UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An analysis of some of the factors which influence the adoption of values by adolescents Pearson, Donna May 1972

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1972_A8 P43.pdf [ 5.7MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0101862.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101862-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101862-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101862-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101862-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101862-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101862-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

AN ANALYSIS OF SOME. OF THE FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE THE ADOPTION OF VALUES BY ADOLESCENTS by DONNA MAY PEARSON B.H.E., University of Briti s h Columbia, 1964 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Counselling We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard: THE UNIVERSITY- OF BRITISH. COLUMBIA A p r i l ? 1972 In presenting this thesis i n partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Departoient of //u^^U^MS^ , ^ L ^ J j & / yl0U^<LJ^6&7C^ The University of Bri t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date fA&A^utrZC, /97*. ABSTRACT This study was done to determine i f students, classified differently on certain environmental and physical determinants, come from differing value populations. This was done by use of two instruments, the Differ-ential Values Inventory for personal values and the Occupational Values Rating Scale for vocational values. Three schools were used, two public schools and a private religious school. The public schools were situated i n different socio-economic areas. The students were rated on each of 5 classifications: socio-economic standing, sex, grade, church attendance and school program. Scores were obtained for each student and were analyzed 2 using the Hotelling T test which gave confidence intervals for acceptance or rejection of the hypotheses that students classified differently on the above named 5 factors would have the same values. It was found that students, when classified according to regularity of church attendance, sex, school program and grade did create populations which held significantly different values. When students were classified according to socio-economic status there was no significant difference i n the values they held. i i . ACKNOWLEDGMEINT I would l i k e to take this opportunity to express my thanks to Dr. M. Nevison for her help and advice throughout the devel-opment of this study; to Dr. R. Conry for his patience and guidance i n rendering service beyond the c a l l of duty; and, f i n a l l y , to the many graduate students who provided the moral support needed when the going got rough. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 Limitations of this study 3 I I . REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5 Values 5 Values and the Individual 5 Values and Society 8 Values and the School 11 Values and Classification 13 Values and Measurement 14 Value Definitions " 16 Socio-Ecpnomic Status 19 Related Research 23 Socio-Economic Status 23 Sex 26 Grade . . 28 Church Attendance 29 School Program , . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Other Related Factors , . •. . 30 I I I . METHOD 3 1 Hypotheses to be Tested 31 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . 31 Instruments Used 32 Differential Values Inventory '32 Occupational Values Rating Scale . . . 33 Group Classifications 34 Administrative Procedure 36 IV, RESULTS 39 Results Obtained From Each of the Instruments Used 40 i v . Differential Values Inventory 40 Hypothesis 1: Socio-economic variable .. . 42 Hypothesis 2: Church attendance variable . 48 Hypothesis 3: Sex variable 50 Hypothesis 4: School program variable . . 52 Hypothesis' 5: Grade variable 54 Schools 56 Occupational Values Rating Scale 59 Hypothesis 1: Socio-economic variable . . .62 Hypothesis 2: Church attendance variable . 62 Hypothesis 3: Sex variable . . . . . . . . 64 ' Hypothesis 4: School program variable . . 65 Hypothesis 5: Grade variable 65 Interrelationship of the Results from the two Instruments 69 V. DISCUSSION AND APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS 73 Hypothesis 1: Socio-economic variable 73 Hypothesis 2: Church attendance.variable . . . . .77 Hypothesis 3: Sex variable. 81 Hypothesis 4: School program variable 83 Hypothesis 5: Grade variable 85 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND AREAS. FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . . 90 Areas of Further Research . ~. 92 BIBLIOGRAPHY 94 APPENDIX A: Questionnaire Information 99 APPENDIX B: Correlation Tables for Hotelling T 2 Test 109 APPENDIX C: Value Profiles for Testing Categories for D.V.I..-. . . . . . . . . 114 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Frequency Distribution of Students i n Testing Categories 37 I I . Hotelling T 2 Scores and F Values for Traditional and Emergent Values i n Each Testing Group 41 I I I . Upper and Lower Limits, Mean Scores and Mean Differences i n the Socio-Economic Categories for Traditional and Emergent Variables 44 IV. Correlation Scores for Church Attendance and Socio-Economic Groups with Variables from the D.V.I 45 V, T-Test Scores of the Testing Groups for D.V.I. Variables, and Traditional and Emergent Totals . . . . 47 VI. Upper and Lower Limits, Mean Scores and Mean Differences in Church Categories for Traditional and Emergent Variables 49 VII. Upper and Lower Limits, Mean Scores, and Mean Differences i n Sex Categories for Traditional and Emergent Variables 51 VIII. Upper and Lower Limits, Mean Scores and Mean Differences i n School Program Categories for Traditional and Emergent Variables 53 IX. Upper and Lower Limits,. Mean Scores and Mean Differences i n Grade Categories for Traditional and Emergent Variables 55 X. Comparison of-the Mean Scores of the D.V.I. Variables as Obtained for the Three Schools Used 57 XI. Rank Ordering of Occupational Value Rating Scale Statements for Testing Categories from Most Important (.#1) to Least Important (#10) 60 XII. Mean Ranking Scores of Occupational Values Rating Scale Statements for Testing Categories 61 v i . XIII. Comparison Ranking Order of Groups for Each Occupational Value 63 XIV. Mean Value Ranking Scores and Ranking Order of the Occupational Value Statements by the Three Schools . . . 67 XV. Inter School Comparison of Mean Ranking Order for Each Occupational Value 68 XVI. Correlation Relating Traditional Scores on the D.V.I. and Mean Ranking Scores on the O.V.R.S.. 70 XVII. Correlational Scores within Socio-Economic Group Categories from the Hotelling T 2 Test 109 XVIII. Correlational Scores within Church Attendance Group Categories from the Hotelling T 2 Test 110 XIX. Correlational Scores within Sex Group Categories From the Hotelling T 2 Test I l l XX. Correlational Scores Within School Program Group Categories from the Hotelling T 2 Test 112 XXI. Correlational Scores Within Grade Group Categories From the Hotelling T 2 Test 113 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE ' PAGE 1. Profile Showing the Comparison of the Mean Scores of the D.V.I. Variables Obtained by the Three Schools '58 2. The Relationship Between the Traditional Scores as Achieved on the D.V.I, and the Mean Ranking Scores For Each Statement i n the O.V.R.S '. 71 3. Comparative Value Profiles of High and Low Socio-Economic Groups for the D.V.I. Variables 114 4. Comparative Value Profiles of Church and Non-Church Attenders for'the D.V.I. Variables 115 5. Comparative Value Profiles for Male and Female Students for the D.V.I. Variables . . . ' 116 6. Comparative Value Profiles for Academic and Non-Academic Students for the D.V.I. Variables 117 7. Comparative Value Profiles for Grade 9 and 11 Students for the D.V.I. Variables 118 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Lehrnann (1962) has- suggested that education'-'s main concern should be with behavior change as necessitated by normal processes of maturation. This implies concern with values as they define behavior, However, he emphasizes that optimum results of behavioral change does not always occur: an experience effective for one type of student might be ineffective for another, Research suggests that certain specific factors such as the student vs family background, his sex and his church a f f i l i a t i o n affect a student and thus must be considered i n any educational setting that i s to be effective for each student. As counsellors i n this educational system, our aim i s the optimum development of each individual student within the school. This infers the achievement of identifiable values and goals by the student through processes of c l a r i f i c a t i o n , processes which can hopefully occur within a counsellor-student relationship. However, as Lehmann has suggested, i n any educational system consideration needs to be given to the individual, his background and his environment, when rapport i s being established. This study has attempted to discover some of the factors which influence the formation of values by students. In order to understand value sorting i n a counselling situation, information i n two areas i s beneficial. One i s an awareness of the generally existing values and the second i s an awareness of possible factors of influence on value adoption. I t i s not imperative that the counsellor have specific knowledge of the values of each student, although he does become involved i n the 2 student's value discovery.process and i t i s because of this involvement that the counsellor needs to be aware of some of the factors which influence the student i n this growth process. For instance, as a counsellor, i s i t correct to assume that different grades and different sexes hold differing values? Do students from varying socio-economic or religious backgrounds ascribe to varying value systems? Are students on an academic program li k e l y to favor different values than those on a non-academic program? The answers to these questions are important,.not just i n the knowledge they can give, but because of the benefit they would be to a counsellor i n attempting to understand his students and develop rapport. Within the school system i t s e l f , a knowledge of values and their influences i s relevant to the establishment of organization and curriculum within each school. A major area of concern i n education involves psychological need fulfillment of the students by the school. If students "in different areas have different values, should school structures, programs and objectives be significantly different to meet these needs? To take this one step further, i f a counsellor's effectiveness i s determined by his a b i l i t y to build rapport, and i f students i n different schools have significantly different values should the value systems of the counsellor be considered i n counsellor placement? Battle (1957) would strongly suggest that this i s so: ", . .patterns of values are effective i n determining the quality of the relations that exist among persons (p, 27)." He implies that rapport i s dependent on similar value ideals, These questions posed above form the basis of this study. The problem was not so much to determine what the values of today's'youth are, although some of these values have been implied, but more, what environmental or / 3 other factors seem to influence the values that students adopt. Awareness of the subtle influences which affect youth in this process of value adop-tion and consequently i n l i f e style patterns i s v i t a l to a counsellor as . he seeks to maximize the value c l a r i f i c a t i o n processes to which he and the school are committed. I. LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY This study faces the same limitations as any paper-pencil attempt to empirically measure values, attitudes or behavior. This should not dis-credit or prohibitiattempts i n this area as long as proper precautions are used i n making generalizations about proven or disproven hypotheses. Any study i s limited by the operationally defined terms and concepts referred to i n the study. The two instruments used i n this study li m i t the generalizing power of the data. Particularly in the Differential Values Inventory where symbols are used to infer values, statements, can only be accurately stated in view of the symbolic desiderata defined by the instrument. No two instruments could be developed to measure precisely the same value. Another consideration i n this study involves the socio-economic status assigned each student. A different status index may have classified the subjects i n a slightly different way, using different c r i t e r i a of socio-economic status, thereby possibly changing the results. The bias of the sample used must also not be overlooked. I t was not a random sample as schools were' chosen for specific reasons, however, i t i s hoped that i t helped to verify the data more than detract from the study. As well as suggesting the data results as applied to the sample, the 4 possibility* of suggesting' trends i n the. population as a whole s t i l l i s feasible. In any study, factors such as have been'discussed above must be considered as providing limitations on the findings. However, even though generalizations cannot jus t i f i a b l y be declared, evidence of trends occur-ing within the general population can be made. For i t i s only as this i s done that the research assumes practical value. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Literature cited i n this section includes a discussion of three • general areas of information: the development of the term values, the development of the term socio-economic status and research related to this study. I. VALUES The functional significance of values, as concerned by this research, involves several major relationships: values and the individual, values and society, values and schools, value classification, value measurement and value definitions. Values and the Individual The concept of values evokes many differing ideas within the minds of researchers of psychological and sociological behavior. Therefore, in a paper studying values i t i s essential to attempt to map out a definition encompassing some.of the aspects of the concept so that correct applications of the results can be made. Generally, values arise from a process of valuing when actions which show the intensity of desire a person has for various objects are cited (Catton, 1959). From this assumption,' i t can be inferred that an i n d i -vidual indicates his values through the behavior he selects, however, this thought requires c l a r i f i c a t i o n and expansion. Rokeach (1968) develops the idea that values, as'either modes of conduct or end-states of existence, 6 produce behavior that i s personally- and socially preferable to any alter-native available, as the values become internalized and consequently multi-functional to the individual. These personally internalized values obtained through processes of self discovery and cl a r i f i c a t i o n which could be termed "internalized parents," an individual develops into a hierarchy of values which functions to order the degree of priority which an individual might place on any-thing desired (Smith, 1963; Catton, 1959; Meek, 1964). . This value system i s unstable i n that as new experiences occur, the values take on differing p r i o r i t i e s . This shift i n the value hierarchy provides a partial explana-tion for some of the conflicts which people, especially i n the adolescent stage experience. Alterations i n the pri o r i t i e s which an individual adheres to can also occur due to certain prevailing circumstances. As discussed by both Catton (1959) and Scheibe (1970), some of these circumstantial factors are the proximity of the values involved, the social distance of the values, the remoteness i n time of the value, the irrevocability or per-manence of the values., past experiences, ecological conditions such as the weather, and the ease of attainability. Catton (1959) suggests that the greater the ease of attaining, the less the value. Adolescents would concur with him as they use this logic to justify certain behaviors, e.g. drinking. Any of these influences must be considered when researching to determine values. Functionally, theories of personality would indicate that values are central to the organization of the personality (Smith 1963) and are 7 u t i l i z e d as a criterion for guiding actions, developing and maintaining attitudes, justifying behavior, and making moral judgments and self comparisons (Rokeach, 1968). According to Schiebe (1970), values emerge from within the individual's personality organization as a result of the interaction between that particular person and that particular portion of his environment— ". . .between the person and his psychological .ecology (p. 47)." Because of this link with the psychological make-up of the individual, a bond between values, goals and identity appears inevitable. This interaction between values and goals i s discussed by such authors as Wheelis (1958), Heider (1958), Rokeach (1968) and Scheibe (1970). Generally these authors feel that values determine goals. And, because behavior i s considered to be goal directed, i t can be inferred that values influence behavior; or an individual's actions are determined by the goals which their values dictate to them. This modification of values by goals and behavior occurs via a feedback system. „ -, determine „ , , Values — —Goals (to be (honesty) considered honest) infer determine Feedback . Identity System Behavior (guided by the value honesty) Values are not.goals, as such, but provide guidelines by which decisions regarding goals are made, e.g. an individual does not try to "reach" honesty but the value of honesty guides his behavior. Nor can values be used to explain behavior, as such, but they can be used to make behavioral predictions and thus can enter into explanations regarding 8 Behavior*. Meek (1964) explains the relationship:- ". . .behavior i s to satisfy-needs and what satisfies needs takes on value (p. 224-)." . From this relationship between values and. goals- emerges a relation-ship between values, goals and identity. Wheelis sums i t up in this way: "Values define goals, and goals-define identity; the problem of'identity therefore, i s secondary to some basic trouble about values (p. 174)." Getzels (1958) echoes this thought suggesting that a person's identity i s dependent'on the values.he internalizes. Thus an emphasis on values arises for workers involved i n helping professions, e.g. counsellors, psychologists, and psychiatrists. . Their need to -be cognizant of value incongruence i n identity crises becomes essential. Values arid Society Literature, within the past decadd, has frequently emphasized the relationship between values and society, a bond which develops from the relationship between values and individuals. Such prominent people as Carl Rogers, George Spindler (1955), Jacob Getzels (1957), M.V.C. Jeffreys (1962), Brewster Smith (1963), and Kenneth Kenniston (.1968) have discussed i n detail the confusion which now prevails i n the realm of societal values. Rogers (undated) asserts that: Youth, i n almost any country, i s deeply uncertain of i t s value orientation, the values associated with various religions have lost much of their influence, sophisticated individuals i n every culture seem unsure and troubled as to the goals they hold i n esteem (p. 1). He blames this 'alienation' on the anachronism created by science which produces divergent value claims. 9 Smith (.1963) claims that the cause of the chaos i s a shift from the desirability of the traditional "ought" values to the acceptance of the "want" values. I t ; i s no longer what ought to be done, but what "I want," the "do-your-own-thing" philosophy. He suggests that anomie i s inevitable when traditional societal values become replaced by. personal values. However, he believes that social values and expectations no longer provide adequately for the'predicaments of modern l i f e . Joseph Samler (1965), i n a discussion emphasizing the need to examine l i f e , society and i t s values, describes: "In the loosening of religious precepts and i n the inevitable changes i n the times we have lost a set of guidelines for behavior and living..,a vacuum has been created—probably just when we could least afford i t (p. 64)." In 1955, George Spindler became cognizant of this inevitable tur-moil of values. He labelled this conflict of values as a shift from the Traditional to the Emergent. These thoughts prompted Getzels (1958) to investigate, as well. They classified values into sacred and secular cat-egories. Sacred values, as exemplified by the American creed, constituted the relatively- stable ideological beliefs of Americans. He saw four such values: democracy, individualism, equality and human perfectability. As society exists i n the 1970rs perhaps the adoption of these values by the youth, of today could be j u s t i f i a b l y questionned. Secular values which involve the day-to-day ac t i v i t i e s Spindler (1955) also saw as undergoing a crucial transformation which.inevitably caused a disruption of society. Spindler examined these secular values and c l a s s i -fied them into dichotomous groups. He f e l t that the societal values which 10 he labelled as emergent values were becoming predominant and gaining impetus i n society. This he blamed on such occurrences as wars and atomic blasts which seemingly created insecurities. He described the two groups of value adherers as: "The traditionalist views the emergentist as 'so c i a l i s t i c ' , 'communistic', 'spineless and weak-headed', and downright 'immoral'. The emergentist regards the traditionalist as 'hidebound', 'reactionary', 'selfish' or 'neurotically compulsive' (p. 150)." He suggests that there are few "pure" types, that most hold concomitantly certain elements of both value systems. This incongruence, he claims, intensifies the conflicts f e l t within society and the institutions which i t supports. Prince (1957) based his study on the value categories which were defined and developed by Spindler and Getzels. Riesman (1953) i n his book, The Lonely Crowd, developed this dichotomy of ideas by depicting two types of people: the inner directed and the outer directed. The inner directed individual as described by Riesman would be the traditional-i s t ; the outer directed individual, the emergentist. Spindler (1955) developed four dichotomous areas existing between traditionalists and emergentists. He classified as dichotomous a Puritan Morality involving self denial and a strong moral committment, against an attitude of moral relativism where there are no strong personal commit-ments and absolutes of right and wrong are questionned. Second was a shift from the notion of individualism where autonomy i s sacred and independence prized to a value of group harmony and conformity where everything i s relative to the group. Related to this was the third change from an emphasis on work to succeed and then "you'll get ahead" to an 11 attitude i n which socializing, meeting people and travelling are the marks of success. This third dichotomy represented a trend away from a "rat-race" society which uses people, to a less "strive-oriented" society which develops people. Finally, he saw a shift from the impor-tance of the'future and present self denial to an attitude of hedonism where present pleasure takes priori t y over future gratifications. The specific categories as defined by Spiridler are i n the Appendix. Values and the School Within this complexity and diversity of the value, systems of in d i -viduals and society, i t appears to be the unique function of the school to help students create order and thus i s f e l t the need for a dialogue on morals i n schools today. This idea i s generally supported by writers, both past and current, i n the area of values (Getzels, 1957; Kagan, 1961; Parsons, 1961; Meek, 1964; Slinger, 1966; Allport, 1969). Similarly, the main instruments of value teaching are agreed to be parents, peers, society and schools. The l a t t e r , as suggested above, i s generally considered to be the unit with the greatest potential and power. This fact i s accepted because, as described earlier i n this chapter, the values of society, family and peer groups appear to be shifting and eroding away and people are rapidly losing f a i t h in the long-held traditional values of society and the family. Schools are looked to as a force of stabilization where this confusion prevails. Kagan (1961) describes schools as being surrogate parents i n the teaching of values, and for this reason schools have become the scapegoat for the prevailing chaos i n society. This attitude i s also echoed by such 12 writers as'Getzels (.1957), Pope (1961), Samler (1965) and Snyder (1967). Because schools are seemingly held responsible for value teaching, they see as a prime function of the school the need to aid students as they examine l i f e , both externally and internally. Writers are even encouraging the development of a course within the curriculum purely for this function. This process of value development then, inevitably becomes the major responsibility of the school personnel, i n particular teachers and coun-sellors. Allport (1969) explained this process by suggesting that as teachers and counsellors disclose what they themselves stand for, self discovery and thus value c l a r i f i c a t i o n by the students can occur. He continues by indicating the relative ease of this process as compared to other types of learning, by implying that values are absorbed faster than facts i n a learning process because ", . .values, being matters of impor-tance to the self, are always warm,central and ego involved and therefore claim priority- on our attention (p. 469)." Williamson (.1966) concurs with this function of value c l a r i f i c a t i o n , particularly as a responsibility of counsellors. Both Allport and William-son emphasize that ". . . i f the school does.not teach values, i t w i l l have the effect of denying them. . .some homes. . .give no fundamental value training. In such a case, i t i s only i n the school that the child has any chance at a l l of finding ethical anchorage. (Allport, p. 468)." The struggle surrounding value commitments reaches i t s peak during adolescence. This age demands strong support from stable identification models as i t i s at this time, that the function of parents and peers as agents of c l a r i f i c a t i o n i s the weakest. Therefore, as value sorting and 13 "trying out" becomes imminent, counsellors must assume the responsibility to ". . .aid.fiie individual to become aware of alternate values available for evaluation and choice (Williamson, p. 619)." This i s desirable so that students can ultimately achieve excellence and ultimately their f u l l potential. This process must become the aim of the high school counsellors as they seek to be effective i n the lives of their "clients." Values and Classification Values have been classified i n several different ways. The f i r s t i s the classification by Spindler (1955) and Getzels (1957), cited i n the previous section. Rokeach (1968) defines values as instrumental and terminal. The former i s something which i s personally and socially preferable i n a l l situations with a l l objects and which represents a mode of conduct, e.g. courage. The latter represents something worth striving f o r — a n end-state of existence such as peace. He suggests that this involves the development of two value hierarchies within the individual which inevitably w i l l produce conflict i n decision making. Margeneau (1959) sees two kinds of values: normative, being the ratings which people ought to give objects, and factual, the observable preferences and desires which people express. The most extensive work performed and cited has been done by Charles Morris (1956), He classified values into three types. First are the operative values, those that humans tend to prefer. They are the preferred or desired value, the " i s " and are evidenced by the actual direction of preferential behavior toward one object over another. 14 The second type are the conceived values and involve a conception of something as being preferable or desirable. Here, preferential behavior i s directed by an anticipation of a'particular outcome from a symbol which represents a preferable (conceived) value. Third are the object values, the "oughts." These.are preferable regardless of whether or not they are preferred or conceived as preferable. "Object" values are determined by such influences as society. Heider • (1958) expands on these "ought" values by suggesting that they are independent of a person's wishes and thus impersonal. He also considers them to be dispositional, reflective of interpersonal f i a t , and la s t l y , representative of a cognized wish. Similar ideas are expressed by Smith (1963) as he struggled to define values. Values and Measurement Because of the abstractness of the term "values" much controversy surrounds the validity of the measurement techniques used i n research projects involving values. However, the va l i d i t y of measurement i s supported by such authors as Catton (1954), Raths (.1957), Thurstone (1959), Rokeach (1968), and Williams (1968), Basic to this theory enabling value measurement i s Thurstone's law of Comparative Judgment which indicates that values can be measured relative to each other i n the same manner as any verbal stimuli for which discriminal responses can be obtained. A complete discussion of this theory i s beyond the scope of this paper, but readers are referred to the references quoted above. Abelson, as quoted i n Williams (.1968) "Summary of Values," suggests that literature on cognitive dissonance 15 indicates that when a person i s induced to make a choice, he generally comes to see the chosen alternative as preferable. If this i s assumed, and i f values are what i s preferred, they then become inferable from verbal statements and behavior patterns. Value studies, then, measure inferential constructs determined from selective behavior rather than measuring some directly observable phenomena. This, then, provides a concept valid for measuring. Grace and Grace (1952), however, found that students when asked to predict and classify the behavior of others would have a tendency to act i n ways other than how people would perceive them as acting. From their results, they concluded that verbal values differed from behavioral values. This, however, i s only one study and the findings appear to be disputed by most writers i n the area. Specific attention needs to be given to the value definitions used i f these results are to be applied. This discrepancy could be explained by considering Morris' (1956) operative and conceived values. Some of the practical problems prevelant i n the area of value meas-urement are discussed by Scheibe (1970). He emphasized that values, for measurement, i f seen as preferences exhibited by selected behavior, must' possess two qualities, . F i r s t l y , they must be perceived from a moderate level.of activity' (a high level of activation would not necessarily i n d i -cate a value, i t could be a result of an emotional arousal, e.g. fear). Secondly, studied values must be observed from reasoned, goal directed behavior, not causal behavior which occurs as a result of an environmental circumstance. These factors must be considered i n the development and administration of the measurement instruments. 16 Robinson and Shaver (1968) discuss some of the communication pro-blems which confront researchers i n the measurement of values. In statement selection, they suggest there i s d i f f i c u l t y i n wording items so they are neither too general nor too specific. A second area of concern i s that of measuring "what i s desired" or "what ought to be desired." Attempts to c l a r i f y this point have been made by many writers of current literature. Some of. their ideas w i l l now be considered. Value Definitions. Morris (.1956) states that because his three types of values a l l have a reference to "preferential" i n their definition, they can a l l be determined from a study-of preferential behavior. He continued: Preferential behavior would then define the value f i e l d , and the various employments of the term -value'1, would be explicated not as referring to different entitiesg-sj (different values), but as delineating different aspects of the value f i e l d (p. 12). Much of the recent research of values has been based on the definition of values.stated by Kluckhohn (1965): "A value i s a conception, explicit or implicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group of the desirable which influences the selection from available modes, means and ends of action (p. 395)." Kluckhohn (1965) i n discussing this definition, continued by explaining that a value i s more than gust a preference; i t i s ". -. .felt and/or considered to be j u s t i f i e d . Even i f a value remains implicit, behavior with reference to this conception indicates an under-tone of the desirable*—not just the desired (p. 396)." This would i n d i -cate an a b i l i t y to handle empirically both conceived and object "ought" . values as defined by Morris. However, Catton (1959) suggests that 17 because Morris did not define object values empirically, i t i s impossible to measure them by sc i e n t i f i c methods.' This leads to the necessity to study preferences among symbolic desiderata. This, however, has limita-tions also, as emphasized by Catton when he suggests, that the value variables discovered from analyzing actual preferences might not be i n agreement with the "ought" or preferable variables. He stresses that behavior and norm congruence or ". , .consistency between operative* . values and conceived values, must be discovered empirically, rather than assumed^a p r i o r i (p. 312)," He therefore amends Kluckhohn's definition to read: "A value i s a conception of the desirable which i s implied by •  a set of preferential responses to symbolic desiderata' (p. 312)." The amended section i s underlined, Catton explains. that his definition suggests studying conceived values which are taken by the individual involved to.be object values. Smith. (1963) also discusses the f e a s i b i l i t y of basing research on Kluckhohn's definitions, as he attempted to distinguish between values and. preferences. He sees values as "desirables," and preferences as "desired." Smith feels that the tests used i n value research"detect consistent patterns of verbally expressed preferences and he indicates that there i s no check that these are the preferable (desirable) con-ceived values suggested i n Kluckhohn's definition. However, Smith does .imply- that people, more often than not, prefer what they think i s prefer-able. On this statement, he would find i t to be a natural tendency to perform analytical research where preferable and preferred statements are fused, but not acceptable to perform empirical studies. 18 The main reason for Smith's (1963) questionning of the validity of measuring desired and desirable values simultaneously i s due to the phen-omenological differences which those two words evoke. For instance, he would strongly question Kluckhohn's phrase "influences the selection." He would suggest that this i s affected by the phenomenological f i e l d of each individual. For this reason he suggests three factors which are relevant in considering the value objectivity for each individual which inevitably w i l l influence value selection. These are:. 1. Social requiredness - the oughtness of a value]}1 what others (society, culture) would say or do to influence values selection. " 2. Personal requiredness - depends on the internalization of the values as influenced by the superego and the self (unconscious and conscious commitment), 3. Objective appropriateness - the goodness or correctness of the value choice considering the environment or social structure of the i n d i -vidual . From his study in,this f i e l d , Smith offers a restrictive definition of values to read: "Values are conceptions of the desirable that are relevant to selective behavior (p. 332)." The Differential Values Inventory as developed by Prince (1957) was based on the definition by Kluckhohn. In light of the previous discussion, i t would appear that the definition as suggested by Catton (1959) would be more accurate, where a value i s implied by preferential responses to desired symbols. The instrument requested that "I ought to" be inserted at the beginning of each phrase thus empirically obtaining conceived values 19 as indicated by the verbal symbols used i n each statement. This, according to both Catton and Smith (1963) i s then considered to be a measure of object values. This would be more accurately true with the Differential Values Inventory than with the Occupational Values Rating Scale because of the preceding clause inferred with each statement. In conclusion, -a reference w i l l be made to the frequent appearance of value studies i n current literature. In the past values were ignored; attitudes, however, were commonly studied. Presently, an emphasis on values i s apparent. Reasons for this are suggested by Scheibe (1970) and Rokeach (1968) i n their recent books. F i r s t l y , consideration of the pre-vious discussion defining values should'be illuminating—values determine attitudes, as well as behavior. Rokeach also suggests such factors as efficiency—people hold fewer values than attitudes. Also, a greater diversity- of disciplines are interested i n involvement i n values research. Finally-, he believes that values have, as well as cognitive, affective and behavioral components, strong motivational influence's", therefore research i n this area would be more advantageous to behavioral scientists. I I . SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS Measurement of an individual's social status has received much atten-tion i n the area of socio-psychological research and many differing c r i t e r i a have been supported. And although no one device has been universally accepted, common concepts are evident i n the schemes suggested. Some researchers would discount any results involving social status categorization. However, within the limitations of the method used, v a l i d i t y can be found for the behavioral research performed. Several people have done extensive research i n the area of social ' 20 status: measurement, Among these, McGuire and White (1955) defined a social status index as ". • . . ( i t ) approximates the position of a person with regard to one of the frames of reference people employ to place one another (p. 1)." They suggest that four of the reference points used most frequently for classification are socio-economic level, social class participation, reputation and family or individual l i f e style. They feel that behavior does vary according to status, and that behavioral roles are learned and become a functional aspect of their status. Using these ideas, Lloyd Warner (1957) researched extensively in this area and developed three Indices which could be used to identify the class levels existing i n any community. The f i r s t , an Index of Social Characteristics, i s primarily an index of - socio-economic factors and con-siders weighted ratings of occupation, source of income, house type and dwelling area. A second, the Index of Evaluated Participation, i s used mainly- for obtaining the social stratification of a community, and con-siders such factors obtained through interviews, as reputation, symbol identification, and institutional memberships. The thi r d , the Index of Value Orientation, involves the l i f e style of the individual, specifically rating education level, religious a f f i l i a t i o n , occupation and source of income.• For practical reasons, a l l of these ideas were not feasible for use i n this study. Another researcher i n the f i e l d , Albert Reiss (1962) studied the possibility of obtaining a national rank-order of occupations according to prestige status. This rating, applied to the father's occupation, would define the socio-economic status of the family. Reiss recognized many 21 limitations i n his study, for instance biases and value influences. How-ever, he did obtain an occupational scale, developed from the prestige rank order assigned occupations by a large, varied sample of people, which could be used. Morris Rosenberg (.1965), i n his intensive studies of adolescents and their self image, defined socio-economic status from the father's occu-pation, the father's educational level and the father's primary source of income.. From these three figures, he obtained weighted scores and then grouped these scores into socio-economic status groups. Other researchers in•the area of behavioral sciences have devised similar methods of classification. Schneider and Lysgaard (1953) divided occupations into four groups according to the degree of supervisory control from "higher" occupations. The groups obtained were not homogeneous with respect to income, prestige, or social equality. Swinehart (1963) d i f f e r -entiated his subjects i n i t i a l l y into two occupational classes—middle and lower.. The middle class he further divided according to the amount of power and authority involved i n the actual job performance and the amount of edu-cation needed to qualify for the occupation. The lower class he s p l i t according to the job s k i l l involved and the l i v i n g conditions of the family. Socio-economic levels of the father's occupation and parent's educational level were used by both Holzman (1968) and Weinberg and Skager (1966) i n their research. Thompson (.1965, 1968) and Prince (1957) defined socio-economic level using the father's occupation as ranked on Warner's Occupa-tional Rating Scale. One other factor which was considered as influential i n determining 22 socio-economic status was suggested by Steiner (1953) and Hodge and Trieman (1966). They related to socio-economic level the class conscious-ness of the individual. In research done they found that their data dem-onstrated patterns of acquaintance and kinship as well as allegiance to be as important as objectively measured class status i n determining class identity. This would seem to infer a necessity of some subjective analysis in order to insure complete accuracy i n socio-economic class categorization. One limitation to using class allegiance, however, was suggested by Hodge and Trieman (1966) when they discovered that only 6% of the individuals they tested admitted to being i n a "working class" when i n fact, according to objective measures dealing with a normal population, approximately 15% should have been. Kahl and Davis (1955) correlated results from 19 different Indices used i n research. They found "relatively high positive correlations" among the Indices. Factor analysis produced two common factors; one was measures of occupations, the other was ecological measures. From their data they concluded that occupation was the best single predictor of socio-economic levefec Finally, the basis of classification for this study involved an analysis of Canadian occupations done by Bernard Blishen i n 1958, as dev-eloped from the Canadian census done i n 1951. Education level and income level were used as classification indices by Blishen for the scale. Seven levels of socio-economic standing were formed from the occupations. Slight modifications, for regionalization were performed by the Medical Faculty of the. University of Brit i s h Columbia for their research resulting i n the actual rating scale which was used. 23 IIP, RELATED RESEARCH Many studies have been performed relating factors used i n this study and values, both personal and occupational. The most extensive area of research, has been i n the area relating socio-economic status and values. Each, factor investigated i n this study w i l l be discussed i n view of the relevant research i n that f i e l d . ^Socio-Economic Status Attempts to relate socio-economic status and values have found d i f -fering results. Prince (1957), i n the i n i t i a l research using the Differing Values Inventory i n Chicago noted a relationship between values and socio-economic status—the lower class had the more emergent values. Lehmann., (1962), i n a more intensive study also using the D.V.I, noted that a common value structure existed among students, with variations evident among and within socio-cultural groups. However, he found the reverse relationship true compared to,Prince's findings on low social status. He discovered that students whose parents achieved some level of high school education or where the father was a labourer, attained a significantly higher mean tradi-tional value score than those whose parents attended college or whose father was an executive or professional. Lehmann also found that students who lived the major part of their l i f e on a farm had higher traditional scores than those who came from a predominantly c i t y environment. Anderson (1961) using the D.V.I, to' test the personal values of Edmonton students i n Alberta, found that they also achieved higher traditional scores than emergent. These stu-dents generally come from farm and rural areas compared to the highly urban 24 areas such as Chicago and California, Other instruments also appeared to detect a definite relationship between values and social status. Pine (1965) suggests from his results i n studying delinquent students and their ideas regarding social status and social mobility, that a strong, direct relationship existed between social status and value systems. He claimed that social status could probably be measured more accurately i n terms of the values expressed, rather than i n the usual terms of occupation, housing or income. Gottlieb (.1967) also discovered distinct values held by lower class youth, whether Negro or Caucasian. They valued "getting ahead i n l i f e , " and "having a good job." Gottlieb suggests that to these "poor youth," a good job • denotes room for advancement, good pay, job security and clean working conditions. Two other studies, one by Schneider and Lysgaard i n 1953, and one by Chwast i n 1959, focused on the relationship between deferred gratification and social status. Both studies showed that l i v i n g for the moment was more important than saving for the future for lower socio-economic students. With the D.V.I., present time orientation i s an emergent value, thus their findings would concur with those of Prince i n this value area. L i t t l e or no significant relationship between social class and values i s , however, also strongly supported by research. Thompson (1965, 1968) initiated two studies both using the D.V.I, i n California. The f i r s t study- found no relationship between the value profiles of students and their social class as defined by their father's occupation. However, i n 1968, he detected a significant relationship for freshman (Grade 9) students, but • 25 no difference with Seniors (Grade 12's). At the Grade 9 level, Thompson • found that low socio-economic students scored low on traditional values, particularly independence and work success, and high on emergent values, especially on sociability, conformity, and moral relativism. The reverse subscale scores were attained by the high socio-economic students i n these four areas. Thompson offers as an explanation for his results the lessen-ing impact of the family on the values of the student as he progresses through school, and the increase i n influence of the immediate environment. This study, although not conclusive i n the area of social status, would also support the trend found by Prince that emergent values and low socio-economic status are related. Bidwell (.1963) was perhaps the most definite in suggesting a lack of relationship between values and social status. In his study involving traditional and emergent values and career choices, he found no relationship between value commitments and the nature or prestige of the father's work, his education, his income or his academic a b i l i t y . Bidwell offers as an explanation the suggestion that the D.V.I, i s independent of. such status characteristics as occupation and class background. However, he f e l t that . .the genesis of T-E values i s not. i n the social structure (e.g. father's occupation) but i n the cultural system (e.g. religion and ethnicity) (p. 303)." Diverse results exist also i n the area of occupational values. Perrone (.1967), using Centers Occupational Values Rating Scale, found value ratings of students i n Grade 9 were not affected by aptitude, achievement, or social status. Centers (1949) i n using his own'Rating Scale, discovered value d i f -ferences among the middle and low social economic groups. He discovered that 26 self expression was characteristic of occupational values with people of middle class whereas security and independence were most highly valued by low socio-economic people i n their job search. Through his extensive research with social classes, Centers became cognizant of the fact that "Social classes can thus to a certain extent be characterized by the possession of common values as well as by the possession of common beliefs and attitudes (p. 153)." Hilton and Korn (1964) confronted with this conflict of evidence re-garding socio-economic status and values, suggested a possible explanation. In a study covering a 7-month interval, they noted a difference i n personal values between members of various occupational, educational and social groups. They also noted that a significant change occurred i n the values of i n d i -vidual members within each, group i n the time which elapsed. They suggested that individuals have a need to keep their values consistent with their actions, intentions and beliefs. Because social mobility i s inevitable, the mobility status of the students sampled could affect the results and create inconsistencies between values held and social class membership; that as students experience socio-economic status mobility, they experience a shift i n values. Sex /Little, research, has been done i n this area, however the evidence available appears congrent. In his f i r s t study, Thompson (1965) concluded that g i r l s scored significantly higher on puritan morality, and sociability, while boys scored higher on work success, conformity and present time orientation. When using Centers O.V.R.S. in 1968, Thompson found that at the ,01 level of significance males rated leadership, power, profit and fame 27 as important i n a job, while females, at the ,05 level of significance rated self expression, and social service as.valuable i n a job. Concerning the interrelationship of the D.V.I, scores and the O.V.R.S. scores for the. sexes, Thompson noted that emergent males valued leadership, power, fame and social service i n choosing an occupation. Traditional females valued leadership and social service, however emergent females placed importance on profit i n job considerations. In 1954,-Singer and Stefflre (.1954) compared senior high school males and females using the O.V.R.S, They found that boys preferred the values of power, profit and independence, while g i r l s valued occupations of interest and with, a social service value. Wagman (1965) using the same instrument found boys valued esteem significantly higher than g i r l s , while g i r l s valued social service significantly stronger than boys. Using Allport's Study of Values, Leona Tyler (1968) discovered that men scored higher on theoretical, economic and p o l i t i c a l values. She suggested this indicates that men orient themselves more towards areas of abstract ideas, practical success and power. Women, because of their high, scores i n the areas of aesthetic, social and religious.values, favor job areas of art, religion and social service. Tyler also indicated that males function better i n a competitive society, while females prefer an environment free from restraint where self expression i s encouraged. Perrone Q967) tested occupational values using the O.V.R.S. over a 2-year period. He found that females i n Grade 9 were more concerned with using their a b i l i t i e s , helping others and with security and less concerned with the occupational values of money, leadership, fame and independence. 28 Grade 9 boys valued using their a b i l i t i e s and security and placed l i t t l e importance on leadership and independence i n considering a job. Rosenberg (1965) compared the values of the sexes as they influenced the self image. He discovered that both sexes stressed equally the value of getting along with people i n opposition to the value of work success. Gi r l s , he .suggested, value moral virtues more than boys, while males value interpersonal control and'dominance i n their relationships with others. Rosenberg also suggested that males valued possessing and using a diversity of a b i l i t i e s . Grade Perrone's study, as cited above, indicated that the dominant occu-pational values of Grade 9's were the opportunity to use capabilities, social service and security, while they'showed l i t t l e concern for the values of leadership and independence. Anderson (1961), using the D.V.I, with students i n Alberta, discovered that, there was l i t t l e difference between the personal values of students in Grades 9 and 11. Generally, the values held were traditional with a gradual trend towards stronger traditional values as Grade increased. Thompson (1965) also suggested l i t t l e difference between the values of Grade 9 and 11. The only scale showing a significant difference was work success where the older students scored higher, Total traditional and emergent scores between the grades were almost identical with less than 1.00 point difference on their t o t a l mean scores. In 1968, Thompson noted significant differences, however, showing Grade 9's scoring significantly higher on puritan morality and conformity and significantly lower on indepen-dence, work success and moral relativism compared to Grade 12's. 29 Church Attendance Prince (1957), Lehmann (1962) and Thompson (.1965, 1968) a l l discovered a positive, significant relationship between church attendance and tradi-tional values. Thompson concluded that a positive correlation existed between church attendance and traditional values, however he attributed this trend to two main variables of the D.V.I.: puritan morality and individualism. Future Time Orientation scores also progressively decreased as frequency of church attendance decreased. The reverse was true for Present Time Orientation scores. In 1968, Thompson found identical trends. However, i n this study, he also noted that the subscale of sociability was not related to the frequency of church attendance. S School Program Once again, Prince (1957) and Thompson (1965, 1968) have given evidence that students on an academic program tend to hold stronger traditional' values than emergent values. Specifically, significant differences were detected i n the subscale values of individualism and work success which were valued more highly by academic students and sociability which was valued more highly by non-academic students. Related to school program i s mark achievement. Although i t i s an undesirable trend and not conclusive, i t i s apparent that non-academic students, generally achieve lower letter grades than academic students. The research done cites high-achieving students scoring higher on the variables of individualism, work success, and future time orientation while students making grades of C and below scored significantly higher i n con-formity. This suggests that high achievers i n school adhere to stronger 30 traditional values, while emergent values and low achievers seem to be positively correlated, Battle (1957) suggests evidence indicating that grades earned were related to the value patterns of the teachers. Stu-dents getting low grades tended to have value patterns which differed from the "ideal" as seen by the teacher. He concluded that a relationship between two people was compatible and productive i n proportion to the degree by which the value patterns of the two were similar. Other Related Factors- -Wilson (1959) found a significant difference between the values of public and private school graduates. Prince (1957) detected no difference i n the public and private schools he tested. However, he did find a difference between the values of parochial and private or public school students, Cummins (.1966), using the D.V.I,, found that female students with discipline problems had more emergent values than non-disciplinary female offenders. However, this trend was not valid among the male population. Anderson (1961) generally found Canadian students to be more traditional than their American counterparts from Chicago and California. The limitations of each of these studies cannot detract from the obvious trends that appear, even though seemingly conflicting at times. Each study opens up a new area for investigation. And the importance and the need for information i n this area of values, particularly as i t can be related to education, cannot be stressed too greatly. CHAPTER III METHOD This study has attempted to find a relationship between possible influencing factors i n the lives of adolescents as related to the values they possess. Five factors were chosen for testing and i t was f e l t that these five involved some of the c r i t i c a l influences that could determine differential selectivity of values by students. The relative ease of classification was also influential i n deciding on the particular factors to consider. The five factors chosen for testing included sex, grade, the type of school program the student was studying i n — e i t h e r academic or non-academic--church attendance, and socio-economic background. • The subjects i n the study were classified into groups i n each of the factor categories. Then the question was studied whether students in the various classifications i n each group held different values accord-ing to the instruments used or did these factors not influence students sufficiently to cause them to ascribe to differing value systems. I, HYPOTHESES TO BE TESTED Hypotheses The specific hypotheses tested i n this analysis, as stated i n the Null form were: .1. There w i l l be no significant difference i n the values between students of low and high socio-economic levels. 2. There w i l l be no significant difference i n values between 32 frequent- and non-frequent church attenders. 3. There w i l l be no significant difference i n values between the sexes. 4.- There w i l l be no significant difference i n values between students in Grades 9 and 11. I I . INSTRUMENTS USED Two instruments were chosen for this study, one to detect a shift i n personal values from traditional to emergent, and the other to in d i - • cate the occupational values to which students adhere. The personal values questionnaire developed by Richard Prince was the Differential Values Inventoryj the occupational instrument, used as a Q-sort and devised by Richard Centers, was the Occupational Values Rating Scale. Differential Values Inventory This instrument was developed as part of a doctoral thesis by Richard Prince at the University of Chicago i n 1957, It was structured to measure Traditional-Emergent values defined by Spindler and Getzels, as discussed earlier i n this paper. The four categories of values measured i n each dimension were: Traditional -• Puritan Morality - Individualism - Work Success - Future-time Orientation Emergent - Moral Relativism Conformity - Sociability - Present-time Orientation 33 The instrument•consisted of 64 paired forced-choice questions. Each item included a Traditional and an Emergent statement. The basic intent of the instrument was to attempt to measure the individual's true internal feelings not what he might actually do, therefore the respondents were instructed to preface each statement with "I ought to..." In the development of the questionnaire, both graphic item analysis and.interview techniques were used to determine the va l i d i t y and the internal consistency of the statements. R e l i a b i l i t y was measured using the s p l i t half method and the test-retest procedure. Correlations com-puted on the test-retest following a one year time lapse ranged from .78 upward. Using the Kudar Richardson 21 formula on the split-half scores the test r e l i a b i l i t y was found to be 0.951, A factor analysis of the response on 1790 tests was also used and i t revealed 7 unique factors with one which was less obvious, I t was assumed that these eight factors were the personal value subscales built into the inventory (Prince, 1957; Lehmann, 1962; Thompson, 1968), Scoring i n this study of the D.V.I, was done by assigning one mark to the subscale of the selected item. The maximum tot a l for each subscale was 16, the minimum score was 0. The maximum Traditional or Emergent score was- 6.4, with the scores thus ranging along a continuum from Traditional to Emergent, depending on the subscale totals. S t a t i s t i c a l analysis was done on both the subscale scores and the total Traditional and Emergent scores. Occupational Values Rating Scale This instrument, designed by Centers i n 1949, consisted of a series 34 of 10 statements each statement describing a possible job characteristic. It was designed by Centers as a means of obtaining the occupational values desired by people i n various social classes. This instrument has been used many times since i t s development by such researchers as Perrone (1967), Thompson (1965), Wagman (1965), Rosenberg (1965), Anderson (1961) and Singer and Stefflre (1954) however, no statistics have been cited regarding the validity or r e l i a b i l i t y of the O.V.R.S. Centers recognized with regret that there was no adequate way of testing the va l i d i t y or genuineness of the choices made and also that the. experimental error was not t r i v i a l . But he suggested that the vastness of his sample used and the interviews which he conducted gave some indication, of•face va l i d i t y and thus allowed for generalized trends to be recognized; I t i s on this basis that the instrument was used i n this study without accurate r e l i a b i l i t y or val i d i t y s t a t i s t i c s , -The students involved were asked to rank order the statements from the most desired to the least desired characteristic to them when consider-' ing' a vocation. The statement ranked #1 was the least important. The statements included such desires as power, self expression, esteem, security leadership, social service and fame. I I I . GROUP CLASSIFICATIONS Five specific groups were developed for the testing of the hypotheses. These groups were formed on the basis of the information sheet administered at the beginning of each class. Grade, sex and type of school program were straightforward c l a s s i f i c a -tions from the information supplied by each student. From the l a t t e r , the 35 student was grouped as either academic or non-academic depending on the school program indicated according to the selection offered by the govern-ment of British Columbia, Department of Education. Indication of church attendance created four groups, those attending once a week, once a month, once or .twice a year and those never attending. Those i n the f i r s t two .groups were considered frequent church attenders; those i n the latter two groups were considered non-frequent church attenders. The socio-economic groups were assigned using the Blishen Scale of Canadian occupation classifications as modified and used by the Medical Faculty of the University of Briti s h Columbia, As the scale represents an empirical measure of social position, i t was accepted that no stati s t i c s were available to support the v a l i d i t y or r e l i a b i l i t y of the scale. Blishen did not cite any statistics when he presented the scale i n 1958, However, Reiss (1962) reaffirmed the. face va l i d i t y of Blishen's scale i n a study mentioned earlier where he developed an occupational scale from a prestige rank ordering of occupations. The two scales demonstrated face v a l i d i t y when compared. A Bri t i s h Columbia medical study by Anderson and Larsen (.1966) also supported the face va l i d i t y of the Blishen scale and of the modified Blishen scale as developed by the authors and used i n this study. The problem of scale r e l i a b i l i t y becomes a coding problem. I t i s hoped that from the job descriptions given by the students, that relatively consistent coding of occupations was obtained. It should also be recognized that the occupational categories encompassed large occupational areas and further that only the upper and lower groups were used i n the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. The biases and influences however, which would have caused 36 slight discrepancies must be considered as limitations of the study. For this study, the students were divided into five groups: high, high-middle, middle, low-middle, and low according to the description of their fathers' occupation. In the construction of this scale, Blishen (1958) considered both the educational level and the income level of the job. The scale i s very explicit i n specifying areas of work as well as position, e.g. manager of transportation industries-, foreman of linemen and service-men—telephone,.telegraph and power; proprietor of grocery store. Modifi-cations by the Medical Faculty of Blishen's original scale involved adjust-ment for the lower mainland area of Briti s h Columbia which included minor deletions and additions, as well as some more specific categorizations i n such, areas as construction. However, the changes made did not s i g n i f i -cantly alter the scale. The occupations were s t i l l rated on a continuum from 1 to 7. The f i r s t two groups of students were considered i n a high socio-economic bracket and included such occupations as professionals and managers. The low socio-economic students were i n the bottom two groups and their fathers were mainly farmers, semi-skilled and unskilled labourers. For a more complete discussion of socio-economic grouping see the Reviewoof Literature. Table I on the following page shows the frequency distributions of the groups within each category, IV. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE The two instruments, the Differential Values Inventory and the Occupational Values Rating Scale, were administered to approximately 37 TABLE I FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS IN TESTING CATEGORIES Category Number Percent New Testing Categories Number Percent GRADE 9 11 342 319 51,74 48.26 SEX Male Female 319 342 48.26 51.74 SOCIO-ECONOMIC High 115 17.40 High-middle 90 13.6 2 Middle 105 15.89 LLow-middle 115 17.40 Low 236 35.70 High Socio-Economic Low Socio-Economic 205 351 31.02 53.10 ''PROGRAM Academic 516 78.06 Non-Academic 145 21.94 CHURCH Weekly Monthly Yearly Never 208 71 155 227 31.47 10.74 23,45 34.34 Frequent Non-Frequent 279 382 42.21 57.79 The reason for the large discrepancy i n the size of the groups i s that i n Grade 9, very- few students have begun to branch into a non-academic program, therefore, the majority are s t i l l considered academic. 38 700 students i n Grades 9 and 11 at three different schools. An information sheet, as shown in the Appendix, was also given to each student to complete. This sheet requested the following information: sex, grade, age, father's occupation, i f the mother worked, number of older and younger brothers and sisters, school program and church attendance. Of the three schools the students attended, two were public schools within a large c i t y school d i s t r i c t , one was a private religious school i n a rural community. The two c i t y schools differed i n that one came from a high socio-economic area of the c i t y , the other from a lower socio-economic area. These schools were specifically chosen f o r their socio-economic location and religious a f f i l i a t i o n to provide data directly related to the hypotheses to be tested, In each case, the questionnaire was administered by the investigator i n a classroom situation. After completion of the information sheet, the instruc-tions for the D.V.I, were read aloud with the class, then students were asked to respond to each item on a score sheet. No time lim i t was given, but stu-dents were allowed to proceed at their own pace. Following completion of the D,V,I,, the Occupational Values Rating Scale was administered, . Each of the ten items, was typed on a separate s l i p of paper and the students were asked to rank them from most important to least important to them i n selecting a vocation. (This i s known as the Q-sort technique.) Once again, no time restriction was given, but i n each case the students completed the whole assignment i n one hour. CHAPTER.IV RESULTS Precise analysis of the data from the two instruments used was d i f f i c u l t because of the fact that a l l the variables i n each survey are dependent. For this reason, no factor analysis techniques could be used, 2 On the D.V.I., i t was decided to use t-tests and Hotelling T statistics on the data. The Hotelling routine i s used i n problems of multiple comparisons to test the n u l l hypothesis that two groups come from popu-lations with the same means on a given set of variables. As discussed by Morrison (1967), this test involves the mean vector of responses as drawn from a multivariate normal distribution and constructs confidence intervals for the mean vectors to provide for acceptance or 2 rejection of the n u l l hypothesis, A T s t a t i s t i c and an F value tested at the ,05 level of significance were computed with this test and i t i s on the basis of the F value that the n u l l hypothesis of equal mean vectors i n each group i s accepted or rejected. Univariate t-test sta t i s t i c s were also performed. The results are cited, not to produce conclusive evidence for significance, but because of . . . . . 2 the verification they give to the Hotelling T test results. The t-test, dealing with the individual mean differences, i s limited i n i t s a b i l i t y to reject a n u l l hypothesis i n this type of study using dependent variables by two main factors. One i s the effect of possible positive correlations among the subtests, particularly where the data i s so interdependent. 40 Secondly, i s the tendency for the individual differences to be s i g n i f i -cant merely by chance particularly where the size of sample and thus the size of the variate vectors i s so large. 2 . The Hotelling T test also produces within-group covariance matrices. These are produced "in table form i n the Appendix, Profiles of the mean scores of the variables for each group using the D.V.I. scores are also i n the Appendix. The data from the O.V.R.S, was analyzed using a mean rank correlation for each group. Both intergroup and intragroup comparisons were made of the rankings. I. RESULTS OBTAINED FROM EACH OF THE INSTRUMENTS USED In this section, the results for each of the two instruments used w i l l be cited separately. The results using the D.V.I. w i l l be discussed f i r s t ; each hypothesis w i l l be dealt with individually. At the end of this chapter, there w i l l be a section discussing the data where the results of the two questionnaires were correlated. Differential Values Inventory 2 Table II reveals the general results of the Hotelling-T test. The n u l l hypotheses are accepted or rejected on the basis of the F values indicated. From this table, i t i s evident that a l l but one of the groups produced mean vectors which, at the .05 level of significance appear to come from differing populations. The scores would suggest that at a .05 level of significance when the mean traditional values within each group, namely sex (male, female), church (attenders, non-attenders), 41 TABLE I I HOTELLING T2 SCORES AND F VALUES FOR TRADITIONAL AND EMERGENT VALUES IN EACH TESTING GROUP Group Hotelling F value Significance Level Sex - Traditional - Emergent 34.092 84.997 8.484 21.152 0.001 0.001 Church - Traditional 75.074 - Emergent 83.539 Socioeconomic - Traditional 27.075 - Emergent 6.829 18.683 0.001 20.789 0.001 6.732 0.001 1.698 (not significant) Program - Traditional - Emergent 15.350 11.861 3.829 2.952 0.0046 0.0195 Grade - Traditional - Emergent 27.458 21.575 6.833 5.369 0.001 0.001 42 socio-economic status (high, low), school program (academic, non-academic), and Grade (9, 11), were compared, they were found to be from different populations. When the mean emergent value scores were tested, a l l were found to be from differing populations but the high and low socio-economic groups. ... The tables following refer to the results of the variables'defined i n the D.V.I. The f i r s t four variables are the traditional values. The latter"four are the emergent values. They w i l l be referred to by the abbreviations as l i s t e d below: Traditional Puritan Morality P.M. Individualism ind. Work Success W.S. Future Time Orientation F.T.O. Sociability soc, „ . Conformity con. mergent Moral Relativism M.R. Present Time Orientation P.T.O. Total 1 i s the traditional total score = T^ ; total' 2 i s the emergent total score = These scores represent a perfect negative correlation. Values abbreviated, with their defined dichotomies are: P.R, — — — M.R. Ind, — Con, W.S. -~--.--T--.r-—.— •— Soc, F . T . O . — — — — — — P.T.O. Hypothesis 1: There w i l l be no significant difference i n the values between students of low and high socio-economic levels. • 43 Table. I l l ; on the following page shows, the mean scores from the 2 Hotelling T test for the high and low socio-economic groups for each of the eight D.V.I, variables. I t also gives the difference between the scores and the upper and lower confidence intervals established for the F values indicated. The significant variable i s determined by the confi-dence limits given. : The result'is significant i f the area between the l e f t and right l i m i t does not include 0, For this group, i t was found that there was a significant difference in the traditional values that the students hold, but not i n the emergent values. This significant difference i n the traditional values i s most pronounced i n the work success orientation where the lower socio-economic group scored a higher mean value for this variable, 7.177 as compared to 6.292 for the high socio-economic group. Differences i n the means of the emergent values are quite small indicating that students, i n the values that this instrument classifies as emergent, see these as being similar i n • importance.. The greatest difference was i n the variable of moral relativism --0.486. I t should also be noted that the mean values of the high socio-economic group in. the emergent variables were higher i n a l l categories compared to the low socio-economic group, thus high socio-economics could be considered to be slightly more emergent. A significant difference between total traditional and emergent scores was. also detected i n a correlational test done with the socio-economic group. Table. IV, page 45, indicates these results. Significance level at .05 was 0.0764, thus 3 variables i n the traditional area were significant, but none of the emergent values was significant. However, the T 9 score was found to 44 TABLE I I I UPPER AND LOWER LIMITS, MEAN SCORES AND MEAN DIFFERENCES IN THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CATEGORIES FOR TRADITIONAL AND EMERGENT VARIABLES Variables High-Means . Low Differences Limits Left Right P.M. 5.515 6.194 . -0.679 -1.388 0.029 Ind. 8.837 8.403 0.434 -0.188 1.056 W.S. 6.292 7.177 -0.885* -1.708 -0.062 F.T.O. 7.257 7.571 -0.314. -1.067 0.439 Soc. 9.545 9.191 0.353 -0.308 1.014 Con. 6.693 6.549 0.144 -0.609 0.898 M.R. 9.738 9.251 0.486 -0.232 1.204 P.T.O. 10.124 9.663 0.461 -0.269 1.191 * Significant at .05oCLevel .45 TABLE IV CORRELATION SCORES FOR CHURCH ATTENDANCE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUPS WITH VARIABLES FROM THE D.V.I. Variables Church . • Socio-Economic Level P.M. -0.348.6* -0.1226* Ind. -0.0507 , ' 0.0986* W.S. -0.1062* • -0.1314* F.T.O. -0.2185* -0.0387 Soc. 0.0223 0.0603 Con. 0.1191* 0.0272 M.R. 0.3123* 0.0751 P.T.O. 0.2825* 0.0693 T l -0^2632* -0.0813* T2 0.2632* 0.0813* * oC level = .0764 V 46 be significant i n this test as well. Of the 3 that are significant, the one with the strongest correla-tion i s work success. This i s a negative correlation, suggesting that the higher the work success score, the lower the socio-economic status. . . . 2 This verifies the results of the Hotelling T test. Significant results were also indicated i n two other traditional variables: those of puritan morality and individualism. The f i r s t sug-gests a positive relationship between puritan morality and low socio-economic status, i.e. the lower the socio-economic, group, the stronger the adherence to a value of puritan morality. Table I I I (page 44) sup-ports this finding. The latter indicates a positive relationship between individualism and high socio-economic status or the higher the socio-economic group, the stronger the value of individualism. These are, however, only trends, not conclusive statements. Similar results are indicated by the t-test results i n TableW (page. 47), These results, however, should not be considered conclusive or significant because of the limitations discussed at the beginning of this chapter. . However, the trend indicated i n the previous two tests i s also suggested i n the t-tests performed. The same three, puritan morality, individualism, and work success, were significantly different i n the traditional values area. While one variable, that of moral relativism was found significant, at a .05 level indicating that high and low socio-economic students vary'slightly on their value of moral relativism. As suggested earlier, this finding i n the traditional area i s i n agreement with the Hotelling T test, thus a possible trend could be inferred. 47 ; , . . TABLE V. T-TEST SCORES OF THE TESTING GROUPS FOR D.V.I. VARIABLES, AND TRADITIONAL AND EMERGENT TOTALS \ ; ^ Academic Female Grade High-Low Frequent-Non-Variables Non-Academic Male 9 & 11 Socio-Economic Frequent Church P.M. 0.547 • 0.024* 0.199 0.002* 0.000* Ind, 0.000* 0.001* 0.000* 0.021* 0.313 W.S. . 0.263 0,004* . 0,342 0.001* 0.113* F.T.O. 0.130 0.655 0.044* 0.212 0.000* Soc. 0,596 0.000* 0.435 0.077 0.680 Con, 0.001* 0.000* 0.004* 0.611 0.016* M.R. 0.208 0.158 0.008* 0.035* 0.000* P.T.O: 0.136 0.012* 0.513 0.062 0.000* T l 0,012* 0 ,'619* 0,721 0.025* 0.000* T2 0.012* 0.619* 0.721 0.025* 0.000* * Significant at .05a£level 48 Hypothesis 2: There w i l l be no significant difference in values between frequent and non-frequent church attenders. 2 Hotelling T test results for frequent and non-frequent church attenders indicate that there i s a significant difference i n both the traditional and the emergent values which these two groups hold. The 2 T value and the F value, as recorded m Table I I on page 41 are both significant at a level less than 0,001, From Table VI on the.following page, i t i s evident that two variables i n each area produce this significance. These are the value groups which are considered dichotomous as the values were defined prior to the test construction. Both puritan morality and future time orientation significantly differentiated the two groups i n the traditional area with mean differences of 1,640 and 0.966 respectively, while moral relativism and present time orientation created a significant difference i n the emergent area with mean difference scores of 1,521 and 1.243. Looking at the mean value scores, frequent church attenders scored unanimously highest i n the traditional values and non-frequent church attenders scored unanimously highest i n the emergent values. Overall, total scores for non-frequent church attenders i n emergent were the high-2 est means attained m the Hotelling T tests. The correlational scores, as recorded i n Table IV on page 45, reveal a similar trend. Because of the scoring used for tabulating r e s u l t s — a high score identifies a non-frequent church attender—the correlation scores are interpreted as a positive correlation exists between church 49 TABLE VI UPPER AND LOWER LIMITS, MEAN SCORES. AND MEAN DIFFERENCES IN CHURCH CATEGORIES FOR TRADITIONAL AND EMERGENT VARIABLES Variables N o n-Frea D i f f e r e n c e s Limits r r e q . iNon Jrreq. h s f ± R i g h t P.M. 6.817 5.177 N -1,640 ' -2.249 -1.030* Ind. 8.676 8.499 -0.178 -0.734 . 0.379 W.S. 7.230 6.65,7. ' -0.573 -1.318 -. 0.172 F.T.O. 8.050 7.084 -0.966 •• -1.642 -0.290* Soc. •9.219 9.298 0.079 ' -0.523 0.680 Con. 6.288 6.802 0.514 -0.163 1.192 M.R, 8.561 10.082 1.521 0.913' 2.129* P.T.O. • 9.158 10.401 1.243 0.595 1.891* * Significant at .05 ft level 50 attenders and negative values, while positive values and non-church atten-ders are correlated. A l l the scores were significant at the .05 level except the traditional score of 0.0507 for individualism and the emergent score of 0.0223 for sociability. These two variables did not significantly differentiate between the two groups, Church attenders scored s i g n i f i -cantly higher on the traditional values of puritan morality, work success, and future time orientation, and significantly lower on the emergent values of conformity, moral relativism, and present time orientation. Table V, pa!gel47, indicates that the t-test results record the same . variables as being significant. However, no indication i s given of direction of the significance. In a l l three tests, the significant d i f -ference i n values held by frequent and non-frequent church attenders appears to be the greatest. Hypothesis 3; There w i l l be no significant difference i n values between the sexes. 2 Once again, according to Table I I on page . 41, the Hotelling T test has revealed that the traditional and emergent values held by males are significantly different than those held by females. The level of signi-ficance for rejection of the n u l l hypothesis i s less than .001 for both areas. This significance, cited i n Table VII on the following page and noted by the limits recorded which do not include a 0, i s most dominant in the variable of individualism i n the traditional values and i n con-formity and sociability in the emergent values. Considering these three values, females scored higher i n individualism and sociability with mean scores of 8.868 and 9.719 compared to the male means of 8.254 and 8.771 51 TABLE VII UPPER AND LOWER LIMITS, MEAN SCORES, AND MEAN DIFFERENCES IN SEX CATEGORIES FOR TRADITIONAL AND EMERGENT. VARIABLES MEANS • LIMITS Variables . Male. Female. Differences Left Right P.M. '5.638 6,085 0.447 -0.186 1.079 Ind. 8.254 8,868 0.614 0.069 1.160* W.S. 7.251 6.576 -0'.675 -1.410 . 0.061 F.T.O. 7.549 7.442 -0.108 , -0.787 0.571 Soc. 8.771 9.719 0.948 0.365 1.531* Con. 7.092 • 6.117.' , -0.975 -1.637 -0.313* M.R. 9.295 9.570 0.275 -0.353 0.903 P.T.O. 10.149 9.623 -0.526 -1.182 0.129 * Significant at . 05«.level 52 respectively. While males with a score of 7.092 were higher than females who scored 6.117 i n the variable of conformity. Trends of significant d i f -ferences i n these three variables were also evident i n the t-test performed as recorded i n Table V on page 47, Differences were also detected, at the .05 level of significance i n the variables of puritan morality, work success, and present time orientation, as well as i n the variables of individualism, conformity, and sociability, However, because the Hotelling 2 T is. a more conservative test than the t-test, these former three variables were not distinguished as being significant. Hypothesis 4: There w i l l be no significant difference i n values between students on an academic program and a non-academic program, F value results i n Table I I , page 41, indicate a significant d i f f e r -ence between the values of academic and non-academic students. The traditional appear to be more significantly differentiating between the groups than the emergent values. Two specific values, one i n each, appear to be most i n f l u -ential i n determining this significance. The dichotomous values of i n d i v i -dualism and conformity reflect the significance. Academic students value individualism, with mean scores of 8.746 to 7.951, while the non-academic students value conformity with mean scores of 7.246 to 6.402. (Table VIII) It i s also of interest to note that the academic mean scores are a l l higher i n the traditional values, while the nch-academic mean scores are a l l higher i n the emergent values. The only other time this occurred where the results were significant was i n the testing category of church attendance. T-test results for school program groups emphasize these results. They indicate, as shown i n Table V on page 47, a significant difference i n the 53 TABLE VIII UPPER AND LOWER LIMITS, MEAN SCORES AND MEAN DIFFERENCES IN SCHOOL PROGRAM CATEGORIES FOR TRADITIONAL AND EMERGENT VARIABLES • MEANS LIMITS Variables Academic Non-Academic Differences Left Right P.M. • 5.897 5.775 -0.122 -0.893 0.648 Ind. 8.746 7.951 -0.795 -1.456 -0.134* W.S. 6.975 6.627 -0,348 • -1,245 0.549 F.T.O. 7.569 7.218 -0.351 -1.174 . 0.472 Soc. 9.245 . 9.338 0.093 -0.628 0.815 Con. 6.402 7,246 H0Q845 0.034 1.655* M.R. . 9.371 9.683 0.312 -0.450 1.075 P.T.O. 9.796 10,162 0.366 -0.432 1.164 * Significant at . 05eCLevel 54 total traditional and emergent scores obtained but only two variables were significantly different at the .05 level. These were the same two 2 values as found significant i n the Hotelling T test—individualism and conformity. Hypothesis 5: There, w i l l be no significant difference in values between students i n Grades 9 and 11. Table II on page 41 shows.a significant F test for both the tradi-tional and the emergent values i n the grade categories. However, as indicated i n Table IX on the following page, none of the variables i n the emergent area i s significant by i t s e l f . A l l the constructed con-fidence intervals contain a 0. However, i t i s possible to have a signi-ficant t o t a l without significant variables evident as any two linear combi-nations of .means i n this area could be responsible for the significance. In the traditional area, the value of individualism i s held significantly different. Grade 11's favor individualism greater than do the Grade 9's. Some general trends appear evident upon closer examination of Table IX. Except for the one traditional value cited, Grade 9 mean scores were higher i n this area, while i n the emergent area, even though none of the variable values was significant, i n a l l but one value—that of conformity—the Grade 11's scored higher. Individualism and conformity, the two value variables that produced these results,.were considered dichotomous i n the test construction. T-test scores also indicate a significant difference between individual-ism and conformity, however, they also suggest a trend towards a difference i n the values of future tine orientation and moral relativism. From Table V 55 TABLE IX UPPER AND LOWER LIMITS, MEAN SCORES AND MEAN DIFFERENCES IN GRADE CATEGORIES FOR TRADITIONAL AND EMERGENT VARIABLES Variables Grade MEANS 9 Grade 11 Differences LIMITS Left Right P.M. 5.991 5.741 -0.250 -0.884 0.384 Ind. 8.224 8.950 0.726 0.183 1.269* W.S. 7.012 6.779 -0.233 -0.972 0.507 F.T.O. 7.694 7.278 -0.417 -1.093 0.260 Soc. 9.188 9.347 0.159 -0.436 0.753 Con. 6.891 6.256 -0.636 -1.304- 0.033 M.R. 9.185 9.710 0.524 -0.101 1.150 P.T.O. 9.815 9.940 0.125 -0.533 0.783 * Significant at the ,05«tJ.evel 56 (.page 47) and Table IX (page 55), i t would appear that the Grade 9's value future time orientation more, while the Grade 11's value moral relativism more. Total traditional and emergent scores, when analyzed by the t-test, showed.the least significant results of any of the testing groups, as indicated by Table V on page 47, Schools Table X on the following page and Figure 1 on page 58 represent a comparison of the mean variable scores from the D.V.I. for the 3 schools used i n the study. School 1 i s i n a high socio-economic area, school 2 i s i n a low socio-economic area but within a ci t y . These are both public schools. School 3 i s a private religious school i n a rural community. Considering the T^  and values, schools laand 2 are similar, however school 3 has decidedly stronger traditional values and weaker emergent values. I t i s the only result, of any tested group, where the traditional value total was higher than the emergent value t o t a l . The two variables concerning morals provided the greatest differences i n the mean values bet-ween school 1, 2, and 3--those of puritan morality and moral relativism. A minimum of 2.0 points separated school 3 from either school 1 or 2. Distinct differences were also evident i n the values of present time and future time orientations, with school 3 scoring 8.316 which was 1.00 points higher than either school 1 or 2 i n future time and 8.504 compared to scores of 10.195 and 10.137, 1.5 points different, than the other schools in present time orientation. Variable 2, individualism and sociability, provided extremes for schools 1 and 2. School 2, generally of a low socio-economic status 57 TABLE X COMPARISON OF THE MEAN SCORES OF THE D.V.I. VARIABLES AS OBTAINED FOR THE THREE SCHOOLS. USED Variables 1 n=328 Schools 2 n=212 3 n=117 P.M. Ind. W.S. F.T.O, 5.454 8.747 6.415 7.302 5.571 8.255 7.273 7.335 7.581 8.666 7.581 8.316 Soc. Con. M.R. P.T.O. 9.442 6.619 9.826 10.195 9.000 6.627 9.802 10.137 9.248 6.410 7.692 8.504 1 27.. 918 36.082 28.434 35.566 32.145 31.855 58 5CH00L I _ SCHOOLS. _ — . SCHOOL 3 .. ( a 3 *v s- c 7 8 DA/.U VARIABLES .Figure 1: Profile Showing the Comparison of the Mean Scores of the D.V.I. Variables Obtained by the Three Schools 59 structure, ranked the traditional value of individualism at 8.255, the lowest of any of the schools,, and the emergent value of sociability at 9.000, also the lowest of any school. School 1, i n the high socio-economic area, ranked these two variables highest with scores of 8.747.for i n d i v i -dualism and 9.442 for sociability. These two variables provided the only discrepancies from school 3 ranking a l l traditional values as highest and emergent values as lowest. No level of significance was determined, therefore these findings cannot be considered conclusive for hypotheses testing. Occupational Values Rating/Scale Rankings of the occupational values detected very l i t t l e difference between any of the categories selected for testing. For this reason, correlational coefficient tests were not performed. Table XI on the following page l i s t s the mean rank orders given value statements by each of the testing groups. Table XII, on page 61, l i s t s the actual mean scores recorded by each group. From th i s , a consistent pattern of ranking was apparent. The f i r s t ranked value, i n every group, was "an interesting job," The 2nd ranked value was a job where self-expression was permitted. Also, without exception, those job values of having power (being boss) or gaining fame, ranked i n the least two important areas. The most variation occurred i n the values of security, profit, social service and independence. . The occupational value statements. have been abbreviated for ease of handling i n this section. Readers are referred to the appendix for an TABLE XI MEAN RANK ORDERING OF OCCUPATIONAL VALUE RATING SCALE STATEMENTS FOR TESTING CATEGORIES FROM MOST IMPORTANT ( i l ) TO LEAST IMPORTANT (#10) Self Testing Categories Leader Interesting Esteem Power Security „ D i i ± 1. Profit Fame l° c lf 1 Independence • Expression service ^ Total Sample . 8 Grade 9 • 8 Grade 11 . 8 Male 8 Female 8 High Socio-. Economic 8 Low Socio-Economic 8 Academic 8 Non-Academic 8 Frequent Church Attendance 8 Non-frequent Church Attendance 8 1 1 1 •1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7 •7 7-10 10 10 9 10 7 10 7 10 7 10 7 10 10 10 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 3 9 9 9 10 9 9 9 9 TABLE XII MEAN RANKING SCORES OF OCCUPATIONAL VALUES RATING SCALE STATEMENTS FOR TESTING CATEGORIES Self Social Testing Categories Leader Interesting Esteem Power Security Expression Profit Fame Service Independence Total Sample 7.098 2.764 6.264 7.635 5.162 3.546 4. 729 7.267 4. 496 5. 938 Grade 9 7.127 2.819 6.392 7.636 4.929 3.676 4. 552 7.354 4. 460 6. 023 Grade 11 7.066 2.704 6.127 7.634 5.411 3.410 4.. 918 7,325 4. 535' 5. 878 Male 6.587 3.035 6.371 6.755 5.096 4.134 4. 142 6.901 5. 871 6. 114 Female 7.563 2.512 6.170 8.446 5.222"j 3.009 ' 5. 273 7.741 3. 254 5. 798 High Socio-Ec. 7.015 2.591 6,324 7.764 5.160 3.240 5. 168 7.493] 4. 342 5. 903 Low. Socio-Ec. 7.108 2g933 6.221 7.640 5.123 3.672 4. 546 7.334 4. 483 5. 924 Academic 7.072 2.638 6.320 7,732 5.224 3.291 • 4. 876 7.4203 4. 357 6. 065 Non-Academic 7.076 3.178 6.488 7.362 4.750 4,138 4. 399 7.186 5. 250 5. 106 Frequent Church 7.342 2.569 6.102 8.059 4.392 3.344 4. 958 7.649 3. 865 6. 223 Non-Frequent 7.039 3,368 6.230 7.448 5.388 3.697 4. 551 7.187 4. 831 5. 762 Church. 62 accurate interpretation of each abbreviated statement. Hypothesis 1: There w i l l be no significant difference i n the values between students of low and high socio-economic levels. The rankings were almost identical between these two groups, with only two values interchanged. High socio-economic students ranked having a secure job slightly higher than making money, while the low socio-economic students valued money over security. Table XIII on the following page shows the comparison ranking of the statements by each group, i.e. how each group ranked each statement compared to each of the other groups considering the mean rank score obtained. It w i l l be referred to only - to show trends\ i t i s not a s t a t i s t i c a l l y accurate table. Comparatively, the socioeconomic group rarikeddthe value statements for jobs i n an average position. They did not obtain any really extreme scores when compared with the other groups as shown i n Table XIII. High socio-economic students tended, however, to emphasize leadership and self-expres-sion, and de-emphasize money i n considering a job. Hypothesis 2: There w i l l be no significant difference i n values between frequent and non-frequent church attenders. The greatest variation i n rank orders i s apparent i n this category. Frequent church attenders valued being looked up to by fellow employees, job security and social service occupations more than non-frequent church attenders as evidenced by Table XI, page 60. The latter valued making money| and independence more than frequent church attenders. TABLE XIII COMPARISON RANKING ORDER OF GROUPS FOR EACH OCCUPATIONAL VALUE Testing Categories Leader Interesting Esteem Power Security _ Self ^ Profit Fame ^ o c : Lf-'- Independence ° ° J Expression Service -Grade 9 8. 6 9 5 3 7 ' 5 6 5 7 Grade 11 3 5 2 4 10 5 7 4 7 4 Male 1 8 8 1 4 9 1 1 10 9 Female 10 1 3 10 7 1 10 10 1 3 High Socio-Economic 2 3 7 8 6 2 9 8 3 5 Low Socio-Economic 7 7. 4 6 5 6 3 5 6 6 Academic 5 4 6 7 8 3 6 7 4 8 Non-Academic 6 • 9 10 2 2 10 2 2 9 ' 1 , Frequent Church Attenders 9 2 . 1 9 1 4 ~ 8 9 2 10 Non-frequent Church Attenders 4 5 3 9 8 4 3 . 8 •'"'•2 #1 - ranked value most important of any group #10- ranked value least important of any group '64 Considering the overall mean score comparison rankings for each group, as given i n Table XIII, page 63, frequent church attenders ranked many of the values near highest or lowest in comparison to the mean values of the other categories. They ranked the values of esteem, security, interesting and social service higher than most other groups and independence, fame, power, and leadership lower than a l l other groups but one. Non-frequent church attenders ranked independence comparatively high and interesting and security comparatively low. For these two groups, the occupational value variables of interesting, security and independence begin to show trends towards dichotomization. Hypothesis 3: There w i l l be no significant difference i n values between the sexes. A trend i s evident, i n Table XI on page 60, i n the values, which males and females apply to profit and social service i n choosing a vocation. These two are ranked interchangeably by the two groups. The rank value of social service by males of 5 deviates noticeably from the average ranking of the value by the total group, namely 3. This, with the exception of only one other rank, was. the only occupational value which was ranked more than one level away from the ranking assigned the value by the group as a whole. Referring to Table XIII, page 63, several of the values were ranked almost dichotomously by these two groups when compared to the other mean group rankings of the values. Males ranked f i r s t i n the values of leader-ship, power, profit and fame and 9th or 10th on self-expression, social ser-vice, and independence. Females ranked comparatively with other groups, f i r s t for interesting, self-expression and social service and last on 65 leadership, power, profit and fame. Thus extremes of value priori t y are evident i n the occupational values of leadership, power, self-expression, pr o f i t , fame and social service for males and females. Hypothesis 4: There w i l l be no significant difference i n values between students on an academic pro-gram and a non-academic program. Value similarities for occupations are prevalent among these two groups with the exception of social service. Academics rank i t higher than non-academics, 3 for academics, 6 for non-academics. Compared to the average for the total sample, non-academics rank.it considerably lower. The average for the total sample was 3, while the average for the non-academics was 6. This was the greatest discrepancy from the t o t a l sample ranking of any one value i n any group. Hypothesis 5; There w i l l be no significant difference i n values between students i n Grades 9 • and 11. Without exception, according to Table IX, page 55, Grade 9 and 11's rank, ordered the occupational values identically. I t was also evident that their ranking was identical to that of the total group average ranking. Compared to the other,groups ranking, Table XIII, page 63, only two values showed any trace of .extreme priority. The value of esteem was top rated by the Grade 11's. and bottom rated by the Grade 9's. Security was valued very l i t t l e compared to the other tested groups by the Grade 11's and valued #3 by the Grade 9's when compared to the other testing groups'. For the Occupational Values Rating Scale, comparing the mean rankings 66 of the statements for each school, as shown i n Table XIV on the following page, near identical scores were obtained. This Table l i s t s the rankings each school gave each occupational value statement and the actual mean score obtained. The statements interesting and self-expression were ranked 1st and 2nd for each school. The bottom ranking statements were power, fame, and leadership. These results concur with those of the testing groups. School 3, the private religious school, ranked fame i n 10th place, while school 2, the low socio-economic school, ranked i t 8th. Two ranking points also distinguish the schools i n the statement profit. I t i s 3rd in importance to school #2 and 5th i n importance to school #3. Making money i s valued more highly by students i n a low socio-economic area than by students i n a rural community with a strong religious a f f i l i a t i o n . Table XV, on page 68, shows the comparative ranking of each occupa-tional value statement within the schools. I t suggests that differing views are held by the religious school compared to the public schools, as each of their mean comparison ranking orders were either 1 or 3. Of the three.schools, they ranked leadership, interesting, security, self expres-sion and. social service most important, and independence, fame, pro f i t , power and esteem least important compared to the other two schools. The low socio-economic school .ranked esteem, power, profit and fame more important than the other two schools and social service, self expression, interesting and leadership comparatively least important. School #1, the high socio-economic school was only top ranking i n independence and bottom ranking i n security. Security was least important to the students from the high TABLE XIV MEAN VALUE RANKING SCORES AND RANKING ORDER OF THE OCCUPATIONAL VALUE STATEMENTS BY THE THREE SCHOOLS Self " Social School Leader Interesting Esteem Power Security Expression Profit Fame Service Independence School 1 8 1 7 10 5 2 4 9 3 6 ' 7.104 2.616 6.293 7.628 5.332 3.436 4,881 7.460 ' 4.430 5.820 School 2 9 1 7 10 5' 2 3 8 4 6 ^ 7.251 3.119 6.106 7.540 5.104 3.900 4.272 6.858 4.885 7.933 School 3 8 1 7 39 4 2 5 10 3 6 6.802 2.538 6.470 7.828 4.286 3.222 5.138 7.879 3.983 6.352" TABLE XV INTER SCHOOL COMPARISON OF MEAN RANKING ORDER FOR EACH OCCUPATIONAL VALUE School Leader Interesting Esteem Power Security _ S e l ^ . Profit Fame ?oc^-'- Independence .tjXpx'G S S lOTl oG^fV ICG School 1 2 School 2 3 School 3 1 #1 #3 - ranked f i r s t among the three schools - ranked third among the three schools 69 socio-economic background i n choosing a job. Interrelationship of the Results' from the Two Instruments. The relationship between the two instruments used i n this study i s shown i n Table XVI on the following page. Top traditional and emergent groups were not selected for comparison because of the s t a t i s t i c a l problem of regression towards the mean which would cause inaccuracies i n the results. Instead, i t was decided to use a straight correlational test between the traditional scores of the total sample used and the mean ranking scores for the total sample of the 10 occupational value state-ments. The level chosen for significance was .05 as for the other tests that were done. I t must be realized, however, that this w i l l not accurately cancel the chance factor of the relationships occuring. This must not be considered to be a very conservative test. A profile analysis, Figure 2, i s shown on page 71. From both the table and the graph, i t i s evident that l i t t l e significant correlation occurs between the two instruments. Only three of the O.V.R.S. statements are significant among the D.V.I. traditionalists or emergentists. A strong negative correlation occurs between the occupational value of leadership and traditional scores. This indicates that the more emergent the students score becomes, the more he values leadership as a job value. The other two significant correlations are both positive i n nature. A very strong relationship occurs between traditional values and the value of interest as a feature for a job—the more traditional the student, the more he values an interesting job.. A less salient positive relationship 70 TABLE XVI CORRELATION RELATING TRADITIONAL SCORES ON THE D.V.I. AND MEAN RANKING SCORES ON THE O.V.R.S. O.V.R.S. Variables . Traditional Scores leadership -0.1041* interesting 0.1299* esteem 0.0050 power -0.0070 security -0.0147 self expression -0.0170 profit •0.0953* fame -0.0378 social service -0.0517 independence 0.0093 * Significant at 0.05t\level of significance = 0.0766 71 Figure. 2: The relationship between the traditional scores as achieved on the D.V.I, and the mean ranking scores for each statement i n the O.V.R.S. exists between profit and traditionalists, however, once again i t shows that the more traditionalist the student, the more he values ai'high paying job. Six of the occupational values produced negative correlations. These were leadership, power, security, self expression, fame and social service. While only one of these produced significant results, the others could suggest trends such as the more traditionalist the student,. the less he values those occupational t r a i t s . The reverse trend of the more traditionalist the student the more importance he places on the occupational values of interesting, esteem, profit and independence could also be suggested. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS In this chapter, an attempt w i l l be made to suggest possible reasons for the results and then to help make practical application of the find-ings for the counsellor i n particular and the school as a whole. The importance w i l l not be just i n the v a l i d i t y of accepting or rejecting the hypotheses, but also i n trends which appear evident from the findings. Consideration must also be'given to the limitations of this study as discussed i n Chapter I, Each hypothesis w i l l be discussed separately. Hypothesis 1: . There w i l l be no significant difference i n the values between students of low and high socio-economic levels. 2 On the basis of the Hotelling T test, i t would appear that because both value areas, traditional and emergent, were not found to be from significantly different populations, the n u l l hypothesis as stated above can be accepted. Some differences i n values were detected, but values of high and low socio-economic students, on the whole, would be considered similar. Acceptance of the n u l l hypothesis would also be supported by the evidence of the O.V.R.S. results. However, some trends indicating specific areas where their values appear to differ are evident and probably assumed by many people. Generally, the results concur with those of Lehmann (.1962)-—the low socio-economic group achieved higher traditional scores. The emergentists were the high socio-economic students. These results contradict the findings 74 of the test constructor, Prince (1957). Considering the area of morals, society generally believes puritan morality i s ascribed to by those of a high socio-economic background, while those i n the "low" areas are very "loose." These results contra-dict this assumption. However, there are probably specific reasons for this finding. The low socio-economic group, because of the sample used, was comprised of some Orientals who attend school #2 and many students from school #3 whose parents are mainly orthodox Christians and whose father's occupations are i n the farming category. Because of these observations,.it shows the biased nature of the low socio-economic sample, however, i t also suggests the danger of generalizing. Such an assumption as "I'm i n a school i n a low socio-economic area; values here are very low!" as i s made or thought by too many educators, i s a very restricting assumption to make and could provide' barriers to many otherwise helpful counselling•rapport situations. The one significant variable i n the D.V.I. was that of work success— the low socio-economic students placed more value on working to get ahead. This, i t i s assumed by society, i s a very strong feature of the Oriental nature; to strive very hard to succeed. Also, the rural students come mainly from a German background whose parents had to labour very hard to stay alive. The results, therefore, could- be attributed to the presence of these two ethnic groups. This idea supports the view of Bidwell (1963) as he was quoted on page 26, that the real shift i n values i s not a result of the socio-economic . status., but of the cultural system to which an individual i s committed. 75 This would be supported because of the strong cultural backgrounds of the Orientals and the Dutch Mennonites whose numbers dominate the low socio-economic group. Therefore, i t could probably be generalized that i t i s not the low socio-economic background but other factors such as race and culture which have a greater impact on an individual's value struc-ture. This question of culture or socio-economic influence could provide the basis for a study i n i t s e l f . The results of future time orientation being valued more strongly by the low socio-economic students, and present time orientation valued more strongly by the high socio-economic students can be readily j u s t i f i e d by the economic situations involved. People i n a poor financial situation generally are considered to be more conservative i n their use of material resources; the insecurity of the future creates this value. While those who do not have materialistic problems have i n s t i l l e d i n them the attitude that they can spend and enjoy i n the present without a worry for the future. They definitely can afford to be more present time oriented than the low socio-economic students. If the low socio-economic sample had not contained an abundance of religious and Oriental students, perhaps this finding would not have been suggested for this i s one of the value shifts which appears evident i n society today. Young people are living.more for the present; fewer seem to value foresight for the future. This i s probably the most radical change as seen by the older generation. Particularly i n the homes of high socio-economic parents, students are openly rejecting their parents' values of "strive to get ahead" and "save for the future"—this assumption i s supported by this study. This was also suggested very recently by an 76 informal study done by some social work students i n the Vancouver area who found that the majority of young people receiving welfare were from middle or high class homes. The trend of a positive correlation between individualism and high socio-economic status, as detected by both the correlational and the t-test i s also understandable. A student with financial security can more afford to be an individual, to take risks and not worry about the support of others. Whereas a student from a lower status home needs a group security where materialistic security i s lacking, thereby he can r i s k less stepping out as an individual. Self concept i s also closely related to the cause of this finding. Students from lower class homes are generally conceived as holding poorer self concepts as compared to students from higher socio-economic homes. Therefore, higher socio-economic students would have more internal security to advance as an individual. I t i s generally recognized, however, that every student wants to be an individual and does not l i k e to be seen as a "conformist." This i s an undesirable value among today's youth. Closely linked to the power to be an individual i s that of the feasi-bility- of independence. Once again, because of home and materialistic security, independence and thus the increased opportunity for individualism i s more readily attainable by students from high socio-economic background than by those students from low socio-economic backgrounds. Considering the O.V.R.S., no real'differences were found i n their rankings. Compared also to the group sample rankings, no differences were evident. Of the three values cited by Centers (1949) as differentiating 77 between the groups, only security produced any noticeable difference and that was only 1 ranking level i n the opposing direction. Low socio-economics ranked i t 5th; the high socio-economics ranked i t 4th. The difference between the 4th and 5th rankings for the "high" group was only .008, therefore the significant difference between the rankings i s vi r t u a l l y n i l . Also due to the highly dependent nature of the data, where the rank of each statement was solely dependent on the rank of the others, the low socioeeconomic student apparently valued a job with interest, self expression, money and the opportunity to help others more than security. However, on the overall basis of these findings, the conclusions as stated by Centers i n Chapter I I could be definitely dis-puted. Perhaps as Hilton £ Korn (1964) suggested, social mobility has definitely influenced the results. Or perhaps the values representative of a youth culture are becoming more dominant than those representative of family background i n detecting the values of adolescents. Hypothesis 2: . There w i l l be no significant difference i n values between frequent and non-frequent church attenders. In contrast to the f i r s t hypothesis, on the basis of the results from both the D.V.I, and the O.V.R.S., this n u l l hypothesis must be rejected. Significant results for both instruments were found. From the Hotelling T' test, four variables were shown to be most significant: the dichotomous values i n the area of morals" and time' orientation. Deeply ingrained i n the causal factors of these results would be the "ought" factor which would have a marked effect on the values of a church 78 attender. More than probably any other of the testing groups, those people committed to a Christian background or to any religious teaching, would feel the impact of the preferred value as taught by their faith. Each statement, as symbolic of a value, probably created more conflict for the church attender than for the non church attender. I t would be in these results that such factors as the attitude and mood of the res-pondent could create great discrepancies i n the desire to respond to the "preferable" value. Other influences i n considering the accuracy of these results are f i r s t l y , does the student attend church on his own vol i t i o n or because he i s forced to go? . Secondly, to which church does the student go—an evangelical where the teaching i s conservative or to a non-evangelical church where the teaching i s l i k e l y to be more liberal? With these considerations i n mind, in.the area of morals i t i s .expected because of the Christian teachings that frequent church attenders would ascribe to a puritan ethic, while non-church attenders, because they frequently have not strong foundations to base their moral ethics on, would be committed to "an attitude where absolutes are disputed and a standard of "situation ethics" prevails.. This i s the generally accepted attitude i n the youth society of today. Unless a person has a strong internal per-sonal commitment'to base' his absolutes on, most w i l l conform to the values of their peers. Moral relativism cannot be ju s t i f i e d or disputed on the basis of external reason's,' va l i d i t y for absolutes must come from internalized values. As this i s so, i t would seem appropriate that conformity, although not s ignificantly so, was valued stronger by the non-frequent church 79 attenders. The other significant dichotomy of time orientation was probably influenced by the low socio-economic background t r a i t s of many of the frequent church attenders. I t would probably be expected that future time orientation be valued more by'frequent church attenders than present time orientation, however neither variable would be strongly supported by Christian teaching, Christ taught his followers to prepare for the future, but not to store up material treasures on earth; to liv e each day as i t comes knowing their needs would be met. This philosophy encompasses the characteristics of both time orientations. Therefore, the reasons for these results would l i k e l y rest more with the economic and cultural structure of the testing groups than with their church attendance. As indicated earlier, many of the frequent churchaattenders were also from families considered i n this study to be low socio-economic, thus the emphasized value on the future. This was discussed i n the previous section. Although church attenders scored higher i n a l l traditional variables, and lower on a l l emergent variables, there was l i t t l e difference between the mean scores of individualism and sociability. In the t-test and cor-relational test, a l l variables except these two were found significant. To both church attenders and non church attenders alike, being seen as an individual and not just as going along with the crowd was important. Also being sociable, enjoying people and making friends was seen as equally desirable by both groups. In the occupational rankings, interpretation of the results once again must consider the religious teachings of the church attenders as well as the socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds. Being looked upon highly 80 i s important to many people, however Christian teaching, because of the stress of l i v i n g an exemplary l i f e would focus on the need to value self esteem as was indicated i n the results. The t r a i t s producing social ser-vice characteristics, namely love and concern for one's neighbour, are also emphatically taught by Christ. Job security suggests the importance of being self supporting. This would be valued by church attenders, how-ever i t should.not be a prime value. Christ taught that the only real security was i n heaven, therefore the high value placed on security by church attenders would indicate a strong influence by many of their low socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds. This i s not to suggest that low socio-economic status and church attendance are positively correlated (.even though that might be so!), but i t i s a fact of the biased sample which was used i n this study. A correlation of 0.0459, significant at the .05 level of 0.0764, existed positively between church attendance and low socio-economic level. . Compared to church attenders, non-frequent church attenders valued money and independence more. Once again, making money i s not a prime objective of a Christian, therefore church attenders would be expected to rank i t lower than non church attenders, Independence would be more strongly valued by non church attenders because i t i s assumed to be inbred into the general culture of youth, while as a group frequent church attenders ranked i t comparatively lower than the other groups. Independence, as well as power and fame, are not idealized by church attenders. These findings are verified by both studies by Thompson (1965, 1958), 81 Hypothesis 3: There w i l l be no significant difference i n values between the sexes. There appears to be a significant difference i n the values held by males and females, thus the hypothesis, as stated, should be rejected. Much of the cause of the differences i s l i k e l y due to the stronger needs of the males as contrasted with the earlier maturing, less achievement-oriented females. Two of the significant variables, individualism and sociability, both show females obtaining the higher scores, while boys placed higher value on confornring. I t would appear these results would concur with the psycho-logical assumptions regarding the natural human tendency differences of the sexes. By nature, g i r l s are considered to be more sociable; this would be supported by the data. Boys, i t i s assumed, need the support of others and although they may talk more of being an individual, psychologists would suggest a strong need bygmales for group approval and support. How-ever, g i r l s appear to have more internal security and thus can r i s k valuing individualism. Further trends of possible differences were detected i n the variables of puritan morality, work success and present time orientation. These results concur exactly with those of Thompson (1968) when he tested the California students. In the area of morals, there seems to be a discrepancy because females scored highest i n both puritan morality and moral relativism. This i s probably indicative of the chaos which exists i n the area of morals i n society today. I t would suggest that sex alone i s a poor factor on which to generalize-values to a group, especially of adolescents. Neither of the 82 2 differences i n these variables were significant i n the Hotelling T test. Males scoring higher on work success would probably have been anti -cipated. The need for achievement seems to create a stronger drive for the males than for the females. I t would appear that males scoring higher on present time orientation as well i s a contradiction, however i t could be indicative of the conflict which adolescent males experience.- The impact of the parental values of "work and you'll get ahead" and of the peer values of "hedonism" i s generally strong and conflicting i n the adol-escent years for boys. In the area of occupational values, males obviously devalued social service. The male image—one of self centeredness—becomes a predominant force here. Helping others i s frequently considered "sissy" i n many male teenage "gangs." Of any groups, females ranked social service as an im-portant value. This can best be explained i n terms of human nature, and i s indicative of their strong feelings toward humanitarianism. When compara-tive l y , males ranked "self expression" last - (although i t was s t i l l an im-portant value to them), i t was indicative of their strong need to conform as against a female need to be an individual and to be allowed to self express and create. Males, on..the other hand as a group, comparatively valued highly power, profit and fame. These a l l represent values of exter-nal security which f u l f i l l the strong psychological need among adolescent males for belonging and acceptance. Once again, the O.V.R.S. results concur with those of Thompson's (1968) i n California. This would suggest that the causes must be inherent within the male or female, thus supporting the cause as being psychological. Humans are the same, with the same basic needs a l l over the world and are f u l f i l l e d by the values to which they become 83 committed. This fact i s very relevant to a counselling relationship. Hypothesis 4: There w i l l be no significant difference i n values between students on an academic pro-gram and a non-academic program. At a .05 level of significance, the rejection of this n u l l hypo-thesis i s indicated. The major reason for this involves the values of individualism and conformity. Reflecting on causes for differences, the school system as i t now exists must be considered as being very influential. Without hesitation, although with regret, i t i s suggested that non-academic students are degraded i n the eyes of teachers, counsellors and acininistrators, Hope-f u l l y some corrective trends are now becoming evident. This attitude has forced non-academic students to seek need fulfillment, not from the school where i t should be obtainable, but from their friends. The school has had the effect of creating a need for conformity among these.students for their own psychological s t a b i l i t y . In the area of work success where i t would be assumed the non-academics might excel, i n effect they scored lower than academics. They should be valuing working and succeeding not as an end i n i t s e l f , but as a means to f u l f i l l some of their needs. However, i t would appear that their attempts and seemingly inevitable failures have created an attitude of fear towards work. The non-academics as a result do not highly value work success. I t must be realized that this fact i s not a l l bad especially i f success involves using people, but a prevailing attitude of failure among the non-academic students should cause concern. 84 Generally, the trend of academics being traditionalists and non-academics being emergentists i s supported by other research i n the area. Academic students"in order to achieve success i n their program, need to value working. This value implies a need to sometimes disregard the feelings and desires of others, This attitude i s too frequently fostered by schools, particularly i n their evaluation methods, i n the encouragement of overcompetitiveness among students on the academic program. These students also need to be future oriented because the rewards which they are seeking are not usually attained for several years. I f l i v i n g for present fulfillment was of prime importance, success of this nature would be more d i f f i c u l t to attain. I t i s for this value of present time orientation that many other-wise capable students switch to a non-academic program. In counselling this type of situation, the motive for a student's change i n programs must be realized by the student himself. I f the program switch i s because of a change to a value of present time orientation, the consequences should be discussed before a f i n a l decision i s made. Care must be taken however not to moralize on the correctness of either a present time or a future time orientation. Surprisingly similar results were obtained for the two groups i n the occupational value rankings. However, as with the sex groups, a distinct difference i s obtained i n the value of social service. Non-academics rank i t three levels lower than either academics or the total sample. When the term "non-academic" i s used, generally an image of hard, defensive students arises. This i s borne out by their ranking of social service. They w i l l not expend energy helping anyone else—that i s their image. 85 Perhaps the feeling of "oughtness" i s very strong with these people. Linked with their high value rating of conformity as seen i n the D.V.I, results, these students feel a need to conform to others l i k e them and to their image. Of a l l the groups tested, these students ranked inde-pendence i n a job as the most valued t r a i t to them. This finding suggests a feeling of pressure i s f e l t by non-academic students' from forces a l l around them. A consistent pattern of allegiance to their group, but not to society as a whole, has become evident through the two instruments used. Unfortunately, the school i s largely responsible for this attitude which i s probably not a healthy attitude for either the schools or society to breed or to cope with. This i s perhaps the one area where the counsel-lor could be very involved and become very beneficial to a l l individuals and groups concerned. Hypothesis 5: There w i l l be no significant difference i n values between students in Grades 9 and 11. Both Grade 9 and 11 results produced significant differences accord-2 ing to the Hotelling T test. However, the trend to significance appeared weak because only i n the traditional- area was a significant variable detected. No difference was found i n .the occupational values adhered to by the different grades. A general trend of Grade 9's being more traditional and Grade 11's more emergent was evident. This contradicts the findings cited i n Chapter II by Anderson (1961). He suggested traditional value orientations increased as grade increased. Over the decade, i t i s conceivable that this change has occurred as the value shift i n society occurs. Society's 86 values appear to be changing towards predominantly emergent values. As the impact of peers and environment on individuals increases with age, the impact of the family lessens. This change occurs as the process of value internalization begins. At the time of confusion, peers probably yield the greatest'influence, because of psychological need fulfillment. As society i s dominated by emergent values, as adolescents grow and values change, emergent values become dominant u n t i l the s t a b i l i t y and internalization of a coping hierarchy of values can be formulated by each individual. Grade 11, or age 16-17, i s probably the year before congruence of internal values occurs for most adolescents. The change between Grade 9 and 11 regarding their time orientation i s perhaps of most significance to.counsellors, During Grade 9, students are more i d e a l i s t i c , less influenced by outside forces and s t i l l value a good education and a good j o b — a l l of which require deferred gratification to achieve. However,'it.would appear that with age, impatience increases and students become less willing to postpone their goals and immediate attainment of pleasure and satisfaction becomes valued. The desirability of this change i s not suggested, but a value change such as this can greatly affect attitudes towards school and home. If education becomes less valued, marks frequently w i l l f a l l . This inevitably causes the parents to become upset and communication barriers are erected. At this point, as family break-ups appear imminent, or hopefully maybe before, the counsellor may become involved. If counsellors could be made aware of the possibility of this shift i n values perhaps such a c r i s i s , although not necessarily the value change, could be avoided. 87 No significant trends are evident i n the O.V.R.S. results. Much of the influence of values i s determined from school and from peers. Many .of these peers are found within the school i t s e l f , therefore some possible valuable trends could be detected from a comparison of the schools. Generally, as indicated by Table X, page 57, the schools from the differing socio-economic backgrounds, 1 and 2, adhere to similar value patterns. They oppose each other on the values of individualism and sociability. These two t r a i t s are least valued by the "east end" school, and most valued by the "west end" school. This could be attributed to their economic structures, as the previous data would suggest. School 3, the religious, rural school, provided data which showed very strong traditional value scores compared to the emergent scores. As would be expected, the issue of morals provided the greatest discrepancy, sug-gesting the strong moral teaching i n this school, The students receive daily Christian teaching as well as daily morning chapel. Some interesting trends appear when the O.V.R.S. data i n Table XIV, page 67, are examined. School 2 ranks social service lower than either of the other two schools. This does not concur with the findings of the socio-economic results, but supports the results of the non-academic students. This would suggest that the influence of the school program i s greater than the students economic background on the values adopted by the student. Non-academics more than low socio-economic students would possess an attitude of "every man for himself." Both fame and making money are valued noticeably more by School 2 88 than by School 3. The combined attitude of a non-academic, low socio-economic student i s probably responsible for this data. Value i s strongly created for those things that we don't possess or that are d i f f i c u l t to achieve, and what we need creates value. This explanation would readily j u s t i f y these results. < Leadership was valued less by school 2; this could be indicative of .their intense fear of f a i l i n g , of being held up as an example, or of being conspicuous. This would also be suggested by their ranking of individualism i n the D.V.I. variables the lowest of any of the three schools. Table XVI, page 70-, correlating the data from the two instruments, also suggests this finding that the more emergent the student, the more at ease he i s i n seeking positions of leadership. Referring to Table XV, page 68, of the three schools, the high socio-economic school considered independence to be of greatest value to them in an occupation and security the least important value. These results become evident i n the attitude of the students at the school. They oppose authority and rules, feeling secure that they w i l l "make out" satisfactorily because of the economic situation of Dad! This attitude i n a counselling situation becomes very dominant and frequently can cause destruction of rapport unless i t i s recognized and the situation i s approached with aware-ness on the part of the counsellor. For School 2, Table XV on page 68 reflects values that would be strongly influential i n a counselling relationship, although care must be taken not to generalize without consideration of the uniqueness of the individual. Comparatively, esteem, power, profit and fame are the values which students 89 i n this school are seeking in their future occupation. With these characteristics in mind, perhaps understanding and thus rapport can be more quickly established and the effectiveness of the counsellor in his role can be improved. Consideration of the interrelationships of the two instruments, as-cited i n Table XVI, page 70, i f a counsellor was aware of the strength of the traditionalist or emergentist values of the student, he could have an idea of which occupational values might be most valued by the student. A significant positive relationship i s evident for students with high traditionalist values, and jobs which are interesting to them, while a positive trend i s apparent between traditionalists and money. Positive relationships would l i k e l y occur between emergent stu-dents and the occupational values of leadership, security, self expression, fame and social service. However, only .the f i r s t two values l i s t e d produced a significant relationship. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The findings of this study must not be considered absolutely binding but considered as empirical data, for a counsellor must see each student as unique, not as a predetermined pattern. Only then, with these results suggesting possible trends i n the lives of the students he works with, can the effectiveness of the counsellor be improved with the awareness this data can give. The factors which significantly determine students' value systems are most dominantly those of church attendance, school program and sex. Grade level does not significantly affect the value system, however the results suggested that environmental factors had a greater influence on older students than on younger students and the influence of the family appeared to decrease as grade level increased. The influence of socio-economic background was found to be less than i s probably assumed by society. Once again this would suggest a lessening influence by the family on the value systems adhered to by students. Church attendance distinguished the strongest between any of the testing groups with two values, those of morality and time orientations, dividing the group. Present time orientation and moral relativism are characteristic values of non-frequent church attenders while frequent church attenders valued future time orientations and puritan morality as defined by the instrument. The occupational values of esteem, security and social service are most highly valued by church attenders; money and 91 independence are characteristic of the non frequent church attenders. Distinctions were also provided by the factors of sex and school program. Males and females differed most greatly on the D.V.I. values of individual-ism and sociability, and on the occupational values of leadership, power, self expression, pr o f i t , fame and social service. Academic students placed their values on occupations involving social service and on.the personal values of tra d i t i o n a l i s t i c nature, especially individualism. Non academics value interest, self expression, money and security i n a job and the personal values of emergentists nature, especially conformity. Of the values tested, high socio-economic students indicated that individualism was of most importance to them i n either personal or occupa-tional values. Low socio-economic students placed greatest importance on work success, puritan ethics and money. Grade had l i t t l e effect on the two groups tested although the Hotelling 2 T test suggested that the two populations were different. Only slight trends of Grade 11's valuing individualism and Grade 9's valuing conformity were evident. There was no difference detected i n their occupational value rankings, I t i s hoped that the trends suggested here might be of some value i n suggesting some of the areas of greatest influence i n the lives of high school students. These areas of potential influence can be used to the benefit or hindrance of the growth of the student. I t i s up to the counsel-lor to use these influences for the'constructive growth of the student. This growth can effectively occur during a counsellor-client relationship, especi-a l l y where the counsellor i s aware of the values possibly adhered to by the 92 student and the factors which could have an impact on commitment by the student. I t i s realizations l i k e these that can help the counsellor to more effectively meet the needs of his students and thus help them to realize their f u l l potential. 1. AREAS OF FURTHER RESEARCH It i s hoped that a study such as this does not solely provide empi-r i c a l data for the reader, but also provokes interest into further research attempts. .Each of the hypotheses, as stated, could be investigated as a separate study. For instance, a deeper investigation of the values of students i n different school programs could be studied. And possible reasons for these values could be investigated, particularly where i t i s found that these values might be detrimental to the development of a "self actualized" stu-dent. Answers to such questions as: "Which came f i r s t , a differing value system or a change i n program?" and "How can maximum self concept develop-ment be achieved with students with degrading value hierarchies?" could be attempted. A complete investigation of the value influences which occur at differing times i n the lives of the student could also be done. Related to t h i s , a study of the ethnic and socio-economic influences could be most beneficial to those concerned with understanding and aiding the develop-ment of students. No mention was made i n this study of parental values. The relationships between parent-student values opens up another area of research. Such questions as: "Do children reflect the values of their parents?", "What type of students reject the values of their parents?", "Do students involved 93 i n great value conflicts come from specific types of parents?", "Are values different i f a student i s from a one-parent home?", a l l could be studied with some benefit to society as a whole. The relationship between the school and the student could also be studied i n the realm of values, Much concern i s being voiced over the emergent-valued student i n a traditionalist school, but what about the traditionalist student i n an emergent school? What conflicts does, i t produce for this type of student? Or does this situation ever exist i n the present age? Conflicts produced between teacher and student i n respect to their particular value structure could also be studied. Perhaps further re-search i n this area might help f a c i l i t a t e better learning conditions for the student and more pleasant teaching experiences for the instructor. This study could also form the basis of part of a Guidance curricu-lum. A course or opportunity for self and society l i f e style examination would have two definite positive benefits for both students and society. F i r s t l y , i t would help give congruence within the individual to presently conflicting value systems, especially for adolescents i n the high school years. Secondly, because values form the basis of decision making, i f the schools could help equip students with the capacity to examine value d i f -ferences rationally, students might then synonomously develop the rationale for intelligent decision making and ultimately for giving s t a b i l i t y and meaning to their l i f e . The pos s i b i l i t i e s are numerous, the need i s urgent and the potential i s exciting. BIBLIOGRAPHY 94 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Allport, Gordon W., "Values and.Our Youth." In Dorothy Rogers (Ed.), Issues in Adolescent: Psychology^ New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1969. 2. Anderson, C.C. "Response of Adolescents to American Tests of Value v' and Character." Canadian Education and Research Digest, 1961, 1, 71-77. 3. Anderson, Donald 0., Larsen, A.A. "The Incidence of Illness Among Young Children i n Two Communities of Different Air Quality: A P i l o t Study." Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1966, 95 (18), 893-904. 4. Battle, Haron J, "Relation Between Personal Values and Scholastic Achievement." Journal of Experimental Education, 1957, 26, 27-41. 5. Bidwell, C.E., et a l . "Undergraduate Careers: Alternatives and Determinants." The School Review, 1963, 71, 299-316. 6. Blishen, Bernard R. "The Construction, and Use of an Occupational Class Scale." Canadian Journal of Economics and P o l i t i c a l  Science, 1958, 24 (5), 519-531. 7. Catton, W.R. "Exploring Techniques for Measuring Human Values." American Sociological Review. 1954, 19, 49-55. 8. Catton, W.R. "A Theory ofWalue." American Sociological Review, 1959, 24 (3), 310-317. 9. Centers, Richard. The Psychology of Social Classes. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949. 10. Chwast, J. "Value Conflicts i n Treating Delinquents." Children, 1959, 6, 95-100. 11. Cummins, Emergy J. "Are Disciplinary Students Different?" Per-sonnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 44, 624-627. 12. Getzels, Jacob W. "Changing Values Challenge the Schools." School Review, 1957, 65, 92-102. 13. Getzels, Jacob W. "The Acquisition of Values i n School and Society.V In Francis S. Chase and H.A. Anderson (Ed.), The High School in a New Era. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958, 146-161. 14. Gottlieb, David. "Poor Youth Do Want To Be Middle Class But It's Not Easy." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1967, 46, 116-122. 95 15. Grace, Gloria L., Grace, Harry A. "The Relationship Between Verbal and Behavioral Measures of Value." Journal of Educational  Research, 1952, 46 (1), 123-131. 16. Griffen, W.L. "A Needed Dialogue: Schools and Values." The Clearing House, 1964, 39, (2), 67-71. 17. Heider, F r i t z . The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1958. 18. Hilton, T.L., Korn, J.H. "Measured Change i n Personal Values." Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1964, 24, (3), 809-622. 19. Hodge, R.W., Trieman, D.J. "Class Identification in the United States." American Journal of Sociology. 1968, 73, (5), 535-547. 20. Holzman, M., Luria, Z., Sherman, H. "Adolescent Subculture: Endearov, New England." School Review, 1968, 76 (2), 231-245. 21. Jeffreys, M.V.C. Personal Values in the Modern World. Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc., 1962. 22. Kagan, Henry E. "Teaching Values to Our Children." In E l i Ginzberg (Ed.) Values and Ideals of American Youth. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. 23. Kahl, J.A., Davis, J.A. "A Comparison of Indexes of Socio-Economic Status." American Sociological Review. 1955, 20, (3), 317-322. 24. Kluckhohn, Clude, et a l . "Values and Value Orientations i n the Theory of Action." In Talcott Parsons and Edard Shils, (Ed.), Toward a General Theory of Action. New York: Harper £ Row, 1965, 388-433. 25. Keniston, Kenneth. Young'Radicals: Notes on Committed Youth. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1968. 26. Lehmann, I.J. "Some Socio-Cultural Differences i n Attitudes and Values." The Journal of Educational Sociology, 1962, 36, (1), 1-10 27. Margenau, Henry. "The Scientific Basis of Value Theory." In A.H. Maslow (Ed.) New Knowledge i n Human Values. New York: Harper 8 Brothers, 1959, 38-51. 28. McGuire, C, White, G.D. The Measurement of Social Status, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Texas, March 1955, #3, revised. 96 29. Meek, C.R. "Personal Value System and Education." Peabody Journal• of Education, 1964, 42, 224-228. [ : 30. Morris, Charles. Varieties of Human Values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. 31. Morrison, Donald F. Multivariate Statistieal Methods. Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1967, Chapter 4. 32. Parsons, Talcott. "A Sociologists View." In E l i Ginzberg, (Ed.), Values and Ideals of American Youth. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. 33. Perrone, P.A. "Stability of Values of Junior High School Pupils and Their Parents Over 2 Years." Personnel £ Guidance Journal, 1967, 46 (1), 268-274. 34. Pine, G.J. "Social Class, Social Mobility and Delinquent Behavior." Personnel £ Guidance Journal, 1965, 43 (8), 770-774. 35. Pope, Liston, "Values i n Transition." In E l i Ginzberg, (Ed.), Values and Ideals of American Youth. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. 36. Prince, Richard. "A Study of Relationship Between Individual Values and Administrative Effectiveness i n the School Situation." (Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago) Chicago, 111: University Microfilms, 1957. No. R4378/3. 37. Raths, James. "Values and Valuing." Educational Leadership, 1964, 21, 543-546. 38. Reiss, A.J. Occupations and Social Status. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. 39. Riesman, D., Glazer, N., Denney, R. The Lonely Crowd. New York: . Doubleday Anchor Book, 1953. 40. Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R. Measures of Social Psychological " Attitudes, Appendix B. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Survey Research Center, 1970. .41. Rogers, Carl. "Toward a Modern Approach to Values." Unpublished manuscript, Diablo Valley College. 42. Rokeach, Milton. Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1968, Chapter 7. 43. Rosenberg, M. Society and the Adolescent Self Image. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965. 97 44. f( Samler, J. "The School and Self Understanding." Harvard Educational Review, 1965, 35 (1), 55-70. 45. Scheibe, Karl E. Beliefs and Values. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart £ Winston, Inc., 1970. 46. Schneider, L., Lysgaard, S. "The Deferred Gratification Pattern: A Preliminary Study." American Sociological Review, 1953, 18 (2), 142-149. 47. Singer, S.L., Stefflre, B. "Sex Differences i n Job Values and Desires." Personnel £ Guidance Journal, 1954, 32, 483-488-. 48. Slinger, George, E. "Values and the Counselling Relationship i n the High School.';! Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1966, 15, 11-17. 49. Smith, M. Brewster. "Personal Values i n the Study of Lives." In Robert W. White, (Ed.), The Study of Lives. New York: Atherton Press, 1963, 224-347. 50. Snyder, E.E. "Implications of Changing Culture Values." Educational Leadership, 1967, 24, 437-443.' 51. Spindler, George D. "Education i n a Transforming American Culture." Harvard Educational Review, 1955, 25, (3), 145-156. 52. Steiner, I.D. "Some Social Values Associated with Objectively and Subjectively Defined Social Class Memberships." Social Forces, 1953, 31, 327-332. 53. Swinehart, James W. "Socio-Economic Level, Status Aspiration, and Maternal Role." American Sociological Review, 1963, 28 (3), 391-399. 54. Thompson, O.E. "High School Students, and Their Values." California Journal of Educational Research, 1965, 16 (5), 217-227. 55. Thompson, O.E. "Student Values i n Transition." ' California Journal of Educational Research, 1968, 19, 77-86. 56. Thurstone, L.L. The Measurement of Values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. 57. Tyler, Leona E. "Sex Differences." International Encyclopedia of 'the Social Sciences, Volume 7, 210. 98 58. Wagman, Morton. "Sex and Age Differences i n Occupational Values." Personnel £ Guidance Journal, 1965, 43, 258-262. 59. Warner, W.L. Social Class i n America. New York: Harper Row Publishers,.1960. 60. Weinberg, C, .Skager, R. "Social Status and Guidance Involvement." Personnel £ Guidance Journal, 1966, 44 (6), 586-590. 61. Wheelis, Allen. The Quest for Identity. New York: W. W. Norton £ Co., 1958, 174-198. 62. Williams, R.M. "Values." International Encyclopedia of thelSocial Sciences. New York: MacMillan, 1968, 15. 63. Williamson, E.G. "Value Options and the Counselling Relationship." Personnel £ Guidance Journal, 1966, 44,- 617-623. 64. Wilson, Cody W. "Value Differences Between Public and Private School Graduates." Journal of Educational Psychology, 1959, 50 (5), 213-218"; : APPENDIX A 99 INFORMATION SHEET Please f i l l i n or check the appropriate response: 1. Age 2. Grade .3. Male Female 4. Describe, i n de t a i l , your father's (or the main breadwinner i n your family) occupation: 5. Does your mother work: part time f u l l time 6. How many brothers do you have: older than yourself -younger than yourself 7. How many sisters do you have: older than yourself younger than yourself 8. Which program are you on, or w i l l you l i k e l y be on next year i f you are l i k e l y to change: Academic-Technical Commercial Industrial . Community Services • Visual and Performing Arts Trade Preparation 9. How frequently do you attend church? at least once a week at least once a month ^ once or twice a year never 100 SPINDLER'S VALUE DEFINITIONS TRADITIONAL VALUES VvJiMjcm mofiaJUty (Respectability, t h r i f t , self-denial, sexual constraint; a puritan i s someone who can have anything he wants, as long as he doesn't enjoy i t ! ) W ofik-SucceJ>& etklc (Successful people worked hard to become so. Anyone can get to the top i f he t r i e s hard enough. So people who are not successful are lazy, or stupid, or both. People must work desperately and continuously to convince them-selves of their worth.) lndUv-LdaaJUj>m (The individual i s sacred, and always more important than the group. In one extreme form, the value sanctions egocentricity, expediency, and disregard for other people's rights. In i t s healthier form the value sanctions independence and originality.) FutuA^-tane. ofi£e.ntation (The future, not the past, or even the present, i s most important. There i s a "pot of gold at the end of the rainbow." Time i s valuable, and cannot be wasted. Present needs must be denied for satisfactions to be gained i n the future.) EMERGENT VALUES SocAA-bAJLLty (As described above. One should l i k e people and get along well with them. Suspicion of solitary a c t i v i t i e s i s characteristic.) RiltatvJAJitlc. moKoL ctftitu.de. (Absolutes i n right and wrong are questionable. Morality i s what the group thinks i s right. Shame, rather than guilt-oriented personality i s appro-priate .) He.donii>tLc, ph.eAo.nt-two, ohXe.ntatlon (No one can t e l l what the future w i l l hold, therefore one should enjoy the present— but within the limits of the well-rounded, balanced personality and group.) Conformity to the. Qfioup (Implied i n the other emergent values. Everything i s relative to the group. Group harmony i s the ultimate goal.. Leadership consists of group-machinery lubrication.) p. 149. 101 OCCUPATIONAL VALUES RATING SCALE In the envelope you have 10 statements giving characteristics of jobs. You are asked to sort these statements so when you are finished the most important characteristics to you i n considering a vocation i s number 1, the least important characteristic to you i s ranked number 10. Please write your answers, i n the order you ranked them, on the answer sheet provided. A job where you could be a leader A very interesting job A job where you would be looked upon very highly by your fellowmen A job where you could be boss A job which you were absolutely sure of keeping A job where you could express your feelings, ideas, talents or s k i l l A very highly paid job A job where you could make a name for your-s e l f — o r become famous A job where you could help other people A job where you could work more or less on your own 102. INSTRUCTIONS You are being requested to participate i n a research study conducted by the University of B.C. The information you provide w i l l be seen only by the research personnel at the University.^ This booklet contains statements which you may think you should or should not do. This i s not a test. There are ho right_  or wrong answers. Each person w i l l choose different statements. How you really"feel about each statement i s what i s important. If some choices are d i f f i c u l t to make, choose the statement which seems the closest to what you believe. 1. The statements are arranged i n pairs as i n the following example: 1. A) Be reliable. B) Be friendly. Read each set of statements carefully. As you read the statements to yourself, begin each statement with the words "I ought to . . ." 2. Select the statement which i s the more important to you. Do not mark your answers in the booklet. 3. Make your choice by f i l l i n g i n between the dotted lines marked "A" or "B" for each question. Do not write anywhere else on the answer card. 4. Do not skip any items. 5. Continue u n t i l you have answered a l l the questions. 103 Coded answers E,.s 1 • 1. 10. 11. 12. I ought to: a) Work harder than most of those i n my class. b) Work at least as hard as most of those i n my class. a) Do things which most other people do. b) Do things which are out-of-the-ordinary. a) Have my own ideas about p o l i t i c s and religion. b) Try to agree with others on these matters. a) Enjoy myself doing things with others. b) Enjoy myself doing many things alone. a) Attain a higher economic position than my father or mother attained. b) Enjoy more of the good things of l i f e than my father or mother enjoyed. a) Feel that the future i s uncertain and unpredict-able. b) Feel that the future i s f u l l of opportunities for me. a) Feel that happiness i s the most important thing i n l i f e to me.? b) Feel that enduring suffering and pain i s important for me i n the long run. a) Rely on the advice of others i n making decisions. b) Be independent of others in making decisions. a) Feel i t i s my duty to save as much money as I can. b) Feel that saving i s good but not to the extent that I must deprive myself of a l l present enjoyment. a) Put a l l of the ten dollar b i l l I have i n the bank. b) Spend five of the ten dollars enjoying myself with my friends. a) Spend enough on clothes to dress as well as my friends. b) Spend only enough on clothes to look presentable and save the rest for future needs. a) Put in long hours of work without interruption. b) Feel that I can't work long hours without stopping but I ' l l get the job done anyway. 104 Coded Answers 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20, 21. 22, 23, 24. I ought to: Feel that i t i s most important to l i v e for the future, Feel that today i s important and I should l i v e each day to the f u l l e s t . Feel that "right" and "wrong" are relative terms. Feel that I should have strong convictions about what i s right or wrong. Work hard to do most things better than others. Work hard at some things and leave others to those who are more qualified than I. Feel that everyone misbehaves once i n a while but the important thing i s not to make the same mistake over again. Feel that the most important thing i n l i f e i s to strive for eternal peace. Feel that work i s important, fun i s not important. Feel that a l l work and no play i s not good for me. Feel that what others think about right and wrong should influencedmy thinking. Feel that my own convictions about right and wrong are most important. • Defend my ideas about right and wrong. Be willing to be convinced on matters of right and wrong because "right" and "wrong" have d i f -ferent meanings for different people. Make as many social contacts as possible. Be willing to sacrifice myself for the sake of a better world. Get a l l my work done on my own. Get my work done with the help of others when necessary. Wear clothes similar to those of my friends. Dress moderately even though this males me d i f -ferent from my friends. Work hard only i f I am paid for i t . Work hard at doing something creative regardless of pay. Get a job which w i l l allow me to enjoy some of the luxuries of l i f e . Get a job which w i l l make me a success in l i f e . 105 Coded Answers I ought to: 25. Ca) Be able to solve d i f f i c u l t problems and puzzles, (b) Feel that d i f f i c u l t problems and puzzles are good for some people but are not for everybody. 26. (a) Feel that style i s more important than quality i n clothes. (b) Feel that quality i s more important than style i n clothes. 27. (a) Say what I think i s right about' things. (b) Think of the effect on others before I speak. 28. (a) Feel comfortable getting the same grades as most of the people i n my class, (b) Feel comfortable near the head of the class. 29. (a) Have my own firm ideas about correct behavior, (b) Look to others for the kind of behavior which i s approved by the group. 30. (a) Feel that discipline in the modern school i s not as s t r i c t as i t should be. (b) Feel that the change from s t r i c t discipline in the modern school i s a good one. 31. (a) Feel that the most important thing i n school i s to gain knowledge useful to me i n the future, (b) Feel that the most important thing in. school i s to learn to get along well with people. 32. (a) Do things without regard to what others may think, (b) Do things which allow me to have fun and be happy. 33. (a) Take classes which are interesting to me whether or not they w i l l do me some good i n the future, (b) Register for a class which i s uninteresting to me but which w i l l do me some good i n the future. 34. (a) Go to a school a f f a i r to enjoy myself being with people. (b) Go to a school a f f a i r because i t i s my duty to be loyal to my school. 35. (a) Feel i t i s right to spend less for clothes i n order to save for the future, (b) Feel that whether one wants to spend more for clothes and save less or vice versa i s a matter of opinion. 36. (a) Do things very few others can do. (b) Do things co-operatively with others. 106 Coded Answers I ought to: Eg 37. (a) Use the same expressions my friends use so that they worft think I'm odd. T-^  (b) Speak i n the most proper manner. T\ 38. (a) Feel that i t i s right to save for the future. Eg (b) Feel that whether or not i t i s right to save for the future i s up to the individual. 39. (a) Choose a job with opportunities for advancement even though the starting pay isn't as high as I would l i k e i t to be. E, (b) Choose a job i n which I can work with many inter-esting people. E u 40. (a) Mix a l i t t l e pleasure with my work so I don't get bored. Tg (b) Keep at a job u n t i l i t i s finished. E^ 41. Ca) Get as much pleasure as I can out of l i f e now. (b) Stand by my convictions. E- 42. Ca) Feel that everybody misbehaves once i n a while but the important thing i s not to make the same mistake twice. T, (b) Feel guilty when I misbehave and expect to be punished. T, 43. Ca) Have less freedom i n the classroom. E^ (b) Have more freedom i n the classroom. Tg 44. (a) Be very ambitious. E-j^  (b) Be very sociable. Eg 45. (a) Choose a job i n which I ' l l earn as much as most of my friends. (b) Choose a job with plenty of opportunities for advancement .even though the pay isn't as high as my friends receive; E-^  46. (a) Get the kind of job' which w i l l bring me in contact with many interesting people. Tg (b) Get the kind of job which w i l l make me a success i n l i f e . Eg 47. (a) Feel that whether or not i t i s right to plan and save for the future i s a matter of opinion, (b) Feel that i t i s right to plan and save for the future. I1 48. (a) Be willing to sacrifice myself for a better world. E (b) Feel i t i s important to behave l i k e most other people do. 108 Ceded Answers I ought to: 61. (a) Feel that i t i s right to be very ambitious. E 3 (b) Feel that i t may or may not be right to be very ambitious depending on the individual. E^ 62. (a) Choose to work with people I l i k e . i n a job I don't l i k e . (b) Choose to work with people I don't l i k e inaa job which I l i k e . 63. (a) Work as hard as I can in order to be successful. E^ (b) Work as hard as I can in order to enjoy some of the luxuries of l i f e . Tg 64. (a) Strive to be an expert i n at least one thing. Eg (b) Do many things quite well but not necessarily be an expert i n anything. HAVE YOU COMPLETED EACH ITEM? CHECK TO BE SURE YOU HAVE NOT MISSED ONE. 107 Ceded Answers I ought.to: ' . 49. (a) Deny myself enjoyment for the present for better things i n the future, (b) Have fun attending' parties and being with people. Eg 50. (a) Be satisfied to do as well i n l i f e as my father did. (b) Attain a higher position in l i f e than my father did. 51. (a) Feel that i t w i l l be good for me" later i f I endure some unpleasant things now. E^ (b) Feel that whether or not I should be willing to endure unpleasant things now because i t will&be good for me later i s a matter of opinion. Eg 52. (a) Be able to have most of the things my friends have, (b) Be able to have enough money to lay away for future needs. E^ ; 53. Ca) Feel that happiness i s the most important thing i n l i f e . (b) Feel that being respected i s the most important thing i n l i f e . 54. (a) Feel that more physical punishment i s needed by children today. E^ (b) Feel that physical punishment does the child more harm than good. Tg 55. (a) Exert every effort to be more successful this year than I was last year. Eg (b) Be content with a reasonable amount of success and li v e longer. 56. (a) Try very hard to overcame my emotions. E^ (b) Get as much pleasure as I can out of l i f e now. Tg 57. (a) Feel i t i s important to be more successful this year than last year. E^ (b) Feel i t i s important to get along well with others. Eg 58. (a) Feel that children are born good. (b) Feel that children are born sinful. Tg 59. (a) Spend as much time as I can working independently. E^ (b) Spend as much time as I can i n having fun. • 60. (a) Deny myself enjoyment for the present for better things in the future. E, (b) Be able to have as much enjoyment as my friends have. APPENDIX B 109 TABLE XVII CORRELATIONAL SCORES WITHIN SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUP CATEGORIES FROM THE HOTELLING T2 TEST High Low Variables: n=202 n=350 P.M. vs Ind. 0.247 0.228 P.M. vs W.S. 0.327 0.325 P.M. vs F.T.O. 0.356 0.425 Ind. vs W.S. 0.135 0.223 Ind. vs F.T.O. 0.234- 0.120 W.S. vs F.T.O. 0.321 0.477 Soc. vs Con, 0.156 0.371 Soc. vs M.R. 0.303 0.298 Soc. vs P.T.O. 0,328 0.329 Con. vs M.R. . 0.095 0.256 Con. vs P.T.O. 0.400 0.373 M.R. vs P.T.O.' 0.323 0.460 .05*Clevel = 0.105 0.137 110 TABLE XVIII CORRELATIONAL SCORES WITHIN ...CHURCH ATTENDANCE GROUP CATEGORIES FROM THE HOTELLING T 2 TEST Frequent Non-Frequent Variables: n=278 n=379 P.M. vs Ind. 0.212 0.247 P.M. vs W.S. • 0.312 0.318 P.M. vs F.T.O'. - 0.394 0.354 Ind. vs W.S. 0.179 0.210 Ind. vs F.T.O. 0.185 0.152 W.S. vs F.T.O. "0.434 0.452 Soc. vs Con. 0.313 0.309 Soc. vs M.R, 0.265 0.380 SOC; vs P . T . O . 0.330 0.379 Con. vs M.R. 0.258 0.129 Con. vs P.T.O. 0.395 0.383 M.R, vs P.T.O. 0.420 0.349 .05*.level 0.118 0.101 I l l TABLE XIX' CORRELATIONAL SCORES WITHIN SEX GROUP CATEGORIES FROM THE HOTELLING T 2 TEST Variables F e m ^ • n=315 n=343 P.M. vs Ind. 0.254 0.190 P.M. vs W.S. 0.328 0.347 P.M. vs F.T.O. 0.389 0.421 Ind. vs W.S. 0.275 0.165 Ind. vs F.T.O. 0.203 0.145 W.S. vs F.T.O. ' 0.446 • 0.459 Soc. vs Cons. 0.367 0.349 Soc. vs M.R, 0.277 0.355 Soc. vs P.T.O. 0.386 0.378 Con, vs M.R. 0.193 0.240 Con. vs P..T.O. 0.397 0.378 M.R. vs P.T.O. 0,414 0.443 .05«J.evel 0.109 0.106 112 TABLE.XX CORRELATIONAL SCORES WITHIN SCHOOL PROGRAM GROUP CATEGORIES FROM THE HOTELLING T 2 TEST Variables Academic Non-Academic n=515 n=142 P.M.. vs Ind. 0.247 0.164 P.M. vs W.S. - 0.329 0.304 P.M. vs F.T.O. 0.385 '0.480 Ind. vs W.S. 0.233 0'.056 Ind. vs F.T.O. 0.172 ' 0.129 W.S. vs F.T.O. 0.452 0.443 Soc. vs Cons. 0.321 0.271 Soc. vs M.R. 0.313 0.351 Soc. vs P.T.O. 0.36.5 0.302 Con. vs Mf?R. 0.215 0.131 Con. vs P.T.O. 0.416 0.307 M.R. vs P.T.O. 0.429 0.375 .05©Uevel ' = 0.087 0.164 113 TABLE XXI CORRELATIONAL SCORES WITHIN GRADE GROUP CATEGORIES FROM THE HOTELLTNG T 2 TEST 9 11 Variables n=340 n=317 P.M. vs Ind. 0.127 0.377 P.M.vs W.S. 0.333 0.314 P.M. vs F.T.O. 0.385 0.417 Ind. vs W.S, 0.178 0.245 Ind. vs F.T.O. 0.088 0.294 W.S. vs F.T.O. 0.424 0.478 Soc. vs Con. • 0.283 0.354 Soc. vs M.R. 0.279 0.361 Soc. vs P.T.O. • 0.270 0.436 Con. vs M.R. 0.198 0.238 Con. vs P.T.O. 0.390 0.417 M.R. vs P.T.O. 0.387 0.453 . 05*level 0.106 0.109 APPENDIX C ts 114 LOW HXCrH Figure 3: Comparative Value Profiles of High and Low Socio-Economic Groups for the D.V.I'. Variables 115 MON CHURCH CHUFiCH II Figure 4: Comparative Value Profiles of Church and Non-Church Attenders for the D.V.I. Variables 116 fCMAUB SOBicAi£5 Figure. 5: Comparative Value Profiles for Male and Female Students for the D.V.I. Variables 117 Figure. 6: Comparative: Value Profiles for Academic and Non-Academic Students for the D.V.I. Variables 118 Figure 7: Comparative Value Profiles for Grade 9 and 11 Students for the D.V.I. Variables 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items