UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Some factors affecting the frequency and status of university students' "dating" behavior MacDonald, Neil William 1960

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1960_A8 M2 S6.pdf [ 4.52MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0105959.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0105959-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0105959-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0105959-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0105959-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0105959-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0105959-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0105959-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0105959.ris

Full Text

Some Factors Affecting the Frequency and StatuB of University Students' "Dating" Behavior by N e i l William Macdonald A Thesis submitted i n P a r t i a l Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Psychology We accept this thesis as conforming to the standard required from candidates for the degree of Master of Arts. Members of the Department of Psycho logy The University of B r i t i s h Columbia A p r i l , 1960 In presenting t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree th a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood tha t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Department of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada. Date fipr('l ^ / ; / T % ? SOME FACTORS AFFECTING THE FREQUENCY AND STATUS OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS• "DATING" BEHAVIOR Abstract The object of this study was to investigate the relationship of various factors a f f e c t i n g the frequency and status of "dating" behavior. The techniques used were (a) a Subjective Survey, to obtain item p o s s i b i l -i t i e s for the Questionnaire and to define terms; (b) a s p e c i a l l y constructed Questionnaire, to explore the relationship between a wide variety of personal charac-t e r i s t i c s of young people and their frequency and status of dating; (c) the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey and a separate section requiring each subject to report his "dating" behavior, to explore relationships between 10 personality t r a i t s and the frequency and status of dating. The findings may be divided into three sections. The Subjective Survey defined the terms "date" and "go steady" and established popular conceptions of the i n -frequent, frequent and "go steady" types of "dater". The Questionnaire findings found 46 separate items to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to frequency of dating. B r i e f l y summarized the items could be c l a s s i f i e d under the follow-ing headings: (a) physical factors; (b) clothes; (c) auto-mobiles; (d) active and passive a c t i v i t i e s ( a t h l e t i c s , dancing, l i s t e n i n g to j a z z ) ; (e) moral factors (smoking, drinking) and (f) previous "dating" experience. The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey and the special section on "dating" behavior found three t r a i t s , A-Ascendance, F-Friendliness, S - S o c i a b i l i t y , s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to the frequency of dating i n females; and two t r a i t s , G-General A c t i v i t y and S - S o c i a b i l i t y , s i g n i f i -cantly related to the frequency of dating i n males. The writer's Theory of Normal-Neurotic Sexual Choice was formulated i n an attempt to explain some unexplored areas i n the f i e l d . ACKNOWLEDGMENT The writer wishes to thank his advisor, Dr. Donald Sampson, for his suggestions, encourage-ment, active interest and help f u l c r i t i c i s m as well as other members of the s t a f f for their advice on many important aspects of the study. CONTENTS IV Chapter page 1 11 Abstract Introduction and Statement of the Problem Theoretical Background and Relevant Studies Theoretical Background: Pre-destination theory Promiscuity Simple B i o l o g i c a l Socio-biological S o c i a l Empa thy Personality Integrative 111 1 3 4 4 7 9 10 15 16 19 111 Relevant Studies: Pre-destination theory Promiscuity Simple b i o l o g i c a l S ocio-biological S o c i a l Empathy Personality Integrative Procedure Construction and Administration of the Subjective Survey Construction, Administration, S t a t i s t i c a l Treatment of the Questionnaire 20 21 23 23 25 34 35 38 40 40 42 Administration and S t a t i s t i c a l of the-Personality Test Treatment 48 V CONTENTS Chapter page IV The Results 52 Results of Subjective Survey 52 Results of questionnaire 54 Results of Personality Test 56 V Discussion of Results 61 VI A Proposed Theory of Sexual Choice 66 VII Possible Research 72 References 77 Appendix A: Subjective Survey 83 Appendix E: Questionnaire 85 Appendix C: Sex Ratios: UBC 90 Appendix D: Instructions for special dating section and Questionnaire 92 Appendix E: Questionnaire results 96 TABLES Table page 1 P r i n c i p a l Dating-Mating Theories 5-6 2 Description of, and C r i t e r i a f o r , the Dating Categories (Groups) employed in analysis of Questionnaire, and Frequency of Cases in each Category 46 3 Dating Categories for use with the Guilford«Zimmerman Temperament Survey 5G 4 Comparison of Frequent (M-Alpha) with Infrequent (M-Beta) Male Dating Groups on the 10 t r a i t s of the GuiIford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey 59 5 Comparison of Frequent (F-Alpha) with Infrequent (F-Beta) Female Dating Groups on the 10 t r a i t s of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey 60 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Probably since the beginning of recorded time, man has puzzled over the mysteries of mating. Only recently has the s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t explored this problem. What makes mating the fo c a l point of such interest? The answer possibly stems from the breadth and u n i v e r s a l i t y of the problem. The process of mating i s related to such s o c i a l problems as divorce, p r o s t i t u t i o n , sexual perversion and bachelorhood; to such i n s t i t u t i o n s as the church, the family, the school system and the work s i t u a t i o n ; to such universal and everyday happenings as the b i r t h and r a i s i n g of children; to such academic problems as adolescent develop-ment and personality theory. The understanding of mating i s of prime concern to the marriage counsellor, the school teacher, the preacher, the parent and, of course, the unmarried and married. The crux of the problem involves the question of sexual choice: what factors determine an individual's choice of mate? In North America, the mate-choice question i s further complicated by the peculiar, recent Western World phenomenon call e d "dating". To understand the mate-selection system, one must f i r s t understand the date-selection system. I t i s the p r i n c i p a l aim of this study to investigate the relationship of various factors a f f e c t i n g the frequency and 2 status of dating behavior, A Subjective Survey was employed to define terms and obtain item p o s s i b i l i t i e s for use i n a questionnaire, A questionnaire was constructed and used to explore the relationship between a wide variety of personality and a c t i v i t y characteristics of young people and their frequency and status of dating. A personality test (the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey) was u t i l i z e d to explore relationships between personality t r a i t s and dating behavior. 3 CHAPTER 11 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT STUDIES Just when the s c i e n t i f i c analysis of sexual behavior commenced i s d i f f i c u l t to ascertain. I f one means science i n the narrowest of terms, that i s , showing d e f i n i t e re-produceable r e s u l t s , then the analysis has hardly started. But, i f one i s more lax and takes science i n broad terms, sexual behavior was probably f i r s t studied s c i e n t i f i c a l l y i n the late 19th Century. Granted, an interest i n sex may be traced to the dawn of recorded hi s t o r y (Lewinsohn, 1958, pp. 2-4). But, i t was not u n t i l the time of Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and Havelock E l l i s that sex came under s c i e n t i f i c scrutiny. It was not u n t i l 1904 that the study of adolescent be-havior was put on empirical foundations with the work of G. Stanley H a l l (1904). 1929 marked the f i r s t theory of dating (Waller, 1937); 1958, the f i r s t laboratory studies of love (Harlow, 1958). Since the f i e l d of study i s so young, an attempt to c l a s s i f y the various theories, studies, scraps and pieces into a system for further research and analysis has been made. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s based on (a) the theorist's proposed mode of selection (eg. sexual stimulation) and (b) the s c i e n t i f i c approach used (biological, s o c i o l o g i -c a l , anthropological, psychological). Table 1 i s a condensation of the various theories. TABLE 1 1. Pre-destination theory This category i s reserved f or the n o n - s c i e n t i f i c theories, held by laymen, that choice has a "mystical-magical" basis - the i n d i v i d u a l just meets the so-called " r i g h t one" and immediately " f a l l s i n love". The Westerner's t r a d i t i o n a l theory of mating i s embodied i n this predestined, "one person" theory. The theme appears i n varying forms — i n novels, movies, songs, even everyday speech. The basic idea i s that there i s only one person meant for another. 2. "Promiscuity" This category takes i n theories postulating that choice i s completely random that no laws are operant i n mate se l e c t i o n . Many of the early s c i e n t i f i c theories stem from attempted explanations of family evolution. Bachofen cite d i n Groves and Groves (1934, pp. 8-17), Morgan (1878) and McLennan (1886, 1896) each proposed some-what s i m i l a r explanations. Each saw man beginning i n a promiscuous state and gradually moving from group to 5 TABLE.1 PRINCIPAL DATING-MATING THEORIES System of Selection Description 1 . "Predestination" 2. "Promiscuity" 'only one' person meant for another B a s i c a l l y promiscuous, mate indiscriminately 3 . "Simple b i o l o g i c a l " Aesthetic preference Simple sensory stimula-tion 4. "Socio«biological" 5. " S o c i a l " 6. !,Empathyu 7. "Personality" Mate to complete maleness, femaleness Discrepancy between bio logical-emotional maturation. . Mate to relie v e sex tensions. Assortative mating (homogamy, propinquity) l i k e s a t t r a c t , s p a t i a l proximity Dating i s po s i t i v e ; learn how to get along. Dating i s negative; functionless Role-playing; learn to interpret behavior of the other (emotional emphasis) Dominance drive; mate to dominate Parental image; uncon-sciously seek mate who resembles opposite sex parent Complementary needs; opposites a t t r a c t Author(s) Folklore Bachofen Morgan McLennan Darwin E l l i s Weininger Davis Groves Brooks Galton S c h i l l e r Lowrie Burgess Locke Blood Waller Herman Vernon Stewart Groves Groves LeMas ters Adler Freud Winch (Continued) 6 TABLE 1 PRINCIPAL DATING-MATING THEORIES (Continued) System of Selection Description Author(s) P r e f e r e n t i a l mating; pick Fleege person who has admired Hollings-ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s worth 8. "Integrative" Merging of several Bossard theories B o l l 7 in d i v i d u a l marriage. Their major assumption was that man i s b a s i c a l l y promiscuous and therefore w i l l mate with any member of the opposite sex available. Man became monogamous when he switched from being a hunter to being a farmer, Lewinsohn (1958, p. 14) discusses this 19th Century controversy: Ho one knows what the position was i n p r e h i s t o r i c times, but analogies from among the surviving primitive peoples show monogamy to be the pr a c t i c e . . . i n most primitive hordes, which possess only vestiges of t r i b a l organization. One value of Bachofen, Morgan and McLennan's theorizing i s the suggestion that sexual choice may be purely random and not s c i e n t i f i c a l l y lawful. 3. "Simple b i o l o g i c a l " This category includes theories having a b i o l o g i c a l basis to sexual choice as opposed to a s o c i o l o g i c a l or psychological basis, Charles Darwin, who r e v i t a l i z e d evolutionary theory by proposing the ideas of "s u r v i v a l of the f i t t e s t " and "natural s e l e c t i o n " , also presented a unique system of mate se l e c t i o n . He (1859, p. 97) believed that man and animals selected mates on the 3 basis of aesthetic preferences. His postulates raise the problem of beauty. Havelock E l l i s (1904) opposed Darwin's view3, arguing that both human and animal mate selection rested on simple sensory stimulations (touch, smell, hearing, vision) and that the one you "loved" was the one who was most capable of stimulating these senses. An i n t e r e s t i n g contribution to the b i o l o g i c a l l y -slanted interpretations was the physical, almost "one person" theory proposed by Otto Weininger, He believed that people were composed of degrees of maleness and femaleness. His p r i n c i p a l postulate was tha t: For true sexual union i t i s necessary that there come together a complete male (M) and a complete female (F), even although i n di f f e r e n t cases the M and F are d i s t r i -buted between the two i n d i v i d -uals i n d i f f e r e n t proportions. (Weininger, 1932-5, p. 29) For example, i f a male.were 3/4 male, 1/4 female; then his proper mate would be 1/4 male, 3/4 female. Extreme maleness would seek out extreme femaleness and so on. The important ramification of Weininger's theory i s that t h e o r e t i c a l l y i t accounts for r e l a t i v e beauty. 9 Interestingly enough, however, Weininger rejected Darwin's aesthetic factor arguing that aesthetic preferences involve judgments void of sexuality. Weininger "believed the a t t r a c t i o n was physical-sexual. In an i n t r i g u i n g analysis using evolution theory, he traced the complete maleness-femaleness theme through the plant and animal kingdoms. He thought the law was widespread — eg, the mating of bisexual plants, etc. He postulated that s t e r i l i t y and divorce occulted when a wrong pair mated — a chi l d l e s s marriage was a loveless one. As a f i n a l complication, Weininger theorized that the selection system probably under-went change with age. This was l o g i c a l since the system was b i o l o g i c a l l y based. 4. "Socio-biological" This category includes theories which incorporate b i o l o g i c a l and s o c i o l o g i c a l systems of sexual choice. Probably as a reaction to the 19th Century's ex-treme b i o l o g i c a l emphasis, 20th Century investigators leaned toward the B o c i a l aspects of the problem. Some, however, retained certain physiological leanings. Davis (1955) i s a prime example of this socio-b i o l o g i c a l approach. He reasoned that mating involves (1) a marital choice brought about by personal attach-ment coupled with a (11) f r u s t r a t i o n of sex leading to repression, which forces one to marry to r e l i e v e sexual tensions. Davis stated also that our society i s under-going continual change with the result that systems of choice may be changing. Williams (1959), another s o c i o l o g i s t , agreed almost completely with Davis and added that: (a) i n American Society no true ceremonies help the t r a n s i t i o n from adolescence to adulthood; (b) the youth has a career-marriage c o n f l i c t ; (c) i t i s d i f f i c u l t for the youth to break from parental authority and security. Davis' presentation p a r a l l e l s the 1934 hypothesis of Groves and Brooks (1934, pp. 257-272), who applied a physiological basis to a trial-and-error process of learning i n mating-dating. They stated that since the sexual functions reach maturity early while the i n t e l l e c -tual functions mature l a t e , the choice of mate is apt to be determined by sex preferences unguided by i n t e l l e c t . 5. " S o c i a l " This category includes theories which postulate s o c i o l o g i c a l determinants to be of primary importance to sexual choice as compared to b i o l o g i c a l or psychological determinants. Malinowski (1927), Margaret Mead (1949), Blum (1953) and others asserted that courtship was dependent on culture. They stressed customs, goals, personal r e l a t i o n -ships and b e l i e f s . Their work led to the comparative analysis of c u l t u r a l aex behaviors. 11 In North America, the culture-oriented thinkers attempted to define the l i m i t s of marital p o s s i b i l -i t i e s . There are, of course, l i m i t a t i o n s ; eg. (Woods, 1959, p. 343) Negroes can marry whites i n only 18 American states. The group, however, were more i n -terested i n the subtle determining forces. This led to the theories of homogamy —- tendency to marry peoples l i k e ourselves; and propinquity — tendency to marry people i n s p a t i a l proximity to ourselves. Actually, the theories of homogamy and propinquity could best be grouped under assortative mating (Baber, 1939, p. 143), the "conscious or unconscious tendency of an i n d i v i d u a l to select a mate having certain c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s i m i l a r to his own." Up to now we have mingled mating and dating sel e c t i o n together as i f they were one. The question, o f course, was soon to a r i s e : d o e s one pick a date by the same standard as he would pick a mate? Since the answer s t i l l eludes us, both mate and date selection enter our analysis. Willard Waller shook the foundations of a l l prev-ious theory i n 1929 when he proposed that there was a d i s t i n c t difference between courtship and dating. Waller's d e f i n i t i o n s were based on the individual's a t t i t u d e s . Courtship was (Waller i n Wilson & Kolb, 1949, p. 611): The set of processes of association among the unmarried from which, i n time, permanent matings usually emerge...excludes those associations which cannot normally eventuate i n marriage — as between Negro and white... Dating, on the other hand, was a dalliance pro-cess (Waller i n Wilson & Kolb, 1949, p. 612); a t h r i l l - s e e k i n g , e x p l o i t a t i v e relationship. Accord-ing to Waller, the c r i t e r i a of date selection included such things as dancing a b i l i t y , physical a t t r a c t i v e -ness, neat appearance, smooth manners, access to an automobile, popularity with the peer group, etc. Mating came when the time and circumstances were appropriate. Cultural conditioning through suggestions and examples gave r i s e to the romantic i d e a l within the person. The i n d i v i d u a l was frustrated through the dalliance process of dating; the f r u s t r a t i o n heightened the impulse to be married; a person presented himself or herself and marriage followed. Thus, to Waller, the i n d i v i d u a l dated for t h r i l l s and married when bored with the dalliance dating system. W.aller postulated also the dating-mating of s o c i a l l y rejected people. Those who didn't f i t the dating c r i t e r i o n , who were not physically a t t r a c t i v e , not well-dressed, etc., eventually flocked together and mated. An i n t r i g u i n g aside that Waller postulated was his theory of least interest (Waller i n Wilson & Kolb, 1949, p. 617): "that person controls who i s less interested i n the continuation of the a f f a i r . " Waller's theories led to a host of studies. Pro and con opinions were advanced. B a s i c a l l y , he had set f o r t h a "dating i s negative" theory, which saw dating as having no useful function as a preparation for mating. R. D. Herman (1956) supported the "dating i s negative" approach, by emphasizing the "Go-Steady Complex". He reasoned that random dating gave one only a s u p e r f i c i a l knowledge of people, and was therefore not an adequate preparation for marriage. •Going steady", on the other hand, served several functions: ( l ) i t allowed s o c i a l security for a date ( p r e d i c t a b i l i t y ) ; (2) i t removed one from the discomfort of competing for dates; (3) i t was less exploitive and gave the i n d i v i d u a l a r e a l chance to interact with someone. A "dating i s p o s i t i v e " theory was proposed by Lowrie (1951). He acknowledged f/aller's e x p l o i t a t i v e side as a p o s s i b i l i t y , but considered dating to serve a p o s i t i v e learning function. (Obviously learning does occur. The r e a l problem i s to determine: what i s learned and how i s i t learned?) Waller believed dating only teaches one to date. Herman followed the idea that since we are a monogamous society; monogamy i n dating was the only true training for mating. Lowrie (1951, p. 336): hypothesized that there was; a gradual, almost unconscious development from the customs of our courtship whereby young people obtain the tra i n i n g and experience needed for sensible selection of mates. Burgess and Locke (1945, 1951) saw dating as an end i n i t s e l f , having many positive functions. They maintained that personal values were replacing older sacred and s o c i o l o g i c a l values i n dating; eg. getting along with people, rating among the peer group, etc. Davis (1955) opposed this view, maintaining that the mores have changed, not the individual's personal values. Blood (1955, 1956) was another "dating i s posi-t i v e " theorist. Elood hypothesized that students preferred an exploitative-free system which was casual, f r i e n d l y and easy-going. He believed dating WEB dependent on maturity, i n t e l l i g e n c e , affectionate behavior and other factors r e f l e c t i n g good human re-la t i o n s . Thus, Blood refuted the early beliefB of Margaret Mead, Geoffrey Gorer and Waller cited i n Wilson and Kolb (1949), that dating taught one only to date and didn't lead to good mate se l e c t i o n . Elood believed that the dating pattern was very complex due to heterogeneous groupings, but i t was s t i l l very f u n c t i o n a l . One should note that a moral trend crept into the Wallerian question. Since each investigator, from Margaret Mead onward, was subtly trying to throw l i g h t on why Americans divorce more often than anyone else, they focussed on the preliminaries to mating some seeking the good; some, the bad aspects. 6. "Empathy" This category includes theories which emphasize the importance of learning how to sympathically under-stand the role of the other. Another set of theorists seemed more interested i n the actual learning that took place i n dating. Of these, Vernon and Stewart (1957) considered empathy a key f a c t o r . Empathy i s the a b i l i t y to play a r o l e , that i s , to understand the p o s i t i o n , feelings and wants of the other. Groves and Groves (1947, p. 362) e a r l i e r had out-lined the selection basis of dating as being dependent on personality needs — the i n d i v i d u a l coming to recognize, accept and p a r t i a l l y meet the other's de-mands. E. H. Groves had e a r l i e r supported a socio-b i o l o g i c a l approach. (See pagetO) LeMasters (1957, pp. 100, 113-4), who supported Lowrie's positive learning theory by stating that dating teaches one the s k i l l s necessary i n our urban, mobile society, believed also that the a b i l i t y to interpret the other's behavior was essential to health-f u l marital adjustment. 7. "Personality" This category includes theories which postulate personality or psychological determinants as the primary se l e c t i v e factors as compared to theories which empha-size b i o l o g i c a l determinants. P a r a l l e l i n g a l l the sociologically-emphasized developments were certain psychologically-oriented approaches. To outline their progress to the present, one must go back again to the 19th Century. Sigmund Freud, l i k e Bachofen, Morgan and McLennan, was interested i n family evolution. Freud ( i n B r i l l , 1938) saw man a r i s i n g from a primal horde i n an t i q u i t y to a position where pa t r i a r c h a l rule reigned. At b i r t h , the i n d i v i d u a l showed primal narcissism, sex-u a l i t y was uncontrolled. S o c i a l i z a t i o n was the gradual l i m i t i n g of this primary sex drive and i t s channeling through a series of physical f o c a l points — o r a l , anal and, f i n a l l y , g e n i t a l . The i n d i v i d u a l couldn't a t t a i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y sex adjustment or marriage unless the g e n i t a l stage was reached. Thus, to select normally the i n d i v i d u a l had to reach the g e n i t a l stage. Secondly, however, the i n -d i v i d u a l unconsciously would seek a mate resembling the parent of the opposite sex (Freud i n K i r k p a t r i c k , 1937 ). A l f r e d Adler, another psychoanalyst**, postulated a dominance drive, which had an organic basis. He (Adler, 1924) argued that the ultimate goal of every-one was to obtain complete masculinity. In r e l a t i o n to mating, he considered the y i e l d i n g of s e l f i n a heterosexual relationship only an ind i r e c t way of attaining domination over another. I t should be noted that Freudian theory empha-sizes the b i o l o g i c a l and the abnormal, A complete understanding of the Freudian and Neo-Freudian view-points on mating-dating would require considerable time and space. A thorough analysis of the psycho-ana l y t i c approach to sex would be a separate study i n i t s e l f . Since this i s only a general survey, only Freud and Adler's views were presented as examples of the psychoanalytic viewpoint. A theory involving a synthesis of the s o c i o l o g i -c a l and psychological viewpoints was developed by Winch. His theory of complementary needs (1955, 1958) i s summarized by LeMasters (1957, p. 248): While recognizing that mate-selection has been found to be homogamous with respect to numerous s o c i a l c haracteristics ( r e l i g i o n , socioeconomic status, etc.)...with respect to i n d i v i d -ual motivation (or at the psychic l e v e l ) mate-selection tends to be complementary rather than homogamous. . Winch asked the important question: why does one pick such-and-such an i n d i v i d u a l from within the l i m i t -ed range of homogamous p o s s i b i l i t i e s ? Certainly one may marry within his r e l i g i o n , his race, his educa-t i o n a l group; but what are the factors that determine choice within these l i m i t s ? Another personality-oriented theory to oppose assortative mating analysis was the theory of prefer-e n t i a l mating (Baber, 1939, p. 145):. the conscious or unconscious choice of a mate because of certain desirable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , whether or not these are possessed to any marked degree by the one doing the choosing. In r e l a t i o n to very early dating and "crushes", Hollingsworth (1928) and Fleege (1945) take the p r e f e r e n t i a l mating approach. They see these attach-ments as a kind of a f f e c t i o n involving jealousies and demands. Fleege believes that the "crush" i s a projection of an id e a l because the object jus t happens to possess a few admired t r a i t s . 8. "Integrative" This category includes theories attempting to merge a l l three aspects — b i o l o g i c a l , s o c i o l o g i c a l and psychological -=«- into an integrated explanation of sexual choice. With so many opposing views, so many investigators attempting to answer so many dif f e r e n t sets of questions, there was obviously room for synthesis. An example of thi s i s the presentation of a series of in t e r e s t i n g comments on American dating patterns by Bossard and B o l l (1958, pp. 54-68). They believed that dating (dancing, parties) didn't have the same atmosphere as marriage ( s i t t i n g at home), thus agreeing with Waller et a l . Dating behavior i s s t i l l changing from that of a generation ago, agreeing with Blood et a l . Sex i s forbidden r e s u l t i n g i n loneliness and marriage may resul t out of th i s desperation or loneliness, agree-ing with Davis, Groves and Brooks. Eossard and B o l l state also that marriage i s a status-achieving device, agreeing with Waller again; and that women are taught "the art of retreat that subtly beckons", agreeing with Margaret Mead et a l . Relevant Studies We now turn to a consideration of research r e l -evant to each of the eight foregoing approaches to date-mate s e l e c t i o n , 1. "Pre-destination" The pre-destination theory postulated that only one person suited another; The basis of sele c t i o n was both psychological and physiological; but tended to ignore s o c i o l o g i c a l aspects. Most s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s regard the t r a d i t i o n a l theory as myth. Hurlock (1955, p. 17) writes: few adolescents f i n d the happiness from their romantic experiences that they have dreamed of since their f a i r y - t a l e days, when^all romances ended happily and the couple ' l i v e d happily ever a f t e r . ' The pre-destination theory stresses an important point — that, perhaps, there are only a few suitable partners for any one person. LeMasters hints this when he states (1957, p. 59): Of the mill i o n s of potential partners i n the world, or i n the United States, we w i l l . . . get to know only a few. The re a l problem i s to choose the  most compatible person a v a i l -able to us. LeMasters quotes a study (1957, p. 60) where g i r l s who had dated 70 or more boys considered only f i v e as suitable marriage partners. An important c r i t i c i s m of the pre-destination theory i s that apparently one can marry the "wrong" one, esp e c i a l l y i n certain c u l t u r a l settings. Bossard and B o l l state (1958, p. 12): "Approximately one-half of a l l divorces reported i n the world each year are granted i n the United States." Other investigators have pointed out that the selection "based on predestination can be i n e f f e c t i v e . Eurgess and C o t t r e l l (1939) report that 21,5% of their married sample admitted being unhappy; Lang (1932) found 15.8^ of his sample defining themselves as unhappy; Popenoe's study cited i n Bossard and B o l l (1958, p. 13) sampled 20,000 people married more than f i v e years, found between 20 and 40% unhappy. In addition, LeMasters (1957, p. 55) writes: "many hus-bands can enjoy the i r wives sexually and s t i l l not enjoy being married to them." 2. "Promiscuity" Bachofen ( i n Groves and Groves, 1934), Morgan (1878) and McLennan (1886, 1896) argued that man s t a r t -ed i n a group marriage state and moved through polygamy to monogamy. Their hypothesis seems to suggest that the more primitive tribes even today should be shading toward the e a r l i e r forms of marriage. LeMasters (1957, p. 26) l i s t s the number of societies presently p r a c t i c -ing the dif f e r e n t forms: monogamy, 43; polygyny, 193; polyandry, 2; group marriage, 0. He goes on to state that the polygynic societies were a l l b a s i c a l l y monogam-ous, however, due to economic conditions. Woods (1959, pp. 38-41) presents an important point when she states that "both polyandry and polygyny probably arise out of an imbalanced sex ratio.. In other words, multiple marriage probably may stem from a shortage of males or females; not necessarily because man i s b a s i c a l l y promiscuous. In the 1920's, Katharine Davis (1929) reported only 1% of 2,000 women sampled admitted premarital r e l a t i o n s . This does not seem to support promis-cuity theory. People have argued, however, that Kinsey's findings (1948, 1953) support promiscuity theory. But his findings are d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t . For example: Kinsey reported that over 50$ of the females sampled did not have premarital r e l a t i o n s . This may be interpreted as being either for or against promiscuity theory, Man may have been promiscuous i n the beginning, but the evidence suggests that promiscuity i s probably a resultant of several factors: unbalanced sex r a t i o , marital maladjustment, c u l t u r a l patterning, rather than being some inborn drive. I t i s probably unsound to ask whether man i s b a s i c a l l y promiscuous or not. I t would be better to ask: what are the b i o l o g i c a l , s o c i o l o g i c a l and psychological factors leading to promiscuity? 3. "Simple B i o l o g i c a l " Very l i t t l e research work i s relevant to the simple "biological approaches of Darwin, E l l i s and Weininger. Many studies (Woods, 1959) reveal that "both sexes rate physical attractiveness as an important factor influencing both date and mate selecti o n . The findings of comparative psychologists would r e f l e c t negatively on a biological-based theory. Young gives the general point-of— view by stating (Young i n Stone, 1955j p. 119): as mammals have evolved, psychic and c u l t u r a l factors have become more important, while the import-ance of purely hormonal factors have decreased... Nissen ( i n Stone, 1955, pp. 446-7) found "The general rule (that) the stronger male (got) most of the females." This questions Weininger's theory, which would seem to favor a one-to-one selection basis, not one animal gaining extreme favorable status. 4. "Soeio-biological" Kings ley Davis (1955), Groves and Brooks (1934) proposed the theory of American s o c i a l codes holding the b i o l o g i c a l urges i n check too profoundly, re-s u l t i n g i n a marriage^ to rel i e v e sexual tension. Bossard and B o l l (1958), who formulated an integrated approach, agreed with the marriage-out-of-loneliness scheme. Davis added the theme of rapid c u l t u r a l change. That the age of sexual maturation and the age of marital p o s s i b i l i t y are not i n conjunction i n our society i s an easil y accepted f a c t . Any North American comparison of physiological findings regarding age at onset of puberty with s t a t i s t i c a l records of age at f i r s t marriage would reveal marked discrepancies. That rapid s o c i a l change has occured i s also markedly evident (Woods, 1959): a rapid population increase, especially i n Western States; a movement from r u r a l to urban economy; a continual r e s i d e n t i a l mobility (20% of U.S. ci t i z e n s move within one year); three wars and two depressions; an increase i n female population; a tremendous increase i n percentage of adolescents i n schools; a marked extension i n the aver-age length of l i f e — the l i s t could go on and on. No one would dispute these f a c t s . One would also agree that the 20th Century American urban family i s far less a functional unit than the 19th Century r u r a l family. The question posed by the so c i o - b i o l o g i c a l approach i s : does one marry due to sex tensions 3noL loneliness? Ehrmann (1955, pp. 48-53) found sexual conquest a d e f i n i t e reason for the middle class male to date the lower class female. This tends to support socio-b i o l o g i c a l thinking. LeMasters 1 e a r l i e r cited finding (1957, p. 55) that: "many husbands can enjoy their wives sexually and s t i l l not- enjoy being married to them" also supports the s o c i o - b i o l o g i c a l approach, 5. " S o c i a l " (a) Assortative Mating Assortative mating i s one area where considerable evidence has been gathered. The p r i n c i p l e s of homogamy and propinquity seem to operate. The following i s a b r i e f summary of the more s i g n i f i c a n t studies: S c h i l l e r (1932) found people mated homogamously regarding physical t r a i t s (age, height, weight, hair and eye c o l o r ) ; and mental t r a i t s (association reactions, arithmetic reasoning, information and opinions). No evidence was found for order of b i r t h , number of s i b l i n g s , vocabulary, temperamental or emotional t r a i t s . S c h i l l e r ' s study may be c r i t i c i z e d i n that his group was already married — that i s , he did not study those who were rejected. Smith and Greenberg Monane (1953) found that for dates, the educated preferred the educated; the highly i n t e l l i g e n t , the highly i n t e l l i g e n t * Burgess and Wallin (1944) found some correlation for height. Baber (1939, p. 81) reports that the deaf 'tend to marry the deaf. He also found general i n t e l l i -gence to "be a homogamic factor. Winch (1955) found American wives resembled their husbands i n race, r e l i g i o n , socioeconomic status and i n t e l l i g e n c e . Groves and Groves (1947, p. 336) c i t e M itchell's study which demonstrated that Vassar graduates married childhood friends 26% of the time. They c i t e (1947, p. 337) Marvin's study also, which used a sample of 49^000 and found that there was a 2.8 times better than chance p o s s i b i l i t y that one would marry someone i n the same occupation. He found also that 90% of Bryn Mawr graduates married college graduates and that 60% married professional people. Bossard (1940) showed that there i s a marked trend to marry someone within s i x blocks of one's residence. Kennedy (1942-3) found marked ethnic endogamy. Per-centages for her sample ran: Negroes, 100%; Jews, 100$ I t a l i a n s , 80%; B r i t i s h Americans, 77$. ; Partridge (1934) found propinquity to be a factor even i n the selection of friends. Evidence for the success of assortative mating i s given by investigating what happens when homogamy is n ' t a factor i n marriage. Regarding r e l i g i o n , Bossard and B o l l (1958, pp. 87-88) state: Between two and three times as many marriages re s u l t i n divorce and separation i n Roman Gatholie-Pro testant unions than when the couples are of the same f a i t h . In regard to color differences: the out-married have a higher divorce rate than the in-married, (Baber, 1939, pp. 162-3) The evidence establishes_assortative mating as a d e f i n i t e s o c i o l o g i c a l f a c t , (b) Dating i s positive i n function Blood was the major theorist postulating that dating had positive functions. In his 1955 study he asked college subjects to check norms about date selection they thought to be i n existence. He found that they tended to mark personality items as being more important (93$ support) than Wallerian items (55$ support). His data, however, may be interpreted i n either way, For example: 98$ of his female sample wanted the i r dates to be neat i n appearance; 90$ wanted them to dress appropriately; 50$ wanted them to dance w e l l . These are a l l Wallerian factors. I t i s the writer's opinion that Blood's data reveals that: ( l ) people do not wish to define themselves as mercenary regarding dating because only 6$ checked that their date should have plenty of money; 17$^that their date needed a car, (2) Blood's data support rather than refute Waller's theory because males wanted females: neat i n appearance (100$), appropriately dressed (94.7$), having polished manners (70.5$) and dancing s k i l l s (57.6$). (3) I t p a r t i c u l a r l y hints that Waller's dalliance process operates since the Wallerian choice items were rated higher for casual than serious dates: dancing a b i l i t y was rated important by 54.7$ for a casual date and 33.7$ for a serious date; ?/aller would say the change i n emphasis was due to the attitude change from t h r i l l - o r i e n t e d to courtship-oriented. In his 1956 study, Blood used a questionnaire technique and claimed further support for his theories. He found the following to be important i n date s e l e c t i o n : (1) i s pleasant and cheerful; (2) has a sense of humor; (3) i s a good sport; (4) i s natural; (5) i s considerate; (6) i s neat i n appearance. The different interpretations of Blood's work stem from the following: i n his 1955 study, he asked subjects to check: ( l ) the norm they thought to be i n . existence; (2) the way they dated i n regard to the norm; (3) the way they would date for a marriage mate. His findings showed a tendency for the answers from the t h i r d group (marriage-oriented) to follow his theoriz-ing: eg. for the item "dance w e l l " , the perceived norm was 7-0.1$^the casual date, 49.3$; and the serious date, 29.1$. S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t changes were shown for dancing, manners, s o c i a l l y prominent and f r a t e r n i t y items. Blood interpreted these changes i n favor of h i s casual, well-rounded personality approach. On the other hand, h i s findings could he interpreted to demonstrate that American College youth believe other's dates are chosen on t r i v i a l c r i t e r i a , but their own dates are not, especially when marriage i s a serious p o s s i b i l i t y . Lowrie (1951) put f o r t h perhaps the most comprehen-sive comparison of dating theories. His findings may be summerized as follows: 41$ of boys and 39$ of g i r l s supported "aff e c t i o n " and "selection of mate" as the reason they dated; 28$ of boys and 39$ of g i r l s gave "learning to adjust" and "gaining poise and ease" as the reasons they dated; 30$ of boys and 20$ of g i r l s gave Wallerian reasons for their dating. Lowrie's data revealed d e f i n i t e support for the learning approach and moderate support for Waller's exploitative element. In a la t e r study, Lowrie (1956) found four factors affected dating frequency: ( l ) sex: females date more than males; (2) age: older people date more than younger; (3) age at which dating begins: e a r l i e r "dater" dated more; (4) dating status: "going steady" group dated more than random "daters". (c) Dating i s negative i n function Much of what was discussed under positive dating theory obviously dealt with negative dating theory. The dating i s positive theorists would have d i f f i -culty explaining the American divorce rate (Lewinsohn, 1958, p. 397) which has rapidly accelerated i n the past 60 years: eg. 1890, one divorce to every 18 marriages; 1945, one divorce to every four marriages, Kinsey's finding (1948) that 40$ of the males sampled were u n f a i t h f u l to the i r wives supports negative dat-ing theory and questions positive dating theory. The studies, cited on page£/, concerning marital unhappi-ness, also cast doubt on dating i s positive theory, C r i s t (1953) used a personal, structured interview technique to investigate high school dating. He divided his sample into lower levels (grade 9) and upper levels (grades 10-12). His major findings were that (a) dating was not marriage-oriented (85.2$ of students r a r e l y , or never considered dates as possible mates); (b) the lower l e v e l group commenced dating because i t was s o c i a l l y expected; (c) 50$ of the sub-jects reported that their f i r s t date was not enjoyable because of shyness, etc.; (d) "going steady" was a matter of s o c i a l convenience of f e r i n g security, i n -creased status and r e l i e f from competition problems, C r i s t supports Waller i n that early dating i s d e f i n i t e -l y not courtship. He also supports positive learning theory i n that early dating i s a s o c i a l i z a t i o n process. Smith (1952, pp. 312-7) replicated Waller's i n i t i a l research. Although Smith found that rapid s o c i a l change i n the economic and moral spheres had made some of Waller's o r i g i n a l items obsolete, he did f i n d general support for the "Rating-Dating" Complex. Norms rated highest by both sexes were: (a) manners, appearance; (b) dance well; (c) physical attractiveness; (d) good clothes. Smith's study i s one of the most important for Wallerian students. Le^Masters (1957, pp. 60-112) c r i t i c i z e d Blood's method of asking questions: eg. "What q u a l i t i e s do you look for i n a good date?" LeMasters contended that this e l i c i t s the answer to the question: "What . should you look fo r ? " not "What do you actually look for ? " LeMasters believed that observation, used by Waller, or interview techniques produced more reason-able r e s u l t s . Using the l a t t e r technique, he i n t e r -viewed hundreds of students and found (1957, p. 105) an extremely s u p e r f i c i a l c r i t e r i a for dating selec t i o n : (a) clothes; (b) physical shape; (c) smile; (d) hair s t y l e , etc. In the f i n a l summary of his findings (1957, p, 113), LeMasters agreed with Waller's exploitative theory, s t a t i n g : "Some persons do not have this a b i l i t y to con-t r o l emotion (they therefore can) often be exploited and hurt". He agreed also with empathy theory, postu-l a t i n g that the a b i l i t y to interpret the other's behavior correctly was essential otherwise one could be e a s i l y hurt or led astray. Pressey and Robinson (1944) found support for Waller's theory when they sampled an adolescent group. The g i r l s valued (a) appearance, (b) grooming, (c) good manners and (d) good dancers; the boys valued (a) good manners, (b) good talkers, (c) good dancers, etc. Waller's exploitative element gained more support from K i r k p a t r i c k and Kanin's study (1957) on male sex aggression. Their study revealed that 55.7$ of 291 g i r l s reported they were offended during one college year at some l e v e l of e r o t i c intimacy. The following percentages of offence were given: very early date, 48.5$; regular or steady date, 43.3$; pinned, engaged, 8.2$. K i r k p a t r i c k and Kanin concluded (1957, p. 58): There i s evidence on one campus suggesting that i n courtship relationships there i s a progressive pattern of e x p l o i t a t i o n , involvement, ambivalent resistance, awareness of shared stigma and reduced reliance upon i n s t i t u t i o n a l controls with corresponding stress on control within the dyadic rel a t i o n s h i p . K i r k p a t r i c k and Caplow (1945), using a question-naire technique, found (p. 119): some evidence men undergo increas-ing r e l a t i v e maladjustment because of their double burden of mate-finding and mate-supporting. They concluded, however, that there was no evidence the men protected themselves by having the casual attitude to dating suggested by Waller. There was no r e a l trend when subjects were asked: "Did you worry about becoming too involved?" K i r k p a t r i c k and Gaplow reported also that about 50$ claimed no adjust-ment problems after the a f f a i r ended. Waller had postulated that there would be progressive fear of involvement after each breakup, that breakup would have f i e r c e emotional hurt. How K i r k p a t r i c k and Caplow's findings r e f l e c t on this i s debatable, Ausubel refutes Waller's position that fear of involvement and emotional hurt from old a f f a i r s l e s s -ened a person's a b i l i t y to love. He stated that there was an (1954, p. 427) "increasing degree of a f f e c t i o n a l success i n successive love a f f a i r s , " This supports "dating i s p o s i t i v e " learning theory. But, Byrd's evidence (1956, pp. 26, 41) that second marriages are less enduring than f i r s t marriages questions Ausubel's conclusion. Herman (1955) presented the other "dating i s negative" theory when he supported the "Going Steady Complex". Herman used a questionnaire and term essay technique with college students. He found that (pp. 36-40) "going steady" was the preferred norm (45$ "went steady"). He concluded that there were two types of "going steady": (a) marriage-oriented, usually non-university bound students, and (b) dalliance-oriented, usually university bound students. Some support was found for this two-type hypothesis: only 24% of the university bound students ever considered marrying their "steady". Herman concluded that "going steady" was usually less e x p l o i t i v e than the dall i a n c e , random dating phenomenon. 6. "Empathy" Vernon and Stewart (1957, pp. 48-52) made a very important contribution to the l i t e r a t u r e when they ^.studied the role of empathy i n dating. They asked college students the following questions about a re-cent date: ( l ) th e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n i n each of 14 areas; (2) their guess of their partner's s a t i s f a c t i o n . The 14 areas included the following: money, sex, manners, etc. They found that the more dates with a person, the higher the degree of empathy. In other words, the "go steady" group were able to interpret their partner's feelings f a r better than the casual dating group. Vernon and Stewart put one l i m i t a t i o n on their findings: the r e s u l t may be due to degree of involvement rather than empathy i t s e l f . This study r e f l e c t s on the views of both Waller and Herman. Casual, random dating may perhaps be functionless. "Going steady" may be one way of learning to i n t e r a c t , to understand a member of the opposite sex. 7. "Personality" (a) Adler'a dominance drive Very l i t t l e work has been done on Adler's postulate that people marry to dominate. Martinson (1955) demonstrated that with other things being equal such as age, sex, i n t e l l i g e n c e , position i n family, n a t i o n a l i t y , father's occupation and amount of education, persons who marry demonstrate greater feelings of ego deficiency than do those who remain single. Byrd (1956, pp* 28-9) comments on t h i s , be-l i e v i n g the findings may apply only to early marriage: that i s , to persons who marry right after high school graduation. (b) Freud'8 parental image Several studies have investigated Freud'3 theory that a person married an i n d i v i d u a l resembling the parent of the opposite sex. Kent (1951) asked college students to write mental images of their mothers. Six weeks l a t e r , they were asked to l i s t t r a i t s they wanted i n their wives. Kent found the findings correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Strauss (1946) found s i m i l a r evidence for engaged g i r l s . The prospective grooms bore physical resemb-lances to the g i r l s ' fathers. Their opinions and b e l i e f s were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y s i m i l a r . The g i r l s themselves resembled the men's mothers i n personality and temperament. Woods (1959, p. 341) reported that there i s a tendency to select mates l i k e the parent image with respect to physique, opinions, personality l i k e s and d i s l i k e s . S c h i l l e r (1932) suggested that homogamic factors are operant i n marriage se l e c t i o n : the husband resembled the wife and the wife's father; the wife also resembled the husband*s mother. This supports Freud as well as homogamy theory and suggests that the two approaches may be two ways of looking at the same marital selection process. Hamilton and McGowan (1930) found that 17$ of their male cases married women physi c a l l y l i k e their mother and that 94$ of this group were happily married. Only 33$ of a control group were happily married. (c) Winch's complementary needs Winch (1958) believed that complementary needs were operant i n mate-selection at the psychic l e v e l . He granted that at the s o c i a l l e v e l homogamic factors probably operated i n mate-selection. Winch (1958, p. 109-114) used three techniques — ( l ) a "need" interview, which was content-analyzed by two independent researchers, (2) a case-history i n t e r -view, (3) the Thematic Apperception Test — to develop personality pictures of 25 couples. He found general support for his theory, ©specially regarding t r a i t s l i k e deference-dominance, abasement-dominance and abasement-hos t i l i t y . Ktsanes (1955) and Roos (1956) independently factor-analyzed the ratings of these 50 subjects on 44 sub-variables. Roos emerged with fo.W factors; Ktsanes, s i x . Commenting on their work, Winch (1958. p. 130) stated that their findings suggest "that complementariness may be stated i n part at least i n terms of achievement and p a s s i v i t y , of nurturance and dependence, of dominance and deference." The rigorous s c i e n t i f i c controls used i n Winch's research i s commendable, but a larger sample than 50 i s needed before any de f i n i t e conclusions may be drawn, (d) Hollingsworth, Fleege -»» p r e f e r e n t i a l mating This theory rests between assortative mating and Winch's theory. Some support for the theory that one picks a person who has admired characteristics was supplied by McCormick and MacRory's study (1944), The t r a i t s checked by 93 "steadies" as desirable i n an opposite sex partner tended to correlate with t r a i t s possessed by their "steady". These t r a i t s also correlated highly with t r a i t s desired by those who were not "going steady" as w e l l . 8, "Integrative" Some evidence suggests that the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n -ship between the b i o l o g i c a l , the s o c i o l o g i c a l and the psychological should be studied very c a r e f u l l y when one i s considering the analysis of dating behavior. For example: numerous studies have investigated the relationship between physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , on the one hand, and personality and s o c i a l develop-ment on the other. Terman (1926) and Reals (1938) found that good health led to better psychological development; that leaders had good health and above average strength. Prazier and Lisonbee ( i n Seidman, 1955) showed that young adolescents have a marked concern for bodily development, each sex wishing to f i t the s o c i a l l y - d e s i r e d image for their respective sex more accurately; g i r l s wanted to be shorter, boys wanted better body proportions, more weight, etc. Jones and Bayley ( i n Seidman, 1953) revealed that early maturing boys tended to be a t t r a c t i v e ; w e l l -b u i l t , muscular, a t h l e t i c and very attentaSfcive to personal grooming while late-maturers were more express-i v e , f i e r y , uninhibited. Gruce (1953, p. 427) provides a comprehensive l i s t of physical t r a i t s that a f f e c t personality; the better physical speciman tending to have the better personality. The foregoing survey of empirical findings probably gives most support to Wallerian, assorta-tive mating and learning theories of date-mate sel e c t i o n . The present study was not intended as a test of any of these theories. Rather i t was an attempt to f i n d empirical relationships between the frequency and status of dating behavior on the one hand, and personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a c t i v i t i e s on the other. The intention then was to relate the findings to e x i s t i n g theories. CHAPTER 111 PROCEDURE In order to investigate the relationship of various factors a f f e c t i n g the frequency and status of dating behavior, three separate techniques were employed. Each used a d i f f e r e n t group of subjects, who remained anonymous throughout. The f i r s t , a Subjective Survey asking for essay-s t y l e answers, was used to define terms and obtain item p o s s i b i l i t i e s . The second, a Questionnaire constructed mainly on the basis of the Subjective Survey findings, was used to explore the relationships between a wide variety of personal characteristics of young people and the frequency and status of dating. The t h i r d , the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey, administered together with a questionnaire regarding dating behavior was used to explore re-lationships between the 10 personality t r a i t s of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey on the one hand, and frequency and status of dating on the other. 1. Construction and Administration of the Subjective Survey  In order to define terms and to obtain relevant items for the Questionnaire, a Subjective Survey was employed. Three questions were derived on the bases of: (a) nine informal interviews with friends; (b) a l i s t i n g of pertinent material from novels, plays, movies and (c) a reading of the psychological l i t -erature. The Subjective Survey consisted of three questions: ( l ) a d e f i n i t i o n of a "date", (2) a d e f i n i t i o n of "going steady", (3) the subject's opinion regarding the differences between people with varying dating patterns. Three forms of question three were employed. The one (Form A) found to give the most useful answers was used most frequently; See Appendix A. Forty-eight volunteer subjects were used. Aside from a deliberate e f f o r t to get people from various walks of l i f e , no attempt at randomization was made. The sampling included d i f f e r e n t : (a) r e l i g i o u s groups (Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jews); (b) age levels (14-60); (c) sexes ( f a i r l y evenly d i s t r i b u t e d ) ; (d) educational levels (grammar school to college graduates); (e) heterosexual status groups (those not dating; those dating, "going steady," engaged, married). There was a shortage of both married men and older men; and married adolescents. From this material: (a) the most commonly accepted d e f i n i t i o n s of a "date" were established; (b) the group's popular conceptions of the infrequent and frequent "dater" and the person "going steady" were derived; (c) a l i s t of relevant factors for inclusion i n the Questionnaire were selected, 2, Construction, Administration, S t a t i s t i c a l Treatment of the Questionnaire  The Questionnaire was constructed mainly on the "basis of the factors derived from the Subjective Survey. See Appendix B. This phase of the study had three aspects: (a) to obtain information about the subject's personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a c t i v i t i e s and dating behavior; (b) to divide the subjects into categories on the basis of their frequency and status of dating; (c) to test for s i g n i f i c a n t relationships between these dating categories and each personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and a c t i v -i t y item. Questionnaire Construction In obtaining information about the subject's personal ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a c t i v i t i e s , there were four i n t e r - r e l a t e d considerations: the need for brevity and o b j e c t i v i t y ; the ease of administration and s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. In order to permit subjects to.answer a r e l a t i v e l y large number of questions i n the least possible time, each item could be answered by placing a check i n one of several alternative spaces. This method also allowed rapid tabulation and calculation of r e s u l t s . To gain a certain degree of o b j e c t i v i t y , items pertaining to behavioral facts were stressed. For example: How many hours do you study per week? 0-10 11-20 Over 20 rather than: Do you Btudy much? Yes No Through application of these c r i t e r i a — brevity, o b j e c t i v i t y , ease of administration and analysis —- 57 items were constructed to form the Questionnaire, Fifty-one required check-space answers: s i x required two or three word answers. To obtain information regarding the subject's dating behavior, a separate section of seven questions was added to the Questionnaire. See Appendix B. The f i r s t f i v e of these questions were concerned with the determination of the subject's dating status ("steady" or "non-steady"). He was asked: ( l ) whether he "went steady" or not; (2) i f so, how long; (3) i f he had ever "gone steady" previously; (4) i f so, when; and (5) what "going steady" meant to him. The l a s t question was used to see i f his d e f i n i t i o n of "going steady" agreed with the popular d e f i n i t i o n obtained i n the Subjective Survey. The l a s t two questions were concerned with the frequency of the Subject's dating. He was asked: (6) how many dates he had i n the past year; (7) to f i l l i n a detailed account of his past month's dating (when, where, who with?). The subject*s dating partner was kept anonymous: F l , F2, F3, etc. being used to indicate d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s . A calendar for the past month was provided to aid the subject i n r e c a l l i n g s p e c i f i c dates. Questionnaire Subjects The Questionnaire subjects were taken from four of a possible seven sections of the Introductory Psychology course. This would appear to be a f a i r l y representative sample of f i r s t year Arts and Science since approximate-l y t h r e e - f i f t h s of the students i n this Faculty take Introductory Psychology, The sex r a t i o for the sampled groups was approximately the same as for the Faculty of Arts and Science and for the entire university (male: female: 3:1). See Appendix E. The Questionnaire was administered during the l a s t week of February and the f i r s t week of March, 1959. The Questionnaire was completed by 569 subjects. Discards, including Negro, Chinese and married students, numbered 136, Three papers were discarded due to obvious v u l g a r i t y and excessive humor not conducive to r e l i a b l e answers. The e l i g i b l e subjects numbered 430 white, unmarried students — 162 females and 268 males. Before administration of the Questionnaire, the subjects were requested to be as t r u t h f u l as possible i n spite of the fact that many of the items were highly personal. See Appendix D (b''J for complete i n -s tructions, 45 Determination of dating categories (a) males Two p r i n c i p a l c r i t e r i a were used to sort the 268 male subjects into four categories on the basis of frequency and status of dating: (a) whether the subject defined himself as "going steady" ( i n terms of the d e f i n i t i o n derived from the Subjective Survey) or being engaged: (b) the number of dates reported i n the past month and/or year. The detailed reports of dating f or the past month were considered more accurate than the estimate of the past year's dating. ISfherever possible the former was used instead of the l a t t e r . A t o t a l of 79 males, defining themselves as "going steady" or being engaged, were assigned to Group IV. The dating averages for the remaining 189 were determined as 3.17 dates i n the past month and 2.95 dates per month for the past year. These norms were used to s p l i t the 189 into three groups: ( l ) very infrequent, (11) average, ( i l l ) very frequent "daters". See Table 2 for detailed description of these four groups. TABLE 2 (b) females Two c r i t e r i a were used to sort the 162 female 46 Table 2 Description of, and C r i t e r i a f o r , the Dating Categories (Groups) employed i n analysis of Questionnaire, and Frequency of Cases i n each Category. MALES Group Description C r i t e r i o n N Monthly Dates Past 12 Months I very infrequent 0-l/month 0-12/month 73 II average 2-4/month 13-59/month 76 I I I very frequent 3-f/month 40 IV "steadies" define selves as "going steady" 79 Total N 268 FEMALES Group Description C r i t e r i o n N Monthly Dates A infrequent 0-3/month 44 B frequent 4-|/month 64 C "steadies" define selves as "going steady" 54 Total N 162 subjects into three categories on the basis of frequency and status of dating: (a) whether the subject defined herself as "going steady" or being engaged; (b) the number of dates reported i n the past month. The responses on the past year estimate were very scattered, making the determination of cut-off points impossible. A t o t a l of 54 females, defining themselves as "going steady" or being engaged, were assigned to Group G. The dating averages for the remaining 108 subjects were determined as 4,98 dates i n the past month and 4.91 dates per month for the past year. The past month norm was used to s p l i t the 1G8 into two "non-steady" groups: (A) infrequent and (B) f r e -quent "daters". Three dates per month was the cut-off point. See Table 2 for detailed description of these three groups. S t a t i s t i c a l Treatment of the Questionnaire The responses of male groups 1, 11, 111 and IV were compared on each item of the Questionnaire using Chi-sp.uare analysis (McNemar, 1949; Edwards, 1954). Relationships were regarded as s i g n i f i c a n t i f they reached the .05 l e v e l of confidence. The responses, of. female groups A, B and C were s i m i l a r i l y compared on each item of the Questionnaire using Ghi-square analysis. Again, relationships were regarded as s i g n i f i c a n t i f they reached the .05 l e v e l of confidence. The other s i x Questionnaire items were summarized i n the form of averages (eg. mean number of times per month Group 1 washed car). 3. Administration and S t a t i s t i c a l Treatment of the Personality Test  In order to explore the relationships between personality variables and the frequency and status of dating the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey was administered to a separate group of 99 subjects. At the same time, these subjects were asked to com-plete the separate section of the Questionnaire regarding dating behavior. See page ^5. The Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey i s designed to measure 1G personality t r a i t s : G-General A c t i v i t y , R-Restraint, A-Ascendance, S - S o c i a b i l i t y , E-Emotional S t a b i l i t y , 0-Objectivity, P-Priendliness, T-Thoughtfulness, P-Personal Relations and M-Masculinity (Guilford and Zimmerman, 1949, pp. 5-8). Administration of Personality Test A t o t a l of 99 white, unmarried subjects, 52 male and 47 female, were tested i n small groups under supervision. The subjects were a l l volunteers. The majority were from f i r s t and second year Psychology courses. Mean ages were 20,45 years for the males; 19.34 years for the females. The testing was given during the middle two weeks of March, approximately three weeks before f i n a l examinations and a week after the Questionnaire was administered. Subjects were instructed to f i l l i n the Gui l f o r d -Zimmerman Temperament Survey f i r s t , then proceed to the attached questions regarding their dating behavior. They were requested to be as t r u t h f u l as possible. See Appendix G (a) for complete inst r u c t i o n s . Determination of dating categories (a) males The 52 males were s p l i t into two groups — M-Alphas or frequent "daters"; M-Betas or infrequent "daters". The males' dating averages were determined to develop cut-off points: the "non-steadies" averaged 2.35 dates for the past month and 1.89 dates per month for the past year. Three dates i n the past month and/or 20 dates in the past year were set as the cut-off points. See Table 3. TABLE 3 (b) females The 47 females were s p l i t into two groups — IP-Alphas or frequent "daters"; F-Betas or infrequent "daters" The females' dating averages were determined to TABLE 3 DATING CATEGORIES FOR USE WITH THE GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY 50 Males Group Description C r i t e r i o n M-Alpha frequent IT-Beta infrequent (a) defined selves as going steady (b) 3 or more dates during past month 0-2 dates during past month; 20 or less dates during past year n I 27 25 52 Females F-Alpha frequent F-Beta infrequent B (a) defined selves as going steady (b) 7 or more dates during past month 6 or less dates during past month 25 n 22 47 develop a cut-off point: "steadies" averaged 8.88 dates during the past month and seven dates per month for the past year; "non-steadies" averaged 6.08 dates for the past month and 4.31 dates per month for the past year. Seven dates during the past month was set as the cut-off point. See Table 3. S t a t i s t i c a l Treatment The responses of the two male groups M-Alphas and M-Betas were compared on each t r a i t of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey using t-score analysis (McNemar, 1949; Gui l f o r d , 1942), Relationships were regarded as s i g n i f i c a n t i f they reached the .05 l e v e l of confidence. The responses of the two female groups F-Alphas and F-Betas were compared on each t r a i t of the G u i l f o r Zimmerman Temperament Survey using t-score analysis. Relationships were regarded as s i g n i f i c a n t i f they reached the .05 l e v e l of confidence. CHAPTER IV THE RESULTS As w i l l be re c a l l e d , the procedure involved the use of three techniques: (a) Subjective Survey; (b) Questionnaire; (c) Guilford«»Zimmerman Temperament Survey and a section regarding dating behavior. 1, Results of Subjective Survey The £ubjective Survey was employed to define terms and to obtain item p o s s i b i l i t i e s . The analysis of the Subjective Survey established popular def-i n i t i o n s for the terms: "a date" and "going steady". They were: "A date": a d e f i n i t e pre-arrangement and mutual agreement between members of the opposite sex to do something together. : not a chance or casual meeting, such as a boy meeting a g i r l at a dance and taking her home. "Going Steady": the mutual agreement of a couple to date one another exclusively. The d e f i n i t i o n of a "date" was incorporated i n the section regarding dating behavior for use i n the Questionnaire and with the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey. The de f i n i t i o n s of both a "date" and "going steady" aided i n the assignment of subjects to the various dating categories. To obtain item p o s s i b i l i t i e s , the group's popular conceptions of persons having different frequency and status of datingwere derived. In b r i e f , the infrequent "dater" was seen as (a) the shy, s e n s i t i v e , insecure person or (b) the aggress-ive, independent, n e g a t i v i s t i c i n d i v i d u a l . The infrequent "dater" lacked s o c i a l s k i l l s and personal possessions conducive to dating (appropriate clothes, a car, e t c . ) . The frequent "dater" was either (a) the mature, confident, f l e x i b l e , f r i e n d l y person or (b) the insecure, aggressive type. The frequent "dater" was a t h l e t i c , a t t r a c t i v e , graceful and s k i l l f u l s o c i a l l y . They possessed such things as a convertible, f i n e clothes, etc. The "going steady" person was subdivided into four personality types: (a) the m i s f i t seeking security; (b) the possessive, self-centered, demanding i n d i v i d -ual; (c) the d o c i l e , non-aggressive person; and (d) the mature, confident, f r i e n d l y person, who had found his/her "true love". The person "going steady" was considered to f a l l between the infrequent and frequent "daters" regarding personal possessions and s o c i a l s k i l i s . 54 2. Results of the Questionnaire The Questionnaire was employed to t e B t for s i g n i f i c a n t relationships between the various dating categories and each personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and a c t i v i t y item. For a more detailed analysis of Questionnaire r e s u l t s , see Appendix S, Of the 51 check-type items the following s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between the four male dating categories ( l ) infrequent, (11) average, (111) frequent, (IV) "steadies" — at the .01 l e v e l of confidence: physical health (item 11), wearing desert boots (item 39), playing on a t h l e t i c team (item 48), water s k i i n g (item 46), playing b i l l i a r d s (item 46), s k i i n g (item 46), j i v e (item 44), tango (item 44), l i s t e n i n g to jazz (item 45), preferring musicals (item 54), money spent on entertainment (item 29), time Bpent oh entertainment (item 24), regular access to auto-mobile (item 30), drinking (item 41), having "gone steady" previously (item 60). Of the 51 check-type items the following s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between the three female dating categories — (A) infrequent, (B) frequent, (C) "steadies" — at the .01 l e v e l of confidence: l i s t e n i n g to jazz (item 45), j i v e (item 44), smoking (item 40), having "gone steady" previously (item 60). Items that s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d "between the four male dating categories at the .02 l e v e l of confidence were: physical attractiveness (item 15), wearing a s u i t (item 39), wearing a white s h i r t and t i e (item 39), swimming (item 46). The item that s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d be-tween the three female dating categories at the .02 l e v e l of confidence was: number of years intend to spend at un i v e r s i t y (item 16). Items that s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between the four male dating categories at the .05 l e v e l of confidence were: physique (item 12), wearing an a t h l e t i c crest (item 39), wearing suede shoes (item 39), waltz (item 44), rhumba (item 44), preferring westerns (item 54), smoking (item 40). Items that s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between the three female dating categories at the .05 l e v e l of confidence were: ice-skating (item 46), rhumba (item 44), tango (item 44), going to movies (item 52), money spent on entertainment (item 29), whitewalls (Item 34), drinking (item 41), f i r s t year at UBC or not (item 20). Items that tended toward significance (.10 l e v e l of confidence) were: (a) for males: age (item 2), d u c k b i l l haircut (item 38), wearing Ivy league clothes (item 39), wearing semi-drapes (item 39), grade 12 grade (item 17), number of subjects taking at UBC (item 19), f i r s t year at UBG or not (item 20); (b) for females: height (item 4), foxtrot (item 44), samba (item 44), time spent on entertainment (item 24), soft-top or hard-top convertible (item 34). Of the factors which d i f f e r e n t i a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y amongst the various dating categories, inspection of the chi-square table revealed the following trends: (a) frequency of dating i n males tended to be p o s i t i v e l y related to endorsement of the items; health (10); mUSCularature (11); physical attractiveness (15); going out for entertainment (24); regular access to an auto-mobile (30); wearing desert boots (39), suede shoes (39), white s h i r t and t i e (39); drinking (41); s k i i n g (46); playing b i l l i a r d s (46); water-skiing (46); playing on a t h l e t i c team (48); and preferring musicals (54). (b) frequency of dating i n both males and females tended to be p o s i t i v e l y related to: spending money on entertain-ment (29); dancing a b i l i t y , j i v e (44), tango (44), foxtrot (44), samba (44); and previous experience of "going steady" (60). (c) frequency of dating i n females tended to be po s i t i v e -l y related to going to the movies (52); smoking (40) tended to increase with frequency of dating i n females fo r the infrequent and frequent dating groups; but the female "steadies" tended to smoke far l e s s . (d) both male and female average and frequent dating groups tended to l i s t e n to jazz (45) while both male and female "steadies" did not endorse this item. As regards to the s i x other questions that were treated separately* the following differences were found by inspection of the frequencies. The data were not amendable to treatment by chi-square: (a) washing and vacuuming of car increases with frequency of dating; (b) frequent "daters" commence dating at a younger age; (c) infrequent "daters" tend not to go to drive-ins; (d) the dating pattern of a same-sex s i b l i n g tends to be followed; (e) female "only" children tend to "go steady"; (f) only 48$ of male "go steadies" had previously "gone steady"; but 78$ of female "go steadies" had previously "gone steady". For detailed analysis and s t a t i s t i c a l support for these findings, see Appendix E. 3. Results of the Personality Test Of the 10 Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey t r a i t s , the following s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between the two male dating categories (frequent and infrequent "daters"): G-General A c t i v i t y at the .05 l e v e l of confidence and S - S o c i a b i l i t y at the .01 l e v e l of confidence. Male frequent "daters" were higher than male infrequent"daters" on both G-General A c t i v i t y and 3 - S o c i a b i l i t y . Table 4 Table 4 Comparison of Frequent (M-Alpha) with Infrequent (M-Beta) Male Dating Groups on the 10 t r a i t s of the Guilford-Zimmerman Males Temperament Survey r a i t Des c r i p t i o n M- Alpha Mean Score M-Beta Mean Score i sign. G General A c t i v i t y 16.67 13.32 2.14 .05 R Restraint 15.15 16.36 .89 n.s. A Ascendance 15.11 12.96 1.58 n.s. 3 S o c i a b i l i t y 20.33 14.84 3.06 .01 E Emotional S t a b i l i t y 16.88 14.72 1.43 n.s. 0 Obj e c t i v i t y 18.67 17 .20 1.08 n.s. F Friendliness 15.30 14.48 .56 n.s. T Thoughtfulness 18.44 19.32 .64 n.s. P Personal Relations 16.81 18.08 .84 n.s. M Masculinity 20.52 18.24 1.94 n.s. Of the 10 Guilford-2immerman Temperament Survey t r a i t s , the following differences were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l of confidence: female frequent "daters" were higher than female infrequent "daters" on S - S o c i a b i l i t y and A-Ascendance. At the .05 l e v e l of confidence, the female frequent "daters" were s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the female infrequent "daters" on ^-Friendliness. Table 5 Thus, according to the de f i n i t i o n s of these t r a i t s offered by Guilford-Zimmerman, the frequent male "dater" as compared to the infrequent male "dater" was seen as: setting a rapid pace of a c t i v i t i e s , energetic, busy, productive, e f f i c i e n t , hurrying, quick i n action, en-th u s i a s t i c , l i v e l y , l i k i n g speed, having many friends and acquaintances, entering into conversations, l i k i n g s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s , seeking s o c i a l contacts and l i m e l i g h t . According to the de f i n i t i o n s of these t r a i t s offered by GuiIford-Zimmerman, the frequent female "dater" as compared to the infrequent was seen as: having many friends and acquaintances, entering into conversations, l i k i n g s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s . , seeking s o c i a l contacts and li m e l i g h t , s e l f defensive, exhibiting leadership habits, no hesitation to speaking with individuals or i n public, persuading others, being conspicuous, b l u f f i n g , h o s t i l e , b e l l i g e r e n t , resent-f u l , resistant to domination, desiring to dominate, having contempt for others and ready to f i g h t . For more detailed analysis, see Tables 4 and 5. Table 5 Comparison of Frequent (F-Alpha) with Infrequent (F«Beta) Female Dating Groups on the 10 t r a i t s of the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey Females r a i t Description F-Alpha Mean Score F-Beta Mean Score t sign. G General A c t i v i t y 16.24 13.82 1.38 n.s. R Res t r a i n t 16.20 17.50 .74 n.s. A Ascendance 16.04 8.86 4.15 .01 S S o c i a b i l i t y 19.92 14.00 3.38 .01 E Emo t i o n a l S t a b i l i t y 15.60 12.41 1.88 n.s. 0 Obj e c t i v i t y 15.64 15.32 .23 n.s. F Friendliness 15.08 18.18 2.30 .05 T Thoughtfulness 20.80 19.82 .77 n.s. P Personal Relations 16.24 17.68 .97 n.s. M Masculinity 11.68 11.23 .35 n.s. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION OP RESULTS 1. SiscuBBion of the Subjective Survey Results Analysis of the Subjective Survey reveals that the popular conception regarding individuals who have di f f e r e n t dating patterns consists of two main aspects: (a) m a t e r i a l i s t i c factors (possession of automobile, appropriate clothes, etc.; (b) personality factors (maturity and getting along w e l l with people). The emphasis on m a t e r i a l i s t i c aspects lends support to Waller's theory, while the emphasis of maturity and s o c i a l s k i l l s supports the various learning approaches to dating behavior (Lowrie, Blood, Burgess, Locke, Vernon and Stewart), 2. Discussion of the Questionnaire Results Support for (a) the biological-based; (b) ViTallerian and (c) learning theories of dating was provided by the Questionnaire data. (a) The biological-based theories were supported to some extent by the fin d i n g that frequency of dating was p o s i t i v e l y related to such physical factors as health (item 11), attractiveness (item 15) and physique (item 12) for males, (b) Waller's dalliance dating theory was upheld by the findings that frequency of dating was p o s i t i v e l y related to clothes (item 39), sports a c t i v i t i e s (item 46, item 48), dancing (item 44), automobiles (item 30) for males: and dancing (item 44) and automo-b i l e s (item 34) for females. The car cleanliness (item 33) and car ownership indices (item 30) also support Wallerian theory: (a) the frequent "dater" tending to wash and vacuum his car more often and (b) the frequent "dating" group tending to own more cars. (c) Using a learning approach, Lowrie (1956!) found that the frequent "dater" tended to s t a r t dating younger than the infrequent "dater". This was support-ed by the data concerning age of f i r s t date (item 47). For d e t a i l s see Appendix D ( c ) . The learning theories were also supported by the tendency for the frequency of dating behavior to be p o s i t i v e l y related to previous experience of "going steady". An apparent exception to this general rule i s found i n the male "steadies" (Group IV) who had an incidence of previous "steady" experience considerably below that of the frequent "daters" (Group 111). See Appendix D (c)i Recently the question of whether dating behavior i s related to academic performance has been raised by many educators. The findings indicate that there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between frequency of dat-ing and academic performance either at the Grade 12 or f i r s t year un i v e r s i t y l e v e l . I t would seem valuable to l i s t , at this point, findings from the Questionnaire which have not previous-l y been reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e on dating behavior. I t i s true that some of these findings have been reported i n rather general fashion, but not i n the spec-i f i c d e t a i l given here. (a) that physical attributes (physical health, attractiveness, physique) are p o s i t i v e l y related to frequency of dating; (b) that s p e c i f i c items of clothes (wearing desert boots, a s u i t , suede shoes, white s h i r t and t i e and an a t h l e t i c crest) are a l l related to frequency of dating; (c) that s p e c i f i c dances ( j i v e , tango, waltz, rhumba) are p o s i t i v e l y related to frequency of dating; (d) that certain l i k e s - d i s l i k e s ( l i s t e n i n g to jaz z , preferring musical and western movies) are related to frequency of dating; (e) that smoking and drinking are p o s i t i v e l y related to frequency of dating; (f ) that s p e c i f i c a t h l e t i c a c t i v i t i e s (swimming, s k i i n g , ice-skating, playing b i l l i a r d s and water-skiing) are p o s i t i v e l y related to frequency of dating; (g) that vacumming and washing of a car increases with frequency of dating; (h) that the dating pattern of a same-sex s i b l i n g tends to be followed; ( i ) that female "only" children tend to "go steady" See Appendix E ( f ) . 3. Discussion of Personality Test Results The Personality test findings question the popular opinion that personality variables are the most im-portant factors related to the frequency and status of dating. Out of a possible 10 Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey t r a i t s , only two were s i g n i f i c a n t for men; three for women. Three of these t r a i t s ( S - S o c i a b i l i t y , A-Ascendance, G-General A c t i v i t y ) are uncomfortably intercorrelated. Guilford and Zimmerman (1949, p. 6) report the following i n t e r -correlations: S - S o c i a b i l i t y and A-Ascendance,+61; S - S o c i a b i l i t y and G-General Activity, - f-35; G-General A c t i v i t y and A-Ascendance,-f34. I t might well be that one basic f a c t o r , underlying S - S o c i a b i l i t y , A-Ascendance, G-General A c t i v i t y , i s related to the frequency and status of datingi The Personality test findings support learning and Adlerian approaches to the study of dating be-havior, A learning approach was supported by the finding that frequency of dating was p o s i t i v e l y related to 3 - S o c i a b i l i t y . The frequent "dater" was sociable,, had many friends, entered into conversations e a s i l y , l i k e s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s and sought s o c i a l contacts. The Adlerian approach was supported by (a) the negative relationship between frequency of dating i n females and F-Friendliness (the frequent female "dater" being more domineering and hostile); and (b) the positive relationship between frequency of dating and A-Ascendance i n both males and females - . CHAPTER VI A PROPOSED THEORY OF SEXUAL CHOICE. In Chapter 11 variouB approaches and theories to the dating-mating problem were discussed. Each of these have received some support from research. The Wallerian and learning approaches p a r t i c u l a r l y were reinforced by the present study. However, since none of these seem yet to offer a f i n a l solution to this problem, i t was f e l t that i t might be valuable to develop one further theoretical formulation. The Theory of Normal-Neurotic Sexual Choice With reference to Table 1 i n which various theories and approaches were c l a s s i f i e d , the Theory of Normal-Neurotic Sexual Choice would be placed in the sub-section on personality i n the psychological category (7). The following i s a br i e f outline of the major aspects of this theory. The normal sexual choice occurs when the person can: manipulate the subtle s o c i a l barriers adequately to mate with the opposite sex member who i s most phys i o l o g i c a l l y and psychologically compatible. He i s then f u l l y capable of r e a l i z i n g his sexual potential with this triost-compatible mate. A "neurotic" sexual choice occurs when the person seriously f a i l s to a t t a i n this pattern of normal adjustment. I t may "be concluded then that very few people ever a t t a i n completely normal mating adjustment and, therefore that there are degrees of normal-neurotic dating and mating. The s c i e n t i f i c determination of whether a choice was normal or "neurotic" depends on a careful study of the personality of the individuals involved, which includes analysis of the t o t a l motivational pattern of the man and the woman, plus analysis of the nature of their i n t e r a c t i o n . The main points of the theory are: (a) The extension of emotional affection involves the danger of rej e c t i o n and consequent ego damage. (b) The amount and extent of possible ego damage i s proportional to the amount and extent of desire (the more the desire, the more the possible ego damage) (c) The theme of possible rejection i s learned very early i n l i f e during the child-parent, c h i l d - s i b l i n g adjustment phase and i s reinforced i n American culture by the dating system which stresses intermittent rej ection. (d) Added to this basic theme are the forces that negatively influence normal choice. These may be either s o c i a l (eg. romantic myth) or b i o l o g i c a l (eg. i n s u f f i c i e n t sex hormone). (e) A second theme i s the problem of s o c i a l and personal perception. F i r s t l y , the i n d i v i d u a l making a normal sexual choice must adequately perceive the i m p l i c i t and e x p l i c i t s o c i a l meanings involved i n dating a person who would not be defined as a "proper mate" (eg. a Negro person dating a white person). Secondly, he must adequately understand his own motives. ( f ) The same overt form of action may be a normal or "neurotic" choice — the normal choice i s r a t i o n a l and mature, balancing emotion and i n t e l l e c t ; the "neurotic" choice i s f r u s t r a t i o n - i n s t i g a t e d , fear-driven and anxiety-laden, often using defense mechanisms to hide c o n f l i c t i n g motivations from s e l f . (g) A normal appearing marriage relationship may be the re s u l t of a normal or "neurotic" sexual choice. If normal, the couple have actu a l l y chosen the i r preferred mates. I f "neurotic", either one or both have not, but they may get along s u p e r f i c i a l l y adequately since they no longer fear ego damage i n competition for a preferred choice. (h) I t i s the opinion of the writer that the mechanism of sexual choice i n contemporary American society tends to be more "neurotic" than normal. ( i ) A normal person may divorce. An i n d i v i d u a l may marry "neurotically"; r e a l i z e this "neurotic" choice; f i n d the preferred choice; divorce and marry the preferred one. Or a person may marry normally; gradually "build a fear of hurt; divorce; and marry a lesser choice " n e u r o t i c a l l y " . Thus, the "neurotic" choice may be found i n any of our e a r l i e r defined dating groups: (1) infrequent dating group: the "neurotic" choice protects the person from ego damage because he simply does not date. This form of adjustment involves two repressions — of the sex urge i t s e l f and of sex desire for any p a r t i c u l a r person. (2) average dating group: i f the i n d i v i d u a l uses a "neurotic" choice, he never allows the relationship to go beyond a t r i v i a l , l i g h t phase; no deep attach-ment i s ever formed, (3) frequent dating group: i f the person uses a neurotic" choice i n this group, he always has more than one person available to date. If one rejects him, there i s always a second p o s s i b i l i t y . (4) the "go steady" group: the "neurotic" choice here involves "going steady" i n the Wallerian pattern of the dating of rejected types. (See page 1% ) The central theme throughout i s that the person taking the "neurotic" choice does so because he has learned that the price of competition i s r e j e c t i o n . Therefore, he defends himself against possible re-j e c t i o n . The "neurotic" reaction usually contains some form of denial of desire f o r the preferred person. An example may make the theory's basic assumptions clearer: N has a choice between two members of the opposite sex: A, the most desired one; B, the less desired one. If N makes a "neurotic" choice, he may come to date or mate with B since B cannot hurt u*s s e l f esteem as much as A. The usual r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s , repressions, etc., occur during the process. Often, N w i l l s t a r t out with a normal choice and pick A; but because N i s over-anxious or over-desiring, he w i l l tend to force A away from him. In the next s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n N i s less l i k e l y to choose his preferred choice. Kow does this theory f i t with other theories cited i n Chapter 11? I t questions pre-destination theory because dating i s seen as selective on either a conscious or unconscious l e v e l . There may be one person that i a more .compatible than another; but whether there i s just one compatible person i s highly debatable. I t i s more l i k e l y that certain people are compatible i n one way, while other people are compatible i n other ways. I t agrees somewhat with Darwin's aesthetic preference, E l l i s ' simple sensory stimulation and Weininger's maleness-femaleness theories; i n that, these theories may describe some of the c r i t e r i a for normal choice. I t queries any "biological basis for promiscuity, believing promiscuity to be rather a result of a "neurotic" rather than a normal sexual dat-ing pattern. I t agrees with Davis' s o c i o - b i o l o g i c a l approach, i n that the customs of our society tend to contribute to the development of "neurotic" sexual choice. I t agrees with assortative mating theories j i n that occupational, r e s i d e n t i a l propinquity, etc. are some of the s o c i a l l i m i t s i n which normal or "neurotic" choices operate. I t agrees with process learning theory i n that empathy i s one of the int e r a c t i v e processes that bring the couple together whether the choice i s normal or "neurotic". I t i s apparent that much investigation i s required to test the Theory of Normal-Neurotic Sexual Choice. The following section i s an attempt to outline some suggestions for further research, growing out of this theory and the others c i t e d i n Chapter 11. CHAPTER V I 1 POSSIBLE RESEARCH A l l the research p o s s i b i l i t i e s could not be out-lined i n the space available. The following i s only a sample of what seem to be some of the best possib-i l i t i e s . 1 . Determination of Actual Behavior The p r i n c i p a l need i s the development of more adequate measuring devices. Since every correlation w i l l eventually be made against frequency and status of dating, every available technique should be used to determine the person's actual behavior. This survey used a questionnaire technique; i t could be repeated with an improved questionnaire using more refine measurements on a larger sample. A c a r e f u l l y developed interview technique would seem to offer even better p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Another approach would involve investigating r e a l l i f e s ituations either through watching various kinds of mixed-3ex gatherings through a one-way screen, or through particip a n t observation. 2. ReteBt of Waller's Dalliance Hypothesis (a) Through a longitudinal study of the dating behavior or several individuals i t could be ascertained whether or not there i s a tendency to select successive partners i n terms of higher s o c i a l status, better automobiles, more appropriate clothesi etc. In addition, those that are rejected as partners should have a lower rating of a l l such Wallerian variables than those accepted. (t>) A preliminary separate study to develop more precise Wallerian variable measurement would probably be needed; This would require the development of r a t i n g scales to be used on a-larger sample to determine the prestige the group a c t u a l l y gave d i f f e r e n t Wallerian variables: for example, 1959 Mercury Montclair vs. 1957 Buick Century hard-top; what c r i t e r i a are used to determine the "best dancer"? (c) To match individuals on relevant Wallerian variables (automobile, a b i l i t y to dance, etc.) and then investigate the non-Wallerian factors (eg. personality t r a i t s , propinquity, etc.) which operate to produce sexual choice. 3. The Physical-Psychological Factors This and numerous other studies have supported the conclusion that physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are im-portant i n the frequency and status of dating. The material cited on pages ?^ 3S suggested the i n t e r a c t i o n of three variables: (a) onset of pubertal characteris-t i c s ; (b) degree of maleness-femaleness of these char a c t e r i s t i c s and (c) the effect this pubertal reaction has on the individuals personality. I t emphasizes also the role of health and the interaction of physical and psychological factors. This would, of course, open up many inte r e s t i n g studies. For example: Factors contributing to physical attractiveness could he studied by having subjects respond favorably or unfavorably to varying s i l -houettes of male and female fi g u r e s . Hair color, eye color, r e l a t i v e heights could be s i m i l a r l y studied as independent variables. The long range goal i s to develop the culture's images of male and female beauty. Another approach would be'to develop a scale elaborating i n considerable d e t a i l the a c t i v i t y items on the Questionnaire. S t i l l another would be to correlate various aspects of the individual's medical h i s t o r y and health status with frequency and status of dating. 4. Developmental Factors Developmental studies, analogous to those done by Gesell on children (1957), need to be carried out with adolescents and young adults. We now have no exact knowledge of the rate and nature of the develop-ment of s o c i a l s k i l l s and motor coordination and s k i l l s . Presumably the stage of development of an i n d i v i d u a l may have an important bearing on his dating behavior, 5, The Sociological Factor (a) Propinquity theory probably needs re-examina-tion since the automobile may have caused r e s i d e n t i a l proximity to "be of less importance now than i t was when the o r i g i n a l studies were completed, (b) I t might be p r o f i t a b l e to hold certain homogamous factors constant i n order to see i f psycho-l o g i c a l variables operated. For example: Is choice made on the basis of parental image, p r e f e r e n t i a l mating or complementary needs, etc. when one chooses between possible dates i n the same profession, locale, r e l i g i o n , etc.? Hollingshead (1949) found s o c i a l class a distinquishing f a c t o r . What select i v e factors operate within a s o c i a l class? (c) Sub-cultural studies — analogous to Hollings-head 's Elmtown (1949) and Whyte's Street Corner Society (1955) are needed i n order to investigate the p o s s i b i l -i t y that differences i n dating patterns e x i s t i n various sub-cultures. (c) The problem of sub-cultures brings i n the influence of cross-cultural dating. A careful study of the type of person who dates out of his group (eg. white with Negro) and what happens to this person s o c i a l l y , etc., would probably bring p r o f i t a b l e information. (d) Wood (1959) and Waller (1938) maintain that sex ratios affect the dating pattern. The hypothesis might be forwarded: that d i f f e r e n t patterns would arise i n u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t i e s with different sex r a t i o s . For example: at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia (See Appendix B) engineering, medical and commerce students might date d i f f e r e n t l y than the Arts students studied i n this investigation. 6. The Factors of S o c i a l Influence (a) From the Questionnaire data on s i b l i n g ' s ages and a c t i v i t y , there i s a suggestion that c h i l d - s i b l i n g and parent-child relations are important. The two s i g n i f i c a n t variables seem to be the dating a c t i v i t y of the s i b l i n g and the attitudes of parent and c h i l d . (b) From the discrepancies on the entertainment questions (item 24), (item 29), there i s a hint that two important variables may operate: the attitudes and a c t i v i t i e s of same-sex friends; the extent the subject actually searches for a dating partner. Does he or she go to places where he/she can meet the oppo-s i t e sex? Riesman's (1955) hypothesis that the character of American people i s formed c h i e f l y by the example of their peers and contemporaries suggests that same-sex friends may exert important influences here. It i s hoped that i n the near future a l l these areas might be subjected to intensive investigation. In terms of p r i o r i t i e s , the writer's preference would be to study the influence of physical factors (attractiveness, coordination, musculature) i n r e l a t i o n to frequency and status of dating. REFERENCES Adler, A. Practice and theory of ind i v i d u a l psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1924. Ausubel, D.P. Theory and problems of adolescent develop- ment. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1954. Eaber, R. E. Marriage and the family. New York: McGraw-H i l l , 1939, 154-200. Blood, R.O. A re test of Waller's rating complex. Marriage  Fam. L i v i n g . 1955, 17., 41-47. Elood, R.O. Uniformities and d i v e r s i t i e s i n campus dating preferences. Marriage Fam. L i v i n g . 1956, 16. 37-45. Blum, G.S. Psychoanalytic theories of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1953. Eossard, J.H.S. Marriage and the c h i l d . Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1940, 80-82. Eossard, X.H.S. & B o l l , E.S. Why marriages go wrong. New York: Ronald Press, 1958. B r i l l , A. (Ed.) The basic writings of Sigmund Freud. New York: Random House', 1938. Burgess, E.W. & C o t t r e l l , L. S. Predicting success or  f a i l u r e i n marriage. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1939. Burgess, E.W. & Locke, E.J. The family. New York: American Book, 1945. Eurgess, E.W. & Locke, H.J. Comment on Lowrie's "dating theories and student responses". Amer. s o c i o l . Rev.. 1951, 16, 843-844. Burgess, E.W. & Wallin, P. Homogamy i n personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . J . abnorm. soc. psychol.. 1944, 39, 475-481. Byrd, O.E. Family l i f e sourcebook. Stanford, C a l i f . : Stanford Univ. Press, 1956. C r i s t , J.R. High school dating as a behavior system. Marriage Fam. L i v i n g , 1953, 15, 23-28. Cruze, W.W. Adolescent psychology and development. New York: Ronald Press, 1953. 78 Darwin, G. The o r i g i n of species. Akron, Ohio: Werner, 1872 (copyright 1859J. Davis, Katharine. Factors i n the sex l i f e of twenty-two hundred women. New York: Harper, 1929. Davis, K. Human society. New York: Macmillan, 1955, 392-429. Edwards, A.L. S t a t i s t i c a l methods for the "behavioral  sciences. New York: Rinehart, 1954. Ehrmann, W.W. Influence of comparative s o c i a l class of companion upon premarital heterosexual behavior. Marriage Fam. L i v i n g , 1955, 48-53. Ehrmann, W. W. Student cooperation i n a study of dating behavior. Marriage Fam. L i v i n g , 1952, 14, 322-6. E l l i s , H; Studies i n the psychology of sex: sexual selection i n man. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co., 1925 (copyright 1905). Fleege, U.H. Sel f - r e v e l a t i o n of the adolescent boy. Milwaukee, Wis,: Bruce, 1945, Gesel l , A. Child behavior. New York: D e l l , 1957. Groves, E.R. & Brooks, L.M. Readings i n the family. Chicago: Lippincott, 1934. Groves, E.R. & Groves, G.H, The contemporary American  family. New York: Lippincott, 1947. Guilford, J.P. Fundamental s t a t i s t i c s i n psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1942. Gui l f o r d , J.P. & Zimmerman, W.S. The Guilford-Zimmerman temperament survey: Manual. Beverly H i l l s , C a l i f . : Sheridan Supply Co., 1949. H a l l , G.S. Adolescence: i t s psychology and i t s relations  to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, r e l i g i o n , and education. New York: Appleton, 1904. Hamilton, G.V. & McGowan, K. What i s wrong with  marriage. New York: Albert and Coni, .1930. 79 Harlow, H.F. The Nature of Love. Amer. Psychologist. 1958, 13, 673-685. Herman, R.D* The "Going Steady" complex: a re-examin-ation, Marriage Fam. L i v i n g . 1955, 17, 36-40. Hollingshead, A. B. Elmtown's youth. New York: Wiley, 1949. Hollingworth, L.S. The psychology of the adolescent. New York: Appleton-Century-Grofts, 1928. Hurlock, E.B. Adolescent development. (2d ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1955, Kennedy, R. Premarital r e s i d e n t i a l propinquity and ethnic endogamy. Amer. J . S o c i o l . , 1942-43, 48. 580. Kent, D.P. Subjective factors i n mate selection — an exploratory study. S o c i o l , soc. Res.. 1951, 35, 391-398. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C.E. Sexual  behavior i n the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1948. Kinsey, A.C, Pomeroy, W.B., & Martin, C.E. Sexual behavior i n the human female. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1953. K i r k p a t r i c k , C. A s t a t i s t i c a l investigation of the psychoanalytic theory of mate sel e c t i o n . J . abnorm. soc. Psvchol. f 1937, 32, 427-430. Ki r k p a t r i c k , C. & Caplow, T. Courtship i n a group of Minnesota students. Amer. J . S o c i o l . . 1945, 51, 114-25. K i r k p a t r i c k , C. & Kanin, E, Male sex aggression on a un i v e r s i t y campus. Amer. s o c i o l . Rev., 1957, 22, 52-58. Ktsanes, T. Mate sele c t i o n on the basis of personality type: a study u t i l i z i n g an empirical typology of personality. Amer. s o c i o l . Rev., 1955, 20, 547-551. Lang, R.O. A study of the degree of happiness or un- happiness i n marriage as rated by acquaintances of  the married couples. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Chicago: University of Chicago L i b r a r i e s , 1932. Cited by R.F. Winch. Mate-Selection: a study  of complementary needs. New York: Harper, 1958. LeMasters, E.E. Modern courtship and marriage. New York: Macmillan, 1957. Lewinsohn, R. (trans, by A. Mayce) A history of sexual customs. New York: Harper, 1958 (copyright 1956). Lowrie, 3.H. Dating theories and student responses, Amer. s o c i o l . Rev., 1951, 16, 334-340. Lowrie, S.H. Factors involved i n the frequency of dating. Marriage Fam. L i v i n g , 1956, 18, 46-51, Malinowski, B. Sex and repression i n savage society. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1927. Martinson, F.M. Ego deficiency as a factor i n marriage Amer. s o c i o l . Rev., 1955, 20, 161-64. Mead, M. Male and female. New York: Morrow, 1949. Morgan, L.H. Ancient Society. New York: Holt, 1878. McCormick, T.C. & MacRory, B.E. Group values i n mate selection i n a sample of college g i r l s . Soc. Forces, 1944, 22, 315-7. McLennan, J.F. Studies i n ancient h i s t o r y . London: Macmillan, 1886. McLennan, J.F. Studies i n ancient h i s t o r y : the second  s e r i e s . London: Macmillan, 1896. McNemar, Q. Psychological s t a t i s t i c s . New York: Wiley, 1949. Partridge, E.D. Leadership among adolescent boys. Teach. C o l l . Contr. Educ.. 1934, 608, 15. Pressey, 3.L. & Robinson, F.P. Psychology and the  new education. New York: Harper, 1944. Reals, W.H. Leadership i n the high school, Sch, Rev., 1938, 46, 523-31. Riesman, D., Glazer, N. & Denney, R. The lonely crowd. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1955 (copyright 1950). 81 Roos, D.E. Complementary needs i n mate-selection: a  study based on R-Type factor analysis. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Northwestern University, 1956. Cited by R.3?. Winch. Mate-Selection: a study of  complementary needs. New York: Harper, 1958, S c h i l l e r , B, A quantitative analysis of marriage sele c t i o n i n a small group, J", soc, Psychol., * * a ^ 1932, 3, 297-319. Seidman, J.M. (Ed.) The adolescent: a book of readings. New York: Dryden Press, 1953, Smith, E. & Greenberg Monane, J.H, Courtship values i n a youth sample. Amer. s o c i o l . Rev., 1953, 18, 635-640. Smith, W.M. Rating and dating: a re-study. Marriage  Earn, L i v i n g , 1952, 14, 312-317. Stone, CP. Comparative psychology. (3d ed.) Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1955 (copyright 1934). Strauss, A. The influence of parent-images upon marital choice. Amer. s o c i o l . Rev.^ 1945, 11, 554-9. Terman, L.M. Genetic studies of genius. Stanford, C a l i f . : Stanford Univ. Press, Vol. 2, 1926. Terman, L.M. Psychological factors i n marital happiness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1938. University of B r i t i s h Columbia calendar, 45th session, 1959-60, pp. 513-15. Vernon, G.M* & Stewart, R.L. Empathy as a process i n the dating s i t u a t i o n . Amer. s o c i o l . Rev,, 1957, 22, 48-52. Waller, W. The family: a dynamic interpretation . New York: Cordon, 1938. Weininger, 0. (trans,) Sex and character. New York: Putnam, 1932-5. Williams, R.M. American society: a s o c i o l o g i c a l  i n t e r p r e t a tion . New York: Knopf, 1959, 36-77. Wilson, L. & Kolb, W.L. Soci o l o g i c a l analysis. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1949. Winch, R.F. The theory of complementary needs i n mate-sel e c t i o n : a test of one kind of complementariness. Amer. s o c i o l . Rev., 1955, 20, 52-56. Winch, R.F, Mate-Selection: a study of complementary  needs. New York: Harper, 195Q. Whyte, W.F. Street corner society. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1955 (copyright 1943). Woods, F.J. The American family system. New York: Harper, 1959. APPENDIX A SUBJECTIVE SURVEY 84 Psychological Survey (Boy>Girl Courtship Relations) either one of 1. How would you define a date? Give an example of what i s not a date ( i n your opinion). 2. "What does the teen-age term "going steady" mean? 3. (A) What are the important differences (economic, s o c i a l , l i k e s - d i s l i k e s , possessions, person-a l i t y , etc.) "between the following four groups for males and for females: 17-19 year-olds who: (a) don't date (b) date occasionally (about onoe a month) (c) date frequently (4 to 8 times per month) (d) "go steady" (B) Compare your friends with those with those (C) Compare your friends 'a) who "go steady" ,b) who date frequently c) who don't date (a) who date, but don't "go steady" (b) who 'go steady" (c) who don't date What differences do you see between these groups? APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE Confidential DO HOT WRITS TOUR NAME ON THIS BOOKLET. The following material will remain strictly confidential. Every precaution w i l l be taken to protect year identity and privacy. Check appropriate space for the following items: 1. 8ex: Male Female 2. Age: 16 4 under 17-18 19-20 Over 20 3. Race: White Other 4. Height: Undor 5'7" 5'7"-5'10" 5'H"-6'2" 6'3" 4 Over 5. Weight: Under 140 141-160 lbs. 161-179 lbs. 180 4 Ovor 6. Eye Color: Blue Brown Other 7. Hair Color: Blonde Brown Brunette Red 8. Is your hair naturally: Straight Curly Inbetween 9. Complexion: Dark Medium Pair x 10. Marital status: Single Engaged Married Other 11. Physical health: Excellent Average Poor 12. Physique: Muscular 31ightly Muscular Average Non-muscular 13. Do you wear glasses? Don't Part-time Pull-time 14. Do you suffer from any physical defect? Yes No 15. Where would you rank yourself on physical attractiveness? High ___ Above average Average Below Average Low 16. Providing you pass, how many years do you intend spending i n cniversity? One Two Three Pour Five More than f i v t 17. Pinal average grade obtained, Grade 12: A B C-i- C C-18. Average UBC grade this Christmas: Failure Pass Second F i r s t 19. Number subjects taking: Five Six Other 20. Is this your f i r s t year at UBC? Yes No 21. Not counting lectures, how many hours per week do you spend doing UBC homework? Less than 10 10-20 21-30 31-40 Over 40 22. Including labs, how many hours per week do you actually spend i n lectures? Less than 10 11-15 16-21 Over 22 23. Where do you spend.the majority of your hours studying? At home UBC l i b r a r y In company of friends, but not i n l i b r a r y . Other 24. How many days «f the week do you go out for entertainment? None One Two Three Four Five Six Seven 25. Do you presently have: a part-time job an allowance a scholarship other means of remuneration 26. How many summer vacations have ywu worked? None One Two More than Two 27. Do you presently l i v e : at hose en caspus other? 28. Do you pay board and/or rooi? Yes So 29. How much do you spend per aonth in entertainment? Under $5 $5-10 $11-20 $21-30 Over $30 30. Do you have regular access to an automobile? Yes Nc 31. Year of automobile: 1942 4 older 1046-49 1050-52 1953-54 1955-56 1957-59 1959 32. Indicate make and style: 33. How many times in the past year was the automobile: washed cut-polished simonizod vacuumed 34. Check spaces appropriate to automobile: soft-top convertible hard-top convertible customized whitewalls piwer equipment radi^ heater sun-visor _ _ automatic continental k i t V-3 engine fi-cylinder engine 35. Condition of automobile: Good Average Poor 36. Have you ever owned a motorcycle? Yes M© 37. How do you get to UBC? Car S u 3 Bicycle Walk Other 38. Check, i f i n the past four years y«u have had: pompadour a beard moustache side-burns crewcut duckbill cut 39. Check, i f i n the past four years you have ever frequently worn any of the following to school classes, s o c i a l functions, work, etc.: Ivy league clothes Windbreaker/sweater with a t h l e t i c team crest White cloth Jacket leather windbreaker Cap/hat Golf hat _ Hawaiian s h i r t Suit White s h i r t and t i e aport-Jacket Cowboy hat loafers . oxfords cowboy b^ot.3 Jet boots white bucks suede shoes Jeans drapes semi-drape3 desert boots 40. Smoking habits: Don't Smoke occasionally Smoke frequently Cigarettes Cigars Pipe 41. Drinking habits (alcoholic consumption): Don't Very Occasionally Occasionally Frequently 42. Do you swear, Sen't Very Occasionally Occasionally Frequently 43. Are you able to dance? Yes No 44. I f yes, can you: Jive waits square dance folk iance -3-foxtrot rhumba tango samba Indicate cther(s) 45. 46. Type of music you l i s t e n to: Note Cl a s s i c a l Semi*classical Western Popular Rock'n'roll Jazz Other 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. Vnich of the following do you participate i n : swimming bowling skiing ice-skating rcller-skating b i l l i a r d s tennis golf water-skiing hunting f i 3 h i n g drawing painting writing alnging playing musical instrument photography Other(e) How old were you when you went rut on your f i r s t date? Have you played on an athletic team in the past year? Yes No Have you been on the executive of any club, organization in the past year? Yes No Do you attend religious services? Dor.'t Occasionally FrequenTly_ Aside from school reading, how many novels did you read in the past year? None 1-5 6-10 11-20 Over 20 Approximately how many movies did y.->u attend i n the past year? None 1-10 11-2C 21-40 Over 40 Approximately what percentage of these movies attended were at drive-ins? % In regard to movies, che^k preferences: Musicals Drama Comedy Westerns War pictures Mystery-crime ether Are you parents: l i v i n g together divorced separated remarried one dead both dead Indicate what occupational group your gainfully-employed parent would f i t : business executive professional small business white c o l l a r s k i l l e d manual semi_-skilled unskilled Indicate number of siblings who f i t appropriate columns belcw: Number Age(s) elster(s) brother(s^ Number ill umber married (going engage! ]steady Number dating rand omly I l u m b e r not dating -4-58. Do you presently "go .steady"? Yes No 59. I f so, how long have you been "going steady"? 60. Have you ever gone steady? Yea No 61. I f BO, Indicate age(s) went steady? 62. What does the term "go steady" mean to you? 63. Approximately how many dates have you had in the past 12 months? The following chart i s to be used to summarize your dating behavior as well as you can for the past four weeks. A calendar for the past four weeks Is on the board for your convenience. A date i s defined as a pre-arranged agreement between members of the opposite sex to attend some function or take part in some a c t i v i t y (dance, show, s i t t i n g at home). Instructions: Column One: For males, indicate females you went out with, by F l , f2, etc. For females, indicate males you went out with, by Ml, M2, etc. ie - i f you are a male and you went out with Alice, mark F l , then Joan, mark F2, then Alice, mark F l again. Column Two: Indicate day of week you went out. Sat. Feb. 7 Column Three: Indicate exactly where you went, what a c t i v i t y took part i n . ie + dance at brock h a l l ; movie, capitol, "Auntie Mame" 1) who went with 2) day | 3) where went, what a c t i v i t y took part i n i ( i f you need more apace, use the back cf this page) APPENDIX C SEX RATIOS: MALES TO FEMALES; UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1958-59 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Male Female n % n % University t o t a l 7 ,134 71.7 2,816 28.3 Arts and Science t o t a l 3 ,292 73;1 1,213 26.9 f i r s t year 1 ,559 72.9 580 27.1 second year 882 76.1 277 23.9 t h i r d year 513 71.1 208 28.9 fourth year 338 69.5 148 30.5 Nursing 00.0 224 100.0 Home Economics 00.0 198 100.0 Education 563 38.9 882 61.1 Social Work 32 40.0 48 60.0 Pharmacy 90 72.0 35 28.0 Physical Education 100 76.9 30 23.1 Graduate Studies 471 82.5 100 17.5 Agriculture 136 87.2 20 12.8 Medicine 195 91.5 18 8.5 Law 239 94.8 13 5.2 Architecture 112 95.7 5 4.3 Commerce 576 96.5 21 3.5 Engineering 1,064 99.6 4 .4 Forestry 140 100.0 00.0 (UBC Calendar, 1959-60, pp. 513-15) APPENDIX D INSTRUCTIONS: (A) FOR SPECIAL SECTION ON DATING BEHAVIOR FOR USE WITH THE GUILFORD-ZIMMERMAN TEMPERAMENT SURVEY; (B) FOR USE WITH QUESTIONNAIRE Instructions for the special section on dating behavior for use with the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey. ".: Subjects were instructed to f i l l i n the G u i l f ord-Zimmerman Temperament Survey f i r s t , then proceed to the special section on dating behavior: We are asking you to f i l l i n this questionnaire — i t ' s part of a research project being done by the department. You w i l l notice there are two pages and a booklet. Would you please turn to the mimeographed second page, which i s marked page four. You w i l l see i t i s about dating. Do the f i r s t sheet f i r s t then f i l l i n this page as t r u t h f u l l y as you can. "Now, turn back to the f i r s t page. (Hold up booklet) Before marking this f i r s t page, which i s an answer page, please read the instructions on the cover of this question booklet, (See that subjects read Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey instruc-tions )," Instructions for use with Questionnaire "We are asking you a l l to f i l l i n this questionnaire «*•«• i t ' s part of a research project being done by the department. We know that some of the questions w i l l seem very personal to you — but please bear with us and do the best you can. You're not required to put your name on the questionnaire. "As you can see, i t ' s about dating — something that concerns almost a l l of you —- so I hope y o u ' l l treat t h i B seriously and r e a l i z e we need a l l types of people to answer this — those who go out ten times a month and those who don't go out — a l l we ask i s that you answer i t as t r u t h f u l l y as you cani "I don't think y o u ' l l f i n d the hour a t o t a l loss — being a subject in a psychological study can be a rewarding experience — i t may help you understand some of the problems involved —» and y o u ' l l have the f u l l knowledge you have made a r e a l contribution to science. " I f you make an error while checking the items, just c i r c l e i n your mistake and put the check i n the rig h t place and continue on. "This questionnaire was designed for males — so we hope the g i r l s won't be offended by male-oriented questions. Please make sure you have four pages. I f you meet any problems while answering i t , j u s t raise your hand and Mr. M---, who i s supervising this research, or one of his assistants w i l l help you. " I f Mr. M--- i s fortunate enough to get the data analyzed i n time, be w i l l probably come back and t e l l you about i t i n A p r i l . " "Thank you." APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS: (A) CHI-SQUARES OBTAINED (3) AUTOMOBILE ANALYSIS; (C) AGE, FIRST DATE; (D) DRIVE-IN ATTENDANCE; (E) PREVIOUS "STEADY" EXPERIENCE; (F) FAMILY INFORMATION 97 Chi-squares obtained on Questionnaire Males Females Item Description Ghi-square Level of Sign. Chi-square Level of Sign. 2 Age 11.61 .10 3.26 .20 4 height .76 ns 4.60 .10 5 weight 5.75 ns 1.81 ns 6 eye color 6.81 ns 3.31 ns 7 hair color 2.21 ns 4.21 ns 8 hair texture 3.34 ns 3.67 ns 9 complexion 3.32 .20 10 health 18.56 .01 1.80 ns 11 physique 9.17 .05 3.06 ns 13 glasses 5.74 ns 2,52 ns 14 physical defect 1.91 .20 15 attractiveness 10.42 .02 3.04 ns 16 years intend to spend at univ. 9.02 .20 11.77 .02 17 grade 12 mark 11.32 .10 .78 ns 18 UBC mark .77 ns .55 ns 19 subj ects 5.92 .10 4.13 .20 20 f i r s t year 6.53 .10 6.89 .05 21 hours study 4.26 ns 4.81 ns 22 lectures attend 5.21 ns . 3.83 .20 23 where study 5.29 ns 1.77 ns Males Females [tern Description Ghi-s quare Level of Sign. Ghi-square Level < sign 24 entertainment time spent on 26.95 .01 9.26 .10 25 employment 11.10 ns 3.07 ns 26 vacations worked 3.07 ns 1.42 ns 27 where l i v e 3.36 ns 3.57 ns 28 pay room/hoard 1.59 ns .45 ns 29 money spent on entertainment 44.03 .01 5.99 .05 30 automobile access 26.23 .01 .57 ns 31 year of automobile 4.06 ns 1.91 ns 32 see page /02-33 see page /o%. 34 convertible .70 ns 4.94 .10 whitewalls 5.52 .20 6.85 .05 radio 5.52 .20 2.78 ns sun-visor 1.15 ns 2.36 ns power equipment 1.99 ns heater .75 ns automatic .51 ns 2.85 ns V-8 engine 2.92 ns 6-Cylinder engine 3.22 ns 1.50 ns 35 condition of auto. 2.05 ns .07 ns 36 motorcycle .20 ns Males Females tern Description Chi-square Level of Sign. Ghi-square Level i Sign, 37 transport to UBC 2.49 ns 2.58 ns 38 beard 2.43 ns crewcut 2.04 ns d u c k b i l l cut 7.11 .10 39 Ivy League clothes 6.87 ;10 1.00 ns a t h l e t i c crest 9.39 .05 . leather windbreaker 1.03 ns Hawaiian s h i r t 5.29 ns s u i t 10.74 .20 mm ^ mm white s h i r t / t i e 11.27 .02 mt w «# sport jacket 5.40 .20 loafers 4.96 .20 oxfords 4.86 .20 white bucks 4.77 .20 2.97 ns suede shoes 9.80 .05 2.15 ns j eans .12 ns semi-drapes 6.75 .10 desert boots 12.40 .01 40 smoking 11.16 .05 17.26 .01 41 drinking 22.57 .01 9.19 .05 42 swearing 6.15 ns 5.45 ns 43 dancing .85 ns 44 j ive 22.42 .01 14.03 .01 10G Males Females Description Chi-square Level of Sign. Chi-square Level < Sign, waltz 9.25 .05 square dance 4.78 .20 1.29 ns f o l k dance 7,71 .10 1.01 ns foxtro t 21.55 .01 5.96 .10 rhumba 8.42 .05 6.67 .05 tango 11.77 .01 6.12 .05 samba 5.94 .20 5.82 .10 prefer c l a s s i c a l music .25 ns .44 ns semi-classical 1.42 ns .82 ns wes tern 5.15 .20 popular 3.16 ns .76 ns roc k ' n ' r o l l 2.58 ns 1.20 ns jazz 12.83 .01 9.27 .01 swimming 11.00 .02 .53 ns bowling 4.09 ns .90 ns s k i i n g 15.36 .01 .62 ns ice-skating 9.05 .05 .09 ns ro l l e r - s k a t e 1.72 ns 2.10 ns b i l l i a r d s 14.11 .01 tennis 6.22 .20 2.41 ns golf 2.10 ns 1.46 ns water-skiing 18.58 .01 3.17 ns hunting 1.19 ns 101 Males Females Item Description Chi- Level of Chi- Level of square Sign. square Sign. 46 f i s h i n g drawing painting .83 4.13 ns .20 .37 2.09 ns ns singing 1.65 ns .15 ns w r i t i n g .40 ns play musical instrument 4.61 ns 2.42 ns photography 5.21 .20 2.26 ns 47 see appendix £C^tpau^ 48 a t h l e t i c s 15.75 .01 1.14 ns 49 club executive 5.96 .20 .48 ns 50 re l i g i o u s service attendance 8.49 ns 6.30 .20 51 number novels read 7.61 ns 3.07 ns 52 number movies attend 6.82 ns 11.45 .05 53 see appendix £(d)/p* ^€ K>3 54 prefer musicals 12.97 .01 1.61 ns drama .67 ns 2.37 ns westerns 8.61 .05 war movies 4.81 .20 1.14 ns mys tery-crime 1.15 ns 2.37 ns 55 parental marital stat-us 2.82 ns 2.77 ns 56 parental occupa-t i o n a l status 14.50 ns 13.18 ns 57 see page 60 previous steady experience 26.71 .01 20.15 .01 Items 32-33: ANALYSIS OF AUTOMOBILE QUESTIONS Make, s t y l e , type of automobile were not s i g n i f i c a n t (item 32). The Gar Cleanliness Index i s determined by di v i d i n g the t o t a l number of times washed (cut-polished, etc.) by the number of subjects answering each question (item 33). The Car Ownership Index i s determined by dividing the number of cars by the number of subjects (item 32). Males Car Cleanliness Index Group & Description 1 - very i n -Washed Cut-Polish Simonized Vacuumed frequent 12.83 1.67 3.63 8.76 11 - average 20.72 2.59 3.35 15.14 111 - frequent 22.70 1.67 3.68 19.91 IV - "steadies" 21.58 2.17 3.05 18.50 Females A - infrequent 13.58 2.50 3.37 6.62 B - frequent 14.55 2.40 3.86 8.50 C - "steadies" 13.61 3.67 1.62 15.10 Males Car Ownership Index Groupe&r :. N of cars N of subj. Index Sub Description or : 1 - very i n -frequent 36 73 .49 11 - average 60 76 .79 111 - frequent 38 40 .95 IV - "steadies" 72 79 .91 Females A - infrequent 23 44 .52 B - frequent 36 64 .56 C - "steadies" 24 54 .44 0 5 5 5 2 5 3 103 Item 47: Age, F i r s t Date Males X Age 1 - very infrequent 15.01 11 - average 14.33 111 - very frequent 13.13 IV - steadies 13.97 Females X Age A - infrequent 14.68 B - frequent 13.22 C - steadies 13.44 Item 53; Drive-in Attendance The d r i v e - i n attendance index was determined by: (a) multiplying the percentages by 100; (b) t o t a l l i n g each group's responses; (c) di v i d i n g by the number of subjects answering. Attendance Attendance Males fndex Females Index 1 - Infrequent 3.9 A - infrequent 5.9 11 - average 14.3 B - frequent 8.8 111 - frequent 14.6 G - steadies 8.2 IV - steadies 12.5 Item 60: Previous "Steady" Experience Males Females Group - $ reporting Group - $ reporting description Previous "steady" description Previous "steady" Ifevery i n -frequent 42$ A-infrequent 35$ 11-average 69$ B-frequent 67$ I l l - v e r y frequent 85$ C-steadies:.• 78$ lV-steadies t o t a l : 55$ t o t a l : 62$ TABLE 11 Item 57 -'FAMILY INFORMATION Males Family Structure Group Description % having: 3 B I - very i n -frequent 54.8 61.6 II - average 57;9 59.2 111- very frequent 50.0 62.5 IV - steadies 55.7 65.8 % 'Only" Children 16.4 18.4 12.5 12.6 Family Order 1 Age: S B 19.81 19.96 17.49 18.83 17.35 20.76 18.23 19.69 HETEROSEXUAL ACTIVITY AND STATUS Group Description 1 - very i n -frequent 11 - average 111- very frequent IV - steadies Percentage: Married Engaged 37.7 29.7 32.4 38.5 Going Dating Not Steady Randomly Dating Sisters 7.2 26.1 28.9 6.2 31.2 32.8 5.4 16.2 45.9 8.9 12.8 41.0 Brothers I - very i n -frequent I I - average 111- very frequent IV - steadies 28.7 30.5 34.1 24.7 3.7 6.1 15.9 13.4 31.2 28.0 36.4 32.9 32.5 26.8 11.4 31.9 # - percentages do not necessarily add to 100$ due to not answering groups. TABLE 11 FAMILY INFORMATION (continued) Females Family Structure Family Order Group % having: % "Only" X Age: Description S B Children S B A- infrequent 55.8 65.1 6.9 19. 28 20.25 B- frequent 57.8 64.1 11.0 17. 45 16.65 C- steadies 42.5 50.0 29.6 14.38 16.00 Heterosexual A c t i v i t y and Status Group Description Percentage: Married Engaged Going Dating Steady Randomly Not Dating Sisters A- infrequent 27.7 8.3 27.7 36.1 B- frequent 18.2 12.7 30.9 34.5 C- steadies 9.7 9.7 Brothers 38.7 41.9 A- infrequent 40.0 10.0 30.0 20.0 B- frequent 10.9 9.0 36.4 43.6 G- steadies 18.6 6.9 20.9 53.5 S» S i s t e r B- Brother 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0105959/manifest

Comment

Related Items