Citation
The Relationships between role conflict, satisfaction and the dropout potential of college students

Material Information

Title:
The Relationships between role conflict, satisfaction and the dropout potential of college students
Creator:
Ritt, Lawrence G., 1938-
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1970
Language:
English
Physical Description:
x, 86 leaves : illus. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Academic degrees ( jstor )
Academic education ( jstor )
College administration ( jstor )
College freshmen ( jstor )
College students ( jstor )
Colleges ( jstor )
Research universities ( jstor )
School dropouts ( jstor )
Universities ( jstor )
University administration ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Student adjustment ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis - University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaf 85.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available on World Wide Web
General Note:
Manuscript copy.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

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:
022283012 ( AlephBibNum )
13621605 ( OCLC )
ACZ2488 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

























































THE UNIVERSE F FLORIDA
'ULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREME



















ed

nts r who gave

t ir y p the

d e

valuable c ter program and to

r assis lecti ent subjects from the



to press W debtedness to all of the members of

committee for th distance guidance and support:

drey Schumacher .D. -- Chairman

njamin Barger, P .

ichard Anderson, POD.

Dr. Hugh Davis, Ph.D.

Dr. Bruce Thomason, Ph.D.

especially to thank my chairman, Audrey Schumacher, for her

inued encouragement and Ben Barger, without whose substantial

tanc: this study might never have been completed.

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

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

this st Her patience and selflessness never diminished during the

course oT this endeavor.















TABLE OF CONTENTS


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






41














LIST OF TABLES



Table Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



















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

IPS BETWEEN ROLE DISCREPANCY ELEMENTS ... 10

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

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





























vi a






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



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

By

Lawrence Gerald Ritt

June, 1970

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

This study was concerned with investigating the relationships

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

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

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

Objective conflict was operationally defined as the difference

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

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

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

Subjective conflict was defined as the difference between a

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

of the reference groups.

Distortion was defined as the difference between the expectations

that the student attributed to the reference groups and the expectations

actually held by the reference groups.

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

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

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
















































F as
nona

be dissat

relations

active conflict and

changeable measure

portion (i.e ac

signific Mr

obieimme conf li


e mic

anticipated

reasons.

faction

f the university report a

academic reasons.

emic and

rsity.

ne asp t (academic

Ialso likely to


stations)

conflict






C. hips between the discrepancy measures and

measures of satisfaction and dropout potential:

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

objective conflict and distortion) appears to b

gross a measure to predict either satisfaction

dropout potential.

2. Subjective conflict is highly correlated with tota

satisfaction; however, it does not appear to predict

dropout potential.

3. Objective conflict does not correlate significantly with

either total satisfaction or total dropout potential.

4. Distortion appears to be the best predictor of tha

total anticipated probability of dropping out of the

university. It also correlates highly with the poten-

tial for dropping out for nonacademic reasons.

Two unexpected findings emerged in this study:

1. Objective conflict was positively correlated with the

probability of dropping out of the university for academic

reasons. It was suggested that this finding might reflect

the effects of a general college competence variable which

was not included in this study, a variable which correlates

significantly with both objective conflict and academic

dropout potential.

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

distortion) was significantly positively correlated with

total satisfaction, suggesting the possibility that "being





















'7 ~














1 INTRODUCE


A significant amount of research has n

the relationships between student perceptions of t

ments and their sati swon with elements of th

(1963) College and UnWOity Environment Scale (C

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

actional Analysis of Personality and Environment (TAPE) all emp

student perceptions. 0

Most research to date has focused upon the subjective

attitudes and perceptions of a single element of the c

students. None of the studies have focused upon the rela

student attitudes and perceptions and the attitudes and

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

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

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

tion) perceive discrepancies and, perhaps more importantly, where

members of the three groups agreed and disagreed in their percep

Role conflict has been defined in multiple, often contradict

fashions in the literature. Most definitions make reference to the

incompatible expectations to which a person occupying a given social

position is exposed. Distinctions are commonly made between conflict




a-I



























Grant

Gross,

Sict



(1965)

.ten-


between

d that


officiI

ling the

onfl I

nce beti

as been


rig-

Dresent.

received

lie,

uch










Or SUCn loualb witrial

Kraut report coen object

tive confli nor distortion; however,

significantly positi at ship between objective ubje

flict when low distor n was present.

This study icerned with three aspects of role screpanc

1. the subj ive role conflicts of college students

measured y the discrepancy between their student ro

expectations and their perceptions of the studentTole

expectations held by faculty members, university admini-

strators and other students,

2. the object ve role conflicts of college students as

measured by the discrepancy between the student's actual

student role expectations and the actual student role

expectations held by faculty members, university admini-

strators and other students, and

3. distortion as measured by the discrepancy between the

student's perception of the expectations held by faculty

members, other students and university administrators and

the actual student role expectations held by these groups.

Role satisfaction refers to a subjective evaluation of the

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

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

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

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

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
















ck

IS-



ege. The s ffer-

Assessment o rsonality and

istr t to determine how

the octeristics of students

college itself and the charac-

Sthat the discrepancies

'st 0I," self and college

ctive conflicts) were signi-

ot is ;ith college and his reported

g out hey further reported that the

n student and ege environment characteristics,

potential for dropping out were greater for nonacademic

ic satisfaction, and more for dropping out for nonacademic

than for academic reasons.

satisfaction and potential for dropping out may also

the actual and perceived role discrepancies that students

e. Discrepancies in student role expectations between a student

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

could constitute a significant area of personal conflict for

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

ge environment about how he should behave. a










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

environmental is related to.overal

probability of dro b current study at

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

related to satisfac n and dropout potential.

This study is concerned primarily with student role expectat

in the area of student nonacademic responsibility and freedom. This

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

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

istrators.

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

distortion (inaccuracies in attributing conflict) were independently

related to dissatisfaction and to dropout probability. Previous research

on dissatisfaction and college dropouts has focused predominantly on

subjective conflict, rarely on objective conflict or on the distortion

phenomenon. The significance of distortion has been amply demonstrated

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

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

conflict were not interchangeable measures of discrepancy and both used

"distortion" concepts to account for the differences.

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

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

student dissatisfaction and dropping out:

1. Real differences between students and other members of the

college community regarding expectations, characteristics

or attitudes (Objective Conflict),




































these








Ins

opp inn



+ genera
















FIGURE9



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


LEVEL I


LEVEL II


Academic Satisfaction

Nonacademic Satisfaction TOTAL SATISFACTION

General Satisfaction 4



Dropout Potential (Academic)

Dropout Potential (Nonacademic) TOTAL DROPOUT POTENTIAL

Dropout Potential (General)














s Betwe crepancy Va



Role discrepancies may be studied at three levels

This study is concerned with two of these levels of analyst

2 illustrates these analysis levels.

Level I represents the lowest level of analysis. s le

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

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

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

gation. Very little is known about the relationships between gross

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

between measures as specific as those found at Level 1.

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

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

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

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

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

elements of satisfaction and dropout potential.

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

relationship between their measures of subjective conflict and their

measures of objective conflict. These researchers indicated that these

two measures tend to operate somewhat independently of one another;

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

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













































ANCY














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

employ concepts similarhavi theo distortion as a third measure of role

conflict. The distortion concept represents the discrepancy between







attributed (subjective) expectations and actual (objective) expectH

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

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

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

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

flict. The distortion concept represents the discrepancy between

attributed (subjective) expectations and actual (objective) expect






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

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

expected to significantly correlate with both of these measures.



Hypothesis IV

There is no significant relationship between total objective

and total subjective conflict.



Hypothesis V

Total distortion is significantly positively correlated with

both total subjective conflict and total objective conflict.













































th











flict is




w


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

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

satisfaction. The ERSS items are focused primarily on nonacademic role

expectations.



Hypothesis VIII

Total subjective conflict is negatively correlated with nonacademic

satisfaction and is not significantly related to academic

satisfaction.

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

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

similar to distortion. Biddle noted that inaccuracies in attributing

expectations could generate serious problems for the various role mem-

bers within any given social system since they would be behaving

towards one another on the basis of misinformation about what others

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

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

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

fically, the relationship between students' distortion regarding the

definition of the role of student and the anticipated probability of

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

distortion increases, the anticipated probability of dropping out

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

"lack of fit" between student and college characteristics particularly

influenced student nonacademic dropout potential; similar findings are

expected in the current study.


















4-
















Leve

conflict, objective

(students, faculty str

to be an accurate pr oth n

however, it was not e ed to predi



Hypothesis XI

Total discrepancy Ficantly negatively corr

total satisfaction; as total discrepancy increases, sati

decreases. A I -



Hypothesis XII

Total discrepancy is significantly negatively correlated wi

nonacademic satisfaction; as total discrepancy increases, r

academic satisfaction decreases.




























items

(Pervin

tems of

es with them, how

sl of FlorTda?";

the administration at the

11 ... isfied are you

at the University of Flori

S were combined into a single scale in the final

bined scale wasolled Scale V (Appendix A).

rates the relationship between items, scales and

combined scale. Items I through 4 constitute the

tial Scale. Item 2 constitutes the "Dropout Potential for

i" subscale; the "Dropout Potenoa] For Nonacademic

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

dropout potential item.


I A



















THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SCALE V ITEMS, SCALES AND SUBSCALES



SCALE ITEM NUMBER SUBSCALE

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


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


SCALE


* indicates that the response
the item.


inuum was inverted in scoring 1


cont


































F
the
ted
e tted
:y felt
hers ity









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

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

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

relationships; and, 6) student-administration relationships.

A section was also provided to allow students to express other

feelings they might have regarding how students should behave.

The second part of this questionnaire requested the students to

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

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

made, so as to indicate:

1. their own personal degree of agreement-disagreement

with each of their statements;

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

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

statement; and

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

statement.

These subjects provided a pool of 486 statements. From this

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

1. two or more subjects provided similar statements, and

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

from at least two subjects.

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

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

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

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
































I as
meetings"

Iass


itinuum


ati ng


ing the ERSS









e feelings to

s udent It they would

Scale ri lings to "mos t

and Scoa IV attribute feelings to "most collei

administrators.

Appendix D s the four sets of instructions for ehe

Appendix E contains the ERSS.

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

conducted using thirty of the freshmen male subjects included in

primary study. The inter-trial interval between testing ses

fourteen days.

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

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

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

level (29 df). A

















ersity

(N


or 1ic to


the student subject

It was felt that freshmen

role expectatgns for themselves

all dropout rate than upperclass-

ibility that male and

vi~os differently and/or have

iffe by faculty members, adminis-

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

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

n men were sampled in this study.

All freshmen men enrolled in introductory psychology courses

received a letter (Appendix F) explaining the general nature

research and requesting their participation. Thirty-two of the

student subjects were volunteers from these courses. Thirty of

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

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





L a









9
dent subjects were drawn from

dormitory a tory resident advisor assisted in select

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

sampling of the Ents from several dormitories and multiple floors

and sections of these dormitories.

The thirty faculty members who served as the faculty subject

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

University College. All freshmen at the University of Florida are

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

group have some direct teaching contact with the freshmen student

population from which the student subjects were drawn.

The intent in selecting members of the administration group was

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

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

excluded all deans and directors of colleges other than University

College, all graduate school deans and all administrators concerned

primarily with female students. It included the president and vice

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

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

registrars and assistant registrars and the director of housing and his

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

trative personnel who met these criteria were asked to participate.






















nd a messed

is scale. The

complete only

r the role of

the SSS or DPS.

mem .administrators were

dy. Des ared follow-up con-

se groups return completed

s o e a minister group a d three faculty

d from the final study for this reason. Therefore,

the faculty group was 27 and the administrator group



student subjects received group administration of the scales.

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

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

ty and forty-five minutes.

the student subjects received Scale I as his first task

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

was controlled so that an equal number of students received

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










Inrr PpeCdueL- .ned to eliminate the possibility o

response set towa* a particular reference group.























r
differences

act's response o an


the reference groups

to Figure 4, the
ict at Level I are


ts = Z(A E)=

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

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

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















FIGURE 4


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


ERSS SCALE DESCRIPTION OF MEASURE ITEMS SUM OF ITE

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


a




























FT~ent

expectations
nean response


pr... + (i)J

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


-ton wi1

kw +


. Lev
(student, fa dministr

Jhe following types of Level


i) otfa part


Flevels II and

rence groups

of conflict.













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


le Level III me' l"
isures. The following


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


- e'


e e I


a a



























ns, the

= 25)4nd

ychology

res d~ in Table 1.



d Ward,

uterized

is. that an

ntt groups

is focu udent/ t.trp s mi n-

y/adminis

Sof F which ar sented in T ate the

Sells of disa which defi conflicts

ding expe or th ent.

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

three pairs of groups (studP ent/

-ration and faculty catration s~ can

















MEAN CH OF THE ERS
NO ADI INI STRAT RO



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


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















0




w


disagreement between both faculty/students and faculty/administra

c) 1 item shows significant disagreement between both administration

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

greement between both faculty/students and administration/students;

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

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

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

The 16 ERSS items that provide these significant group conflicts are

listed in Table 3.

Data analysis for the purposes of hypothesis-testing consisted

of a series of partial correlations. Four partial correlation matrices

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

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

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

tained in Appendix H.

It should be noted that the Dropout Potential Scale scoring

procedures are such that a high score indicates a low anticipated

probability of dropping out of the university. Therefore, positive

correlations with total, academic or nonacademic dropout potential

should be interpreted as if they were negative correlations and negative

correlations should be interpreted as if they were positive correlations.

Table 4 contains the partial correlation matrix of Level II

conflict measures and the Level I satisfaction and dropout potential

measures.

Table 5 contains the matrix of Level II conflict measures and

Level II satisfaction and dropout potential measures.































r n rules of conduct.
policy changes if all

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

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


inistration and Faculty/Administration F values significant

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

GE STUDENT SHOULD ...

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


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


A COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD .

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










3 continued.



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

A COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD ...

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


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


A COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD ...

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


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


A COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD ...

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





































> > l
S-n


U.-
o*








































S 00 o .
C0

S--


























O 000
-X c O







O) v
l C CC C a -
















*u 0 o -


.>- C u -, o


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

II- 0 U C L 1
O



















C 0 0 0 u- 0






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












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





























N ~ u\ -3 L















TABLE 5


Level II Confl


PARTIAL CORRELATIONS
ict and Level II Satisfaction/Dropout Potential


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

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


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


significant at greater than the .05

significant at greater than the .01


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












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

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

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

positively correlated with academic dropout potential (Table 4:

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

Hypothesis VII was confirmed. In Table 5, total subjective

conflict is significantly negatively correlated with total satisfaction

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

conflict is not significantly correlated with total dropout potential

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

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

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

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

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

Hypothesis IX predicted that subjects with high total distortion

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

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

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

level (45 df). Hypothesis IX was confirmed.

An unexpected finding was the significant positive correlation

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

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

distortion increases, his overall satisfaction increases.

In Table 4, the correlation between total distortion and

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

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


















po, nonut Potential




Tota Total
Discrepa Dropout
Potential



.57 **


a correlation that is significant at greater than the .05

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

















I
















TABLE 7


Level III Conflict


PARTIAL CORRELATIONS
and Level I Satisfaction/Dropout Potential


2
Academic
Dropout


3
Nonacademic
Dropout


Potential Potential


4
Academic
Satisfaction


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


.33*

-.18


-.18 .5D~


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


that is significant at greater than the .05

that is significant at greater than the .01


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


1I
Total
Discrepancy


-.05

-.15

.13


_I__~ ___ I~
I~~ _


.50**














rela-Tbns of total discrepancy,

ion and total tential.

is XI predicted a significant negative correlation

discrepancy and total satisfaction. In Table 6, this

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

thesis XI is not confirmed. The correlation between total conflict

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

e .05 level.

Table 6 provides additional data to support Hypothesis I; the

correlation between total satisfaction and total dropout potential

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

Table 7 contains the partial correlational matrix of total

discrepancy, academic and nonacademic satisfaction and academic and

nonacademic dropout potential.

Hypothesis XII predicts a significant negative correlation

between total discrepancy and nonacademic satisfaction. This correla-

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

Hypothesis XII is not confirmed.

Table 7 does provide additional support for Hypotheses II and

III. Academic dropout potential and academic satisfaction are signi-

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

nonacademic dropout potential and nonacademic satisfaction are signi-

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




I -43-





Table 7 also contains data to support the unexpected phenomenon

of a highly significant relationship between academic and nonacademic

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


















USSIO N W

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



noted the need for research to identify where

dents, faculty and administrators agreed and disagreed in their

options and attitudes. Using the applied multiple linear regres-

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

that appear to represent areas of intergroup conflict between stu-

ts, faculty and administration.

The primary conflict area between students and other members of

he university community (faculty and administration) was disagreement

ncerning the degree of autonomy, freedom and responsibility that

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

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

external restraint than were the behaviors ascribed to the student role

by either the faculty or administration subjects.

The faculty group and administration group significantly disagreed

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

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

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

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









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






















aA
















t of

ted.

e expectation at satis-

eport a tendency towards dropping

dissati students.

were a so confirmed; students who report

roppi t for academic reasons tend to also

egic aspects of the university

nts report a high probability of dropping

ns report low satisfaction with the nonaca-

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

significant relationships were found to exist between academic

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

ween academic and nonacademic satisfaction was significant at

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

differentiate their probable reasons for dropping out the university

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

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

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

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

to also be dissatisfied with the other aspects.).

Additional research is needed to investigate the relationships

that may exist between these satisfaction and dropout potential measures

and actual student behaviors.






major questions for inv


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






1










i























Kraut, 1965)

to operate inde-

no meaningful relationships

ich a ilg a given

rol ancies which he perceives as oper-

be c a predicted that

and objective c ce t measures would

ning f student. The data in this

action. l nificant correlation was found

jectiveL ict.

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

1965 sed concepts similar to "distortion" as a third

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

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

ns c of subjTctive conflict and the actual expectations

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

fi~ly positively correlated with both of these measures.

his study support that expectation. Distortion was found

o sig ificantly correlated with both subjective conflict and objec-

Iconflict; whereas these measures were not significantly correlated

r ach other.












The Relations e screpancySatisfaction and DrJA Poten



It was thought total discrepancy (the sum of objective

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

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

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

hypothesized, however, that total discrepancy and total satisfaction

would be significantly negatively correlated (Hypothesis XI). This

hypothesis was not confirmed.

In addition, the data on the relationships between total

discrepancy and nonacademic satisfaction failed to support Hypothesis

XII; total discrepancy was not significantly negatively correlated with

nonacademic satisfaction.

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

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

predict either dropout potential or satisfaction.

A number of significant relationships were found between the

Level II discrepancy measures and satisfaction (academic, nonacademic

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

The most unexpected finding in this study was the significant

positive correlation between total objective conflict and academic

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

which predicted no significant relationships between objective conflict

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

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

































n cofle-
potc tial.

ademic

e) Such a

-e gra

Is-





er the





def ns o












alsati I th o s

correlation be conou

These fi with those re ot

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

appears that subjective conflict is an accate pred* f

tion, but has no significant relationship with the

in behavior such as dropping out of the university.

Hypothesis VIII was not confirmed; no significant correla

was found between subjective conflict and nonacademic satisfac

This finding is not consistent with the findings of Pervin and

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

and perceived college characteristics was related to both nonacad

satisfaction and dropout potential. It is consistent with er findings

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

and nonacademic satisfaction. When the correlations between all other

conflict, satisfaction and dropout measures are held constant, there

is a significant positive relationship between academic and nonacademic

satisfaction.

The measure of distortion appears to be the best predictor of

student dropout potential. Hypothesis IX was confirmed; students with

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

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

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

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

between student and college is related to student nonacademic dropout


























re also

at they





1 conflicts

from, a

on that can

ad" effect).

ge fr

predict

tive

to satisf r sa;isfaction

made a.

atements

se discrepancy

s of ctitial:

discrepa ion (aca-

, nonac 0 ial













sat otf d otentic p ny ot

sat tion or t potential measure .

3. Obje ive conflict does not correlate significantly

with either total satisfaction or total dropo

tial. It is significantly positively correlated

the potential for dropping out of the university fo

academic reasons. It is suspected that this cor

may be accounted for by a variable such as general

lege competence that could be significantly corre

with both objective conflict and academic dropout

potential.

4. Distortion is significantly negatively correl th

both total dropout potential and nonacademic dropout

potential. Distortion also correlates positive

total satisfaction. This means that as a st

total distortion increases, his total dropout potential

increases, his nonacademic dropout potential Ireases

and his total satisfaction increases. This latter cor-

relation suggests the hypothesis that satisfaction is

significantly related to "being out of touch" with real

conflicts. It is possible that distortion may be the

best predictor of both total satisfaction and total

dropout potential.



































eas:




asures

average,



riables

t




eturn




screpant

rsity com-
















CHAPTER V

SUMMARY



This study was concerned with investigating: 1) the relationship

that exist between three measures of student role conflict (subjective

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

between student satisfaction and the anticipated probability of dropping

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

conflict and student satisfaction and dropout potential.

Three test instruments were constructed in pilot research:

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

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

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

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

The ERSS was constructed from items regarding the role of

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

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

greatest subjective conflict from these subjects.

Significant test-retest reliability coefficients were obtained

for all three test instruments.

Three groups of subjects from the University of Florida were

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

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
























greater
ity




academic and
e University.
L t ademic
likely to









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

operationally accounts for the differences between s

jective and objective conflict. This finding is consis-

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

Biddle et al., 1966).

C. The relationships between the discrepancy measures and the

measures of satisfaction and dropout potential:

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

flict, objective conflict and distortion scores) is not

an effective predictor of either satisfaction or dropout

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

any meaningful predictive validity.

2. Subjective conflict is highly correlated with total

satisfaction; however, it does not appear to predict

dropout potential.

3. Objective conflict does not correlate significantly with

either total satisfaction or total dropout potential.

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

anticipated probability of dropping out of the university.

It also correlates highly with the potential for dropping

out for nonacademic reasons.

Two unexpected findings emerged in this study:

1. Objective conflict was positively correlated with the

probability of dropping out of the university for academic

reasons. It was suggested that this finding might reflect

the effects of a general college competence variable



































jdenti-

nt s dentifies

ati udent Scale which the

iffer ners. These data

within the university com-

and students hold

ns for students.

search were generated from this

he relationships that exist

s emp s study and such v les as

dropout beh de point average, a sex and

similarly, re ht also b were



























APPENDICES



















I









































t of the
ersit for any 4
uired


9INITELY
OT

e tim ege


3 4 TELY
NOT

ome aca-
an e, etc.)?
re

3 8 INITELY
MOlT









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
























AT ALL
'ONSIBLE

the


F adminis
a? ^


4 5


W 'IPLETELY
P UNCOMFORTABLE

plues of the

11 OPPOSITE
VALUES

hles and regulations

11 COMPLETE
DISAGREEMENT


su disagree with the Univhity of Florida on
sue

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



.A














PPENDIXIV W


DENT EXPECTATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE


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


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


-- =^--I-~

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












A
















(He s fo Pages 1-7)

PAGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
































e





















e

or
hat
ly
the
ment










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


h 6


DISAGREE

DISAGREE


V,


a


ft






















1 LGLY


Ol""GLY

IONGLY


DISAGREE


DISAGREE


DISAGREE


E


rs wou

inist



you ch


y would -
Y AGREE

ts would
JII EE g E


AGREE SRNGLY DISAGREE


fol b would agree with



DISd EE STRONGLY DISAGREE


DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGRE


DISAGR V IRONGLY DISAGREE

DISAGR NGLY DISAGREE



of t Following agree with


DISAGR ONLY DISAGREE


DISAGREE


E


E


E


E













lo ty members would
AGREE 0 AGREE

Most unJ sl ministrators w
STRON LY AIT AGREE







































































et i ngs

eCIC




















13*
a e he m
stu s

30 ...not be req to a
meetings

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

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

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

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




pill




























5 3.0


4 .5

ki

nd abid
4 3.2

s and
rs i ty. 4 3.2

mbers Mbcause of
f learning. 4 3.2

tact with the
ring his stay at the
3 3.3

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

joining a fraternity. 2 6.0

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








-=cont in


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

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






1



























pe

ace.
by




a ued AG
AGR


s t


the s the t of Do





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


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


respond
ank sDa















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

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

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

SCALE III: INSTRUCTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

SCALE IV: INSTRUCTIONS

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

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








































9


















THE EXPECTATIONS FOR THE ROLE OF STUDENT


[Instructions inserted here (see Appendix D)]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. A college student should avoid joining a fraternity.

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




a


01
















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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




















is M




































ber of
roximately
rst question-
naire can be


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


"sign in
e will bel!l the


p.m. in 01, B


.m. I


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













I hope to see


Larry Ritt,
Doctoral Stu
Psychology


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


1































































h this c

rat i n










































-L o .









,, < L |] w



O 0o D 4






Q oL- co oo _
O. * 4






So o ( 0






.0





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









._.
0 (J 0 0O L-

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

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

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












































cm
- e


C)-~- -


Cc


N.


0


I e



0 F0 0


I I





- e eq 0

S D- m C


CA L 0
N~-L~I


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

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




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


4-,4-






C)

cc
a -
oo










0 0
c c
mm




en



t)

00
4-4-


~a-~fLyN
C,h




















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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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























year,
ology.


ychology from the
rsuedaork towards the


W lted in the
outhshore Mental

played as a
s since


chua Count)


ried Judith
. Sarah Me


as born 2,


9


New
1969.












member


&of Arts and
partial ftl

PhMosophy.


June, 1970


Dea, Gaduate School
Dean, Graduate School


4


Supervisory Committee:


Chai rman


-4




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EMZ86K3WU_HVY5V0 INGEST_TIME 2017-07-14T23:04:32Z PACKAGE UF00097739_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ROLE CONFLICT, SATISFACTION AND THE DROPOUT POTENTIAL OF COLLEGE STUDENTS B 7 LAWRENCE GERALD RITT A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1970

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The cooperation of many people is needed for the successful completion of studies such as the present one. I am greatly indebted to all of the students, faculty and administrative personnel who gave of their time completing my questionnaires and thereby provided the data for this study. Appreciation is also felt towards Mr. Steve Sledjeski for his invaluable assistance in computer programming and to Amy Goldstein for her assistance in selecting student subjects from the dormitory areas. I also wish to express my indebtedness to all of the members of my supervisory committee for their assistance, guidance and support: Dr. Audrey Schumacher, Ph.D. -Chairman Dr. Benjamin Barger, Ph.D. Dr. Richard Anderson, Ph.D. Dr. Hugh Davis, Ph.D. Dr. Bruce Thomason, Ph.D. I wish especially to thank my chairman, Audrey Schumacher, for her continued encouragement and Ben Barger, without whose substantial assistance this study might never have been completed. Lastly, I want to thank my wife, Judy, for all of the tangible and intangible ways in which she helped me in my struggle to complete this study. Her patience and selflessness never diminished during the course of this endeavor.

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i i L I ST OF TABLES v L I ST OF F I GUR.ES v i ABSTRACT v i i CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION 1 The Relationships Between Satisfaction and Dropout Potential 8 The Relationships Between the Discrepancy Variables 9 The Relationships Between the Discrepancy Variables and the Satisfaction and Dropout Potential Variables 12 The Relationships Between Total Discrepancy and the Satisfaction and Dropout Potential Variables 15 CHAPTER I I : METHOD 16 Test Construction Procedures 16 Subjects 22 Administration of the Scales 2k Operational Definitions of the Discrepancy Measures and Scoring Procedures 26 CHAPTER Mi: RESULTS 30 CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION M tntergroup Conflict Areas Identified on the Expectations for the Role of Student Scale (ERSS) kk The Relationships Between Satisfaction and Dropout Potential kS The Relationships Between Objective Conflict, Subjective Conflict and Distortion A8 The Relationships Between Discrepancy, Satisfaction and Dropout Potential ^9 CHAPTER V : SUMMARY 55

PAGE 4

TABLE continued Page APPEND I X A 60 APPENDIX B 63 APPEND IXC 70 APPEND IX D Ik APPENDIX E 77 APPEND IX F 80 APPENDIX G 82 APPENDIX H 83 B I BL I OGRAPHY 85 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 86 iv

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES Table Pa 9 e 1 MEAN RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE ERSS ITEMS BY THE STUDENT, FACULTY AND ADM I N I STRAT I ON GROUPS 31 2 VALUES OF F IN COMPARING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RESPONSES OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION GROUPS TO THE 30 ITEMS ON THE ERSS 32 3 ERSS ITEMS WITH SIGNIFICANT F VALUES BETWEEN GROUPS ... lk k PARTIAL CORRELATIONS: Level II Conflict and Level I Satisfaction/Dropout Potential 36 5 PARTIAL CORRELATIONS: Level II Conflict and Level II Satisfaction/Dropout Potential 37 6 PARTIAL CORRELATIONS: Level III Conflict and Level II Satisfaction/Dropout Potential h0 7 PARTIAL CORRELATIONS: Level III Conflict and Level I Satisfaction/Dropout Potential 4l

PAGE 6

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ELEMENTS OF SATISFACTION AND DROPOUT POTENTIAL 7 2 THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ROLE DISCREPANCY ELEMENTS ... 10 3 THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SCALE V ITEMS, SCALESAND SUBSCALES 17 h THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DISCREPANCY MEASURES AND THE SCALES OF THE ERSS 27

PAGE 7

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 Philosophy THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ROLE CONFLICT, SATISFACTION AND THE DROPOUT POTENTIAL OF COLLEGE STUDENTS By Lawrence Gerald Ritt June, 1970 Chairman: Audrey S. Schumacher, Ph.D. Major Department: Psychology This study was concerned with investigating the relationships between: a) three measures of role conflict (objective conflict, subjective conflict and distortion); b) student role satisfaction; and c) the student's anticipated probability of dropping out of the university. Objective conflict was operationally defined as the difference between a student's own expectations for the role of student and the actual expectations for student behavior held by members of three reference groups (other students, faculty members and administrators). Subjective conflict was defined as the difference between a student's own expectations and the expectations he attributed to members of the reference groups. Distortion was defined as the difference between the expectations that the student attributed to the reference groups and the expectations actually held by the reference groups. Three test instruments were constructed in pilot research: l) the Student Satisfaction Scale (SSS) ; 2) the Dropout Potential Scale (DPS); and 3) the Expectations for the Role of Student Scale (ERSS) . Significan

PAGE 8

(p < .001) test-retest reliability coefficients were obtained for all three instruments. Three groups of subjects from the University of Florida were utilized in the study: 1) freshmen male students (N = 50); 2) faculty members (N = 27); and, 3) administrative personnel (N = 25). The findings in this study may be summarized as follows: A. The rel at ionships between satisfaction and dropout potential: 1. The greater the dissatisfaction that a student reports, the greater the anticipated probability of his dropping out of the university. 2. The greater the dissatisfaction with the academic aspects of the university, the greater the anticipated probability of dropping out for academic reasons. Similarly, students reporting greater dissatisfaction with the nonacademic aspects of the university report a higher dropout potential for nonacademic reasons. 3. Students appear to differentiate between academic and nonacademic reasons for dropping out of the university. A. When a student is dissatisfied with one aspect (academic or nonacademic) of the university, he is also likely to be dissatisfied with the other aspect. B. The relationships between discrepancy measures: 1. Objective conflict and subjective conflict are not interchangeable measures. 2. Distortion (i.e., inaccuracies in attributing expectations) is s igni f fcant ly correlated with both subjective conflict and objective conflict.

PAGE 9

C. The relationships between the discrepancy measures and the measures of satisfaction and dropout potential: 1. Total discrepancy (i.e., the sum of subjective conflict, objective conflict and distortion) appears to be too gross a measure to predict either satisfaction or dropout potential. 2. Subjective conflict is highly correlated with total satisfaction; however, it does not appear to predict dropout potential. 3. Objective conflict does not correlate significantly with either total satisfaction or total dropout potential. h. Distortion appears to be the best predictor of the total anticipated probability of dropping out of the university. It also correlates highly with the potential for dropping out for nonacademic reasons. Two unexpected findings emerged in this study: 1. Objective conflict was positively correlated with the probability of dropping out of the university for academic reasons. It was suggested that this finding might reflect the effects of a general college competence variable which was not included in this study, a variable which correlates significantly with both objective conflict and academic dropout potential. 2. Inaccuracy in attributing expectations to others (i.e., distortion) was significantly positively correlated with total satisfaction, suggesting the possibility that "being

PAGE 10

out of touch" with how others (i.e., students, faculty and/ or administration) actually feel may actually enhance a student's general feeling of satisfaction. The ERSS appears to be a useful instrument for identifying areas of i ntra-uni vers i ty conflict. The current study identifies items on the Expectations for the Role of Student Scale to which the three reference groups respond in significantly different manners, thereby identifying possible conflict areas within the university community.

PAGE 11

CHAPTER I INTR ODUCTION A significant amount of research has been conducted i nvest igat i ng the relationships between student perceptions of their college environments and their satisfaction with elements of that environment. Pace's (1363) College and University Environment Scale (CUES), Stern's (1963) College Characteristics Index (CCl) and Pervin and Rubin's (1970) Transactional Analysis of Personality and Environment (TAPE) all emphasized student perceptions. Most research to date has focused upon the subjective feelings, attitudes and perceptions of a single element of the college community: students. None of the studies have focused upon the relationships between student attitudes and perceptions and the attitudes and perceptions of other. members of the college community (e.g., faculty and administrators). Pervin (1968) noted the need for research that "...would provide for an analysis of where members of each group (students, faculty and administration) perceive discrepancies and, perhaps more importantly, where the members of the three groups agreed and disagreed in their perceptions." Role conflict has been defined in multiple, often contradictory, fashions in the literature. Most definitions make reference to the incompatible expectations to which a person occupying a given social position is exposed. Distinctions are commonly made between conflicts -1-

PAGE 12

which are perceived by the person occupying the role (Subjective Conflict) and conflicts which may actually exist without his awareness (Objective Conf 1 ict) . Objective Conflict refers to actual discrepancies between different groups in their expectations for role behaviors. For example, objective conflict would exist if students and faculty members did, in fact, hold incompatible expectations regarding student behavior. Subjective Conflict would exist if a student perceived faculty members as holding expectations for student behavior which were discrepant with the expectations which the student held for his own behavior. Gross, McEachern and Mason (1358) restricted their investigation of role conflict in school superintendents to subjective conflict (i.e., discrepancies perceived by the individuals subjected to the expectations). Kraut (19&5) found that salesmen's job satisfaction, mental health symptoms, job tension and job stress were more related to subjective conflict than objective conflict. A number of researchers have focused on the relationship between subjective conflict and objective conflict. Wheeler (1961) found that inmates and prison officials both inaccurately attributed expectations to the other regarding their own behavior and thereby demonstrated significant subjective conflict where minimal objective conflict was present. This difference between the actual role expectations and perceived role expectations has been defined as di stort ion (Kraut, 1 965 ) Biddle, Rosencranz, Tomich and Twyman ( 1 966) discussed the high incidence of such distortion (i.e., inaccuracy in attributing expectations to the role of teacher) in a particular school system and the probably negative effects

PAGE 13

of such distortion on the interactions of individuals within the system. Kraut reported no significant correlation between objective and subjective conflict without controls for distortion; however, he noted a significantly positive relationship between objective and subjective conflict when low distortion was present. This study is concerned with three aspects of role discrepancy: 1. the subjective role conflicts of college students as measured by the discrepancy between their student role expectations and their perceptions of the student role expectations held by faculty members, university administrators and other students, 2. the objective role conflicts of college students as measured by the discrepancy between the student's actual student role expectations and the actual student role expectations held by faculty members, university administrators and other students, and 3. distortion as measured by the discrepancy between the student's perception of the expectations held by faculty members, other students and university administrators and the actual student role expectations held by these groups. Role satisfaction refers to a subjective evaluation of the meaningful ness of a role. Kraut (1965) studied the relationship between aspects of salesmen's role conflicts (subjective, objective, and distortion) and their role satisfactions. He reported that role conflict was negatively related to satisfaction with "job, organization and particularly with the manager." He found that the effects of role conflict were

PAGE 14

-kgreatest when the measure of conflict was subjective, rather than objective. He reported that neither measure of role conflict was related to actual sales performance. Pervin and Rubin (1970) confirmed their hypothesis that a "lack of fit" between student and college characteristics leads to dissatisfaction with the college experience, which ultimately leads to an increased probability of dropping out of college. The semantic differential technique was used to construct The Assessment of Personality and Environment Test (TAPE). They used this instrument to determine how students perceived their own personality, the characteristics of students in the college, the characteristics of the college itself and the characteristics of the "ideal college." They found that the discrepancies between the student's perception of self and "students," self and college and college and ideal college (i.e., subjective conflicts) were significantly related to both his satisfaction with college and his reported potential for dropping out of college. They further reported that the relationship between student and college environment characteristics, satisfaction and potential for dropping out were greater for nonacademic than academic satisfaction, and more for dropping out for nonacademic (personal) reasons than for academic reasons. Student dissatisfaction and potential for dropping out may also be related to the actual and perceived role discrepancies that students experience. Discrepancies in student role expectations between a student and other students, a student and faculty members or a student and administrators could constitute a significant area of personal conflict for the student; the student would not agree with other significant persons in his college environment about how he should behave.

PAGE 15

Pervin and Rubin (1970) have already demonstrated that perceived "lack of fit" between student personality characteristics and college environmental characteristics is related to.overall dissatisfaction and probability of dropping out. The current study attempts to test whether a "lack of fit" regarding expectations for the student role is similarly related to satisfaction and dropout potential. This study is concerned primarily with student role expectations in the area of student nonacademic responsibility and freedom. This area of expectations appears to be one in which discrepancies occur -or are perceived as occurring — betv/een students, faculty and administrators. Subjective (perceived) conflict, objective (actual) conflict and distortion (inaccuracies in attributing conflict) were independently related to dissatisfaction and to dropout probability. Previous research on dissatisfaction and college dropouts has focused predominantly on subjective conflict, rarely on objective conflict or on the distortion phenomenon. The significance of distortion has been amply demonstrated in other areas of research (Kraut, 1 965 ; Wheeler, I96I ; and, Biddle et al., 19^6). Biddle and Kraut both reported that subjective and objective conflict were not interchangeable measures of discrepancy and both used "distortion" concepts to account for the differences. If similar findings were obtained in the current study, it would suggest that at least three "lack of fit" phenomena may account for student dissatisfaction and dropping out: I. Real differences between students and other members of the college community regarding expectations, characteristics > or attitudes (Objective Conflict),

PAGE 16

2. Perceived differences (whether real or unreal) between students and other members of the college community (Subjective Conflict), and 3. Inaccurately attributed differences between students and other members of the college community (Distortion). Pervin and Rubin (1970) found that "lack of fit" had greater impact on nonacademic satisfaction and dropout potential than on academic satisfaction and dropout potential. The current study is designed to investigate the effects of the various types of role expectation discrepancies upon academic, nonacademic and overall satisfaction and dropout potential. Figure 1 illustrates the relationships between total satisfaction, total dropout potential and the elements that comprise each of these concepts . Satisfaction: Level 1 contains the three elements of student satisfaction (academic satisfaction, nonacademic satisfaction and general satisfaction) with the university. Dropout Potential: Level I contains comparable elements relating to the anticipated probability of dropping out of college. Level II represents total satisfaction and total dropout potential (academic + nonacademic + general).

PAGE 17

FIGURE 1 THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EL EMENTS 0_F SATISFACTION AND DROPOUT POTENTIAL" LEVEL I LEVEL Academic Satisfaction Nonacadernic Satisfaction General Satisfaction TOTAL SATISFACTION Dropout Potential (Academic) Dropout Potential (Nonacadernic) Dropout Potential (General) TOTAL DROPOUT POTENTIAL

PAGE 18

-8The Rel at i onsh ips Between Satisfaction and Dropout Potential One concern of this study is the relationship between dropout potential and satisfaction. Pervin and Rubin (1970) suggest that they are highly correlated, high satisfaction being related to low dropout potential . Hypothes is l_ Total satisfactio n is negatively related to the overall anticipat ed probability of dropping out of the university. It might be hypothesized that academic satisfaction correlates with academic dropout potential and nonacademic satisfaction correlates with nonacademic dropout potential. No significant relationships were expected between academic sat i sfact ion/nonacademic dropout potential, nonacademic satisfaction/academic dropout potential, academic sat isfact ion/nonacademic satisfaction or academic dropout potential/ nonacademic dropout potential. Hypothesis I I Academic satisfaction is negatively related to the anticipated probability of dropping out for academic reasons . Hypothes is 111 Nonacademic satisfaction is negatively related to the anticipated probabi 1 i ty of dropping out for nonacademic reasons.

PAGE 19

The Relationships Between the Discrepancy Variables Role discrepancies may be studied at three levels of analysis. This study is concerned with two of these levels of analysis. Figure 2 illustrates these analysis levels. Level I represents the lowest level of analysis. At this level, each type of conflict (subjective, objective and distortion) is focused on a specific reference group (student, faculty or administration). Analysis at Level I was not a primary concern in the current investigation. Very little is known about the relationships between gross measures of discrepancy; at the current state of knowledge, it would be highly speculative to generate hypotheses regarding the relationships between measures as specific as those found at Level I. Level II represents grouping by type of conflict. Each of the three elements at Level II represents the combined locus (student, faculty and administration) of a particular type of discrepancy (subjective conflict, objective conflict or distortion). -These elements may be studied as they relate to each other and as they relate to the elements of satisfaction and dropout potential. Neither Wheeler (1961 ) nor Kraut (I965) found any significant relationship between their measures of subjective conflict and their measures of objective conflict. These researchers indicated that these two measures tend to operate somewhat independently of one another; there does not appear to be a meaningful relationship between the actual discrepancies to which a person occupying a given role is exposed and

PAGE 20

10FIGURE 2 THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ROLE DISCREPANCY ELEMENTS LEVEL LEVEL II LEVEL. Ill Subjective conflict with students Subjective conflict with faculty Subjective conflict with administrators Objective conflict with students Objective conflict with faculty Objective conflict with administrators Distortion wi th students Di stortion wi th f acul ty Di stortion wi th administrators Total Subjective Conflict. Total Objective Conflict. Total Distortion TOTAL DISCREPANCY

PAGE 21

lithe role discrepancies which he perceives as operating in defining his role behaviors. Neither of these researchers, however, studied role conflict in a college community. It is expected that this independence of subjective and objective role conflict measures will also be present in defining the role of student; the current study seeks to test this hypothes i s. Several investigators (Kraut, 1 9&5 , and Biddle et al., 1 966) employ concepts similar to distortion as a third measure of role conflict. The distortion concept represents the discrepancy between attributed (subjective) expectations and actual (objective) expectations; therefore, it tends to bridge the conceptual gap between objective conflict and subjective conflict. Since distortion is defined using one component from each of the other two conflict measures, it might be expected to significantly correlate with both of these measures. Hypothesis IV There is no significant relationship between total objective and total s ub jective conflict . Hypothesis V Total distortion is significantly positively correlated with both total subjective conflict and total objective conflict .

PAGE 22

•12T he Relationships Between the Pis ere p ancy Variables and the Satisfaction and Dropout Potential Variables The relat ionships between the discrepancy measures and the measures of satisfaction and dropout potential are somewhat less predictable. Most research to date has focused on the relationships between subjective conflict and measures of satisfaction and/or actual subject behavior. Kraut (1965) reported that objective conflict was not significantly related to either job satisfaction or performance. In that study, subjective conflict was a good predictor of job satisfaction, but was not significantly related to actual job performance. In the current study, it might be hypothesized that student role discrepancies perceived by the student (subjective conflict) influence his satisfaction to a greater extent than conflicts which may exist without his awareness (objective conf 1 ict) . Hypothesis VI Total o b jective conflict is not significantly correlated with total, nonacademic or academic satisfaction, nor is it significantly correlated with total nonacademic or academic dropout potential . Hypothesi s V I I Total subjective conflict is negatively correlated with total sati sfact ion.

PAGE 23

13Pervin and Rubin (1970) report that "lack of fit" (i.e., conflict) is more likely to be related to nonacademic satisfaction than to academic satisfaction. The ERSS items are focused primarily on nonacademic role expectations. Hypothesis VIII Total subjective conflict is negatively correlated with nonacademic satisfaction and is not significantly related to academic sati sfact ion . A number of investigators (Wheeler, 1361; Kraut, 1965; and Biddle et al., 1 966 ) concerned themselves with measuring phenomena similar to distortion. Biddle noted that inaccuracies in attributing expectations could generate serious problems for the various role members within any given social system since they would be behaving towards one another on the basis of misinformation about what others expect of them; such behavior might be expected to have negative effects on all members of the social system. The current study is concerned with the possible negative effects of distortion upon students; specifically, the relationship between students' distortion regarding the definition of the role of student and the anticipated probability of students' dropping out of the university. It is expected that as distortion increases, the anticipated probability of dropping out increases. Earlier researchers (Pervin and Rubin, 1970) reported that "lack of fit" between student and college characteristics particularly influenced student nonacademic dropout potential; similar findings are expected in the current study.

PAGE 24

_,/,. Hypothesis IX Total distortion is positively related to the anticipated total probability of dropping out out of the universit y. Hypot hesis X Total distortion is positively related to the anticipated total pro bability of dropping out for nonacademic reasons. There is no significant relat ionship between distortion and academic dropout potential.

PAGE 25

15The Rel at ionsh ips B etv/een Total Discr epancy and the Satisfaction and Dropout Potential Variables Level 111 is the grouping of all types of discrepancy (subjective conflict, objective conflict and distortion) for all reference groups (students, faculty and administration). Total discrepancy was expected to be an accurate predictor of both nonacademic and total satisfaction; however, it was not expected to predict dropout potential. Hypothesis XI Total discrepancy is significantly negatively correlat ed with total satisfaction; as total disc r e p a n c y increases, sat i sfac t ion decreases . Hyp othesis XI I Total discrepancy is s i gnificantly negatively correlated with nonacademic satisfaction; as total discrepan cy increases, nonacademic satisfaction decreases.

PAGE 26

16iow CHAPTER I I METHOD Test Construction Procedures Three instruments were used in this study: 1) the Student Satisfaction Scale (SSS) ; 2) the Dropout Potential Scale (DPS); and 3) the Expectations for the Role of Student Scale (ERSS) . I terns for the SSS and DPS were drawn primarily from the items used to assess satisfaction and dropout potential on the TAPE (Pervin and Rubin, 1970). Three new items were added to the sixteen items of the TAPE: 1) "All in all, in terms of your experiences with them, h sati sf ied are you wi th the facul ty at the University of Florida?"; 2) "All in all ... how sati sf ied are you wi th the admi ni s trat ion at the University of Florida?"; and 3) "A 11 in all ... how sat i sf i ed are you with the other students at the University of Florida?" The DPS and SSS were combined into a single scale in the final test booklet. This combined scale was called Scale V (Appendix A). Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between items, scales and subscales in this combined scale. I terns 1 through h constitute the Dropout Potential Scale. Item 2 constitutes the "Dropout Potential for Academic Reasons" subscale; the "Dropout Potential for Nonacademic Reasons" subscale consists of items 3 and k. I tern 1 is a general, nonspecific dropout potential item.

PAGE 27

17FIGURE 3 THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SCALE V ITEMS, SCALES AND SUBSCALES SCALE DROPOUT POTENTIAL SCALE ITEM NUMBER SUBSCALE ACADEMIC DROPOUT POTENTIAL SUBSCALE MONACADEMIC DROPOUT POTENTIAL SUBSCALE STUDENT SATISFACTION — SCALE 56-7--' 8--' 910-W 12-1314 15 16* 1718' 19 f~ ACADEMIC SATISFACTION SUBSCALE NONACADEMIC SATISFACTION SUBSCALE indicates that the response continuum was inverted in scoring the item.

PAGE 28

18The Student Satisfaction Scale contains items 5 through 19. The "Academic Satisfaction" subscale consists of items 5, 12 and ]h; items 6, 13 and 15 constitute the "Nonacademic Satisfaction" subscale. The remaining nine items on the SSS measure general, nonspecific satisfaction with the university. Each item in Scale V requires that the subject respond on a scale continuum ranging from 1 to 11. The ends of the scale contain polar adjectives (e.g., completely comfortable -completely uncomfortable). In scoring these scales, it was necessary to invert the response continuum (e.g., a subject response of 1 was scored as 11) on items 5 through 13 and 16, 17 and 18. These inversions allowed for the following interpretations of test scores: 1. A high score on the Dropout Potential Scale indicated a low probabi 1 i ty of dropping out of college. 2. A high score on the Student Satisfaction Scale indicated a h igh degree of satisfaction. The total score on any scale or subscale of the SSS or DPS consists of the summation of the responses to all items in that scale or subscale (e.g., the DPS total score is the summation of responses ranging from 1 to 1 1 to items 1 through h) . Pilot research was conducted to develop the Expectations for the Role of Student Scale. A group of 28 Freshmen and Sophomore men enrolled in introductory psychology courses at the University of Florida completed a questionnaire (Appendix B) that asked them to indicate what they felt were reasonable expectations for male college students at the University of Florida. This questionnaire was structured to the extent that it

PAGE 29

19asked students to focus on six general "areas of concern": 1) university policy-making; 2) scholarly endeavors; 3) the relationship between students and society; h) student-peer relationships; 5) student-faculty relationships; and, 6) student-administration relationships. A section was also provided to allow students to express other feelings they might have regarding how students should behave. The second part of this questionnaire requested the students to indicate agreement-disagreement on a four-point scale (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree) with each of the statements they made, so as to indicate: 1. their own personal degree of agreement-disagreement with each of their statements; 2. how they felt "most students" would rate the statement; 3. how they felt "most faculty members" would rate the statement; and k. how they felt "most administrators" would rate the statement. These subjects provided a pool of 486 statements. From this statement pool, 38 items were abstracted that met two criteria: 1. two or more subjects provided similar statements, and 2. each statement received a "conflict score" of 2 or more from at least two subjects. The "conflict score" was computed from the students' ratings of the statements they had made. The "conflict score" of a particular subject to a particular statement consisted of: 1) the difference between his "own personal feelings" rating and the "most students" rating, plus

PAGE 30

-202) the difference between his "own personal feelings" rating and the "most faculty members" rating, plus 3) the difference between his "own personal feelings" rating and the "most administrators" rating. The maximum possible "conflict score" to any given statement was 9 (i.e., Thirty items were selected from the list of thirty-eight for inclusion in the ERSS (Appendix C). These items were randomly assigned to their positions in the ERSS. Appendix C contains the randomized position of these items on the ERSS. The context of seven items (indicated by an * next to the item number in Appendix C) was changed before each one's inclusion in the ERSS. This was done to provide greater equalization of the number of positively and negatively worded items in order to reduce the chances of generating a positive response bias (e.g., "A college student should not be required to attend class meetings" was changed to "A college student should be required to attend class meeti ngs") . Each item on the ERSS requires a response on a four-point continuum (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree). Four forms (Scale I, Scale II, Scale III, Scale IV) of the ERSS were constructed. The items, item presentation sequence and item rating scales were identical in all four forms. The instructions that the subject received for completing the ERSS were different for each of the four forms. Scale I required the subject to indicate his "own personal feelings" and expectations to each of the ERSS items.

PAGE 31

-21 Scale II required that he attribute feelings to "most college students" and complete the ERSS as he felt they would complete it. Scale III required that he attribute feelings to "most faculty members" and Scale IV asked that he attribute feelings to "most college admi ni strators." Appendix D contains the four sets of instructions for the ERSS. Appendix E contains the ERSS. Test-retest reliability studies of the ERSS, the SSS and DPS were conducted using thirty of the freshmen male subjects included in the primary study. The inter-trial interval betv/een testing sessions was fourteen days. In this pilot study, the test-retest reliability for the ERSS was found to be .91, the reliability of the SSS was .90, and that of the DPS was .83. All of these coefficients are significant beyond the .001 level (29 df). -

PAGE 32

-22Subjects Three groups of subjects served in the primary study: 1) freshmen male University of Florida students (N = 50) ; 2) University of Florida faculty members teaching at least one freshman course (N = 30); and 3) University of Florida administrative personnel whose positions were either at the general university level or specific to freshmen students, male students or both (N = 30). The choice of freshmen male students for the student subject group was based on two general assumptions. It was felt that freshmen students manifest a greater range of role expectations for themselves and similarly manifest a greater overall dropout rate than upperclassmen. It was also felt that there was a possibility that male and female students define their role behaviors differently and/or have their role behaviors differently defined by faculty members, administrators and/or other students. These phenomena were outside of the mainstream of concern in this investigation, and, therefore, only freshmen men were sampled in this study. All freshmen men enrolled in introductory psychology courses (N = 68) received a letter (Appendix F) explaining the general nature of the research and requesting their participation. Thirty-two of the fifty student subjects were volunteers from these courses. Thirty of these subjects served as the test-retest reliability group and completed the test booklet twice with a two-week inter-trial interval.

PAGE 33

23The remaining eighteen student subjects were drawn from a campus dormitory area. A dormitory resident advisor assisted in selecting students for participation in the study. They represent a broad sampling of the students from several dormitories and multiple floors and sections of these dormitories. The thirty faculty members who served as the faculty subject group were randomly chosen from the full-time teaching faculty of University College. All freshmen at the University of Florida are enrolled in University College; therefore, all members of the faculty group have some direct teaching contact with the freshmen student population from which the student subjects were drawn. The intent in selecting members of the administration group was to. exclude persons who did not have legislative, as well as enforcement, functions vis-a-vis freshmen male students. Operationally, this excluded all deans and directors of colleges other than University College, all graduate school deans and all administrators concerned primarily with female students. It included the president and vice presidents of the University, the dean and assistant deans for student development, the dean and assistant deans of University College, the registrars and assistant registrars and the director of housing and his administrative assistants. The total population (N = 30) of administrative personnel who met these criteria were asked to participate.

PAGE 34

2kAdmi ni strati on of the Scales Each Faculty member and administrator received a letter (Appendix G) that explained the general purpose of the study and requested his participation. Attached to the letter were the ERSS, Scale I, an addressed envelope for returning the completed scale, and an addressed postcard to indicate anonymously that he had returned his scale. The faculty members and administrators were requested to complete only Scale I of the ERSS ("Personally held expectations for the role of male college student"). They did not complete either the SSS or DPS. As noted earlier, 30 faculty members and 30 administrators were selected for inclusion in the study. Despite repeated follow-up contacts, some members of both of these groups did not return completed scales; five members of the administrator group and three faculty members were excluded from the final study for this reason. Therefore, the final size of the faculty group was 27 and the administrator group contained 25. The student subjects received group administration of the scales. Each subject was required to complete all four forms (Scales I, II, III and IV) of the ERSS, and the DPS and SSS (Scale V). This task took between thirty and forty-five minutes. Each of the student subjects received Scale I as his first task and Scale V as his final task. The order of presentation of Scales II, III and IV was controlled so that an equal number of students received each of the six possible orders of presentation of these three scales.

PAGE 35

This procedure was designed to eliminate the possibility of a biased response set towards a particular reference group.

PAGE 36

-26O perational Definitions of the Discrepancy Measures and Scoring Procedures The remainder of this chapter will be devoted to operational definitions of objective conflict, subjective conflict, distortion and total discrepancy and to an explanation of the scoring procedures used with these measures. Figure k will be helpful in explaining these operational definitions and in describing the scoring procedures. Objective conflict is defined as the sum of the differences (without regard to sign) between a student subject's response to an item on Scale I of the ERSS ("Personally held expectation") and the mean response to that item on Scale I by each of the reference groups (student, faculty or administrator). Referring to Figure k, the following formulae for defining objective conflict at Level I are identi f iable: 1. Objective conflict with students = Z (A E) = E[(aj e,) + (a2 e 2 ) + ... + ^30 630)] 2. Objective conflict with faculty = S (A F) = E[(aj f,) + (a 2 f 2 ) + ... + (a 30 f 30 )] 3. Objective conflict with administrators = Z (A G) = E[(aj g|) + (a 2 g 2 ) + ... + (a 30 g 30 )]. Subjective conflict is defined as the sum of the differences (without regard to sign) between a student subject's response to an item on Scale I of the ERSS ("Personally held expectation") and his

PAGE 37

27FIGURE A TH E RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DISCREPANCY MEASUR ES AND THE SCALES OF THE ERSS ERSS SCALE DESCRIPTION OF MEASURE ITEMS SUM OF ITEMS SCALE I (A student's personally aja 2 ••• 230 held expectations) SCALE II (Attributed by a student b|b 2 ... b^ Q to other students) SCALE III (Attributed by a student Cjc 2 ... c^ Q to faculty members) SCALE IV (Attributed by a student d|d 2 ... d^ Q to the administration) A D SCALE 1

PAGE 38

28response to that item on Scales II, III or IV (expectations attributed to "other students," "faculty members" or "college administrators"). Referring to Figure '(, the following formulae for defining subjective conflict at Level I are identifiable: 1. Subjective conflict with students = £(A B) = Z[(a, bj) + (a 2 b 2 ) + ... + (a 3Q b 3Q )] 2. Subjective conflict with faculty = £ (A C) = Z[(a) ~ Cj) + (a 2 c 2 ) + ... + (a 3Q c 30 )] 3. Subjective conflict with administrators = z(A D) = Z[(a) ~ d,) -i(a 2 d 2 ) + ... + (a 3Q d 30 )]. Distortion is defined as the difference between a student subject's responses to an item on Scales II, III or IV (expectations attributed to students, faculty or administration) and the mean response of that reference group (students, faculty or administration) to that item on Scale I. The following formulae define distortion at Level I : 1. Distortion with students = z(B E) = Z[(b ] e]) + (b 2 e 2 ) + ... + (b 3Q e 3Q )] 2. Distortion with faculty = E(C F) = Z[(c, f,) + (c 2 f 2 ) + ... + (c 30 f 3Q )] 3. Distortion with administration = l(D G) = E[(d, g,) + (d 2 g 2 ) + ... + (d 3Q g 30 )]. This study is primarily concerned with conflict at Levels II and III. Level II conflict is defined as the sum across reference groups (student, faculty, administration) of a particular type of conflict. The following types of Level II conflict are identifiable:

PAGE 39

291. Total objective conflict = Z[(A E) + (A F) + (A C)] 2. Total subjective conflict E[(A B) + (A C) + (A D)] 3. Total distortion E[(B E) + (C F) + (D C)]. Total discrepancy is the single Level III measure and is defined as the sum of the three Level II measures. The following formula may be derived from Figure h: Total discrepancy = E[ (| A E| + |A F| +|a G|) + (|A B\ + |a c| + |a dJ) + (|b e| + |c f| + |d g|)].

PAGE 40

30CHAPTER I I I RESULTS Means were computed for each item on Scale I of the Expectations for the Role of Student Scale for each of the three subject groups (students, faculty and administration). In computing these means, the total faculty group (N = 27), total administrator group (N = 25) and that segment of the student group drawn from introductory psychology courses (N = 32) were utilized. These means are presented in Table 1. Ninety F-ratios were also computed on this group data using the Applied Multiple Linear Regression Approach (Bottenberg and Ward, 1963). Analysis of variance is a special case of this computerized approach to data analysis. A significant F value indicates that an item received significantly different responses from the two groups upon whom the value is focused (i.e., student/faculty, student/administration, facul ty/admi ni strat ion) . The values of F which are presented in Table 2 indicate the items and the levels of disagreement which define the actual conflicts between groups regarding expectations for the role of student. Table 2 indicates that: a) no item shows significant disagreement between all three pairs of groups (student/faculty, student/ administration and faculty/administration); b) 1 item shows significant

PAGE 41

31 TABLE 1 MEAN RESPONSES TO EACH F THE ERSS ITEMS BY THE STUDENT, FACULTY ANDTdMINISTRATION GROUPS tern # Students (N=32) Faculty (N=27) Administration (N=25) 3-31 3.32 3.27 3.2k 3.69 3.6'4 3.24 2.96 1.74 1.73 2.04 1.88 1.26 1.12 2.20 2.12 2.63 2.96 3.37 3.48 1.96 1.88 3.15 3.40 2.04 2.17 1 . 22 1 . 24 1.85 1.83 2.22 2.50 2.73 2.56 2.59 2.96 2.33 2.65 1.56 1.36 2.93 2.24 3.04 2.50 2.56 2.36 3.23 3.16 3.37 3.40 1.81 1.96 2.04 2.36 2.77 3.21 2.85 3.23 2.65 2.38 1

PAGE 42

-32TABLE 2 VALUES OF F IN COMPARING TH E DIFF ERENCES BETWEEN THE RESPONSES OF THE STUDENT, FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION C ROUPS'" TO THE 30 ITEMS ON THE ERSS I tern # Student/Faculty Student/Administration Faculty/Administration .13 -01 .08 .01 1.79 .01 3.28 1.64 .80 .00 9.58 ** .14 9.90 ** .24 3.5*1 .28 1.26 3.56 3.27 -95 2.55 .3** .80 2.02 7.17 ** -12 .38 .07 2.00 .06 6.12 * 2.64 9.20 ** .01 6.46 ** 3.03 .02 2.24 5.12 * 2.05 23.69 *** 8.96 2.20 8.55 5.53 * 1 -26 2A.92 *** .05 .08 .00 3.66 .84 11.58 *** 1.69 .80 5.13 .02 2.08 16.26 *** 2.32 1

PAGE 43

-33di sagreement between both faculty/students and faculty/administration; c) 1 item shov/s significant disagreement between both administration/ students and administration/faculty; d) 7 items show significant disagreement between both faculty/students and administration/students; e) h items show significant disagreement between administration/students; f) 2 items show significant disagreement between faculty/students; andg) 1 item shows significant disagreement between faculty/administration. The 16 ERSS items that provide these significant group conflicts are 1 i s ted in Table J,. Data analysis for the purposes of hypothesis-testing consisted of a series of partial correlations. Four partial correlation matrices are of primary interest. These are shown in Tables k , 5, 6 and ~j. Two other matrices were generated; however, these were not used to test any hypotheses in this study. These secondary data are contained in Appendix H. It should be noted that the Dropout Potential Scale scoring procedures are such that a high score indicates a low anticipated probability of dropping out of the university. Therefore, positive correlations with total, academic or nonacademic dropout potential should be interpreted as if they were negative correlations and negative correlations should be interpreted as if they were positive correlations. Table k contains the partial correlation matrix of Level II conflict measures and the Level I satisfaction and dropout potential measures . Table 5 contains the matrix of Level II conflict measures and Level II satisfaction and dropout potential measures.

PAGE 44

-34TABLE 3 ERSS ITEMS WITH SIGNIFICANT F VALUES BETWEEN GROUPS Student/Faculty and Student/Administration F values significant (p < .05) A COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD ... 6. ...be free to establish and enforce his own rules of conduct. 7. ...resort to violent tactics to influence policy changes if all el se fai 1 s . 13...have policy restrictions on when and where he may interact with other students. 18. ...demand that the university develop "learning areas" that are applicable to the everyday life of the student ~ courses that teach about the "real world." 2k. ...not have complete freedom in selecting courses to take; he should be forced to enroll for some "required courses." 27. ...not have the same rights, privileges and obligations on-campus as he has off-campus. 30. ...not be required to attend class meetings. Student/Administration and Faculty/Administration F values significant (p < -05) A COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD ... 21. ...respect the rights of others, but beyond that, he should be free to behave as he pleases. Student/Faculty and Faculty/Administration F values significant (p < .05) A COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD . . . 23. ...have an active voice in policy decisions of the university.

PAGE 45

353 continued. Student/Administration F values significant (p < .05) A COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD ... 16. ...be able to question the competence of a faculty member and implement his removal i f he is found to be incompetent as a teacher. 17. ...not accept a university ruling that he considers unjust and should seek to change it by any peaceful means open to him. 20. ...not play any part in establishing housing policies, choosing dorm advisors or setting rules for university students living in on-campus housing. 23. ...respect faculty members because of their higher degrees of learning. Student/Faculty F values significant (p < .05) A COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD ... 11. ...have no real power to change university policies. 26. ...insist that he receive as much of a faculty member's time as he needs to achieve his own personal academic goals. Faculty/Administration F values significant (p < .05) A COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD ... 22. ...seek knowledge during his stay at the university; grades, degrees and future careers are secondary to the pursuit of know ledge.

PAGE 46

-36o — 'e o cu ro vO "O **o — < +J <0 CO II) 3-o O -w u

PAGE 47

37TABLE 5 PARTIAL CORRELATIONS

PAGE 48

38The correlation between total satisfaction and total dropout potential with all conflict measures held constant is .61 (Table 5: r 45 . 1 23) • This correlation is significant beyond the .01 level {h5 df). Thus, Hypothesis I was confirmed. In Table *» , academic dropout potential is significantly positively correlated (p < .05, *»3 df) with academic satisfaction (r^ l 2357 = "30. Nonacademic satisfaction is positively correlated (p < .01, h3 df) with nonacademic dropout potential ( r S7. 1 23^6 = -38). These significant correlations confirm Hypotheses II and III. The significant positive correlation (p < .01, ^3 df) between academic satisfaction and nonacademic satisfaction (r£,7 % ]23^5 = «50) was not expected, particularly in view of the low negative correlation between academic dropout potential and nonacademic dropout potential (rjjr 12367 = "•06, p > .05, ^3 df ) . Hypothesis IV was confirmed. There are no significant correlations between total subjective conflict and total objective conflict in either Table k or 5 (Table k: r 12 . 3^567 = 12 > P > -° 5 ' ^ df Table 5: r ]2 ^ 5 = .09, p > .05, h5 df). Total subjective conflict is significantly positively correlated with total distortion in both Table h and Table 5 (Table k: r l3.2'i567 = .5^, p < -01, *»3 df. Table 5: r,3.2^5 = .61, p < .01, k$ df). Similarly, total objective conflict is significantly positively correlated with total distortion in both tables (Table k: r 2 3 . 1 4567 = "5'i p < .01, k$ df. Table 5: ^3.1^5 = .47, p < .01, k5 df) . These positive correlations confirm Hypothesis V. Hypothesis VI states that total objective conflict is not significantly correlated with either nonacademic or academic satisfaction

PAGE 49

39or dropout potential, nor is it correlated with either total satisfaction or total dropout potential. This hypothesis was not fully supported by the data in this study, since total objective conflict was significantly positively correlated with academic dropout potential (Table h: r 2h. 13567 = -32, p < .05, ^3 df). Hypothesis VII was confirmed. In Table 5, total subjective conflict is significantly negatively correlated with total satisfaction ( r 15.234 ~ "•3^j P < -05, ^5 df). In this same table, subjective conflict is not significantly correlated with total dropout potential (r 1^.235 = 13 ' P > -° 5 > i:5 df )' In Table k, there are no significant correlations (p > .05, h3 df) between total subjective conflict and any of the Level I dropout or satisfaction elements (1-^.23567 = -° 9 > r 15. 23^67 = _ -° 6 ' r l6. 23^57 -.09, r i 7, 23456 = •°5); therefore, Hypothesis VIM is not confirmed. Hypothesis IX predicted that subjects with high total distortion would respond with a high probability of dropping out of the university. In Table 5, the correlation between total distortion and total dropout potential ^3^125) ' s reported as -.29, significant beyond the .05 level (45 df). Hypothesis IX was confirmed. An unexpected finding was the significant positive correlation between total distortion and total satisfaction (Table 5: ror ] 2 4 = -3°> P < .05, *»5 df ) . This correlation suggests that as a subject's role distortion increases, his overall satisfaction increases. In Table k, the correlation between total distortion and nonacademic dropout potential is significant (r^r ]2^67 = "* 2 9> P < '°5, ^3 df ) . There is no significant correlation between distortion and

PAGE 50

ROTABLE 6 PARTIAL CORRELATIONS Level III Conflict and Level II Satisfaction/Dropout Potential 1 2 Total Total Discrepancy Dropout Potent ia' 2. Total Dropout Potential .11 3. Total Sat i sfaction -.16 .57 ''"•' : denotes a correlation that is significant at greater than the .05 level . Note: Interpretation of all correlations with academic dropout potential, nonacademic dropout potential and total dropout potential requiresan inversion of sign (e.g., positive correlations should be interpreted as negative correlations).

PAGE 51

h] TABLE 7 PARTIAL CORREL ATIONS Level III Conflict and Level I Satisfaction/Dropout Potential 12 3 4 Total Academic Nonacademic Academic Discrepancy Dropout Dropout Satisfaction Potential Potential 2.

PAGE 52

klacademic dropout potential (roi,^ ] 2567 = "-09, P > -05, k3 df). Therefore, Hypothesis X is confirmed. Table 6 contains the partial correlations of total discrepancy, total satisfaction and total dropout potential. Hypothesis XI predicted a significant negative correlation between total discrepancy and total satisfaction. In Table 6, this correlation ( i" 1 3 2 ~ ~«16) is not significant (p > .05, k~] df ) . Thus, Hypothesis XI is not confirmed. The correlation between total conflict and total dropout potential (r] 2 .3 = -11) was also not significant at the .05 level. Table 6 provides additional data to support Hypothesis I; the correlation between total satisfaction and total dropout potential ( r 23.1 = *57) is significant beyond the .01 level. Table 7 contains the partial correlational matrix of total discrepancy, academic and nonacademic satisfaction and academic and nonacademic dropout potential. Hypothesis XII predicts a significant negative correlation between total discrepancy and nonacademic satisfaction. This correlation is not significant (r^^i* = '^> P < *°5> ^ df ) 5 therefore, Hypothesis XII is not confirmed. Table 7 does provide additional support for Hypotheses II and III. Academic dropout potential and academic satisfaction are significantly positively correlated (r 2 / 4 ]?c = .33, p < .05, hS df) and nonacademic dropout potential and nonacademic satisfaction are significantly correlated (r,r j 2 i, = -36, p < .05, ^5 df).

PAGE 53

ky Table 7 also contains data to support the unexpected phenomenon of a highly significant relationship between academic and nonacadernic satisfaction (r^^ 1 23 = -50, p < .01, kS df ) .

PAGE 54

.2,4CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION Intergr oup Conflict Areas Identified on th e Expectations for the Role of Student Scale (ERSS"T~ Pervin (1968) noted the need for research to identify where students, faculty and administrators agreed and disagreed in their perceptions and attitudes. Using the applied multiple linear regression approach, sixteen ERSS items were identified in this study (Table 3) that appear to represent areas of intergroup conflict between students, faculty and administration. The primary conflict area between students and other members of the university community (faculty and administration) was disagreement concerning the degree of autonomy, freedom and responsibility that should be vested in the role of student. The student subjects tended to ascribe behaviors to the role of student that were less subject to external restraint than were the behaviors ascribed to the student role by either the faculty or administration subjects. The faculty group and administration group significantly disagreed in ascribing academic goal behaviors to the role of student. The faculty subjects feel that students should strive for "knowledge," as opposed to "grades, degrees and future careers"; whereas, the administration subjects tended to stress the career-oriented aspects of student behavior.

PAGE 55

J.5It should be noted, however, that these are only conflicts regarding expectations for students and apply only to a limited segment of the university community (i.e., freshman men, faculty who teach freshman courses and administrators with 1 eg I slati ve-enforcement functions regarding freshmen). Future research should focus on understanding the qualities of such university community conflicts, their extent within the community and their effects upon all members of the community. There are also important research questions regarding inter-university differences in quality and extent of group conflicts. The ERSS can be a useful instrument for use in future studies of conflict in college communities. It demonstrated test-retest reliability at the .001 level and appears to differentiate areas of conflict within the university community.

PAGE 56

h6The Relationships Between Satisfaction and Dropout Potential Total satisfaction and the total probability of dropping out of the university were found to be significantly positively correlated. This confirmation of Hypothesis I supports the expectation that satisfied students are less likely to report a tendency towards dropping out of the university than dissatisfied students. Hypotheses II and III were also confirmed; students who report a high probability of dropping out for academic reasons tend to also report low satisfaction with the academic aspects of the university (Hypothesis ll) and students who report a high probability of dropping out for nonacademic reasons report low satisfaction with the nonacademic aspects of the university (Hypothesis III). No significant relationships were found to exist between academic dropout potential and nonacademic dropout potential; however, the correlation between academic and nonacademic satisfaction was significant at the .01 level. These findings suggest that: 1) students are able to differentiate their probable reasons for dropping out the university into the categories "for academic reasons" and "for nonacademic (personal) reasons"; and 2) students do not differentiate between academic and nonacademic satisfaction (i.e., when a student is dissatisfied with the one aspect, academic or nonacademic, of the university, he is likely to also be dissatisfied with the other aspects.). Additional research is needed to investigate the relationships that may exist between these satisfaction and dropout potential measures and actual student behaviors.

PAGE 57

klThe current study generated three major questions for investigation in later research: 1. To what extent do students who report a high dropout potential and/or low satisfaction actually drop out of the university? 2. What are the relationships between the focus (academic and nonacademic) of dropout potent ial /sat i sfact ion and actual student dropout behaviors? Which -if any -of the four Level I measures best predict student dropout behaviors? 3. How are these DPS and SSS measures related to other avail able student data (e.g., grade point average)?

PAGE 58

48The Relationships Between Object i ve Conflict, Subjective Conf 1 ict and Distortfon Hypotheses IV and V were concerned with the relationships existing between the three basic measures of student conflict. Both hypotheses were confirmed. A number of earlier researchers (Wheeler, 1961, and Kraut, 1365) reported that objective and subjective conflict tend to operate independently of one another; they reported no meaningful relationships between the actual discrepancies to which a person occupying a given role is exposed and the role discrepancies which he perceives as operating in defining his role behaviors. The current study predicted that this independence of subjective and objective conflict measures would also be present in defining the role of student. The data in this study support that prediction. No significant correlation was found between subjective and objective conflict. Several researchers (Biddle, Rosencranz, Tomich and Twyman, I966, and Kraut, 1965) used concepts similar to "distortion" as a third measure of role conflict. Since distortion is defined using one component from each of the other two conflict measures (i.e., the attributed expectations component of subjective conflict and the actual expectations component of objective conflict), it was expected that distortion would be significantly positively correlated with both of these measures. The data in this study support that expectation. Distortion was found to be significantly correlated with both subjective conflict and objective conflict; whereas these measures were not significantly correlated wi th each other.

PAGE 59

•i»9Jjie Relati onships Between Discrepancy, Satisfaction and Dropout Potential It was thought that total discrepancy (the. sum of objective conflict, subjective conflict and distortion) was too general a measure to effectively predict dropout potential (total, academic or nonacademic), an expectation supported by the data in this study. It was hypothesized, however, that total discrepancy and total satisfaction would be significantly negatively correlated (Hypothesis Xl). This hypothesis v/as not confirmed. In addition, the data on the relationships between total discrepancy and nonacademic satisfaction failed to support Hypothesis XII; total discrepancy was not significantly negatively correlated with nonacademic satisfaction. The obvious conclusion that can be drawn from these findings is that the total discrepancy score is too gross a measure to effectively predict either dropout potential or satisfaction. A number of significant relationships were found between the Level II discrepancy measures and satisfaction (academic, nonacademic and total) and dropout potential (academic, nonacademic and total). The most unexpected finding in this study was the significant positive correlation between total objective conflict and academic dropout potential. This finding led to a rejection of Hypothesis VI which predicted no significant relationships between objective conflict and any of the satisfaction or dropout measures. The most baffling aspect of. this finding, however, was the pos i t i ve direction of the

PAGE 60

50correlation. This means that as total objective conflict increases, the reported probability of dropping out of the university for academic reasons decreases. In other words, students whose expectations for student behavior are most different from the expectations for student behavior actually held by other students, faculty members and administrators report the least likelihood of dropping out of the university for academic reasons. No similar predictive relationship exists between the objective conflict measure and the measure of nonecademic dropout potential, total dropout potential or satisfaction (total, academic or nonacademi c) . This finding suggests the possibility that an additional variable exists which was not measured in this study -a variable which correlates highly with both objective conflict and academic dropout potential. It is suspected that this variable is some aspect of academic competence (e.g., grade point average or ability test score). Such a competence variable might be expected to be negatively related to grade point average; the greater the academic competence that a student displays, the less his reported probability of dropping out of the university for academic reasons. A competence variable might also be expected to be positively correlated with objective conflict; the greater the ability and responsibility that a student displays, the greater his tendency to define the student role in terms of greater freedom and responsibility than would be present in the definitions of student behavior of either faculty or administration. Additional research using partial correlational techniques could test these hypotheses.

PAGE 61

-51 As predicted, subjective conflict was negatively correlated with total satisfaction (Hypothesis VI l). However, there was no significant correlation between subjective conflict and dropout potential. These findings are consistent with those reported by other investigators (Kraut, 1965, and Gross, McEachern and Mason, 1958). It appears that subjective conflict is an accurate predictor of satisfaction, but has no significant relationship with the tendency to engage in behavior such as dropping out of the university. Hypothesis VIII was not confirmed; no significant correlation was found between subjective conflict and nonacademic satisfaction. This finding is not consistent with the findings of Pervin and Rubin (1970), who reported that "lack of fit" between student characteristics and perceived college characteristics was related to both nonacademic satisfaction and dropout potential. It is consistent with other findings in this study, however; students do not differentiate between academic and nonacademic satisfaction. When the correlations between all other conflict, satisfaction and dropout measures are held constant, there is a significant positive relationship between academic and nonacademic sati sfaction. The measure of distortion appears to be the best predictor of student dropout potential. Hypothesis IX was confirmed; students with high distortion scores report a high probability of dropping out of the university. To a significant extent, they also report a high probability of dropping out for nonacademic reasons (Hypothesis X) . This finding does support Pervin and Rubin's (1970) contention that "lack of fit" between student and college is related to student nonacademic dropout

PAGE 62

•52behavior. It is also consistent with this study's finding that students differentiate between their probable reasons for dropping out of the university, whereas they do not differentiate between the sources of their satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the university. An interesting -and unexpected — finding in the current investigation was that of a significant positive relationship existing between total distortion and total satisfaction. This suggests that the students who reported the greatest overall satisfaction were also the students who displayed the greatest discrepancy between what they perceived others as expecting of students and what others actually expected. This finding suggests that a lack of awareness of real conflicts (i.e, distortion) may serve to enhance, rather than detract from, a student's overall feeling of satisfaction (i.e., a phenomenon that can be described as "what you don't know won't make you feel bad" effect). If findings similar to those in this study emerge from later research, it would suggest that distortion is an effective predictor of both dropout potential and satisfaction, although its predictive value w*th reference to satisfaction is the inverse of the satisfaction predictions that can be made from subjective conflict data. On the basis of the findings in this study, a number of statements can be made regarding the relationships existing between the discrepancy measures and the measures of satisfaction and dropout potential: 1. Total discrepancy is not related to satisfaction (academic, nonacademic or total) or dropout potential (academic, nonacademic or total).

PAGE 63

532. Subjective conflict is a significant predictor of total satisfaction. It is not, however, significantly correlated with total dropout potential or any of the Level I satisfaction or dropout potential measures. 3. Objective conflict does not correlate significantly with either total satisfaction or total dropout potential. It is significantly positively correlated with the potential for dropping out of the university for academic reasons. It is suspected that this correlation may be accounted for by a variable such as general college competence that could be significantly correlated with both objective conflict and academic dropout potential . k. Distortion is significantly negatively correlated with both total dropout potential and nonacademic dropout potential. Distortion also correlates positively with total satisfaction. This means that as a student's total distortion increases, his total dropout potential increases, his nonacademic dropout potential increases and his total satisfaction increases. This latter correlation suggests the hypothesis that satisfaction is significantly related to "being out of touch" with real conflicts. It is possible that distortion may be the best predictor of both total satisfaction and total dropout potential.

PAGE 64

-54Mention has already been made of the need for research into the relationships existing between satisfaction and dropout potential measures and actual student dropout behavior. Another important area for future research is the relationship between the discrepancy measures and actual student dropout behavior. On the basis of the current study, it could be hypothesized that distortion is an effective predictor of actual dropout behavior; this hypothesis needs testing. If this hypothesis is supported by future research, it strongly suggests the need for extensive investigation of means to decrease distortion within the university community. Future research should also be conducted in the following areas: 1. Investigation of the relationships between conflict measures, satisfaction and dropout potential measures and other student-related data (e.g., grade point average, age, sex, class status). 2. Investigation of the relationship between the variables in the current study and differentiated actual dropout behaviors (e.g., drop out and transfer to another college, drop out and go to work, drop out and later return to this university). 3. Exploration of the effects of various forms of discrepant role perceptions on other members of the university community (i.e., faculty and administration).

PAGE 65

55CHAPTER V SUMMARY This study was concerned with investigating: 1) the relationships that exist between three measures of student role conflict (subjective conflict, objective conflict and distortion); 2) the relationships between student satisfaction and the anticipated probability of dropping out of the university; and 3) the relationships between student role conflict and student satisfaction and dropout potential. Three test instruments were constructed in pilot research: 1) the Student Satisfaction Scale (SSS) ; 2) the Dropout Potential Scale (DPS); and 3) the Expectations for the Role of Student Scale (ERSS) . The SSS and DPS were adaptations of the satisfaction/dropout potential scales on the TAPE (Pervin and Rubin, 1970). The ERSS was constructed from items regarding the role of student elicited from a group of 23 freshman and sophomore men. The 30 items chosen for inclusion in the ERSS were those that elicited the greatest subjective conflict from these subjects. Significant test-retest reliability coefficients were obtained for all three test instruments. Three groups of subjects from the University of Florida were utilized in the primary study: 1) freshman male students (N = 50); 2) faculty members (N = 2"/); and 3) administrative personnel (N = 25).

PAGE 66

-56The student subjects completed the SSS, DPS and four forms of the ERSS. They were asked to respond to the ERSS so as to indicate: a) their own expectations for students, and the expectations that they attributed to b) other students, c) faculty and d) administrators. The faculty and administrator subjects were administered only a single ERSS and were only required to indicate their own expectations for student behavior. The findings in this study may be summarized as follows: A. The relationships between satisfaction and dropout potential: 1. The greater the total dissatisfaction that a student reports, the greater the probability of his dropping out of the university. 2. The greater the dissatisfaction that a student reports with the academic aspects of the university, the greater the probability of his dropping out of the university for acadmic reasons. Similarly, students reporting high nonacademic dissatisfaction report a high nonacademic dropout potenti al . 3. Students appear to differentiate, between academic and nonacademic reasons for dropping out of the university. h. When a student is dissatisfied with one aspect (academic or nonacademic) of the university, he is also likely to be dissatisfied with the other aspect. B. The relationships between discrepancy measures: 1. Objective conflict and subjective conflict are not interchangeable measures. This finding is consistent with those reported by Kraut (I965) and Wheeler (1961).

PAGE 67

572. Distortion (i.e., inaccuracies in attributing expectations) operationally accounts for the differences between subjective and objective conflict. This finding is consistent with those of other researchers (Kraut, I965, and Biddle et al . , 1966) . C. The relationships between the discrepancy measures and the measures of satisfaction and dropout potential: 1. Total discrepancy (i.e., the sum of the subjective conflict, objective conflict and distortion scores) is not an effective predictor of either satisfaction or dropout potential. It appears to be too gross a measure to have any meaningful predictive validity. 2. Subjective conflict is highly correlated with total satisfaction; however, it does not appear to predict dropout potent i al . 3. Objective conflict does not correlate significantly with either total satisfaction or total dropout potential. k. Distortion appears to be the best predictor of the total anticipated probability of dropping out of the university. It also correlates highly with the potential for dropping out for nonacademic reasons. Two unexpected findings emerged in this study: 1. Objective conflict was po sitively correlated with the probability of dropping out of the university for academic reasons. It was suggested that this finding might reflect the effects of a general college competence variable

PAGE 68

-58which was not included in this study; a variable which correlates significantly with both objective conflict and academic dropout potential, and 2. Inaccuracy in attributing expectations to others (i.e., distortion) was significantly positively correlated with total satisfaction, suggesting the possibility that "being out of touch" with how others (i.e., other students, faculty members and/or administrators) actually feel may actually enhance a student's general feeling of satisfaction. Pervin ( 1 968) noted the need for research which analyzed where faculty, administration and students agreed and disagreed in their perceptions. The ERSS appears to be a useful instrument for identifying areas of i ntra-uni vers i ty conflict. The current study identifies items on the Expectations for the Role of Student Scale to which the three groups respond in significantly different manners. These data serve to point out possible conflict areas within the university community -areas where faculty, administrators and students hold significantly different expectations for students. A number of areas for future research were generated from this study. Among these are exploration of the relationships that exist between the variables employed in this study and such variables as actual student dropout behaviors, grade point average, age, sex and class ranking. Similarly, research might also be fruitful if it were conducted on the effects of role discrepancy on the satisfaction and behaviors of faculty and administrative personnel.

PAGE 69

APPENDICES

PAGE 70

-60APPENDIX A STUDENT SATISFACTION SCALE AND DROPOUT POTENTIAL SCALE Instructions This section consists of a number of questions, each followed by a scale ranging from 1 to 1 1 . At each end of a scale there are alternative answers to the preceding question. You are to indicate your answer to each question by circling one number along each scale. You can circle any one number. The closer a number is to the end of the scale, the more strongly you feel that the answer at that end is the one that most represents your feelings. Carefully consider both ends of the scales when answering each question. 1. How likely is it that you will at some time drop out of the University? (Drop out means leaving the University for any reason personal, health, academic, required, nonrequired or any other.) PROBABLY 1 23^56789 10 11 DEFINITELY WILL WILL NOT 2. How likely is it that you will at some time drop out of college for academic reasons (poor grades)? PROBABLY 1 23^56789 10 11 DEFINITELY WILL WILL NOT 3. How likely is it that you will at some time drop out for nonacademic reason s (personal reasons, transfer, leave of absence, etc.)? Do not include financial reasons here. PROBABLY 1 23^56789 10 11 DEFINITELY WILL WILL NOT

PAGE 71

61^4. How often do you think about dropping out of the university for nonacademic reasons (personal reasons, transfer, leave of absence, etc. ) ? Do not include financial reasons here. FREQUENTLY 1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEVER 5. All in all, in terms of your own needs and desires, how satisfied are you with the academic aspects of the University of Florida? COMPLETELY 1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 COMPLETELY SATISFIED DISSATISFIED 6. All in all, in terms of your own needs and desires, how s ati sf i ed are you with the nonacademic aspects of the University of Florida? COMPLETELY 1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 COMPLETELY SATISFIED DISSATISFIED 7All in all, in terms of your experiences with them, how satisfied are you with the faculty at the University of Florida? COMPLETELY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 COMPLETELY SATISFIED DISSATISFIED 8. All in all, in terms of your experience with them, how sati sf ied are you with the administration at the University of Florida? COMPLETELY 1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 COMPLETELY SATISFIED DISSATISFIED 9All in all, in terms of your experiences with them, how satisfied are you with the other students at the University of Florida? COMPLETELY 1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 COMPLETELY SATISFIED DISSATISFIED 10. So far, what kinds of times have you had at the University of Florida? GREAT 123^56789 10 11 POOR TIMES TIMES 11. How often do you feel out of place at the University? NEVER 1 23^56789 10 11 MOST OF THE TIME 12. Do you think your academic experiences at college would have been more rewa rd ? ng if instead of the University of Florida, you had attended another university or college? DEFINITELY 1 2 3 k 5 6 } 8 9 10 1 1 PROBABLY NOT

PAGE 72

6213. Do you think your ncnaca demic experiences at college would have been more enjoyable if instead of the University of Florida, you had attended another university or college? DEFINITELY 1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 PROBABLY NOT ]h. To what extent do you feel that the nature of your college environment is responsible for f rustrat ions you have experienced in relation to academic goals? COMPLETELY 1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NOT AT ALL RESPONSIBLE RESPONSIBLE 15. To what extent do you feel that the nature of your college environment is responsible for frustrations you have experienced in relation to nonacademic goals? COMPLETELY 1 2 3 k 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NOT AT ALL RESPONSIBLE RESPONSIBLE 16. Hew c omfortable do you feel with most of the students at the University of Florida? COMPLETELY 123^567391011 COMPLETELY COMFORTABLE UNCOMFORTABLE 17. How similar do you feel your values are to the values of the faculty at the University of Florida? IDENTICAL 1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 OPPOSITE VALUES VALUES 18. How much do you agree with the administrative rules and regulations at the University of Florida? ABSOLUTE 123^567891011 COMPLETE AGREEMENT DISAGREEMENT 19. How much do you disagree wi th the University of Florida on important issues? COMPLETE 1 2 3 '» 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT AGREEMENT

PAGE 73

63APPEND IX B STUDENT EXPECTATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ANYWHERE ON THIS QUESTIONNAIRE! (All responses to this questionnaire will be completely anonymous!) INSTRUCTIONS : PART I You are participating in a study that is designed to determine what various Male college students feel are appropriate behaviors for themselves and other male college students at the University of Florida. In other words, you are being asked to express how you personally tee I male college students should behave. At the top of each of the following pages, you will find a brief series of questions outlining a broad area of concern to most students. Please attempt to relate these "concern areas" to your own life your own personal experiences at the University of Florida and your feelings about how students should behave in order to attain their own personal goals and achieve their own personal satisfactions while attending the Uni versi ty. Each'boncern area" outline is followed by three "incomplete sentences" that read as follows: STATEMENT # (sample) A. MALE COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD . Your task will be to complete these statements. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL THREE STATEMENTS ON EACH PAGE!

PAGE 74

-64Specimen Page (1 of 7) PART INSERT ONE OF SEVEN "CONCERN AREA" STATEMENTS HERE STATEMENT //l A MALE COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD STATEMENT #2 A MALE COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD STATEMENT #3 A MALE COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD

PAGE 75

-65PAGE PART "CONCERN AREA" STATEMENTS (Headings for Part I: Pages 1-7) 1 What role should a student play in establishing university policies? What are appropriate behaviors for students to engage in regarding defining and implementing policies dealing with such issues as "the purpose of the university," rules of student conduct, university curriculum (course) planning, etc? How should students make their feelings about these issues known? What responsibilities do students have regarding university policies? What freedom should students be allowed? 2 What role should a student play as scholar? How should he behave in the academic setting? V/hat should he hope to get out of his academic experience at the University of Florida and how should he achieve his goal? What are his academic responsibilities? V/hat freedom should he be allowed? 3 V/hat role should a student play as a "citizen of the campus" and as a "citizen of the world?" V/hat are his responsibilities as a citizen? How should he meet these responsibilities? What freedom as a citizen should he be allowed? A What role should a student play in his interactions with university administrators? How should a student behave towards university administrators? What are his responsibilities in his interactions with university administrators? V/hat freedom should he be allowed in these interactions? 5 V/hat role should a student play in his interactions with other students? How should a student behave towards other students? What are his responsibilities in his interactions with other students? V/hat freedom should he be allowed in these interactions? 6 What role should a student play in his interactions with faculty members? How should a student behave towards faculty members? What are his responsibilities in his interactions with faculty members? What freedom should he be allowed in these interactions? 7 This page has been provided to give you the opportunity to express any other feelings that you might have about how students should behave. If the preceding pages did not allow you the opportunity to express some feelings about student behavior, please use the spaces below to do so.

PAGE 76

-66INSTRUCT IONS: PART I I This section is designed to find out \\ovi strongly you personally endorse each of the statements you made in Part I and how strongly you feel other students, faculty members and university administrators (deans, etc.) would endorse your statements. In other words, the. items in this questionnaire are designed to find out the extent to which you agree with each of the statements you made in Part I and the extent to which you feel other students, faculty members and administrators would agree with each of your statements. Each page and each item in this section is numbered. These numbers correspond to the numbers of the pages and statements in Part I. For example, when you are answering item 1 on page 1 of this section, you are answering questions about statement #1 on page 1 of Part 1. For each statement in Part 1, you will be required to answer the following questions: STATEMENT # (sample) To what extent do you feel each of the following v/ould agree with this statement? I personal ly would STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE Host students would STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE Most faculty members would STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE Most university a d ministrators v/ould STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE Please think about how strongly you personally agree with the statement and how you feel each of the other groups might respond to the statement. Circle only one response to each question . For example, if you personally agree with the statement and feel that most students would d i sag ree , most faculty members would strongly disagree and most university administrators v/ould disagree with the statement, then you would complete the question about that statement as fol lows :

PAGE 77

67INSTRUCTIONS: PART II (continued) STATEMENT § (sample) To what extent do you feel each of the following would agree with this statement? I personal ly would STRONGLY AGREE Most students would STRONGLY AGREE AGREE Most faculty members would DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREED STRONGLY DISAGREE STRONGLY AGREE AGREE (STR DISAGREE (STRONGLY DISAGREE.. Most university adminlstrato rs would STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE) STRONGLY DISAGREE

PAGE 78

-68Specimen Pag e (l of 7) PART I I The questions on this page refer to the statements you made on page of Part I. Please turn to page [numbered 1 through 7] in Part I before answering these questions. STATEMENT #1 To what extent do you feel each of the following would agree with this statement? I pe rsonal ly w ould STRONGLY AGREE AGREE Host students would STRONGLY AGREE AGREE Most faculty me mbers would STRONGLY AGREE AGREE Most univer sity administrators wou 1 d STRONGLY AGREE AGRTE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STATEMENT #2 To what extent do you feel each of the following would agree with this statement? I pers onal ly would STRONGLY AGREE AGREE Most students would STRONGLY AGREE AGREE Most faculty members would STRONGLY AGREE "AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE Most university administrators would STRONGLY AGREE AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE STATEMENT #3 To what extent do you feel each of the following would agree with this statement? I personal ly would STRONGLY AGREE AGREE Most students wou l_d_ STRONGLY AGREE" AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE

PAGE 79

-69PART II Specimen Page (continued) Host faculty members would STRONGLY AGREE "AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE Most university admi nistrators would sTrONCLTAGREF AGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE

PAGE 80

-70APPENDIX C EXPECTATIONS FO R TH E ROLE OF STUDENT ITEMS ELICITED FROM FRESHMEN AND SOPHOMORE MEN ERSS ITEM # A MALE COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD NUMBER OF SUBJECTS RESPONDING WITH ITEM MEAN CONFLICT SCORE 21 ...respect the rights of others, but beyond that, he should be free to behave as he pleases. 17 6 ...be free to establish and enforce his own "rules of conduct." 16 3.4 3 ...be free to question anything that a faculty member says without fear of failing the course or other repr i sal . 17 22 ...seek knowledge during his stay at the university; grades, degrees and future careers are secondary to the pursuit of knowledge. 16 2A>' : ...not have complete freedom in selecting courses to take; he should be forced to enroll for some "required courses." 13 10 ...go through proper channels in making his views known and in attempting to change university policies. 13 k ...use nonviolent protest methods (pickets, rallies and protest meetings) to change "bad" university policies if he cannot implement such changes by existing mechanics. 12 2.7 3.2 4.3 3.3 3-3

PAGE 81

7! C continued ERSS ITEM # A MALE COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD NUMBER OF SUBJECTS RESPONDING WITH ITEM 12 MEAN CONFLICT SCORE 3-3 9

PAGE 82

C continued 72ERSS ITEM A MALE COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD NUMBER OF SUBJECTS RESPONDING WITH ITEM MEAN CONFLICT SCORE 25 ...make his feelings about major university issues known to the administration. 5 3.2 27...not have the same rights, privileges and obligations on-campus as he has off -campus. 5 3.8 1 ...attempt to change things in our society that are immoral or wrong. 5 3.0 II* ...have no real power to change university policies. k 3-5 15 ...leave university policy making completely in the hands of the university administration and abide by the rule that they establish. k 3.2 12 ...strive to receive good grades and a degree from the university. k 3«2 23 ...respect faculty members because of their higher degrees of learning. k 3-2 29 ...have greater contact with the administration during his stay at the uni vers i ty. 3 3-3 2 ...express his feelings about university issues by attending student government meetings and writing letters to the school newspaper. 3 3.0 8 ...avoid joining a fraternity. 2 6.0 16 ...be able to question the competence of a faculty member and implement his removal i f he is found to be incompetent as a teacher. 2 6.0

PAGE 83

-73C continued ERSS NUMBER OF MEAN ITEM SUBJECTS CONFLICT # A MALE COLLEGE STUDENT SHOULD ... RESPONDING SCORE WITH ITEM ...realize that most students want good grades and will hurt anybody who gets in the way of their achieving good grades. 2 4.0 ...realize that he is fortunate to be in college and should act accordingly. 2 3-5 Nl ...not study all the time. 2 3-5 2 3.5 Nl ...not accept all that is taught as fact. ...not obey university rules that they personally don't believe are fair and just. 2 3-5 Nl ...actively socialize with other students. 3-5 Nl ...have the training necessary to engage in a career when he finishes his undergraduate work. 2 3-0 Nl ...demand freedom from outside intervention in university affairs. 2 3-0 * indicates context of item was changed to invert scoring continuum. Nl indicates an item that was not included in the E.R.S.S.

PAGE 84

-74APPENDIX D Instructions for the EXPECTATIONS FOR THE ROLE OF STUDENT SCALE SCALE I: INSTRUCTIONS You are participating in a study that is designed to measure how various people feel male college students should behave. This section is designed to measure your own personal feelings about how students should behave. Each statement in this section will be followed by a blank space. You are to indicate your own personal feelings about that statement by writing a number (1 , 2, 3 or h) i n that space. These numbers can be interpreted as follows: I personally would STRONGLY DISAGREE = 1 I personally would DISAGREE = 2 I personally would AGREE = 3 I personally would STRONGLY AGREE = h For example, if you personally strongly disagreed with a particular statement, you would write 1 in the space to the right of that statement; if you agreed with the statement, you would write 3 , etc. Write one number in the space to the right of each statement. Do not leave any spaces blank. SCALE II: INSTRUCTIONS In this section, you are asked to indicate the extent of agreement/ disagreement that you feel most college students would express to each statement. You are not being asked to express your own personal feelings, but rather should indicate how you think most college students feel male college students should behave. You can indicate how most college students would respond to each statement by writing a number (1 , 2, 3 or 4) in the blank space, to the

PAGE 85

75D continued right of that statement. These numbers can be interpreted as fol lows : Most college students would STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 Most college students would DISAGREE = 2 Most college students would AGREE = 3 Most college students would STRONGLY AGREE k Write one number in the space to the right of each item. Do not leave any spaces blank. SCALE III: INSTRUCTIONS In this section, you are asked to indicate the extent of agreement/ disagreement that you feel most faculty members would express to each statement. You are not being asked to express your own personal feelings, but rather should indicate how you think most faculty members feel male college students should behave. You can indicate how most facu lty m ember s would respond to each statement by writing a number (1~, 2, 3 or~*T] [n the blank space to the right of that statement. These numbers can be interpreted as follows: Most faculty members would STRONGLY DISAGREE = 1 Most faculty members would DISAGREE = 2 Most faculty members would AGREE = 3 Most faculty members would STRONGLY AGREE = A Write one number in the space to the right of each item. Do not leave any spaces blank. SCALE IV: INSTRUCTIONS In this section, you are asked to indicate the extent of agreement/ disagreement that you feel most university administrators (deans, etc.) would express to each statement. You are not being asked to express your own personal feelings, but rather should indicate how you think most university administrators feel male college students should behave.

PAGE 86

76D continued You can indicate how most college administ ra tors would respond to each statement by writing a number (1, 2, 3 or l J) in the blank space to the right of that statement. These numbers can be interpreted as follows: Most university administrators would STRONGLY DISAGREE = 1 Most university administrators would DISAGREE = 2 Most university administrators would AGREE = 3 Most university administrators would STRONGLY AGREE = k Write one number in the space to the right of each item. Do not leave any spaces blank.

PAGE 87

-77APPENDIX F. THE EXPECTATIONS FOR THE ROLE OF STUDENT SCALE [Instructions inserted here (see Appendix D)] 1. A college student should attempt to change things in our society that are immoral or wrong. 2. A college student should express his feelings about university issues by attending student government meetings and writing letters to the school newspaper. 3. A college student should be free to question anything that a faculty member says without fear of failing the course or other reprisal. k. A college student should use nonviolent protest methods (pickets, rallies and protest meetings) to change "bad" university policies if he cannot implement such changes by existing mechanisms. 5. A college student should realize that most students want good grades and will hurt anybody who gets in the way of their achieving good grades. 6. A college student should be free to establish and enforce his own "rules of conduct." 7. A college student should resort to violent tactics to influence policy changes if all else fails. 8. A college student should avoid joining a fraternity. 9. A college student should realize that he is fortunate to be in college and should act accordingly.

PAGE 88

•78E continued 10. A college student should go through proper channels in making his views known and in attempting to change university policies. 11. A college student should have no real power to change university policies. 12. A college student should strive to receive good grades and a degree from the university. 13A college student should have policy restrictions on when and where he may interact with other students. lA. A college student should not have the opportunity for informal contact with his professors outside of the regular classroom situation. 15. A college student should leave university policy making completely in the hands of the university administration and abide by the rules that they establish. 16. A college student should be able to question the competence of a faculty member and implement his removal i f he is found to be incompetent as a teacher. 17. A college student should not accept a university ruling that he considers unjust and should seek to change it by any peaceful means open to him. 18. A college student should demand that the university develop "learning areas" that are applicable to the everyday life of the student; courses that teach about the "real world." 19A college student should not regard faculty members or college administrators as different from anybody else and should not treat them any differently. 20. A college student should not play any part in establishing housing policies, choosing dorm advisors or setting rules for university students living in oncampus housing. 21. A college student should respect the rights of others, but beyond that, he should be free to behave as he pleases.

PAGE 89

•79E continued 22. A college student should seek knowledge during his stay at the university; grades, degrees and future careers are secondary to the pursuit of knowledge. 23. A college student should respect faculty members because of their higher degrees of learning. 2k. A college student should not have complete freedom in selecting courses to take; he should be forced to enroll for some "required courses." 25. A college student should make his feelings about major university issues known to the administration. 26. A college student should insist that he receive as much of a faculty member's time as he needs to achieve his own personal academic goals. 27. A college student should not have the same rights, privileges and obligations on-carnpus as he has offcampus . 28. A college student should have an active voice in policy decisions of the university. 29. A college student should have greater contact with the administration during his stay at the university. 30. A college student should not be required to attend class meetings.

PAGE 90

80APPENOIX F LETTER TO STUDENT SUBJECTS 9 February 1970 Dear I am an advanced graduate student in clinical psychology. My doctoral research project is concerned with understanding the effects of distortions in the communication of feelings between students, faculty and the administration at the University of Florida. I am concerned with what various people feel is right and wrong with the university and how they feel students should act. One important aspect of this study requires that a large number of freshmen men complete two questionnaires. A period of approximately two weeks must expire between the administration of the first questionnaire and the administration of the second. Each questionnaire can be completed in less than an hour. As a freshman enrolled in Psy. 201 or Psy. 300, you may participate in this experiment and receive 120 minutes credit towards completing the experimental participation requirements of your course. If you participate, you will also be providing valuable information that will help us in understanding and correcting situations that contribute to lack of harmony within the university community. It is not necessary for you to formally "sign up" to participate in this experiment. The first questionnaire will be administered on the fol lowi ng dates : Monday, February 16 at 7:30 p.m. in Room 201, Bryan Hall (old Law Bui ldi ng) and Tuesday, February 17 at 7:30 p.m. in Room 201, Bryan Hall (old Law Bui lding) You may complete the first questionnaire on either of these dates. It is not necessary for you to attend both evenings. You may complete the s econd questionnaire on e? ther Monday night, March 2 or Tuesday night, March 3, at the same time and place as above. You cannot complete the second questionnaire unless you have previously completed the first quest ionna i re.

PAGE 91

•81F continued I hope to see you either next Monday or Tuesday night. Very sincerely, Larry Rltt, M.A. Doctoral Student in Psychology P.S. If your schedule prohibits your attending either next Hon. or Tues. evening, please leave a note in my box in the graduate study room (next door to the Psychology Department Office in Bldg. E) stating times when you are free. 1 will arrange a special session when you may complete the first questionnaire.

PAGE 92

82APPENDIX G LETTER TO FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION SUBJECTS 3 February 1970 Dear In a continuing effort to identify areas of misunderstanding, misperception or distortion which contribute to problems in communication among various segments of the university community, we are encouraging Mr. Larry Ritt to undertake a study of objective and perceived discrepancies in the role expectations of university students which may lead to ineffective student performance, withdrawal and dissatisfaction. In order to make this a meaningful study which may help to correct any distortions that may exist in the way students, faculty and administrators see the role of students on our campus, he will need your anonymous responses to the accompanying set of 30 statements describing the way you feel students should behave, the part you feel they should play in university life, etc. Your responses will be pooled with those of the other key administrators [faculty members] whose decisions significantly affect students, to generate a mean level of agreement for each item. We suspect that discrepancies in student and administrator expectations regarding student behavior, responsibilities and privileges are more imaginary than real and hope that a careful study of this matter may exhibit some points at which distortions may be corrected to the benefit of intra-universi ty understanding. In order to preserve the anonymity of your responses and yet enable us to identify who has responded in order to follow-up v/ith others, both a return addressed postcard and a return addressed envelope are enclosed. If you will return the inventory in the envelope and mail the card separately, this should accomplish this complex goal. Your early response to this brief rating scale will be very helpful. Very sincerely yours, Ben Barger, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology

PAGE 93

-83-

PAGE 94

o — o — 8'i-

PAGE 95

-85BIBL IOGRAPHY Biddle, B.J., Rosencranz, H.A., Tomich, E. , & Twyman, J.B. Shared Inaccuracies in the Role of Teacher. In Biddle, B.J. & Thomas, E.J. (Eds.) Role Theo ry. New York: Wiley, 1966, 302-312. Bottenberg, R.A. 6 Ward, J.W. Appli ed Multiple Linear Regress ion. Lackland Air Force Base, Texas: Air Force Systems Command, 19&3Gross, N., McEachern, A.W. & Mason, W.S. Role Conflict and its Resolution. In Maccoby, E.E., Newcomb, T.M. & Hartley, E.L. (Eds.) Readings in Social Psyc hology. New York: Holt, 1958, ^7-^59. Kraut, A.E. A Study of Role Conflicts and Their Relationship to Job 'satisfaction, Tension and Performance. Dissertation, 1965, University of Michigan. Pace, C.R. CUES: Prel imi nary Manual . Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1963. Pervin, L.A. The College as a Social System: Student Perceptions of Students, Faculty and Administration. J. Educ. Res ., 1968, 6J_, 281-28*1. Pervin, L.A. & Rubin, D.B. Student Dissatisfaction with College and the College Dropout: A Transactional Approach. J. Soc. Psychol., In Press. (A mimeographed copy of this study was received from the senior author, 1970.) Stern, G.G. Activities Index and College Characteristics Index: Scoring Instructions and Colleg e Norms. Syracuse, N.Y.: Psychological Research Center, 1963Wheeler, S. Socialization in Correctional Communities. Amer. Sociol. Rev., 1961, 26, 697-712.

PAGE 96

•86BIOGRAPH ICAL SKETCH Lawrence Gerald Ritt was born in Nashville, Tennessee, on October 13, 1933. Graduating from Nashville West End High School in 1957, he enrolled in Vanderbilt University, where he received the B.A. degree, with a major in psychology, in August, I96I. In September of that year, he entered the. University of Florida for graduate studies in psychology. In April, 1 96^ , he received his M.A. degree in psychology from the University of Florida, and since that time has pursued work towards the Doctor of Philosophy degree. From September, 1965, to August, 1966, he participated in the clinical psychology internship program offered by Southshore Mental Health Center in Quincy, Massachusetts. He has been employed as a staff psychologist with Alachua County Mental Health Services since September, I966. In June, I967, he married Judith Mae Varinner of Allentown, New Jersey. They have one child, Sarah Margaret, who was born May 2, I969.

PAGE 97

This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been approved by all members of that committee. It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Phi losophy. June, 1970 Dean, College 6f Arts arfa Sciences Dean, Graduate School Supervisory Committee: Cna 1 rman

PAGE 98

714B