the following questions:
1. Is there a difference in persistence in college
among students who live on campus, at home, or in
other off-campus housing?
2. For those who persist in college, is there a
change in self-concept among students who live
on campus, at home, or in other off-campus housing
and, if so, does this change differ on the basis
of residence?
3. For those who persist in college, is there a
difference in relationships with peers among
students who live on campus, at home, or in other
off-campus housing?


14
this date. The reduction in enrolled sample participants
as a result of failure to complete pretest instruments was
kept to a minimum through exhaustive follow-up by the
researcher.
Design of the Study
The research design selected by the researcher to study
student persistence in college, self-concept and relationships
with other students can be depicted as follows:
0 X 0
OYO
0 Z 0
where X= at home living experience
Y = off-campus living experience away from home
Z = on-campus living experience
0 = testing of sample participants
The research design selected by the researcher to study
participation in extracurricular activities can be depicted
as follows:
X 0
Y 0
Z 0
Collection of Data
Pretest materials were mailed to persons selected for
the sample in August of 1976, prior to enrollment. These
materials included a general information sheet requesting
assistance with the study and assuring confidentiality of
each individual's responses, a data sheet requesting


CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In order to provide an orderly presentation of selected
research findings and theoretical writings from the profes
sional literature as background for this study, this chapter
is divided into four sections. The first section includes
information on selected characteristics of freshman students.
The second section reviews writings and research findings on
certain educational benefits associated with the college
experience. The results of research on the impact of
different housing arrangements on college freshmen are
reviewed in section three. The fourth section of the
chapter presents information on several research methods
that have been used to measure the impact of different
living environments on students.
Selected Characteristics of Freshman Students
Sanford (1962), Freedman (cited in Sanford, 1962) and
others, in writings about student development, have generally
preferred to refer to the adolescent stage of development
or to personal growth during the college years rather than
to the developmental changes during the freshman year. In
a book entitled College and Character, Sanford maintained
that "at no stage can the development of a man's personality
be defined simply by either his chronological age or his
23


APPENDIX A
Dear Student:
One of the functions of the Office of Student Affairs is
to conduct research on the changing needs, characteristics,
and experiences of students at the University of Florida in
order to continue to improve the quality of the college ex
perience for students. In selecting a sample of 300 students
for one such research study, your name was drawn from a list
of all entering students enrolled at the University for the
first time this fall.
The two questionnaires enclosed ask about your percep
tions of yourself and about relationships with your high
school peer group. It will only take a few minutes to com
plete these materials.
Your answers will be treated confidentially by research
ers at the University and results will be reported only in
summary form representing groups of entering students. Iden
tification numbers are used so that we can log in the ques
tionnaires received and also to have the unique numbers
needed for computer analysis.
This study is being conducted in two phases. Materials
for the first segment are enclosed with this letter and
another set will be sent to your local mailing address in
April of 1977.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. Results
of research projects conducted through the University's Office
of Student Affairs during the 1976-77 academic year will be
available during the latter part of the 1977 spring quarter
in the Education Library, Norman Hall.
Sincerely,
Arthur Sandeen
Vice President for
Student Affairs
118


26
college environments differ from non-college
environments is that the former appear to
facilitate decreases in authoritarianism more
than the latter. (p. 32)
Sanford (1962) noted that freshmen have not had time
to develop a system of values rooted in personal experiences
another feature of the authoritarian personality structure.
The values of the entering freshman are supported,
typically, by his family and home community; he is
dependent upon this support, but, at least in the
very beginning of the college career, the support
is adequate enough so that the freshman is able to
present a picture of organization and self-contain
ment. (p. 262-3)
Data from the 1976 Student Information Forms, published
by the American Council on .Education, have indicated that
many entering freshmen have unrealistic expectations regarding
their chances of changing major field, failing one or more
courses, and completing degree requirements on time. Morstain
(1972) commented positively on the ultimate outcome once these
expectations are shattered for many:
Undoubtedly, there is much confusion and ambiguity
if students are in situations that might be incon-
gruent with their expectations about education and
their role in it, but this confusion can be helpful.
If it enables students to think about their education
and to establish personally relevant goals, the
initial confusion has served its purpose. (p. 286)
This shattering of initial expectations and the resulting
confusion can have a major impact on a student's confidence
in his or her abilities. According to Larson and Laramee
(1976) ,
There is often an initial shock to students who
come to college having been leaders in their high
schools, churches, and communities. The competi
tion for extracurricular leadership roles, higher
standards for academic work, and the more hetero-


43
as widely acquainted with other students and had fewer close
friends at the college" (Chickering, 1974, p. 64).
Graff and Cooley .(1970) investigated whether or not
students living at home and on-campus students differed on
adjustment to college. The College Inventory of Academic
Adjustment was used in this study. The sample consisted of
185 campus residents and 116 students who lived at home.
After-only measures at the conclusion of one semester's
enrollment, holding ability levels constant, revealed one
major differencethat students who lived at home had lower
self-concepts than campus residents. No differences between
the two groups were found to exist in ability or achievement
levels, or their relationships with peers and faculty.
Arbuckle (1957) studied whether there were any significant
differences in the changes which occur among college women
with differing housing arrangements. He used matching
techniques to equate two groups (27 nonresidents and 35
residents) by age, intelligence, socioeconomic background
and religion. Among his findings were that positive changes
occurred in self-confidence among women in both housing groups.
These changes were significant at the .05 level. He also
found significant positive change among those in the nonresident
group, but not in the resident group, in their relationships
with others using the Hestan Personal Adjustment Inventory and
the Gordon Personal Profile.
Astin (1973) using data collected in a multi-campus
study from 1966-70, concluded that campus residence exerts


Abstrae* of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Education
A COMPARISON OF SELF-CONCEPTS, PEER RELATIONSHIPS, PERSISTENCE
AND EXTRACURRICULAR INVOLVEMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FRESHMEN
WITH DIFFERING HOUSING ARRANGEMENTS
By
Stephen Russell Haulman
June 1978
Chairman: Ralph B. Kimbrough
Major Department: Educational Administration
The problem of this study was to determine whether
significant differences existed in enrollment persistence,
self-concept, peer relationships, and participation in
extracurricular activities when University of Florida fresh
men who lived on campus, at home, or in other off-campus
housing were compared. A longitudinal research design was
used during the 1976-77 academic year with a sample of 300
students selected through use of stratified systematic
sampling techniques. Over 68% of the eligible sample
participants returned completed materials.
Data on persistence were gathered from registration
records. Pretests and posttests of the Tennessee Self Concept
Scale and the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory were
used to collect data on self-concepts and peer relationships
x


19
Based on an item analysis of the instrument, Weibe
and Pearce (1973) recommended a shorter, more discriminating
instrument to include only those items correlated most
strongly with the subscale on which they appear. Toppe
(1977), using this revised inventory, found that the
computed intercorrelations for scale scores and the total
score in his investigation were all positive and significant
beyond the .001 level.
Construct validity for the scale has been established
through classification of items by five judges. Only
those 85 items on which consensus was reached regarding
classification were used in Barrett-Lennard's final form
of the inventory. Barrett-Lennard's research also estab
lished predictive validity, demonstrating that the inventory
discriminated, as predicted, between clients who improved
and who did not improve as a result of therapy. "Studies
with less severely disturbed clients, such as students,
report significant positive relationships between perceived
facilitativeness and positive client change. Predictive
validity, therefore, has been established for relatively
normal populations" (Toppe, 1977, p. 18).
Activities Questionnaire
A survey of the theoretical writings and research
studies on participation in extracurricular activities
was conducted. Through this survey, it was determined
that there were three principal aspects of extracurricular
involvement that needed to be addressed in this research.


47
Feldman (1972) described the two-stage, input-output
approach used by Astin, Chickering and others to study the
impact of different environments:
The background of students entering college
and their values, orientation, and personality
characteristics are considered as input. An
"expected output" based on these input charac
teristics is computed. The effects of this
expected output is then statistically removed
from students' "observed output," producing a
residual output now independent of input charac
teristics. Measures of the characteristics of
institutions of higher education are then
related to this residual output to determine the
extent to which they explain variation in the
output beyond that explained by the input
characteristics, thus determining the nature
and strength of college influences. A related
procedure is the following: a stepwise regres
sion is carried out in which all input variables
are entered into the regression, after which
the environmental variables are permitted to
enter. (p. 211)
Conclusions from the Literature
Freshman students are a diverse group in terms of
academic ability, personality characteristics, interests,
values, and socioeconomic background. Although research
findings cited are not consistent, some evidence has
indicated that campus residents participated more in
activities in high school and may have advantages in
academic ability and socioeconomic background as a group
when compared to college students living at home.
Most freshmen are in the adolescent stage of develop
ment, a stage which also includes some high school students
as well as some college-age students beyond the normal
freshman age range. This stage is characteristized in part
by inexperience in many areas and decreasing authoritarian


28
change reflected fairly consistently a steady decline in
authoritarianism as well as a decline in political, economic
and social conservatism.
In commenting further on patterns of change, Newcomb
and Feldman supported the widely held view that the impact
of the college experience is greatest upon students during
their freshman and sophomore years. Yet, they also cited
some reasons why this pattern is not consistently true:
For some dimensions the early college years may
indeed provide the greatest impetus of change,
but other areas of potential change may not become
salient or relevant to students until their later
college years. Likewise, at some colleges the
challenges of the early years may be greater than
those of the later years, whereas structural arrange
ments of other colleges may create greater pressures
for change on upper division than on lower division
students. (p. 101)
Newcomb and Feldman also noted that individual differences
play an important role in determining when change takes place
during the college years.
For some, change may be almost immediate, for others
there may be a longer period of "working through,"
with observable change being evidenced only in
later college years. It is even possible that some
students find the challenges of their freshman year
so heavy that they become resistant to change, only
to become less defensive and more likely to change
in their junior or senior year. (p. 101)
In The Student in Higher Education, the writers concluded
that the freshman student "generally has an open mind, is eager
to work, and willing to learn . the freshman year is of
critical importance because it is the time when the student's
enthusiasm, curiosity, and willingness to work can be snuffed-
out or reinforced" (The Committee on the Student in Higher
Education, 1968, p. 45).


CHAPTER V
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
This chapter contains a brief overview of the purpose,
design and findings of the study, conclusions derived from
these findings, theoretical implications of the study,
implications for educational practice, and suggestions for
further research.
The study was undertaken to determine, through research
conducted on one campus, whether significant-differences
exist in student persistence, self-concept, peer relation
ships and participation in college life, when comparing
freshman students with differing housing arrangements. An
initial sample of 300 entering University of Florida fresh
men was selected using stratified systematic sampling
techniques. The sample included 50 females and 50 males
who lived at home, 50 females and 50 males who lived off
campus away from home, and 50 females and 50 males who
lived in campus residence halls.
A longitudinal research design was used. Pretest
materials were distributed by mail in late August of 197.6
and posttest materials were distributed and collected in
April of 1977. Two instruments, the Tennessee Self Concept
Scale and the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory were
administered as pretests and posttests to measure self-
concept and peer relationships respectively. The Registrar's
101


LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 Regression Model ........... 56
2 A Comparison of Identity Scores of
Subsample Groups. . . 59
3 A Comparison of Personal Self Scores
of Subsample Groups 60
4 A Comparison of Family Self Scores of
Subsample Groups 61
5 A Comparison of Social Self Scores of
Subsample Groups. 62
IX


80
environment off campus away from home to be associated with
the highest levels of attrition and campus residence to be
associated with the lowest levels of attrition among freshman
females.
Although the impact of residence setting was shown
through this study to be different for females and males,
this research found no overall difference in persistence
between the sexes. This finding is consistent with previous
research by Panos and Astin (1969) Iffert (1957) and
others, who found no differences in persistence levels
between females and males.
What factors may be operating that would explain the
differences between the sexes on levels of persistence in
various residence settings? Astin (1975) has speculated
that differences in the degree of personal autonomy and
independence given to females and males during their high
school years may be a factor. Parents allow male students
greater opportunities for exercising independent judgment
and experiencing personal autonomy than they allow female
students, according to Astin. He concluded that these
differences are at least partially responsible for the
differing levels of persistence associated with types of
residence for female and male students.
One might expect females and males to react differently
in various residence settings in terms of persistence based
on findings of a review of the literature by Cope and Hannah
(1975). "Researchers have found consistently that the reasons
given for dropping out differed between the sexes . men


104
away from home had visited these cultural centers in
the expected numbers. Among students who lived at home,
the number who had visited one of these centers was
significantly below the number expected. In comparing
students in these residence groups on whether they
attended a dance or party on campus since the start of
the 1976 fall quarter, those who lived at home signifi
cantly exceeded attendance expectations, while the
other two groups had attendance levels that were signifi
cantly below expectations.
Conclusions
In light of the findings of this study, the following
conclusions are drawn:
1. There was a difference in persistence at the University
of Florida among students who lived on campus, at home,
or in other off-campus housing. The difference was
significant for males, but not for females. The data
clearly indicate that a campus residence hall was the
best place for a freshman male to live in order to
maximize his chances of persisting at the University.
Attrition rates were highest for male students who lived
at home during their freshman year. This study suggests
that living at home is the best choice for a female
to maximize her chances of persisting at the University,
although the results are not significant at the .05
level. For females, attrition rates were highest among
those who lived off campus away from home.


42
who lived at home played more chess and watched television
more frequently. Campus residents participated in R.O.T.C.
programs more than those who lived at home. Chickering,
writing about students who live at home, notes:
Compared with dormitory residents, substantial pro
portions never in the course of their college career
attend a meeting of some college organization, par
ticipate in student government, attend political
meetings or lectures, or attend a concert, play or
art film. (p. 63)
Data from the questionnaire relating to self-concept
were also studied using stepwise multiple regression analyses
for students living at home. Chickering found that:
In general, therefore, after differences in back
ground characteristics and difference in self
perceptions at entrance are taken into account,
students who live at home during the freshman year
rate themselves lower on many important characteris
tics and abilities, than students who live under
other conditions. Thus, during the freshman year,
the self-esteem of these commuting students suffers
in comparison with their residential peers, (p. 67)
He has found this group significantly lower on self-perceptions
of leadership ability, social self-confidence, and popularity
in comparison with freshmen living on campus, who are also
dealing with the problems of transition to college.
Chickering also reported studies that have found major
differences between students who lived at home and campus
residents in their relationships with other students. In
one study, campus residents scored higher than students who
lived with parents on every questionnaire item concerning
social relationships with other students. Based on another
study, he concluded that students who lived at home "were not


83
Studies by Sprague (1969) and Arbuckle (1957) found no
significant differences in self-concept for students with
differing housing arrangements.
This study found significant differences in certain
aspects of self-concept among students who lived at home,
off campus away from home and on campus. These aspects were:
identity, family self and social self, which are three of
the positive subscales of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale.
Although the same instrument was used in Sprague's study,
the data of the present study failed to support Sprague's
findings. ,
The identity subscale describes the basic identity
of sample respondents, or who a person is as he or she sees
himself or herself. Scores on the identity subscale differed
significantly for females who lived on campus as compared
with other subsample groups. Females who lived on campus
who had high identity pretest scores scored almost as well
on the identity section of the posttest as other sample
participants with high identity pretest scores. Females
who lived on campus who had low identity scores on the pre
test, however, did not perform as well on the identity scale
of the posttest as other sample participants who had low
identity scores on the pretest. This particular finding
does not support Astin's conclusion that residence on
campus has a consistently positive impact on self-concept.
Rather, the results of this study indicate that a female
entering college with a poor identity seems to be affected
more positively by living at home or off campus away from
home.


Internet Distribution Consent Agreement
August 2007
7|a^
In reference to the following dissertation:
Author: H cx I *vn ckvn j ^ ^ u ^ j £ £ Q
Title. (A- j P?
Publication Date:
I, Ru^-a^SiL /y4xuJL^-\ as copyright holder for the
aforementioned dissertation, hereby grant specific and limited archive and distribution
rights to the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida and its agents. I authorize the
University of Florida to digitize and distribute the dissertation described above for
nonprofit, educational purposes via the Internet or successive technologies.
This is a non-exclusive grantof permissions for specific off-line and on-line uses for an
indefinite term. Off-line uses, shall be limited to those specifically allowed by "Fair Use"
as prescribed by the terms of United States copyright legislation (cf, Title 17, U.S. Code)
as well as to the maintenance -and preservation Of a digital archive copy. Digitization
allows the University of Florida to genetrtd ¡Stage- anduitext-based versions as
appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search softyyarf.
This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized veronsufoRcommercial use or
Personal information blurred
to %
Date of Signature
Return this form to: Cathy Martyniak
Preservation Dept.,
University of Florida Libraries
P.O. Box 117007
Gainesville, FL 32611-7007


7
expected place of residence. Groups 1M (males)
and IF (females) included students living at home.
Groups 2M and 2F included students living off
campus away from home. Groups 3M and 3F included
campus residents. To assure adequate representation
of the first two relatively small subpopulations,
a stratified systematic sample of 300 students was
drawn. Of the total sample of 300 students who
were initially chosen, 50 were selected from each
of the six groups.
2. Measurement of self-concept was confined to pretest
and posttest scores on the positive scales of the
Tennessee Self Concept Scale administered in August
of 1976 and April of 1977.
3. Measurement of persistence in college was confined
to a count of the number of students in the sample
registering for one or more courses at the University
of Florida for the 1976-77 Fall, Winter and Spring
quarters.
4. Measurement of participation in college life was
confined to comparison of each group's after-only
scores on a researcher-developed questionnaire on
extracurricular activities, which was administered
in April of 1977.
5. Measurement of relationships with other students
was confined to pretest and posttest scores on the
Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (revised)
administered in August of 1976 and in April of 1977.


115
Another research question suggested by the findings of
this study is why the campus living environment was a negative
influence on females with low initial identity scores. A
study could also be undertaken to identify the factors in the
campus living environment that adversely affect students with
poor perceptions of self in relation to family members.
The significant differences between female and male
students that were identified in several aspects of this
research should stimulate a number of studies. Further
research is needed to identify the factors responsible for
the differences in persistence levels of females and males
in relation to particular types of housing arrangements.
The causes of the significant differences between females
and males in personal self scores on the Tennessee Self
Concept Scale is another topic suggested for further research.
Freshman males were found in this study to be more involved
in leadership roles (at the .05 level) than freshman females.
The factors responsible for this difference between the
sexes should be identified. Studies of females and males
in leadership roles categorized by type of organization should
also be undertaken.
\
The impact of differing living arrangements on peer
relationships should be studied more fully using the Barrett-
Lennard Relationship Inventory over a more extended period of
time. Other instruments should be used in the study, of this
topic as well in order to investigate aspects of peer relation
ships which cannot be studied by the Relationship Inventory.


12
be living at home. All .other freshmen were assigned to
Groups 2M or 2F which included those students likely to be
living off campus away from home.
A stratified systematic sample of students was drawn
from the coded list.. While it was impossible to determine
in advance the exact size of the subpopulations within the
total population, Groups 3M and 3F were expected to include
a large majority of the population and Groups 1 and 2 were
expected to be relatively small as had been the case in
previous years. To assure adequate representation of
Groups 1 and 2, stratified sampling was used. Of the total
sample of 300 students who were initially chosen, 50 were
selected from each of the six groups. Systematic sampling
procedures were used by the researcher. Since the alphabetized
admit list was not ordered in any manner associated with the
factors to be studied, systematic sampling procedures were
expected to yield a representative cross section of the
population.
Some minor changes in the number of sample participants
from each group, as well as in the total number of students
in the sample occurred prior to and during October of 1976,
when verification of place of residence was made for all of
those included in the sample. Verification proceeded according
to this plan: First, the most current alphabetical roster
of students in campus housing available from the Division of
Housing was reviewed in early October. Full names and social
security numbers were checked for all sample participants.
Those who appeared on this roster/regardless of initial


LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Data on Reduction in Number of Eligible
Sample Participants ....... 51
2 Student Persistence by Residence Group . . 53
3 Persistence Among Females and Males 53
4 Female Students' Persistence by Residence
Group 54
5 Male Students' Persistence by Residence
Group 55
6 Estimates for Total Positive and Positive
Subscores on the Posttest of the
Tennessee Self Concept Scale. . 57
7 Results of t tests on Estimates of Selected
Parameters for the Regression Model 58
2
8 R Values Calculated for the Barrett-Lennard
Relationship Inventory. 65
9 Results of t tests on the Estimates of
Parameters for the Regression Model 66
10 Level of Participation in Campus Organiza
tions Reported by Residence Group 67.
11 Participation in Academically-Related
Organizations by Residence Group. ...... 68
12 Participation in "Other Organizations."
by Residence Group 69
13 Students' Leadership Roles by Residence
Group 7 0
14 Leadership Roles Held by Females and Males . 70
vii


34
Such a combination of circumstances is hardly
calculated to aid the. student in his search for
identity, precisely at the time when he is least
certain about it. Small wonder, then, that
students tend to be drawn together; their common
problems and their relative isolation from non
students make them ready material for the forma
tion of strong peer groups. Membership in a peer
group is more likely to influence directly students'
capacities, or basic personality traits. (p. 141)
Sherif and Sherif (1964) have described the manner in
which relationships with peers are established and maintained
by adolescents. They cited two major reasons for peer group
formation. First, social ties with peers are formed to aid
individuals in developing self-concepts that are more con
sistent and well-defined. Second, social relationships are
formed with peers to provide support systems that can help
individuals cope with the problems of everyday. living.
Sherif and Sherif have described the factors which determine
the degree of influence which a peer group has on an
individual:
The extent to which such an informal formation
becomes the center of the universe for an
individual member is proportional to the degree
of disruption of other ties (family, school,
and other social establishments), and propor
tional to the degree that the group and its
activities serve as vehicles for joint action
towards the fulfillment of goals he feels
denied otherwise (social, financial, sexual,
and so on). To this extent, the individual's
concerns over social acceptance or rejection,
his concern to prove himself as a person who
counts, his very conception of the kind of
person he is, revolve in no small part around
"being somebody" in this group of his own
choosing.


120
ADDRESS INFORMATION SHEET
In order to have the second set of materials sent to
you in April of 1977, researchers will need to have address
information for you and others included in the sample.
Please complete this sheet to let researchers know what
your planned place of residence is for the upcoming school
year.
Name : .
Last First Middle
I.If you plan to live on campus in University residence
halls, please check here Researchers will
obtain a current address in April from the Housing
Office.
II.If you plan to live off campus in or near Gainesville,
A. Please write in your planned address here:
Street Address of Box No.
Town or City Zip Code
B. Check one:
_____ Will live with parent (s) grandparent (s) ,
aunt and/or uncle
Will live off campus away from home of
parent(s), grandparent(s), aunt and/or
uncle
III.Please write your permanent address below. Researchers
will attempt to contact you through this address if
unable to locate your correct mailing address in the
Gainesville area in April.
Street Address or Box No.
Town or City
Zip Code
PLEASE PLACE THIS SHEET, ALONG WITH YOUR COMPLETED
QUESTIONNAIRES, IN THE POSTPAID ENVELOPE. THANK
YOU.


A COMPARISON OF SELF-CONCEPTS, PEER RELATIONSHIPS, PERSISTENCE
AND EXTRACURRICULAR INVOLVEMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FRESHMEN
WITH DIFFERING HOUSING ARRANGEMENTS
By
Stephen Russell Haulman
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1978


Ill
freshman year could then be made in light of available
knowledge once it is shared rather than in ignorance.
It is recommended that findings such as these, which have
been well-researched and for which there is generally a
consensus in the literature, be shared through appropriate
media such as admissions literature, alumni magazines,
the college catalog and campus housing publications. Such
information can also be shared as a part of presentations
and discussions in summer orientation programs held on
many campuses.
The importance of self-concept in achieving successful
educational experiences has been noted in the literature.
More successful educational experiences can be achieved
if students with self-concept problems can be identified
and help provided until these problems are.overcome. The
findings of this study in the area of self-concept are
meaningless for educational practice if there is no process
through which those with self-concept problems can be
identified. One way of identifying students with self-
concept problems would be by obtaining a measure of self-
concept for all entering students through the cooperation
of the Admissions Office or the Student Services Office.
The computerized version of the Tennessee Self Concept
Scale could be sent to each entering freshman student at
the same time as or following notification of admission.
Once these instruments were collected, they could be sent
in bulk for scoring to minimize costs, then returned to
student affairs staff. These professional staff could then


103
qualities of their relationships with peers as measured
by the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory.
4. Significant differences in level of involvement in
certain types of campus organizations were found among
groups with differing housing arrangements. Campus
residents in the sample significantly exceeded expecta
tions at all levels of involvement in academically-
related organizations and "other organizations,"
particularly at the "fairly extensive" and the "very
extensive" levels. Students who lived at home fell
significantly short of expected levels of participation
in these types of organizations.
5. Students who lived off campus away from home held leader
ship roles in the expected numbers (as calculated using
chi square), while students who lived at home fell
significantly short of expectations and campus residents
significantly exceeded expectations.
6. When the residence groups wre compared on participation
in other aspects of campus life, significant differences
were found on three categories: intramurals, visits
to campus cultural centers, and attendance at a dance
or party on the campus. Those who lived on campus partici
pated in intramural sports competition in numbers signifi
cantly greater than expected. Participation was signifi
cantly less that expected among those who lived at home.
The number of campus residents who visited the Florida
State Museum or the University Gallery significantly
exceeded expectations, while students who lived off campus


APPENDIX B
BARRETT-LENNARD RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY
Below are listed a variety of ways that one person could
feel or behave in relation to another person. Please consider
each statement with respect to whether you think it is true
or not true in your relationships with your high school peer
group. Circle your response to each statement in the left-
hand margin according to how strongly you feel it is true
or not true. Please circle a response to every statement.
The numbers to be circled in the left-hand column stand for
the following answers:
+1: I feel it is probably true,or more true than untrue.
+2: I feel it is true.
+3: I strongly feel it is true.
-1: I feel it is probably untrue, or more untrue than true
-2: I feel it is not true.
-3: I strongly feel it is not true.
+1
+2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
1.
They respect me.
+1
+ 2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
2.
They pretend that they like me or
understand me more than they really do.
+1
+ 2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
3.
They understand my words but not
the way I feel.
+1
+2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
. 4.
They are interested in knowing what
my experiences mean to me.
+1
+ 2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
5.
They are disturbed whenever I talk
about certain things.
+1
+2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
6.
They like seeing me.
+1
+2
+3
-1
-2
-3
7.
They behave just the way they are
in our relationship.
+1
+ 2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
8.
They appreciate me.
+1
+ 2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
9.
I do not think that they hide anything
from themselves that they feel with me.
+1
+2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
10.
They care about me.
+1
+ 2
+3
-1
-2
-3
11.
Their own attitudes toward some of
the things I say, or do, stop them
from really understanding me.
+1
+ 2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
12.
I feel I can trust them to be honest
with me.
121


87
campus away from home may have found the choice of the few
persons they shared apartments with to be too limited,.
hampering their ability to build as strong a support system
or "circle of associates" as they found in their family
group.
The social self subscale of the Tennessee Self Concept
Scale describes a person's sense of personal adequacy in his
social interaction with others in a broader manner than in
the family self subscale. Females with low social self
pretest scores who lived at home or on campus did better
on the social self posttest .than females with similar pre
test scores who lived off campus away from home.
This is an interesting finding in light of the previous
discussion of family self scores. Fitts (1965) described
the high intercorrelation of positive scores of the
Tennessee Self Concept Scale and reported a correlation
of .73 between family self and social self scores. Many
students with low family self pretest scores also had low
social self pretest scores. One might expect the living
situation off campus away from home to have a similar impact
on both family self and social self posttest scores of this
group of students. However, this is not the case.
This finding can be interpreted to mean that many of
those living off campus away from home have made a choice
to grow toward maturity largely within the context of a small,
personally-chosen peer group rather than the family setting
at home or the more intense and diverse peer relationships
characteristic of residence halls. This idea of choice


116
Participation in extracurricular activities by students
with differing living arrangements should be studied over a
more extended time period. A pretest designed to determine
the extent of involvement in various extracurricular activ
ities by students during high school should be used in future
studies of this nature.
These suggestions would, if implemented, contribute
to a better understanding of the results obtained in this
study and could provide significant new knowledge about
student development in higher education.


41
In studying student characteristics, Chickering used
multiple regression analyses on student responses to a
questionnaire developed by the American Council on Education
(ACE). A random sample of 5351 students was selected from
a population of 38,000 students from a wide variety of
institutions of higher education. The population consisted
of those who had responded to a follow-up questionnaire at
the end of their freshman year. Chickering found that
within the public universities:
Substantial differences occur between commuters and
residents in parental occupation, income and educa
tional background; in high school achievements,
experiences and activities; and in long-range aspira
tions; but the two groups are similar in degree
plans. (p. 49)
Multiple regression analyses were undertaken on responses
by students to items on college experiences contained in the
ACE questionnaire. For these analyses, a random sample of
5351 students was drawn from a population of 26,806 students
who completed both the initial and the end-of-freshman-year
questionnaires. From his analyses, Chickering concluded that
campus residents have more social experiences with college
peers, show greater persistence in college, and have more
frequent contact with faculty both inside and outside of the
classroom setting than students who lived, at home.
Chickering also reported marked differences in partici
pation in extracurricular activities between campus residents
and students Who lived at home. Of the 27 items analyzed
on the ACE questionnaire related to extracurricular experiences
in college, campus residents scored higher on 24. Students


LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D)
TABLE PAGE
15 Participation in Intramural Sports
Competition on Campus by Residence
Group 72
16 Totals of Students by Residence Group
Who Visited the Museum or Gallery 73
17 Totals of Students by Residence Group
Who Attended a Dance or Party on
Campus 74
viii


105
For those who persisted in college, there was a change
in self-concept over the course of the freshman year.
Change differed on the basis of residence for certain
aspects of self-concept, as measured by the Tennessee
Self Concept Scale.
a.) For females with low initial identity scores,
a decision to live on campus had a negative
effect on the development' of identity during
the course of the freshman year.
b.) For students with poor initial family self
and social self scores, a decision to live
off campus away from home was a choice that
results in more positive growth in self-
concept within the confines of a small group.
This choice of developmental setting, however,
provides inadequate opportunities to develop
greater confidence and skills in social
relationships.
c.) For females with high initial family self and
social self scores, a decision to live off
campus away from home results in perceptions
of self in reference to their living group
that are not as strong as those held by persons
in other residence settings. Residing off
campus away from home had a positive effect
on the social self-confidence of this group
of females.


24
academic status" (Sanford, 1964, p. 86). Instead, Sanford
(1962), Heath (1969) and others have described a stage of
late adolescence, which includes most freshmen, but also
some high school students and college sophomores, as well
as a minority of college upperclassmen.
McConnell and Heist (cited in Sanford, 1962) and others
have elaborated on the wide diversity of freshmen in terms
of academic ability, personality characteristics, interests,
values and socioeconomic background. According to Alfert
(1968), students starting college vary in initial level of
development as well as in the pace of development during
their stay. Despite the tremendous variety of individual
backgrounds represented by the freshman population, there
are some generalizations that can be gleaned from the liter- .
ature that are said to apply to freshman students.
Prominent researchers in the field of student development,
including Chickering (1974) vand DeCoster (1970) have referred
to The American College, edited by Nevitt Sanford, as a
major contribution to the literature and a useful source of
information on freshman characteristics. In a chapter on
the developmental status of the freshman, Sanford (1962)
draws an interesting parallel:
The freshman's psychological situation is essen
tially a picture of an authoritarian personality
structure. Authoritarianism in personality is a
particular pattern of relationships among impulse,
conscience, and ego (Sanford, 1956b). It is a
pattern in which strong impulses are directly
opposed by an alert, rigid, and punitive conscience.
The ego has to devote so much energy to restraining
impulses that its other functions are not well
performed; it has been able to integrate little
of the primitive conscience with itself, so that
the latter continues to function more or less as
a foreign body. This state of affairs at the


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background and Justification for the Study
In the early seventies, pioneering research studies were
conducted by Arthur Chickering on the impact of differing
housing arrangements on college freshmen. Through these
studies, using longitudinal data gathered from many institu
tions of higher education by the American Council of Education,
Chickering concluded that significant differences exist
among college freshmen who live on campus, at home, or off
campus away from home that cannot be attributed to preexisting
differences among the student groups.
The differing impact of various types of housing arrange
ments on the self-concepts of freshman students and on their
persistence in college were among the principal findings
of Chickering (1975). Among other significant differences
found to exist among those living on campus, at home, and
off campus away from home were the extent of participation
in college life and relationships with other students.
The researcher believes that the self-concepts of
students and student persistence in college are matters of
considerable significance to students, parents, faculty and
staff, arid have implications for society as well. Because of
their importance to a successful college experience, the writer
has referred to these two principal factors in his study as
educational benefits. Also, because the two other factors
1


53
the University among students who lived on campus, at home, or
in other off-campus housing?" The total number of students
who enrolled in the fall, the number who persisted through
the spring and the number who did not persist are presented
in Table 2 by sex and by type of residence.
Table 2
Student Persistence by Residence Group
Students
Living At
Home
Students
Living Off
Campus Away
From Home
Students
On Campus
Living
Females
Males
Females Males
Females
Males
Total Enrolled in
September
33
36
37 31
44
49
Total Who Persisted
Through Spring
Quarter
30
27
29 27
37
47
Total Who Did Not
Persist Through
Spring Quarter
3
9
8 4
7
2
Note. N=230
The chi-square statistic was used in the analysis of
these data to determine whether or not there was a significant
difference among these groups on persistence at the University.
Table 3 contains data on persistence comparing males and
females in the sample.
Table 3
Persistence Among
Females and Males
Females Males
Students Who Did Persist
Actual Number 96 101
Expected Number 97.64 99.36
Students Who Did Not Persist
Actual Number 18 15
Expected Number16.36 16.64


30
Powell, Plyler, Dickson and McClellan (1969), Sanford
(1964), Chickering (1969) and others have studied the concept
of self as it relates to the college experiences of students
and have acknowledged its significance in terms of impact on
student development. The self-concept consists of "all of
the beliefs, attitudes and opinions which an individual
holds about himself" (Purkey, 1967, p. 3)
Rogers (1951) described self-concept in a more detailed
manner:
The self concept may be thought of as an organized
configuration of perceptions of the self which
are admissible to awareness. It is composed of
such elements as the perceptions of one's charac
teristics and abilities; the percepts and concepts
of the self in relation to others and to the
environment; the value qualities which are perceived
as associated with experiences and objects; and
goals and ideals which are perceived as having
positive or negative valence. (p. 136)
This organized configuration of perceptions of the self,
according to Rogers, unifies the individual's personality
and regulates his behavior. So long as perceptions of self
remain firmly organized, and no contradictory material is
even dimly perceived, then the self is seen as "worthy and
acceptable, and conscious tension is minimal" (p. 191).
Wylie (1961) in a comprehensive survey of the literature
on self-concept, concluded that self-concept theories are in
many ways ambiguous, incomplete, and overlapping. As a- result
of her review of pertinent research literature, she noted
that no one theory has received a large amount of systematic
empirical exploration.


73
Table 16
Totals of Students by Residence Group
Who Visited the Museum or Gallery
Response
Students
Living At
a
Home
Students
Living
Off Campus
Away^From
Home
Students
Living
On Campus
Actual
28
27
49
Visited
Expected
38.0
27.2
38.8
Actual
21
8
1
Did Not Visit
Expected
11.0
7.8
11.2
Note. N=134
an=49
bn=35
Cn=50
The final question in this section in which significant
differences were found asked: "Have you attended a dance or
party on the campus since the start of the 1976 Fall Quarter?"
The chi-square statistic was 7.336 with 2 degrees of freedom,
which is significant at the .026 level. Table 17 contains
the actual and estimated numbers of sample participants in
each residence group who attended a dance or party on campus.
The data in this table indicate that sample participants who
lived at home exceeded the number expected to attend these
social functions and that sample participants who lived off
campus away from home or on campus fell short of the number
expected to participate in these activities.


74
Table 17
Totals of Students by Residence Group
Who Attended a Dance or Party on Campus
Response
Students
Living At
Home3
Students
Living
Off Campus
Away From
Home
Students
Living
On Campus
Actual
19
6
9
Attended
Expected
12.4
8.9
12.7
Actual
30
29
41
Did Not Attend
Expected
36.6
26.1
37.3
Note. N=134
an=49
^n=35
Cn=50
The results gleaned from the analysis of responses to
the Activities Questionnaire can be summarized as follows:
Differences among those sampled by residence group occurred
in level of participation in academically-related organizations,
such as professional societies and honor societies. Partici
pation was highest and most extensive for campus residents in
the sample. Those who lived off campus away from home parti
cipated more than those at home, but the level of involvement
of both of these groups was low. Differences in participation
in "other organizations," such as R.O.T.C. and the University
Band, were also found among the residence groups. Campus
residents participated in such organizations far more than
was the case among others in the sample.
Students who lived off campus held leadership roles in
the numbers expected (as calculated using chi square).
Students who lived at home fell short of expectations and
students who lived on campus exceeded expectations. Freshman


66
Table 9
Results of t tests on the Estimates of Parameters
for the Regression Model
Name of Total
Parameter
Scale 1
Scale 2
Scale 3
Scale 4
Scale
Males at home
.9289
.1558
.8570
.3895
.7832
Males off campus
.0453
.6035
.6124
.2384
.9847
Males on campus
.5415
.6295
.3266
.4452
.1524
Females at home
.0576
.1553
.1044
.8517
.5133
Females off campus
.5282
.3987
.5574
.7189
.9650
Females on campus
.6985
.0439
.7465
.6386
.6245
Before/Males at home
.0003
.9861
.0090
.0446
.0448
Before/Males off campus
.2183
.3648
.6432
.2174
.6891
Before/Males on campus
.5710
.9899
.4389
.8020
.2240
Before/Females at home
.1299
.1269
.0788
.8793
.4797
Before/Females off campus
.9777
.6561
.7744
.2311
.4137
Before/Females on campus
.7246
.0673
.1450
.5253
.1315
Note. £<.05.
Except for pretests, no factors or combination of factors
contained in the model as constructed had a significant effect
on the prediction of posttest scores on the scales of the
Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory.
Participation in Extracurricular Activities
The fourth research question posed in this study was:
"For those who persist in college, is there a difference in
participation in extracurricular activities among students
who live on campus, at home, or in other off-campus housing?"
A researcher-designed Activities Questionnaire, administered
as a posttest, was returned by 134 sample participants.
The chi-square statistic was used in the analysis of these
data to determine whether or not there was a significant
difference among those in the subsample groups according to
type of residence.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alfert, E. Developmental stage and choice of residence in
college. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1968,
9 (2), 90-93: ; :
Arbuckle, D. S., Du Mars, L. and Bently, J. A study of
residence hall freshmen women. Journal of Higher
Education, 1957, 28 (7), 384-387..
Ashcraft, C. and Fitts, W. H. Self-concept change in
psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 1964, 1 (3), 115-118.
Astin, A. W. The impact of dormitory living on students.
Educational Record, 1973, 54_, 204-210.
Astin, A. W. Preventing students from dropping out. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975.
Astin, A. W. and Panos, J. The educational and vocational
development of college students. Washington: American
Council on Education, 1969.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. Dimensions of therapist response
as causal factors in therapeuticchange. Psychological
Monographs, 1962, 76^, (43, Whole #562) .
Barton, Bruce C. The effects of place of residence upon
value development in college students. (Doctoral
dissertation, 1972) Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national, 1972, 33, 2727A. (University Microfilms
No. 72-32130) .
Burton, M. D. A study of the relationship between personality
characteristics, demographic data, and extracurricular
participation. (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia
Polytechnical Institute and State University, 1976).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976, 31_, 1486A
(University Microfilms No. 76-19882) .
Chickering, A. W. Commuting versus resident students. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
Chickering, A. W. Education and identity, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1969.
Committee on the Student in Higher Education. The student
in higher education. New Haven: The Hayen Foundation,
1968.
126


economic, intellectual, and educational levels from sixth
grade through the Ph.D. degree.
The scale consists of 100 items. These items were
designed to guide an individual in describing himself or
herself in terms of the following: (1) this is what I
am; (2) this is how I feel about myself; and (3) this is
what I do. There are nine scales representing the
following dimensions of the self-concept: total positive,
identity, self-satisfaction, behavior, physical self,
moral-ethical self, personal self, family self, and social
self. These are referred to as the positive scales of
the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. The positive scales
as well as the distribution and total variability scores
were used in this study.
A "counseling" version and a "clinical and research"
version of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale are available.
The instrument itself does not differ, but far more sub
scores are available on the latter version for certain
clinical and research purposes. The counseling version
of the scale was used in this study.
Two scoring methods are available for the instrument,
a hand-scored method and a computer-scored method. The
latter scoring method was most appropriate for the study,
so the optical scan version of the instrument was used.
The instrument has a Likert-type scale of five choices
ranging from completely false to completely true.


A COMPARISON OF SELF-CONCEPTS, PEER RELATIONSHIPS, PERSISTENCE
AND EXTRACURRICULAR INVOLVEMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FRESHMEN
WITH DIFFERING HOUSING ARRANGEMENTS
By
Stephen Russell Haulman
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1978

This dissertation is dedicated with deep appreciation
to my parents, Colonel and Mrs. Clement Raymer Haulman;
my fiancee, Janet Minturn; and my son, Richard Scott
Haulman; who have supported me with their encouragement,
understanding and love during the most critical period of
my graduate studies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writer wishes to express his appreciation to
Dr. Ralph Kimbrough for his guidance as Chairman of the
writer's Supervisory Committee and particularly for his
suggestions and encouragement throughout the preparation
of this dissertation. The writer also wishes to express his
gratitude to Dr. Harold Riker for the inspiring leadership
and guidance given during the writer's graduate studies
and early years as a professional. Dr. Riker's thoughtful
and constructive comments throughout the preparation of this
dissertation are very much appreciated. The writer also
wishes to thank Dr. James Wattenbarger for the encouragement
he has given throughout the writer's doctoral studies.
Special recognition and appreciation is warmly extended
to Mrs. Rebecca Lovely for her outstanding work in typing
the drafts and final copy of this dissertation. Her patience,
throughtfulness and continued willingness to help throughout
the months of preparation of this dissertation are very much
appreciated. The writer also wishes to thank Dr. Michael
Nunnery for his guidance during the formative stages of this
dissertation. Special appreciation is extended to Mike Conlon
for his assistance with computerized statistical analyses and
for his patience in teaching the writer about certain methods
of statistical analysis.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS'. iii
LIST OF TABLES .............. vii
LIST OF FIGURES. ix
ABSTRACT X
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION. 1
Background and Justification for
the Study. 1
Statement of the Problem. 2
Significance of the Study 3
Scope of the Study 6
Limitations of the Study. 8
Assumptions 8
Definition of Terms 9
Procedures. 11
Description of the Sample 11
Design of the Study. 14
Collection of Data 14
Instruments. 15
Analysis of the Data 21
Organization of the Research Report .... 22
IV

TABLES OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
CHAPTER page
II.REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. 23
Selected Characteristics of Freshman
Students ...... .... 23
Selected Educational Benefits and the
College Experience ...... 29
Self-Concept ..... 29
Relationships with Other Students. ... 32
Extracurricular Experiences. 35
Persistence in College ......... 37
Impact of Different Types of Housing
Arrangements on College Freshmen .... 40
Research Approaches for Measuring the
Impact of Differing Living Environments. 45
Conclusions from the Literature 47
III.RESULTS OF THE STUDY. ............ 50
Response of Sample Participants 50
Student Persistence in College 52
Changes in Students' Self-Concept ..... 55
Relationships with Peers 64
Participation in Extracurricular
Activities 66
Chapter Summary 75
IV.DISCUSSION OF THE DATA. 78
Persistence 78
Self-Concept 82
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
CHAPTER page
IV. Relationships with Peers 89
(CONT'D)
Participation in Extracurricular
Activities. 93
V. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .... 101
Findings ........ 102
Conclusions. 104
Implications of the Study. 106
Suggestions for Further Research 114
APPENDICES
A SAMPLE COVER LETTERS AND ADDRESS
INFORMATION SHEET . 118
B BARRETT-LENNARD RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY . 121
C ACTIVITIES QUESTIONNAIRE 124
BIBLIOGRAPHY 126
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 131
vi

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Data on Reduction in Number of Eligible
Sample Participants ....... 51
2 Student Persistence by Residence Group . . 53
3 Persistence Among Females and Males 53
4 Female Students' Persistence by Residence
Group 54
5 Male Students' Persistence by Residence
Group 55
6 Estimates for Total Positive and Positive
Subscores on the Posttest of the
Tennessee Self Concept Scale. . 57
7 Results of t tests on Estimates of Selected
Parameters for the Regression Model 58
2
8 R Values Calculated for the Barrett-Lennard
Relationship Inventory. 65
9 Results of t tests on the Estimates of
Parameters for the Regression Model 66
10 Level of Participation in Campus Organiza
tions Reported by Residence Group 67.
11 Participation in Academically-Related
Organizations by Residence Group. ...... 68
12 Participation in "Other Organizations."
by Residence Group 69
13 Students' Leadership Roles by Residence
Group 7 0
14 Leadership Roles Held by Females and Males . 70
vii

LIST OF TABLES (CONT'D)
TABLE PAGE
15 Participation in Intramural Sports
Competition on Campus by Residence
Group 72
16 Totals of Students by Residence Group
Who Visited the Museum or Gallery 73
17 Totals of Students by Residence Group
Who Attended a Dance or Party on
Campus 74
viii

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 Regression Model ........... 56
2 A Comparison of Identity Scores of
Subsample Groups. . . 59
3 A Comparison of Personal Self Scores
of Subsample Groups 60
4 A Comparison of Family Self Scores of
Subsample Groups 61
5 A Comparison of Social Self Scores of
Subsample Groups. 62
IX

Abstrae* of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Education
A COMPARISON OF SELF-CONCEPTS, PEER RELATIONSHIPS, PERSISTENCE
AND EXTRACURRICULAR INVOLVEMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA FRESHMEN
WITH DIFFERING HOUSING ARRANGEMENTS
By
Stephen Russell Haulman
June 1978
Chairman: Ralph B. Kimbrough
Major Department: Educational Administration
The problem of this study was to determine whether
significant differences existed in enrollment persistence,
self-concept, peer relationships, and participation in
extracurricular activities when University of Florida fresh
men who lived on campus, at home, or in other off-campus
housing were compared. A longitudinal research design was
used during the 1976-77 academic year with a sample of 300
students selected through use of stratified systematic
sampling techniques. Over 68% of the eligible sample
participants returned completed materials.
Data on persistence were gathered from registration
records. Pretests and posttests of the Tennessee Self Concept
Scale and the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory were
used to collect data on self-concepts and peer relationships
x

respectively. An Activities Questionnaire was designed to
gather data on extent of involvement in campus organizations,
leadership roles held by freshmen, and participation in
certain other extracurricular activities. Data on persis
tence and participation in extracurricular activities were
analyzed using the chi-square test for significance.
Regression analysis techniques were used to study data
gathered on self-concepts and peer relationships. A regres
sion model was constructed using three factors (sex, type
of residence and pretest scores on the instrument) and
estimates were computed for each parameter of the model
using the S.A.S. program.
The major findings are summarized as follows: 1. Signi
ficant differences were found among males, but not females,
according to where they lived. Males who lived on campus
had a significantly higher level of persistence and males
who lived at home had a significantly lower level of persis
tence when residence groups were compared. 2. Changes in
self-concept occurred among sample participants during their
freshman year. 3. Significant differences were found in
aspects of Self-concept among groups with differing housing
arrangements. These differences were identified on the
identity, family self and social self subscales of the
Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 4. No significant differences
were found among the residence groups in students' percep
tions of certain qualities of their relationships with
peers as measured by the Relationship Inventory. 5. Signi
ficant differences were found among residence groups in
xi

participation in academically-related organizations and in
certain other organizations, such as the University Band and
R.O.T.C. Campus residents were far more involved in these
organizations than other students. 6. Significant differences
were found by residence group and by sex in leadership roles
held during the freshman year. Campus residents held leader
ship roles far more often than other students. Males held
leadership roles in greater numbers than females. 7. Signi
ficant differences were found among residence groups in
three other extracurricular activities. Students who lived
at home participated less in intramurals, were less likely
to have visited campus cultural centers during their freshman
year, and were more likely to have attended a dance or party
on campus in comparison with other students.
The results of this study indicate that a campus
residence hall was the best place for a freshman male to
live to maximize his chances of persisting at the University
of Florida. Data analysis also suggests that living at
home may be the best choice for a female to maximize her
chances of persisting, although the results were not signi
ficant at the .05 level.
The results of this study tend to support the notion
that a diversified campus housing program, with leadership
committed to building residence hall environments that are
conducive to personal development, can offer important
support systems and opportunities for growth through
xii

interaction with peers in various activities as well as
needed assistance for students with developmental problems.
xm

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background and Justification for the Study
In the early seventies, pioneering research studies were
conducted by Arthur Chickering on the impact of differing
housing arrangements on college freshmen. Through these
studies, using longitudinal data gathered from many institu
tions of higher education by the American Council of Education,
Chickering concluded that significant differences exist
among college freshmen who live on campus, at home, or off
campus away from home that cannot be attributed to preexisting
differences among the student groups.
The differing impact of various types of housing arrange
ments on the self-concepts of freshman students and on their
persistence in college were among the principal findings
of Chickering (1975). Among other significant differences
found to exist among those living on campus, at home, and
off campus away from home were the extent of participation
in college life and relationships with other students.
The researcher believes that the self-concepts of
students and student persistence in college are matters of
considerable significance to students, parents, faculty and
staff, arid have implications for society as well. Because of
their importance to a successful college experience, the writer
has referred to these two principal factors in his study as
educational benefits. Also, because the two other factors
1

cited from the Chickering studies appear to be related to
self-concept and/or persistence, as has been suggested in
the literature, they have also been referred to as educa
tional benefits.
Statement of the Problem
The problem of this study is to determine, through
research conducted on one campus, whether significant
differences exist in selected educational benefits (self-
concept, persistence in college, relationships with other
students, participation in college life) arising from
differing housing arrangements. The study compares unmarried
entering freshman students at the University of Florida who
lived on campus, at home> or in other off-campus housing
during the 1976-1977 academic year. The focus of the investi
gation is on the following questions:
1. Is there a difference in persistence in college
among students who live on campus, at home, or in
other off-campus housing?
2. For those who persist in college, is there a
change in self-concept among students who live
on campus, at home, or in other off-campus housing
and, if so, does this change differ on the basis
of residence?
3. For those who persist in college, is there a
difference in relationships with peers among
students who live on campus, at home, or in other
off-campus housing?

3
4. For those who persist in college, is there a
difference in participation in extracurricular
activities among students who live on campus,
at home, or in other off-campus housing?
Significance of the Study
The study is of significance in that there are three
prevailing points of view regarding college housing among
administrators in higher education. These can be described
as the traditional approach, the educational approach, and
the "no housing" approach.
The traditional approach to residence hall operation is
to provide adequate living facilities, essential services,
and a regulated lifestyle for residents supervised by college
officials. Facilities are designed to meet the basic needs
of students for satisfactory sleeping and study space. Staffing
is, for the most part, nonprofessional. Staff members
operating under this approach to housing generally regard
their function as almost exclusively in the areas of admini
stration, upkeep of facilities, and supervision of student
behavior. The services supplied to students in this setting
are very limited. These include facilities repairs, cleaning
services, and key service; with some housing operations also
providing food service and/or linen service for residents.
Organized activities of a social, recreational or educational
nature are generally not found within the residence halls
on a campus characterized by the traditional approach.
Rather, such opportunities are provided elsewhere on or near

the campus by other service units of the institution or by
formal or informal student organizations.
The belief that college housing is a setting offering
educational benefits to campus residents is the basis for
a second approach to residence hall operation. This
educational approach reflects a commitment to building an
environment conducive to learning and personal development.
With leadership of the campus housing program provided by
professional educators, priority is given to the creation of
opportunities within the campus residential setting that
build social skills, supplement classroom learning with other
learning experiences, and provide other avenues to personal
growth. Housing facilities are designed to meet not only the
basic needs of students to study and sleep, but also to provide
appropriate common areas for the broad range of social, educa
tional, and recreational activities that are an integral part
of life in residence communities. Leadership in articulating
this philosophy has been provided by Riker (1965). In
expounding on educational purposes, he noted that many adhere
to the
Time-honored but unwarranted assumption that
learning is a product of just the classroom,
occurring solely as the result of action and
reaction among the teacher, the student and,
their subject. The accumulating indications
are, however, that many factors influence
learning and that most of them are outside
the classroom. The student society, for
example, appears to be a significant force
affecting behavior. For this reason, the
student residence becomes an important means
of working with this society. The theories
about learning are many, and the evidence
regarding the factors involved is far from
conclusive. Even so, the wise course of

5
action is to experiment with housing as a
factor in learning because of the over-riding
importance of finding better ways to insure
student success at college, (p. 2)
A third point of view regarding student housing that is
prevalent among administrators in higher education is that
the institution has no obligation to provide campus housing
for students. This point of view toward housing reflects an
even broader belief that the college or university should
assume little or no responsibility for the student outside
of the classroom. Such an approach to student life, partic
ularly toward campus housing, has become prevalent among
institutions of higher education established in the 1960's
and 1970's, most of which were planned as commuter institutions
located in close proximity to population centers.
There has been little evidence from which one could
draw conclusions as to the relative merits of these three
approaches to the housing of students. One review of the
research in the area has concluded that "research designed
to study the effects and impact of different student housing
programs is lacking" (Robinson & Brown, 1961, p. 360). A
later review of the literature revealed a continuing absence
of evidence regarding the merits of campus housing in contrib
uting to the education of students (Williams & Reilley, 1972,
p. 212), although some research results notably by Chickering,
have been reported since that time.
Much attention has been focused on the educational
impact of college housing since the 1960's, when lawsuits
challenging compulsory on-campus residence requirements were

6
filed against a number of colleges and universities. While
numerous educators have testified as to the merits and values
of campus living, few research studies to either support or
refute such testimony have been available.
A study of this type was further needed because the
Division of Housing at the University of Florida has been,
in the mid-seventies, in a state of flux in its philosophical
approach to residence hall operation. Research conducted at
this particular institution on whether or not there are
significant differences in certain educational benefits
arising from differing housing arrangements may prove very
useful in helping to shape decisions on the future course of
student housing on this campus.
The study described herein is significant in light of
the prevailing differences of opinion regarding the housing
of students, court decisions on the issue of compulsory on-
campus residence requirements, and the particular situation
existing at the University of Florida in the mid-seventies.
Scope of the Study
The following contraints have been observed in conducting
this study:
1. The research was confined to a sample of a population
of unmarried freshman students who began their
college work in September of 1976 and who met admis
sions requirements of the University of Florida.
In selecting the sample, this population was divided
into six subpopulations according to sex and

7
expected place of residence. Groups 1M (males)
and IF (females) included students living at home.
Groups 2M and 2F included students living off
campus away from home. Groups 3M and 3F included
campus residents. To assure adequate representation
of the first two relatively small subpopulations,
a stratified systematic sample of 300 students was
drawn. Of the total sample of 300 students who
were initially chosen, 50 were selected from each
of the six groups.
2. Measurement of self-concept was confined to pretest
and posttest scores on the positive scales of the
Tennessee Self Concept Scale administered in August
of 1976 and April of 1977.
3. Measurement of persistence in college was confined
to a count of the number of students in the sample
registering for one or more courses at the University
of Florida for the 1976-77 Fall, Winter and Spring
quarters.
4. Measurement of participation in college life was
confined to comparison of each group's after-only
scores on a researcher-developed questionnaire on
extracurricular activities, which was administered
in April of 1977.
5. Measurement of relationships with other students
was confined to pretest and posttest scores on the
Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (revised)
administered in August of 1976 and in April of 1977.

8
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations of this study were recognized:
1- Only to the extent that other populations possess
a similar pattern of characteristics of the speci
fied population of entering freshmen at the Univer
sity of Florida are the results generalizable beyond
the sample studied.
2. Data-gathering materials were distributed individu
ally to each person in the sample. The setting in
which the data for this study were collected was
not under the direct control of the writer; therefore,
some opportunities existed for variations in how
participants completed the instruments.
3. The researcher confined his comparisons among housing
groups strictly to three broad categories: those who
lived at home, those who lived off campus away from
home, and those who lived on campus. There was no
attempt made to compare differences within a single
category i.e., no attempt was made to draw compari
sons among groups from different residence halls.
Assumptions
The writer made certain assumptions for the purposes
of this study. First, the sample participants responded
honestly when completing the instruments sent to them.
Second, the sample participants accepted as truthful the
researcher's assurances that respondents would in no way be
identified individually. Third, systematic samples drawn

9
from the lists of students for the three strata have yielded
representative cross sections of the subpopulations.
Definition of Terms
Admission requirements. A cumulative high school grade point
average of 2.0 or better and a Florida Twelfth Grade
Test score of 300 or better (or equivalent SAT score for
out-of-state students) were required for acceptance as a
freshman at the University.
At home student. A student who lived at home with his or
her parents or with a grandparent, aunt or uncle while
attending the University.
Campus resident. A student who resided in a campus residence
hall while attending the University. Inasmuch as those
who lived in an on-campus fraternity house, sorority
house or a residence hall reserved for athletes could,
at best, constitute less than 1% of the freshman
population and because their living environment might
have been very different from other freshmen, such
individuals were excluded from the sample.
Educational benefits. Selected developmental factors related
to the educational process that were chosen for study.
These include self-concept, persistence in college,
participation in college life, and relationships with
other students.
Off campus away from home student. A student who resided
off campus, but not with his or her parents, grand
parent (s) aunt or uncle while attending the University.

10
Students in this category resided primarily in apartments
shared with one or more other students. Inasmuch as
those who lived in a fraternity or sorority house off
campus could, at best, constitute less than 1% of the
freshman population and because their living environment
might have been very different from other freshmen,
such individuals were excluded from the sample.
Participation in college life. The extent of participation
in extracurricular activities during the freshman year
as measured by a researcher-developed questionnaire.
Persistence in college. The tendency of a student to continue
his/her studies at the University as measured by a count
of the number of students who registered for one or more
courses for the Fall, Winter and Spring quarters.
Relationships with other students. The student's perceptions
of the nature of his relationships with peers as measured
by the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (revised).
Residence requirement. Any requirement for students to live
on campus (except a requirement to continue a housing
obligation voluntarily contracted for by the student)
that is imposed by an institution of higher education.
Self-concept. The attitudes one holds toward himself/herself
as measured by the positive scales of the Tennessee
Self Concept Scale.

11
Procedures
Description of the Sample
An admittance list was obtained from the Admissions Office
at the University of Florida on August 9, 1976, and was used
to define the population. This list was a then-current
roster of incoming freshmen admitted to the University for
the upcoming Fall quarter. It was arranged in alphabetical
order and included home addresses, high school grade point
averages, Florida Twelfth Grade Test scores, social security
number, sex, marital status, housing code, birth date, and
information concerning the status of each prospective student's
application for admission. The list was coded to eliminate
from the sample those students who did not meet admission
requirements for freshmen entering the University (those
admitted by petition) and to eliminate those students who
were married.
Each person on the list of remaining students was
assigned to one of the six subpopulation groups. If the
housing code next to a student's name indicated that he or
she had paid the campus housing prepayment or requested a
delay in payment, he or she was assigned to Groups 3M (males)
or 3F (females), which included students likely to be campus
residents. If the housing code next to a student's name
indicated that he or she would not be living on campus, then
the student's home address was checked. If the student's
home was within reasonable commuting distance of the campus
in the judgment of the researcher, then he or she was assigned
to Groups 1M or IF, which included those students likely to

12
be living at home. All .other freshmen were assigned to
Groups 2M or 2F which included those students likely to be
living off campus away from home.
A stratified systematic sample of students was drawn
from the coded list.. While it was impossible to determine
in advance the exact size of the subpopulations within the
total population, Groups 3M and 3F were expected to include
a large majority of the population and Groups 1 and 2 were
expected to be relatively small as had been the case in
previous years. To assure adequate representation of
Groups 1 and 2, stratified sampling was used. Of the total
sample of 300 students who were initially chosen, 50 were
selected from each of the six groups. Systematic sampling
procedures were used by the researcher. Since the alphabetized
admit list was not ordered in any manner associated with the
factors to be studied, systematic sampling procedures were
expected to yield a representative cross section of the
population.
Some minor changes in the number of sample participants
from each group, as well as in the total number of students
in the sample occurred prior to and during October of 1976,
when verification of place of residence was made for all of
those included in the sample. Verification proceeded according
to this plan: First, the most current alphabetical roster
of students in campus housing available from the Division of
Housing was reviewed in early October. Full names and social
security numbers were checked for all sample participants.
Those who appeared on this roster/regardless of initial

13
subsample assignment, were listed in Groups 3MA (males)and
3FA (females) which included those sample participants who
were actually assigned to campus housing for the fall quarter.
The "anticipated place of residence" data sheets,
included in pretest materials returned by sample participants
after being sent to their home addresses in August, were then
reviewed. Verification by telephone, mail, or visit was
attempted for those sample participants not already assigned
to Groups 3MA and 3FA. Those found to be living off campus
away from home were assigned to Groups 2MA and 2FA.
Updated local address information was then obtained
from the Registrar's Office on sample participants whose
addresses had not already been verified. When such updated
address information was found to exist, verification by
telephone, mail or visit was attempted. Sample participants
were then assigned appropriately to Group IMA, 1FA, 2MA or
2FA.
The remaining sample participants were contacted by mail
or telephone through the permanent home addresses these
students had provided to the Registrar's Office. The new
information gained was used to assign persons to Group IMA,
1FA, 2MA, or 2FA.
Those initially selected for the sample who did not
actually enroll for the Fall quarter or who enrolled but
did not complete pretest instruments mailed in August by
October 15 were dropped completely from the sample. The
researcher made repeated attempts where necessary to obtain
pretest instruments from enrolled sample participants by

14
this date. The reduction in enrolled sample participants
as a result of failure to complete pretest instruments was
kept to a minimum through exhaustive follow-up by the
researcher.
Design of the Study
The research design selected by the researcher to study
student persistence in college, self-concept and relationships
with other students can be depicted as follows:
0 X 0
OYO
0 Z 0
where X= at home living experience
Y = off-campus living experience away from home
Z = on-campus living experience
0 = testing of sample participants
The research design selected by the researcher to study
participation in extracurricular activities can be depicted
as follows:
X 0
Y 0
Z 0
Collection of Data
Pretest materials were mailed to persons selected for
the sample in August of 1976, prior to enrollment. These
materials included a general information sheet requesting
assistance with the study and assuring confidentiality of
each individual's responses, a data sheet requesting

15
information on plans for Fall quarter residence while attending
the University; the Tennessee Self Concept Scale and answer
sheet; the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (revised);
and a stamped, addressed return envelope.
Posttest materials were distributed in April of 1977 to
those Fall enrollees who returned useable pretest materials
and who persisted at the University. These materials
included a cover letter, the Tennessee Self Concept Scale
and answer sheet, the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory
(revised), a questionnaire on involvement in extracurricular
activities, and a return envelope.
Samples of the general information sheet and the data
sheet sent to students with pretest materials, as well as the
cover letter sent to students with posttest materials, are
included in Appendix A. A sample of the pretest of the
Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (revised) is included
in Appendix B. The Activities Questionnaire, used on a
posttest-only basis, is included in Appendix C.
Extensive personal follow-up was provided for collection
of both pretest and posttest materials to secure a high
rate of return of materials.
Instruments
Tennessee Self Concept Scale
This instrument was developed by William H. Fitts in
1955. The scale was standardized by Fitts (cited in Harrell,
1976) on a total of 1091 persons representing all social,

economic, intellectual, and educational levels from sixth
grade through the Ph.D. degree.
The scale consists of 100 items. These items were
designed to guide an individual in describing himself or
herself in terms of the following: (1) this is what I
am; (2) this is how I feel about myself; and (3) this is
what I do. There are nine scales representing the
following dimensions of the self-concept: total positive,
identity, self-satisfaction, behavior, physical self,
moral-ethical self, personal self, family self, and social
self. These are referred to as the positive scales of
the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. The positive scales
as well as the distribution and total variability scores
were used in this study.
A "counseling" version and a "clinical and research"
version of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale are available.
The instrument itself does not differ, but far more sub
scores are available on the latter version for certain
clinical and research purposes. The counseling version
of the scale was used in this study.
Two scoring methods are available for the instrument,
a hand-scored method and a computer-scored method. The
latter scoring method was most appropriate for the study,
so the optical scan version of the instrument was used.
The instrument has a Likert-type scale of five choices
ranging from completely false to completely true.

17
Test-retest reliability data developed by Fitts (1965)
with a sample of 60 college students over a two-week period
are as follows: Total Positive 0.92, Distribution 0.89,
and Total Variability 0.67.
Validity of the instrument was demonstrated by Fitts
(1965), using four procedures: content validity, discrimi
nation between groups, correlation with other personality
measures, and personaltiy changes under particular conditions.
Content validity was established through use of a jury of
seven clinical psychologists to analyze individual items.
Only items on which the psychologists reached favorable
consensus regarding content were incorporated in the final
version of the instrument. Studies on a variety of groups
have established the effectiveness of the scale in discrimi
nating between such groups as psychiatric patients and non
patients. Comparisons of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale
with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
yielded high correlation ratios. Personality changes
resulting from psychotherapy (Ashcraft and Fitts, 1964)
and from detrimental life experiences (Gividen, 1959)
were measured by the Tennessee Self Concept Scale. "There
is considerable evidence that people's concepts of self
do change as a result of significant experiences. The
Tennessee Self Concept Scale reflected these changes in
predicted ways, thus constituting additional evidence for
the validity of the instrument" (Fitts, 1965, p. 30).

18
Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory
This instrument was developed by G. T. Barrett-Lennard
in 1962 to measure certain dimensions of a client's percep
tions of his therapist's attitudes and responses. The
Relationship Inventory was prepared in two parallel forms
differing only in third-person pronouns (Barrett-Lennard,
1962; Hanson et al., 1966). The group form of the instrument
was used in this study following the Wiebe-Pearce revision
of Barrett-Lennard's original inventory. This revision
consisted of 32 items and 4 subscales (see Appendix B).
The group form of the instrument measures perceptions of
group facilitativeness through a total scale score. Subscale
scores measure positive regard, empathy, congruence, and
unconditionality of regard for others in the group.
The items in the revised inventory are classified
in the following groups:
Level of Regard: 1,6,8,10,14,17,21,28,29,31
Empathetic Understanding: 3,4,11,15,18,26,30
Congruence: 2,5,7,9,12,19,22,23,25,27
Unconditionality of Regard: 13,16,20,24,32
Split half reliability coefficients ranged from .82
to .93 and test-retest reliability correlations ranged
from .86 to .95 for scores analyzed by Barrett-Lennard.
Internal consistency reliability coefficients for the
four subscales have ranged from .82 to .95 in analysis
by other researchers. Lanning (1971) has reported stability
coefficients for the total score of .93 to .95.

19
Based on an item analysis of the instrument, Weibe
and Pearce (1973) recommended a shorter, more discriminating
instrument to include only those items correlated most
strongly with the subscale on which they appear. Toppe
(1977), using this revised inventory, found that the
computed intercorrelations for scale scores and the total
score in his investigation were all positive and significant
beyond the .001 level.
Construct validity for the scale has been established
through classification of items by five judges. Only
those 85 items on which consensus was reached regarding
classification were used in Barrett-Lennard's final form
of the inventory. Barrett-Lennard's research also estab
lished predictive validity, demonstrating that the inventory
discriminated, as predicted, between clients who improved
and who did not improve as a result of therapy. "Studies
with less severely disturbed clients, such as students,
report significant positive relationships between perceived
facilitativeness and positive client change. Predictive
validity, therefore, has been established for relatively
normal populations" (Toppe, 1977, p. 18).
Activities Questionnaire
A survey of the theoretical writings and research
studies on participation in extracurricular activities
was conducted. Through this survey, it was determined
that there were three principal aspects of extracurricular
involvement that needed to be addressed in this research.

20
These aspects were level of participation in campus organiza
tions, leadership roles in campus organizations held by-
freshmen, and participation in other college-related extra
curricular activities.
An Activities Questionnaire was developed for use on
a posttest-only basis after a search of available standardized
instruments failed to locate one suitable for this study.
Three sections of the questionnaire were developed. The
first section was designed to list categories of organiza
tions. In this section, respondents were to indicate their
level of involvement (Not at All, To a Small Extent, Fairly
Extensive or Very Extensive) in each type of organization.
The second section was designed to determine whether or
not the respondent had been selected for or had assumed a
leadership role in any campus organization since the start
of his or her freshman year. A "yes" or "no" response was
called for and a space was provided for the respondent to
name the organization(s) if an affirmative response was
made. The third section of the questionnaire was designed
to determine whether or not a respondent had participated
in certain other University-related extracurricular activi
ties of a cultural, social or recreational nature during
the course of his or her freshman year. A "yes" or "no"
response was requested in this section of the questionnaire.
A draft of the instrument was developed, reviewed by
several professors, and revised prior to distribution with
posttest materials. Because of the nature of this information
being sought, high reliability can be expected from the

21
instrument. All of the items contained in the instrument
refer to different aspects of extracurricular involvement;
therefore, it can be concluded that the Activities Question
naire is a valid measurement of participation in extra
curricular activities. The Activities Questionnaire is
included in Appendix C
Analysis of the Data
Analyses of the research questions in the statement of
the problem were accomplished through the use of descriptive,
inferential and correlational statistics. The inferential
statistical technique of chi square was used to test the
significance of any differences that existed among the sub
sample groups on persistence and participation in extra
curricular activities. The .05 level of significance was
used to evaluate the chi-square tests for contingency
tables. Regression analysis was used to predict posttest
scores for students in the sample on the Tennessee Self
Concept Scale and the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory.
A regression model was constructed using three factors
(sex, type of residence and pretest scores on the instrument)
Using a S.A.S. computer program, estimates were computed for
each parameter of the model. F tests were conducted to
determine how good the model was in predicting posttest
scores. The t tests were conducted on the hypothesis that
each parameter equalled zero. The .05 level of significance
was used to evaluate the results of these t tests. Descrip
tive statistics were used in describing pretest and posttest

22
scores of the subsample groups where significant differences
were found on the positive scales of the Tennessee Self
Concept Scale.
Organization of the Research Report
This study is reported in five chapters. Chapter I
contains an introduction, a statement of the problem, the
significance of the study, scope of the study, limitations,
assumptions, definition of terms, and procedures. A review
of the literature is provided in Chapter II. An analysis
of the data is presented in Chapter III. Chapter IV is
devoted to a discussion of the data. In the final chapter,
Chapter V, conclusions and their implications are presented
along with suggestions for further research.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In order to provide an orderly presentation of selected
research findings and theoretical writings from the profes
sional literature as background for this study, this chapter
is divided into four sections. The first section includes
information on selected characteristics of freshman students.
The second section reviews writings and research findings on
certain educational benefits associated with the college
experience. The results of research on the impact of
different housing arrangements on college freshmen are
reviewed in section three. The fourth section of the
chapter presents information on several research methods
that have been used to measure the impact of different
living environments on students.
Selected Characteristics of Freshman Students
Sanford (1962), Freedman (cited in Sanford, 1962) and
others, in writings about student development, have generally
preferred to refer to the adolescent stage of development
or to personal growth during the college years rather than
to the developmental changes during the freshman year. In
a book entitled College and Character, Sanford maintained
that "at no stage can the development of a man's personality
be defined simply by either his chronological age or his
23

24
academic status" (Sanford, 1964, p. 86). Instead, Sanford
(1962), Heath (1969) and others have described a stage of
late adolescence, which includes most freshmen, but also
some high school students and college sophomores, as well
as a minority of college upperclassmen.
McConnell and Heist (cited in Sanford, 1962) and others
have elaborated on the wide diversity of freshmen in terms
of academic ability, personality characteristics, interests,
values and socioeconomic background. According to Alfert
(1968), students starting college vary in initial level of
development as well as in the pace of development during
their stay. Despite the tremendous variety of individual
backgrounds represented by the freshman population, there
are some generalizations that can be gleaned from the liter- .
ature that are said to apply to freshman students.
Prominent researchers in the field of student development,
including Chickering (1974) vand DeCoster (1970) have referred
to The American College, edited by Nevitt Sanford, as a
major contribution to the literature and a useful source of
information on freshman characteristics. In a chapter on
the developmental status of the freshman, Sanford (1962)
draws an interesting parallel:
The freshman's psychological situation is essen
tially a picture of an authoritarian personality
structure. Authoritarianism in personality is a
particular pattern of relationships among impulse,
conscience, and ego (Sanford, 1956b). It is a
pattern in which strong impulses are directly
opposed by an alert, rigid, and punitive conscience.
The ego has to devote so much energy to restraining
impulses that its other functions are not well
performed; it has been able to integrate little
of the primitive conscience with itself, so that
the latter continues to function more or less as
a foreign body. This state of affairs at the

25
core of the personality is reflected at the sur
face in characteristic ways: in stereotyped
thinking, intolerance of ambiguity, punitive
morality, submissiveness toward the powerful and
dominance toward the weak, conventionality, anti-
intellectualism, hostility toward people perceived
to be different from oneself. The freshman inhibits
impulse by being morally strict with himself and
others. He is ready to meet stiff requirements,
to work hard, to conform with what he takes to be
the prevailing standards of behaviorand he is
inclined to be somewhat intolerant of those who do
not. An element of perfectionism, of striving
for purity of thought and action is characteristic
of the freshman. (p. 261)
Newcomb and Feldman (1969) reviewed thirty-seven studies
on changes in authoritarianism during the college years.
Results of these studies were consistentseniors were, on
the average, less authoritarian than freshmen. In almost all
studies, these differences were relatively large and statis
tically significant. Of the longitudinal studies comparing
freshman and sophomore students on authoritarianism, all
reported that sophomores are, on the average, significantly
less authoritarian than they were as freshmen.
Plant (1965) has found that a decrease in authoritarianism
is in evidence in this age group whether individuals have been
enrolled in college or not. Newcomb and Feldman noted that
decreases in authoritarianism in college students appears to
be more reliable and larger than for those in the same age
range who are not attending college. They concluded that:
As of now, the most that may be surmised is that
colleges in general, and particular colleges
differentially, may select or attract students
who are differentially "open" to changes in
authoritarianism; and that these colleges provide
environments that differ both among themselves
and as compared with non-college environments -
in respect to influences likely to change existing
states of authoritarianism. One way in which

26
college environments differ from non-college
environments is that the former appear to
facilitate decreases in authoritarianism more
than the latter. (p. 32)
Sanford (1962) noted that freshmen have not had time
to develop a system of values rooted in personal experiences
another feature of the authoritarian personality structure.
The values of the entering freshman are supported,
typically, by his family and home community; he is
dependent upon this support, but, at least in the
very beginning of the college career, the support
is adequate enough so that the freshman is able to
present a picture of organization and self-contain
ment. (p. 262-3)
Data from the 1976 Student Information Forms, published
by the American Council on .Education, have indicated that
many entering freshmen have unrealistic expectations regarding
their chances of changing major field, failing one or more
courses, and completing degree requirements on time. Morstain
(1972) commented positively on the ultimate outcome once these
expectations are shattered for many:
Undoubtedly, there is much confusion and ambiguity
if students are in situations that might be incon-
gruent with their expectations about education and
their role in it, but this confusion can be helpful.
If it enables students to think about their education
and to establish personally relevant goals, the
initial confusion has served its purpose. (p. 286)
This shattering of initial expectations and the resulting
confusion can have a major impact on a student's confidence
in his or her abilities. According to Larson and Laramee
(1976) ,
There is often an initial shock to students who
come to college having been leaders in their high
schools, churches, and communities. The competi
tion for extracurricular leadership roles, higher
standards for academic work, and the more hetero-

27
geneous value systems of the new environment may
leave them without the familiar support systems
from which they had drawn recognition, encourage
ment, and purpose- The hope that "things will get
better" is realized by some students, but others
do not soon regain the confidence they once felt
in a more familiar environment. (p. 48)
Against this background of high academic expectations,
increased competition, greater exposure to differing value
systems and (for many) the loss of support systems, Sanford
(1964) elaborated on the freshman's initial view of self
in College and Character:
Closely related to the freshman's authoritarian
propensities is his uncertain self-esteem. He
does not know what he can do, how good he is,
or what to think of himself. On the one hand he
is happy to remember his parents' faith in him,
the accomplishments of high school and the plaudits
received there, and, perhaps particularly, the fact
that he was chosen for admission to his college.
On the other hand, he suspects that he is now
playing in a different league, and he knows that
the major tests of life still await him. In his
uncertainty, he vacillates between overestimation
and underestimation of himself. His inclination
is to stick to patterns of behavior that have
been rewarded in the past and to display such
confidence as he can muster. (p. 87-8)
Freshman students can also be characterized as demon
strating increasing tolerance and flexibility of thinking.
Gough (1958) has found that college freshmen score between
high school freshmen and graduate students on these factors,
using the California Psychological Inventory.
Newcomb and Feldman (1969), on the basis of a review of
the literature on student characteristics and how these change
during the college years, concluded that developmental change
is gradual over the college years rather than pronounced in
any particular year. They found that studies on patterns of

28
change reflected fairly consistently a steady decline in
authoritarianism as well as a decline in political, economic
and social conservatism.
In commenting further on patterns of change, Newcomb
and Feldman supported the widely held view that the impact
of the college experience is greatest upon students during
their freshman and sophomore years. Yet, they also cited
some reasons why this pattern is not consistently true:
For some dimensions the early college years may
indeed provide the greatest impetus of change,
but other areas of potential change may not become
salient or relevant to students until their later
college years. Likewise, at some colleges the
challenges of the early years may be greater than
those of the later years, whereas structural arrange
ments of other colleges may create greater pressures
for change on upper division than on lower division
students. (p. 101)
Newcomb and Feldman also noted that individual differences
play an important role in determining when change takes place
during the college years.
For some, change may be almost immediate, for others
there may be a longer period of "working through,"
with observable change being evidenced only in
later college years. It is even possible that some
students find the challenges of their freshman year
so heavy that they become resistant to change, only
to become less defensive and more likely to change
in their junior or senior year. (p. 101)
In The Student in Higher Education, the writers concluded
that the freshman student "generally has an open mind, is eager
to work, and willing to learn . the freshman year is of
critical importance because it is the time when the student's
enthusiasm, curiosity, and willingness to work can be snuffed-
out or reinforced" (The Committee on the Student in Higher
Education, 1968, p. 45).

29
Selected Educational Benefits
and the College Experience
Self-Concept
One of the major developmental needs of freshman students,
as was identified by The Committee on the Student in Higher
Education, is the enhancement of self-concept (p. 11).
Erikson (1950) also identified the achievement of a personal
sense of identity as the main growth task of the adolescent
stage of development. He described achievement of identity
as a gradual process involving exploration and trying out of
alternative values and goals and resulting in a commitment
to a particular set of values. Segal (1967) has commented
on the implications of various residence settings for achieve
ment of identity in maturing college students.
But different settings allow different kinds of
testing, trying, and doing, and the choice of
one or another setting suggests different strat
egies and tactics in terms of,the primacy of
different needs with the person. (p. 309)
Segal has pointed out that the living arrangements of
college students differ in the extent to which the process
of achieving identity is "worked through directly within
the concept of family, with greater or less emphasis on
peer culture as a critical factor, with variation in who sets
the rules and for what" (Segal, 1967, p. 309). He noted
that each setting offers possibilities for personal growth
toward maturity as well as opportunities to avoid the
trials inherent in achieving identity.

30
Powell, Plyler, Dickson and McClellan (1969), Sanford
(1964), Chickering (1969) and others have studied the concept
of self as it relates to the college experiences of students
and have acknowledged its significance in terms of impact on
student development. The self-concept consists of "all of
the beliefs, attitudes and opinions which an individual
holds about himself" (Purkey, 1967, p. 3)
Rogers (1951) described self-concept in a more detailed
manner:
The self concept may be thought of as an organized
configuration of perceptions of the self which
are admissible to awareness. It is composed of
such elements as the perceptions of one's charac
teristics and abilities; the percepts and concepts
of the self in relation to others and to the
environment; the value qualities which are perceived
as associated with experiences and objects; and
goals and ideals which are perceived as having
positive or negative valence. (p. 136)
This organized configuration of perceptions of the self,
according to Rogers, unifies the individual's personality
and regulates his behavior. So long as perceptions of self
remain firmly organized, and no contradictory material is
even dimly perceived, then the self is seen as "worthy and
acceptable, and conscious tension is minimal" (p. 191).
Wylie (1961) in a comprehensive survey of the literature
on self-concept, concluded that self-concept theories are in
many ways ambiguous, incomplete, and overlapping. As a- result
of her review of pertinent research literature, she noted
that no one theory has received a large amount of systematic
empirical exploration.

31
In a research bulletin entitled The Self and School
Achievement, published in 1970, Purkey summarized numerous
studies on the topic and concluded that there is a strong
relationship between a student's concept of self and his
performance in schooland in life:
Students who feel good about themselves and have
confidence in their abilities are those who are
most likely to succeed. Conversely, it appeared
that those who see themselves and their abilities
in a negative fashion usually fail to achieve
good grades. Academic success or failure appears
to be as deeply rooted in concepts of self as it
is to measured mental ability, if not deeper.
(p. 14)
In research in the area of student development at
Haverford College, it was found that "no student reported
that he had not changed his conception of himself as a
consequence of his college experience" (Heath, 1968, p. 222).
Heath, who provided a model of the maturing process for
the college years and beyond, had this to say about the
freshman experience:
The freshman is "shocked" by the demands of
the college. He becomes unstable and dis
organized, though, in a "good" college that
provides adequate supports, not enough to
regress seriously or withdraw. That is, a
good college helps its students to remain
"educable." Disorganization and confusion
are painful; without them, students may
never make efforts to understand. The
freshman becomes more aware of his own
inadequacies, questions his competence and
values, and despairs. By the end of his
freshman year, his self-concept has shifted
from being "God's gift to humanity" to being
a person of little value. (p. 175)
Sanford (1967), in writing about student change in
college, noted that students did not rate themselves high

32
on personal stability and integration (as reflected by
student comments about self-concept) in ratings made during
the first semester of college. He attributed this situation
to the many adjustment problems faced by freshmen during this
period. His data reflected a sharp increase in personal
stability and integration from the first to the second semester
of the freshman year. In an earlier text, Sanford (1964)
also noted how vulnerable freshmen are to others' perceptions
of them. Freshmen are particularly subject to the influence
of peers, whose approval is needed to bolster self-confidence.
Relationships with Other Students
According to a number of studies reviewed by Newcomb and
Feldman (1969), students about to begin college lifp have high
/
expectations that academic and intellectual experiences will
be an extremely important source of satisfaction flor them.
However, in a longitudinal study, King (cited in Newcomb and
I
Feldman, 1969) found that by their senior year, most Harvard
students in reflecting upon their college experiences, felt
that their greatest satisfactions had come from interpersonal
activities and personal growth rather than from academic and
intellectual activities. Wallace (cited in Newcomb and Feldman,
1969) reported similar results in a study of freshman students.
He found that while getting the highest possible grades and
learning as much as possible were the most important and
most widely held goals among students entering college, the
importance of these goals declined sharply before the end
of the first year of college attendance, while the importance
of relationships with peers received much greater emphasis.

33
Maxon and Malone (1977) noted that the increase in the
influence of the peer group is a function of a changing
culture. In describing the increasing power of the peer
group in shaping values, they have said, "Today, however,
due to his frequent contact with peers, plus the increasing
absence of his parents from the home, the peer group has
provided the model that has become as important a socializing
agent as the home" (Maxon and Malone, 1977, p. 191).
Relationships with other students can profoundly affect
individual patterns of development. The importance of these
relationships with peers was recognized by The Committee on
the Student in Higher Education (1968):
Just as the friendship group controls production
on a factory assembly line and cohesiveness in a
military squad, so the student friendship group
helps determine what is learned in the college,
how it is learned, and what effect both knowledge
and the learning experience have on the student's
total personality. While our knowledge of how
the friendship group can contribute positively
to the educational process is still meager, the
importance of peer group influence is so obvious
that we must rapidly acquire more knowledge of
how it works and integrate it into the educational
experiencehopefully, without attempting to
manipulate it. (p. 13)
Powell, et al. (1969), Newcomb (1964) and others have
also recognized the strong influence of peers. Newcomb
described the isolation from contact with more mature adults,
which the freshman who is away from home typically experi
ences through greatly reduced contact with parents and
infrequent contact with faculty outside the classroom.
Against this background, Newcomb commented on peer group
formation and the impact of such groups on students:

34
Such a combination of circumstances is hardly
calculated to aid the. student in his search for
identity, precisely at the time when he is least
certain about it. Small wonder, then, that
students tend to be drawn together; their common
problems and their relative isolation from non
students make them ready material for the forma
tion of strong peer groups. Membership in a peer
group is more likely to influence directly students'
capacities, or basic personality traits. (p. 141)
Sherif and Sherif (1964) have described the manner in
which relationships with peers are established and maintained
by adolescents. They cited two major reasons for peer group
formation. First, social ties with peers are formed to aid
individuals in developing self-concepts that are more con
sistent and well-defined. Second, social relationships are
formed with peers to provide support systems that can help
individuals cope with the problems of everyday. living.
Sherif and Sherif have described the factors which determine
the degree of influence which a peer group has on an
individual:
The extent to which such an informal formation
becomes the center of the universe for an
individual member is proportional to the degree
of disruption of other ties (family, school,
and other social establishments), and propor
tional to the degree that the group and its
activities serve as vehicles for joint action
towards the fulfillment of goals he feels
denied otherwise (social, financial, sexual,
and so on). To this extent, the individual's
concerns over social acceptance or rejection,
his concern to prove himself as a person who
counts, his very conception of the kind of
person he is, revolve in no small part around
"being somebody" in this group of his own
choosing.

35
Extracurricular Experiences
In an historical account tracing the development of
student extracurricular activities, Koos (1940) described
the then-current attitude of educational administrators
which was "to recognize positive educational values in
the extra-curriculum, to promote pupil-initiated projects,
and to capitalize for educational growth the natural, social
and creative propensities of youth." Although a later review
of the literature by Gilligan (1967) reflected periodic
changes in emphasis and support given to student activities,
an appreciation of the value of, and commitment to, such
activities remained in evidence.
The values of extracurricular experiences have been
noted by many, including Koos (1940), Frederick (1965) and
Lloyd-Jones, et al. (1938). Lloyd-Jones has articulated
these values in a concise manner:
V-
"Vv Extra-curricular activities offer.the opportunities
for students to develop good qualities of leaderships
and fellowships. They offer the opportunity to
serve the institution; to experience and to help
create good fellowship and social good will; they
further self-realization and all-round growth. They
assist studnts in adjusting to their student world
and in learning the qualities of good citizenship.
(p. 186)
Erikson (1950) has cited both the search for identity and
for peer support as factors motivating students to participate
in extracurricular activities in college. Weston and Stein
(1977) have also pointed out the role that involvement in
extracurricular activities can play in the development of a
person's self-concept. They have described the college years

36
as one of the final steps of adolescents in the process of
identity development and have noted that participation in
extracurricular activities can provide opportunities for a
student to test his or her abilities, values and interests.
This testing can play an important part in developing or
clarifying a person's self-concept.
In research on participation in extracurricular activities,
Weston and Stein (1977) found that participation in college
activities was definitely related to female students' self-
concept. They noted that participation should be seen as
having at least three dimensions: number of organizations
in which membership was held, degree of involvement within
those organizations, and leadership functions. Extent of
involvement was more of a predictor of identity achievement
in college women than other dimensions of participation,
according to Weston and Stein.
Iffert (1957), Goble (1956), Harnett (1965) Vaughan
(>1968) and others have studied the relationship between
i
^academic success and participation in extracurricular activ
ities. Research has indicated not only that the two are
/ mutually-supportive, but has also demonstrated that partici-

i pation in extracurricular activities appeared to favorably
vinfluence chances of academic success in college.
Astin (1975) studied the relationship between persistence
and student participation in extracurricular activities.
He found that participation in extracurricular activities is

37
significantly related to staying in college. Astin concluded
that his findings supported the theory that student persistence
to some extent depends on the degree of personal involvement
in campus life.
Persistence in College
Studies by Iffert (1957), Astin and Panos (1969) and
others have found no significant differences in attrition
rates for college men and women, although they do not withdraw
for the same reasons. "Researchers have found consistently
that the reasons given for dropping out differ between the
sexes . men tending to cite internal and academic reasons
while women more frequently mentioned external and nonacademic
ones" (Cope and Hannah, 1975,p.16).
Summerskill (1962) reviewed the literature published
between 1913 and 1957 on student attrition in higher education.
Based on this review of 35 studies, Summerskill reached this
conclusion:
Colleges lose, on the average, approximately half
their students in the four years after matriculation.
Some 40% of college students graduate on schedule
and, in addition, approximately 20% graduate at
some college, some day. (p. 631)
Kauffman (1966) also reviewed the literature on student
attrition, including studies published more recently than
those reviewed by Summerskill. Kauffman was not able to locate
a single conclusive study of attrition in higher education
and found no precise data available on the causes of attrition.
Among the reasons for attrition noted by Kauffman were these:
motivation and expectations and their interaction with institu
tional environments and values; academic incompetence or

38
unsuitability related to type of institution or major field
of study; financial circumstances; personal or emotional
adjustment problems.
Both Astin (1975) and Cope and Hannah (1975) have
concluded that student attrition and student persistence
in college are primarily a product of experiences of students
in the college environment. Cope and Hannah have concisely
stated their conclusions based on reviews of the literature
on persistence and their own research:
Most quantitative research (such as admissions
data) is without value in either predicting
withdrawal or understanding the reasons for
discontinuance, since such research considers
a limited number of variables, usually easily
quantified, such as high school grade point
averages, college entrance test scores, parents'
income, socioeconomic class background, partici
pation in high school activities, and the like.
In addition, the reasons for discontinuance are
usually complex, overlapping, often have nothing
to do with the student, and in some instances
may not even be recognized by the student.
Changed vocational choice, poor choice of the
college in the first place, meeting a loved one
and transferring to be with him or her, dissatis
faction with the college, fulfilling less than
degree expectation, and other multifaceted issues
are involved in withdrawal.
It seems clear too, that there is no dropout per
sonality, only individual personalities interacting
with different campus environments, at various
times in their mutual and changing lives. (p. 102)
Based on a review of previous studies, Astin (1975)
identified the following student background characteristics
that may be used in predicting which freshmen persist and
which do not. These factors are ability, high school grades,
socioeconomic status, educational aspirations, and the
student's own predictions on chances of his or her completing

39
college. Astin's own research findings supported the theory
that student involvement is a key factor in persistence.
Astin has developed a theory of college persistence which
holds that:
A student's tendency to drop out of college is
inversely related to the degree of direct involve
ment in the academic and social life of the insti
tution. Backing this notion are the positive
effects on persistence of participation in extra
curricular activities, work-study and other on-
campus employment, participation in ROTC and
honors programs, and dormitory living. The
strong relationship between academic performance
and persistence is also, in a sense, additional
support for this theory, given the assumption
that getting good grades is a sign of student
involvement in the academic life and environment
of the institution. (p. 176)
Chickering (1974) has forseen ways in which we can better
deal with the problem of attrition in preventive ways through
use of improved mental measurement techniques:
It will not be long before it will be possible to
assess and to chart individual cognitive maps that
characterize in rich, complex and comprehensive
ways, major modes of perceptual, cognitive, social
and interpersonal functioning. The contours of
these maps will reflect major areas of individual
strength and weakness and by so doing will allow
each individual to conceptualize more clearly
his own unique characteristics, and more importantly,
these contours will provide guidelines by which
each person can take more effective charge of his
own education and personal development, (p. 101)
Chickering has concluded that more definitive information
on the nature of the person, as well as a better understanding
of the consequences of particular academic and environmental
alternatives for persons with particular "contours," may
allow a significant raising of the "success rate" of higher
education beyond the mere 50% of those who enroll in college
and actually reach graduation.

40
Impact of Different Types of Housing Arrangements
on College Freshmen
Astin (19 75) in a multi-campus study using data
collected from 1968-72 through the Cooperative Institutional
Research Program, reported his findings on the impact of
residence on student persistence in his book Preventing
Students from Dropping Out. Astin found that "living in
a dormitory as a freshman is associated with reduced dropout
probabilities" (p. 91). For students in public universities,
Astin found that living in a campus residence hall rather
than other accommodations appears to reduce the dropout rate
among freshman students by about 12%. In analyzing the
effects of living at home with parents and living in other
off-campus facilities, Astin concluded that residence at home
with parents had a negative impact on persistence while
residence in other off-campus accommodations is associated
with increased persistence for men and decreased persistence
for women (p. 93).
Perhaps the most significant research studies conducted
prior to the mid-seventies on the impact of various types
of housing arrangements on college freshmen were reported
by Chickering (1974) in his book entitled Commuting versus
Resident Students. Chickering studied the characteristics
of freshman students who live on campus, those who live at
home, and those who live in other off-campus accommodations.
He compared the groups as to college experiences and sought
to discover what differences, if any, existed in learning
and personal development among the groups.

41
In studying student characteristics, Chickering used
multiple regression analyses on student responses to a
questionnaire developed by the American Council on Education
(ACE). A random sample of 5351 students was selected from
a population of 38,000 students from a wide variety of
institutions of higher education. The population consisted
of those who had responded to a follow-up questionnaire at
the end of their freshman year. Chickering found that
within the public universities:
Substantial differences occur between commuters and
residents in parental occupation, income and educa
tional background; in high school achievements,
experiences and activities; and in long-range aspira
tions; but the two groups are similar in degree
plans. (p. 49)
Multiple regression analyses were undertaken on responses
by students to items on college experiences contained in the
ACE questionnaire. For these analyses, a random sample of
5351 students was drawn from a population of 26,806 students
who completed both the initial and the end-of-freshman-year
questionnaires. From his analyses, Chickering concluded that
campus residents have more social experiences with college
peers, show greater persistence in college, and have more
frequent contact with faculty both inside and outside of the
classroom setting than students who lived, at home.
Chickering also reported marked differences in partici
pation in extracurricular activities between campus residents
and students Who lived at home. Of the 27 items analyzed
on the ACE questionnaire related to extracurricular experiences
in college, campus residents scored higher on 24. Students

42
who lived at home played more chess and watched television
more frequently. Campus residents participated in R.O.T.C.
programs more than those who lived at home. Chickering,
writing about students who live at home, notes:
Compared with dormitory residents, substantial pro
portions never in the course of their college career
attend a meeting of some college organization, par
ticipate in student government, attend political
meetings or lectures, or attend a concert, play or
art film. (p. 63)
Data from the questionnaire relating to self-concept
were also studied using stepwise multiple regression analyses
for students living at home. Chickering found that:
In general, therefore, after differences in back
ground characteristics and difference in self
perceptions at entrance are taken into account,
students who live at home during the freshman year
rate themselves lower on many important characteris
tics and abilities, than students who live under
other conditions. Thus, during the freshman year,
the self-esteem of these commuting students suffers
in comparison with their residential peers, (p. 67)
He has found this group significantly lower on self-perceptions
of leadership ability, social self-confidence, and popularity
in comparison with freshmen living on campus, who are also
dealing with the problems of transition to college.
Chickering also reported studies that have found major
differences between students who lived at home and campus
residents in their relationships with other students. In
one study, campus residents scored higher than students who
lived with parents on every questionnaire item concerning
social relationships with other students. Based on another
study, he concluded that students who lived at home "were not

43
as widely acquainted with other students and had fewer close
friends at the college" (Chickering, 1974, p. 64).
Graff and Cooley .(1970) investigated whether or not
students living at home and on-campus students differed on
adjustment to college. The College Inventory of Academic
Adjustment was used in this study. The sample consisted of
185 campus residents and 116 students who lived at home.
After-only measures at the conclusion of one semester's
enrollment, holding ability levels constant, revealed one
major differencethat students who lived at home had lower
self-concepts than campus residents. No differences between
the two groups were found to exist in ability or achievement
levels, or their relationships with peers and faculty.
Arbuckle (1957) studied whether there were any significant
differences in the changes which occur among college women
with differing housing arrangements. He used matching
techniques to equate two groups (27 nonresidents and 35
residents) by age, intelligence, socioeconomic background
and religion. Among his findings were that positive changes
occurred in self-confidence among women in both housing groups.
These changes were significant at the .05 level. He also
found significant positive change among those in the nonresident
group, but not in the resident group, in their relationships
with others using the Hestan Personal Adjustment Inventory and
the Gordon Personal Profile.
Astin (1973) using data collected in a multi-campus
study from 1966-70, concluded that campus residence exerts

44
a consistently positive effect on the self-concepts of
students. He also found through this study that
Living in a dormitory clearly increased the
chances that students would be satisfied with
their overall undergraduate experience, par
ticularly in the area of interpersonal contacts
with faculty and other students. (p. 207)
Stewart (1969) compared freshmen on one campus who
lived in campus housing and freshmen who lived at home
using a pretest, posttest design. During the first week
of classes in the fall, 281 beginning freshman students,
divided into categories by on-campus or at home residence
and by sex, completed Part I of the College Student Question
naire. Family social status was indicated to be a major
difference, with campus residents found to have higher
family social status than students who lived at home.
Part II of the College Student Questionnaire was
administered to the sample during the last few weeks of
the Spring Quarter. Significant differences were found
to exist between the groups who lived on campus and at
home in extracurricular involvement, with campus residents
experiencing more involvement. No differences were found
between these groups on a number of other factors, including
satisfaction with relationships with other students.
Barton (1972) using a cross-sectional design, studied
the effects of place of residence upon value development in
college students. With a random sample of 108 freshmen and
149 seniors, Barton also found differences on the Extracurricular
Involvement Scale of the College Student Questionnaire (Part II)
among students according to where they lived. He concluded

45
that campus residents were more involved in college activ
ities than students who lived at home, but that no generalized
differences existed between the values of students with
differing housing arrangements.
Stark (1965) and Sprague (1969) found no significant
difference in extracurricular participation among students
with differing housing arrangements. Sprague attempted to
determine whether or not differences existed in certain
intellectual and nonintellectual factors among university
freshmen based on place of residence. His study involved
a sample of 108 freshmen who had been enrolled for a full
academic year. A personal data questionnaire also found no
significant difference in occupational level of parents or
in self-concept among students as a function of either sex
or place of residence while at college.
Research Approaches for Measuring the Impact
of Differing Living Environments
Research studies cited in the previous segment of the
review of literature contain many instances of conflicting
results. Such findings do not provide sufficient basis
for predicting the outcome of further research. Theories
are often useful for predicting the results of further
investigation, yet the conflicting results of prior research
may cause a researcher to be reluctant to make predictions
based on a particular theory. Researchers have recognized
that it is unnecessary for a study of this type to base
anticipated outcomes on any explicit theory. As noted by
Feldman, "The investigator may say something like the

46
following: 'Here are some interesting dimensions that may
(or may not) be affected by the college experience; lets
compare college class levels to find out'" (Feldman, 1972,
p. 61) .
A number of research designs are available for use in
measuring the impact of differing living arrangements on
college students. The cross-sectional design is one "which
evaluates change over time by comparing at the same point in
time different people representing different stages of
development" (Fox, 1969, p. 440). Data can normally be
collected and analyzed more simply and within a short period
of time with this approach. Cross-sectional studies are also
free of an external threat to validity, interaction of testing
and the residence experience. The major weakness of the
cross-sectional approach is its assumption that different
groups are,in fact, comparable.
Another way to measure the impact of differing living
arrangements on students is through the use of a longitudinal
design, which involves studies of the same persons at two
or more points in time. Fox (1969) concisely noted the
advantages and disadvantages of this approach:
The major strength of the longitudinal design
is that it avoids the assumption of compara
bility of different groups by using the same
respondents at every data-collection interval.
Its weaknesses are the length of time required
to obtain the complete set of data and the
difficulty in maintaining contact with, and
reassembling, the respondents throughout the
length of the study. Some researchers also
add the weakness that continued exposure to
the data-collection instruments and the
research produces a degree of sophistication
or test-wiseness in the respondents which is
reflected in the data. (p. 442)

47
Feldman (1972) described the two-stage, input-output
approach used by Astin, Chickering and others to study the
impact of different environments:
The background of students entering college
and their values, orientation, and personality
characteristics are considered as input. An
"expected output" based on these input charac
teristics is computed. The effects of this
expected output is then statistically removed
from students' "observed output," producing a
residual output now independent of input charac
teristics. Measures of the characteristics of
institutions of higher education are then
related to this residual output to determine the
extent to which they explain variation in the
output beyond that explained by the input
characteristics, thus determining the nature
and strength of college influences. A related
procedure is the following: a stepwise regres
sion is carried out in which all input variables
are entered into the regression, after which
the environmental variables are permitted to
enter. (p. 211)
Conclusions from the Literature
Freshman students are a diverse group in terms of
academic ability, personality characteristics, interests,
values, and socioeconomic background. Although research
findings cited are not consistent, some evidence has
indicated that campus residents participated more in
activities in high school and may have advantages in
academic ability and socioeconomic background as a group
when compared to college students living at home.
Most freshmen are in the adolescent stage of develop
ment, a stage which also includes some high school students
as well as some college-age students beyond the normal
freshman age range. This stage is characteristized in part
by inexperience in many areas and decreasing authoritarian

48
behaviors. Increasing tolerance and flexibility of thinking
develops as individuals progress through this stage of
development. Freshmen are said to be, for the most part,
motivated and open to new ideas and challenges.
The self-concepts of college students may often suffer
a slump during the first part of the freshman year, then
may frequently improve during the latter part of that year.
Research studies on self-concept and its relationship to
place of residence are conflicting, but the weight of the
evidence seems to show campus residents as generally posi
tively affected by the residence experience. The self-
concepts of students living at home seem to be negatively
affected by their continued residence at home while
attending college.
Peer groups are important to individual development.
Research cited is not at all in agreement on whether or
not differences exist among students on campus and students
at home in their relationships with peers. While inter
action patterns may be the same, students who lived at
home appeared to associate less with other students at
the college and more with noncollege persons than is the
case for campus residents.
Participation in extracurricular activities in college
seems to have a positive effect on academic success and
persistence in college. There is no consensus reported in
the research on whether or not levels of participation are
the same among groups having differing housing arrangements.

49
Persistence appears to be essentially a product of the
experience of students in the college environment. Research
cited constantly indicated that there is a greater persis
tence among campus residents than among students living at
home. There are indications that living off campus away
from home has a positive influence on persistence for men,
but the reverse may be true for women.
Based on a review of research approaches, a study of
longitudinal design appears appropriate for a study of
selected educational benefits for student groups, representing
three types of housing arrangements on one campus.

CHAPTER III
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to determine whether
there are significant differences in certain educational
benefits (persistence, self-concept, peer relationships,
and extracurricular involvement) for beginning University
of Florida freshmen who live on campus, at home, or in
other off-campus housing. This chapter includes a review
of participant response and findings on the impact of
differing housing arrangements on student persistence at
the University, changes in self-concept during the freshman
year, changes in students' perceptions of their relation
ships with peers, and involvement in extracurricular
activities.
Response of Sample Participants
The initial size of the sample was 300 students,
including 50 females and 50 males who lived at home, 50
females and 50 males who lived off campus away from home,
and 50 females and 50 males who lived in campus residence
halls. Presented in Table 1 are figures on the number
of persons dropped from the sample and the reasons why
these persons were dropped.
50

Table 1
Data on Reduction in Number of
Eligible Sample Participants
Students
Lived At
Who
Home
Students Who
Lived Off
Campus Away
From Home
Students
Lived On
Campus
Who
TOTAL
Females
Males.
Females
Males
Females
Males
Initial Size of Subsamplesa
and Total Sample
50
50
50
50
50
50
300
Persons Dropped from the Sample
for the Following Reasons:
Did Not Enroll at the
University
11
11
12
15
2
1
52
Did Not Remain Enrolled for
.the Fall, Winter and
Spring Quarters of the
1976-77 Academic Year
3
9
8
4
7
2
33
Ineligible by Place of
Residence
3
1
0
5
2
6
17
Ineligible by Marital
Status
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Total Number of Persons
Dropped From Sample
18
21
21
24
11
8
103
Persons Enrolled for all Three
Quarters of the 1976-77
Academic Year and Eligible
by Residence and Marital
Status to Remain in the
Sample
30
27
29
27
37
47
197
aThis row of data indicates the size of the subsample that was selected based on preliminary
classification of the population by residence group. Some reclassification of participants
to other subsample groups occurred once address verification was completed in the Fall of 1976.

52
Although the sample was drawn from an updated roster
furnished by the University's Office of Admissions shortly
before the start of the 1976 fall quarter, over one-sixth
of the persons in the sample failed to enroll for the fall
quarter and were dropped from the sample. A substantial
majority of those who did not enroll were from the subsample
groups expected to live at home or off campus away from home.
Practically all of the persons in the sample who had made
arrangements for on-campus housing did enroll. Persons
whose places of residence were not included in the definitions
of the three types of residence settings to be compared, as
defined in Chapter One of this study, were dropped from the
sample. Since only unmarried beginning freshmen were to be
studied, the one person who was identified during the course
of the study as being married was also dropped.
Of the 197 students remaining in the sample, 41 (21%)
failed to return pretest materials and another 22 (11%) failed
to return posttest materials. Complete pretest and posttest
data were collected from the remaining 134 students, who
represent 68% of the 197 persons in the sample.
The following sections of Chapter Three are devoted to
the analysis of the research questions listed in the statement
of the problem. In each section, the research question is
restated and pertinent findings are described.
Student Persistence in College
The first research question posed in this study concerned
student persistence: "Is there a difference in persistence at

53
the University among students who lived on campus, at home, or
in other off-campus housing?" The total number of students
who enrolled in the fall, the number who persisted through
the spring and the number who did not persist are presented
in Table 2 by sex and by type of residence.
Table 2
Student Persistence by Residence Group
Students
Living At
Home
Students
Living Off
Campus Away
From Home
Students
On Campus
Living
Females
Males
Females Males
Females
Males
Total Enrolled in
September
33
36
37 31
44
49
Total Who Persisted
Through Spring
Quarter
30
27
29 27
37
47
Total Who Did Not
Persist Through
Spring Quarter
3
9
8 4
7
2
Note. N=230
The chi-square statistic was used in the analysis of
these data to determine whether or not there was a significant
difference among these groups on persistence at the University.
Table 3 contains data on persistence comparing males and
females in the sample.
Table 3
Persistence Among
Females and Males
Females Males
Students Who Did Persist
Actual Number 96 101
Expected Number 97.64 99.36
Students Who Did Not Persist
Actual Number 18 15
Expected Number16.36 16.64

54
The chi-square statistic was .381 with 1 degree of
freedom, which indicates that there was not a significant
difference in persistence between females and males.
Table 4 provides information concerning student persis
tence among females in each residence group. The chi-square
statistic was 2.066 with 2 degrees of freedom, which indicats
that there was no significant difference in persistence among
female students that can be attributed to differing housing
arrangements.
Table 4
Female Students' Persistence
by Residence Group
Females
Living At Home
Females
Living Off
Campus Away
From Home
Females
Living On
Campus
Students Who Did Persist
Actual Number
30
29
37
Expected Number
27.79
31.16
37.05
Students Who Did Not Persist
Actual Number
3
8
7
Expected Number
5.21
5.84
6.95
Table 5 contains information concerning student persis
tence among males in each residence group. The chi-square
statistic was 8.058 with 2 degrees of freedom, which indicates
that there was a significant difference in persistence among
male students according to where they lived.

55
Table 5
Male Students' Persistence
by Residence Group
Males
Living Off Males
Males Living Campus Away Living On
At Home From Home Campus
Students Who Did Persist
Actual Number 27 27 47
Expected Number 31.34 26.99 42.66
Students Who Did Not Persist
Actual Number 9 4 2
Expected Number 4.66 4.01 6.34
One may show from the data that, for this sample of
freshman males, those who lived on campus had a signifi
cantly higher level of persistence at the University and
that those freshman males who lived at home had a signifi
cantly lower level of persistence among the three groups.
In this study, persistence at the University differed
significantly for males, but not for females, according to
type of residence. Male students who lived at home had a
significantly higher attrition rate, while attrition was
significantly lower for male students who lived on campus.
Change in Students' Self-Concept
The second question posed in this study was: "For
those who persist in college, is there a change in self-
concept among students who lived on campus, at home, or
in other off-campus housing and, if so, does this change
differ on the basis of residence?"
Regression analysis techniques were used to determine
whether or not there was a change in self-concept among
those studied and if so, whether this change differed on

56
the basis of residence. Three factors (sex, type of residence
and score on the pretest of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale)
were used to predict posttest scores on the Tennessee Self
Concept Scale. The regression model used in this study
appears in Figure 1.
y=Po + 0ixi + 32X2 + 33X3 + 34X1X3 + 65X2X3
+ Before [p6 + 67X1 + 3eX2 + 3gX3
+ 3i0X1X3 + &IIX2X3V +
where y = actual value of the posttest score
Xi = 1 if off campus away from home, 0 if otherwise
X2 = 1 if on campus, 0 if otherwise
X3 = 1 if respondent is female, 0 if otherwise
3o~3ii are parameters of the model
£ is random error
Figure 1
Regression Model
F tests indicated that this model was significant at the
2
.05 level. The R figures calculated for the total positive
and the positive subscales of the Tennessee Self Concept
Scale were high, indicating that the regression model was a
2
good predictor of posttest scores. R figures for the positive
scales ranged from .993 to .997.
If there was no change in self-concept among sample
participants, then posttest scores would remain essentially
the same as pretest scores. The estimates of slope computed
using regression analysis techniques would be close to 1.00
if these scores were equal. As shown in Table 6, none of
the estimates of the eight positive scales computed in this

57
study was close to 1.00, indicating that there were changes
in self-concept among sample participants during their
freshman year.
Table 6 .
Estimates for Total Positive and
on the Posttest of the Tennessee
Positive Subscores
Self Concept Scale
Total Positive
77
Identity
.61
Self-Satisfaction
.65
Behavior
.84
Physical Self
.83
Moral-Ethical Self
.71
Personal Self
.84
Family Self
.72
Social Self
.87
For each of the sections of the Tennessee Self Concept
\
Scale used in this study, t tests were conducted on the
hypothesis that each parameter contained in the regression
model equalled zero. The results of t tests for each
parameter for certain subscales of the Tennessee Self Concept
Scale are reported in Table 7. Parameters are listed in this
table in the order of inclusion in the model. Tests are
for single elimination against the full model. These tests
yielded significant results at the .05 level on certain
parameters of four positive subscales: identity, personal
self, family self and social self.

58
Table 7
Results of t_ tests on Estimates of Selected Parameters
for the Regression Model
6
Name of
Parameter
Identity
Personal
Self
Family
Self
Social
Self
So
Males at home
.003
.367
.034
.433
61
Males off campus
.580
.059
.032
.124
62
Males on campus
.981
.321
.424
.926
63
Females at home
.125
.036
.696
.009
64
Females off campus
.412
.075
.555
.030
65
Females on campus
.038
.066
.363
.197
Be
Before/Males at home
.0001
. 0001
.0001
.0001
67 .
Before/Males off campus
.515
.073
.037
.105
68
Before/Males on campus
.884
.414
.563
.988
69
Before/Females at home
.147
.047
.747
.013
610
Before/Females off campus
.431
.075
.484
.021
811 .Before/Females on campus
Note. pc.05.
.039
.090
.360
.176
No significant differences in scores could be attributed
to differences in sex or in type of residence as a result
of testing parameters on the total positive section or the
other four positive subscales of the instrument- Similarly
no differences in the total variability score or distribution
score were found that could be attributed to differences in
sex or type of residence.
The first subscale yielding significant results on
certain parameters was the identity scale. The data in
Table 7 show that the t tests for the parameters for this
subscale were significant for go, 65, 66 and 611.
Figure 2 illustrates the finding that female sample
participants who lived on campus and had low identity scores
on the pretest did not perform as well on the identity scale
of the posttest as other sample participants who had low
identity scores on the pretest. Females who lived on

Posttest Scores
59
campus and who had high identity pretest scores performed
almost as well on the identity section of the posttest as
other sample participants with high identity pretest scores.
Figure 2
A Comparison of Identity Scores
of Subsample Groups
The second subscale yielding significant results on
certain parameters was the personal self scale. The data
in Table 7 show that the t tests for the paramters for
this subscale were significant for g3, g6, and Bg. Figure 3
illustrates the finding that female sample participants

60
with low personal self pretest scores had significantly
higher personal self posttest scores than males with low
personal self pretest scores. For sample participants with
high personal self pretest scores, however, males scored
higher on the personal self posttest than females.
Pretest Scores
Figure 3
A Comparison of Personal Self Scores
of Subsample Groups

The third subscale yielding significant results on
certain parameters was the family self scale. The data
show in Table 7 that the t tests for the parameters on
this subscale were significant for 80> $i> 86 arK^ 87.
Figure 4 illustrates the finding that sample participants
who lived off campus away from home and who scored low on
the family self pretest scored higher on the family self
posttest than sample participants who lived at home or on
campus and who had low family self pretest scores. For
students with high family self pretest scores, however,
those who lived at home or on campus had higher family
self posttest scores than those who lived off campus away
from home.
o
o
vi
S 40
-P
P
w
o
cu
20 -
20 40 60 80 100
Pretest Scores
Figure 4
A Comparison of Family Self Scores
of Subsample Groups

62
The fourth subscale yielding significant results on
certain parameters was the social self scale. The data in
Table 7 show that the t tests for the parameters on this
subscale were significant for 63, 64, 66, 69 and g10.
Figure 5 illustrates the finding that of the females
with low social self pretest scores, those who lived at home
and on campus scored higher on the social self posttest than
females who lived off campus away from home. Results on the
social self posttest were similar for females who lived off
campus away from home who had low social self pretest scores
and for men who had low social self pretest scores regardless
of residence. Of the students with high social self pretest
scores, females who lived off campus away from home scored
higher on the social posttest than females who lived at
home or on campus and who had high social self pretest scores
Pretest Scores
Figure 5
A Comparison of Social Self Scores
of Subsample Groups

63
The following results can be drawn from the data collected
and analyzed on self-concept:
1. Changes in self-concept occurred among sample participants
during their freshman year.
2. When compared with other students who had low identity
scores on the pretest, females who lived on campus had
lower identity scores on the posttest. However, when
compared with other students who had high identity
scores on the pretest, females who lived on campus
scored about as high on the post test.
3. When those- students who had low personal self scores
on the pretest were compared, females had higher
personal self scores than males on the posttest.
4. When compared with students in other residence groups
who had low family self scores on the pretest, students
who lived off campus away from home had higher family
self scores on the posttest. However, when compared
with other students who had high family self scores
on the pretest, students who lived off campus away from
home had lower family self scores on the posttest.
5. When compared with other students who had low social
self scores on the pretest, females who lived on campus
and at home had higher social self scores on the posttest.
Of the students with high social self scores on the
pretest, females who lived on campus and at home had
the highest social seif scores on the posttest, followed
by males, who were followed by females who lived off
campus away from home.

64
Relationships with Peers
The third research question posed in this study was:
"For those who persist in college, is there a difference in
relationships with other students among students who live
on campus, at home, or in other off-campus housing?"
Regression analysis techniques were used to determine
whether or not there was a change in relationships with
peers among sample participants and, if so, whether this
change differs on the basis of residence. Three factors
(sex, type of residence and score on the pretest of the
Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory) were used to predict
posttest scores on the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory.
The regression model used in these analyses is the same as .
that used in predicting posttest scores on the Tennessee
Self Concept Scale and is illustrated in Figure 1.
F tests of the regression model were conducted. The
2
R figures calculated for the four scales of the inventory
and the inventory as a whole are reported in Table 8. This
table indicates that the regression model was not as good
a predictor of posttest scores on the Barrett-Lennard
Relationship Inventory as it was for posttest scores of the
Tennessee Self Concept Scale.

65
2 Table 8
R Values Calculated
for the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory
Scales
R2
Scale
1
.705
Scale
2
.280
Scale
3
.477
Scale
4
.311
Total
Scale
.538
Table 9 reports the results of t tests conducted on
the hypothesis that each parameter in the regression model
equalled zero. Tests are for single elimination against the
full model. No significant differences (p<.05) in scores
could be attributed to differences in sex or in type of
residence as a result of testing parameters on the four
scales of the inventory as well as the inventory as a whole.
A description of the instrument is included in Appendix B.
The pretest 'scores for the first and third scales were
highly significant predictors of the posttest scores for
each respective scale. The pretest score for the second
scale, however, was of no value as a predictor of the post
test score for that scale. Pretest scores for the fourth
scale and for the total scale were significant at the .04
level as predictors of the respective posttest scores.

66
Table 9
Results of t tests on the Estimates of Parameters
for the Regression Model
Name of Total
Parameter
Scale 1
Scale 2
Scale 3
Scale 4
Scale
Males at home
.9289
.1558
.8570
.3895
.7832
Males off campus
.0453
.6035
.6124
.2384
.9847
Males on campus
.5415
.6295
.3266
.4452
.1524
Females at home
.0576
.1553
.1044
.8517
.5133
Females off campus
.5282
.3987
.5574
.7189
.9650
Females on campus
.6985
.0439
.7465
.6386
.6245
Before/Males at home
.0003
.9861
.0090
.0446
.0448
Before/Males off campus
.2183
.3648
.6432
.2174
.6891
Before/Males on campus
.5710
.9899
.4389
.8020
.2240
Before/Females at home
.1299
.1269
.0788
.8793
.4797
Before/Females off campus
.9777
.6561
.7744
.2311
.4137
Before/Females on campus
.7246
.0673
.1450
.5253
.1315
Note. £<.05.
Except for pretests, no factors or combination of factors
contained in the model as constructed had a significant effect
on the prediction of posttest scores on the scales of the
Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory.
Participation in Extracurricular Activities
The fourth research question posed in this study was:
"For those who persist in college, is there a difference in
participation in extracurricular activities among students
who live on campus, at home, or in other off-campus housing?"
A researcher-designed Activities Questionnaire, administered
as a posttest, was returned by 134 sample participants.
The chi-square statistic was used in the analysis of these
data to determine whether or not there was a significant
difference among those in the subsample groups according to
type of residence.

67
Table 10 contains information from the first section
of the questionnaire, which measured level of participation
in campus organizations. No significant difference among
the groups was found to exist in the level of participation
in student government-related organizations, social frater
nities or sororities, campus service organization or campus
religious organizations.
Table 10
Level of Participation in Campus Organizations
Reported by Residence Group
Students
Living
Students
Off Campus
Students
Type of
Organization
Level of
Participation*
Living At
Home3,
Away^From
Home0
Living
On.Campus
Student
0
33
26
28
government-
1
11
3
8
related
2
3
2
8
organizations
3
2
4
6
Social
0
43
30
39
fraternity
1
3
2
4
or sorority
2
3
2
2
3
0
1
5
Campus
0
42
28
38
service
1
4
4
9
organization
2
1
3
3
3
2
0
0
Academically-
0
. 46
26
36
related
1
3
8
7
organization
2
0
1
5
3
0
0
2
Campus
0
38
31
40
religious
1
4
2
2
organization
2
1
2
3
3
6
0
5
*0=not at all,
l=to a small extent,
2=fairly extensive,3=very
extensive
Note.
an=49
n=35
N=134
Cn=50

68
A significant difference was found among the groups in
the level of participation in academically-related organizations,
such as professional clubs and honor societies. Table 11
illustrates the findings that students who lived at home
participated less than was expected (expected levels of parti
cipation were calculated using chi square). Students who
lived off campus away from home participated more than was
expected (though this was at the "to'a small extent" level
of participation). Campus residents in the sample exceeded
expectations at all levels of participation, particularly at
the "fairly extensive" and "very extensive" levels.
Table 11
Participation in Academically-Related Organizations
by Residence Group
Level of
Participation
Response
Students
Living At
a3
Home
Students
Living
Off Campus
Away^From
Home
Students
Living
On Campus
Actual
46
26
36
Not at all
Expected
39.5
28.2
40.3
To a small
Actual
3
8
7
extent
Expected
6.6
4.7
6.7
Fairly
Actual
0
1
5
extensive
Expected
2.2
1.6
2.2
Very
Actual
0
0
2
extensive
Expected
0.7
0.5
0.7
Note. N=134
an=49
^*n=35
Cn=50
A significant difference was also found in participation
in the "other organizations" category. Most responses in
this category specified R.O.T.C. or the Gator Band. There

69
was less participation than expected in such organizations
among students living at home or off campus away from home.
Campus residents greatly exceeded the response that was
expected for participation in such organizations, as is
shown in Table 12.
Table 12
Participation in "Other Organizations"
by Residence Group
Response
Students
Living At
Home
Students
Living
Off Campus
Away, From
b
Home
Students
Living
On Campus
Did not
Actual
46
32
39
participate
Expected
42.8
30.6
43.7
Actual
3
3
11
Participated
Expected
6.2
4.4
6.3
Note. N=134
an=49
bn=35
Cn=50
The second section of the questionnaire was designed to
determine whether or not persons in the sample had been
selected for or assumed a leadership role in a campus
organization during the course of their freshman year.
Significant differences were found among the groups by
type of residence on this section. Table 13 shows that
while students who lived off campus away from home held
leadership roles in the numbers expected, students who
lived at home fell short of expectations and students who
lived on campus exceeded expectations.

70
Table 13
Students' Leadership Roles
by Residence Group
Was not selected
for or did not
assume a leader
ship role
Response
Students
Living At
Home
Students
Living
Off Campus
Away From
Homeb
Students
Living
On Campus
Actual
Expected
42
33.3
23
23.8
26-
34.0
Was selected for
or assumed a
Actual
7
12
24
leadership role
Expected
15.7
11.2
16.0
Note. N=134
an=49
bn=35
o
|3
II
U1
o
While all
categories
of the questionnaire were
: tested
for differences between females and :
males, this is
the only
category where
such differences were
found. Table
14 reports
the responses
to this section of the
questionnaire
by sex.
As shown in Table 14, freshman males
were selected
for or
assumed leadership roles
in significantly greater numbers
than freshman
females in
the sample.
Table 14
Leadership Roles !
Held
by
Females and Males
Response
Females
Males
Was not selected for or did
Actual
57
34
not assume a
leadership role
Expected
50.3
40.7
Was selected
for or assumed
Actual
17
26
a leadership
role
Expected
23.7
19.3
Note. N=134
an=74
bn=60

71
The final.section of the Activities Questionnaire was
designed to assess participation in other extracurricular
activities, such as intramurals, attendance at campus
cultural and social events, visits to cultural centers on
the campus, employment while enrolled as a student and other
University-related extracurricular activities. The chi-
square statistic was calculated for each of the six
categories in this section of the instrument. A description
of the instrument is included in Appendix C. Significant
differences among the residence groups were found for three
of these categories. The chi-square statistic was also
calculated for females and males on each of the six cate
gories in this section of the instrument, but no significant
differences were found to exist between the sexes.
The first category that yielded significant results
among the residence groups was the response to the question:
"Do you participate in intramural sports competition on
campus?" The chi-square statistic was 6.115 with 2 degrees
of freedom, which is significant at the .05 level. Table 15
contains the actual and estimated numbers of sample partici
pants in each residence group who participated in intramural
sports on campus. Data in this table indicate that sample
participants who lived off campus away from home and those
who lived on campus participated in intramural sports
competition on campus in numbers greater than expected.
Participation was less than expected among those who lived
at home.

72
Table 15
Participation in Intramural Sports Competition on Campus
by Residence Group
Students
Living
Students
Off Campus
Students
Living At
Away From
Living
Response
Home
Home
On Campus
Actual
44
35
49
Participated
Expected
46.8
33.4
47.8
Did Not
Actual
5
0
1
Participate
Expected
2.2
1.6
2.2
Note. N=134
an=49
bn=35
Cn=50
The second question in this section in which significant
differences were found asked: "Have you visited the Florida
State Museum or the University Gallery since the start of the
1976 Fall Quarter?" The chi-square statistic was 23.781 with
2 degrees of freedom, which is significant at the .0001 level
Table 16 contains the actual and estimated numbers of sample
participants in each residence group who visited the museum
or the gallery. The data in this table show that sample
participants who lived on campus and who visited either of
these cultural centers greatly exceeded the number expected.
Those who lived at home who visited the museum or the gallery
fell far short of the number expected. The actual number of
sample participants who lived off campus away from home and
who had visited the museum or gallery equalled the
expected number.

73
Table 16
Totals of Students by Residence Group
Who Visited the Museum or Gallery
Response
Students
Living At
a
Home
Students
Living
Off Campus
Away^From
Home
Students
Living
On Campus
Actual
28
27
49
Visited
Expected
38.0
27.2
38.8
Actual
21
8
1
Did Not Visit
Expected
11.0
7.8
11.2
Note. N=134
an=49
bn=35
Cn=50
The final question in this section in which significant
differences were found asked: "Have you attended a dance or
party on the campus since the start of the 1976 Fall Quarter?"
The chi-square statistic was 7.336 with 2 degrees of freedom,
which is significant at the .026 level. Table 17 contains
the actual and estimated numbers of sample participants in
each residence group who attended a dance or party on campus.
The data in this table indicate that sample participants who
lived at home exceeded the number expected to attend these
social functions and that sample participants who lived off
campus away from home or on campus fell short of the number
expected to participate in these activities.

74
Table 17
Totals of Students by Residence Group
Who Attended a Dance or Party on Campus
Response
Students
Living At
Home3
Students
Living
Off Campus
Away From
Home
Students
Living
On Campus
Actual
19
6
9
Attended
Expected
12.4
8.9
12.7
Actual
30
29
41
Did Not Attend
Expected
36.6
26.1
37.3
Note. N=134
an=49
^n=35
Cn=50
The results gleaned from the analysis of responses to
the Activities Questionnaire can be summarized as follows:
Differences among those sampled by residence group occurred
in level of participation in academically-related organizations,
such as professional societies and honor societies. Partici
pation was highest and most extensive for campus residents in
the sample. Those who lived off campus away from home parti
cipated more than those at home, but the level of involvement
of both of these groups was low. Differences in participation
in "other organizations," such as R.O.T.C. and the University
Band, were also found among the residence groups. Campus
residents participated in such organizations far more than
was the case among others in the sample.
Students who lived off campus held leadership roles in
the numbers expected (as calculated using chi square).
Students who lived at home fell short of expectations and
students who lived on campus exceeded expectations. Freshman

75
males were selected for or assumed leadership roles in
significantly greater numbers than freshman females in
the sample.
In other extracurricular activities, a greater propor
tion of students in the sample who lived off campus away
from home or on campus participated in intramural sports
competition than those who lived at home. Those who lived
on campus visited the Florida State Museum or the University
Gallery in greater numbers than expected, while fewer of
those who lived at home than was expected had visited
the museum or gallery. Of those who lived on campus or
off campus away from home, fewer than was expected had
attended a dance or party on campus; however, a greater
number of those who lived at home than was expected had
attended such a campus social event.
Chapter Summary
This chapter includes a review of participant response
and findings on the impact of differing housing arrangements
on student persistence at the University, changes in self-
concept during the freshman year, changes in students'
perceptions of their relationships with peers, and involve
ment in extracurricular activities.
An initial sample size of 300 entering freshman students
was reduced by 52 who were admitted, but did not enroll at
the University. This was further reduced by 18 persons in
eligible by place of residence or marital status to remain
in the sample. The 33 students who did not remain enrolled

76
for all three quarters of their freshman year were included
only in the study of persistence among residence groups.
Both pretest and posttest data were collected from 134
students, who represent 68% of the 197 persons enrolled for
all three quarters.
In this study, persistence at the University differed
significantly for males but not for females, according to
type of residence. Male students who lived at home had
a higher rate of attrition which was significant at the
.05 level, while attrition was significantly lower for males
who lived on campus. There was no significant difference in
persistence between females and males.
The following are among the findings of the analyses
of data on self-concept:
Changes in self-concept occurred among sample participants
during their freshman year. Significant differences at the
.05 level were found to exist according to type of residence
among students who had low identity scores or low personal
self scores on the pretest of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale.
Students also differed on the basis of residence on the
family self scale and the social self scale of the Tennessee
Self Concept Scale.
No significant differences were found in relationships
with other students when comparing those sample participants
who persisted in college by residence group.
Differences were found to exist among students with
differing housing arrangements in participation in extra
curricular activities. Significant differences at the .05

77
level were found among the residence groups in level of
participation in academically-related organizations, such
as professional clubs and honor societies; and in "other
organizations," such as R.O.T.C. and the University Band.
Campus residents were involved far more extensively in
college activities than students in other residence groups.
Freshmen who lived on campus held a greater number of
leadership positions in college organizations than freshmen
in other residence groups. This difference was significant
at the .05 level. Freshmen who lived at home held signifi
cantly fewer leadership positions. Freshman males were
selected for or assumed leadership roles in significantly
greater numbers than freshman females in the sample.
Significant differences at the .05 level were found among
the residence groups on participation in certain other
extracurricular activities, including intramural sports,
visits to campus cultural centers, and attendance at social
functions on campus.

CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION OF THE DATA
This chapter contains a discussion of the data presented
in Chapter III. These data are examined in relation to the
previous research and theoretical writings included in the
review of the literature.
This chapter is divided into four sections. Each
section is devoted to a discussion of the findings relating
to a particular research question posed in Chapter I.
In the first section, the results of comparing levels of
persistence at the University among subsample groups are
discussed. The second section is devoted to a discussion of
the impact of various residence settings on the self-concepts
of students in the sample. The third section provides a
discussion of the findings of that part of the study which
dealt with relationships with peers. The results of com
paring subsample groups on their extent of involvement in
extracurricular activities is discussed in the fourth section
of this chapter.
Persistence
The first research question contained in the statement
of the problem asked: "Is there a difference in persistence
in college among students who lived on campus, at home, or
in other off-campus housing?" There was a consensus in the
78

79
literature on this question. Research by Astin (1975),
Chickering (1974), and others suggest that campus residence
enhances persistence.
In this study, significant differences in persistence
were found for males, but not for females, according to
type of residence. Male students who lived at home had a
higher attrition rate which was significant at the .05
level, while attrition was significantly lower for male
students who lived on campus. The rate of attrition of
males who lived off campus away from home was in between
the other two residence groups.
For men, the results of this study agree totally with
research by Astin and others. One may show from the data
that the best place for freshman males to live in order to
minimize attrition is in campus residence halls. One may
also show from the data that the chances for dropping out
of college are significantly higher for freshman males who
live at home.
Differences were found in persistence among females
according to type of residence. Although these differences
did not reach the .05 level of significance, they neverthe
less suggest that living at home during the freshman year
may increase the likelihood that a female student will
persist at the University. Incidence of attrition was
found to be greatest among freshman females who lived off
campus away from home. Results of this study agree in part
with research by Astin (1975) and others, who have found the

80
environment off campus away from home to be associated with
the highest levels of attrition and campus residence to be
associated with the lowest levels of attrition among freshman
females.
Although the impact of residence setting was shown
through this study to be different for females and males,
this research found no overall difference in persistence
between the sexes. This finding is consistent with previous
research by Panos and Astin (1969) Iffert (1957) and
others, who found no differences in persistence levels
between females and males.
What factors may be operating that would explain the
differences between the sexes on levels of persistence in
various residence settings? Astin (1975) has speculated
that differences in the degree of personal autonomy and
independence given to females and males during their high
school years may be a factor. Parents allow male students
greater opportunities for exercising independent judgment
and experiencing personal autonomy than they allow female
students, according to Astin. He concluded that these
differences are at least partially responsible for the
differing levels of persistence associated with types of
residence for female and male students.
One might expect females and males to react differently
in various residence settings in terms of persistence based
on findings of a review of the literature by Cope and Hannah
(1975). "Researchers have found consistently that the reasons
given for dropping out differed between the sexes . men

81
tending to cite internal and academic reasons while women
more frequently mentioned external and nonacademic ones"
(Cope and Hannah, 1975, p. 16).
As tin (1975) cited student involvement as a key factor
in persistence. He proposed a theory of college persistence
which holds that a student's tendency to drop out of college
is inversely related to his or her degree of direct involve
ment in the academic and social life of the institution.
Based on Astin's theory of college persistence, one would
expect that the higher level of persistence found to exist
among campus residents would have resulted from their greater
involvement in campus organizations and activities.
The present study provided this theory to be true at
the University of Florida. Significant differences at the
.05 level were found when students who lived on campus and
students who lived at home were compared in levels of
participation in academically-related organizations, such
as professional clubs and honor societies. Table 11 illus
trates the finding that students who lived at home partici
pated less than was expected, while those who lived on campus
exceeded expectations at all levels of participation,
particularly at the "fairly extensive" and "very extensive"
levels. Similar results were found in the "other organiza
tions" category, which included R.O.T.C. and the University
Band. Table 13 also shows similar results in comparing
these two groups on the number of persons who were selected
for or assumed a leadership role in a campus organization
during their freshman year.

82
1
Thus, this study provides additional evidence to support
the proposition that type of residence does have a significant
impact on persistence of college freshmen, specifically male
freshmen. The findings of this study also provide additional
support for Astin's theory of college persistence.
Self-Concept
The second research question contained in the statement
of the problem was: "For those who persist in college, is
there a change in self-concept among students who lived on
campus, at home or in other off campus housing and, if so,
does this change differ on the basis of residence?"
Although there is no consensus in the literature avail
able on the effects of differing housing arrangements on
the self-concepts of students, most of the research tends
to indicate that campus residents differ significantly
from other students in positive self-concept change.
Graff and Cooley (1970) in comparing campus residents
with students who lived at home, found that those who lived
at home "tended to be more beset by lack of self-confidence"
(p. 56). Astin (1973) also found significant differences
between these two groups and concluded that residence on
campus has a consistently positive impact on self-concept.
Chickering (1974) found that students who lived at home,
in comparison with students who lived on campus, rated them
selves significantly lower on social self-confidence, popu
larity, and public speaking and leadership abilities.

83
Studies by Sprague (1969) and Arbuckle (1957) found no
significant differences in self-concept for students with
differing housing arrangements.
This study found significant differences in certain
aspects of self-concept among students who lived at home,
off campus away from home and on campus. These aspects were:
identity, family self and social self, which are three of
the positive subscales of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale.
Although the same instrument was used in Sprague's study,
the data of the present study failed to support Sprague's
findings. ,
The identity subscale describes the basic identity
of sample respondents, or who a person is as he or she sees
himself or herself. Scores on the identity subscale differed
significantly for females who lived on campus as compared
with other subsample groups. Females who lived on campus
who had high identity pretest scores scored almost as well
on the identity section of the posttest as other sample
participants with high identity pretest scores. Females
who lived on campus who had low identity scores on the pre
test, however, did not perform as well on the identity scale
of the posttest as other sample participants who had low
identity scores on the pretest. This particular finding
does not support Astin's conclusion that residence on
campus has a consistently positive impact on self-concept.
Rather, the results of this study indicate that a female
entering college with a poor identity seems to be affected
more positively by living at home or off campus away from
home.

84
One interpretation of the findings of this study is
that peers in the residence setting may have a negative
effect on females with low identity scores on the pretest.
As Segal (1967) noted in his description of the residence
hall setting, "The pressure in this setting is the
confrontation of the students with an intense peer-culture
experience . (p. 309). This strong peer influence
may not be what is needed for an entering freshman female
who already has poor perceptions of herself as a person.
Another explanation is that exposure to a wider variety
of persons and values than may have previously been encoun
tered is .a source of inner conflict for a person whose
identity is not yet well-developed. Still another explana
tion is that the absence of parents meant loss of a critical
support system for which no adequate substitute was avail
able in the residence halls. This absence of an adequate
substitute may influence the behavior patterns of these women
with poor identity scores. Those students with low initial
identity scores who lived off campus away from home may have
an adequate support system in the small, personally-chosen
peer group with whom they share their apartment.
The personal self subscale of the Tennessee Self
Concept Scale describes persons' sense of self-worth, their
feelings of personal adequacy, and their perception of their
personality apart from their body image or interpersonal
relationships. Significant differences at the .05 level
were found between males and females on this subscale.
Males had higher personal self scores than females. No

85
differences were found, however, that could be attributed
to differences in place of residence. The fact that males
and females differed significantly on this subscale indicates
that comparisons by sex should be made when analyzing the
impact of differing housing arrangements on students.
The family self subscale describes persons' perceptions
of self in relation to their closest circle of associates.
For students with low family self pretest scores, those
who lived off campus away from home scored higher on the
family self posttest than those who lived at home and those
who lived on campus. For students with high family self
pretest scores, however, those who lived at home or on
campus had higher family self posttest scores than those
who lived off campus away from home.
In order to interpret these findings, the reader must
understand that for those who lived off campus away from
home and for those who lived on campus, the pretest and
posttest instruments for this subscale reflected relation
ships with two different "circles of associates." For almost
all students in the sample, the pretest involved perceptions
of self in relation to their immediate family prior to the
start of the freshman year. On the posttest, however, the
instrument was completed by campus residents in terms of
their relationships with those living in close proximity
to their rooms in the residence hall. For those off campus
away from home, the posttest instrument was completed in
terms of their relationships with persons with whom they
shared an apartment.

These findings can be interpreted as follows: For
those students who lived off campus away from home who had
low family self pretest scores, perceptions of self in
relation to those with whom they shared an apartment were
much improved over their pretest perceptions of self in
relation to family members at home. For those with low
initial perceptions of self in relation to family members,
the act of having joined a small, personally-chosen peer
group in sharing an apartment off campus proved to be
better than either remaining at home or living on campus
insofar as improvement in scores on the family self post
test was concerned.
For students with high family self pretest scores,
those who remained at home did better on family self post
test scores than those off campus away from home. Scores
of campus residents were not significantly different on
the posttest than students who lived at home. Those who
had strong initial positive perceptions of self in relation
to family members did even better on the. posttest of the
subscale if they remained at home or lived on campus.
For those at home, the family support system seemed to
strengthen self-concept as the freshman year progressed.
For those on campus, it may be that this initially strong
self-concept arising from family relationships, or other
factors, enables these students to seek out particular
persons (from the many in their living group) with whom
to build a new, strong peer support system. Those off

87
campus away from home may have found the choice of the few
persons they shared apartments with to be too limited,.
hampering their ability to build as strong a support system
or "circle of associates" as they found in their family
group.
The social self subscale of the Tennessee Self Concept
Scale describes a person's sense of personal adequacy in his
social interaction with others in a broader manner than in
the family self subscale. Females with low social self
pretest scores who lived at home or on campus did better
on the social self posttest .than females with similar pre
test scores who lived off campus away from home.
This is an interesting finding in light of the previous
discussion of family self scores. Fitts (1965) described
the high intercorrelation of positive scores of the
Tennessee Self Concept Scale and reported a correlation
of .73 between family self and social self scores. Many
students with low family self pretest scores also had low
social self pretest scores. One might expect the living
situation off campus away from home to have a similar impact
on both family self and social self posttest scores of this
group of students. However, this is not the case.
This finding can be interpreted to mean that many of
those living off campus away from home have made a choice
to grow toward maturity largely within the context of a small,
personally-chosen peer group rather than the family setting
at home or the more intense and diverse peer relationships
characteristic of residence halls. This idea of choice

88
was discussed by Segal (1967), who viewed the decision to
live on campus, at home, or in other off-campus housing as
"representative of a choice by parent and student that not
only mirrors reality factors, but also decisions about
the developmental arena for the college years.
The small, personally-chosen peer group with whom the
female who lived off campus away from home shared an apart
ment is too confining a group, with insufficient opportunities
to develop social skills and a wider range of associations
with others. Those freshman females who lived at home are
likely to have had many relationships with others, primarily
from high school days, in the local community. Campus
residents were likely to have had more interpersonal
contacts with a wider range of persons, particularly with
those on the floors of the residence hall where these
residents lived.
One explanation of the reason for the similarity in
slope of the line representing scores of male sample
participants in Figure 5 to that of females who lived off
campus is that the interpersonal relationships of males
may not generally be as close and as well-developed as are
the interpersonal relationships of females. This compara
tive lack of a strong interpersonal support system for males,
including those on campus, is more likely to have had a
negative effect on interpersonal growth among those with
low social self scores on the pretest. Among those scoring
at high levels on the social self pretest, females who

89
lived off campus away from home scored higher than all males
as well as females who lived at home or on campus. An
adequate interpersonal support system provided by persons
with whom these females shared off-campus apartments,
combined with a high level of social skills of these students
are factors that the writer believes may account for this
difference in scores.
Relationships with Peers
The third research question contained in the statement
of the problem asked: "For those who persist in college,
is there a difference in relationships with other students
among students who lived on campus, at home, or in other
off-campus housing?" Data collected using the Barrett-
Lennard Relationship Inventory were analyzed by regression
analysis techniques. No significant differences among the
subsample groups were found in relationships with other
students that could be attributed to differing housing
arrangements among the groups.
There was no consensus in previous research on whether
or not there was a difference in relationships with other
students between those who lived on campus and those who
lived at home. Only one study by Chickering (1974) reported
on the third group of students, those living off campus
away from home, in comparison to the other two living groups.
Chickering studied longitudinal data on specific
behaviors of students with peers collected from thousands
of students from a variety of institutions of higher

90
education. As a result of regression analyses of these data,
he concluded that, compared with campus residents, relation
ships with fellow college students were more limited among
students who lived at home. Among his specific findings
were these: "Campus residents scored higher (than students
who lived at home) on every questionnaire item concerning
social relationships with other students dates, drinking,
beer, staying up all night, parties, hanging around the
cafeteria, visiting a friend's apartment or room" (p. 62).
In comparison with the other two groups, students who lived
off campus away from home least frequently arranged dates
for others and most frequently drank beer, stayed up all
night, went out on dates, and attended parties.
Astin (1973) also studying multi-institutional data
gleaned from the same source as that used by Chickering,
found that the on-campus residence experience had a "consis
tently positive effect on student perceptions of their own
interpersonal competency . and increased the chances that
students would be satisfied with their overall undergraduate
experience, particularly in the area of interpersonal contacts
with other students" ( p. 207).
Arbuckle (1957) used matching techniques in a study
comparing 22 students who lived at home with 35 campus
residents. He concluded that there were significant positive
changes in sociability and interpersonal relations for those
living at home, but not for those on campus.
Graff and Cooley (1970) investigated whether or not differ
ences existed in adjustment to college by comparing students who

91
lived at home with campus residents after one semester of
college. They found that while there were differences in
adjustment between the groups, there were no significant
differences found in their interpersonal relationships with
peers. The results of this current study supported the
findings of Graff and Cooley that there were no significant
differences in relationships with fellow students that could
be attributed to differing housing arrangements among the
groups.
The instrument used in this study, the Barrett-Lennard
Relationship Inventory, was originally developed to measure
clients' perceptions of therapists in terms of genuineness,
empathy and warmth. The group form of this instrument was
designed to measure a person's perceptions of others in
terms of the same factors. On the pretest, those in the
sample were asked to consider each statement with respect to
whether they thought it was true or not true in their relation
ships with their high school peer group. On the posttest,
participants were asked to respond in terms of their college
peer group.
What was measured in this study was students' percep
tions of certain qualities of their relationships with peers
rather than their specific behaviors with peers, such as
frequency of beer drinking and dating. Segal (1967) and
Chickering (1974) concluded that the extent and intensity
of contact with peers was very different among students who
lived at home, off campus away from home, and on campus.

92
Although the nature of contact with peers may be different
for students in these residence settings, one of the findings
of this study is that their perceptions of peers on factors
such as genuineness and empathy are essentially the same
regardless of their living situation.
Did students in different settings "travel different
roads leading to the same destination"? Would continuing
differences in the extent and intensity of contact with
peers over a more extended period of time than was the case
for both this study and that of Graff and Cooley yield
different results? One interpretation of the data in this
study is that while students' perceptions of peers on certain
qualities have been found to be the same regardless of
residence group, this finding of no differences may not
remain the case, as suggested by Astin (1973), over a more
extended period of time.
Another interpretation of the data is that sufficient
time was allowed in the study for significant differences
to develop in students' perceptions of peers and that it is
unlikely that differences will emerge later as a function
of differing residence settings.
Still another interpretation of the data can be made if
the assumption is accepted that persons' perceptions of their
relationships with others are a function of how they see them
selves. One of the findings of this study is that there are
changes which take place in the self-concepts of students
during the freshman year and that there are significant
differences in certain aspects of self-concept that can be

93
attributed to differing housing arrangements among students.
No differences among the groups on perceptions of peers on
the factors studied have become apparent during the course
of this study. However, if aspects of the self-concept
continue to change as a function of residence, then percep
tions of peer relationships may change to the point that,
significant differences will be found among the groups.
Participation in Extracurricular Activities
The fourth and final research question in the statement
of the problem asked: "For those who persist in college,
is there a difference in participation in extracurricular
activities among students who live on campus, at home, or
in other off-campus housing?" Through a researcher-designed
Activities Questionnaire, three aspects of extracurricular
involvement were investigated. These aspects included
extent of involvement in various types of student organi
zations; leadership roles in campus organizations; and parti
cipation in other extracurricular activities, such as
intramurals, attendance at cultural and social events,
visits to campus cultural centers, and employment while
enrolled as a student. Significant differences were found
among the subsample groups in all three aspects of extra
curricular involvement which were investigated.
There is no consensus in available research on whether
or not participation in extracurricular activities is the
same among groups with differing housing arrangements.
Studies by Stewart (1969) and Barton (1972), which used the

94
College Student Questionnaire, as well as a multi-institu
tional study by Chickering (1974) support the view that
participation in extracurricular activities is significantly
greater among campus residents when compared with students
who live at home. Two other studies, one by Stark (1965)
and another by Sprague (1969), found no significant differences
in participation in extracurricular activities among students
according to where they lived. While some studies report
significant differences in extracurricular involvement among
the residence groups, more specific information about whether
differences existed among the groups in all or just some
of the activities is not available.
The results of this study support the findings of the
earlier studies using the College Student Questionnaire.
Part II of the College Student Questionnaire includes an
Extracurricular Involvement Scale. This scale measures
involvement in a number of organized extracurricular activ
ities, including student government, athletics, religious
groups, preprofessional clubs and the like.
This study used no overall measure in assessing involve
ment in organized extracurricular activities. Rather, level
of involvement in specific types of organizations or activ
ities was measured separately. The results, then, are more
specific than those reported in the earlier studies. One
of the findings of this study is that significant differences
existed among the subsample groups in level of involvement
in some types of organizations but not in others. Specific
differences were found in involvement in academically-

95
related organizations (such as preprofessional organizations
or honor societies) and in the "other organizations" cate
gory, which included R.O.T.C. and the University Band. No
significant differences were found in involvement in student
government-related organizations, social fraternities, or
sororities, campus service organizations, or campus religious
organizations.
This study supported the findings of Chickering (1974)
that there are substantial differences between students who
lived at home and campus residents in extracurricular activ
ities and experiences, yet it failed to support his conclusion
that "Compared with dormitory residents, substantial propor
tions (of students living at home) never in the course of
their college career attend a meeting of some college organi
zation or participate in student government" (p. 63). The
data in Table 15 show that, while participation was not as
great among students who lived at home, the differences
between those at home and those who lived on campus were not
significant for most types of campus organizations. The
findings of this study do, however, support Chickering's
finding that students who live at home have less frequently
participated in R.O.T.C. programs.
Chickering also drew the conclusion that substantial
proportions of students who live at home never attend
lectures, concerts or plays in comparison with students
who live on campus. The data developed by this study
failed to support Chickering's conclusion. A roughly

96
equal proportion of students in the subsample groups
attended a play, concert or out-of-class lecture during
the course of the freshman year. Although no significant
differences were found among the residence groups in these
particular activities, there were other significant differ
ences identified as a result of this study.
Students in the sample who lived off campus away from
home or on campus participated more in intramural sports
competition that those who lived at home. One possible
reason for this difference is that students who live at
home may have had long-established friendships in the
community, including some friends readily available for
afternoon or week-end basketball, tennis or other sports.
If this were the case, it would have substantially reduced
their need or desire for participation in the campus intra
mural program and account for their lesser participation
than other residence groups.
Also, for those students who lived at home, the odd
hours in the afternoon and evening when intramural games
are scheduled may have been too disruptive of family
routines; causing conflicts with meal hours and transpor
tation requirements of other family members. If this were
the case., there may have been less opportunity for these
students to participate in intramurals. The greater involve
ment of students who lived on campus and off campus away
from home in intramurals was statistically significant
at the .05 level. While participation in intramurals is
lower for students who lived at home, the data in Table 15

97
show that a large majority of these students participated
in intramural sports competition on campus. This researcher
believes that the availability of friends in the.community,
as well as the scheduling of intramural competition at times
that are inconvenient for students who live at home, are
factors most likely to be responsible for the differences
found among the subsample groups in participation in intra
murals.
Campus residents visited the Florida State Museum or
the University Gallery in significantly greater numbers than
was expected based on chi-square analysis, while far fewer
of those who lived at home than was expected had visited
the museum or gallery.
One explanation for this difference is that those students
who lived at home may have had sufficient exposure to these
campus cultural centers through high school field trips or
visits on their own or with family or friends prior to
their freshman year. Another explanation is that students
who lived at home, with the demands of family routines and
responsibilities, may have had less of an. opportunity to
seek out such cultural centers. Students who lived on campus
may have visited such centers in such large numbers primarily
as a consequence of their proximity to these centers and
their natural curiosity about the campus. A number of these
reasons cited may be operating together or with still other
factors to explain the results obtained.

98
This researcher believes it is quite likely that the
overwhelming majority of students who lived at home had
visited the museum in particular on one or more occasions
prior to their freshman year. The writer's knowledge of
field trips taken by pupils in the local school system
supports this view. The writer also believes that close
proximity of campus residents was the primary reason why
so large a number of students from that residence group had
visited these cultural centers.
Another item for which significant differences were
found to exist was the question: "Have you attended a dance
or party on the campus since the start of the fall quarter?"
Students who lived at home scored significantly higher than
was expected on this question, while others scored lower
than was expected. One of the possible explanations for
this difference is that students from Gainesville are nor
mally here while many other students leave on the weekends
when most social events planned by student organizations are
scheduled. Many students who lived off campus away from
home as well as campus residents reported steady boyfriends
or girlfriends at home; these may have chosen, therefore, not
to participate in campus social events. It may be that the
subsample of students who lived at home was a more socially-
oriented group. However, Chickering (1974) and other
researchers found no basis for such an assumption.
Another portion of the study of extracurricular activ
ities concerned the extent to which leadership roles
were held by those in the subsample groups. No previous

99
research on this aspect of participation in extracurricular
activities was available for comparison purposes. Sample
participants were asked: "Have you been selected for or
assumed a leadership role (i.e. officer, committee chair
person) in any campus organization since the start of the
fall quarter?" Students who lived off campus held leader
ship roles in the numbers expected; however, students who
lived at home fell significantly short of expectations and
students who lived on campus exceeded expectations.'
One possible interpretation of the data is that freshmen
who lived on campus have more leadership ability and that
those who lived at home have less leadership ability than
others. Another possible explanation is that many of the
opportunities cited were in organizations or settings in
which campus residents are more active, such as residence
hall government, R.O.T.C., and social fraternities and
sororities. One explanation for the difference noted
between students who lived at home and those who lived
off campus away from home is that off-campus students'
may have had more opportunity to assume leadership respon
sibilities since they were free of family routines and
responsibilities and perhaps less subject to transporta
tion problems.
With the exception of the first interpretation that
the groups differed in leadership ability, the researcher
believes that these explanations all contributed to the
outcome of the research on leadership role. There is
no reason to believe that groups differ in leadership

100
potential. Instead, their opportunities or motivation to
exercise their leadership abilities appear to vary as a
function of their residence setting.
Another finding of this study was that freshman males
were selected for or assumed leadership roles in signifi
cantly greater numbers than females in the sample. Although
participation in organized extracurricular activities was
not significantly different for females than for males,
freshman females on a predominantly male campus may have
dated more frequently than freshman males. This potential
difference in frequency in dating, with its resulting costs
in time, is one possible explanation for the lesser involve
ment in leadership roles among female students. Authori
tarian behavior, more.typical of the stage of development
of most freshmen according to Sanford (1962), may have been
responsible for adherence to traditional sex role behaviors
with greater assumption of leadership roles by males than
by females, despite their intelligence,leadership skills
and organizational abilities.
The researcher believes that a difference in frequency
in dating for freshman females and males, as well as the
continuance of some traditional sex role behaviors among
freshman students, were the main contributors to the
differences in the proportions of female and male students
who held leadership roles.

CHAPTER V
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
This chapter contains a brief overview of the purpose,
design and findings of the study, conclusions derived from
these findings, theoretical implications of the study,
implications for educational practice, and suggestions for
further research.
The study was undertaken to determine, through research
conducted on one campus, whether significant-differences
exist in student persistence, self-concept, peer relation
ships and participation in college life, when comparing
freshman students with differing housing arrangements. An
initial sample of 300 entering University of Florida fresh
men was selected using stratified systematic sampling
techniques. The sample included 50 females and 50 males
who lived at home, 50 females and 50 males who lived off
campus away from home, and 50 females and 50 males who
lived in campus residence halls.
A longitudinal research design was used. Pretest
materials were distributed by mail in late August of 197.6
and posttest materials were distributed and collected in
April of 1977. Two instruments, the Tennessee Self Concept
Scale and the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory were
administered as pretests and posttests to measure self-
concept and peer relationships respectively. The Registrar's
101

102
records were checked to collect information on enrollment
persistence for those in the sample. An Activities Question
naire was administered in April of 1977 to assess the level
of involvement in campus organizations, involvement in
leadership roles, and participation in other aspects of
campus life. Data on persistence and extracurricular involve
ment were analyzed using the inferential statistical technique
of chi square. Data on self-concept and peer relationships
were studied using regression analysis techniques. The
.05 level of significance was used throughout the study.
Over 68% of eligible persons in the sample returned pretest
and posttest materials.
Findings
The following were findings of this .study:
1. Significant differences in persistence were found among
males, but not females, according to where they lived.
Males who lived on campus had a significantly higher
level of persistence and males who lived at home had
a significantly lower level of persistence when
residence groups were compared.
2. Significant differences were found in certain aspects
of self-concept among groups with differing housing
arrangements. These differences were identified on
three subscales of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale:
identity, family self and social self.
3. No significant differences were found to exist among
the residence groups in students' perceptions of certain

103
qualities of their relationships with peers as measured
by the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory.
4. Significant differences in level of involvement in
certain types of campus organizations were found among
groups with differing housing arrangements. Campus
residents in the sample significantly exceeded expecta
tions at all levels of involvement in academically-
related organizations and "other organizations,"
particularly at the "fairly extensive" and the "very
extensive" levels. Students who lived at home fell
significantly short of expected levels of participation
in these types of organizations.
5. Students who lived off campus away from home held leader
ship roles in the expected numbers (as calculated using
chi square), while students who lived at home fell
significantly short of expectations and campus residents
significantly exceeded expectations.
6. When the residence groups wre compared on participation
in other aspects of campus life, significant differences
were found on three categories: intramurals, visits
to campus cultural centers, and attendance at a dance
or party on the campus. Those who lived on campus partici
pated in intramural sports competition in numbers signifi
cantly greater than expected. Participation was signifi
cantly less that expected among those who lived at home.
The number of campus residents who visited the Florida
State Museum or the University Gallery significantly
exceeded expectations, while students who lived off campus

104
away from home had visited these cultural centers in
the expected numbers. Among students who lived at home,
the number who had visited one of these centers was
significantly below the number expected. In comparing
students in these residence groups on whether they
attended a dance or party on campus since the start of
the 1976 fall quarter, those who lived at home signifi
cantly exceeded attendance expectations, while the
other two groups had attendance levels that were signifi
cantly below expectations.
Conclusions
In light of the findings of this study, the following
conclusions are drawn:
1. There was a difference in persistence at the University
of Florida among students who lived on campus, at home,
or in other off-campus housing. The difference was
significant for males, but not for females. The data
clearly indicate that a campus residence hall was the
best place for a freshman male to live in order to
maximize his chances of persisting at the University.
Attrition rates were highest for male students who lived
at home during their freshman year. This study suggests
that living at home is the best choice for a female
to maximize her chances of persisting at the University,
although the results are not significant at the .05
level. For females, attrition rates were highest among
those who lived off campus away from home.

105
For those who persisted in college, there was a change
in self-concept over the course of the freshman year.
Change differed on the basis of residence for certain
aspects of self-concept, as measured by the Tennessee
Self Concept Scale.
a.) For females with low initial identity scores,
a decision to live on campus had a negative
effect on the development' of identity during
the course of the freshman year.
b.) For students with poor initial family self
and social self scores, a decision to live
off campus away from home was a choice that
results in more positive growth in self-
concept within the confines of a small group.
This choice of developmental setting, however,
provides inadequate opportunities to develop
greater confidence and skills in social
relationships.
c.) For females with high initial family self and
social self scores, a decision to live off
campus away from home results in perceptions
of self in reference to their living group
that are not as strong as those held by persons
in other residence settings. Residing off
campus away from home had a positive effect
on the social self-confidence of this group
of females.

106
3. No significant differences were found during the freshman
year among those who persisted at the University when
measuring particular qualities of their relationships
with peers through use of the Barrett-Lennard Relation
ship Inventory. Regardless of what variations may exist
in the extent and intensity of contact with peers for
students with differing housing arrangements, perceptions
of peers on factors such as genuineness and empathy is
essentially the same for all residence groups.
4. Among those who persisted at the University, students
who lived on campus, in comparison with students in
other residence groups, are more fully involved in
academically-related organizations and in certain other
organizations (such as R.O.T.C. and the University Band).
Campus residents are elected to or assume leadership
roles in campus organizations during their freshman
year far more often than is true of students from other
residence groups. Although there are differences among
students from the three residence settings in partici
pation in intramurals, visits to campus cultural centers,
and attendance at dances and parties on campus, these
findings are not of major consequence in considering the
developmental impact of residence setting on freshmen.
Implications of the Study
The findings and conclusions of this study have a number
of theoretical implications concerning student persistence
in college, self-concept, peer relationships, extracurricular

107
involvement, and the impact of differing living arrangements
on students.
The finding of significant differences in persistence
among males according to residence group agrees substantially
with previous research by Astin (1975) and Chickering (1974)
and provides additional support for Chickering's theoretical
position that the campus residence environment, in comparison
with other residence settings, has a strong positive impact
on students.
No overall differences were found in persistence in
comparing female and male students. Studies by Iffert (1957)
Astin and Panos (1969) and others also found no significant
differences in attrition rates for men and women. These
studies reported, however, that.men and women do not with
draw from college for the same reasons. Such findings
led to the decision to design this study to determine whether
or not differences existed between the sexes as well as
among residence groups. The finding of different levels
of persistence among those in the three residence settings
supports the theoretical position advanced by Cope (1975).
Cope maintained that student persistence is primarily a
product of experiences of students in the college environment
The results of this study provide sufficient evidence to
guide future researchers in selecting their samples and
analyzing their data according to sex as well as according
to residence group when studying the impact of differing
living arrangements on students.

108
The results of this study indicate that there is an
association between high levels of persistence and extensive
involvement in certain aspects of college life for males
who lived on campus. For male students who lived at home,
there was an association between low levels of persistence
and a low level of involvement in college life. These
findings provide additional support for Astin's (1975)
Theory of College Persistence, which holds that "a student's
tendency to drop out of college is inversely related to
the degree of direct involvement in the academic and social
life of the institution" (Astin, 1975, p.'175).
In assessing the impact of differing housing arrange
ments on the self-concepts of students, researchers and
theorists have made general statements about the positive
or negative influences of particular types of environments
on students. The findings of this study indicate that
such statements do not hold true for certain types of
students in the residence groups. Chickerings (1974)
theoretical position that living on campus has a strong
positive impact on the self-concept of students cannot
be supported as true for all types of students in light
of the findings of this study. Females with low initial
identity scores should not necessarily live on campus
unless special assistance can be provided that will aid
these students in the development of a positive identity.
Those with poor initial perceptions of self in relation
to family members should also not necessarily live on

109
campus unless special attention can be given to these
students to help them overcome self-concept problems
rooted in their home environment.
The findings of this study also provide some insight
into another theoretical position of Chickering (1975),
namely that campus residence has a positive effect on relation
ships with peers. Chickering's research focused on measuring
specific behaviors with peers, such as frequency of beer
drinking and dating. The extent to which specific behaviors
with peers are in evidence is not necessarily related to
students' perceptions of the quality of their relationships
with peers. In this study, students' perceptions of certain
qualities of their relationships with peers were measured
using the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory. The fact
that no differences were found to exist among the residence
groups may lead to a reappraisal of the kinds of evidence
that may be necessary before one accepts as true the state
ment that campus residence has a positive effect on relation
ships with peers.
Another theoretical position taken by Chickering is
that there are substantial differences in the college
experiences and activities of students who live at home and
those who live on campus. Chickering believes that these
widespread differences in participation in college life
result in those who live at home being disadvantaged,
"missing the diverse possibilities that fuller and wider
ranging participation offers" (Chickering, 1974, p. 63).

110
The results of this study document differences among the
residence groups that are far less substantial than were
found by Chickering in his research or in a study by the
American Council on Education to which he referred (p. 59).
The results of this study indicate that there are signifi
cant differences among the residence groups in involvement
in academically-related organizations, certain other organiza
tions, and leadership roles held during the freshman year.
There were no substantial differences in participation in
most other types of organizations or extracurricular activ
ities.
The findings of this study have a number of implications
for educational practice. This study has provided additional
support for the following conclusions that are consistent
with previous studies: persistence is affected by choice
of residence setting and extracurricular involvement can
have a positive impact on persistence. Such findings could
be extremely useful if shared with those who could benefit
most from thementering students and their parents. These
persons should know that for males, attrition is highest
among those who begin their freshman year living at home.
Another fact which should be shared is that the highest
level of attrition among females is for those who live
off-campus away from home. Entering.students and their
parents should know that participation in extracurricular
activities is generally a'positive factor rather than a
negative factor in persistence. Decisions that affect
persistence, self-concept and other aspects during the

Ill
freshman year could then be made in light of available
knowledge once it is shared rather than in ignorance.
It is recommended that findings such as these, which have
been well-researched and for which there is generally a
consensus in the literature, be shared through appropriate
media such as admissions literature, alumni magazines,
the college catalog and campus housing publications. Such
information can also be shared as a part of presentations
and discussions in summer orientation programs held on
many campuses.
The importance of self-concept in achieving successful
educational experiences has been noted in the literature.
More successful educational experiences can be achieved
if students with self-concept problems can be identified
and help provided until these problems are.overcome. The
findings of this study in the area of self-concept are
meaningless for educational practice if there is no process
through which those with self-concept problems can be
identified. One way of identifying students with self-
concept problems would be by obtaining a measure of self-
concept for all entering students through the cooperation
of the Admissions Office or the Student Services Office.
The computerized version of the Tennessee Self Concept
Scale could be sent to each entering freshman student at
the same time as or following notification of admission.
Once these instruments were collected, they could be sent
in bulk for scoring to minimize costs, then returned to
student affairs staff. These professional staff could then

112
begin contacting students with self-concept problems to share
the meaning of their scores and to assist them in developing
more positive self-concepts during their college years.
The results of this study, for example, indicate that
campus residence has a negative effect on females with low
initial identity scores and students with poor perceptions
of self in relation to family members. If these students can
be identified and the factors in campus living environments
that negatively affect identity for these students can be
identified, then residence hall staff or other student
affairs staff can be in a position to help the student under
stand the factors involved and determine the steps that can
be taken to achieve a stronger self-concept.
There are a number of ways that student affairs staff
can stimulate greater involvement of students who live at
home and in other off-campus housing. For example, results
of this study could be shared with the student leaders and
faculty advisors of professional clubs on campus and freshman
honor societies, as well as with faculty involved in the
University Band and R.O.T.C. programs. Such persons could
be encouraged to recruit potential members more actively
from these residence groups. Some suggestions and training
in recruiting methods.could be made available to these
groups by student affairs staff.
Leadership opportunities need to be made more available
to entering freshmen students who live at home. The
students who live at home comprise a relatively small and

113
easily identifiable proportion of the freshman population
at the University. Student affairs staff could provide
leadership training opportunities, periodic newsletters on
organizations and certain activities, and individual contact
specifically geared to the needs of this group of students
to facilitate the development of their leadership skills.
This research has identified some significant differences
among students with differing living arrangements. The posi
tive influence of the residence hall environment on many
students in many ways has been demonstrated. There can be
no doubt that the positive impact of campus living can be
maintained and enhanced if the housing program is given
leadership by persons committed to building residence hall
environments that are conducive to learning and personal
development. A diversified campus housing program with
leadership committed to this educational approach can offer
important support systems and opportunities for personal
growth through interaction with peers and staff in various -
activities, challenges to those more advanced develop-
mentally, and special assistance for those who need help
with developmental problems and crises during the college
years.
There are several limitations of this study which must
be considered before an administrator, parent or student
should take action on the basis of the results obtained.
Only to the extent that other populations possess a similar
pattern of characteristics of the specified population

114
of entering freshmen at the University of Florida are the
results generalizable beyond the sample studied. Sample
size is another factor to consider, particularly in light
of the number of persons in the initial sample who did not
enroll in September of 1976 as expected and the number of
persons who did not return pretest or posttest materials.
The nature of the instruments and the fact that no attempt
was made to control the settings in which the data were
collected are other factors that limit the reader's ability
to generalize on the basis of the results obtained.
Suggestions for Further Research
In the course of collecting, analyzing and interpreting
the data for this study, the researcher identified a number
of suggestions for further research. One area for further,
investigation is that of the impact of various residence
settings on minority students, particularly black students,
as compared to other students. On the basis of a number of
comments which were written on instruments collected, there
is a need to determine whether the impact of certain living
arrangements is different for these students.
Further research is needed to identify major factors
in each type of living environment that positively or nega
tively affect persistence. Some experimental studies could
be designed to assess the effects of modifying the campus
living environment in selected residence halls in certain
ways in an effort to reduce attrition among entering freshman
students, especially females.

115
Another research question suggested by the findings of
this study is why the campus living environment was a negative
influence on females with low initial identity scores. A
study could also be undertaken to identify the factors in the
campus living environment that adversely affect students with
poor perceptions of self in relation to family members.
The significant differences between female and male
students that were identified in several aspects of this
research should stimulate a number of studies. Further
research is needed to identify the factors responsible for
the differences in persistence levels of females and males
in relation to particular types of housing arrangements.
The causes of the significant differences between females
and males in personal self scores on the Tennessee Self
Concept Scale is another topic suggested for further research.
Freshman males were found in this study to be more involved
in leadership roles (at the .05 level) than freshman females.
The factors responsible for this difference between the
sexes should be identified. Studies of females and males
in leadership roles categorized by type of organization should
also be undertaken.
\
The impact of differing living arrangements on peer
relationships should be studied more fully using the Barrett-
Lennard Relationship Inventory over a more extended period of
time. Other instruments should be used in the study, of this
topic as well in order to investigate aspects of peer relation
ships which cannot be studied by the Relationship Inventory.

116
Participation in extracurricular activities by students
with differing living arrangements should be studied over a
more extended time period. A pretest designed to determine
the extent of involvement in various extracurricular activ
ities by students during high school should be used in future
studies of this nature.
These suggestions would, if implemented, contribute
to a better understanding of the results obtained in this
study and could provide significant new knowledge about
student development in higher education.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
Dear Student:
One of the functions of the Office of Student Affairs is
to conduct research on the changing needs, characteristics,
and experiences of students at the University of Florida in
order to continue to improve the quality of the college ex
perience for students. In selecting a sample of 300 students
for one such research study, your name was drawn from a list
of all entering students enrolled at the University for the
first time this fall.
The two questionnaires enclosed ask about your percep
tions of yourself and about relationships with your high
school peer group. It will only take a few minutes to com
plete these materials.
Your answers will be treated confidentially by research
ers at the University and results will be reported only in
summary form representing groups of entering students. Iden
tification numbers are used so that we can log in the ques
tionnaires received and also to have the unique numbers
needed for computer analysis.
This study is being conducted in two phases. Materials
for the first segment are enclosed with this letter and
another set will be sent to your local mailing address in
April of 1977.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. Results
of research projects conducted through the University's Office
of Student Affairs during the 1976-77 academic year will be
available during the latter part of the 1977 spring quarter
in the Education Library, Norman Hall.
Sincerely,
Arthur Sandeen
Vice President for
Student Affairs
118

119
Dear Student:
Your assistance earlier this academic year with a research
study of entering freshmen is very much appreciated. As was
noted in my earlier letter to you, this study is being con
ducted in two phases, with the final phase scheduled during
the month of April.
The questionnaires enclosed ask about your perceptions
of yourself, about relationships with your college peer group,
and about your involvement in college activities. It will
only take a few minutes to complete these materials.
Your answers will be treated confidentially and results
will be reported in summary form representing groups of enter
ing students. Identification numbers are used so that we can
log in the questionnaires received and also to have the
unique numbers needed for computer analysis.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. Results
of research projects conducted through the Student Affairs
Research Group during, the 1976-77 academic year will be avail
able during the latter part of the 1977 Spring quarter in
the Education Library, Norman Hall.
Sincerely,
Arthur Sandeen
Vice President for
Student Affairs

120
ADDRESS INFORMATION SHEET
In order to have the second set of materials sent to
you in April of 1977, researchers will need to have address
information for you and others included in the sample.
Please complete this sheet to let researchers know what
your planned place of residence is for the upcoming school
year.
Name : .
Last First Middle
I.If you plan to live on campus in University residence
halls, please check here Researchers will
obtain a current address in April from the Housing
Office.
II.If you plan to live off campus in or near Gainesville,
A. Please write in your planned address here:
Street Address of Box No.
Town or City Zip Code
B. Check one:
_____ Will live with parent (s) grandparent (s) ,
aunt and/or uncle
Will live off campus away from home of
parent(s), grandparent(s), aunt and/or
uncle
III.Please write your permanent address below. Researchers
will attempt to contact you through this address if
unable to locate your correct mailing address in the
Gainesville area in April.
Street Address or Box No.
Town or City
Zip Code
PLEASE PLACE THIS SHEET, ALONG WITH YOUR COMPLETED
QUESTIONNAIRES, IN THE POSTPAID ENVELOPE. THANK
YOU.

APPENDIX B
BARRETT-LENNARD RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY
Below are listed a variety of ways that one person could
feel or behave in relation to another person. Please consider
each statement with respect to whether you think it is true
or not true in your relationships with your high school peer
group. Circle your response to each statement in the left-
hand margin according to how strongly you feel it is true
or not true. Please circle a response to every statement.
The numbers to be circled in the left-hand column stand for
the following answers:
+1: I feel it is probably true,or more true than untrue.
+2: I feel it is true.
+3: I strongly feel it is true.
-1: I feel it is probably untrue, or more untrue than true
-2: I feel it is not true.
-3: I strongly feel it is not true.
+1
+2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
1.
They respect me.
+1
+ 2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
2.
They pretend that they like me or
understand me more than they really do.
+1
+ 2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
3.
They understand my words but not
the way I feel.
+1
+2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
. 4.
They are interested in knowing what
my experiences mean to me.
+1
+ 2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
5.
They are disturbed whenever I talk
about certain things.
+1
+2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
6.
They like seeing me.
+1
+2
+3
-1
-2
-3
7.
They behave just the way they are
in our relationship.
+1
+ 2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
8.
They appreciate me.
+1
+ 2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
9.
I do not think that they hide anything
from themselves that they feel with me.
+1
+2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
10.
They care about me.
+1
+ 2
+3
-1
-2
-3
11.
Their own attitudes toward some of
the things I say, or do, stop them
from really understanding me.
+1
+ 2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
12.
I feel I can trust them to be honest
with me.
121

122
+1 +2+3 -1 2 -3 13. Sometimes they are warmly responsive
to me; at other times cold and
disapproving.
+1+2 +3 -1 -2 -3 14. They are interested in me.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 15. They appreciate what my experiences
feel like to me.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 16. Depending on their mood, they some
times respond to me with more warmth
and interest than they do.at other
times.
+1 +2 +3-1 -2 -3 17. They do not really care what happens
to me.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 18. They do not realize how strongly I
feel about some of the things we
discuss.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 19. There are times when I feel that
their outward response to me is
quite different from their inner
reaction to me.
+1 +2 +3 -1-2 -3 20. Their general feeling toward me
varies considerably.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 21. They seem to really value me.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 22. I don't think they are being honest
with themselves about the way they
feel toward me.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 23. I feel they are being genuine with me.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 24. Sometimes they respond quite positively
to me, at other times they seem
indifferent. -
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 25. Sometimes they are not at all
comfortable but we go on, outwardly
ignoring it.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 26. They usually understand all of what
I say to them.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 27. They do not try to mislead me about
their own thoughts or feelings.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 28. They regard me as a disagreeable
person.

123
+1
+2
+3
-1
-2
-3
29.
At times they feel contempt for me.
+1
+ 2
+3
-1
-2
-3
30.
When I do not say what I mean at
all clearly they still understand
me.
+1
+2
+3
-1
-2
-3
31.
They feel deep affection for me.
+ 1
+2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
32.
If I feel negatively toward them,
they respond negatively to me.

APPENDIX C
ACTIVITIES QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire is designed to assess the level of
involvement of freshman students at the University of Florida
in campus organizations and certain types of extracurricular
activities. Your answers will be treated confidentially by
researchers at the University and results will be reported
only in summary form representing groups of freshman students.
Please place an "X" in the appropriate spaces below to
accurately reflect your level of involvement in the following
organizations or activities:
A. Student Level of Participation
Organizations Not at To a small Fairly Very
all extent Extensive Extensive
1.A student
government-
related
organization
(i.e., student
senate, execu
tive branch
including sub
cabinet, college
council, area
council, SPG,
ACCENT)
2.A social
fraternity or
sorority
3.A campus
service
organization
4.A professional
organization
or society
representing
a particular
academic field
5.A campus
religious
organization
6.Other (specify)
124

125
Have you been selected for or assumed a leadership role
(i.e., officer, committee chairperson) in any campus organiza
tion since the start of the 1976 Fall quarter? yes no
If yes, specify type of organization and leadership role.
B. Other Extracurricular Activities
1. Have you participated in intramural
sports competition on campus? yes no
2. Have you attended a play or a
concert on the campus since
September? yes _no
3. Have you attended an ACCENT
lecture or other out-of-class
lecture featuring a distin
guished speaker since
September? yes no
4. Have you visited the Florida .
State Museum or the University
Gallery since the start of the
1976 Fall quarter? yes no
5. Have you attended a dance or
party on the campus since the
start of the 1976 Fall quarter? yes no
6. Have you worked on campus or
for a local business for a period
of time while enrolled at the
University (excluding quarter
break periods)? yes no
7. Indicate below any other
University-related extra
curricular activities in
which you have been involved
since September? yes no

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alfert, E. Developmental stage and choice of residence in
college. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1968,
9 (2), 90-93: ; :
Arbuckle, D. S., Du Mars, L. and Bently, J. A study of
residence hall freshmen women. Journal of Higher
Education, 1957, 28 (7), 384-387..
Ashcraft, C. and Fitts, W. H. Self-concept change in
psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 1964, 1 (3), 115-118.
Astin, A. W. The impact of dormitory living on students.
Educational Record, 1973, 54_, 204-210.
Astin, A. W. Preventing students from dropping out. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975.
Astin, A. W. and Panos, J. The educational and vocational
development of college students. Washington: American
Council on Education, 1969.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. Dimensions of therapist response
as causal factors in therapeuticchange. Psychological
Monographs, 1962, 76^, (43, Whole #562) .
Barton, Bruce C. The effects of place of residence upon
value development in college students. (Doctoral
dissertation, 1972) Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national, 1972, 33, 2727A. (University Microfilms
No. 72-32130) .
Burton, M. D. A study of the relationship between personality
characteristics, demographic data, and extracurricular
participation. (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia
Polytechnical Institute and State University, 1976).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976, 31_, 1486A
(University Microfilms No. 76-19882) .
Chickering, A. W. Commuting versus resident students. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
Chickering, A. W. Education and identity, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1969.
Committee on the Student in Higher Education. The student
in higher education. New Haven: The Hayen Foundation,
1968.
126

127
Cope, R. and Hannah, W. Revolving college doors; The causes
and consequences of dropping out., stopping out, and
transferring. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1975.
DeCoster, D. A. Some effects of different classroom conditions
upon interpersonal relationships, personal adjustment,
and achievement for college freshmen. Doctoral disserta
tion, University of Florida, 1970.
Erikson, E. H. Childhood and society. New York: W. W.
Norton, 1950.
Feldman, K. A. College and student. New York: Pergamon
Press, 1972.
Fitts, W. H. Manual for Tennessee Self Concept Scale.
Nashville: Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1965.
Fox, D. J. The research process in education. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.
Frederick, R. W. Student activities in American education.
New York: Center for Applied Research in Education,
Inc., 1965.
Gilligan, J. F. Student activity programs in community
junior colleges. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Florida, 1967.
Gividen, G. M. Stress in airborne training as related to
the self-concept, motivation,and biographical factors.
Unpublished master's thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1959.
Goble, R. I. A study of the student drop-out problem at
Miami University. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana
University, 1956). Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national, 1956, 17, 61. (University Microfilms No.
57-103).
Gough, H. Manual, California Psychological Inventory.
Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1958.
Graff, R. W. and Cooley, G. R. Adjustment of commuter and
resident students. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 1970, 11 (1), 54-57.
Hansen, J. C., Zimpfer, D. G., and Easterling, R. E. A
study of the relationships in multiple counseling.
Journal of Educational Research, 1966, 6_0, 461-463.
Harnett, R. T. Involvement in extracurricular activities
as a factor in academic performance. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 1965, 6, 272-274.

128
Harrell, M. A. The self-concept of alcholics during the
process of abstinence. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Florida, 1976.
Heath, D. Growing up in college. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1968.
Heath, R. Higher education and the development of persons.
NASPA Journal, 1969, 6 (4), 215-222.
Iffert, R. E. Retention and withdrawal of college students.
Washington! U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, Office of Education, 1957.
Kauffman, J. F. The student in higher education. In
L. E. Dennis and J. F. Kauffman (Eds.), The college
and the student. Washington: American Council on
Education, 1966.
Kos, L. V. Administering the secondary school. New York:
American Book Co., 1940.
Lanning, W. L. A study.of the relation between group and
individual counseling supervision and three relationship
measures. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1971,
is (5), 401-406. : : :
Larson, P. and Laramee, W. Model for identifying and
responding to stress periods of students. NASPA
Journal, 1976, 14, 44-49.
Lloyd-Jones, E. M., Watson, G. B., and Cottrell, D. P.
Redirecting teacher education. New York: Columbia
University, 1938.
Maxon, R. C. and Malone, B. The influence of peer groups
on secondary school students. The Clearinghouse,
1977, .50, 191-193.
Morstain, B. Th importance of student interaction in the
freshman year. NASPA Journal, 1972, 9^ (4)., 283-287.
Newcomb, T. M. and Feldman, K. A. The impact of college on
students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969.
Plant, W. T. Longitudinal changes in intolerance and
authoritarianism for subjects differing in amount
of college education over four years. Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 1965, 72_, ,247-287.
Powell, J. R., Plyler, S. A., Dickson, B. A. and McClellan,
S. D. The personnel assistant in college residence
halls. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1969.
Purkey, W. W. Self-concept and academic achievement.
Gainesville: Florida Educational Research and
Development Council, 1967.

129
Purkey, W. W. Self concept and school achievement. Engle
wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970.
Riker, H.C. College housing as learning centers. Washington
D. C.: American College Personnel Association, 1965.
Robinson, D. W. and Brown, D. W. A report on student and
student personnel work research activities.. Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 1961, 4.0, 358-360.
Rogers, C. R. Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1951.
Sanford, N. The approach of the authoritarian personality.
In J. L. Me Cary (Ed.), Psychology of personality.
New York: Logos Press, 1956.
Sanford, N. (Ed.). The American college. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1962.
Sanford, N. (Ed.). College and character. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1964.
Sanford, N. Where colleges fail-A study of the student as .
a person. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1967.
Segal, S. J. Implications of residential setting for develop
ment during college. Journal of College Student Person
nel, 1967, 8 (5), 308-310.
Sherif, M. and Sherif, C. Reference groups. New York:
Harper and Row, 1964.
Sprague, D. S. A comparative study of certain intellectual
and non-intellectual factors of university freshmen
based upon place of residence. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of South Dakota, 1969). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1969, 30^, 2387A. (University
Microfilms No. 69-20618).
Stark, M. Commuter and residence hall students compared.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1965, 4-4_ (3) 277-281.
Stewart, M. A. A comparison of commuting and. resident
students on an urban campus. (Doctoral dissertation,
Ohio State University, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1973, 3J3, 2812A (University Microfilms
No. 69-22214).
Summerskill, J. Dropouts from college. In N. Sanford (Ed.),
The American college. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1962.

130
Toppe, C. M. A cross-sectional study of the effects of
teacher facilitativeness, group facilitativeness,
and length of time in group upon students 1 perception
of selves. Doctoral dissertation, University of
Florida, 1977.
Vaughan, R. P. Involvement in extracurricular activities
and dropout. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1968, 9, 60-61.
Weibe, B. and Pearce, W. B. An item-analysis and revision
of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory. Journal
Of Clinical Psychology, 1973, 2_9, 495-97.
Weston, L. C. and Stein, S. L. The relationship of the
identity achievement of college women and campus
participation. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1977, 18 (1) 21^24~! '
Williams, D. E. and Reilley, R. R. The impact of residence
halls on students. Journal of College Student Personnel,
1972, 13 (5), 402-410.
Wylie, R. C. The self concept. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 1961.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Stephen Russell Haulman was born December 2, 1945,
in Altoona, Pennsylvania. He was reared in New Orleans,
Louisiana, where he attended public schools until grad
uation in 1963 from John McDonogh Senior High School.
He attended the University of Southwestern Louisiana in
Lafayette and was graduated in 1967 with a Bachelor of
Science degree in business administration. In August of
1971, he received a Master of Education degree from the
University of Florida, with a major in social foundations
of education. He has served on the professional staff
of the Division of Housing at the University of Florida
since 1968 and currently serves as Assistant Director of
Housing. In June of 1978, he received a Doctor of
Education degree with a major in educational administration
emphasizing higher education. During his attendance at
the University of Florida, he was active in Phi Delta
Kappa, serving as Vice President, Chapter Editor and
Historian. He has held membership in several national
and regional professional organizations, including the
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators,
the Association of College and University Housing Officers,
131

132
the Southeastern Association of Housing Officers, the
American College Personnel Association, and the Southern
College Personnel Association during his years of
professional service and graduate studies at the
University of Florida.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree Of Doctor of Education.
ilph B. Kimbrough
Professor of Education
Chairman
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education.
Dr. Harold
Professor
ti L
I. v-
C. Riker
of Education
I certify that I have ready this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education.
birger
James L. Wattenbfiirger
rofessor of Education

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
the Department of Educational Administration in the College
of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted
as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Education.
June 1978
Dean, Graduate School

Internet Distribution Consent Agreement
August 2007
7|a^
In reference to the following dissertation:
Author: H cx I *vn ckvn j ^ ^ u ^ j £ £ Q
Title. (A- j P?
Publication Date:
I, Ru^-a^SiL /y4xuJL^-\ as copyright holder for the
aforementioned dissertation, hereby grant specific and limited archive and distribution
rights to the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida and its agents. I authorize the
University of Florida to digitize and distribute the dissertation described above for
nonprofit, educational purposes via the Internet or successive technologies.
This is a non-exclusive grantof permissions for specific off-line and on-line uses for an
indefinite term. Off-line uses, shall be limited to those specifically allowed by "Fair Use"
as prescribed by the terms of United States copyright legislation (cf, Title 17, U.S. Code)
as well as to the maintenance -and preservation Of a digital archive copy. Digitization
allows the University of Florida to genetrtd ¡Stage- anduitext-based versions as
appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search softyyarf.
This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized veronsufoRcommercial use or
Personal information blurred
to %
Date of Signature
Return this form to: Cathy Martyniak
Preservation Dept.,
University of Florida Libraries
P.O. Box 117007
Gainesville, FL 32611-7007



29
Selected Educational Benefits
and the College Experience
Self-Concept
One of the major developmental needs of freshman students,
as was identified by The Committee on the Student in Higher
Education, is the enhancement of self-concept (p. 11).
Erikson (1950) also identified the achievement of a personal
sense of identity as the main growth task of the adolescent
stage of development. He described achievement of identity
as a gradual process involving exploration and trying out of
alternative values and goals and resulting in a commitment
to a particular set of values. Segal (1967) has commented
on the implications of various residence settings for achieve
ment of identity in maturing college students.
But different settings allow different kinds of
testing, trying, and doing, and the choice of
one or another setting suggests different strat
egies and tactics in terms of,the primacy of
different needs with the person. (p. 309)
Segal has pointed out that the living arrangements of
college students differ in the extent to which the process
of achieving identity is "worked through directly within
the concept of family, with greater or less emphasis on
peer culture as a critical factor, with variation in who sets
the rules and for what" (Segal, 1967, p. 309). He noted
that each setting offers possibilities for personal growth
toward maturity as well as opportunities to avoid the
trials inherent in achieving identity.


109
campus unless special attention can be given to these
students to help them overcome self-concept problems
rooted in their home environment.
The findings of this study also provide some insight
into another theoretical position of Chickering (1975),
namely that campus residence has a positive effect on relation
ships with peers. Chickering's research focused on measuring
specific behaviors with peers, such as frequency of beer
drinking and dating. The extent to which specific behaviors
with peers are in evidence is not necessarily related to
students' perceptions of the quality of their relationships
with peers. In this study, students' perceptions of certain
qualities of their relationships with peers were measured
using the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory. The fact
that no differences were found to exist among the residence
groups may lead to a reappraisal of the kinds of evidence
that may be necessary before one accepts as true the state
ment that campus residence has a positive effect on relation
ships with peers.
Another theoretical position taken by Chickering is
that there are substantial differences in the college
experiences and activities of students who live at home and
those who live on campus. Chickering believes that these
widespread differences in participation in college life
result in those who live at home being disadvantaged,
"missing the diverse possibilities that fuller and wider
ranging participation offers" (Chickering, 1974, p. 63).


Posttest Scores
59
campus and who had high identity pretest scores performed
almost as well on the identity section of the posttest as
other sample participants with high identity pretest scores.
Figure 2
A Comparison of Identity Scores
of Subsample Groups
The second subscale yielding significant results on
certain parameters was the personal self scale. The data
in Table 7 show that the t tests for the paramters for
this subscale were significant for g3, g6, and Bg. Figure 3
illustrates the finding that female sample participants


38
unsuitability related to type of institution or major field
of study; financial circumstances; personal or emotional
adjustment problems.
Both Astin (1975) and Cope and Hannah (1975) have
concluded that student attrition and student persistence
in college are primarily a product of experiences of students
in the college environment. Cope and Hannah have concisely
stated their conclusions based on reviews of the literature
on persistence and their own research:
Most quantitative research (such as admissions
data) is without value in either predicting
withdrawal or understanding the reasons for
discontinuance, since such research considers
a limited number of variables, usually easily
quantified, such as high school grade point
averages, college entrance test scores, parents'
income, socioeconomic class background, partici
pation in high school activities, and the like.
In addition, the reasons for discontinuance are
usually complex, overlapping, often have nothing
to do with the student, and in some instances
may not even be recognized by the student.
Changed vocational choice, poor choice of the
college in the first place, meeting a loved one
and transferring to be with him or her, dissatis
faction with the college, fulfilling less than
degree expectation, and other multifaceted issues
are involved in withdrawal.
It seems clear too, that there is no dropout per
sonality, only individual personalities interacting
with different campus environments, at various
times in their mutual and changing lives. (p. 102)
Based on a review of previous studies, Astin (1975)
identified the following student background characteristics
that may be used in predicting which freshmen persist and
which do not. These factors are ability, high school grades,
socioeconomic status, educational aspirations, and the
student's own predictions on chances of his or her completing


63
The following results can be drawn from the data collected
and analyzed on self-concept:
1. Changes in self-concept occurred among sample participants
during their freshman year.
2. When compared with other students who had low identity
scores on the pretest, females who lived on campus had
lower identity scores on the posttest. However, when
compared with other students who had high identity
scores on the pretest, females who lived on campus
scored about as high on the post test.
3. When those- students who had low personal self scores
on the pretest were compared, females had higher
personal self scores than males on the posttest.
4. When compared with students in other residence groups
who had low family self scores on the pretest, students
who lived off campus away from home had higher family
self scores on the posttest. However, when compared
with other students who had high family self scores
on the pretest, students who lived off campus away from
home had lower family self scores on the posttest.
5. When compared with other students who had low social
self scores on the pretest, females who lived on campus
and at home had higher social self scores on the posttest.
Of the students with high social self scores on the
pretest, females who lived on campus and at home had
the highest social seif scores on the posttest, followed
by males, who were followed by females who lived off
campus away from home.


33
Maxon and Malone (1977) noted that the increase in the
influence of the peer group is a function of a changing
culture. In describing the increasing power of the peer
group in shaping values, they have said, "Today, however,
due to his frequent contact with peers, plus the increasing
absence of his parents from the home, the peer group has
provided the model that has become as important a socializing
agent as the home" (Maxon and Malone, 1977, p. 191).
Relationships with other students can profoundly affect
individual patterns of development. The importance of these
relationships with peers was recognized by The Committee on
the Student in Higher Education (1968):
Just as the friendship group controls production
on a factory assembly line and cohesiveness in a
military squad, so the student friendship group
helps determine what is learned in the college,
how it is learned, and what effect both knowledge
and the learning experience have on the student's
total personality. While our knowledge of how
the friendship group can contribute positively
to the educational process is still meager, the
importance of peer group influence is so obvious
that we must rapidly acquire more knowledge of
how it works and integrate it into the educational
experiencehopefully, without attempting to
manipulate it. (p. 13)
Powell, et al. (1969), Newcomb (1964) and others have
also recognized the strong influence of peers. Newcomb
described the isolation from contact with more mature adults,
which the freshman who is away from home typically experi
ences through greatly reduced contact with parents and
infrequent contact with faculty outside the classroom.
Against this background, Newcomb commented on peer group
formation and the impact of such groups on students:


21
instrument. All of the items contained in the instrument
refer to different aspects of extracurricular involvement;
therefore, it can be concluded that the Activities Question
naire is a valid measurement of participation in extra
curricular activities. The Activities Questionnaire is
included in Appendix C
Analysis of the Data
Analyses of the research questions in the statement of
the problem were accomplished through the use of descriptive,
inferential and correlational statistics. The inferential
statistical technique of chi square was used to test the
significance of any differences that existed among the sub
sample groups on persistence and participation in extra
curricular activities. The .05 level of significance was
used to evaluate the chi-square tests for contingency
tables. Regression analysis was used to predict posttest
scores for students in the sample on the Tennessee Self
Concept Scale and the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory.
A regression model was constructed using three factors
(sex, type of residence and pretest scores on the instrument)
Using a S.A.S. computer program, estimates were computed for
each parameter of the model. F tests were conducted to
determine how good the model was in predicting posttest
scores. The t tests were conducted on the hypothesis that
each parameter equalled zero. The .05 level of significance
was used to evaluate the results of these t tests. Descrip
tive statistics were used in describing pretest and posttest


77
level were found among the residence groups in level of
participation in academically-related organizations, such
as professional clubs and honor societies; and in "other
organizations," such as R.O.T.C. and the University Band.
Campus residents were involved far more extensively in
college activities than students in other residence groups.
Freshmen who lived on campus held a greater number of
leadership positions in college organizations than freshmen
in other residence groups. This difference was significant
at the .05 level. Freshmen who lived at home held signifi
cantly fewer leadership positions. Freshman males were
selected for or assumed leadership roles in significantly
greater numbers than freshman females in the sample.
Significant differences at the .05 level were found among
the residence groups on participation in certain other
extracurricular activities, including intramural sports,
visits to campus cultural centers, and attendance at social
functions on campus.


9
from the lists of students for the three strata have yielded
representative cross sections of the subpopulations.
Definition of Terms
Admission requirements. A cumulative high school grade point
average of 2.0 or better and a Florida Twelfth Grade
Test score of 300 or better (or equivalent SAT score for
out-of-state students) were required for acceptance as a
freshman at the University.
At home student. A student who lived at home with his or
her parents or with a grandparent, aunt or uncle while
attending the University.
Campus resident. A student who resided in a campus residence
hall while attending the University. Inasmuch as those
who lived in an on-campus fraternity house, sorority
house or a residence hall reserved for athletes could,
at best, constitute less than 1% of the freshman
population and because their living environment might
have been very different from other freshmen, such
individuals were excluded from the sample.
Educational benefits. Selected developmental factors related
to the educational process that were chosen for study.
These include self-concept, persistence in college,
participation in college life, and relationships with
other students.
Off campus away from home student. A student who resided
off campus, but not with his or her parents, grand
parent (s) aunt or uncle while attending the University.


11
Procedures
Description of the Sample
An admittance list was obtained from the Admissions Office
at the University of Florida on August 9, 1976, and was used
to define the population. This list was a then-current
roster of incoming freshmen admitted to the University for
the upcoming Fall quarter. It was arranged in alphabetical
order and included home addresses, high school grade point
averages, Florida Twelfth Grade Test scores, social security
number, sex, marital status, housing code, birth date, and
information concerning the status of each prospective student's
application for admission. The list was coded to eliminate
from the sample those students who did not meet admission
requirements for freshmen entering the University (those
admitted by petition) and to eliminate those students who
were married.
Each person on the list of remaining students was
assigned to one of the six subpopulation groups. If the
housing code next to a student's name indicated that he or
she had paid the campus housing prepayment or requested a
delay in payment, he or she was assigned to Groups 3M (males)
or 3F (females), which included students likely to be campus
residents. If the housing code next to a student's name
indicated that he or she would not be living on campus, then
the student's home address was checked. If the student's
home was within reasonable commuting distance of the campus
in the judgment of the researcher, then he or she was assigned
to Groups 1M or IF, which included those students likely to


88
was discussed by Segal (1967), who viewed the decision to
live on campus, at home, or in other off-campus housing as
"representative of a choice by parent and student that not
only mirrors reality factors, but also decisions about
the developmental arena for the college years.
The small, personally-chosen peer group with whom the
female who lived off campus away from home shared an apart
ment is too confining a group, with insufficient opportunities
to develop social skills and a wider range of associations
with others. Those freshman females who lived at home are
likely to have had many relationships with others, primarily
from high school days, in the local community. Campus
residents were likely to have had more interpersonal
contacts with a wider range of persons, particularly with
those on the floors of the residence hall where these
residents lived.
One explanation of the reason for the similarity in
slope of the line representing scores of male sample
participants in Figure 5 to that of females who lived off
campus is that the interpersonal relationships of males
may not generally be as close and as well-developed as are
the interpersonal relationships of females. This compara
tive lack of a strong interpersonal support system for males,
including those on campus, is more likely to have had a
negative effect on interpersonal growth among those with
low social self scores on the pretest. Among those scoring
at high levels on the social self pretest, females who


128
Harrell, M. A. The self-concept of alcholics during the
process of abstinence. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Florida, 1976.
Heath, D. Growing up in college. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1968.
Heath, R. Higher education and the development of persons.
NASPA Journal, 1969, 6 (4), 215-222.
Iffert, R. E. Retention and withdrawal of college students.
Washington! U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, Office of Education, 1957.
Kauffman, J. F. The student in higher education. In
L. E. Dennis and J. F. Kauffman (Eds.), The college
and the student. Washington: American Council on
Education, 1966.
Kos, L. V. Administering the secondary school. New York:
American Book Co., 1940.
Lanning, W. L. A study.of the relation between group and
individual counseling supervision and three relationship
measures. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1971,
is (5), 401-406. : : :
Larson, P. and Laramee, W. Model for identifying and
responding to stress periods of students. NASPA
Journal, 1976, 14, 44-49.
Lloyd-Jones, E. M., Watson, G. B., and Cottrell, D. P.
Redirecting teacher education. New York: Columbia
University, 1938.
Maxon, R. C. and Malone, B. The influence of peer groups
on secondary school students. The Clearinghouse,
1977, .50, 191-193.
Morstain, B. Th importance of student interaction in the
freshman year. NASPA Journal, 1972, 9^ (4)., 283-287.
Newcomb, T. M. and Feldman, K. A. The impact of college on
students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969.
Plant, W. T. Longitudinal changes in intolerance and
authoritarianism for subjects differing in amount
of college education over four years. Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 1965, 72_, ,247-287.
Powell, J. R., Plyler, S. A., Dickson, B. A. and McClellan,
S. D. The personnel assistant in college residence
halls. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1969.
Purkey, W. W. Self-concept and academic achievement.
Gainesville: Florida Educational Research and
Development Council, 1967.


122
+1 +2+3 -1 2 -3 13. Sometimes they are warmly responsive
to me; at other times cold and
disapproving.
+1+2 +3 -1 -2 -3 14. They are interested in me.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 15. They appreciate what my experiences
feel like to me.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 16. Depending on their mood, they some
times respond to me with more warmth
and interest than they do.at other
times.
+1 +2 +3-1 -2 -3 17. They do not really care what happens
to me.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 18. They do not realize how strongly I
feel about some of the things we
discuss.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 19. There are times when I feel that
their outward response to me is
quite different from their inner
reaction to me.
+1 +2 +3 -1-2 -3 20. Their general feeling toward me
varies considerably.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 21. They seem to really value me.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 22. I don't think they are being honest
with themselves about the way they
feel toward me.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 23. I feel they are being genuine with me.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 24. Sometimes they respond quite positively
to me, at other times they seem
indifferent. -
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 25. Sometimes they are not at all
comfortable but we go on, outwardly
ignoring it.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 26. They usually understand all of what
I say to them.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 27. They do not try to mislead me about
their own thoughts or feelings.
+1 +2 +3 -1 -2 -3 28. They regard me as a disagreeable
person.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS'. iii
LIST OF TABLES .............. vii
LIST OF FIGURES. ix
ABSTRACT X
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION. 1
Background and Justification for
the Study. 1
Statement of the Problem. 2
Significance of the Study 3
Scope of the Study 6
Limitations of the Study. 8
Assumptions 8
Definition of Terms 9
Procedures. 11
Description of the Sample 11
Design of the Study. 14
Collection of Data 14
Instruments. 15
Analysis of the Data 21
Organization of the Research Report .... 22
IV


96
equal proportion of students in the subsample groups
attended a play, concert or out-of-class lecture during
the course of the freshman year. Although no significant
differences were found among the residence groups in these
particular activities, there were other significant differ
ences identified as a result of this study.
Students in the sample who lived off campus away from
home or on campus participated more in intramural sports
competition that those who lived at home. One possible
reason for this difference is that students who live at
home may have had long-established friendships in the
community, including some friends readily available for
afternoon or week-end basketball, tennis or other sports.
If this were the case, it would have substantially reduced
their need or desire for participation in the campus intra
mural program and account for their lesser participation
than other residence groups.
Also, for those students who lived at home, the odd
hours in the afternoon and evening when intramural games
are scheduled may have been too disruptive of family
routines; causing conflicts with meal hours and transpor
tation requirements of other family members. If this were
the case., there may have been less opportunity for these
students to participate in intramurals. The greater involve
ment of students who lived on campus and off campus away
from home in intramurals was statistically significant
at the .05 level. While participation in intramurals is
lower for students who lived at home, the data in Table 15


This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
the Department of Educational Administration in the College
of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted
as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Education.
June 1978
Dean, Graduate School


123
+1
+2
+3
-1
-2
-3
29.
At times they feel contempt for me.
+1
+ 2
+3
-1
-2
-3
30.
When I do not say what I mean at
all clearly they still understand
me.
+1
+2
+3
-1
-2
-3
31.
They feel deep affection for me.
+ 1
+2
+ 3
-1
-2
-3
32.
If I feel negatively toward them,
they respond negatively to me.


98
This researcher believes it is quite likely that the
overwhelming majority of students who lived at home had
visited the museum in particular on one or more occasions
prior to their freshman year. The writer's knowledge of
field trips taken by pupils in the local school system
supports this view. The writer also believes that close
proximity of campus residents was the primary reason why
so large a number of students from that residence group had
visited these cultural centers.
Another item for which significant differences were
found to exist was the question: "Have you attended a dance
or party on the campus since the start of the fall quarter?"
Students who lived at home scored significantly higher than
was expected on this question, while others scored lower
than was expected. One of the possible explanations for
this difference is that students from Gainesville are nor
mally here while many other students leave on the weekends
when most social events planned by student organizations are
scheduled. Many students who lived off campus away from
home as well as campus residents reported steady boyfriends
or girlfriends at home; these may have chosen, therefore, not
to participate in campus social events. It may be that the
subsample of students who lived at home was a more socially-
oriented group. However, Chickering (1974) and other
researchers found no basis for such an assumption.
Another portion of the study of extracurricular activ
ities concerned the extent to which leadership roles
were held by those in the subsample groups. No previous


65
2 Table 8
R Values Calculated
for the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory
Scales
R2
Scale
1
.705
Scale
2
.280
Scale
3
.477
Scale
4
.311
Total
Scale
.538
Table 9 reports the results of t tests conducted on
the hypothesis that each parameter in the regression model
equalled zero. Tests are for single elimination against the
full model. No significant differences (p<.05) in scores
could be attributed to differences in sex or in type of
residence as a result of testing parameters on the four
scales of the inventory as well as the inventory as a whole.
A description of the instrument is included in Appendix B.
The pretest 'scores for the first and third scales were
highly significant predictors of the posttest scores for
each respective scale. The pretest score for the second
scale, however, was of no value as a predictor of the post
test score for that scale. Pretest scores for the fourth
scale and for the total scale were significant at the .04
level as predictors of the respective posttest scores.


102
records were checked to collect information on enrollment
persistence for those in the sample. An Activities Question
naire was administered in April of 1977 to assess the level
of involvement in campus organizations, involvement in
leadership roles, and participation in other aspects of
campus life. Data on persistence and extracurricular involve
ment were analyzed using the inferential statistical technique
of chi square. Data on self-concept and peer relationships
were studied using regression analysis techniques. The
.05 level of significance was used throughout the study.
Over 68% of eligible persons in the sample returned pretest
and posttest materials.
Findings
The following were findings of this .study:
1. Significant differences in persistence were found among
males, but not females, according to where they lived.
Males who lived on campus had a significantly higher
level of persistence and males who lived at home had
a significantly lower level of persistence when
residence groups were compared.
2. Significant differences were found in certain aspects
of self-concept among groups with differing housing
arrangements. These differences were identified on
three subscales of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale:
identity, family self and social self.
3. No significant differences were found to exist among
the residence groups in students' perceptions of certain


62
The fourth subscale yielding significant results on
certain parameters was the social self scale. The data in
Table 7 show that the t tests for the parameters on this
subscale were significant for 63, 64, 66, 69 and g10.
Figure 5 illustrates the finding that of the females
with low social self pretest scores, those who lived at home
and on campus scored higher on the social self posttest than
females who lived off campus away from home. Results on the
social self posttest were similar for females who lived off
campus away from home who had low social self pretest scores
and for men who had low social self pretest scores regardless
of residence. Of the students with high social self pretest
scores, females who lived off campus away from home scored
higher on the social posttest than females who lived at
home or on campus and who had high social self pretest scores
Pretest Scores
Figure 5
A Comparison of Social Self Scores
of Subsample Groups


31
In a research bulletin entitled The Self and School
Achievement, published in 1970, Purkey summarized numerous
studies on the topic and concluded that there is a strong
relationship between a student's concept of self and his
performance in schooland in life:
Students who feel good about themselves and have
confidence in their abilities are those who are
most likely to succeed. Conversely, it appeared
that those who see themselves and their abilities
in a negative fashion usually fail to achieve
good grades. Academic success or failure appears
to be as deeply rooted in concepts of self as it
is to measured mental ability, if not deeper.
(p. 14)
In research in the area of student development at
Haverford College, it was found that "no student reported
that he had not changed his conception of himself as a
consequence of his college experience" (Heath, 1968, p. 222).
Heath, who provided a model of the maturing process for
the college years and beyond, had this to say about the
freshman experience:
The freshman is "shocked" by the demands of
the college. He becomes unstable and dis
organized, though, in a "good" college that
provides adequate supports, not enough to
regress seriously or withdraw. That is, a
good college helps its students to remain
"educable." Disorganization and confusion
are painful; without them, students may
never make efforts to understand. The
freshman becomes more aware of his own
inadequacies, questions his competence and
values, and despairs. By the end of his
freshman year, his self-concept has shifted
from being "God's gift to humanity" to being
a person of little value. (p. 175)
Sanford (1967), in writing about student change in
college, noted that students did not rate themselves high


81
tending to cite internal and academic reasons while women
more frequently mentioned external and nonacademic ones"
(Cope and Hannah, 1975, p. 16).
As tin (1975) cited student involvement as a key factor
in persistence. He proposed a theory of college persistence
which holds that a student's tendency to drop out of college
is inversely related to his or her degree of direct involve
ment in the academic and social life of the institution.
Based on Astin's theory of college persistence, one would
expect that the higher level of persistence found to exist
among campus residents would have resulted from their greater
involvement in campus organizations and activities.
The present study provided this theory to be true at
the University of Florida. Significant differences at the
.05 level were found when students who lived on campus and
students who lived at home were compared in levels of
participation in academically-related organizations, such
as professional clubs and honor societies. Table 11 illus
trates the finding that students who lived at home partici
pated less than was expected, while those who lived on campus
exceeded expectations at all levels of participation,
particularly at the "fairly extensive" and "very extensive"
levels. Similar results were found in the "other organiza
tions" category, which included R.O.T.C. and the University
Band. Table 13 also shows similar results in comparing
these two groups on the number of persons who were selected
for or assumed a leadership role in a campus organization
during their freshman year.


participation in academically-related organizations and in
certain other organizations, such as the University Band and
R.O.T.C. Campus residents were far more involved in these
organizations than other students. 6. Significant differences
were found by residence group and by sex in leadership roles
held during the freshman year. Campus residents held leader
ship roles far more often than other students. Males held
leadership roles in greater numbers than females. 7. Signi
ficant differences were found among residence groups in
three other extracurricular activities. Students who lived
at home participated less in intramurals, were less likely
to have visited campus cultural centers during their freshman
year, and were more likely to have attended a dance or party
on campus in comparison with other students.
The results of this study indicate that a campus
residence hall was the best place for a freshman male to
live to maximize his chances of persisting at the University
of Florida. Data analysis also suggests that living at
home may be the best choice for a female to maximize her
chances of persisting, although the results were not signi
ficant at the .05 level.
The results of this study tend to support the notion
that a diversified campus housing program, with leadership
committed to building residence hall environments that are
conducive to personal development, can offer important
support systems and opportunities for growth through
xii


37
significantly related to staying in college. Astin concluded
that his findings supported the theory that student persistence
to some extent depends on the degree of personal involvement
in campus life.
Persistence in College
Studies by Iffert (1957), Astin and Panos (1969) and
others have found no significant differences in attrition
rates for college men and women, although they do not withdraw
for the same reasons. "Researchers have found consistently
that the reasons given for dropping out differ between the
sexes . men tending to cite internal and academic reasons
while women more frequently mentioned external and nonacademic
ones" (Cope and Hannah, 1975,p.16).
Summerskill (1962) reviewed the literature published
between 1913 and 1957 on student attrition in higher education.
Based on this review of 35 studies, Summerskill reached this
conclusion:
Colleges lose, on the average, approximately half
their students in the four years after matriculation.
Some 40% of college students graduate on schedule
and, in addition, approximately 20% graduate at
some college, some day. (p. 631)
Kauffman (1966) also reviewed the literature on student
attrition, including studies published more recently than
those reviewed by Summerskill. Kauffman was not able to locate
a single conclusive study of attrition in higher education
and found no precise data available on the causes of attrition.
Among the reasons for attrition noted by Kauffman were these:
motivation and expectations and their interaction with institu
tional environments and values; academic incompetence or


100
potential. Instead, their opportunities or motivation to
exercise their leadership abilities appear to vary as a
function of their residence setting.
Another finding of this study was that freshman males
were selected for or assumed leadership roles in signifi
cantly greater numbers than females in the sample. Although
participation in organized extracurricular activities was
not significantly different for females than for males,
freshman females on a predominantly male campus may have
dated more frequently than freshman males. This potential
difference in frequency in dating, with its resulting costs
in time, is one possible explanation for the lesser involve
ment in leadership roles among female students. Authori
tarian behavior, more.typical of the stage of development
of most freshmen according to Sanford (1962), may have been
responsible for adherence to traditional sex role behaviors
with greater assumption of leadership roles by males than
by females, despite their intelligence,leadership skills
and organizational abilities.
The researcher believes that a difference in frequency
in dating for freshman females and males, as well as the
continuance of some traditional sex role behaviors among
freshman students, were the main contributors to the
differences in the proportions of female and male students
who held leadership roles.


127
Cope, R. and Hannah, W. Revolving college doors; The causes
and consequences of dropping out., stopping out, and
transferring. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1975.
DeCoster, D. A. Some effects of different classroom conditions
upon interpersonal relationships, personal adjustment,
and achievement for college freshmen. Doctoral disserta
tion, University of Florida, 1970.
Erikson, E. H. Childhood and society. New York: W. W.
Norton, 1950.
Feldman, K. A. College and student. New York: Pergamon
Press, 1972.
Fitts, W. H. Manual for Tennessee Self Concept Scale.
Nashville: Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1965.
Fox, D. J. The research process in education. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.
Frederick, R. W. Student activities in American education.
New York: Center for Applied Research in Education,
Inc., 1965.
Gilligan, J. F. Student activity programs in community
junior colleges. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Florida, 1967.
Gividen, G. M. Stress in airborne training as related to
the self-concept, motivation,and biographical factors.
Unpublished master's thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1959.
Goble, R. I. A study of the student drop-out problem at
Miami University. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana
University, 1956). Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national, 1956, 17, 61. (University Microfilms No.
57-103).
Gough, H. Manual, California Psychological Inventory.
Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1958.
Graff, R. W. and Cooley, G. R. Adjustment of commuter and
resident students. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 1970, 11 (1), 54-57.
Hansen, J. C., Zimpfer, D. G., and Easterling, R. E. A
study of the relationships in multiple counseling.
Journal of Educational Research, 1966, 6_0, 461-463.
Harnett, R. T. Involvement in extracurricular activities
as a factor in academic performance. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 1965, 6, 272-274.


46
following: 'Here are some interesting dimensions that may
(or may not) be affected by the college experience; lets
compare college class levels to find out'" (Feldman, 1972,
p. 61) .
A number of research designs are available for use in
measuring the impact of differing living arrangements on
college students. The cross-sectional design is one "which
evaluates change over time by comparing at the same point in
time different people representing different stages of
development" (Fox, 1969, p. 440). Data can normally be
collected and analyzed more simply and within a short period
of time with this approach. Cross-sectional studies are also
free of an external threat to validity, interaction of testing
and the residence experience. The major weakness of the
cross-sectional approach is its assumption that different
groups are,in fact, comparable.
Another way to measure the impact of differing living
arrangements on students is through the use of a longitudinal
design, which involves studies of the same persons at two
or more points in time. Fox (1969) concisely noted the
advantages and disadvantages of this approach:
The major strength of the longitudinal design
is that it avoids the assumption of compara
bility of different groups by using the same
respondents at every data-collection interval.
Its weaknesses are the length of time required
to obtain the complete set of data and the
difficulty in maintaining contact with, and
reassembling, the respondents throughout the
length of the study. Some researchers also
add the weakness that continued exposure to
the data-collection instruments and the
research produces a degree of sophistication
or test-wiseness in the respondents which is
reflected in the data. (p. 442)


13
subsample assignment, were listed in Groups 3MA (males)and
3FA (females) which included those sample participants who
were actually assigned to campus housing for the fall quarter.
The "anticipated place of residence" data sheets,
included in pretest materials returned by sample participants
after being sent to their home addresses in August, were then
reviewed. Verification by telephone, mail, or visit was
attempted for those sample participants not already assigned
to Groups 3MA and 3FA. Those found to be living off campus
away from home were assigned to Groups 2MA and 2FA.
Updated local address information was then obtained
from the Registrar's Office on sample participants whose
addresses had not already been verified. When such updated
address information was found to exist, verification by
telephone, mail or visit was attempted. Sample participants
were then assigned appropriately to Group IMA, 1FA, 2MA or
2FA.
The remaining sample participants were contacted by mail
or telephone through the permanent home addresses these
students had provided to the Registrar's Office. The new
information gained was used to assign persons to Group IMA,
1FA, 2MA, or 2FA.
Those initially selected for the sample who did not
actually enroll for the Fall quarter or who enrolled but
did not complete pretest instruments mailed in August by
October 15 were dropped completely from the sample. The
researcher made repeated attempts where necessary to obtain
pretest instruments from enrolled sample participants by


3
4. For those who persist in college, is there a
difference in participation in extracurricular
activities among students who live on campus,
at home, or in other off-campus housing?
Significance of the Study
The study is of significance in that there are three
prevailing points of view regarding college housing among
administrators in higher education. These can be described
as the traditional approach, the educational approach, and
the "no housing" approach.
The traditional approach to residence hall operation is
to provide adequate living facilities, essential services,
and a regulated lifestyle for residents supervised by college
officials. Facilities are designed to meet the basic needs
of students for satisfactory sleeping and study space. Staffing
is, for the most part, nonprofessional. Staff members
operating under this approach to housing generally regard
their function as almost exclusively in the areas of admini
stration, upkeep of facilities, and supervision of student
behavior. The services supplied to students in this setting
are very limited. These include facilities repairs, cleaning
services, and key service; with some housing operations also
providing food service and/or linen service for residents.
Organized activities of a social, recreational or educational
nature are generally not found within the residence halls
on a campus characterized by the traditional approach.
Rather, such opportunities are provided elsewhere on or near


107
involvement, and the impact of differing living arrangements
on students.
The finding of significant differences in persistence
among males according to residence group agrees substantially
with previous research by Astin (1975) and Chickering (1974)
and provides additional support for Chickering's theoretical
position that the campus residence environment, in comparison
with other residence settings, has a strong positive impact
on students.
No overall differences were found in persistence in
comparing female and male students. Studies by Iffert (1957)
Astin and Panos (1969) and others also found no significant
differences in attrition rates for men and women. These
studies reported, however, that.men and women do not with
draw from college for the same reasons. Such findings
led to the decision to design this study to determine whether
or not differences existed between the sexes as well as
among residence groups. The finding of different levels
of persistence among those in the three residence settings
supports the theoretical position advanced by Cope (1975).
Cope maintained that student persistence is primarily a
product of experiences of students in the college environment
The results of this study provide sufficient evidence to
guide future researchers in selecting their samples and
analyzing their data according to sex as well as according
to residence group when studying the impact of differing
living arrangements on students.


119
Dear Student:
Your assistance earlier this academic year with a research
study of entering freshmen is very much appreciated. As was
noted in my earlier letter to you, this study is being con
ducted in two phases, with the final phase scheduled during
the month of April.
The questionnaires enclosed ask about your perceptions
of yourself, about relationships with your college peer group,
and about your involvement in college activities. It will
only take a few minutes to complete these materials.
Your answers will be treated confidentially and results
will be reported in summary form representing groups of enter
ing students. Identification numbers are used so that we can
log in the questionnaires received and also to have the
unique numbers needed for computer analysis.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. Results
of research projects conducted through the Student Affairs
Research Group during, the 1976-77 academic year will be avail
able during the latter part of the 1977 Spring quarter in
the Education Library, Norman Hall.
Sincerely,
Arthur Sandeen
Vice President for
Student Affairs


5
action is to experiment with housing as a
factor in learning because of the over-riding
importance of finding better ways to insure
student success at college, (p. 2)
A third point of view regarding student housing that is
prevalent among administrators in higher education is that
the institution has no obligation to provide campus housing
for students. This point of view toward housing reflects an
even broader belief that the college or university should
assume little or no responsibility for the student outside
of the classroom. Such an approach to student life, partic
ularly toward campus housing, has become prevalent among
institutions of higher education established in the 1960's
and 1970's, most of which were planned as commuter institutions
located in close proximity to population centers.
There has been little evidence from which one could
draw conclusions as to the relative merits of these three
approaches to the housing of students. One review of the
research in the area has concluded that "research designed
to study the effects and impact of different student housing
programs is lacking" (Robinson & Brown, 1961, p. 360). A
later review of the literature revealed a continuing absence
of evidence regarding the merits of campus housing in contrib
uting to the education of students (Williams & Reilley, 1972,
p. 212), although some research results notably by Chickering,
have been reported since that time.
Much attention has been focused on the educational
impact of college housing since the 1960's, when lawsuits
challenging compulsory on-campus residence requirements were


94
College Student Questionnaire, as well as a multi-institu
tional study by Chickering (1974) support the view that
participation in extracurricular activities is significantly
greater among campus residents when compared with students
who live at home. Two other studies, one by Stark (1965)
and another by Sprague (1969), found no significant differences
in participation in extracurricular activities among students
according to where they lived. While some studies report
significant differences in extracurricular involvement among
the residence groups, more specific information about whether
differences existed among the groups in all or just some
of the activities is not available.
The results of this study support the findings of the
earlier studies using the College Student Questionnaire.
Part II of the College Student Questionnaire includes an
Extracurricular Involvement Scale. This scale measures
involvement in a number of organized extracurricular activ
ities, including student government, athletics, religious
groups, preprofessional clubs and the like.
This study used no overall measure in assessing involve
ment in organized extracurricular activities. Rather, level
of involvement in specific types of organizations or activ
ities was measured separately. The results, then, are more
specific than those reported in the earlier studies. One
of the findings of this study is that significant differences
existed among the subsample groups in level of involvement
in some types of organizations but not in others. Specific
differences were found in involvement in academically-


27
geneous value systems of the new environment may
leave them without the familiar support systems
from which they had drawn recognition, encourage
ment, and purpose- The hope that "things will get
better" is realized by some students, but others
do not soon regain the confidence they once felt
in a more familiar environment. (p. 48)
Against this background of high academic expectations,
increased competition, greater exposure to differing value
systems and (for many) the loss of support systems, Sanford
(1964) elaborated on the freshman's initial view of self
in College and Character:
Closely related to the freshman's authoritarian
propensities is his uncertain self-esteem. He
does not know what he can do, how good he is,
or what to think of himself. On the one hand he
is happy to remember his parents' faith in him,
the accomplishments of high school and the plaudits
received there, and, perhaps particularly, the fact
that he was chosen for admission to his college.
On the other hand, he suspects that he is now
playing in a different league, and he knows that
the major tests of life still await him. In his
uncertainty, he vacillates between overestimation
and underestimation of himself. His inclination
is to stick to patterns of behavior that have
been rewarded in the past and to display such
confidence as he can muster. (p. 87-8)
Freshman students can also be characterized as demon
strating increasing tolerance and flexibility of thinking.
Gough (1958) has found that college freshmen score between
high school freshmen and graduate students on these factors,
using the California Psychological Inventory.
Newcomb and Feldman (1969), on the basis of a review of
the literature on student characteristics and how these change
during the college years, concluded that developmental change
is gradual over the college years rather than pronounced in
any particular year. They found that studies on patterns of


These findings can be interpreted as follows: For
those students who lived off campus away from home who had
low family self pretest scores, perceptions of self in
relation to those with whom they shared an apartment were
much improved over their pretest perceptions of self in
relation to family members at home. For those with low
initial perceptions of self in relation to family members,
the act of having joined a small, personally-chosen peer
group in sharing an apartment off campus proved to be
better than either remaining at home or living on campus
insofar as improvement in scores on the family self post
test was concerned.
For students with high family self pretest scores,
those who remained at home did better on family self post
test scores than those off campus away from home. Scores
of campus residents were not significantly different on
the posttest than students who lived at home. Those who
had strong initial positive perceptions of self in relation
to family members did even better on the. posttest of the
subscale if they remained at home or lived on campus.
For those at home, the family support system seemed to
strengthen self-concept as the freshman year progressed.
For those on campus, it may be that this initially strong
self-concept arising from family relationships, or other
factors, enables these students to seek out particular
persons (from the many in their living group) with whom
to build a new, strong peer support system. Those off


54
The chi-square statistic was .381 with 1 degree of
freedom, which indicates that there was not a significant
difference in persistence between females and males.
Table 4 provides information concerning student persis
tence among females in each residence group. The chi-square
statistic was 2.066 with 2 degrees of freedom, which indicats
that there was no significant difference in persistence among
female students that can be attributed to differing housing
arrangements.
Table 4
Female Students' Persistence
by Residence Group
Females
Living At Home
Females
Living Off
Campus Away
From Home
Females
Living On
Campus
Students Who Did Persist
Actual Number
30
29
37
Expected Number
27.79
31.16
37.05
Students Who Did Not Persist
Actual Number
3
8
7
Expected Number
5.21
5.84
6.95
Table 5 contains information concerning student persis
tence among males in each residence group. The chi-square
statistic was 8.058 with 2 degrees of freedom, which indicates
that there was a significant difference in persistence among
male students according to where they lived.


75
males were selected for or assumed leadership roles in
significantly greater numbers than freshman females in
the sample.
In other extracurricular activities, a greater propor
tion of students in the sample who lived off campus away
from home or on campus participated in intramural sports
competition than those who lived at home. Those who lived
on campus visited the Florida State Museum or the University
Gallery in greater numbers than expected, while fewer of
those who lived at home than was expected had visited
the museum or gallery. Of those who lived on campus or
off campus away from home, fewer than was expected had
attended a dance or party on campus; however, a greater
number of those who lived at home than was expected had
attended such a campus social event.
Chapter Summary
This chapter includes a review of participant response
and findings on the impact of differing housing arrangements
on student persistence at the University, changes in self-
concept during the freshman year, changes in students'
perceptions of their relationships with peers, and involve
ment in extracurricular activities.
An initial sample size of 300 entering freshman students
was reduced by 52 who were admitted, but did not enroll at
the University. This was further reduced by 18 persons in
eligible by place of residence or marital status to remain
in the sample. The 33 students who did not remain enrolled


xml record header identifier oai:www.uflib.ufl.edu.ufdc:UF0008954200001datestamp 2009-02-09setSpec [UFDC_OAI_SET]metadata oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc http:www.openarchives.orgOAI2.0oai_dc xmlns:dc http:purl.orgdcelements1.1 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.openarchives.orgOAI2.0oai_dc.xsd dc:title A comparison of self-concepts, peer relationships, persistence and extracurricular involvement of University of Florida freshmen with differing housingdc:creator Haulman, Stephen Russelldc:publisher Stephen Russell Haulmandc:date 1978dc:type Bookdc:identifier http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/ufdc/?b=UF00089542&v=0000104522001 (oclc)000071299 (alephbibnum)dc:source University of Floridadc:language English


interaction with peers in various activities as well as
needed assistance for students with developmental problems.
xm


110
The results of this study document differences among the
residence groups that are far less substantial than were
found by Chickering in his research or in a study by the
American Council on Education to which he referred (p. 59).
The results of this study indicate that there are signifi
cant differences among the residence groups in involvement
in academically-related organizations, certain other organiza
tions, and leadership roles held during the freshman year.
There were no substantial differences in participation in
most other types of organizations or extracurricular activ
ities.
The findings of this study have a number of implications
for educational practice. This study has provided additional
support for the following conclusions that are consistent
with previous studies: persistence is affected by choice
of residence setting and extracurricular involvement can
have a positive impact on persistence. Such findings could
be extremely useful if shared with those who could benefit
most from thementering students and their parents. These
persons should know that for males, attrition is highest
among those who begin their freshman year living at home.
Another fact which should be shared is that the highest
level of attrition among females is for those who live
off-campus away from home. Entering.students and their
parents should know that participation in extracurricular
activities is generally a'positive factor rather than a
negative factor in persistence. Decisions that affect
persistence, self-concept and other aspects during the


91
lived at home with campus residents after one semester of
college. They found that while there were differences in
adjustment between the groups, there were no significant
differences found in their interpersonal relationships with
peers. The results of this current study supported the
findings of Graff and Cooley that there were no significant
differences in relationships with fellow students that could
be attributed to differing housing arrangements among the
groups.
The instrument used in this study, the Barrett-Lennard
Relationship Inventory, was originally developed to measure
clients' perceptions of therapists in terms of genuineness,
empathy and warmth. The group form of this instrument was
designed to measure a person's perceptions of others in
terms of the same factors. On the pretest, those in the
sample were asked to consider each statement with respect to
whether they thought it was true or not true in their relation
ships with their high school peer group. On the posttest,
participants were asked to respond in terms of their college
peer group.
What was measured in this study was students' percep
tions of certain qualities of their relationships with peers
rather than their specific behaviors with peers, such as
frequency of beer drinking and dating. Segal (1967) and
Chickering (1974) concluded that the extent and intensity
of contact with peers was very different among students who
lived at home, off campus away from home, and on campus.


36
as one of the final steps of adolescents in the process of
identity development and have noted that participation in
extracurricular activities can provide opportunities for a
student to test his or her abilities, values and interests.
This testing can play an important part in developing or
clarifying a person's self-concept.
In research on participation in extracurricular activities,
Weston and Stein (1977) found that participation in college
activities was definitely related to female students' self-
concept. They noted that participation should be seen as
having at least three dimensions: number of organizations
in which membership was held, degree of involvement within
those organizations, and leadership functions. Extent of
involvement was more of a predictor of identity achievement
in college women than other dimensions of participation,
according to Weston and Stein.
Iffert (1957), Goble (1956), Harnett (1965) Vaughan
(>1968) and others have studied the relationship between
i
^academic success and participation in extracurricular activ
ities. Research has indicated not only that the two are
/ mutually-supportive, but has also demonstrated that partici-

i pation in extracurricular activities appeared to favorably
vinfluence chances of academic success in college.
Astin (1975) studied the relationship between persistence
and student participation in extracurricular activities.
He found that participation in extracurricular activities is


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Stephen Russell Haulman was born December 2, 1945,
in Altoona, Pennsylvania. He was reared in New Orleans,
Louisiana, where he attended public schools until grad
uation in 1963 from John McDonogh Senior High School.
He attended the University of Southwestern Louisiana in
Lafayette and was graduated in 1967 with a Bachelor of
Science degree in business administration. In August of
1971, he received a Master of Education degree from the
University of Florida, with a major in social foundations
of education. He has served on the professional staff
of the Division of Housing at the University of Florida
since 1968 and currently serves as Assistant Director of
Housing. In June of 1978, he received a Doctor of
Education degree with a major in educational administration
emphasizing higher education. During his attendance at
the University of Florida, he was active in Phi Delta
Kappa, serving as Vice President, Chapter Editor and
Historian. He has held membership in several national
and regional professional organizations, including the
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators,
the Association of College and University Housing Officers,
131


APPENDICES


68
A significant difference was found among the groups in
the level of participation in academically-related organizations,
such as professional clubs and honor societies. Table 11
illustrates the findings that students who lived at home
participated less than was expected (expected levels of parti
cipation were calculated using chi square). Students who
lived off campus away from home participated more than was
expected (though this was at the "to'a small extent" level
of participation). Campus residents in the sample exceeded
expectations at all levels of participation, particularly at
the "fairly extensive" and "very extensive" levels.
Table 11
Participation in Academically-Related Organizations
by Residence Group
Level of
Participation
Response
Students
Living At
a3
Home
Students
Living
Off Campus
Away^From
Home
Students
Living
On Campus
Actual
46
26
36
Not at all
Expected
39.5
28.2
40.3
To a small
Actual
3
8
7
extent
Expected
6.6
4.7
6.7
Fairly
Actual
0
1
5
extensive
Expected
2.2
1.6
2.2
Very
Actual
0
0
2
extensive
Expected
0.7
0.5
0.7
Note. N=134
an=49
^*n=35
Cn=50
A significant difference was also found in participation
in the "other organizations" category. Most responses in
this category specified R.O.T.C. or the Gator Band. There


25
core of the personality is reflected at the sur
face in characteristic ways: in stereotyped
thinking, intolerance of ambiguity, punitive
morality, submissiveness toward the powerful and
dominance toward the weak, conventionality, anti-
intellectualism, hostility toward people perceived
to be different from oneself. The freshman inhibits
impulse by being morally strict with himself and
others. He is ready to meet stiff requirements,
to work hard, to conform with what he takes to be
the prevailing standards of behaviorand he is
inclined to be somewhat intolerant of those who do
not. An element of perfectionism, of striving
for purity of thought and action is characteristic
of the freshman. (p. 261)
Newcomb and Feldman (1969) reviewed thirty-seven studies
on changes in authoritarianism during the college years.
Results of these studies were consistentseniors were, on
the average, less authoritarian than freshmen. In almost all
studies, these differences were relatively large and statis
tically significant. Of the longitudinal studies comparing
freshman and sophomore students on authoritarianism, all
reported that sophomores are, on the average, significantly
less authoritarian than they were as freshmen.
Plant (1965) has found that a decrease in authoritarianism
is in evidence in this age group whether individuals have been
enrolled in college or not. Newcomb and Feldman noted that
decreases in authoritarianism in college students appears to
be more reliable and larger than for those in the same age
range who are not attending college. They concluded that:
As of now, the most that may be surmised is that
colleges in general, and particular colleges
differentially, may select or attract students
who are differentially "open" to changes in
authoritarianism; and that these colleges provide
environments that differ both among themselves
and as compared with non-college environments -
in respect to influences likely to change existing
states of authoritarianism. One way in which


48
behaviors. Increasing tolerance and flexibility of thinking
develops as individuals progress through this stage of
development. Freshmen are said to be, for the most part,
motivated and open to new ideas and challenges.
The self-concepts of college students may often suffer
a slump during the first part of the freshman year, then
may frequently improve during the latter part of that year.
Research studies on self-concept and its relationship to
place of residence are conflicting, but the weight of the
evidence seems to show campus residents as generally posi
tively affected by the residence experience. The self-
concepts of students living at home seem to be negatively
affected by their continued residence at home while
attending college.
Peer groups are important to individual development.
Research cited is not at all in agreement on whether or
not differences exist among students on campus and students
at home in their relationships with peers. While inter
action patterns may be the same, students who lived at
home appeared to associate less with other students at
the college and more with noncollege persons than is the
case for campus residents.
Participation in extracurricular activities in college
seems to have a positive effect on academic success and
persistence in college. There is no consensus reported in
the research on whether or not levels of participation are
the same among groups having differing housing arrangements.


108
The results of this study indicate that there is an
association between high levels of persistence and extensive
involvement in certain aspects of college life for males
who lived on campus. For male students who lived at home,
there was an association between low levels of persistence
and a low level of involvement in college life. These
findings provide additional support for Astin's (1975)
Theory of College Persistence, which holds that "a student's
tendency to drop out of college is inversely related to
the degree of direct involvement in the academic and social
life of the institution" (Astin, 1975, p.'175).
In assessing the impact of differing housing arrange
ments on the self-concepts of students, researchers and
theorists have made general statements about the positive
or negative influences of particular types of environments
on students. The findings of this study indicate that
such statements do not hold true for certain types of
students in the residence groups. Chickerings (1974)
theoretical position that living on campus has a strong
positive impact on the self-concept of students cannot
be supported as true for all types of students in light
of the findings of this study. Females with low initial
identity scores should not necessarily live on campus
unless special assistance can be provided that will aid
these students in the development of a positive identity.
Those with poor initial perceptions of self in relation
to family members should also not necessarily live on


79
literature on this question. Research by Astin (1975),
Chickering (1974), and others suggest that campus residence
enhances persistence.
In this study, significant differences in persistence
were found for males, but not for females, according to
type of residence. Male students who lived at home had a
higher attrition rate which was significant at the .05
level, while attrition was significantly lower for male
students who lived on campus. The rate of attrition of
males who lived off campus away from home was in between
the other two residence groups.
For men, the results of this study agree totally with
research by Astin and others. One may show from the data
that the best place for freshman males to live in order to
minimize attrition is in campus residence halls. One may
also show from the data that the chances for dropping out
of college are significantly higher for freshman males who
live at home.
Differences were found in persistence among females
according to type of residence. Although these differences
did not reach the .05 level of significance, they neverthe
less suggest that living at home during the freshman year
may increase the likelihood that a female student will
persist at the University. Incidence of attrition was
found to be greatest among freshman females who lived off
campus away from home. Results of this study agree in part
with research by Astin (1975) and others, who have found the


129
Purkey, W. W. Self concept and school achievement. Engle
wood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970.
Riker, H.C. College housing as learning centers. Washington
D. C.: American College Personnel Association, 1965.
Robinson, D. W. and Brown, D. W. A report on student and
student personnel work research activities.. Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 1961, 4.0, 358-360.
Rogers, C. R. Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1951.
Sanford, N. The approach of the authoritarian personality.
In J. L. Me Cary (Ed.), Psychology of personality.
New York: Logos Press, 1956.
Sanford, N. (Ed.). The American college. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1962.
Sanford, N. (Ed.). College and character. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1964.
Sanford, N. Where colleges fail-A study of the student as .
a person. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1967.
Segal, S. J. Implications of residential setting for develop
ment during college. Journal of College Student Person
nel, 1967, 8 (5), 308-310.
Sherif, M. and Sherif, C. Reference groups. New York:
Harper and Row, 1964.
Sprague, D. S. A comparative study of certain intellectual
and non-intellectual factors of university freshmen
based upon place of residence. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of South Dakota, 1969). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1969, 30^, 2387A. (University
Microfilms No. 69-20618).
Stark, M. Commuter and residence hall students compared.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1965, 4-4_ (3) 277-281.
Stewart, M. A. A comparison of commuting and. resident
students on an urban campus. (Doctoral dissertation,
Ohio State University, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1973, 3J3, 2812A (University Microfilms
No. 69-22214).
Summerskill, J. Dropouts from college. In N. Sanford (Ed.),
The American college. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1962.


39
college. Astin's own research findings supported the theory
that student involvement is a key factor in persistence.
Astin has developed a theory of college persistence which
holds that:
A student's tendency to drop out of college is
inversely related to the degree of direct involve
ment in the academic and social life of the insti
tution. Backing this notion are the positive
effects on persistence of participation in extra
curricular activities, work-study and other on-
campus employment, participation in ROTC and
honors programs, and dormitory living. The
strong relationship between academic performance
and persistence is also, in a sense, additional
support for this theory, given the assumption
that getting good grades is a sign of student
involvement in the academic life and environment
of the institution. (p. 176)
Chickering (1974) has forseen ways in which we can better
deal with the problem of attrition in preventive ways through
use of improved mental measurement techniques:
It will not be long before it will be possible to
assess and to chart individual cognitive maps that
characterize in rich, complex and comprehensive
ways, major modes of perceptual, cognitive, social
and interpersonal functioning. The contours of
these maps will reflect major areas of individual
strength and weakness and by so doing will allow
each individual to conceptualize more clearly
his own unique characteristics, and more importantly,
these contours will provide guidelines by which
each person can take more effective charge of his
own education and personal development, (p. 101)
Chickering has concluded that more definitive information
on the nature of the person, as well as a better understanding
of the consequences of particular academic and environmental
alternatives for persons with particular "contours," may
allow a significant raising of the "success rate" of higher
education beyond the mere 50% of those who enroll in college
and actually reach graduation.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writer wishes to express his appreciation to
Dr. Ralph Kimbrough for his guidance as Chairman of the
writer's Supervisory Committee and particularly for his
suggestions and encouragement throughout the preparation
of this dissertation. The writer also wishes to express his
gratitude to Dr. Harold Riker for the inspiring leadership
and guidance given during the writer's graduate studies
and early years as a professional. Dr. Riker's thoughtful
and constructive comments throughout the preparation of this
dissertation are very much appreciated. The writer also
wishes to thank Dr. James Wattenbarger for the encouragement
he has given throughout the writer's doctoral studies.
Special recognition and appreciation is warmly extended
to Mrs. Rebecca Lovely for her outstanding work in typing
the drafts and final copy of this dissertation. Her patience,
throughtfulness and continued willingness to help throughout
the months of preparation of this dissertation are very much
appreciated. The writer also wishes to thank Dr. Michael
Nunnery for his guidance during the formative stages of this
dissertation. Special appreciation is extended to Mike Conlon
for his assistance with computerized statistical analyses and
for his patience in teaching the writer about certain methods
of statistical analysis.
iii


125
Have you been selected for or assumed a leadership role
(i.e., officer, committee chairperson) in any campus organiza
tion since the start of the 1976 Fall quarter? yes no
If yes, specify type of organization and leadership role.
B. Other Extracurricular Activities
1. Have you participated in intramural
sports competition on campus? yes no
2. Have you attended a play or a
concert on the campus since
September? yes _no
3. Have you attended an ACCENT
lecture or other out-of-class
lecture featuring a distin
guished speaker since
September? yes no
4. Have you visited the Florida .
State Museum or the University
Gallery since the start of the
1976 Fall quarter? yes no
5. Have you attended a dance or
party on the campus since the
start of the 1976 Fall quarter? yes no
6. Have you worked on campus or
for a local business for a period
of time while enrolled at the
University (excluding quarter
break periods)? yes no
7. Indicate below any other
University-related extra
curricular activities in
which you have been involved
since September? yes no


89
lived off campus away from home scored higher than all males
as well as females who lived at home or on campus. An
adequate interpersonal support system provided by persons
with whom these females shared off-campus apartments,
combined with a high level of social skills of these students
are factors that the writer believes may account for this
difference in scores.
Relationships with Peers
The third research question contained in the statement
of the problem asked: "For those who persist in college,
is there a difference in relationships with other students
among students who lived on campus, at home, or in other
off-campus housing?" Data collected using the Barrett-
Lennard Relationship Inventory were analyzed by regression
analysis techniques. No significant differences among the
subsample groups were found in relationships with other
students that could be attributed to differing housing
arrangements among the groups.
There was no consensus in previous research on whether
or not there was a difference in relationships with other
students between those who lived on campus and those who
lived at home. Only one study by Chickering (1974) reported
on the third group of students, those living off campus
away from home, in comparison to the other two living groups.
Chickering studied longitudinal data on specific
behaviors of students with peers collected from thousands
of students from a variety of institutions of higher


112
begin contacting students with self-concept problems to share
the meaning of their scores and to assist them in developing
more positive self-concepts during their college years.
The results of this study, for example, indicate that
campus residence has a negative effect on females with low
initial identity scores and students with poor perceptions
of self in relation to family members. If these students can
be identified and the factors in campus living environments
that negatively affect identity for these students can be
identified, then residence hall staff or other student
affairs staff can be in a position to help the student under
stand the factors involved and determine the steps that can
be taken to achieve a stronger self-concept.
There are a number of ways that student affairs staff
can stimulate greater involvement of students who live at
home and in other off-campus housing. For example, results
of this study could be shared with the student leaders and
faculty advisors of professional clubs on campus and freshman
honor societies, as well as with faculty involved in the
University Band and R.O.T.C. programs. Such persons could
be encouraged to recruit potential members more actively
from these residence groups. Some suggestions and training
in recruiting methods.could be made available to these
groups by student affairs staff.
Leadership opportunities need to be made more available
to entering freshmen students who live at home. The
students who live at home comprise a relatively small and


71
The final.section of the Activities Questionnaire was
designed to assess participation in other extracurricular
activities, such as intramurals, attendance at campus
cultural and social events, visits to cultural centers on
the campus, employment while enrolled as a student and other
University-related extracurricular activities. The chi-
square statistic was calculated for each of the six
categories in this section of the instrument. A description
of the instrument is included in Appendix C. Significant
differences among the residence groups were found for three
of these categories. The chi-square statistic was also
calculated for females and males on each of the six cate
gories in this section of the instrument, but no significant
differences were found to exist between the sexes.
The first category that yielded significant results
among the residence groups was the response to the question:
"Do you participate in intramural sports competition on
campus?" The chi-square statistic was 6.115 with 2 degrees
of freedom, which is significant at the .05 level. Table 15
contains the actual and estimated numbers of sample partici
pants in each residence group who participated in intramural
sports on campus. Data in this table indicate that sample
participants who lived off campus away from home and those
who lived on campus participated in intramural sports
competition on campus in numbers greater than expected.
Participation was less than expected among those who lived
at home.


67
Table 10 contains information from the first section
of the questionnaire, which measured level of participation
in campus organizations. No significant difference among
the groups was found to exist in the level of participation
in student government-related organizations, social frater
nities or sororities, campus service organization or campus
religious organizations.
Table 10
Level of Participation in Campus Organizations
Reported by Residence Group
Students
Living
Students
Off Campus
Students
Type of
Organization
Level of
Participation*
Living At
Home3,
Away^From
Home0
Living
On.Campus
Student
0
33
26
28
government-
1
11
3
8
related
2
3
2
8
organizations
3
2
4
6
Social
0
43
30
39
fraternity
1
3
2
4
or sorority
2
3
2
2
3
0
1
5
Campus
0
42
28
38
service
1
4
4
9
organization
2
1
3
3
3
2
0
0
Academically-
0
. 46
26
36
related
1
3
8
7
organization
2
0
1
5
3
0
0
2
Campus
0
38
31
40
religious
1
4
2
2
organization
2
1
2
3
3
6
0
5
*0=not at all,
l=to a small extent,
2=fairly extensive,3=very
extensive
Note.
an=49
n=35
N=134
Cn=50


CHAPTER III
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to determine whether
there are significant differences in certain educational
benefits (persistence, self-concept, peer relationships,
and extracurricular involvement) for beginning University
of Florida freshmen who live on campus, at home, or in
other off-campus housing. This chapter includes a review
of participant response and findings on the impact of
differing housing arrangements on student persistence at
the University, changes in self-concept during the freshman
year, changes in students' perceptions of their relation
ships with peers, and involvement in extracurricular
activities.
Response of Sample Participants
The initial size of the sample was 300 students,
including 50 females and 50 males who lived at home, 50
females and 50 males who lived off campus away from home,
and 50 females and 50 males who lived in campus residence
halls. Presented in Table 1 are figures on the number
of persons dropped from the sample and the reasons why
these persons were dropped.
50


TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
CHAPTER page
IV. Relationships with Peers 89
(CONT'D)
Participation in Extracurricular
Activities. 93
V. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .... 101
Findings ........ 102
Conclusions. 104
Implications of the Study. 106
Suggestions for Further Research 114
APPENDICES
A SAMPLE COVER LETTERS AND ADDRESS
INFORMATION SHEET . 118
B BARRETT-LENNARD RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY . 121
C ACTIVITIES QUESTIONNAIRE 124
BIBLIOGRAPHY 126
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 131
vi


18
Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory
This instrument was developed by G. T. Barrett-Lennard
in 1962 to measure certain dimensions of a client's percep
tions of his therapist's attitudes and responses. The
Relationship Inventory was prepared in two parallel forms
differing only in third-person pronouns (Barrett-Lennard,
1962; Hanson et al., 1966). The group form of the instrument
was used in this study following the Wiebe-Pearce revision
of Barrett-Lennard's original inventory. This revision
consisted of 32 items and 4 subscales (see Appendix B).
The group form of the instrument measures perceptions of
group facilitativeness through a total scale score. Subscale
scores measure positive regard, empathy, congruence, and
unconditionality of regard for others in the group.
The items in the revised inventory are classified
in the following groups:
Level of Regard: 1,6,8,10,14,17,21,28,29,31
Empathetic Understanding: 3,4,11,15,18,26,30
Congruence: 2,5,7,9,12,19,22,23,25,27
Unconditionality of Regard: 13,16,20,24,32
Split half reliability coefficients ranged from .82
to .93 and test-retest reliability correlations ranged
from .86 to .95 for scores analyzed by Barrett-Lennard.
Internal consistency reliability coefficients for the
four subscales have ranged from .82 to .95 in analysis
by other researchers. Lanning (1971) has reported stability
coefficients for the total score of .93 to .95.


20
These aspects were level of participation in campus organiza
tions, leadership roles in campus organizations held by-
freshmen, and participation in other college-related extra
curricular activities.
An Activities Questionnaire was developed for use on
a posttest-only basis after a search of available standardized
instruments failed to locate one suitable for this study.
Three sections of the questionnaire were developed. The
first section was designed to list categories of organiza
tions. In this section, respondents were to indicate their
level of involvement (Not at All, To a Small Extent, Fairly
Extensive or Very Extensive) in each type of organization.
The second section was designed to determine whether or
not the respondent had been selected for or had assumed a
leadership role in any campus organization since the start
of his or her freshman year. A "yes" or "no" response was
called for and a space was provided for the respondent to
name the organization(s) if an affirmative response was
made. The third section of the questionnaire was designed
to determine whether or not a respondent had participated
in certain other University-related extracurricular activi
ties of a cultural, social or recreational nature during
the course of his or her freshman year. A "yes" or "no"
response was requested in this section of the questionnaire.
A draft of the instrument was developed, reviewed by
several professors, and revised prior to distribution with
posttest materials. Because of the nature of this information
being sought, high reliability can be expected from the


106
3. No significant differences were found during the freshman
year among those who persisted at the University when
measuring particular qualities of their relationships
with peers through use of the Barrett-Lennard Relation
ship Inventory. Regardless of what variations may exist
in the extent and intensity of contact with peers for
students with differing housing arrangements, perceptions
of peers on factors such as genuineness and empathy is
essentially the same for all residence groups.
4. Among those who persisted at the University, students
who lived on campus, in comparison with students in
other residence groups, are more fully involved in
academically-related organizations and in certain other
organizations (such as R.O.T.C. and the University Band).
Campus residents are elected to or assume leadership
roles in campus organizations during their freshman
year far more often than is true of students from other
residence groups. Although there are differences among
students from the three residence settings in partici
pation in intramurals, visits to campus cultural centers,
and attendance at dances and parties on campus, these
findings are not of major consequence in considering the
developmental impact of residence setting on freshmen.
Implications of the Study
The findings and conclusions of this study have a number
of theoretical implications concerning student persistence
in college, self-concept, peer relationships, extracurricular


64
Relationships with Peers
The third research question posed in this study was:
"For those who persist in college, is there a difference in
relationships with other students among students who live
on campus, at home, or in other off-campus housing?"
Regression analysis techniques were used to determine
whether or not there was a change in relationships with
peers among sample participants and, if so, whether this
change differs on the basis of residence. Three factors
(sex, type of residence and score on the pretest of the
Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory) were used to predict
posttest scores on the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory.
The regression model used in these analyses is the same as .
that used in predicting posttest scores on the Tennessee
Self Concept Scale and is illustrated in Figure 1.
F tests of the regression model were conducted. The
2
R figures calculated for the four scales of the inventory
and the inventory as a whole are reported in Table 8. This
table indicates that the regression model was not as good
a predictor of posttest scores on the Barrett-Lennard
Relationship Inventory as it was for posttest scores of the
Tennessee Self Concept Scale.


82
1
Thus, this study provides additional evidence to support
the proposition that type of residence does have a significant
impact on persistence of college freshmen, specifically male
freshmen. The findings of this study also provide additional
support for Astin's theory of college persistence.
Self-Concept
The second research question contained in the statement
of the problem was: "For those who persist in college, is
there a change in self-concept among students who lived on
campus, at home or in other off campus housing and, if so,
does this change differ on the basis of residence?"
Although there is no consensus in the literature avail
able on the effects of differing housing arrangements on
the self-concepts of students, most of the research tends
to indicate that campus residents differ significantly
from other students in positive self-concept change.
Graff and Cooley (1970) in comparing campus residents
with students who lived at home, found that those who lived
at home "tended to be more beset by lack of self-confidence"
(p. 56). Astin (1973) also found significant differences
between these two groups and concluded that residence on
campus has a consistently positive impact on self-concept.
Chickering (1974) found that students who lived at home,
in comparison with students who lived on campus, rated them
selves significantly lower on social self-confidence, popu
larity, and public speaking and leadership abilities.


I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree Of Doctor of Education.
ilph B. Kimbrough
Professor of Education
Chairman
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education.
Dr. Harold
Professor
ti L
I. v-
C. Riker
of Education
I certify that I have ready this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Education.
birger
James L. Wattenbfiirger
rofessor of Education


44
a consistently positive effect on the self-concepts of
students. He also found through this study that
Living in a dormitory clearly increased the
chances that students would be satisfied with
their overall undergraduate experience, par
ticularly in the area of interpersonal contacts
with faculty and other students. (p. 207)
Stewart (1969) compared freshmen on one campus who
lived in campus housing and freshmen who lived at home
using a pretest, posttest design. During the first week
of classes in the fall, 281 beginning freshman students,
divided into categories by on-campus or at home residence
and by sex, completed Part I of the College Student Question
naire. Family social status was indicated to be a major
difference, with campus residents found to have higher
family social status than students who lived at home.
Part II of the College Student Questionnaire was
administered to the sample during the last few weeks of
the Spring Quarter. Significant differences were found
to exist between the groups who lived on campus and at
home in extracurricular involvement, with campus residents
experiencing more involvement. No differences were found
between these groups on a number of other factors, including
satisfaction with relationships with other students.
Barton (1972) using a cross-sectional design, studied
the effects of place of residence upon value development in
college students. With a random sample of 108 freshmen and
149 seniors, Barton also found differences on the Extracurricular
Involvement Scale of the College Student Questionnaire (Part II)
among students according to where they lived. He concluded


56
the basis of residence. Three factors (sex, type of residence
and score on the pretest of the Tennessee Self Concept Scale)
were used to predict posttest scores on the Tennessee Self
Concept Scale. The regression model used in this study
appears in Figure 1.
y=Po + 0ixi + 32X2 + 33X3 + 34X1X3 + 65X2X3
+ Before [p6 + 67X1 + 3eX2 + 3gX3
+ 3i0X1X3 + &IIX2X3V +
where y = actual value of the posttest score
Xi = 1 if off campus away from home, 0 if otherwise
X2 = 1 if on campus, 0 if otherwise
X3 = 1 if respondent is female, 0 if otherwise
3o~3ii are parameters of the model
£ is random error
Figure 1
Regression Model
F tests indicated that this model was significant at the
2
.05 level. The R figures calculated for the total positive
and the positive subscales of the Tennessee Self Concept
Scale were high, indicating that the regression model was a
2
good predictor of posttest scores. R figures for the positive
scales ranged from .993 to .997.
If there was no change in self-concept among sample
participants, then posttest scores would remain essentially
the same as pretest scores. The estimates of slope computed
using regression analysis techniques would be close to 1.00
if these scores were equal. As shown in Table 6, none of
the estimates of the eight positive scales computed in this


132
the Southeastern Association of Housing Officers, the
American College Personnel Association, and the Southern
College Personnel Association during his years of
professional service and graduate studies at the
University of Florida.


99
research on this aspect of participation in extracurricular
activities was available for comparison purposes. Sample
participants were asked: "Have you been selected for or
assumed a leadership role (i.e. officer, committee chair
person) in any campus organization since the start of the
fall quarter?" Students who lived off campus held leader
ship roles in the numbers expected; however, students who
lived at home fell significantly short of expectations and
students who lived on campus exceeded expectations.'
One possible interpretation of the data is that freshmen
who lived on campus have more leadership ability and that
those who lived at home have less leadership ability than
others. Another possible explanation is that many of the
opportunities cited were in organizations or settings in
which campus residents are more active, such as residence
hall government, R.O.T.C., and social fraternities and
sororities. One explanation for the difference noted
between students who lived at home and those who lived
off campus away from home is that off-campus students'
may have had more opportunity to assume leadership respon
sibilities since they were free of family routines and
responsibilities and perhaps less subject to transporta
tion problems.
With the exception of the first interpretation that
the groups differed in leadership ability, the researcher
believes that these explanations all contributed to the
outcome of the research on leadership role. There is
no reason to believe that groups differ in leadership


84
One interpretation of the findings of this study is
that peers in the residence setting may have a negative
effect on females with low identity scores on the pretest.
As Segal (1967) noted in his description of the residence
hall setting, "The pressure in this setting is the
confrontation of the students with an intense peer-culture
experience . (p. 309). This strong peer influence
may not be what is needed for an entering freshman female
who already has poor perceptions of herself as a person.
Another explanation is that exposure to a wider variety
of persons and values than may have previously been encoun
tered is .a source of inner conflict for a person whose
identity is not yet well-developed. Still another explana
tion is that the absence of parents meant loss of a critical
support system for which no adequate substitute was avail
able in the residence halls. This absence of an adequate
substitute may influence the behavior patterns of these women
with poor identity scores. Those students with low initial
identity scores who lived off campus away from home may have
an adequate support system in the small, personally-chosen
peer group with whom they share their apartment.
The personal self subscale of the Tennessee Self
Concept Scale describes persons' sense of self-worth, their
feelings of personal adequacy, and their perception of their
personality apart from their body image or interpersonal
relationships. Significant differences at the .05 level
were found between males and females on this subscale.
Males had higher personal self scores than females. No


15
information on plans for Fall quarter residence while attending
the University; the Tennessee Self Concept Scale and answer
sheet; the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (revised);
and a stamped, addressed return envelope.
Posttest materials were distributed in April of 1977 to
those Fall enrollees who returned useable pretest materials
and who persisted at the University. These materials
included a cover letter, the Tennessee Self Concept Scale
and answer sheet, the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory
(revised), a questionnaire on involvement in extracurricular
activities, and a return envelope.
Samples of the general information sheet and the data
sheet sent to students with pretest materials, as well as the
cover letter sent to students with posttest materials, are
included in Appendix A. A sample of the pretest of the
Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (revised) is included
in Appendix B. The Activities Questionnaire, used on a
posttest-only basis, is included in Appendix C.
Extensive personal follow-up was provided for collection
of both pretest and posttest materials to secure a high
rate of return of materials.
Instruments
Tennessee Self Concept Scale
This instrument was developed by William H. Fitts in
1955. The scale was standardized by Fitts (cited in Harrell,
1976) on a total of 1091 persons representing all social,


the campus by other service units of the institution or by
formal or informal student organizations.
The belief that college housing is a setting offering
educational benefits to campus residents is the basis for
a second approach to residence hall operation. This
educational approach reflects a commitment to building an
environment conducive to learning and personal development.
With leadership of the campus housing program provided by
professional educators, priority is given to the creation of
opportunities within the campus residential setting that
build social skills, supplement classroom learning with other
learning experiences, and provide other avenues to personal
growth. Housing facilities are designed to meet not only the
basic needs of students to study and sleep, but also to provide
appropriate common areas for the broad range of social, educa
tional, and recreational activities that are an integral part
of life in residence communities. Leadership in articulating
this philosophy has been provided by Riker (1965). In
expounding on educational purposes, he noted that many adhere
to the
Time-honored but unwarranted assumption that
learning is a product of just the classroom,
occurring solely as the result of action and
reaction among the teacher, the student and,
their subject. The accumulating indications
are, however, that many factors influence
learning and that most of them are outside
the classroom. The student society, for
example, appears to be a significant force
affecting behavior. For this reason, the
student residence becomes an important means
of working with this society. The theories
about learning are many, and the evidence
regarding the factors involved is far from
conclusive. Even so, the wise course of


40
Impact of Different Types of Housing Arrangements
on College Freshmen
Astin (19 75) in a multi-campus study using data
collected from 1968-72 through the Cooperative Institutional
Research Program, reported his findings on the impact of
residence on student persistence in his book Preventing
Students from Dropping Out. Astin found that "living in
a dormitory as a freshman is associated with reduced dropout
probabilities" (p. 91). For students in public universities,
Astin found that living in a campus residence hall rather
than other accommodations appears to reduce the dropout rate
among freshman students by about 12%. In analyzing the
effects of living at home with parents and living in other
off-campus facilities, Astin concluded that residence at home
with parents had a negative impact on persistence while
residence in other off-campus accommodations is associated
with increased persistence for men and decreased persistence
for women (p. 93).
Perhaps the most significant research studies conducted
prior to the mid-seventies on the impact of various types
of housing arrangements on college freshmen were reported
by Chickering (1974) in his book entitled Commuting versus
Resident Students. Chickering studied the characteristics
of freshman students who live on campus, those who live at
home, and those who live in other off-campus accommodations.
He compared the groups as to college experiences and sought
to discover what differences, if any, existed in learning
and personal development among the groups.


69
was less participation than expected in such organizations
among students living at home or off campus away from home.
Campus residents greatly exceeded the response that was
expected for participation in such organizations, as is
shown in Table 12.
Table 12
Participation in "Other Organizations"
by Residence Group
Response
Students
Living At
Home
Students
Living
Off Campus
Away, From
b
Home
Students
Living
On Campus
Did not
Actual
46
32
39
participate
Expected
42.8
30.6
43.7
Actual
3
3
11
Participated
Expected
6.2
4.4
6.3
Note. N=134
an=49
bn=35
Cn=50
The second section of the questionnaire was designed to
determine whether or not persons in the sample had been
selected for or assumed a leadership role in a campus
organization during the course of their freshman year.
Significant differences were found among the groups by
type of residence on this section. Table 13 shows that
while students who lived off campus away from home held
leadership roles in the numbers expected, students who
lived at home fell short of expectations and students who
lived on campus exceeded expectations.


58
Table 7
Results of t_ tests on Estimates of Selected Parameters
for the Regression Model
6
Name of
Parameter
Identity
Personal
Self
Family
Self
Social
Self
So
Males at home
.003
.367
.034
.433
61
Males off campus
.580
.059
.032
.124
62
Males on campus
.981
.321
.424
.926
63
Females at home
.125
.036
.696
.009
64
Females off campus
.412
.075
.555
.030
65
Females on campus
.038
.066
.363
.197
Be
Before/Males at home
.0001
. 0001
.0001
.0001
67 .
Before/Males off campus
.515
.073
.037
.105
68
Before/Males on campus
.884
.414
.563
.988
69
Before/Females at home
.147
.047
.747
.013
610
Before/Females off campus
.431
.075
.484
.021
811 .Before/Females on campus
Note. pc.05.
.039
.090
.360
.176
No significant differences in scores could be attributed
to differences in sex or in type of residence as a result
of testing parameters on the total positive section or the
other four positive subscales of the instrument- Similarly
no differences in the total variability score or distribution
score were found that could be attributed to differences in
sex or type of residence.
The first subscale yielding significant results on
certain parameters was the identity scale. The data in
Table 7 show that the t tests for the parameters for this
subscale were significant for go, 65, 66 and 611.
Figure 2 illustrates the finding that female sample
participants who lived on campus and had low identity scores
on the pretest did not perform as well on the identity scale
of the posttest as other sample participants who had low
identity scores on the pretest. Females who lived on


This dissertation is dedicated with deep appreciation
to my parents, Colonel and Mrs. Clement Raymer Haulman;
my fiancee, Janet Minturn; and my son, Richard Scott
Haulman; who have supported me with their encouragement,
understanding and love during the most critical period of
my graduate studies.


respectively. An Activities Questionnaire was designed to
gather data on extent of involvement in campus organizations,
leadership roles held by freshmen, and participation in
certain other extracurricular activities. Data on persis
tence and participation in extracurricular activities were
analyzed using the chi-square test for significance.
Regression analysis techniques were used to study data
gathered on self-concepts and peer relationships. A regres
sion model was constructed using three factors (sex, type
of residence and pretest scores on the instrument) and
estimates were computed for each parameter of the model
using the S.A.S. program.
The major findings are summarized as follows: 1. Signi
ficant differences were found among males, but not females,
according to where they lived. Males who lived on campus
had a significantly higher level of persistence and males
who lived at home had a significantly lower level of persis
tence when residence groups were compared. 2. Changes in
self-concept occurred among sample participants during their
freshman year. 3. Significant differences were found in
aspects of Self-concept among groups with differing housing
arrangements. These differences were identified on the
identity, family self and social self subscales of the
Tennessee Self Concept Scale. 4. No significant differences
were found among the residence groups in students' percep
tions of certain qualities of their relationships with
peers as measured by the Relationship Inventory. 5. Signi
ficant differences were found among residence groups in
xi


97
show that a large majority of these students participated
in intramural sports competition on campus. This researcher
believes that the availability of friends in the.community,
as well as the scheduling of intramural competition at times
that are inconvenient for students who live at home, are
factors most likely to be responsible for the differences
found among the subsample groups in participation in intra
murals.
Campus residents visited the Florida State Museum or
the University Gallery in significantly greater numbers than
was expected based on chi-square analysis, while far fewer
of those who lived at home than was expected had visited
the museum or gallery.
One explanation for this difference is that those students
who lived at home may have had sufficient exposure to these
campus cultural centers through high school field trips or
visits on their own or with family or friends prior to
their freshman year. Another explanation is that students
who lived at home, with the demands of family routines and
responsibilities, may have had less of an. opportunity to
seek out such cultural centers. Students who lived on campus
may have visited such centers in such large numbers primarily
as a consequence of their proximity to these centers and
their natural curiosity about the campus. A number of these
reasons cited may be operating together or with still other
factors to explain the results obtained.


72
Table 15
Participation in Intramural Sports Competition on Campus
by Residence Group
Students
Living
Students
Off Campus
Students
Living At
Away From
Living
Response
Home
Home
On Campus
Actual
44
35
49
Participated
Expected
46.8
33.4
47.8
Did Not
Actual
5
0
1
Participate
Expected
2.2
1.6
2.2
Note. N=134
an=49
bn=35
Cn=50
The second question in this section in which significant
differences were found asked: "Have you visited the Florida
State Museum or the University Gallery since the start of the
1976 Fall Quarter?" The chi-square statistic was 23.781 with
2 degrees of freedom, which is significant at the .0001 level
Table 16 contains the actual and estimated numbers of sample
participants in each residence group who visited the museum
or the gallery. The data in this table show that sample
participants who lived on campus and who visited either of
these cultural centers greatly exceeded the number expected.
Those who lived at home who visited the museum or the gallery
fell far short of the number expected. The actual number of
sample participants who lived off campus away from home and
who had visited the museum or gallery equalled the
expected number.


10
Students in this category resided primarily in apartments
shared with one or more other students. Inasmuch as
those who lived in a fraternity or sorority house off
campus could, at best, constitute less than 1% of the
freshman population and because their living environment
might have been very different from other freshmen,
such individuals were excluded from the sample.
Participation in college life. The extent of participation
in extracurricular activities during the freshman year
as measured by a researcher-developed questionnaire.
Persistence in college. The tendency of a student to continue
his/her studies at the University as measured by a count
of the number of students who registered for one or more
courses for the Fall, Winter and Spring quarters.
Relationships with other students. The student's perceptions
of the nature of his relationships with peers as measured
by the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory (revised).
Residence requirement. Any requirement for students to live
on campus (except a requirement to continue a housing
obligation voluntarily contracted for by the student)
that is imposed by an institution of higher education.
Self-concept. The attitudes one holds toward himself/herself
as measured by the positive scales of the Tennessee
Self Concept Scale.


85
differences were found, however, that could be attributed
to differences in place of residence. The fact that males
and females differed significantly on this subscale indicates
that comparisons by sex should be made when analyzing the
impact of differing housing arrangements on students.
The family self subscale describes persons' perceptions
of self in relation to their closest circle of associates.
For students with low family self pretest scores, those
who lived off campus away from home scored higher on the
family self posttest than those who lived at home and those
who lived on campus. For students with high family self
pretest scores, however, those who lived at home or on
campus had higher family self posttest scores than those
who lived off campus away from home.
In order to interpret these findings, the reader must
understand that for those who lived off campus away from
home and for those who lived on campus, the pretest and
posttest instruments for this subscale reflected relation
ships with two different "circles of associates." For almost
all students in the sample, the pretest involved perceptions
of self in relation to their immediate family prior to the
start of the freshman year. On the posttest, however, the
instrument was completed by campus residents in terms of
their relationships with those living in close proximity
to their rooms in the residence hall. For those off campus
away from home, the posttest instrument was completed in
terms of their relationships with persons with whom they
shared an apartment.


57
study was close to 1.00, indicating that there were changes
in self-concept among sample participants during their
freshman year.
Table 6 .
Estimates for Total Positive and
on the Posttest of the Tennessee
Positive Subscores
Self Concept Scale
Total Positive
77
Identity
.61
Self-Satisfaction
.65
Behavior
.84
Physical Self
.83
Moral-Ethical Self
.71
Personal Self
.84
Family Self
.72
Social Self
.87
For each of the sections of the Tennessee Self Concept
\
Scale used in this study, t tests were conducted on the
hypothesis that each parameter contained in the regression
model equalled zero. The results of t tests for each
parameter for certain subscales of the Tennessee Self Concept
Scale are reported in Table 7. Parameters are listed in this
table in the order of inclusion in the model. Tests are
for single elimination against the full model. These tests
yielded significant results at the .05 level on certain
parameters of four positive subscales: identity, personal
self, family self and social self.


49
Persistence appears to be essentially a product of the
experience of students in the college environment. Research
cited constantly indicated that there is a greater persis
tence among campus residents than among students living at
home. There are indications that living off campus away
from home has a positive influence on persistence for men,
but the reverse may be true for women.
Based on a review of research approaches, a study of
longitudinal design appears appropriate for a study of
selected educational benefits for student groups, representing
three types of housing arrangements on one campus.


90
education. As a result of regression analyses of these data,
he concluded that, compared with campus residents, relation
ships with fellow college students were more limited among
students who lived at home. Among his specific findings
were these: "Campus residents scored higher (than students
who lived at home) on every questionnaire item concerning
social relationships with other students dates, drinking,
beer, staying up all night, parties, hanging around the
cafeteria, visiting a friend's apartment or room" (p. 62).
In comparison with the other two groups, students who lived
off campus away from home least frequently arranged dates
for others and most frequently drank beer, stayed up all
night, went out on dates, and attended parties.
Astin (1973) also studying multi-institutional data
gleaned from the same source as that used by Chickering,
found that the on-campus residence experience had a "consis
tently positive effect on student perceptions of their own
interpersonal competency . and increased the chances that
students would be satisfied with their overall undergraduate
experience, particularly in the area of interpersonal contacts
with other students" ( p. 207).
Arbuckle (1957) used matching techniques in a study
comparing 22 students who lived at home with 35 campus
residents. He concluded that there were significant positive
changes in sociability and interpersonal relations for those
living at home, but not for those on campus.
Graff and Cooley (1970) investigated whether or not differ
ences existed in adjustment to college by comparing students who


22
scores of the subsample groups where significant differences
were found on the positive scales of the Tennessee Self
Concept Scale.
Organization of the Research Report
This study is reported in five chapters. Chapter I
contains an introduction, a statement of the problem, the
significance of the study, scope of the study, limitations,
assumptions, definition of terms, and procedures. A review
of the literature is provided in Chapter II. An analysis
of the data is presented in Chapter III. Chapter IV is
devoted to a discussion of the data. In the final chapter,
Chapter V, conclusions and their implications are presented
along with suggestions for further research.


113
easily identifiable proportion of the freshman population
at the University. Student affairs staff could provide
leadership training opportunities, periodic newsletters on
organizations and certain activities, and individual contact
specifically geared to the needs of this group of students
to facilitate the development of their leadership skills.
This research has identified some significant differences
among students with differing living arrangements. The posi
tive influence of the residence hall environment on many
students in many ways has been demonstrated. There can be
no doubt that the positive impact of campus living can be
maintained and enhanced if the housing program is given
leadership by persons committed to building residence hall
environments that are conducive to learning and personal
development. A diversified campus housing program with
leadership committed to this educational approach can offer
important support systems and opportunities for personal
growth through interaction with peers and staff in various -
activities, challenges to those more advanced develop-
mentally, and special assistance for those who need help
with developmental problems and crises during the college
years.
There are several limitations of this study which must
be considered before an administrator, parent or student
should take action on the basis of the results obtained.
Only to the extent that other populations possess a similar
pattern of characteristics of the specified population


32
on personal stability and integration (as reflected by
student comments about self-concept) in ratings made during
the first semester of college. He attributed this situation
to the many adjustment problems faced by freshmen during this
period. His data reflected a sharp increase in personal
stability and integration from the first to the second semester
of the freshman year. In an earlier text, Sanford (1964)
also noted how vulnerable freshmen are to others' perceptions
of them. Freshmen are particularly subject to the influence
of peers, whose approval is needed to bolster self-confidence.
Relationships with Other Students
According to a number of studies reviewed by Newcomb and
Feldman (1969), students about to begin college lifp have high
/
expectations that academic and intellectual experiences will
be an extremely important source of satisfaction flor them.
However, in a longitudinal study, King (cited in Newcomb and
I
Feldman, 1969) found that by their senior year, most Harvard
students in reflecting upon their college experiences, felt
that their greatest satisfactions had come from interpersonal
activities and personal growth rather than from academic and
intellectual activities. Wallace (cited in Newcomb and Feldman,
1969) reported similar results in a study of freshman students.
He found that while getting the highest possible grades and
learning as much as possible were the most important and
most widely held goals among students entering college, the
importance of these goals declined sharply before the end
of the first year of college attendance, while the importance
of relationships with peers received much greater emphasis.


70
Table 13
Students' Leadership Roles
by Residence Group
Was not selected
for or did not
assume a leader
ship role
Response
Students
Living At
Home
Students
Living
Off Campus
Away From
Homeb
Students
Living
On Campus
Actual
Expected
42
33.3
23
23.8
26-
34.0
Was selected for
or assumed a
Actual
7
12
24
leadership role
Expected
15.7
11.2
16.0
Note. N=134
an=49
bn=35
o
|3
II
U1
o
While all
categories
of the questionnaire were
: tested
for differences between females and :
males, this is
the only
category where
such differences were
found. Table
14 reports
the responses
to this section of the
questionnaire
by sex.
As shown in Table 14, freshman males
were selected
for or
assumed leadership roles
in significantly greater numbers
than freshman
females in
the sample.
Table 14
Leadership Roles !
Held
by
Females and Males
Response
Females
Males
Was not selected for or did
Actual
57
34
not assume a
leadership role
Expected
50.3
40.7
Was selected
for or assumed
Actual
17
26
a leadership
role
Expected
23.7
19.3
Note. N=134
an=74
bn=60


35
Extracurricular Experiences
In an historical account tracing the development of
student extracurricular activities, Koos (1940) described
the then-current attitude of educational administrators
which was "to recognize positive educational values in
the extra-curriculum, to promote pupil-initiated projects,
and to capitalize for educational growth the natural, social
and creative propensities of youth." Although a later review
of the literature by Gilligan (1967) reflected periodic
changes in emphasis and support given to student activities,
an appreciation of the value of, and commitment to, such
activities remained in evidence.
The values of extracurricular experiences have been
noted by many, including Koos (1940), Frederick (1965) and
Lloyd-Jones, et al. (1938). Lloyd-Jones has articulated
these values in a concise manner:
V-
"Vv Extra-curricular activities offer.the opportunities
for students to develop good qualities of leaderships
and fellowships. They offer the opportunity to
serve the institution; to experience and to help
create good fellowship and social good will; they
further self-realization and all-round growth. They
assist studnts in adjusting to their student world
and in learning the qualities of good citizenship.
(p. 186)
Erikson (1950) has cited both the search for identity and
for peer support as factors motivating students to participate
in extracurricular activities in college. Weston and Stein
(1977) have also pointed out the role that involvement in
extracurricular activities can play in the development of a
person's self-concept. They have described the college years


93
attributed to differing housing arrangements among students.
No differences among the groups on perceptions of peers on
the factors studied have become apparent during the course
of this study. However, if aspects of the self-concept
continue to change as a function of residence, then percep
tions of peer relationships may change to the point that,
significant differences will be found among the groups.
Participation in Extracurricular Activities
The fourth and final research question in the statement
of the problem asked: "For those who persist in college,
is there a difference in participation in extracurricular
activities among students who live on campus, at home, or
in other off-campus housing?" Through a researcher-designed
Activities Questionnaire, three aspects of extracurricular
involvement were investigated. These aspects included
extent of involvement in various types of student organi
zations; leadership roles in campus organizations; and parti
cipation in other extracurricular activities, such as
intramurals, attendance at cultural and social events,
visits to campus cultural centers, and employment while
enrolled as a student. Significant differences were found
among the subsample groups in all three aspects of extra
curricular involvement which were investigated.
There is no consensus in available research on whether
or not participation in extracurricular activities is the
same among groups with differing housing arrangements.
Studies by Stewart (1969) and Barton (1972), which used the