The Open Collections website will be unavailable July 27 from 2100-2200 PST ahead of planned usability and performance enhancements on July 28. More information here.

Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Approachability of adults in secondary schools as selected by students Harris, Justine 1969

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

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1969 A2 H37.pdf [ 9.62MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106681.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106681-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106681-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106681-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106681-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106681-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106681-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106681-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106681.ris

Full Text

APPROACHABILITY OF ADULTS IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS AS SELECTED BY STUDENTS by JUSTINE HARRIS B.A., Swarthmore College, 1940 M.Ed., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1967 \. DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in the Faculty of Education We accept this dissertation as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1969 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h 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 r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e 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 o f my Department o r by h i s represen-t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t copying o r 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 a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of Education ; The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date September 8. 1969 i •;| i i ABSTRACT Because students may seek discussions most often with approachable adults, and such discussions may be more potentially helpful than discussions i n i t i a t e d otherwise, approachability of adults on school s t a f f s was studied. Some potential correlates of approachability were examined: sex and age of adults, s i m i l a r i t y - d i s s i m i l a r i t y of students' and adults' value patterns, and adults 1 knowledge of par-t i c u l a r students' value preferences. Five hypotheses based upon the theories of Heider and Newcomb, who postulated that persons are attracted to others perceived as l i k e , were formulated. A sixth hypothesis con-cerning the r e l a t i v e importance of correlates was to be investigated i f the f i r s t five were supported. Adults' approachability was studied for three kinds (contexts) of serious discussions: (1) of an impersonal problem, (2) of vocational choice, and (3) of personal pro-blems. Two kinds of value patterns, factual values and normative/instrumental values, suggested by the theoretical categories of Margenau and Rokeach were studied. Grade-XII students and the adults known to at least 30 percent of them i n each of five B r i t i s h Columbia secondary I l l schools formed the sample. Approachability results were based on 371 students making choices among 115 adults. An adult's approachability score was formed by dividing the times he was chosen for a context by the number of students who knew him. In a l l schools, for a l l contexts, a small number of adult Ss were very often chosen, about a t h i r d chosen by a few students, and about 50 percent not chosen. Results pertaining to hypotheses were: 1. Adults were chosen proportionately more often by students of the same sex for vocational-choice and personal-problems contexts (p < .001, using chi square). In the im-personal-topic context, male adults were chosen proportionately more often by male and female students (p < .001 by chi square t e s t ) . 2. Youngest adults were not chosen proportionately more often for any context. Adults i n the 31-40 and 51-60 age ranges were those chosen proportionately more often i n most schools for a l l contexts (p < .001 by chi square t e s t ) . 3. Students did not choose adults with similar factual-value patterns proportionately more often: no r e l a -tionship was found between s i m i l a r i t y of adults with stu-dents-in-general who knew them and approachability, or between mean value-pattern correlations of an adult with students who chose and did not choose him. i v 4. Students did not choose adults with similar normative/instrumental-value patterns proportionately more often. Neither of the possible relationships noted i n (3) was found. 5. On the basis of results from a sub-sample of 2<7 adults, adults' more accurate knowledge of students' value preferences was not related to t h e i r approachability. A discussion of results included the following points: 1. Students appeared to have made choices on the basis of the adult's school r o l e : s o c i a l studies teachers, most of whom were male, were often chosen for impersonal-topic discussions, suggesting that role rather than sex-s i m i l a r i t y - d i s s i m i l a r i t y led to disproportionate choices; counselors were often chosen for the other two contexts, and several of them were i n the age ranges proportionately more often chosen, suggesting that r o l e , rather than age, may have contributed to the disproportions. 2. Possible gaps i n communication of adults' and students' values to each other and/or weaknesses i n i n s t r u -mentation may have contributed to the lack of clear relationships between approachability and value patterns and knowledge of students' value preferences. Informal observations by the investigator during the course of the study were l i s t e d , among them an apparent V positive relationship between adult l i v e l i n e s s and approach-a b i l i t y . Further research was suggested on the correlates of approachability of adults with similar roles, on adult l i v e l i n e s s and approachability, and on students' perceptions of adults' values and approachability. v i TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I . THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II . THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 5 Attraction Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Value Theory 7 Literature on Attraction and Its Correlates. 10 Studies of General Aspects of Attic cictiori • • • • • • • • • • • « • • » * XX Studies on Attraction and S i m i l a r i t y -D i s s i m i l a r i t y of Pairs . . . . . . . . . . 13 Studies on Attraction and S i m i l a r i t y -D i s s i m i l a r i t y of Values 14 Studies on Value S i m i l a r i t y and Person-Person Interactions 15 Empirical Studies of Values. . . . . . . . 18 Summary. . . . . . . . . . 19 I I I . RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES 21 Sex: Is the Sex of an Adult a Correlate of Approachability . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Age: Is the Acre of the Adult a Correlate of Approachability . . . . . . . 23 Factual Values: Is S i m i l a r i t y -D i s s i m i l a r i t y of Factual Value Patterns a Correlate of Approachability' . . . . . . 24 Normative/Instrumental-Value Patterns: Is S i m i l a r i t y - D i s s i m i l a r i t y of Normative/ Instrumental Value Patterns a Correlate of Approachability 26 Knowledge of Students: Is Adults' Knowledgeability About Students a Correlate of Approachability 27 Relationship of the Aforementioned Variables to' One Another 2 8 Holding Age and Sex of Adults Constant, Do Si m i l a r i t y - D i s s i m i l a r i t y of Value Patterns and Knowledge of Students' Value Preferences Differentiate Between More and Less Approachable Adults 29 v i i CHAPTER Hypotheses . . . . IV. DESIGN OF THE STUDY, PROCEDURES, AND INSTRUMENTS Design . . . . . . . Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . V I PAGE . 30 . 33 . 33 . 34 S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Ins truunsn t s 39 Student Questionnaire 1 (SQ-1) . . . . . . . 40 Student Questionnaire 2 (SQ-2) 41 Student Questionnaire 3 (SQ-3) . . . . . . . 42 Adult Questionnaire (AQ) 42 Q Sort of Factual Values of Students (QF). . 42 Q Sort of Factual Values for Adults (QFa). Q Sort of Normative/Instrumental Values (QN) RESULTS. . . The Sample Results 44 45 48 48 50 Student Sample . . . . . . . . . . ^ Pooling. . . . . . . . 57 57 60 Approachability—Results on the A-Index. . Hypothesis 1: Approachability and Same-and Opposite-Sex Choices . Hypothesis 2: Approachability and Age Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Hypotnesis 4 . . . . . . . . 89 Hypothesis 5 - . 103 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . 114 Results Relating to Approachability. . . . . 115 Same and Opposite Sex Choices: Hypothesis 1. . 121 Vocational-Cnoice Context 126 Personal-Problems Context 129 CHAPTER v i i i PAGE . 131 131 Approachability and Age: Hypothesis 2 . . . . Impersonal-Topic Context u i Vocational-Choice Context. . . . . . . . . . . 133 Personal-Problem Context . . . . . . . . . 134 Approachability and Factual-Value Patterns: Hypothesis 3 . . . . . . Method and Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . Approachability and Normative/Instrumental-Value Patterns: Hypothesis 4. . . . Accurate Selection of Particular Students' Most and Least Preferred Values: Hypothesis 5 . 149 Summary Possible Correlates of Approachability . Conclusions. 136 137 144 152 154 Informally Sensed Correlates of ^ Approachability • * 158 159 LITERATURE CITED -APPENDIX A: Instruments, Direction Sheets, Introductory Material given to Subjects, Details of Administration, and R e l i a b i l i t v Information . 164 APPENDIX B: Supplementary Tables on the Sample. . . . . 189 ix LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE Adults on the Staffs of Five Schools Who Were Known to 30% of the Students i n the Sample, Not Known to 30% of the Students i n the Sample - or Had Not been on Staff at Least 3 Months Before the Investigation. . 49 I I . Adults i n the Sample Who Did and Did Not Complete the 3 Instruments Administered by the Investigator 51 I I I . Characteristics of the Male Adult Sample that Completed AQ: Age-Decade of Adults for Each School and Totals for A l l Schools . . 52 IV. Characteristics of the Female Adult Sample that Completed AQ: Age-Decade of Adults for Each School and Total for a l l Schools. . . 52 V. Number of Students Completing A l l 5 Instru-ments i n Each School, Totals for A l l Schools, and Numbers Completing SQ-1, SQ-2, SQ-3, and QN, and Numbers Not Completina QF 54 VI. Characteristics of the Student Sample: Sex of Students Completing F i r s t 4 Instruments i n Each School and Totals for A l l Schools. . . 55 VII. Characteristics of the Student Sample: Numbers of Students i n Academic, Non-Academic, or Other Courses for Each School and Totals for A l l Schools . 56 VIII. Adults' Scores on Approachability Index for Discussion of an Impersonal Topic—Times Chosen Divided by Number of Students Knowing Each Adulte-Frecmencies for a l l Obtained Ratios . . « . . . . - • • IX. Adults' Scores on Approachability Index for Discussion of Vocational Choice—Times Chosen Divided by Number of Students Knowing Each Adult--Frequencies for a i l Obtained Ratios . -X TABLE X, PAGE XV. A d u l t s ' Scores on A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y Index f o r D i s c u s s i o n of a S e r i o u s P e r s o n a l P r o b l e m -Times Chosen D i v i d e d by Number o f Students Knowing Each A d u l t — F r e q u e n c i e s f o r a l l ^ Obtained R a t i o s X I . Numbers o f A d u l t s Chosen f o r A l l 3 Cont e x t s of A p p r o a c h , f o r 2 C o n t e x t s , f o r 1 C o n t e x t , and Those Never Chosen f o r Any Cont e x t . . X I I . C h o i c e s o f Male and Female A d u l t s by Male and Female Students f o r D i s c u s s i o n s o f Impersonal T o p i c s i n Each S c h o o l 68 X I I I . C hoices of Male and Female A d u l t s bv Male and Female Students f o r D i s c u s s i o n s of Impersonal T o p i c s 68 XIV. Same and Opp o s i t e Sex Choices o f A d u l t s f o r D i s c u s s i o n s o f V o c a t i o n a l C h oice f o r Each S c h o o l 70 Choices of Male and Female A d u l t s bv Male and Female Students f o r D i s c u s s i o n s of V o c a t i o n a l _^ Choice . . -XVI. Same and Opposite Sex Choices o f A d u l t s f o r D i s c u s s i o n s o f P e r s o n a l Problems f o r Each S c h o o l 71 X V I I . Choices of Male and Female A d u l t s by Male and Female Students f o r D i s c u s s i o n of P e r s o n a l Problems 71 X V I I I . Choices of A d u l t s i n 5 Age Ranges f o r D i s -c u s s i o n s of an Impersonal T o p i c f o r Each Sc h o o l 73 XIX. Choices of A d u l t s i n 5 Age Ranges f o r D i s -c u s s i o n s of Impersonal T o p i c s . XX. XXI 73 Choices of A d u l t s i n 5 Age Ranges f o r D i s c u s s i o n s of V o c a t i o n a l Choice f o r Each Sc h o o l Choices of A d u l t s i n 5 Age Rancres f o r D i s -c u s s i o n s of. V o c a t i o n a l Choice / 4 X X I I . Choices of A d u l t s i n 5 Age Ranges f o r D i s -c u s s i o n s of P e r s o n a l Problems i n Each „ i . . . . /o School x i TABLE XXIII. XXIV. XXV. XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX, XXX, Choices'of Adults i n 5 Age Ranges for Dis-cussions of Personal Problems PAGE 76 Approachability Scores--Impersonal Topic Context—and Mean z Scores on Factual-Value — £ Patterns of Students Who Knew Each Adult . . Approachability Scores—Vocational Choice Context—and Mean z^. Scores on Factual-Value Patterns of Students Who Knew Each Adult . . Approachability Scores—Personal Problems Context—and Mean z___ Scores on Factual-Value Patterns of Students Who Knew Each Adult . . XXXI. Summary Table: Coefficients of Correlation, Means, Standard Deviations of Mean Zj- Scores of QF for a l l Adults Who Completed QF, and j?V™"Scorss # » • • © * • » • « * • • » * • • • « Mean Zj- of Each Adult Chosen by 2 or More Students with Students Choosing the Adult and Mean z_r °f Students Not Choosing the Adult, Standard Deviations, Degrees of Freedom, and t Values on Q sort of Factual Values and Approach Index Score for Discussion of an Impersonal Topic . . . . . Mean z^. of Each Adult Chosen by 2 or More Students with Students Choosing the Adult and mean Z j - of Students Not Choosing the Adult, Standard Deviations, Degrees of Freedom, and t Values on Q Sort of Factual Values and Approach Index Score for Dis-cussion of Vocational Choice . . . . . . . . Mean Zj- of Each Adult Chosen by 2 or More Students with Students Choosing the Adult and Mean z_r of Students Not Cnoosing the Adult, Standard Deviations, Decrrees of Freedom, and t Values on Q Sort of Factual Values and Approach Index Score for Dis-cussion of Personal Problems . . Approachability Scores—Impersonal Topic Context—and Mean Zj. Scores on Normative/ Instrumental-Value Patterns of Students Who Knew Each Adult . 78 79 80 81 86 87 88 90 x i i TABLE PAGE XXXIV, XXXV. XXXII. Approachability Scores—Vocational Choice Context—and Mean Z j - Scores on Normative/ Instrumental-Value Patterns of Students Who Knew Each Adult XXXIII. Approachability Scores—Personal Problems Context—and Mean z^ . Scores on Normative/ Instrumental-Value Patterns of Students Who Knew Each Adult . . . . . Summary Table: Coefficients of Correlation, Means. Standard Deviations of Mean Z r Scores for QN. for A l l Adults Who Completed QN, and SCQ3T6S * • • _ • • * • • • • > • • • • • • • < Mean Z j - of Each Adult Chosen by 2 or More Students with Students Choosincr the Adult and Mean z_r of Students Not Choosincr the Adult, Standard Deviations, Degrees of Freedom, and t Values on Q Sort of Normative/Instrumental-Vaiues and Approach Index Score for Discussion of an Impersonal Mean Zj- of Each Adult Chosen by 2 or More Students with Students Choosincr the Adult and Mean Zj- of Students Not Choosing the Adult, Standard Deviations, Decrrees of Freedom, t Values on Q Sort of Normative/ Instrumental Values and Approach Index Scores for Vocational Choice XXXVII. Mean Z j - of Each Adult Chosen by 2 or More Students with Students Choosing the Adult and Mean Z j - of Students Not Choosing the Adult, Standard Deviations, Degrees of Freedom, and t values on Q Sort of Normative/Instrumental Values and Approach Index Score for Discussion of Personal XXXVIII. Composition of the Adult Sub-sample for the Investigation of Adults' Awareness of Student Value Preferences . . . . XXXVI, 91 92 94 99 100 101 104 x i i i TABLE PAGE XXXIX. XL, XLI, XLII, XLI 11 XLIV. XLV. XLVI, Approachability of Adults i n the Sub-sample: Composition of the Adult Sub-sample for Investigation of Adults' Awareness of Student Value P r e f e r e n c e s . . . . . . . . . . . Sub-sample Adults' Mean Scores on Awareness of Students 1 Value Preferences on QF and QN with N's of Students on Which the Mean was Based . . . . Approachability Scores for a Discussion of an Impersonal Topic and Mean Scores on Awareness of Students' Value Preferences on QF for Each Adult i n the Sub-sample. . . . . . Approachability Scores for a Discussion of Vocational Choice and Mean Scores on Awareness of Students' Value Patterns on QF for Each Adult i n the Sub-sample Approachability Scores for Discussions of Personal Problems and Mean Scores on Awareness of Students' Value Patterns on QF for Each Adult' i n the Sub-sample Approachability Scores for a Discussion of an Impersonal Topic and Mean Scores on Awareness of Students' Value Patterns on QN for Each Adult i n the Sub-sample Approachability Scores for a Discussion of Vocational Choice and Mean Scores on Awareness of Students' Value Patterns on QN for Each Adult i n the Sub-sample Approachability Scores for Discussions of Personal Problems and Mean Scores on Awareness of Students' Value Patterns on QN for Each Adult i n the Sub-sample 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 XIV TABLE PAGE XLVII. Characteristics of Adults Chosen for Impersonal Topic Context by 10 Percent or More of Students Who Knew Them . . . . XLVIII. Characteristics of Adults Chosen for Vocational Choice Context by 10 Percent or More of Students Who Knew Them . . . . XLVIX. Characteristics of Adults Chosen for Personal Problems Context by 10 Percent or More of Students Who Knew Them . . . . L. Frequencies of Some Characteristics of Adults Never Chosen for Discussions i n Any Context, Based on 18 Adults, 8 Males, LI. Reasons Given for Choices of Adults f o r Discussions of Impersonal Topics i n SQ-3, by Category, for Each School and Totals for A l l Schools LII. Reasons Given for Choices of Adults for Discussions of Vocational Choice by Category, for Each School and Totals for A l l Schools . . . . . . . LIII. Reasons Given on SQ-3 for Choices of Adults for Discussions of Personal Problems by Category, For Each School and Totals for A l l Schools . 117 118 119 . 120 . 123 124 . 125 XV LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y of A d u l t s f o r Imper s o n a l -PAGE T o p i c Context 6 3 2. A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y o f A d u l t s f o r V o c a t i o n a l -Choice C o n t e x t 6 4 3. A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y of A d u l t s f o r P e r s o n a l -Problems Context 65 4. S c a t t e r p l o t o f P a i r e d Data i n Table XXIV: A Scores f o r Impersonal-Problem C o n t e x t w i t h Mean z^ Scores on QF of A d u l t s w i t h a l l Students Who Knew Them 82 5. S c a t t e r p l o t o f P a i r e d Data i n Table XXV: A Scores f o r V o c a t i o n a l - C h o i c e C o n t e x t w i t h Mean Zj- Scores on QF of A d u l t s w i t h A l l Students Who Knew Them 83 6. S c a t t e r p l o t o f P a i r e d Data i n Table XXVI: A Scores f o r P e r s o n a l - P r o b l e m Context w i t h Mean Zj- Scores on QF o f A d u l t s w i t h A l l Students Who Knew Them 84 7. S c a t t e r p l o t o f P a i r e d Data i n Table XXXI: A Scores f o r Impersonal-Problem C o n t e x t w i t h Mean z_r Scores on QN of A d u l t s w i t h a l l Students Who Knew Them 95 8. S c a t t e r p l o t o f P a i r e d Data i n Table XXXII: A Scores f o r V o c a t i o n a l - C h o i c e Context w i t h Mean Zj- Scores on QN of A d u l t s w i t h A l l Students Who Knew Them 96 9. S c a t t e r p l o t o f P a i r e d Data i n Table X X X I I I : A Scores f o r P e r s o n a l - P r o b l e m Context w i t h Mean Zj~ Scores on QN of A d u l t s w i t h A l l Students Who Knew Them 97 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM "I think teachers should be good friends with the students so that they w i l l come to them with t h e i r problems and not be af r a i d to talk to them" . . . ."I personally usually want help and guidance from adults only when I ask for i t . " (Strang, 1966/67, pp.297,298). Schools do more than impart information and ways to master information and deal with i t . They also provide a situation i n which interpersonal interactions take place: interactions of young people with each other, of adults with each other, and of the young people with the adults. I t i s with the last-named kind of interaction that this study i s concerned. There are myriad v a r i e t i e s of student-adult i n t e r -actions, ranging from accidental, casual, and short-term ones to serious, purposive, and long-lasting ones. Moreover, interactions may take place i n many settings and use many modes. This study deals with purposive interactions using a verbal mode, discussions of matters of serious concern to students. If an interaction i s purposively brought about, i t w i l l be i n i t i a t e d consciously: someone starts the discussion. There are three possible ways to ini-tiate a discussion between s t u d e n t s and a d u l t s : (1) the s c h o o l as a system r e q u i r e s the d i s c u s s i o n , f o r i n s t a n c e , by r o u t i n g a l l new s t u d e n t s t o some a d u l t who a d v i s e s them; (2) an a d u l t i n i t i a t e s the d i s -c u s s i o n ; o r (3) a s t u d e n t i n i t i a t e s the d i s c u s s i o n . I t i s pr o b a b l e t h a t i n most i n s t a n c e s o f the f i r s t two types o f d i s c u s s i o n , because o f the unequal s t a t u s of a d u l t s v i s - a - v i s s t u d e n t s , t h e r e may be c o n s t r a i n t s on the d i s c u s s i o n i n s o f a r as s t u d e n t s are concerned. The s t u d e n t may be, however g e n t l y , f o r c e d i n t o a s i t u a t i o n t h a t he may not want. The consequences o f d i s c u s s i o n s so i n i t i a t e d may be r e w a r d i n g , r e l a t i v e l y n e u t r a l o r i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l , o r damaging. But p o t e n t i a l c o n s t r a i n t s may reduce the l i k e l i h o o d o f p o s i t i v e consequences. I f , however, the s t u d e n t i n i t i a t e s a d i s c u s s i o n , c o n s t r a i n t s are i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d m i t i g a t e d . True, the a d u l t i s s t i l l an a d u l t on a s c h o o l s t a f f , and thus d i f f e r e n t i n s t a t u s , but i f the s t u d e n t i n i t i a t e s a d i s c u s s i o n he p r o b a b l y p e r c e i v e s the c o n s t r a i n t as l e s s t h a n s t r i n g e n t . He has taken the i n i t i a t i v e and must, t h e n , have some s t a k e , however s l i g h t , i n the outcome, some f e e l i n g t h a t the outcome w i l l outweigh any d i s c o m f o r t he may f e e l about unequal s t a t u s . I t i s assumed t h a t a d u l t s on s c h o o l s t a f f s have enor-mous p o t e n t i a l t o h e l p s t u d e n t s , and t h a t many of them have a g r e a t d e s i r e t o do so. I f the a d u l t i s approached by s t u -dents t o i n i t i a t e d i s c u s s i o n s , the p o t e n t i a l may be tapped. 3 If he i s never approached, either he w i l l i n i t i a t e d i s -cussions, with the p o s s i b i l i t y that they w i l l be less than maximally rewarding to students, or his potential help w i l l not be tapped because he w i l l not interact with students. Purposive i n i t i a t i o n s of discussions by students may have many causes, but, to some extent at least, the students' perceptions of adults they might want to talk to must i n -clude some notion of how the adult w i l l react to being approached, and how he w i l l behave during and aft e r the d i s -cussion . The approachability of adults on school s t a f f s , then, was thought worthy of study. I t was assumed that approacha-b i l i t y i s a characteristic on which adults d i f f e r , that i t i s a quality perceived, however hazily, by students as a group, and perceived d i f f e r e n t l y by d i f f e r e n t students. The dynamics of approachability, should they become more thoroughly understood, would be of interest to adults on school s t a f f s and to persons training for such positions, i f they agree with the underlying point of view of this study that such approaches by students are desirable. If the dynamics of approachability are better under-stood, there are at least two ways i n which such understanding could be put to use. One i s the p o s s i b i l i t y that adults who wished i t could become more approachable. The other arises 4 from the fact that, for some positions i n schools, especially the position of school counselor, interpersonal discussions are a necessary part of the formal role of the adult, so that i f approachability makes for more rewarding discussions, i t would be a desirable characteristic of the adult who i s to f i l l the rol e . Thus, some idea of the approachability, or approachability-potential, of adults being selected for counseling positions, or screened for courses i n counselor education, might prove he l p f u l . From several possible correlates of approachability, a few were selected for examination: sex, age, s i m i l a r i t y of value patterns to those of students, and cognitive know-ledge of students' values. Sex and age are basic attributes of adults. Value patterns may be v i s i b l e to students, as may knowledge of students' values, or they may be actually communicated or potentially communicable to students. The basic problem to be examined i n this study i s : what are some of the correlates of approachability? More s p e c i f i c a l l y , are age, sex, values, and knowledge of students' values systematically related to approachability? CHAPTER II THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE The major theoretical background for this study, the main concern of which i s approachability, i s attraction-theory—the term "attraction" w i l l be used i n this chapter because i t i s pervasive i n the l i t e r a t u r e . "Approachability" was the term chosen for the study proper because i t i s a more accurate and s p e c i f i c one to apply to adults i n relationship to students i n schools. Because values are concepts about which two hypotheses were made, value theory, i n the sense of defining and ordering various kinds of values, w i l l also be discussed. ATTRACTION THEORY A major theory of interpersonal relationships was proposed by Heider (1944, 1958a, 1958b, 1958c) and came to be known as "balance theory." Heider's thinking d i f f e r e d from that of previous students of interpersonal relationships i n his emphasis on the importance of "person perception," rather than an emphasis on drives and the internal dynamics of single individuals. Heider's orientation was Lewinian: a person i s a part of the perceptual f i e l d of an other person. He spoke of "how one person feels about another" as "how o (the other) i s represented i n the l i f e space of -p_ (the person)" and the 6 positive and negative character of this representation, "that i s , p_'s l i k i n g or d i s l i k i n g o (1958c, p. 19)." Heider used two concepts to explain the sentiments of l i k i n g and d i s l i k i n g : unit formation and balanced state (1958c, p. 176). A unit i s formed when "separate e n t i t i e s . . . are perceived as belonging together," and a balanced state i s "a situation i n which the perceived units and the experienced sentiments co-exist without stress (1958c, p. 176)." Thus, i f an other i s perceived to be a unit with some person or idea or a c t i v i t y that i s li k e d , the other w i l l tend to be like d . Newcomb (1958, 1961) elaborated a model of i n t e r -personal attraction based on the "orientations" of a person. An orientation i n this sense i s described by Newcomb as . . . a useful way of taking account of the fact of individuals' persistencies i n re l a t i n g them-selves to things i n their environment. An orientation i s a property of a person, inferred from his behaviors that have to do with the specified object of orientation (1961, p. 5). Orientations have both affective and cognitive properties. In the instance of an other person as the object of orienta-t i o n , a person w i l l attribute to the other both cognized and cathected properties (1961, p. 5) . Attraction i s "any kind of orientation toward another person that involves psycho-l o g i c a l approach rather than avoidance (1961, p.6-7)." 7 Newcomb's theory has a great deal i n common with that of Heider, since both concern other persons perceived as linkedwith other things, persons, behaviors, and so on. Newcomb stressed that stable orientations l e t individuals achieve "perceptual constancy" of others, and he held that "attributed orientations are not capricious, but are governed by the p r i n c i p l e of balance (1961, p. 22)," two notions that he said he "freely translated" from Heider's balance theory. Several of Newcomb's formulations provided the frame-work for the present study. I t was assumed that, following the Heider-Newcomb model, individuals have some perceptual constancy of others: i n the instance of this study, that students w i l l have attributed orientations to known adults i n schools. I t was also assumed that individuals would be attracted to others who form a unit with l i k e d behaviors, ideas, and so on, and that this attraction would be indicated by approach rather than avoidance: i n the instance of this study, that adults who have become linked i n students' per-ceptions with lik e d behaviors or ideas w i l l be approachable. VALUE THEORY Theoretical treatments of the large subject of human values have been of two general kinds: those that deal with what should b e — r e l i g i o u s and philosophical and i n some measure s o c i a l - p o l i t i c a l formulations—and those that deal 8 with what values are, regardless of what they should be. In the l a t t e r theories the problem has been with d e f i n i t i o n , categorizing, and ordering of values known or thought to e x i s t . The concern of this study i s with value d e f i n i t i o n and ordering: i t has no relationship to the study of impera-tives . Philosophers and psychologists have wrestled with the problem of kinds of values for many years, for, c l e a r l y , although an ice-cream cone and honesty may both be valued, the i r nature i s very d i f f e r e n t . Because this study examines the attributions that persons assign to other persons and thus does not deal with the substantive nature of the values them-selves, i t became necessary to find workable categories of values that might be attributed. There appeared to be no need to make a case for one particular value categorization as more true or re a l than others. Accordingly, the c l a s s i f i -cation schemes of two writers on values were selected on the basis of usefulness. Considerations of philosophical sound-ness were secondary. Margenau (1959) posited two d i f f e r e n t types of values: "factual values. . . observable preferences, appraisals, desires of concrete people at a given time (p. 39)," and "normative" values that "are r e l a t i v e to a command or directive to which a person i s committed (p. 42)." This d i s t i n c t i o n i s a useful one i n that i t separates the ice-cream cone from honesty. 9 Rokeach (1968) followed a similar l i n e of reasoning, but developed a more elaborate structure. He discarded the term "value" for use with what Margenau called factual values. He described this class of valued items as attir: tudes: s p e c i f i c a l l y desirable objects or situations. I t i s clear that he i s describing the same kinds of things here that Margenau termed "factual values." In addition, Rokeach posited a d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between values representing ends and those representing means. Values that represent means were termed "instrumental" and were defined as single b e l i e f s which always take the following form, "'I believe that such-and-such a mode of conduct (e.g. honesty, courage) i s per-sonally and s o c i a l l y preferable i n a l l situations and with respect to a l l objects (p. 17).'" Values that represent ends were defined as "terminal" and took the form, "'I believe that such-and-such an end state of existence (e.g. salvation, a world at peace) i s s o c i a l l y and personally worth s t r i v i n g for (p. 17).'" Rokeach further elaborated on the concept of value patterns. He conceived of values i n a sense of means and ends that influence behavior, and because behavior cannot be i n -fluenced i n a s i m p l i s t i c manner when values are potentially c o n f l i c t i n g , he spoke of hierarchies of values. He said: Many writers have observed that values are organ-ized into hierarchical structures and substructures. Operationally speaking, the concept of value system 10 hierarchy suggests a rank-ordering of values along a continuum of importance. And given the d i s t i n c t i o n . . .between instrumental and terminal values, two separate value systems may be posited . . .each.with a rank-ordered structure of i t s own, each, no doubt, functionally and cognitively connected with the other, and both systems con-nected with many attitudes toward s p e c i f i c objects and situations (p. 17) . A blend of the Margenau and Rokeach value categories has been adapted for use i n t h i s study: the name and d e f i n i -tion of "factual values" i s retained from Margenau's theory, and the two names for the second-order values are combined as "normative/instrumental values." This i s done a r b i t r a r i l y for convenience of reference. Rokeach's category of terminal values, recognized as a l o g i c a l extension of his theory, i s not treated i n the study for p r a c t i c a l reasons: high-school students i n a p i l o i study showed very l i t t l e variance i n rank-ordering terminal v a l u e s — s p e c i f i c a l l y , for instance, a l l of them chose "world peace" as most important. LITERATURE ON ATTRACTION AND ITS CORRELATES A large number of studies have undertaken to examine the correlates of attraction, especially i n the framework of the Heider and Newcomb theories. The following studies are examples of many aspects of attraction that have been ex-amined, and w i l l be arranged as follows: (1) studies of 11 aspects of attraction i n general; (2) studies specifically-dealing with attraction and s i m i l a r i t y - d i s s i m i l a r i t y , and, within this section, those studies that have dealt with s i m i l a r i t y - d i s s i m i l a r i t y of values as related to attraction; (3) studies dealing with value s i m i l a r i t y and interpersonal interactions. Studies of General Aspects of Attraction Newcomb (1961) reported two long-term studies of the acquaintance process using young men i n dormitories. Several measures were used from time to time as the subjects became acquainted and formed friendship groups. Background data on each S, his attitudes, and value measures as well as personal preferences and perceptions were obtained. The groups were studied one year apart, and each included 17 men. Attitude and value preferences that were similar were found to be predictive to friendship pairs. In a study designed to examine the nature of i n t e r -personal preferences, Taguiri (1958) observed some 60 well-acquainted groups of many ages and i n natural settings. Taguiri's main interest was i n choices by persons of others they li k e d , and i n whether such choices were mutual, were perceived by Ss as congruent with one another, and were accurate insofar as Ss were aware of others' feelings about them. He found several of Heider's hypotheses supported. 12 Taguiri pointed out that his 60 groups were a l l "homogeneous with regard to h i e r a r c h i c a l structure (1958, p. 334)"—were peers—and that he and his colleagues had no idea whether his findings would hold i f members of groups were "formally diffe r e n t i a t e d (p. 334)," an observation pertinent to the present study, which deals with Ss diff e r e n t i a t e d into two h i e r a r c h i c a l l y unequal groups, students and adults. G r i f f i t t and his colleagues (Byrne, London, & G r i f f i t t , 1968; G r i f f i t t , 1968a; G r i f f i t t , 1968b) i n a series of lab-oratory experiments on intrastranger attraction found the following variables s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to attraction: (1) attitude - s i m i l a r i t y - d i s s i m i l a r i t y , (2) anticipated re-inforcement from a stranger, (3) both dir e c t and associated reinforcement from a stranger, (4) topic s i m i l a r i t y . The topics were those i n which Ss had information about the hypothetical stranger, and were varied i n importance to Ss. A formula was developed using a l l the foregoing variables to predict attractiveness of a stranger as a linear function. Horowitz (1966), studying American adolescents, measured sociometric choices and rejections and concluded that choice and rejection were not dir e c t opposites and suggested that the same scales should not be used to measure them. Eberdt (1968a), using 1,131 student subjects, studied approachability of teachers in two high schools. Extreme 13 groups of most and least approachable teachers were con-trasted on 65 variables. Nine of the variables d i f f e r e n -tiated between approachable and non-approachable teachers at or beyond the .05 l e v e l . Among the s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g -n i f i c a n t variables were negative correlations between teachers' ages and the i r approachability and between the number of school d i s t r i c t s i n which they had taught and thei r approachability. Eberdt also found same-sex choices more frequent than opposite-sex choices. She administered the Allport-Vernon-Lindsey Study of Values to her teacher subjects and reported (1968b) that low-approachable teachers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y (.01) higher on the aesthetic scale of this instrument than the teachers' norm reported i n the Study of Values Manual. Because Eberdt's work i s similar to the present study i n that the c r i t e r i o n , approachability, and two of the i n -dependent variables,sex and age, were the same, i t should be emphasized that the target group of adults about whom the students were asked was somewhat differe n t : counselors and administrators were omitted i n Eberdt's study. Studies on Attraction and Si m i l a r i t y - D i s s i m i l a r i t y of Pairs Among the many studies on attraction and s i m i l a r i t y -d i s s i m i l a r i t y of paired persons, nearly a l l of which found positive correlations between attraction and s i m i l a r i t y , 14 are those of Rosenfeld and Jackson (1959) who measured per-sonality s i m i l a r i t y ; of G r i f f i t t (1966) who found that self-concept was an additional variable to s i m i l a r i t y of personality; and J e l l i s o n and Zeisett (1969) who found that sharing a t r a i t of being able to discriminate certain tastes led to greater attraction. Studies on Attraction and S i m i l a r i t y - D i s s i m i l a r i t y of Values Many studies have attempted to examine the s i m i l a r i t y or d i s s i m i l a r i t y among pairs of friends, married couples, and the l i k e . Nearly a l l results have shown positive corre-lations between s i m i l a r i t y and friendship. In an early study Thompson and Nishimura (1951), using eight pairs of best friends, a l l of whom were young adults, had Ss rate themselves, their i d e a l selves, and th e i r friends on desir-able t r a i t s and found that the highest correlations were between Ss 1 ideals and estimations of friends, and between the ideals of friends. Probabilities for the former were less than .05, and for the l a t t e r less than .10. Smith (1957) found that s i m i l a r i t y of values was posi t i v e l y related to acceptance of persons, and that per-sons who had only knowledge of an other's values, and no other knowledge of the other, were more acceptant than those who had additional information. Archibald (1966) found that value consensus was po s i t i v e l y related to interpersonal 15 attraction but notxced a sex difference among his univer-sity-student subjects i n that when the shared value was success of a group on a task, males were more inclined to be attracted to the person with whom this value was shared than were females. In a study whose main emphasis was on the examination of the values of 1,365 students i n 10 nigh schools, and which was carried out over 4 years, Thompson (1968) also obtained value scores on the D i f f e r e n t i a l Values Inventory for 371 (about 90 percent) of the teachers of these students. Teachers i d e n t i f i e d students with whom they f e l t they could communicate best, and comparisons were made between personal-value subscales of the teachers and these students. Thompson reported that the "resultant correlations were not of s u f f i c i e n t magnitude to be s i g n i f i c a n t (p. 84)." He was also unable to demonstrate that values were related to friendship patterns among students. He did f i n d , however, that values related to achievement, frequency of church attendance, and future plans, and that they diffe r e n t i a t e d popular from rejected students. In a study closely p a r a l l e l i n g the present study i n both content and method, Precker (1952, 1953) used almost the entire student body and faculty i n a small l i b e r a l - a r t s college. He ascertained th e i r educational v a l u e s — s p e c i f i -c a l l y c r i t e r i a that could be used i n evaluating students—by 16 obtaining free responses about the values. He then had both groups rank-order these values. He also had students select advisers from the faculty (advisers i n the context of t h i s college were persons who helped students with both academic and personal problems). Because such advisers were expected to be the students 1 friends as well as to have some part i n evaluating them, Precker termed them "near-authority figures." When Precker compared the rank-orderings of chooser and chosen, he found that "subjects tended to choose. . . near-authority figures whose values resembled their own (p. 413)." He warned, however, that these results depended on mathe-matical assumptions regarding his transformation of R to z_ , a manipulation whose legitimacy he questioned. Precker also pointed out that his data showed a marked tendency for students' conceptions of their adviser-choice's rank orderings to be even closer to t h e i r own rank orderings than they were to the actual rank-orderings of the adviser-choice. He detected i n this "a tendency to perceive auto-morphically (in l i n e with one's own world view) (1953, p. 363) . " Studies on Value Si m i l a r i t y and Person-Person Interactions More relevant to the rationale for this study d i s -cussed on page 1 than they are to the study i t s e l f are re-ports of research on interpersonal outcomes and value simi-l a r i t y . Most such studies concerned therapy dyads. Kessel 17 and McBrearty (1967) reviewed the l i t e r a t u r e on v a l u e s and psychology and c o n c l u d e d , " D e s p i t e the i n c o m p a r a b i l i t y o f the s t u d i e s [ c i t e d ] , i t may be concluded t h a t the v a r i a b l e , s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e r a p i s t and p a t i e n t , a f f e c t s t h e r a p e u t i c outcome (p. 6 80)." Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the p r e s e n t study was the f i e l d study by Cook (1966), whose 90 Ss were u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s . Cook found t h a t when c o u n s e l o r and c l i e n t had e i t h e r v e r y s i m i l a r o r v e r y d i s s i m i l a r p r o f i l e s on the A l l p o r t - V e r n o n - L i n d s e y Study of V a l u e s a t the s t a r t of i n t e r v i e w i n g t h e r e was l e s s change toward s i m i l a r i t y of t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of meanings than when c o u n s e l o r and c l i e n t were somewhat, but not v e r y , s i m i l a r . P e r c e p t i o n s of meanings were measured on s e m a n t i c - d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e s . M e d i a l s i m i l a r i t y may have formed a communications base and p o s s i b l y an a f f e c t i v e dimension t h a t would a i d the c o u n s e l -i n g p r o c e s s . Persons w i t h h i g h l y s i m i l a r v a l u e p r o f i l e s may not have i n f l u e n c e d each o t h e r because they were b a s i -c a l l y i n agreement t o s t a r t w i t h . P u b l i s h e d s i n c e the aforementioned r e v i e w of l i t e r a -t u r e was compiled are s t u d i e s i n the same v e i n : Petony (1966) found t h a t c l i e n t s ' Q s o r t i n g of v a l u e s , d e r i v e d from the v a l u e t h e o r i e s of Kluckhohn and of M o r r i s , became more s i m i l a r t o the Q s o r t i n g s of t h e i r t h e r a p i s t s as therapy p r o g r e s s e d . Welkowitz, Cohen, and Ortmeyer (1967) measured 18 p a t i e n t - t h e r a p i s t p a i r s n i n e months a f t e r t h e r a p y was begun and r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e i r v a l u e systems were more s i m i l a r . These w r i t e r s d i d not s p e c i f y t h a t the change was t h e r a p i s t -induced . E m p i r i c a l S t u d i e s o f V a l u e s R e l e v a n t t o the development o f v a l u e i n s t r u m e n t s r e p o r t e d on pages 43 and 44, and 46 and 47, are t h r e e s t u d i e s t h a t used open-ended i n s t r u m e n t s s i m i l a r t o those d e s c r i b e d on t h o s e pages. These i n v e s t i g a t o r s d i d not de-pend on responses t o s t a n d a r d i z e d v a l u e i n s t r u m e n t s , and hence have more i n common w i t h the work of P r e c k e r (1952, 1953) and w i t h the p r e s e n t s t u d y . Gorlow and N o l l (1967) asked 75 u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s t o generate v a l u e statements on the sources o f meaning i n l i f e , the g o a l s o f l i f e , and the sources of p l e a s u r e i n l i f e . Each S_ wrote t e n statements which were reduced t o 75 n o n - o v e r l a p p i n g items t h a t were then Q s o r t e d by 112 persons and the r e s u l t s f a c t o r - a n a l y s e d , y i e l d i n g e i g h t f a c t o r s : a f f i l i a t i v e r o m a n t i c s , s e c u r i t y - s t a t u s v a l u e r s , i n t e l l e c t u a l h umanists, f a m i l y v a l u e r s , rugged i n d i v i d u a l i s t s , undemanding p a s s i v e s , boy s c o u t s , and Don Juans. Shafer (1960) asked s e c o n d a r y - s c h o o l s t u d e n t s of v a r -i o u s ages (N=l,500) and a s m a l l number of t e a c h e r s and p a r -ents t o l i s t " f i v e t h i n g s which i n d i v i d u a l p u p i l s . . . judged t o be of g r e a t e s t v a l u e (p. 156)." He found t h a t 19 choices clustered on certain items and that 57 percent of the adolescents' and 61 percent of adults' items were mutual. Adults' mean item mentions were rank-ordered i n the following way: (1) home and family, (2) r e l i g i o n , (3) health, (4) education, and (5) security, including money. Students' mean item mentions were rank-ordered as follows: (1) home and family, (2) education, (3) friends and friendship, (4) r e l i g i o n , and (5) security. Offer (1966/67) examined the values of "normal adolescents," defined as within one standard deviation of the mean on certain previously prepared scales, by asking them to complete sentences about best and worst things i n their l i v e s . The best-thing results included home l i f e , comfort, and physical and emotional closeness to parents and s i b l i n g s . He also asked about enjoyable things and found that physical outlets such as sports and work with one's hands were f i r s t i n importance, interpersonal r e l a -tions with peers and family were second. SUMMARY In the foregoing chapter, the attraction theory of Newcomb and i t s p a r t i a l derivation from the balance theory of Heider have been discussed and Newcomb's theory presented as the basic theoretical background for this study. The 20 value-theory categories of Margenau and Rokeach have been described, insofar as they w i l l be used for the examinati of value patterns. The l i t e r a t u r e on attraction and some of i t s correlates has been reviewed. CHAPTER III RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES The general nature of the problem under study has already been stated (p. 4): "What are some of the corre-lates of approachability? More s p e c i f i c a l l y , are age, sex, values, and knowledge of students' values systematically related to approachability?" The theoretical framework for approachability i s the postulate suggested by Newcomb i n his study of attraction, that l i k e w i l l seek l i k e , or w i l l seek what i s perceived to be l i k e . The problem i s to discover which persons w i l l seek which others and why the others who are sought are per-ceived as approachable, either by students i n general or by particular students. Two of the potential correlates of approachability, sex and age, are clear l y v i s i b l e to potential approachers. Value correlates are, of course, subject to considerable d i f f e r e n t i a l perceptual accuracy, but the empirical studies cited i n Chapter II form the basis for supposing that such values are communicated i n some fashion and so play a part i n the d i f f e r e n t i a l attractiveness of other persons. The p o s s i b i l i t y that the other's knowledge of persons may be a correlate of approachability has less theoretical backing 22 and i n a sense i s more s p e c i f i c to the f i e l d of study—the schools—than are the other correlates to be examined. Approachability has been previously referred to as a unitary characteristic,^ possessed i n di f f e r e n t amounts by d i f f e r e n t people, and i n fact most of the attraction studies have appeared to view attraction as s i m i l a r l y unitary, although i t s measurement usually depended on some s p e c i f i c context. In this study, however, approachability i s not assumed to be unitary, but i s conceived as po t e n t i a l l y varying from one context to another. Students may fin d certain persons approachable for some kinds of serious discussions, and not for others. In an attempt to make the contexts di f f e r e n t but not so highly s p e c i f i c as to l i m i t generalization stringently, three contexts are selected: a context i n which the discussion would be on an impersonal topic, a context i n which the discussion would be on the vocational choice of the student, and a context i n which the discussion would be about the student's personal pro-blems. The three contexts are considered separately through-out the study. The possible correlates of approachability w i l l be discussed i n turn as research questions leading to hypo-theses . 23 Sex: Is' the Sex of an Adult a Correlate of Approachability? S p e c i f i c a l l y , this question i s concerned with l i k e -and opposite-sex pairs. Do students of one sex find adults of t h e i r own sex more approachable than adults of the oppo-s i t e sex for discussions of a serious nature? Newcomb's theory, stretched to cover a l l the attributes of persons, would predict that they do. Females would fi n d more i n common with other females simply because they share the attribute of femaleness, and males s i m i l a r l y would do so. Among adults, of course, such a postulate would be ques-tionable because of the opposite-sex attraction common to men and women i n general. Among students with adults i n schools, however, such considerations are thought to be mi n i m a l — i f there are instances of sexual attraction i n the schools between adult and student, they are rare. Because of many attributes of a same-sex person that would be per-ceived as common to both the person and the other, the probability was thought to be that same-sex attraction would be more frequent than opposite-sex attraction for approach for serious discussions. Age: Is the Age of the Adult a Correlate of Approachability? S p e c i f i c a l l y , this question i s concerned with the differential'approachability of younger and older adults. If s i m i l a r i t y of persons tends to make them more approach-24 a b l e , then s i m i l a r i t y i n aqe i t s e l f would tend t o make younger a d u l t s more approachable t o s t u d e n t s . Here the p e r c e p t i o n s by s t u d e n t s of a d u l t s are p i v o t a l and no f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s as t o age can be made. R a r e l y would a s t u d e n t know the e x a c t age of an a d u l t . He would, however, have a g e n e r a l i m p r e s s i o n o f age i n t h a t he might w e l l , w i t h o u t c o n s c i o u s l y d o i n g s o , t h i n k of a d u l t s as young, middle-aged, o r o l d . Hence i t was thought t h a t younger a d u l t s i n s c h o o l s would p r o b a b l y be more approachable than o l d e r a d u l t s , b u t t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s would not be d i s c e r n a b l e w i t h i n any narrow age range, and t h a t o n l y an o v e r a l l t r e n d would appear. F a c t u a l V a l u e s : I s S i m i l a r i t y - D i s s i m i l a r i t y o f F a c t u a l V a lue P a t t e r n s a C o r r e l a t e of A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y ? S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s q u e s t i o n i s concerned w i t h t h e d i f -f e r e n t i a l a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y of a d u l t s who have d i f f e r e n t f a c t u a l - v a l u e p a t t e r n s (as these are d e f i n e d on pages 8 and 9) . Because f a c t u a l v a l u e s c o n s i s t of p r e f e r e n c e s f o r s p e c i f i c t h i n g s , a c t i v i t i e s , p e r s o n s , and so on, they con-s t i t u t e a c o n s t e l l a t i o n of a t t r i b u t e s t h a t are g e n e r a l l y p a r t o f a t o t a l p i c t u r e o f what a person i s l i k e , b ut they v a r y i n v i s i b i l i t y . A l t h o ugh i t was thought u n l i k e l y t h a t s t u d e n t s would know a g r e a t d e a l about these p r e f e r e n c e s o f a d u l t s , the t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n i s t h a t i n s o f a r as 25 such preferences are perceived, students would deem as approachable those adults with factual-value patterns similar to their own. Some of the factual values of adults would be v i s i b l e , for instance a delight i n debate and argument; some would be sensed without being necessarily viewed, for instance a delight i n reading; and others per-haps would be d i f f i c u l t or impossible even to sense. Thus i t was supposed that only i n general would factual-value pattern s i m i l a r i t i e s be a correlate of approachability. Nevertheless, insofar as some of these preferences would be accurately perceived, i t was thought that they might play a part. A further complication i s present: i t was possible that there would be a generally preferable pattern of factual values as an attribute of approachable adults i n general. Such a general pattern i s hypothesized as a pat-tern similar to the pattern of most students. On the other hand, i t was also possible that there might be some students and some adults who were similar to one another, but unlike a majority of other students and other adults. Students i n such particular pairs are hypothesized to choose the adult in the pair as approachable. Because both types of similar-i t y are p o s s i b i l i t i e s , and because they are not mutually exclusive—there can be adults who are approachable because of a general s i m i l a r i t y to students, and others who are 26 approachable to certain students only—both are i n v e s t i -gated . Normative/Instrumental-Value Patterns: Is S i m i l a r i t y -D i s s i m i l a r i t y of Normative/Instrumental Value Patterns a Correlate of Approachability? S p e c i f i c a l l y , this question i s concerned with the d i f f e r e n t i a l approachability of adults who have d i f f e r e n t normative/instrumental-value patterns (as these were defined on page 9). Normative/instrumental-value patterns are sets of preferences for principles that a person thinks he should follow. They are abstract i n nature, complexly related to behavior, and d i f f i c u l t to perceive. Further, they are seldom defined on behalf of the s e l f or others. I t would be rare to find an adult who could state them e x p l i c i t l y ; and even for those values that could be inferred from behavior, i t would be uncertain where, i n a hierarchy of an other's values, the value i n question would f i t . For instance, an adult perceived as perfectly r e l i a b l e might be thought to place a high importance on "being r e l i a b l e " as a p r i n c i p l e ; but even though this might be true, how would one know that "being honest" and "being brave" were not more important? Despite the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the perception of normative/instrumental-value patterns, the l i t e r a t u r e cited i n Chapter II contains many positive correlations between such abstract principles and attraction. The question, then. 27 i s whether s i m i l a r c o r r e l a t i o n s w i l l o b t a i n when approacha-b i l i t y of a d u l t s i n s c h o o l s i s the c r i t e r i o n . Because stud e n t s have o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o observe a d u l t s throughout a s c h o o l y e a r , they c o u l d presumably p i c k up the same s o r t of cues as t o p r e f e r r e d p r i n c i p l e s as d i d the s u b j e c t s i n the s t u d i e s c i t e d . I t i s not the purpose of t h i s study t o examine what cues are used, o r how they are p e r c e i v e d , but s i m p l y t o f i n d out whether s i m i l a r i t i e s o f n o r m a t i v e / i n s t r u m e n t a l - v a l u e p a t t e r n s between s t u d e n t and a d u l t c o r r e l a t e p o s i t i v e l y w i t h a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y . The c o m p l i c a t i o n mentioned (on page 25) i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the p r e v i o u s q u e s t i o n i s p r e s e n t i n t h i s one a l s o : i t was p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e r e would be both g e n e r a l and s p e c i f i c n o r m a t i v e / i n s t r u m e n t a l - v a l u e p a t t e r n s t h a t would c o r r e l a t e w i t h a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y . Both are p o s s i b i l i t i e s , and because they are not m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e , both are i n v e s t i g a t e d . Knowledge of St u d e n t s : I s A d u l t s ' K n o w l e d g e a b i l i t y About Students a C o r r e l a t e of A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y ? Only in abroad sense i s t h i s q u e s t i o n based on the the o r y of a t t r a c t i o n proposed by Newcomb--the sense t h a t p o s s e s s i o n of knowledge about a person by the person h i m s e l f and p o s s e s s i o n of the same knowledge by another person makes the two more a l i k e . T h i s r a t h e r s p e c i o u s d e r i v a t i o n from 28 Newcomb1s theory i s not the important reason for i n v e s t i -gating the question. Rather, i t seems that i n the special instance of adults and students i n schools, accurate know-ledge of students 1 value preferences may indicate that i n some way the adults care more about what students are l i k e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , an adult with accurate knowledge of students' value preferences w i l l be one who has been told relevant i n -formation by students, or has observed and attended to stu-dents more ca r e f u l l y . Thus, the reason for asking the question i s that i t w i l l investigate a somewhat common-sense supposition, that an adult's interest i n students and atten-tion to their a c t i v i t i e s and principles i s a correlate of approachability. Such a variable, adults' knowledge of students, might well confound or over-ride the other four variables i n unforeseen ways. Hence, an attempt i s made to measure i t . Relationship of the Aforementioned Variables to One Another As has been mentioned, i t was never assumed that a l l the possible correlates of approachability would be examined. A few that seemed basic are selected. I f , however, these fi v e prove to be systematically related to approachability, a further question i s raised. How important i s each one, and i n what ways do they interact with one another? Accor-dingly, the following question i s to be investigated i f the f i r s t five questions are answered i n the affirmative. 29 Holding Age and Sex of Adults Constant, Do S i m i l a r i t y -' D i s s i m i l a r i t y of Value Patterns and Knowledge of Students' Value Preferences Differentiate Between More and Less Approachable Adults? S p e c i f i c a l l y , this question i s concerned with adults i n younger age ranges, their approachability to students of their own sex, and the part that factual-value patterns, normative/instrumental-value patterns, and knowledge of students' value preferences play i n d i f f e r e n t i a l approach-a b i l i t y . The question i s posed i n this way for p r a c t i c a l and empirical reasons: the age and sex of an adult are fixed, i n the sense that they cannot be changed at w i l l . I f hypo-thesis 2 i s confirmed, the most approachable adults w i l l be young. The other three variables can be changed, and es-p e c i a l l y students' perceptions of them can be changed. The suggestion here i s not that adults would or should change their value patterns but simply that they may reveal more or less about themselves to students, thus making for more or less accurate student perceptions of adult values. In turn this may make adults more approachable to some students, and, of course, less so to others, i f value patterns are corre-lated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with approachability. And, i f know-ledgeable adults are more approachable than less knowledgeable adults, an adult who wished to become more approachable could choose various ways to become 'more knowledgeable about students. I t i s assumed that the assignment of tentative 30 weights to the various correlates of approachability, though by no means t e l l i n g the whole story, may point to further research questions on certain of the correlates. On the basis of these six questions, the following hypotheses are made. HYPOTHESES 1. Adults w i l l be chosen by students of the same sex proportionately more often than by students of the opposite sex for discussions of impersonal topics, vocational choice, and personal problems. 2. Younger adults w i l l be chosen proportionately more often than older adults for discussions of impersonal topics, vocational choice, and personal problems. 3. Factual-value-pattern s i m i l a r i t y w i l l correlate po s i t i v e l y with choice of adults for discussions: A. Adults whose factual-value patterns are more similar to patterns of students who know them w i l l be chosen proportionately more often than w i l l adults with less similar factual-value patterns. B. Particular'adults whose factual-value patterns are more similar to those of particular students w i l l be chosen proportionately more often by such students than they w i l l be chosen by students whose factual-value patterns are less similar. 31 4. Normative/instrumental-value-pattern s i m i l a r i t y w i l l correlate p o s i t i v e l y with choices of adults for d i s -cussions . A. Adults whose normative/instrumental-value patterns are more similar to patterns of students who know them w i l l be chosen proportionately more often than w i l l adults with less similar normative/instrumental-value patt-erns . B. Particular adults whose normative/instrumental-value patterns are more similar to those of p a r t i c u l a r stu-dents w i l l be chosen proportionately more often by such students than they w i l l be chosen by students whose norma-tive/instrumental-value patterns are less similar. 5. Adults who can more accurately select p a r t i c u l a r students' most and least preferred factual- and normative/ instrumental value patterns w i l l be chosen proportionately more often by students for discussions than w i l l adults who less accurately select such value preferences. Should Hypotheses 1 through 5 be supported by the findings of the study, the following hypothesis w i l l be i n -vestigated : 6. For adults i n the sample who are r e l a t i v e l y young, s i m i l a r i t y of value patterns and accurate selection of particular students' value preferences w i l l d i f f e r e n t i a t e between adults chosen proportionately more often and propor-32 tionately less often, both for male students choosing male adults and for female students choosing female adults. CHAPTER IV DESIGN OF THE STUDY, PROCEDURES, AND INSTRUMENTS DESIGN To i n v e s t i g a t e the f i v e s e l e c t e d p o s s i b l e c o r r e l a t e s of a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y of a d u l t s by s t u d e n t s the f o l l o w i n g d e s i g n i s used. Students and a d u l t s a re measured on t h e independent v a r i a b l e s , sex, age, f a c t u a l - v a l u e p a t t e r n s , n o r m a t i v e / i n s t r u m e n t a l - v a l u e p a t t e r n s , and knowledge o f s t u d e n t s ' v a l u e p r e f e r e n c e s . R e l a t i o n s h i p s between these v a r i a b l e s and the c r i t e r i o n of a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y are measured and t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e where p o s s i b l e . R e s u l t s are based on a d u l t s known t o s t u d e n t s w i t h i n each s c h o o l and, i n s o f a r as p o s s i b l e , the i n f o r m a t i o n sought i s r e a l i s t i c — r e l a t i n g t o p r e f e r e n c e s f o r r e a l p e r s o n s , t o v a l u e s o f importance t o s t u d e n t s , and so on. Stu d e n t s ' c h o i c e s are the s o l e b a s i s on which the c r i t e r i o n of a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y i s measured. Students i n t h e i r l a s t y e a r i n secondary s c h o o l were s e l e c t e d as the s u b j e c t group because on the average such s t u d e n t s would have had the l o n g e s t o b s e r v a t i o n p e r i o d o f a d u l t s i n the s c h o o l ; because t h e i r c h o i c e s would r e f l e c t the most mature judgement of s t u d e n t s i n secondary s c h o o l s ; because a d u l t s would have 34 had, on the average, the longest acquaintance with these students; and because such students' responses on a l l i n -struments would be expected to be based on more comprehen-sion of the meanings of items than would be expected for any other group i n secondary schools. PROCEDURES Sample The sample consists of senior students on both academic and non-academic programs and the adults on school st a f f s known by at least 30 percent of such students i n f i v e secondary schools i n B r i t i s h Columbia. The fiv e schools were i n di f f e r e n t school d i s t r i c t s ; four schools were i n non-metropolitan areas and one school was i n a metropolitan area. The dependent variable, approachability, and f i v e independent variables, sex, age-range of adult, factual-value patterns of students and adults, normative/instrumental-value patterns of students and adults, and accurate selection of factual-value preferences of particular students by adults and accurate selection of normative/instrumental-value pre-ferences of particular students by adults are investigated. Approachability i s subdivided into three contexts: approach-a b i l i t y of an adult for. a discussion of an impersonal topic, 35 approachability of an adult for a discussion of a student's vocational choice, and approachability of an adult for a discussion of personal problems. Approachability. Approachability of adults i n the sample i s measured by asking students i n the sample to state their preferences of adults for the three types of discus-sion. For purposes of the study, the more frequently an adult i s chosen by students, the more approachable he i s assumed to be. An index of d i f f e r e n t i a l approachability for adults i s developed, by designating that the adult's approachability (A) score i s the number of times he i s chosen for a particular type of discussion divided by the number of students who indicate they know him (as defined on page 58) . Sex. Sex of adults i s ascertained from l i s t s of school staffs which used "Mr.," "Mrs.," and "Miss," and checked against adults' responses on the Adult Questionnaire Sex of students i s ascertained from the permanent record card of each student S_. Age• Age ranges of adults are ascertained by asking adults to indicate their age ranges i n the ranges 20-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, and 60+ on the Adult Questionnaire (AQ) Factual-Value Patterns. Factual-value patterns of students and adults are measured by a 60-item Q sort of factual-value items (QF). 36 ' Normatlve/rnstrumental-Value Patterns. Normative/ instrumental-value patterns of students and adults are measured by a 15-item rank-ordering instrument, using a Q-sort format, of normative/instrumental-value items (QN). Accurate Selection of Students' Most and Least Preferred Values. Accurate selection of students 1 most and least preferred values i s measured by having a sub-sample of adult subjects select items from QF and from QN that they thought pa r t i c u l a r students would put high or low i n impor-tance. This task i s more f u l l y detailed on pages 38 and 39 . S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures The following s t a t i s t i c a l procedures are followed to ascertain the relationships, i f any, of the independent variables with the dependent variable. Sex. Same and opposite-sex choices of adults by students are enumerated, and the resulting frequencies are tested for significance for each sex by chi square. Age. Frequencies with which students chose adults i n the various age-ranges are enumerated and are tested for significance by chi square. Factual-value Patterns. For each adult Q-sort results are correlated with the Q-sort results of each student who knows him. Using Fisher's z_r transformation, the mean z for each adult i s calculated •• from his cor-relations with a l l the students who know him. In addition, 37 when an adult i s chosen i n any context by more than one student, mean' z_r scores are calculated from his correla-tions with students who choose him and those who do not choose him for that context. Adults' A scores and their mean z_r scores are cor-related and 3 coefficients of correlation are calculated for the three contexts of approachability. For adults chosen by 2 or more students for any of the 3 contexts, mean z_r scores of students choosing and not choosing him are compared, and tested for significance by t test, one-tailed. Normative/Instrumental-Value Patterns. For each adult results of the rank-ordering of normative/instrumental-value items are correlated with the rank-ordering of these items by students who know him. Using Fisher's trans-formation, the mean z_r for each adult i s calculated from his correlations with a l l students who know him. In addi-tio n , when an adult i s chosen i n any context by more than one student, mean z scores are calculated from his corre-— r lations with students who choose him and those who do not choose him for that context. Adults' A scores and the i r mean z_r scores are then correlated, and three coefficients of correlation are c a l -culated for the three contexts of approachability. 38 For adults chosen by two or more students for any of the three contexts, mean' z scores of students choosing and not choosing them are compared and are tested for s i g n i f i -cance by t test, one-tailed. Accurate Selection of Students' Most and Least Preferred Values. A sub-sample of adults i s selected i n each school and asked to participate i n a selection task i n which they attempt to select QF and QN items that pa r t i c u l a r students placed high or low i n importance. Adults i n the sub-sample are scored on the accuracy with which they s e l -ect particular students' value preferences i n the following ways; 1. From the Q sort of factual values, adults select the 11 items they think pa r t i c u l a r students have indicated as most important, and the 11 items they think the same students have indicated as least important or most d i s l i k e d . (A selection of 11 items was prescribed i n the top three p i l e placements i n QF; s i m i l a r l y , a selection of 11 items was prescribed i n the bottom three p i l e placements.) Adults' selections are scored by awarding +1 when an item i s cor-rectly selected--!,e. was i n fact placed by the student i n his top (or bottom) 11 items; -1 when a selected item was in fact placed by the student within 11 places of the oppo-s i t e end of his dis t r i b u t i o n ; and 0 when the selected item was placed by the student i n the middle 38 places. 39 2. From the Q sort of normative/instrumental values, adults select the 5 items they think pa r t i c u l a r students have indicated as most important and the 5 items they think the same students have indicated as least important. Sel-ections are scored by awarding +1 when an item i s correctly selected, i . e . has i n fact been placed i n the f i r s t to f i f t h ranks by the student; -1 when a selected item has, i n fact, been placed by the student at the opposite end of the d i s -t r i b u t i o n , within 5 ranks from the bottom, and 0 when the selected item has been placed by the student i n the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, or 10th rank. A score i s obtained for each adult i n the sub-sample by taking his mean score on the selection task over a l l students for whom he performed the task (a) for QF and (b) for QN. Sub-sample adults' mean scores are compared to their A scores and a co e f f i c i e n t of correlation for the two sets of scores i s calculated for QF with the 3 A scores, and for QN and the 3 A scores. INSTRUMENTS A l l the instruments used i n this study were construc-ted by the investigator. No standard form for the measure-ment of approachability was located. The questionnaire used by Eberdt (1968b) was considered, but was not suitable for use with the present study, although certain aspects of i t 40 suggested the wording used i n SQ-2. The rationale for con-struction of QF and QN was described by Harris (1969) , and i s b r i e f l y recapitulated here: standardized value i n s t r u -ments seem i n large part to have been derived from phil o -sophical formulations of what adult values have been or should be, thus forcing choices of preferences which may no longer have relevance to student populations of today. An attempt was therefore made to ascertain and sample the domain of students' factual and normative/instrumental values of the s i x t i e s , and to base instrumentation on what was assumed to be a more relevant set of items to the student sample. The derivation of the Q sorts i s described on pages 43 and 44 and 46 and 47. The instruments are reproduced i n Appendix A, together with introductory material distributed to Ss i n the study. The former consist of three questionnaires completed by students, a questionnaire completed by adults, a Q sort of factual values, and a rank-ordering instrument i n Q-sort format of normative/instrumental values. Descriptions of them and data on their derivation follow. Student Questionnaire 1 (SQ-1) The purpose of SQ-1 i s to ascertain which adults on a school's s t a f f are known to at least 30 percent of the student sample. Thirty percent was a r b i t r a r i l y selected as 41 a cutting point for two reasons. (1) Because adults' approachability was to be measured by the frequency with which they are chosen, a false idea of the characteristics of non-approachable adults would be given i f adults were deemed non-approachable who are simply not known to students To arrive at an index of approachability, i t i s necessary to know which students know which adults, and to use this figure to ascertain r e l a t i v e approachability. (2) If an adult were known to only a few students, and were to be chosen by a majority of the few, i t i s thought that special circumstances might be, i n many instances, contributing to results. For instance, the adult might be a re l a t i v e of the students. Hence, because the smallest school i n the sample includes a student sample of 30, 30 percent was s e l -ected as the cutting point because i t ensures that at least 9 students w i l l know each of the adults i n the sample. "Knowing" an adult i s defined as knowing something about what the adult i s l i k e , and i s further elaborated on the direction sheet for SQ-1, on page 16 8 of Appendix A. Student Questionnaire 2 (SQ-2) The purpose of SQ-2 i s to ascertain the d i f f e r e n t i a l approachability of adults i n each school. It asks students to indicate, on a l i s t of adults on each school's s t a f f , which adults they would choose to go to for discussions i n 42 the t h r e e a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y c o n t e x t s . A copy of SQ-2, w i t h s t a f f names removed, i s on page 169 o f Appendix A, and i t s d i r e c t i o n s h e e t , which e l a b o r a t e d the c o n t e x t s o f approach-a b i l i t y i s on page 170. Student Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 3 (SQ-3) The purpose of SQ-3 i s t w o f o l d : (1) t o make sure t h a t each s t u d e n t has t o t h i n k t w i c e , a t l e a s t , about h i s c h o i c e of a d u l t s f o r the 3 types of d i s c u s s i o n s , and t h a t he has i n d i c a t e d a f i r s t c h o i c e ; and (2) t o a s c e r t a i n reasons f o r h i s c h o i c e s as a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n p e r t i n e n t t o the stud y . A copy o f SQ-3 i s on page 171 D f Appendix A. A d u l t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (AQ) The purpose o f AQ i s t o a s c e r t a i n the age range o f each a d u l t , t o check the accuracy of i n f o r m a t i o n on h i s sex as p r o v i d e d i n s t a f f l i s t s f u r n i s h e d by the s c h o o l s , and t o o b t a i n a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n about him thought t o be of p o t e n t i a l r e l e v a n c e t o h i s a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y . A copy of AQ i s on page 172 of Appendix A. Q S o r t o f F a c t u a l Values o f Students (QF) The purpose of QF i s ' t o e s t a b l i s h the f a c t u a l - v a l u e p a t t e r n s of s t u d e n t s . I t c o n s i s t e d of 60 f a c t u a l - v a l u e items which s u b j e c t s s o r t e d i n t o v a r i o u s ranks on the b a s i s o f r e l a t i v e importance, t o each s u b j e c t , o f the i t e m s . A QF deck i s a f f i x e d t o pages 173, 174, 175, 176, and., 177 Q f 43 Appendix A, and d i r e c t i o n sheets are on pages 178 and 179. A d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of s o r t i n g and s c o r i n g procedures f o r QF i s on pages 180 t o 182 of Appendix A. D e r i v a t i o n o f QF. The form o f QF used i n t h i s s tudy was c o n s t r u c t e d by the i n v e s t i g a t o r i n 1968 as f o l l o w s : 210 s e n i o r s t u d e n t s , comparable i n age and academic streams t o the s t u d e n t sample i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y , i n 3 secondary s c h o o l s i n B r i t i s h Columbia, 2 i n non-urban areas and 1 i n a l a r g e c i t y , were asked t o l i s t a c t i v i t i e s and s t a t e s of b e i n g t h a t they l i k e d . Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were open-ended and st u d e n t s were encouraged t o i n c l u d e as many l i k e d a c t i v i t i e s and s t a t e s of b e i n g as they c o u l d t h i n k o f . R e s u l t s o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n are r e p o r t e d elsewhere ( H a r r i s , 1969). From the p o o l of some 2,000 responses on the 210 completed open-ended q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , the items i n the form of QF used i n t h i s study were drawn. Only items mentioned by two or more respondents i n two d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l s were used. D u p l i c a t i o n s were e l i m i n a t e d , near-synonyms combined, and e x c e p t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s made more g e n e r a l by the i n v e s t i g a t o r and t h r e e s e n i o r s t u d e n t s * who checked wording of items f o r c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y . The 60 items f i n a l l y s e l e c t e d f o r the p r e s e n t v e r s i o n o f QF r e p r e s e n t i n some way, e i t h e r as d i r e c t The p r e s e n t * a u t h o r i s g r a t e f u l t o Kathy A s t l e , G a i l Armstrong, and Wendy Wood f o r t h e i r h e l p w i t h t h i s Q deck and w i t h the QN deck. 44 copies or as more generalized combinations, a l l of the 2,000 responses except for those idiosyncratic to one i n -dividual or one school. QF was administered to 5 Grade-X, -XI, and -XII students twice, three weeks apart, and coefficients of cor-r e l a t i o n were .91, .89, .77, .76, and .74 for the f i r s t with the second administration. QF was then checked further for r e l i a b i l i t y with 40 Grade-XI and -XII students i n a metropolitan secondary school. A t o t a l of 18 students com-pleted the retest 10 days after their f i r s t sorting, and a t o t a l of 22 students completed the retest 20 days after their f i r s t sorting. R e l i a b i l i t i e s ranged from .52 to .92. Mean r for the 10-day retest was .76. Mean r for the 20-day retest was .79. Table A-l on page 183 i n Appendix A shows test-retest coefficients of correlation for QF with these students. The 2-3-6-11-16-11-6-3-2 d i s t r i b u t i o n suggested by Kerlinger (1966, p. 583) was selected as an easily manipu-lable, quasi-normal d i s t r i b u t i o n that could be sorted i n a class period of 50 minutes, while also yielding enough discriminations so that coefficients of correlation for pairs of sorters would indicate the degree of relationships. Q Sort of Factual Values for Adults' (QFa) The purpose of QFa was to establish the factual-value patterns of adults. Because 5 items i n QF were un-45 s u i t a b l e f o r s o r t i n g by a d u l t s , they were r e p l a c e d i n QFa. With the e x c e p t i o n of these replacement i t e m s , and the use of a w h i t e name c a r d f o r QFa decks i n s t e a d of a green one as was used f o r QF decks, QFa was i d e n t i c a l t o QF. Replacement items and QF items they r e p l a c e d were: QF Item (students) QFa Item ( a d u l t s ) B e i n g w i t h a d u l t s o t h e r than B e i n g w i t h young people your r e l a t i v e s . o t h e r than your c h i l d r e n o r your s t u d e n t s . Going t o the s c h o o l you now Being on your p r e s e n t go t o . s c h o o l ' s s t a f f . Being w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r Being w i t h your w i f e or f r i e n d o f the o p p o s i t e husband or w i t h a p a r t i -sex, c u l a r f r i e n d of t h e o p p o s i t e sex. Being w i t h one or both o f Being w i t h one or more of your p a r e n t s . your c h i l d r e n . Being w i t h one or more of Being w i t h one or more of your t e a c h e r s . your s t u d e n t s . Replacement i t e m s , w h i l e not e x a c t e q u i v a l e n t s , were thought t o r e p r e s e n t a c t i v i t i e s or s t a t e s of b e i n g i n the same c o n s t e l l a t i o n as the r e p l a c e d i t e m . Q S o r t of N o r m a t i v e / I n s t r u m e n t a l Values (QN) The purpose of QN was t o e s t a b l i s h n o r m a t i v e / i n s t r u -mental v a l u e p a t t e r n s . There was a s i n g l e i n s t r u m e n t f o r both s t u d e n t and a d u l t s u b j e c t s . QN c o n s i s t e d of 15 norma-t i v e / i n s t r u m e n t a l - v a l u e items which s u b j e c t s rank ordered from most t o l e a s t i m p o r t a n t . A QN deck i s a f f i x e d t o page 184 of Appendix A, and d i r e c t i o n sheets f o r i t on page 185. 46 A detailed description of sorting and scoring procedures for QN i s on pages 18b and 187 of Appendix A. Derivation of QN. QN was constructed as follows: the 210 students mentioned previously on page 43 also l i s t e d principles and qu a l i t i e s they liked for themselves and others. Some 500 responses were received. After dupli-cations were removed, 99 responses given by at least two Ss in two different schools remained. These formed the f i r s t version of QN, which was sorted, and resorted six weeks later by three senior students mentioned on page 43. R e l i a b i l i t y coefficients of correlation were computed and were .37, .45, and .66. These were judged too low for further testing of QN i n this form. The 99 items were then subjected to the preliminary steps of a latent p a r t i t i o n analysis as des-cribed by M i l l e r , Baker, Clasen, Conry, Conry, Pratt, Sheets, Wiley, and Wolfe (1967). To do so, 49 Grade-XII students i n a metropolitan secondary school sorted the 99 items into groups with similar meanings. The number of groups, and the number of items within groups were not specified to Ss. From the groupings of items found similar i n meaning by these Ss, a manifest category matrix was formed, and mean manifest categories derived. There were 16 category clusters reasonably d i s t i n c t from one another. A 16-item version of QN was then prepared using i n most instances 47 either a combined t i t l e or the single t i t l e of the o r i g i n a l item to which more items than any other i n the cluster had been linked. The 16-item version of QN was then sorted by 16 graduate students i n counseling psychology at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia and their suggestions led to dropping one item which they thought d i f f i c u l t to compare with the others. This item had clustered around the o r i g i n a l items "being clean" and "being tidy." The resultant 15-item QN used i n this study was then checked for test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y with Grade XI- and Grader XII students i n a metropolitan secondary school. A t o t a l of 15 students completed the retest 14 days after their f i r s t sorting, and a t o t a l of 24 students completed the retest 25 days after their f i r s t sorting. R e l i a b i l i t i e s ranged from .39 to .97. Mean r for the 14-day retest was .75. Mean r for the 25-day retest was .80. Table B-2 on page 188 i n Appendix B shows test-retest coefficients of correlation for QN with these students. CHAPTER V RESULTS D e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of the sample and the r e s u l t s o f the c r i t e r i o n measure and those r e l a t i n g t o the hypo-theses o f t h i s s t u d y are p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r . THE SAMPLE The sample of s t u d e n t s c o n s i s t e d of 371 s e n i o r s t u d e n t s i n t h e i r f i n a l y e a r i n 5 B r i t i s h Columbia secondary s c h o o l s . The sample of a d u l t s c o n s i s t e d of a d u l t s i n each s c h o o l known t o 30 p e r c e n t o r more of these s t u d e n t s . Students i n d i c a t e d on a q u e s t i o n n a i r e (SQ-1, d e s c r i b e d on p. 40) whether or not they knew the a d u l t s on t h e i r s c h o o l ' s s t a f f , "knowing" h a v i n g been d e f i n e d as s p e c i f i e d on page 41. The t o t a l number of a d u l t s on the s t a f f s of the 5 s c h o o l s , those known t o 30 p e r c e n t or more of the s t u d e n t s i n the sample, and those on the s t a f f l e s s than 3 months are shown i n Table I . ( I t was thought t h a t n e i t h e r s t u d e n t s nor a d u l t s known t o one another l e s s than 3 months would have had s u f -f i c i e n t knowledge of one another t o be i n c l u d e d . A c t u a l l y , a l l the 115 a d u l t s i n the sample had been on t h e i r s t a f f s s i n c e September.) Of the 169 a d u l t s on the s t a f f s of the 5 s c h o o l s a t the time of the s t u d y , 2 had not been on s t a f f f o r a t l e a s t 3 months and were o m i t t e d from the l i s t s o f 49 TABLE % Adults on the Staffs of Five Schools Who Were Known to 30% of the Students i n the Sample, Not Known to 30% of the Students i n the Sample, or Had Not Been on Staff at Least 3 Months Before the Investigation School 1 2 3 4 5 Total Known to 30% or more of students i n sample 15 19 32 21 28 115 Not known to 30% or more of students i n sample 3 8 13 2 26 52 Not 3 months on staff Total 19 27 45 24 54 169 staffs presented to students on SQ-1, 52 were not known to at least 30 percent of the students i n the sample, and the re-maining 115 were known to at least 30 percent of the students i n the sample. The known 115 adults were defined as i n the sample and formed the basis for the calculations of results i n connec-tion with Hypothesis 1, on same- and opposite-sex choices. Not a l l the 115 adults, however, could be used as the basis for calculations for the rest of the hypotheses, because a t o t a l of 16 did not complete any of the instruments adminis-50 t e r e d by the i n v e s t i g a t o r . A t o t a l of 13 a d u l t s were i l l o r o t h e r w i s e unable t o complete the i n s t r u m e n t s , and an a d d i t i o n a l 3 a d u l t s d e c l i n e d t o take any p a r t . D e t a i l s of the numbers of a d u l t s who completed a l l , two, one, or none of the i n s t r u m e n t s are p r e s e n t e d i n Table I I on page 51. The numbers o f a d u l t s on whom the r e s u l t s p e r t a i n i n g t o the v a r i o u s hypotheses were based were: Hyp o t h e s i s 1: same- and o p p o s i t e - s e x c h o i c e s - 115 Hypothesis 2: c h o i c e s of v a r i o u s age ranges - 99 Hypothesis 3: S i m i l a r i t y - d i s s i m i l a r i t y of f a c t u a l - v a l u e p a t t e r n s - 97 Hypothesis 4: S i m i l a r i t y - d i s s i m i l a r i t y of n o r m a t i v e / i n s t r u m e n t a l v a l u e p a t t e r n s - 97 Hypothesis 5: a c c u r a t e s e l e c t i o n of s t u d e n t s 1 v a l u e p r e f e r e n c e s - a sub-sample of Tables I I I and IV on page 52 show the ages of a d u l t s who completed AQ. A d d i t i o n a l data on the a d u l t sample are p r e s e n t e d i n Appendix B i n Tables B - l , B-2, B-3, and B-4 on pages 190, 191, 192, and 193. Student Sample The student sample of 371 c o n s i s t e d of a l l the s e n i o r students i n the 5 s c h o o l s who were p r e s e n t and completed 51 TABLE II Adults i n the Sample Who Did and Did Not Complete the 3 Instruments Administered by the Investigator School 1 2 3 4 5 Total Known to 30% or more of students i n sample 15 19 32 21 28 115 Completed a l l instruments 15 18 27 14 22 96 Completed no instruments 0 1 4 5 6 16 Completed AQ 15 18 28 16** 22 99 Completed QN 15 18 27* 15** 22 97 Completed QFa 15 18 28 14** 22 97 One adult mislaid the QN deck and l e f t for a conference before having time to do the sorting again. ** One adult completed AQ and QN but declined to complete QFa; one adult completed AQ but declined to complete either QN or QFa. 52 TABLE I I I C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Male A d u l t Sample t h a t Completed AQ: Age-Decade of A d u l t s f o r Each S c h o o l and T o t a l s f o r A l l Schools School T o t a l Age range: 20 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51 - 60 60+ T o t a l 6 3 1 1 11 7 3 3 1 14 2 11 5 1 19 3 3 2 3 5 6 1 15 18 25 18 6 67 TABLE IV C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Female A d u l t Sample t h a t Completed AQ: Age-Decade of A d u l t s f o r Each S c h o o l and T o t a l f o r A l l Schools S c h o o l " 5 T o t a l Age range: 20 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51 - 60 60+ 2 2 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 13 8 2 6 3 T o t a l 4 4 9 8 7 32 53 SQ-1, the questionnaire indicating which adults on st a f f they knew; SQ-27 the questionnaire indicating which adults they would choose for the 3 types of discussion; and SQ-3, the reasons for their choices. (Two additional students were present at the time of admini stration of these ques-tionnaires, but appeared to be unable to complete SQ-2 i n comprehensible fashion, and were dropped from the study.) The 371 students who completed the questionnaires also com-pleted QN, which was administered i n the same class period. QF, which was completed i n a subsequent class period, i n nearly a l l instances on the following day, was completed by 324 students, 47 of the o r i g i n a l 371 students being absent for i t s administration. Table V on/page 54 presents these totals and the numbers of students i n each school. Tables VI and VII on pages 55 and 56 present the numbers of stu-dents of each sex i n the 5 schools, and the numbers on academic and other programs. Pooling Results of the various measurement procedures carried out i n this study can be considered either separately for each of the 5 schools i n the study, which would then be considered replications of one another, or can be considered in combined form by.pooling totals for a l l schools. The decision was made to pool the results, but to indicate i n nearly a l l presentations of results i n tabular form the 54 TABLE V Number of Students Completing A l l 5 Instruments i n Each School, Totals for A l l Schools, Numbers Completxng SQ-1, SQ-2, SQ-3, and QN, a,nd Numbers Not Completxng QF School Total Completed SQ-1, SQ-2, SQ-3, and QN Did not complete QF Completed a l l instruments 30 65 91 68 117 371 1 11 11 9 15 47 29 54 80 59 102 324 55 TABLE VI Characteristics of the Student Sample: Sex of Students Completing F i r s t 4 Instruments i n Each School and Totals for A l l Schools School Total Sex: Male Female 21 29 50 33 51 9 36 41 35 66 184 187 Total 30 65 91 68 117 371 56 TABLE V I I C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Student Sample: Numbers of Students i n Academic, Non-Academic, or Other Courses f o r Each S c h o o l and T o t a l s f o r A l l Schools S c h o o l 1 2 3 4 5 T o t a l Academic stream Non-academic streams 10 17 43 22 60 31 47 19 87 29 247 118 c Not s p e c i f i e d * 3 0 0 2 1 D T o t a l 30 65 91 68 117 371 Schools 1, 4, and 5 d i d not s p e c i f y a stream f o r 6 s t u d e n t s - -these s t u d e n t s were i n a p r o b a t i o n a r y p e r i o d or o t h e r w i s e dxd not q u a l i f y f o r orthodox programs i n the B r i t i s h Columbia s c h o o l system. 57 school of o r i g i n so that differences among schools, where present, may be noted. The decision to pool was made because i n several instances the number of observations was too small for s t a t i s t i c a l procedures to be appropriate, and because results can be more clea r l y shown when combined i n a single table for each set of results. Pooling was thought to be j u s t i f i e d because no differences of magnitude i n connection with averages and distributions of results were noticed i n the data: i n p a r t i c u l a r , the mean and shape of the approach-a b i l i t y index scores were similar across schools, as were the mean placement of items on both QF and QN. RESULTS Because the hypotheses i n this study a l l relate to a single c r i t e r i o n , approachability, results pertaining to the approachability index must be described before results pertaining to single hypotheses are presented. Approachability—Results on the A-Index Approachability, the dependent variable, was measured by means of SQ-2 on which students indicated f i r s t choices of adults on their school s t a f f s to whom they would go for discussions of impersonal topics, vocational choice, and personal problems. Thus each adult's approachability was ascertained for 3 contexts of approachability, one for each type of discussion. 58 A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y s c o r e s f o r each a d u l t were o b t a i n e d by c o u n t i n g the number o f times he was chosen f o r a p a r t i -c u l a r c o n t e x t of a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y , by c o u n t i n g the number of s t u d e n t s who had i n d i c a t e d they knew him on SQ-1, and d i v i -d i n g the former by the l a t t e r . Thus, an a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y (A) s c o r e was # o f times chosen f o r one c o n t e x t of a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y A = # o f times i n d i c a t e d as known t o a s t u d e n t The t h e o r e t i c a l range of the A Index i s 0 t o +1.00. I t s h o u l d be noted i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the A Index t h a t : (1) a few s t u d e n t s chose a d u l t s f o r d i s c u s s i o n s who were not i n the sample o f a d u l t s - - a d u l t s who were not known t o a t l e a s t 30 p e r c e n t o f the s t u d e n t s i n the sample; (2) a few s t u d e n t s d e c l i n e d t o choose any a d u l t f o r c e r t a i n o f the c o n t e x t s o f a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y ; (3) the a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y i n d e x on which Hypothesis 3, r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p be-tween a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y and f a c t u a l - v a l u e p a t t e r n s i s based, i s s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t from the inde x used f o r the o t h e r hypotheses because the c h o i c e s of s t u d e n t s who were absent when QF was completed were not i n c l u d e d i n the c a l c u l a t i o n s , hence a few a d u l t s have s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t A sco r e s because s t u d e n t s who d i d o r d i d not choose them were not i n c l u d e d i n the A Index. Table V I I I on page 59 shows a d u l t s ' A sco r e s on the c o n t e x t of im p e r s o n a l t o p i c s . The range i s from 58 a d u l t s 59 TABLE V I I I A d u l t s ' Scores on A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y Index f o r D i s c u s s i o n of an Impersonal T o p i c — T i m e s Chosen D i v i d e d by Number of Students Knowing Each A d u l t — F r e q u e n c i e s f o r a l l Obtained R a t i o s S c h o o l 1 2 3 4 5 T o t a l A Score: F r e q u e n c i e s 00 6 9 19 11 13 .01 3 .02 1 3 1 3 .03 1 2 3 .04 2 1 3 .05 1 1 1 1 1 .06 1 .07 1 1 .08 2 1 2 1 1 .09 1 .11 1 .12 1 .13 1 .14 1 .15 2 .17 1 .20 1 .22 1 .23 1 .24 1 1 .25 1 .36 ' 1 .38 1 .40 1 .46 1 .54 1 3 8 6 6 5 1 2 7 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 T o t a l s 15 19 32 21 28 115 Note: 5 s t u d e n t s d e c l i n e d t o choose an a d u l t f o r t h i s t o p i c : 1 i n School 3, 1 i n School 4, and 3 i n Sc h o o l 5. Note: Based on SQ-2 r e s u l t s , 371 s t u d e n t s ' c h o i c e s of 115 a d u l t s known t o 30 p e r c e n t of these s t u d e n t s . 60 with A scores of 0, to 1 adult with an A score of .54. Table IX on page 61 shows adults' A scores on the context of vocational choice. The range i s from 49 adults with A scores of 0 to 1 adult with an A score of .64. Table X on page 62 shows adults' A scores i n the context of personal problems. The range i s from 52 adults with A scores of 0 to 1 adult with an A score of .50. Scores of adults on the 3 contexts of approachability are also shown i n Figures 1, 2, and 3, on pages 63, 64, and 65, which are derived from Tables VIII, IX, and X respec-t i v e l y . Comparison of these figures reveals that the d i s t r i -bution shapes are similar for the 3 types of discussion. Individuals high on the approachability index for one context of approachability are not necessarily the same individuals who are high on other contexts. Table XI on page 66 gives frequencies with which adults were chosen for a l l three, two of three, one of three, and for no contexts of approachability. Hypothesis 1: Approachability and Same- and Opposite-Sex Choices Hypothesis 1 i s : Adults w i l l be chosen by students of the same sex proportionately more often than by students of the opposite sex for discussions of impersonal topics, vocational choice, and personal problems. TABLE IX 61 A d u l t s ' Scores on A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y Index f o r D i s c u s s i o n of V o c a t i o n a l C h o i c e — T i m e s Chosen D i v i d e d by Number of Students Knowing Each A d u l t — F r e q u e n c i e s f o r a l l Obtained R a t i o s S c h o o l 1 2 3 4 5 T o t a l A Score: F r e q u e n c i e s 00 6 5 18 7 13 49 .01 .02 5 2 3 3 2 3 4 14 .03 1 1 2 1 5 .04 2 1 2 1 1 7 .05 3 2 1 1 7 .06 1 2 1 4 .07 2 1 1 4 .08 2 3 5 .09 2 2 .10 1 1 2 .12 1 1 2 .13 1 1 .17 1 1 .34 1 1 .35 1 1 .36 1 1 2 .47 1 ' 1 .60 1 1 .63 1 1 .64 1 1 T o t a l s 15 19 32 21 28 115 Note: Note: 3 s t u d e n t s d e c l i n e d t o choose an a d u l t : f o r t h i s t o p i c : 1 each i n Schools 2, 3, and 5. Based on SQ-2 r e s u l t s , 371 s t u d e n t s ' c h o i c e s of 115 a d u l t s known t o 30 p e r c e n t of these s t u d e n t s . 62 TABLE X A d u l t s ' Scores on A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y Index f o r D i s c u s s i o n of a S e r i o u s P e r s o n a l P r o b l e m — T i m e s Chosen D i v i d e d by Number of Students Knowing Each A d u l t — F r e q u e n c i e s f o r A l l Obtained R a t i o s S c h o o l T o t a l A Score: F r e q u e n c i e s 00 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10 .11 .12 .14 .15 .18 .20 .21 .23 .30 .33 .48 .50 2 2 8 18 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 11 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 .1 1 52 1 9 5 8 6 4 3 1 4 3 2 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 T o t a l s 15 19 32 21 28 115 Note: Note: 32 s t u d e n t s d e c l i n e d t o choose an a d u l t f o r t h i s t o p i c 1 i n School 1, 7 i n School 2. 4 i n School 3, 8 i n School 4, and 12 i n School 5. Based on SQ-2 r e s u l t s , 371 s t u d e n t s ' c h o i c e s of 115 a d u l t s known t o 30 p e r c e n t o f . t h e s e s t u d e n t s . 60 to e M F i g u r e 2. A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y of A d u l t s f o r V o c a t i o n a l Choice Context: F r e q u e n c i e s f o r Scores on A Shown on L e f t M a r g i n ; A-Index Scores Appear on Bottom M a r g i n . N=115. Op 0 *»> , 0 L . 0 3 .05.07 . 0 9 ,11 .13 .(5 , 1 7 , 1 9 .21 ,25 ,Z5 ,27 , Z9 .31 . 3 3 .35 ,37 . 3 9 . 4 3 . 4 5 , 4 7 , 4 9 . 5 1 .53 . 5 5 ,57 , 59 .61 -61 .65 -67.69 5 0 , 5 Z , 5 ^ , 5 6 . 5 8 . 6 0 .66 .6S .70 6 0 i 5 0 F i g u r e 3. A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y of A d u l t s f o r P ersonal-Problems C o n t e x t : F r e q u e n c i e s f o r Scores on A Shown on L e f t M a r g i n ; A-Index Scores Appear on Bottom M a r g i n . N=115. 4 0 ' ^ ^ ^ ^ V , 5 7 . , 9 . 6 . , 6 3 . 6 5 . 6 7 30 ,3-i73~4,3fo 3 8 .40 $Z <W A<> 3% m Eo.5i.54-,5b ,58.60 ,&x,6<t- -<>b .68-70 .01 CT\ 66 TABLE XI Numbers of Adults Chosen for A l l 3 Contexts of Approach, for 2 Contexts, for 1 Context, and Those Never Chosen for Any Context School Total Chosen for: A l l 3 Contexts 2 Contexts 1 Context Unchosen 3 8 1 3 6 6 4 3 6 6 13 7 7 6 5 3 9 7 10 2 31 33 33 18 Totals 15 19 32 21 28 115 67 Sex choices for approach context of impersonal topics. Male adults were chosen for discussions of impersonal topics i n numbers disproportionate to their presence i n the sample by both male and female students. Male adults were chosen by 153 of 167 male students; male adults were chosen by 159 of 176 female students. Female adults were chosen by 14 male and 17 female students. The tendency for choice of same- or opposite-sex adult was tested for significance by chi square, assuming expected frequencies to be i n proportion to the presence of male and of female adults i n the adult sample. Chi square shows that the disproportion of choices i s s i g n i -f i c a n t for choices of both male and female students: proba-b i l i t i e s are less than .001 i n both instances. Tables XII and XIII on page 68 pertain to these results. Sex choices for approach context of vocational choice. Male adults were chosen by male students for discussions of vocational choice i n numbers disproportionate to their pre-sence i n the sample. Female adults were also chosen by female students for discussions of vocational choice i n numbers disproportionate to their presence i n the sample. Male adults were chosen by. 171 of 174 male students; female adults were chosen by 112 of 184 female students. Male adults were chosen by 72 female students; female adults were chosen by 3 male students. The tendency to choose adults of the same or opposite sex i s tested for significance by chi square, assuming expected frequencies to be i n proportion 68 TABLE X I I Choices of Male and Female A d u l t s by Male and Female Students f o r D i s c u s s i o n s of Impersonal T o p i c s i n Each S c h o o l School Same Sex Opposite Sex M-M F-F M-F F-M 1 20 0 1 9, 2 19 2 3 34 3 44 2 0 36 4 32 6 0 29 5 38 7 10 51 T o t a l s 153 17 14 159 TABLE X I I I Choices of Male and Female A d u l t s by Male and Female Students f o r D i s c u s s i o n s of Impersonal Top i c s F N=37 (32 .2%) Chosen M N=78 (67-8%) T o t a l N=115 M 14 ( 8 .4%) 153 (91. 6%) 167 Chooser F 17 ( 9 .7%) 159 (90 . 3%) 176 T o t a l Choices 31 312 343 X 2 f o r males' c h o i c e s (top 2 c e l l s ) - 42.03; 1 d f ; p < .001 X* f o r females' c h o i c e s ( b o t t o m 2 c e l l s ) = 39.82; 1 d f ; P < 69 t o the presence of male and of female a d u l t s i n the sample. C h i square shows t h a t the d i s p r o p o r t i o n o f c h o i c e s i s s i g -n i f i c a n t f o r c h o i c e s of both male and female s t u d e n t s : p r o b a b i l i t i e s are l e s s than .001 i n both i n s t a n c e s . Tables XIV and XV on page 70 p e r t a i n t o t h e s e r e s u l t s . Sex c h o i c e s f o r approach c o n t e x t o f p e r s o n a l problems. Male a d u l t s were chosen by male s t u d e n t s and female a d u l t s were chosen by female s t u d e n t s i n numbers d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o t h e i r presence i n the sample. Male a d u l t s were chosen by 144 of 159 male s t u d e n t s ; female a d u l t s were chosen by 121 of 174 female s t u d e n t s . Male a d u l t s were chosen by 53 female s t u d e n t s ; female a d u l t s were chosen by 15 male s t u d e n t s . The tendency t o choose a d u l t s of the same or the o p p o s i t e sex i s t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e by c h i square assuming expec-t e d f r e q u e n c i e s t o be i n p r o p o r t i o n t o the presence o f male and female a d u l t s i n the sample. C h i square shows t h a t the d i s p r o p o r t i o n of c h o i c e s i s s i g n i f i c a n t f o r c h o i c e s of both male and female s t u d e n t s : p r o b a b i l i t i e s are l e s s than .001 i n both i n s t a n c e s . Tables XVI and XVII on page 71 p e r t a i n t o these r e s u l t s . I n summary, Hypothesis 1 was supported f o r the con-t e x t s of v o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e and p e r s o n a l problems: male st u d e n t s d i d tend t o choose male a d u l t s and female s t u d e n t s d i d tend t o choose female a d u l t s f o r such d i s c u s s i o n s . D i s -p r o p o r t i o n s are s i g n i f i c a n t i n a l l i n s t a n c e s a t the .001 70 TABLE XIV Same and O p p o s i t e Sex C h o i c e s o f A d u l t s f o r D i s c u s s i o n s o f V o c a t i o n a l C h o i c e f o r Each S c h o o l S c h o o l Same Sex O p p o s i t e Sex M-M F-F M-F F-M 1 20 1 1 8 2 22 30 1 5 3 49 31 1 10 4 32 15 0 20 5 48 35 0 29 T o t a l s 171 112 3 72 TABLE XV C h o i c e s o f Male and Female A d u l t s by Male and Female S t u d e n t s f o r D i s c u s s i o n s o f V o c a t i o n a l C h o i c e F Chosen M T o t a l N=37 (32.2%) N=78 (67. 8%) N=115 M 3 ( 1.8%) 171(98.2%) 174 C h o o s e r F 112 (60.9%) 72 (39.1%) 184 T o t a l 115 243 358 C h o i c e s X 2 f o r m a l e s ' c h o i c e s (top 2 c e l l s ) =" 74. 34; 1 df_; p < .001 X 2 f o r f e m a l e s ' c h o i c e s (bottom 2 c e l l s ) = 70.41; 1 d f ; p < .001 71 TABLE XVI Same and Opposite Sex Choices of A d u l t s f o r D i s c u s s i o n s of P e r s o n a l Problems f o r Each S c h o o l S c h o o l Same Sex Opposite Sex M-M F-F M-F F-M 1 18 7 2 2 2 18 25 3 8 11 3 48 27 0 4 24 22 3 10 5 36 40 7 22 T o t a l 144 121 15 53 TABLE XVII Choices of Male and Female A d u l t s by Male and Female Students f o r D i s c u s s i o n of P e r s o n a l Problems F Chosen M T o t a l N=37(32.2%) N=7 8 (67 .8%) N=115 M 15 ( 9.4%) 144 (90 .6%) 159 Chooser F 121(70.0%) 53 (30 .0%) 174 T o t a l Choices 136 197 333 X 2 f o r males' c h o i c e s ( t o p 2 c e l l s ) = 60.88; 1 < .001 2 f o r females' c h o i c e s ( b o t t o m 2 c e l l s ) = 112.59; 1 df;p 72 l e v e l . For d i s c u s s i o n s of i m p e r s o n a l t o p i c s , however, w h i l e male s t u d e n t s tended t o choose male a d u l t s , female s t u d e n t s a l s o tended t o choose male a d u l t s , and f o r t h i s l a t t e r group the h y p o t h e s i s was not s u p p o r t e d - - i t was, i n f a c t , r e v e r s e d . These d i s p r o p o r t i o n s are a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .001 l e v e l . H y p othesis 2: A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y and Age Range Hypothesis 2 i s : younger a d u l t s w i l l be chosen p r o -p o r t i o n a t e l y more o f t e n than o l d e r a d u l t s f o r d i s c u s s i o n s of i m p e r s o n a l t o p i c s , v o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e , and p e r s o n a l problems. Age c h o i c e s f o r approach c o n t e x t of i m p e r s o n a l t o p i c s . A d u l t s i n the 31-40 and 51-60 age ranges were chosen d i s p r o -p o r t i o n a t e l y more f r e q u e n t l y , and a d u l t s i n the r e m a i n i n g 3 age ranges d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y l e s s f r e q u e n t l y f o r d i s c u s s i o n s of i m p e r s o n a l t o p i c s . D i s p r o p o r t i o n s are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g -n i f i c a n t by c h i square t e s t w i t h p r o b a b i l i t i e s l e s s than .001. Tables X V I I I and XIX on page 73 p e r t a i n t o these r e s u l t s . The l a r g e s t d i s p r o p o r t i o n occurs f o r the i n f r e q u e n c y o f c h o i c e o f a d u l t s i n the 41-50 group. Age c h o i c e s f o r approach c o n t e x t o f v o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e . A d u l t s i n the 31-40 and 51-60 age ranges were chosen d i s p r o p o r -t i o n a t e l y more f r e q u e n t l y than a d u l t s i n the o t h e r 3 age ranges f o r d i s c u s s i o n s o f v o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e . These d i s p r o p o r t i o n s are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t by c h i square t e s t w i t h proba-b i l i t i e s l e s s than .001. Tables XX and XXI on page 74 p e r -t a i n t o these r e s u l t s . The l a r g e s t d i s p r o p o r t i o n s are f o r 73 TABLE X V I I I Choices of A d u l t s i n 5 Age Ranges f o r D i s c u s s i o n s of an Impersonal T o p i c f o r Each S c h o o l S c h o o l A g e R a n g e s 51-60 60+ 20-30 31-40 41-50 1 24 2 1 3 0 2 15 25 14 0 5 3 6 46 6 4 0 4 6 13 2 41 0 5 33 41 6 0 0 T o t a l 84 127 29 48 5 TABLE XIX Choices o f A d u l t s i n 5 Age Ranges f o r D i s c u s s i o n s of Impersonal T o p i c s Age Range Approx.% i n 20-30 sample 31% 31-40 33% 41-50 19% 51-60 12% 60+ 3% T o t a l Choices Approx.% of 84 c h o i c e s 29% 127 43% 29 10% 48 16% 5 2% 293 X 2 = 26.99; 4 d f ; p < .001 74 TABLE XX Choices of A d u l t s i n 5 Age Ranges f o r D i s c u s s i o n s of V o c a t i o n a l Choice f o r Each S c h o o l S c h o o l A g e R a n g e s 20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60+ i 6 21 3 0 0 2 23 3 3 . 28 2 3 1 46 14 26 0 4 7 37 3 12 0 5 14 64 20 0 0 T o t a l 51 171 ,43 66 2 TABLE XXI Choices of A d u l t s i n 5 Age Ranges f o r D i s c u s s i o n s o f V o c a t i o n a l Choice Age Range Approx.% i n 20-30 sample 31% 31-40 33% 41-50 19% 51-60 12% 60+ 3% T o t a l Choices Approx.% of 51 c h o i c e s 15% 171 51% 43 13% 66 20% 2 1% 333 X 2 = 85.72; 4 df; p < .001 75 the infrequency of choices for the 20-30 age range and the frequency of choices for the 31-40 age range. Age choices for approach context of personal problems. Adults i n the 51-60 age range were chosen disproportionately more frequently and those i n the 41-50 and 60+ age ranges disproportionately less frequently for discussions of personal problems. Over a l l age ranges, the results are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t by chi-square test with p r o b a b i l i t i e s less than .001. Adults i n the 2 youngest age ranges, however, were chosen i n close proportion to their existence i n the sample. Tables XXII and XXIII on page 76 pertain to these results. The largest disproportion i s the frequency with which adults i n the 51-60 age range were chosen. Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3 states: Factual-value-pattern s i m i l a r i t y w i l l correlate p o s i t i v e l y with choice of adults for di s -cussions : A. Adults whose factual-value patterns are more similar to students who know them w i l l be chosen proportion-ately more often than w i l l adults with less similar factual-value patterns. B. Particular adults whose factual-value patterns are more similar to those of particular students w i l l be chosen proportionately more often by. such students than they 76 TABLE XXII Choice of A d u l t s i n 5 Age Ranges f o r D i s c u s s i o n s of P e r s o n a l Problems i n Each Sc h o o l S c h o o l A g e R a n g e s 20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60+ 1 15 11 2 1 0 2 13 2 14 24 1 3 10 34 15 20 0 4 18 15 3 10 0 5 43 34 13 0 0 T o t a l 99 96 47 55 1 TABLE X X I I I Choice of A d u l t s i n 5 Age Ranges f o r D i s c u s s i o n s o f P e r s o n a l Problems Age Range 20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 60+ T o t a l Approx.% i n sample 31% 33% 19% 12% 3% Choices 99 96 47 55 1 298 Approx.% of Choices 33% 32% 16% 18% X 2 = 19.96; 4 df; p < .001 77 w i l l be chosen by students whose factual value patterns are less similar. The f i r s t section of this hypothesis regarding the relationship between adults' mean^factual-value-pattern correlation with students who knew them and their A scores i s analysed by correlating these scores for the 97 adults who completed QF. Coefficients of correlation were trans-formed to z_r scores, using Fisher's transformation. Tables XXIV, XXV and XXVI on pages 78, 79 , and 80 showed each adultfs A score paired with his mean z score on factual-values for c — r the 3 contexts of approach. The c o e f f i c i e n t of correlation for A scores i n the impersonal-topic approach context and QF mean z scores i s -.05; for A scores i n the vocational-— r choice-approach context i t i s -.03; and for A scores on the personal-problems-approach i t i s +.0y. Table XXVII on page 81 summarizes these results. Because the d i s t r i b u t i o n of A scores i s J-shaped, the bivariate-normal assumption underlying the significance test for a correlation c o e f f i c i e n t i s clearly not s a t i s f i e d , and no significance test i s applied. Inspection of the scatter-plots (Figures 4, 5, and 6 on pages 82, 83, and 84) corres-ponding to the three sets of paired data suggest that r e l a -tionships, i f present, are not strong. Because of the low magnitude of the correlation co-e f f i c i e n t s for a l l three contexts of approach, i t was con-78 TABLE XXIV A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y Scores — I m p e r s o n a l T o p i c C o n t e x t — a n d Mean z Scores on F a c t u a l - V a l u e P a t t e r n s of Students ~E Who Knew Each A d u l t S c h o o l A £ r (4) .50 .14 (1) .48 .19 (2) .40 .20 (2) .38 .33 (5) .36 .23 (2) .26 .35 (4) .25 .26 (1) .24 .19 (5) .22 .21 (3) .22 .17 (3) .20 .28 (4) .16 .17 (5) .15 .23 (5) .15 .51 (2) .14 .33 (4) .14 .09 (4) .13 .23 (1) .12 .10 (2) .11 .14 (3) .09 .21 (1) .09 .05 (3) .09 .25 (1) .08 .13 (1) .08 .20 (5) .08 .18 (3) .08 .08 (2) .07 .27 (1) .06 .11 (5) .06 .29 (1) .05 .29 (2) .05 .28 (2) .05 .14 c h o o l A z — r S c h o ol A z — r (3) .05 .26 (3) .00 .19 (3) .05 .11 (3) .00 .14 (5) .0'4 .22 (3) .00 .14 (1) .04 .21 (3) .00 .12 (2) .04 .21 (3) .00 .12 (3) .04 .20 (3) .00 .05 (3) .04 .15 (3) .00 .11 (3) .04 .23 (3) .00 .18 (4) .04 .38 (3) .00 .19 (5) .04 .18 (3) .00 .25 (4) .03 .34 (3) .00 .16 (2) .03 .34 (3) .00 .16 (5) .03 .28 (3) .00 .18 (3) .02 .29 (3) .00 .29 (5) .02 .36 (3) .00 .25 (5) .01 .18 (4) .00 .19 (5) .01 .20 (4) .00 .26 (1) .00 .23 (4) .00 . 22 (1) .00 .16 (4) .00 .35 (1) .00 .30 (4) .00 .29 (1) .00 .26 (4) .00 .17 (1) .00 .14 (4) .00 .37 (1) .00 .26 (5) .00 .22 (2) .00 .27 (5) .00 .20 (2) .00 .36 (5) .00 .31 (2) .00 .33 (5) .00 .40 (2) .00 .27 (5) .00 .33 (2) .00 .36 (5) .00 .27 (2) .00 .21 (5) .00 .28 (2) .00 .18 (5) .00 .20 (2) .00 .19 (5) .00 .31 (3) .00 .24 (5) .00 .29 (3) .00 .25 r = -.05 N = 97 Note: A-scores d i f f e r s l i g h t l y f o r QF and QN because N of stude n t s c o m pleting QF was s m a l l e r . 79 TABLE XXV A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y S c o r e s — V o c a t i o n a l Choice C o n t e x t — a n d Mean z Scores on F a c t u a l - V a l u e P a t t e r n s of Students Who Knew ~~r Each A d u l t r = -.03 N = 97 School A * r S c h o o l A * r S c h o o l A * r (1) .66 .26 (4) .04 .26 (2) .00 .36 (2) .62 .27 (1) .04 .21 (2) .00 .36 (4) .61 .17 (1) .04 .13 (2) .00 .20 (3) .46 .23 (1) .04 .19 (2) .00 .18 (2) .41 .19 (2) .04 .33 (3) .00 .24 (5) .37 .18 (2) .04 .21 (3) .00 .15 (3) .36 .08 (3) .04 .19 (3) .00 ,19 (5) .29 .31 (2) .03 .35 (3) .00 .14 (5) .17 .22 (2) .03 . 33 (3) .00 .12 (4) .15 .26 (2) .03 .34 (3) .00 .12 (1) .12 .20 (5) .03 .40 (3) .00 .17 (3) .11 .21 (2) .02 .27 (3) .00 .25 (4) .11 .38 (2) .02 .14 (3) .00 .05 (3) .10 .11 (3) .02 .25 K 3 ) .00 .11 (5) .10 .29 (3) .02 .29 (3) .00 .18 (4) .09 .22 (3) .02 .18 (3) .00 ,16 (2) .08 .14 (3) .02 .29 (3) .00 .16 (3) .08 .14 (4) .02 .14 (3) .00 .26 (5) .08 .18 (4) .02 .19 (3) .00 .25 (4) .07 .09 (4) .02 .17 (3) .00 .28 (5) .07 .20 (5) .02 .18 (4) .00 .35 (5) .06 .40 (5) .01 .23 (4) .00 .23 (1) .06 .14 (1) .00 .11 (4) .00 .34 (2) .06 .33 (1) .00 .19 (4) .00 .29 (3) .06 .20 (1) .00 .23 (4) .00 .37 (1) .05 .29 (1) .00 .10 (5) .00 .22 (1) .05 .26 (1) .00 .05 (5) .00 .20 (2) .05 .21 (1) .00 .16 (5) .00 .33 (2) .05 .28 (1) .00 .30 (5) .00 .28 (3) .05 .25 (2) .00 .27 (5) .00 .23 (5) .04 .22 (5) .00 .27 (5) .04 .29 (5) .00 .28 (5) (5) (5) .00 .00 .00 .21 .20 .31 Note: A-scores d i f f e r s l i g h t l y f o r QF and QN because N of stude n t s completing QF was s m a l l e r . 80 TABLE XXVI A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y S c o r e s — P e r s o n a l Problems C o n t e x t — a n d Mean z Scores on F a c t u a l - V a l u e P a t t e r n s of Students Who Knew Each A d u l t S c h o o l A z — r (2) .54 .27 (4) .50 .26 (3) .32 .23 (1) .30 .21 (1) .28 .26 (4) .26 .17 (2) .21 .35 (5) .20 .31 (1) .19 .19 (2) .19 .19 (5) .17 .18 (5) .16 .22 (5) .15 .18 (3) .14 .25 (4) .13 .35 (1) .12 .20 (3) .12 .16 (4) .10 .22 (3) .09 .20 (3) .09 .08 (3) .09 .11 (5) .09 .31 (5) .09 .40 (2) .08 .28 (3) .08 .14 (3) .07 .24 (5) .06 .40 (5) .06 .29 (1) .06 .14 (2) .06 .18 (2) .06 .33 (3) .06 .21 S c h o o l (3) (1) (2) (3) (3) (1) (1) (3) (4) (4) (5) (5) (5) (2) (2) (3) (5) (5) (2) (4) (4) (4) (5) (5) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (2) (2) A Z — r S c h o o l z — r .06 .29 (2) .00 .33 .05 .26 (2) .00 .36 .05 .33 (2) .00 .36 .05 .29 (2) .00 .20 .05 .18 (2) .00 .21 .04 .10 (2) .00 .14 .04 .19 (3) .00 .25 .04 .17 (3) .00 .15 .04 .26 (3) .00 .19 .04 .38 (3) .00 .14 .04 .23 (3) .00 .12 .04 .27 (3) .00 .12 .04 .23 (3) .00 .05 .03 .34 (3) .00 .11 .03 .14 (3) .00 .18 .03 .29 (3) .00 .19 .03 .21 (3) .00 .25 .03 .18 (3) .00 .16 .02 .27 (3) .00 .26 .02 .14 (3) .00 .28 .02 .19 (4) .00 .09 .02 .17 (4) .00 e 2 3 .02 .28 (4) .00 .34 .02 .22 (4) .00 .29 .00 .11 (4) .00 .37 .00 .29 (4) .00 .22 .00 .23 (5) .00 .20 .00 .05 (5) .00 .29 .00 .13 (5) .00 .33 .00 .16 (5) .00 .28 .00 .30 (5) .00 .20 .00 .21 (5) .00 .20 .00 .27 N=97 r = +.09 Note: A-scores d i f f e r s l i g h t l y f o r QF and QN because N of stude n t s completing QF was s m a l l e r . 81 TABLE XXVII Summary Table: Coefficients of Correlation, Means, Standard Deviations of Mean z_r Scores of QF for a l l Adults Who Completed QF,-and A-scores Context Impersonal Vocational Personal Topic Choice Problems QF z Mean — r QF z SD — r A-Score Mean .06 .07 .06 .23 .23 .23 .08 .08 .08 -.05 -.03 +.09 Note: A-score SD not given, because d i s t r i b u t i o n J-shaped, not normal. 82 F i g u r e 4. S c a t t e r p l o t of P a i r e d Data i n Table XXIV: A Scores f o r Impersonal-Problem Context w i t h Mean z_r Scores on QF Of A d u l t s w i t h A l l Students Who Knew Them -.66! ,66! .64 .hi ,60 . 5 8 .56 .54 .52 .50 .48' .461 .44 . 4 2 .40' . 3 8 .36 ."54. , 3 2 . 3 0 .28 . 2 6 .24 .11 .wl .18 . 16 .14-. 1 2 .10 .08 .0 6 .0 4 .02 .00 .OO ,oq- .08 -12 ''6 ,OZ ,ob .10 .(4 . I B r i b . 3 0 . 3 4 . 3 6 A-Scores Note: A-scores are shown on on v e r t i c a l a x i s . 4z' ,46 .50 ,54 ,53 .62 .66 h o r i z o n t a l a x i s ; mean z r scores 83 'Figure 5. S c a t t e r p l o t of P a i r e d Data i n Table XXV: A Scores f o r V o c a t i o n a l - C h o i c e Context w i t h Mean £ r Scores on QF of A d u l t s w i t h A l l Students Who -Knew Them. .00 ,oq- .08 . IZ .16 —V fa .52 ,b6 .ho ,oz .ob .to ,l4 .18 .fi. -'Lb ,30 .34 .36 A-Scores 42 ,46 .50 ,54 .58 .62 ,6b Note: A-Scores are shown on h o r i z o n t a l a x i s ; mean scor e s on v e r t i c a l a x i s . 84 •Figure b- S c a t t e r p l o t of P a i r e d Data i n Table XX^ TI: Scores f o r Person-Problem Context w i t h Mean z_r Scores on QF of A d u l t s w i t h A l l Students Who -Knew Them. A .68| ,6fc| . 64 .hi, .60 .58 .5b .54 .52 .50 .481 .4.6| .44 .4-2 .40 .38 ,3b .34 , 3 2 .30 . 2 8 . 2 6 . 2 4 .22-,W . 1 8 ,16 .14-. 1 2 .to .08 .06 .0 4 .02 ,00 . 0 0 o q - . O B . r ^ . . i f o 7W-i^zt-^^^^~^ & -56760 oz .o& .10 .(4 .18 .26 .30 .34 .38 A-Scores ,46 ,50 ,54 .S3 .62 ,6b Note: A - s c o r e s a r e shown on on v e r t i c a l a x i s . h o r i z o n t a l a x i s ; mean s c o r e s 85 eluded t h a t the d a t a do not show r e l a t i o n s h i p s between f a c t u a l - v a l u e p a t t e r n s and a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y , and t h a t the f i r s t s e c t i o n of Hypothesis 3 i s not supported. R e s u l t s r e l a t i n g t o the second (B) s e c t i o n o f Hypothesis 3 are mean z_r s c o r e s o f s t u d e n t s who knew and chose, and knew and d i d not choose, p a r t i c u l a r a d u l t s , p r o -v i d e d always t h a t 2 or more s t u d e n t s chose the a d u l t . Mean z- s c o r e s f o r choosers and non-choosers w i t h each a d u l t are — r compared and t e s t e d f o r the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f a d i f f e r e n c e between two means f o r independent samples (Ferguson, 1959, pp. 167-169) . Table XXVIII on page 86 shows z_r s c o r e s f o r both choosers and non-choosers, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s , degrees of freedom, and t sco r e s f o r the 36 a d u l t s who were chosen f o r d i s c u s s i o n s o f i m p e r s o n a l t o p i c s by 2 or more s t u d e n t s . Table XXIX on page 87 shows s i m i l a r d a t a f o r approach i n the c o n t e x t o f v o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e f o r the 2 8 a d u l t s chosen by more than 1 s t u d e n t . Table XXX on page 8 8 shows s i m i l a r d a t a f o r approach i n the c o n t e x t of p e r s o n a l problems f o r the 40 a d u l t s who were chosen by more than 1 s t u d e n t . In summary, the aforementioned t a b l e s r e v e a l t h a t s t u d e n t s choosing a d u l t s are more l i k e the chosen a d u l t s i n QF r e s u l t s i n many i n s t a n c e s and l e s s l i k e them i n many o t h e r s . The same i s t r u e f o r non-choosers. In each c o n t e x t , the t v a l u e s t h a t reached s i g n i f i c a n c e are i n the d i r e c t i o n 86 TABLE XXVIII Mean z of Each A d u l t Chosen by 2 or More Students w i t h Students Choosing the A d u l t and Mean z r of Students Not Choosing the A d u l t , Standard D e v i a t i o n s , Degrees of Freedom,and t Values on Q S o r t of F a c t u a l Values and Approach Index Score f o r D i s c u s s i o n of an Impersonal T o p i c School * r C NC SD-C SD-NC df 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 .16 .03 .26 .23 .19 . 31 .41 .19 .17 .30 .14 .39 .29 .17 .21 .21 .17 .19 .10 .36 .05 .20 .36 -.14 .13 .12 .17 . 22 .10 .18 .21 .20 .27 .21 .19 .38 .23 .10 .19 .12 .19 .34 .32 .20 .13 .25 .14 .26 .35 .20 .21 .14 .17 .24 .08 .23 .12 .27 .26 .13 .15 .17 .30 °.19 .19 .30 .24 .21 .23 .22 .41 .18 .06 .00 .01 .15 .05 .12 .09 .09 .02 . 11 .02 .14 .01 .08 .11 .14 .10 .06 .06 .06 .14 .13 .07 .12 .18 .14 .20 .06 .09 .15 .11 .03 .15 .11 .13 .16 .15 .19 .16 .16 .16 .16 .09 .14 .15 .11 .15 .08 .14 .12 .14 .16 .13 .06 .15 .11 .11 .14 .13 .15 .14 .16 .16 .14 .16 .15 .14 .11 .15 .12 .17 25 23 24 24 23 27 35 38 36 43 40 36 14 45 53 47 56 57 62 44 57 56 57 12 46 49 18 29 83 58 71 79 74 83 71 52 -1.030 -0 .812 0.498 0.967 -0.056 -0.381 1.572 -0 .035 0.587 0 .592 -0.025 ,262 ,058 -0.364 0.075 0.649 -0 .061 -0.829 0.336 1, -1, 1, -1, ,265 ,047 -0.960 2.228* -2.883** -0.329 -0.968 -1.578 -0.114 -1.134 -0.135 -1.144 -1.451 0.835 -0.569 -0.977 -0.440 * p <.05; ** p <-01 N=36 87 TABLE XXIX Mean z_r of Each Adult Chosen by 2 or More Students with Students Choosing the Adult and Mean z_r of Students Not Choosing the Adult, Standard Deviations, Degrees of Freedom,and t Values on Q Sort of Factual Values and Approach Index Score for Discussion of Vocational Choice School z r C z NC £r SD-C SD-NC • df t 1 . 22 .20 .05 .15 24 0.339 1 .23 .33 .20 .08 27 -1.548 2 .25 .22 .14 .13 35 0.648 2 .01 .15 .04 .13 36 -1.829* 2 .23 .27 .18 .15 37 -0.365 2 .18 .21 .15 .10 25 -0.683 3 .15 .21 .14 .13 45 -0 .669 3 .16 .26 .12 .13 39 -1.195 3 .17 .21 .10 .11 53 -0.845 3 . 13 .14 .07 .14 51 -0 .056 3 .07 .09 .13 .13 62 -0.541 3 . 13 .19 .15 .12 44 -0.666 3 .29 .19 .12 .15 44 2.447** 3 .13 .11 .09 .11 57 0.405 4 . 16 .18 .14 .15 49 -0.562 4 .27 .26 .07 .14 53 0.145 4 .44 .37 .11 .15 26 0.852 4 . 24 .22 .05 .12 55 0.509 4 .32 .26 .15 .17 18 0.610 5 .19 .18 .08 .15 73 0.132 5 .27 .33 .10 .13 39 -1.262 5 .30 .29 .01 .15 46 0.083 5 .22 .16 .14 .13 83 2.006* 5 .36 .28 .21 .14 71 1.280 5 .24 .21 .10 .11 74 0.973 5 .15 .20 .03 .12 43 -0.850 5 .15 .22 .02 .13 47 -0.840 5 .52 .40 .06 .16 52 1.252 * p < .05; ** p < .01 N=2 8 88 TABLE XXX Mean Zj- of Each Adult Chosen by 2 or More Students with Students Choosing the Adult and Mean z r of Students Not Choosing the Adult, Standard Deviations, Degrees of Freedom,and t Values on Q Sort of Factual Values and Approach Index Score for Discussion of Personal Problems School £r C Zj. NC SD-C SD-NC df t 1 .25 .18 .11 .18 25 0.799 1 .26 .19 .17 .18 26 0.994 1 .19 .20 .18 .13 24 -0.164 1 .26 .26 .11 .19 27 -0.084 2 .46 .32 .14 .13 36 2.471** 2 .39 .34 .03 .06 33 0.536 2 .22 .32 .15 .10 35 -2.199* 2 .18 .27 .16 .14 37 -1.053 2 .27 .18 .08 .13 25 1.452 3 .25 .24 .10 .13 42 0.135 3 .15 .21 .11 .13 45 -0.868 3 .22 .21 .07 .12 53 0.149 3 .07 .14 .21 .13 51 -0.987 3 .23 .17 .05 .16 56 0 .563 3 .23 .24 .10 .13 57 -0.211 3 .08 .08 .09 .13 62 -0.073 3 .25 .23 .16 .14 44 0.415 3 .51 .28 .02 .13 39 2.493** 3 .09 .12 .03 .11 57 -0.611 3 .25 .16 .15 .13 48 1.562 3 .13 .18 .04 .12 64 -0.697 3 .06 .30 .09 .14 63 -3.542*** 4 .19 .16 .13 .15 49 0.699 4 .26 .26 .09 .14 53 0.040 4 .30 .21 .05 .12 55 1.780* 4 .33 .35 .16 .17 46 -0.227 4 .27 .26 .18 .15 18 0.109 5 .21 .18 .04 .15 73 0.344 5 .30 .31 . .08 .14 39 -0.338 5 .34 .40 .02 .13 34 -0.701 5 .25 .17 .17 .12 83 1.975* 5 .35 .15 .16 .14 58 4.063*** 5 .37 .29 .18 .14 71 1.107 5 .25 .23 .15 .13 79 0.234 5 .22 .20 .10 .13 74 0.469 5 .05 .10 .06 , .15 51 -0.473 5 .17 .23 .08 .14 83 -0.718 5 .21 .21 .09 .12 71 -0.028 5 .30 .29 .13 .15 83 0.120 5 .48 .40 .51 .17 54 0.782 * p < .05; ** p < > 0 1 ; *** p < .001 N=40 89 of the h y p o t h e s i s and i n the o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n . Of 104 t t e s t s , 13 reached the .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l o r beyond. On the b a s i s of these r e s u l t s , the second s e c t i o n of Hypothesis 3 i s not supported. Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4 s t a t e d : N o r m a t i v e / i n s t r u m e n t a l - v a l u e p a t t e r n s i m i l a r i t y w i l l c o r r e l a t e p o s i t i v e l y w i t h c h o i c e of a d u l t s f o r d i s c u s s i o n s : A. A d u l t s whose n o r m a t i v e / i n s t r u m e n t a l - v a l u e p a t t e r n s are more s i m i l a r t o p a t t e r n s of st u d e n t s who know them w i l l be c h o s e n ' p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more o f t e n than w i l l a d u l t s w i t h l e s s s i m i l a r n o r m a t i v e / i n s t r u m e n t a l - v a l u e p a t t e r n s . B. P a r t i c u l a r a d u l t s whose n o r m a t i v e / i n s t r u m e n t a l v a l u e p a t t e r n s are more s i m i l a r t o those o f p a r t i c u l a r s t u d e n t s w i l l be chosen p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y more o f t e n by such students than they w i l l be chosen by stud e n t s whose n o r m a t i v e / i n s t r u m e n t a l v a l u e p a t t e r n s are l e s s s i m i l a r . The f i r s t s e c t i o n of t h i s h y p o t h e s i s r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a d u l t s ' mean n o r m a t i v e / i n s t r u m e n t a l p a t t e r n c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h s t u d e n t s who knew them and t h e i r A scores i s an a l y s e d by c o r r e l a t i n g these scores f o r the 97 a d u l t s who completed QN. C o e f f i c i e n t s of c o r r e l a t i o n were transformed t o z_^_ s c o r e s , u s i n g F i s h e r ' s t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . Tables XXXI,XXXII, and XXXIII on pages 90, 91 and 92 show 90 TABLE XXXI A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y S c o r e s — I m p e r s o n a l T o p i c C o n t e x t — a n d Mean z Scores on N o r m a t i v e / I n s t r u m e n t a l - V a l u e P a t t e r n s o f "~E Students Who Knew Each A d u l t School A z — r S c h o ol A z — r S chool A z — r (4) .54 .47 (1) .04 .33 (3) .00 .27 (1) .46 .30 (2) .04 -.09 (3) .00 .09 (2) .40 .24 (3) .04 .14 (3) .00 .34 (2) .38 .53 (3) .04 .38 (3) .00 .11 (5) .36 .39 (3) .04 .29 (3) .00 .41 (3) .25 .29 (5) .03 .23 (3) .00 .27 (1) .24 .32 (3) .03 .35 (3) .00 .41 (5) .24 .07 (4) .03 .41 (3) .00 .34 (2) .23 .43 (4) .03 .01 (3) .00 .37 (4) .22 . 45 (5) .03 .18 (3) .00 .32 (4) .17 .25 (2) .02 .25 (3) .00 .20 (5) .15 .36 (3) .02 .37 (3) .00 .19 (5) .15 .51 (5) .02 .20 (3) .00 .33 (2) .14 .24 (5) .02 .34 (3) .00 .19 (4) .13 .24 (5) .02 .36 (3) .00 .35 (1) .12 .20 (5) .01 .13 (3) .00 .31 (4) .11 .15 (5) .01 .35 (4) .00 .25 (2) .09 .07 (5) .01 .48 (4) .00 .25 (1) .08 .14 (1) .00 .14 (4) .00 .23 (1) .08 .00 (1) .00 .33 (4) .00 .33 (2) .08 .23 (1) .00 .25 (4) .00 .46 (3) .08 .26 (1) .00 .21 (4) .00 .38 (3) .08 .18 (1) .00 .15 (4) .00 .19 (5) .08 .29 (1) .00 .14 (4) .00 .23 (3) .07 .29 (2) .00 .29 (5) .00 .06 (2) .07 .34 (2) .00 .23 (5) .00 .09 (1) .06 .22 (2) .00 .43 (5) .00 .46 (5) .05 .59 (2) .00 .04 (5) .00 .45 (1) .05 .12 (2) .00 .38 (5) .00 .30 (2) .05 .25 (2) .00 .34 (5) .00 .18 (3) .05 .25 (2) .00 .46 (5) .00 .38 (1) .04 .31 (2) .00 .32 (5) .00 .37 (3) .00 .33 r = +.17 N=97 91 TABLE XXXII A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y S c o r e s — V o c a t i o n a l Choice C o n t e x t — a n d Mean Zv- Scores on N o r m a t i v e / I n s t r u m e n t a l - V a l u e P a t t e r n s — o f Students Who Knew Each A d u l t School A z — r S c h o ol A z — r (2) .64 .04 (1) .04 .32 (1) .63 .21 (2) .04 -.09 (4) .60 .25 (3) .04 .27 (3) .47 .29 (3) .04 .32 (2) .36 .32 (5) .04 .36 (3) .36 .29 (2) .03 .24 (5) .35 .18 (4) .03 .25 (5) .34 .46 (4) .03 .19 (5) .17 .23 (5) .03 .51 (4) .13 .45 (2) .02 .43 (1) .12 .00 (2) .02 .43 (3) .12 .35 (2) .02 .25 (2) .10 .53 (2) .02 .25 (3) .10 .26 (2) .02 .23 (4) .09 .41 (3) .02 .41 (4) .09 .23 (3) .02 .20 (1) .08 .14 (3) .02 .37 (1) .08 .33 (4) .02 .47 (5) .08 .13 (4) .02 .25 (5) .08 .59 (5) .02 .45 (5) .08 .37 (5) .02 .29 (2) .07 .07 (5) .02 .18 (2) .07 .34 (3) .01 .19 (3) .07 .34 (3) .01 .35 (4) .07 .24 (5) .01 .36 (3) .06 .14 (5) .01 .07 (5) .06 .20 (1) .00 .22 (1) .05 .12 (1) .00 .30 (1) .05 .15 (1) .00 .14 (1) .05 .14 (1) .00 .20 (2) .05 .34 (1) .00 .25 (1) .04 .30 (1) .00 .33 (2) .00 .29 S c h o o l A z_r .10 (2) .00 .23 (2) .00 .38 (2) .00 .24 (2) .00 .46 (3) .00 .33 (3) .00 .38 (3) .00 .09 (3) .00 .11 (3) .00 .41 (3) .00 .27 (3) .00 .29 (3) .00 .18 (3) .00 .34 (3) .00 .37 (3) .00 .19 (3) .00 .33 (3) .00 .25 (3) .00 .31 (4) .00 .33 (4) .00 .46 (4) .00 .15 (4) .00 .01 (4) .00 .38 (4) .00 .23 (5) .00 .06 (5) .00 .09 (5) .00 .30 (5) .00 .34 (5) .00 .39 (5) .00 .38 (5) .00 .35 (5) .00 .48 N=97 92 TABLE XXXIII A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y S c o r e s — P e r s o n a l Problems C o n t e x t — a n d Mean Z j . Scores on N o r m a t i v e / I n s t r u m e n t a l - V a l u e P a t t e r n s of — Students Who Knew Each A d u l t S c h o o l A Sch o o l A z — r S c h o o l A z — r (2) .50 .04 (1) .05 .14 (2) .00 .24 (4) .48 .45 (3) .05 .37 (2) .00 .23 (3) .33 .29 (3) .05 .35 (2) .00 .38 (1) .30 .31 (4) .05 .25 (2) .00 .24 (1) .30 .21 (4) .05 .13 (2) .00 .34 (4) .23 .25 (5) .05 .45 (2) .00 .23 (2) .21 .43 (1) .04 .20 (3) .00 .27 (5) .21 .46 (1) .04 .32 (3) .00 .38 (5) .20 .29 (2) .04 .25 (3) .00 .09 (1) .18 .30 (2) .04 .19 (3) .00 .11 (2) .18 .32 (5) .04 .59 (3) .00 .41 (5) .15 .18 (5) .04 .36 (3) .00 .27 (3) .14 .18 (3) .03 .29 (3) .00 .34 (4) .14 .46 (3) .03 .31 (3) .00 .41 (5) .14 .23 (4) .03 .41 (3) .00 .37 (1) .12 .00 (5) .03 .39 (3) .00 .32 (3) .12 .33 (5) .03 .18 (3) .00 .20 (3) .11 .29 (2) .02 .25 (3) .00 .19 (3) .11 .35 (2) .02 .07 (3) .00 .25 (2) .10 .46 (4) .02 .47 (4) .00 .24 (2) .10 .53 (4) .02 .25 (4) .00 .33 (3) .09 .14 (4) .02 .19 (4) .00 .15 (4) .09 .23 (5) .02 .38 (4) .00 .01 (5) .09 .48 (5) .02 .36 (4) .00 .38 (5) .09 .51 (1) .00 .22 (4) .00 .23 (3) .08 .34 (1) .00 .12 (5) .00 .06 (3) .07 .26 (1) .00 .14 (5) .00 .09 (2) .07 .43 (1) .00 .14 (5) .00 .20 (2) .07 .34 (1) .00 .33 (5) .00 .30 (1) .06 .15 (1) .00 .25 (5) .00 .34 (3) .06 .33 (1) .00 .33 (5) .00 .35 (5) .06 .07 (2) .00 -.09 (5) .00 .37 (2) .00 .29 r = +.09 N=9 7 93 each adult's A score paired with his mean z_r score on norma-tive/instrumental values for the 3 contexts of approach. The coe f f i c i e n t of correlation with A scores i n the impersonal approach context i s +.17; the co e f f i c i e n t of correlation with the vocational-choice approach context i s -.10; the c o e f f i c i e n t of correlation with the personal-problems-approach context i s + .09. Table XXXIV on page 94 summarizes these re s u l t s . Because the di s t r i b u t i o n of A scores i s J-shaped, the bivariate-normal assumption underlying the significance test for a correlation c o e f f i c i e n t i s clearly not s a t i s f i e d and no significance test i s applied. Inspection of the scatterplots (Figures 7, 8, and 9 on pages 95, 96, and 97) corresponding to the three sets of paired data suggest that relationships, i f present, are not strong. A trend toward a positive r e l a -tionship i s noted, however, for the approach context of impersonal topics (Table XXXI and Figure 7). On the basis of these results, the f i r s t (A) section of Hypothesis 4 i s not supported, although a trend i n the direction of the hypo-thesis i s noted for the relationship between approachability and normative/instrumental-value patterns i n the impersonal-topic context of approach. Results relating to the second (B) section of Hypothesis 4 are mean z_r scores of students who knew and chose and knew and did not choose particular adults, provided 94 TABLE XXXIV Summary Table: Coefficients of Correlation, Means, Standard Deviations of Mean z Scores for QN, for A l l Adults Who Completed - QN, and A Scores Context Impersonal Vocational Personal Topic Choice Problems A-score Mean .06 .07 .06 QN z Mean .28 .28 .28 — r QN z SD .13 .13 .13 — r r +.17 -.10 +.09 Note: A-score SD not given because d i s t r i b u t i o n J-shaped, not normal. 95 F i g u r e 7. S c a t t e r p l o t of P a i r e d Data i n Table XXXt A Scores f o r Impersonal-Problem Context w i t h Mean z_r Scores on QN of A d u l t s w i t h A l l Students Who Knew Them -on v e r t i c a l a x i s . 96 F i g u r e 8. S c a t t e r p l o t of P a i r e d Data i n Table XXXlT: A Scores f o r V o c a t i o n a l - C h o i c e Context w i t h Mean z_r Scores on QN of A d u l t s w i t h A l l Students Who Knew Them-.60 .58! .56 /54 .52 ,50 •48 .46 .44 .42 . 4 0 .38. . 3 6 . 3 4 . 5 2 .30 .28 .2.6 .24 .11 .20 AS .16 .14 Al Ao .08 .06 .04 .02. .00 -,oz - . 0 4 - . 0 6 -.08 —.10 . 0 0 .04 -08 -1^  .16 2o ,oz ,ob .to .(4 .IB .24 .28 .32 .36 .40 ,^2 ,26 .30 .34 .36 A-Scores 44 42 ,46 .50 ,54 04 48 . 52 . 56 , 6xT 58 . 62 , 66 Note: A-scores are shown on h o r i z o n t a l a x i s ; mean z^ scores on v e r t i c a l a x i s . 97 F i g u r e 9. S c a t t e r p l o t of P a i r e d Data i n Table XXXlS: A Scores f o r Person-Profilem Context w i t h Mean z_r Scores on QN of A d u l t s w i t h A l l Students who Knew — Them. .60 .58 ,54 .52 .50 .48 .46' ,44 .42 . 4 o ,3S . 3 6 . 3 4 , 5 2 .30 .Z8 . Z b .241 .22 . 2 0 .18 .16 .14 .12 .10 .08 .0 6 .04 . 0 2 .00 ~.oz - 0 4 -.06 -.08 —.10 .00 oq- .08 -'6 '20 Z4 ,Z8 .32 .36 AO .44 49 O Z .06 .to .14 .18 .It -30 .34 .38 A-Scores 42.' .50 ,54 ,53 .62 ,6b -scores are shown on h o r i z o n t a l a x i s ; mean z_r scores Note• A on v e r t i c a l a x i s 98 always that 2 or more students chose the adult. Mean z_ scores for choosers and non-choosers with each adult are correlated and tested for the significance of a difference between means for two independent samples (Ferguson, 1959, pp. 167-169) . Table XXXV on page 99 shows mean z_r scores for choosers and non-choosers, standard deviations, degrees of freedom, and t scores for the 36 adults who were chosen by more than 2 students for discussions of impersonal topics. Table XXXVI on page 100 shows similar data for the vocational-choice-approach context for the 31 adults who were chosen by more than 1 student. Table XXXVII on page 101 shows similar data for the personal-problem-approach context for the 43 adults who were chosen by more than 1 student. In summary, the aforementioned tables reveal that students choosing adults are more l i k e the chosen adults i n QN results i n many instances, and less l i k e them i n many others. The same i s true for non-choosers. In two contexts, the t values that reached significance are both i n the direction of the hypothesis and i n the opposite direction. In the context of vocational choice, 5 s i g n i f i c a n t ts were i n the hypothe-sized direction. Of the 110 t tests, 16 reach the .05 s i g -nificance l e v e l or beyond. On the basis of these results, the second section of Hypothesis 4 i s not supported. 99 TABLE XXXV Mean z[r of Each Adult Chosen by 2 or More Students with Students Choosing the Adult and Mean Zj. of Students Not Choosing the Adult, Standard Deviations, Degrees of Freedom, and t Values on Q Sort of Normative/ Instrumental-Values and Approach Index Score for Discussion of an Impersonal Topic ihool ! r c Z r N C SD-C SD-NC df t 1 .-29 .30 .29 .32 26 -0.061 1 „13 .21 .12 .29 24 -0.433 1 -.08 .01 .08 .21 24 -0.568 1 .32 .33 .02 .30 24 -0.038 1 .32 .33 .02 .30 24 -0.038 1 .34 .32 .35 .29 23 0 .140 2 .16 .26 .11 .21 33 -1 .061 2 .52 .40 .33 .26 45 1.312 2 .09 .18 .36 .24 43 -0.933 2 .09 .06 .38 .29 41 0.159 2 .22 .25 .39 .24 54 -0.253 2 .25 .23 .05 .07 48 0.146 2 .19 .35 .07 .22 42 -1.239 2 .60 .56 .21 .32 19 .0.335 3 -.32 .16 .23 .27 52 -2.499** 3 «2 6 .28 .28 .32 58 -0.151 3 .34 .38 .06 .27 53 -0.212 3 .29 .29 .28 .26 65 .0.027 3 .16 .18 .17 .24 64 -0.154 3 .29 .28 .21 .29 71 0.075 3 .05 .29 .14 .28 49 -1.213 3 -.16 .20 .10 .28 65 -2.209* 3 .31 .26 .28 .35 64 0.269 4 .28 .23 .00 .26 13 0.244 4 .45 .50 .31 .32 54 -0.567 4 .36 .23 .26 .33 58 1.117 4 .36 .47 .14 .25 21 -0.997 4 -.03 .18 .22 .28 34 -1.408 5 .15 .19 .14 .27 97 -0.276 5 .19 .30 .24 .23 64 -0.944 5 .44 .40 .31 .31 84 0.496 5 .41 .37 .28 .30 92 0.594 5 .11 .24 .21 .28 86 -0.755 5 .45 .33 .32 .23 96 1.739* 5 .06 .07 .22 .23 83 -0.052 5 .67 .48 .39 .36 64 1.525 100 TABLE XXXVI Mean z_ of Each Adult Chosen by_ 2 or More Students with Students Choosing the Adult and Mean z_ of Students not Choosing the Adult, Standard Deviations, Degrees of Freedom,and t Values on Q Sort of Normative/Instrumental Values and Approach Index Score for Vocational Choice :hool z r C z r NC SD-C SD-NC df t 1 -.08 .01 .08 .21 24 -0.568 1 .22 .19 .26 .24 27 0.251 2 .01 .09 .29 .26 42 -0.896 2 .25 .05 .11 .30 41 1.143 2 .31 .34 .36 .26 28 -0.158 2 .33 .34 .19 .22 42 -0.078 2 .26 .35 .20 .33 31 -0.864 2 .74 .56 .26 .28 19 0.872 3 .02 .15 .41 .27 52 -0.773 3 .68 .24 .10 .28 43 2.254** 3 .58 .25 .32 .29 58 2.617** 3 .61 .32 .33 .33 59 1.754 3 .24 .30 .30 .28 71 -0.924 3 .15 .33 .14 .32 52 -0.783 3 .34 .22 .22 .31 49 1.590 3 .22 .18 .23 .29 65 0.392 4 .25 .26 .36 .27 58 -0.141 4 -.01 .26 .32 .27 62 -1.383 4 .47 .40 .13 .29 30 0.378 4 .34 .22 .34 .33 63 0.866 4 .35 .46 .12 .24 21 -0.778 4 -.02 .20 .06 .25 57 -1.183 5 .29 .12 .08 .25 84 1.803* 5 .44 .47 .18 .26 42 -0.395 5 .39 .19 .06 .24 51 1.479 5 .19 .16 .33 .25 97 0.526 5 .30 .41 .16 .32 84 -0.971 5 .24 .23 .26 .28 86 0.089 5 .45 .21 .18 .21 51 2.261* 5 .69 .34 .40 .25 55 1.873* 5 .80 .50 .38 .36 64 1.394 * p <.05; **p < .01 N=31 101 TABLE XXXVII Mean Zj. of Each Adult Chosen by 2 or More Students with Students Choosing the Adult and Mean z^. of Students not Choosing the Adult, Standard Deviations, Degrees of Freedom, and t Values on Q Sort of Normative/Instrumental Values and Approach Index Score for Discussion of Personal Problems School Zj- C z r NC SD-C SD-NC df 1 .19 .33 .34 1 .33 .30 .35 1 .05 -.01 .26 1 .16 .23 .27 2 .61 .37 .30 2 .43 .55 .27 2 .03 .05 .31 2 .17 .24 .24 2 .27 .34 .24 2 .50 .46 .31 2 .39 .31 .13 2 .71 .56 .03 3 .41 .33 .13 3 -.02 .16 .24 3 .10 .29 .40 3 .18 .35 .22 3 .24 .30 .15 3 .28 .16 .27 3 .30 .28 .26 3 .29 .27 .25 3 .56 .34 .28 3 .22 .18 .25 3 .37 .33 .21 3 -.10 .20 .08 3 .37 .35 .25 4 .10 .30 .26 4 .56 .24 .33 4 .34 .22 .34 4 .74 .43 .21 4 .49 .41 .21 5 .15 .13 .25 5 .47 .45 .17 5 .74 .43 .07 5 .33 .14 .30 5 .33 .28 .24 5 .33 .41 .23 5 .54 .38 .13 5 .36 .21 .32 .29 26 -0.948 .30 25 0.211 .20 24 0 . 490 .23 28 -0.670 .27 45 2.403* .84 42 -0.243 .26 41 -0.160 .23 54 -0.432 .22 42 -0.533 .29 19 0.210 .32 31 0.622 .29 19 0.721 .32 49 0.427 .28 52 -1.371 .30 58 -1.217 .34 59 -1.098 .27 65 -0.266 .23 64 1.402 .29 71 0.194 .15 49 0.346 .33 44 0.907 .29 65 0.397 .31 55 0.368 .25 70 -2.102* .32 71 0.140 .33 58 -2.133* .26 62 2.030* .33 63 0.866 .37 42 2.034* .25 23 '0.823 .25 84 0.196 .25 42 0.157 .31 42 1.417 .27 97 2.420** .23 64 0.653 .31 84 — 0.535 .29 92 0.946 .26 86 1.705* 102 TABLE XXXVII(Continued) School z r C zx NC SD-C 5 .09 .19 .06 5 .43 .35 .18 5 .14 .06 .17 5 .48 .43 .23 5 .81 .48 .22 SD-NC df t .31 59 -0.450 .25 96 0.672 .23 85 0.797 .32 100 0.444 .37 64 2.172* * p <.05; ** p < .01 N=43 103 Hypothesis 5 Hypothesis 5 i s : Adults who can more accurately select particular students' most and least preferred factual and normative/instrumental-value patterns w i l l be chosen proportionately more often by students for discussions than w i l l adults who less accurately select such value preferences. Results relating to Hypothesis 5 are based on a sub-sample of 27 adults from a l l 5 schools. The composition of the sub-sample i s detailed i n Table XXXVIII on page 104. The 27 adults selected, on behalf of from 1 to 6 students each, items from QF and from QN that they thought particular stu-dents would have deemed most and least important. Adults selected the students from a l i s t of a l l students i n the study, and thus were attempting this task on behalf of stu-dents they thought they knew best, and who knew them. Scoring of adults' selections i s outlined on page 38, and provides a measure of their awareness of students' value preferences. Approachability scores for each adult i n the sub-sample are presented i n Table XXXIX on page 105. Selection scores are shown i n Table XL on page 106. Tables XLI through XLVI on pages 107 through 112 show mean selection scores and A scores paired for the three contexts of approach for QF and QN. Coefficients of correlation are calculated for each of the six sets of paired scores. 104 TABLE XXXVIII Composition of the Adult Sub-sample for the Investigation of Adults' Awareness of Student Value Preferences School 1 2 3 4 5 Total Males 5 5 4 0 2 16 Females 3 1 1 2 4 11 Total 8 6 5 2 6 27 \ 105 TABLE XXXIX A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y o f A d u l t s i n the Sub-sample: Composition of the A d u l t Sub-sample f o r I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f A d u l t s ' Awareness o f Student Value P r e f e r e n c e s S c h o o l A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y IMT VC PP 1 .46 .00 .18 1 .04 .04 .30 1 .00 .00 .00 1 .08 .12 .12 1 .24 .04 .04 1 .00 .63 .30 1 .00 .00 .00 1 .00 .05 .05 2 .23 .02 .21 2 .04 .04 .00 2 .00 .36 .18 2 .08 .02 .00 2 .00 .64 .50 2 .38 .10 .10 3 .00 .00 .00 3 .00 .00 .00 3 .04 .47 .33 3 .07 .36 .11 3 .08 .00 .14 4 .00 .00 .14 4 t22 .13 .48 5 .00 .34 .21 5 .08 .02 .20 5 .00 .00 .02 5 .15 .03 .09 5 .03 .35 .15 5 .00 .00 .00 106 TABLE XL Sub-Sample A d u l t s ' Mean Scores on Awareness o f Stud e n t s ' Value P r e f e r e n c e s on QF and QN w i t h N's o f Students on Which the Mean was Based Sc h o o l X Q N N x Q F N 1 +1.00 4 +5.25 4 1 +1.67 3 +5.33 3 1 0.00 2 + 4.50 2 1 -3.00 2 + 4.50 2 1 - .50 2 + 4.50 2 1 +1.20 5 +4.20 5 1 . * - + 4.17 6 1 +5.50 2 +2.00 2 2 + 4.00 2 +9.00 2 + 4.50 2 -3.00 2 + .50 2 + 2.00 * 2 +1.00 2 +7.50 2 2 +4.50 2 — _ * * * * 2 +4.00 2 +6.00 2 3 + .50 2 +5.50 2 3 +5.00 2 +5.50 2 3 +1.00 2 +3.50 2 3 +4.50 2 +6.00 2 3 + 3.50 2 +6.50 2 4 +3 .50 2 +10.00 2 4 +2.00 3 +6.50 2 5 + 1.00 2 +10.00 2 5 + 1.50 2 +6.50 2 5 -2.00 +6.00 ^** 5 +6.00 2 +11.50 2 5 -4.00 2 +3.00 5 + 4.50 2 +5.50 2 * T h i s a d u l t d i d not complete s e l e c t i o n s on the QN deck f o r any s t u d e n t s . ** T h i s a d u l t completed o n l y one s e t of s e l e c t i o n s f o r QN and QF and d e c l i n e d t o con t i n u e w i t h another s e t . *** These a d u l t s completed QF f o r 2 s t u d e n t s , but i n each i n s t a n c e 1 o f the students was .absent f o r the admi n i s -t r a t i o n o f QF, hence s c o r i n g c o u l d not be done f o r the second s t u d e n t . **** Both s t u d e n t s f o r whom t h i s a d u l t completed the QN po r -t i o n of the study were absent f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of QF. 107 TABLE XLI Approachability Scores for a Discussion of an Impersonal Topic and Mean Scores on Awareness of Students' Value Perferences on QF for Each Adult i n the Sub-sample A X A X .46 +5.25 .04 +5.33 .38 +6.00 .03 +3.00 .24 +4.50 .00 + 4.50 .23 9.00 .00 +4.20 .22 +6.50 .00 +2.00 .15 +11.50 .00 +5.50 .08 +7.50 .00 +5.50 .08 +4.50 .00 +10.00 .08 +6.50 .00 +10.00 .08 +6.50 .00 +5.50 .07 +6.00 .00 + 4.17 .04 -3.00 .00 +2.00 .04 +3.50 .00 + 6.00 r = +.18 N = 26 108 TABLE X L I I A p p r o a c h a b i l i t y Scores f o r a D i s c u s s i o n o f V o c a t i o n a l Choice and Mean Scores on Awareness of Students' Value P a t t e r n s on QF f o r Each A d u l t i n the Sub-sample X A X .63 +4.17 .03 +11.50 .47 +3.50 .02 +9.00 .36 +2.00 .02 +7.50 .36 +6.00 .02 +6 .50 .35 +3.00 .00 +5.25 .34 +10.00 .00 +4.50 .13 +6.50 .00 +4.20 .12 +4.50 .00 +5.50 .10 +6.00 .00 +5.50 .05 +2.00 .00 +6.50 .04 -3.00 .00 +10.00 .04 + 4.50 .00 +5.50 .04 +5.33 .00 +6.00 109 TABLE XLIII Approachability Scores for Discussions of Personal Problems and Mean Scores on Awareness of Students' Value Patterns on QF for Each Adult i n the Sub-sample A X A .48 + 6.50 .11 +6.00 .33 +3.50 .10 +6 .00 .30 +4.17 .09 +11.50 .30 +5.33 .05 +2.00 .21 +9.00 .04 + 4.50 .21 +10.00 .02 +6.00 .20 +6.50 .00 + 4.50 .18 +2.00 .00 +4.20 .18 +5.25 .00 -3.00 .15 + 3.00 .00 +7.50 .14 +6.50 .00 +5.50 .14 +10.00 .00 +5.50 .12 + 4.50 .00 +5.50 r = + .08 N = 26 110 TABLE XLIV Approachability Scores for a Discussion of an Impersonal Topic and Mean Scores on Awareness of Students' Value Patterns on QN for Each Adult i n the Sub-sample A X .46 +1.00 .04 + 1.67 .38 + 4.00 .03 -4.00 .24 -0.50 .00 0.00 .23 +4.00 .00 + 1.20 .22 + 2.00 .00 +5.50 .15 +6.00 .00 +0.50 .08 +1.00 .00 + 4.50 .08 -3.00 .00 +0.50 .08 +3.50 .00 +5.00 .08 + 1.50 .00 +3.50 .07 +4.50 .00 +1.00 .04 + 4.50 .00 + 4.50 .04 +1.00 .00 +1.00 r = - .02 N = 26 I l l TABLE XLV Approachability Scores for a Discussion of Vocational Choice and Mean Scores on Awareness of Students' Value Patterns on QN for Each Adult i n the Sub-sample •-A X A X .64 + 4.50 .03 +6.00 .47 +1.00 .02 + 4.00 .36 +0.50 .02 +1.00 .36 + 4.50 .02 +1.50 .35 -4.00 .00 +1.00 .34 +1.00 .00 0.00 .13 + 2.00 .00 +1.20 .12 -3.00 .00 +0.50 .10 + 4.00 .00 +5.00 .05 +5.50 .00 +3.50 .04 +4.50 .00 +3.50 .04 +0.50 .00 +4.50 . .04 +1.67 .00 -2.00 r = -.13 N = 26 112 TABLE XLVI Approachability Scores for Discussions of Personal Problems and Mean Scores on Awareness of Students' Value Patterns on QN for Each Adult i n the Sub-sampl e A X A X .50 4.50 .11 + 4.50 .48 +2.00 .10 +4.00 .33 +1.00 .09 +6.00 .30 +1.67 .05 +5.50 .21 +4.00 .04 +0.50 .21 +1.00 .02 -2.00 .20 +1.50 .00 0.00 .18 +0.50 .00 +1.20 .18 +1.00 .00 +4.50 .15 -4.00 .00 +1.00 .14 +3.50 .00 +0.50 .14 +3.50 .00 +5.00 .12 -3.00 .00 +4.50 r = + .03 N = 26 113 The r for awareness of QF preferences for impersonal-topic approach was +.18, for vocational-choice approach r was -.18, and for personal-problems approach r was +.08. The r for awareness of QN preferences for an impersonal-topic approach was -.02, for vocational-choice approach, r was -.13, and for personal-problems approach, r was +.03. Because A scores are not normally distributed for the sub-sample, the bivariate-normal assumption underlying the significance test for a correlation c o e f f i c i e n t i s not s a t i s -f i e d , and significance tests are not applied. Relationships between adults' awareness of students' value patterns and the adults' approachability are not established and no trends i n support of the hypotheses are apparent i n the data. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This study of some possible correlates of the approach a b i l i t y of adults on secondary school staffs i s exploratory. I t i s an attempt to discover factors relating to the d i f f e r -e n t i a l approachability of adults on school staffs and to relate these factors to the interpersonal attraction theory of Newcomb, and the balance theory of Heider. These theories have been investigated largely i n the context of persons of re l a t i v e l y equal status. An underlying assumption of the present study was that l i k e would approach l i k e when approach ers were students and when those to be approached were adults on the staffs of schools. Approachability was not regarded as a unitary char-acteristic—something which a person has i n a l l circumstances and f o r a l l other persons—but rather as s p e c i f i c to the reasons for approach, and to some extent s p e c i f i c to person-person pairs. The reasons for approach i n the study were defined as discussions of impersonal topics, discussions of a student's vocational choice, and discussions of a student's personal problems. I t was hypothesized that some general dynamic factors would be at work—that students would choose same-sex adults and younger rather than older adults. I t was also hypothesized that students would chose adults whose 115 factual and normative/instrumental value patterns were similar, and that a characteristic of approachable adults would be their greater a b i l i t y to know particular students' value preferences. Results of the study, when limited to the testing of i t s hypotheses, were at best equivocal. Some of the f i n d -ings, however, are of interest and w i l l be discussed i n this chapter. Results Relating to Approachability D i f f e r e n t i a l approachability of adults was assumed before the study was made, and proved to be a tenable assump-tion . Complexity of the dynamics of approach was also assumed, and also proved a tenable assumption. Students' choices did converge on particular adults i n each school, and they did converge on different adults for the different contexts of approach. Hence there can be said to have been, among adults i n the sample, something that could be named approachability, a characteristic possessed by some adults and not others. As Table XI on page 66 shows, less than a quarter of the adults i n the sample were not chosen by any students for any type of discussion, and s l i g h t l y more than a quarter of them received at least one choice for a l l three types of discus-sion. In a l l fiv e schools there were a few adults chosen b^y from 30 to 50+ percent of the students who knew them for particular types of discussion. 116 Because of the point of view underlying the i n v e s t i -gation, that approachability i s a desirable ch a r a c t e r i s t i c , especially for some adults on school s t a f f s , the known data on some approachable adults i s summarized i n Tables XLVII, XLVIII, and XLIX on pages 117, 118 and 119 which show such data for adults chosen by 10 percent or more of the students who knew them for the three contexts of approach, (A related table. Table L, showing characteristics of adults who were never chosen i n on page 120.) Examination of these sum-marized data reveals that adults of both sexes and a l l age ranges except the 60+ age range are represented i n the approach-able groups, that their mean z_r scores, indicating their simi-l a r i t y or d i s s i m i l a r i t y to students who knew them, ranges from high to low i n comparison to the mean of mean z_r scores, and that their a c t i v i t i e s with young people supplementary to their formal school duties also range from few to many. Only i n the data relating to teaching or other school specialty does the hint of a pattern appear, i n the over-representation of counselors and social-studies teachers i n particu l a r , and teachers of English and commerce i n smaller numbers. This finding, that school role would be a possible correlate of choices for approach, was not hypothesized, and i t i s thought worthy of further investigation. It i s not possible to know whether choices were made solely on the basis of role: i t i s possible that many of them were, that 117 TABLE XLVII Characteristics* of Adults Chosen for Impersonal Topic Context by 10 Percent or More of Students Who Knew Them Special-A z -QF z" -QN Sex Age T/Exp S/Act Ns/Act t i e s .53 .14 .47 M 51+ 20+ 0 1 SS,Ma,En .46 .19 .30 M 20+ 1/2 2 1 Com .40 .20 .24 M 31+ 6/10 1 0 SS .38 .33 .53 M 31+ 3/5 0 1 Com .36 .23 .39 M 31+ 11+ 2 0 SS .25 .17 .29 M 31+ 6/10 1 1 SS,PE .24 .19 .32 M 20+ 6/10 2 0 SS,Adm .24 .21 .07 M 41+ 11+ 1 1 SS .23 .35 .43 M 31+ 11+ 1 0 En .22 .26 .45 F 20+ 3/5 0 0 Com .20 .28 _** M 31+ 11+ 1 0 SS .17 .17 .25 M 31+ 11+ 1 0 SS,Com, Cou,Ma .15 .40 .51 F 20+ 3/5 1 1 En,Dr .15 .23 .36 M 20+ 3/5 2 2 SS,Cou .14 .33 .24 M 20+ 1/2 2 1 SS,Ma .13 .09 .24 M 41+ 3/5 2 1 SS,Enp Fr ,Mu .12 .10 .20 M 51+ 6/10 1 1 Ma,Sc .11 .15 .11 M 31+ 11+ 1 1 SS,En X .25 .23 .32 N=18 •Abbreviations: T/Exp=years of teaching experience; S/Act= Extra curricular a c t i v i t i e s i n school; Ns/Act=activities with youth outside school. Abbreviations of Specialties: SS=Social studies; Ma=mathema-t i c s ; En=English; Com=commerce; PE=physical education; Adm= administration; Cou=counseling; Dr=drama; Fr=French; Mu=Music; Sc=Science. ** QN was not completed by this adult. 118 TABLE XLVIII Characteristics* of Adults Chosen for Vocational Choice Context by 10 Percent or More of Students Who Knew Them A z -QF z -QN Sex Age T/Exp S/Act Ns/Act Specialties .64 .27 .04 F 51+ 11+ 1 0 Cou,En,SS .63 .26 .21 M 31+ 6/10 1 1 Cou,IE .60 .17 .25 M 31+ 11+ 1 0 Cou,Com,Ma,SS .47 .23 .29 F 51+ 11+ 1 0 Cou,En .36 .19 .32 M 20+ 6/10 0 1 Cou,Ma • 36 .08 .29 M 31+ 6/10 1 1 Cou,Sc .35 .18 .18 M 31+ 11+ 1 0 Cou,Adm .34 .31 .46 F 31+ 6/10 0 1 Cou,Adm,HE,Art .17 .22 .23 M 41+ 11+ 0 1 Cou .13 .26 .45 F 20+ 3/5 0 0 Com .12 .20 .00 M 41+ 20+ 0 0 Adm,Ma .12 .11 .35 M 41+ 11+ 1 2 Cou,SS .10 .21 .26 M 31+ 11+ 1 0 Ma,Sc X .33 .21 .26 N=13 *Abbreviations: T/Exp=years of teaching experience; S/Act= extra curricular a c t i v i t i e s i n school; Ns/Act=activities with youth outside school. Abbreviations of Specialties: SS=Social studies; Ma=mathe-matics; En=English; Com=commerce; PE=physical education; Adm=administration; Cou=counseling; Dr=drama; Fr=French; Mu=music; Sc=science; IE=industrial education; HE=home economics. 119 TABLE XLVIX Characteristics* of Adults Chosen for Personal Problems Context by 10 Percent or More of Students Who Knew Them A Zj, -QF Zj--QN Sex Age T/Exp S/Act Ns/Act S p e c i a l i -t i e s .50 .27 .04 F 51+ 11+ 1 0 Cou,SS,En .48 .26 .45 F 20+ 3/5 0 0 Com .33 .23 .29 F 51+ 11+ 1 0 Cou,En .30 .26 .21 M 31+ 6/10 1 1 Cou,IE .30 .21 .30 F 20+ 6/10 1 1 En,Fr .23 .17 .25 M 31+ 11+ 1 0 Cou,Com, Ma,SS .21 .35 .43 M 31+ 11+ 1 0 En .21 .31 .46 F 31+ 6/10 0 1 Cou,Adm, HE,Art .20 .18 .29 F 20+ 1/2 0 0 En .18 .19 .30 M 20+ 1/2 2 1 SS,Com .18 .19 .32 M 20+ 6/10 0 1 Cou,Ma .15 .18 .18 M 31+ 11+ 1 0 Cou,Adm .14 .25 .18 M 20+ 3/5 3 0 Ma,Sc .14 .35 .46 F 20+ 3/5 1 0 Art,Com, En ,Mu .14 .22 .23 M 41+ 11+ 0 1 Cou .12 .20 .00 M 41+ 20+ 0 0 Adm,Ma .12 .16 .33 F 31+ 6/10 1 0 PE,Ma .11 .08 .29 M 31+ 6/10 1 1 Cou,Sc .11 .11 .35 M 41+ 11+ 1 2 Cou,SS .10 .33 .53 M 31+ 3/5 0 1 Com .10 .18 .46 M 31+ 1/2 0 1 Mu X .21 .22 .32 N = 21 *Abbreviations: T/Exp=Years of teaching experience; S/Act= Extra curricular a c t i v i t i e s i n school; Ns/Act=activities with youth outside school. Abbreviations of Specialties: SS=social studies; Ma=mathe-matics; En=English; Com=commerce; PE=physical education; Adm=administration; Cou=counseling; Dr=drama; Fr=French; Mu=music; Sc=Science; IE=industrial education; HE=home economics. 120 TABLE L Frequencies of Some Characteristics of Adults Never Chosen for Discussions i n Any Context, Based on 18 Adults, 8 Males, 10 Females Characteristic Frequencies Age: 20-30 5 31-40 5 41-50 4 51-60 2 60+ 2 Teaching Experience: 1-2 years 3 3-5 years 3 6-10 years 3 11-20 years 4 20+ 5 Specialty*: Administration 3 Art 2 Commerce 3 Counseling 0 English 6 French 2 Home Economics 3 Industrial Education 1 Law 1 Library 2 Mathematics 4 Music 1 Physical Education 1 Science 2 Social Studies 1 *Adults l i s t e d from 1 to 4 spe c i a l t i e s . 121 students were choosing the adult whom they thought they were supposed to choose. On the other hand, i t i s possible that the adults who f i l l e d these roles were i n fact also approach-able adults i n the sense that they had certain characteris-t i c s that led students to choose them i n disproportionate numbers. It i s suggested that, should the results of this study, insofar as choices and professional specialties i s concerned, be further established by re p l i c a t i o n , some addi-t i o n a l information should be sought on other personality characteristics of these adults. One possible way to do this would be to attempt to fin d which characteristics the minority of highly approachable adults i n other special-t i e s had i n common with chosen adults i n the majority group. It might also be useful to find which characteristics the infrequently chosen counselors and so c i a l studies teachers have with adults i n the infrequently chosen s p e c i a l t i e s . The p o s s i b i l i t y that professional specialty may have been a correlate of approachability w i l l be discussed i n the conclusions pertinent to each hypothesis, which follow. SAME AND OPPOSITE SEX CHOICES: HYPOTHESIS 1 I t was hypothesized that male students would choose male adults and female students would choose female adults proportionately more often than opposite-sex adults would be chosen. This hypothesis, based on theory and findings in the lite r a t u r e and supported i n two approach contexts 122 and reversed i n part of the t h i r d , c l e a r l y did not take into consideration a factor that seemed to have operated: the adult's role i n the school. When the context for the three types of discussion were defined for students on SQ-2 and SQ-3; i t appeared from the reasons given for choices on SQ-3 that students were thinking i n role-ascriptive terms. Tables LI, LII, and LIII on pages 123, 124 and 125 show reasons given for choices on SQ-3. For discussion of an impersonal topic l i k e "World A f f a i r s , etc.," the tendency seemed to be for students to think f i r s t of expertise i n world a f f a i r s — e v i d e n t l y to them represented by s o c i a l studies teachers—and then to chose from among the s o c i a l studies teachers they knew a person who was knowledgeable and i n f o r -mative or l i v e l y . Other reasons were given, of course, such as past experience with rewarding discussions and ease with which a discussion could be held, but expertise i n some form was most frequently mentioned. In every school at least one and usually more so c i a l studies teachers were selected by a large majority of students for discussions of impersonal topics. In this connection, i t should be noted that i t was a characteristic of the adult sample that of the 23 s o c i a l studies teachers 20 were male. I t became known to the i n -vestigator that of the three females who l i s t e d s o c i a l studies as a teaching specialty, only 1 was teaching a course i n 123 TABLE LI Reasons given for Choices of Adults for Discussions of Impersonal Topics i n SQ-3, by Category, for Each School and Totals for A l l Schools School Expertise, Experience, Knowledgeability Understanding, Helping, Pleasant Past Experience with an Adult, Ease of Com-munication 1 26 5 3 2 41 10 19 3 81 10 23 4 54 20 12 5 100 19 25 Total 302 64 82 Note: Many students mentioned more than one reason; reasons for not choosing any adult were sometimes given, some-times omitted. Hence, i n a l l instances the t o t a l number of reasons tabulated i s larger than N. 124 TABLE LI I Reasons Given for Choices of Adults for Discussions of Vocational Choice by Category, for Each School and Totals for A l l Schools School Expertise, Understanding, Experience, Helpful, Informativeness, Friendly Role Past Experience with an Adult, Ease of Communi-cation 1 2 3 4 5 22 44 69 53 72 3 9 15 17 34 5 11 23 11 38 Total 260 78 88 Note: Many students mentioned more than one reason; reasons for not choosing any adult were sometimes given, some-times omitted. Hence, i n a l l instances the t o t a l number of reasons tabulated i s larger than N. 125 TABLE LIII Reasons Given on SQ-3 for Choices of Adults for Discussions of Personal Problems by Category, :for Each School and Totals for A l l Schools School Role, Experience, Training Understanding, Helpful, Kind Past experience, Ease- of communi-cation 1 2 3 4 5 8 8 12 11 17 15 31 55 38 68 10 25 42 37 55 Total 56 207 169 Note: Many students mentioned more than one reason; reasons for not choosing any adult were sometimes given, some-times omitted. Hence, i n a l l instances the t o t a l number of reasons tabulated i s larger than N. 126 s o c i a l studies at the Grade-XI or -XII l e v e l . I t i s there-fore not surprising that i n the context of impersonal-topic discussions, 312 students, 159 of them females, chose male adults, and only 31 chose female adults. The finding that both sexes of students chose male adults for this approach context, s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at the .001 l e v e l , can be explained more reasonably by the fact that most s o c i a l studies teachers were male, than by any assumption that sex was playing a part i n the choices, although such a possibi-l i t y cannot be discarded on this evidence. Vocational-Choice Context The hypothesis that same-sex choices would be more frequent for discussions of vocational choice was supported, being s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at the .001 l e v e l , but caution should be exercised in interpreting these results. Again, the role the adult played i n the school, past exper-ience with the adult, and supposed expertise of the adult may have been factors i n selections. A l l these were given as reasons for choices on SQ-3. In the secondary schools of B r i t i s h Columbia there have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been, and s t i l l are i n many schools, sex-segregated counseling services: a "boys' counselor" and a " g i r l s ' counselor." When asked to whom they would go for a discussion of vocational choice, students appeared l i k e l y to think f i r s t of a school counselor, as evidenced 127 by their responses to SQ-3 and by th e i r choices. The past experience of students i n 3 of the 5 schools was l i k e l y to have been with same-sex counselors. In these schools, same-sex counselors were most frequently chosen. In the other 2 schools, same-sex choices were not the most frequent as Table XIV shows. In one of these schools, a male adult was the only counselor; i n the other, a male adult had con-siderably more counseling time a l l o t t e d i n the school sched-ule than did the two female counselors combined. In the school with a single male counselor, 8 of 9 female students chose a male for discussions of vocational choice; i n the other school, 20 students chose a male for discussions of vocational choice, while 15 female students chose female adults. That the role of the adult had more to do with his approachability than did his sex,for discussions of voca-ti o n a l choice, i s further borne out from the few instances i n which counselors were not chosen: by far the majority of students who chose non-counselors gave the past voca-ti o n a l experience of the adult as a reason for choosing him Thus, adults who were teachers of commerce, i n d u s t r i a l edu-cation, home economics, and science were chosen rather frequently on the basis of their acquaintance with students f i e l d s of endeavor. Only a very few students who chose non 128 counselors gave as their sole reason for choosing a reason unconnected with the informational expertise of the chosen adult. Having emphasized the role-ascriptive nature of choices for discussions of vocational choice, however, one should not assume that this alone was responsible for these choices. In 78 instances, reasons on SQ-3 related to the friendliness and understanding of the adult and the ease with which students f e l t they could speak. And, of course, the majority of adults, a l l of whom could be presumed to have some knowledge of vocations, were not chosen. These included some teachers with the specialties mentioned above. A minority of counselors were not frequently chosen i n schools where students had a chance to choose among more than two counselors. Thus, i n addition to the part that an adult's role almost certainly played i n his approachability, other factors were also working. Whether same-sex attrac-tion, i n a conceptually pure sense, was one of them, i s d i f f i c u l t to discern. There was no evidence of this i n the results of SQ-3. Same-sex as a factor i n selections of adults for d i s -cussions of vocational choice, though supported by the re-sults, can be said to be a factor i n a sense somewhat removed from the theoretical postulate that l i k e w i l l seek l i k e . Like w i l l , but the reasons may have l i t t l e to do with 129 the likeness, but more with perceived unlikeness--the possession by the approached person of information and of the a b i l i t y to help the approacher. Personal-Problems Context When choosing adults for discussions of personal problems, students chose same-sex adults i n disproportionate numbers. Results were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at the .001 l e v e l . In a discussion of this finding, many of the factors discussed i n the previous two sections seemed to have an influence on choosing: the role of the adult, and the stu-dent's past experience with him i n part i c u l a r . There i s , however, a different flavor i n both the selection pattern and the reasons given for choices. The most frequently chosen adults were again counse-lors of the same sex as the students who chose them. But high on the A scale were English teachers whose additional specialty was not counseling, and a teacher with commerce as a sole specialty. These four persons were a l l female, and i n fact females were chosen i n a higher disproportion for this context than they were for discussions of vocational choice. The reasons given for choices on SQ-3 were, i n large majority, the kindness, understanding, and helpfulness of the chosen adults, and the ease with which they could be or had been spoken to. Only 56 of a t o t a l of 432 reasons 130 given concerned the role, experience, or training of the chosen adult. When role was mentioned, i t was i n many i n -stances the l a s t reason mentioned: when choosing a coun-selor for a discussion of vocational choice, a student was l i k e l y to write, "He i s the counselor and has the informa-tion"; when writing a reason for choosing the same counselor for discussion of personal problems, the same student might write, "He i s understanding and easy to talk to and he i s the counselor." Whether the preponderance of same-sex choices for discussions of personal problems i s d i r e c t l y related to theory and can be said to support i t i s not, however, d i r -ectly evident from these results. Possible other factors include the t r a d i t i o n a l aspect of the un-manliness which may have been perceived on the part of the male students i n bringing personal problems to a woman, and the likelihood that female students i n their late teens perceived a per-sonal problem as having some sexual aspect and hence unsuit-able for discussion with a male adult. Nevertheless, support for the hypothesis, though not as strong i n a numerical sense as i t was for discussions of vocational choice, may be said to be more meaningful, with the cautions indicated, than i t was for the context of vocational choice discussions. In summary, Hypothesis 1 can be stated to be supported for discussions of vocational choice and personal problems, 131 and, insofar as males are concerned, for discussions of impersonal topics. But i n these instances and i n the reversed finding for females for discussions of impersonal topics, the roles of the adults i n the school, the av a i l a -b i l i t y of adults of each sex perceived to play these roles, and the experience the student has had with the adult were thought to be more reasonable explanations for the choices than was the same-sex aspect of the choice. APPROACHABILITY AND AGE: HYPOTHESIS 2 The hypothesis that students would choose, i n d i s -proportionately greater numbers, younger rather than older adults was not supported. The reasons for lack of support, and i n some instances the s i g n i f i c a n t results i n the reversed direction, may well have a good deal i n common with the reasons for choices discussed i n the section on approacha-b i l i t y and sex. Impersonal-Topic Context Students chose, i n disproportionate numbers, adults i n their 30's and 50's for discussions of impersonal topics. The strong relationship between adults chosen for this con-text of approach and s o c i a l studies teaching has been di s -cussed as a reason for the choice of male adults. Such reasoning does not apply as strongly, however, when the 132 d i s t r i b u t i o n of ages of s o c i a l s t u d i e s t e a c h e r s i s c o n s i d -e r e d . C e r t a i n l y the a s c r i p t i o n of k n o w l e d g e a b i l i t y and e x p e r t i s e i s s t i l l a f a c t o r . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of ages o f the 23 t e a c h e r s l i s t i n g s o c i a l s t u d i e s as a s p e c i a l t y was: 20-30: 6 31-40: 8 41-50: 6 51-60: 3 60+: 0. One might e x p e c t , on the b a s i s o f chance, a l a r g e r number of c h o i c e s f o r the 31-40 age range. (One would n o t , of c o u r s e , expect the d i s p r o p o r t i o n . ) But the d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y s m a l l e r number o f c h o i c e s f o r the 41-50 group cannot be so e x p l a i n e d . And i n the l i g h t of the convergence of c h o i c e s on a d u l t s i n the 51-60 age range, t h e r e cannot be, out o f hand, evidence f o r a c h o i c e of younger r a t h e r than o l d e r a d u l t s . The e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the convergence on the 51-60 age range may be t h i s : most of the d i s p r o p o r t i o n of c h o i c e s f o r t h i s group i s due t o a s i n g l e s o c i a l s t u d i e s t e a c h e r o f un-p a r a l l e l e d a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y , and most of the r e s t o f the d i s p r o p o r t i o n by another a d u l t , a t e a c h e r of mathematics and s c i e n c e who i s something o f an anomaly i n t h a t he was chosen f o r t h i s c o n t e x t . Thus, the f i n d i n g i s almost c e r -t a i n l y s a m p l e - s p e c i f i c , based as i t i s on three i n d i v i d u a l s , two of them h i g h l y approachable. The d i s p r o p o r t i o n s f a v -o r i n g the 31-40 age range, and d i s f a v o r i n g the 41-50 age range, are more d i f f i c u l t t o e x p l a i n . -133 Vocational-Choice Context Students chose adults i n their 30's and 50's for d i s -cussions of vocational problems i n disproportionately-greater numbers than they did adults i n the other three age ranges. The strong relationship between counselors and choices for this context has been discussed previously. The di s t r i b u t i o n of the 14 persons who l i s t e d counseling as a specialty i n the sample i s i n the following age ranges: 20-30: 2 31-40: 5 41-50: 3 51-60: 4 60+: 0. Here the disproportions are more understandable, i f one assumes a large number of students to be selecting counselors for these discussions, and then selecting from among the counselors available to them. Here again, however, i t should be pointed out that the convergence of choices on the 51-60 age range i s i n a l l likelihood sample s p e c i f i c : most of the disproportion i s due to two counselors i n the i r f i f t i e s who are the only senior counselors of their sex i n each of the i r schools. This i s not to cast any doubt on the i r general approachability—reasons given for choices of both of them were enthusiastic—but i f students were choosing on the basis of role, and f e l t that a same-sex choice was appro-priate, these two individuals were the only choices they had. It should further be noted that two of the five counselors i n the 31-40 age range were the only counselors of their sex 134 available to students i n each of two schools. Considered i n the l i g h t of these small numbers of counselors a v a i l -able to students, the results of this section of the study-become less substantial, especially i f one points out that of the small number of non-counselors selected for discus-sions of vocational choice by 10 percent or more of the students who knew them, one i s i n the 20-30 age range, one i n the 31-40 age range, and one i n the 41-50 age range. Because the tendency to choose counselors for d i s -cussions of vocational choice i s so marked, and numbers limited from which meaningful conclusions can be inferred, i t i s thought best to disregard the disproportions revealed in the chi-square table (Table XIX ) and conclude that the age of an adult has l i t t l e to do with his approachability for this context of discussion, u n t i l further evidence to the contrary i s forthcoming. Personal-Problem Context Students chose adults i n the 51-60 age range di s -proportionately more frequently, and adults i n the 41-50 and 60+ age ranges disproportionately less frequently for di s -cussions of personal problems. Adults i n the two youngest age ranges were chosen i n proportions that could be expected by chance. 135 The tendency f o r st u d e n t s t o choose c o u n s e l o r s f o r d i s c u s s i o n s of p e r s o n a l problems has been p r e v i o u s l y d i s -c ussed, as have the s a m p l e - s p e c i f i c e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r the d i s p r o p o r t i o n i n f a v o r o f c o u n s e l o r s i n t h e i r 50's. A l -though l e s s marked than i n the r e s u l t s f o r d i s c u s s i o n s of v o c a t i o n a l c h o i c e , the same r a t i o n a l e f o r d i s r e g a r d i n g the s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c h i square i n Table X X I I I i s suggested. A g a i n , the d i s p r o p o r t i o n i s l a r g e l y due t o two i n d i v i d u a l s mentioned on page 133 and t o some e x t e n t due t o the o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s mentioned i n t h a t s e c t i o n . I f non-counselors chosen f o r d i s c u s s i o n s o f p e r s o n a l problem d i s c u s s i o n s are c o n s i d e r e d , one f i n d s , i n f a c t , an i n t e r -e s t i n g r e v e r s a l : s i x non-counselors chosen f o r d i s c u s s i o n s i n t h i s c o n t e x t are i n the 20-30 age range, f i v e are i n the 31-40 age range, one i n the 41-50 age range, and none are o l d e r . I t s h ould be noted t h a t the magnitudes p r e s e n t i n Table XXI I I ' are s m a l l e r than those i n Tables XXI and XIX, showing r e s u l t s f o r a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y and age f o r the o t h e r two c o n t e x t s . One c o u l d s p e c u l a t e t h a t had co u n s e l o r s been o m i t t e d from the sample, the h y p o t h e s i s t h a t s t u d e n t s would choose younger r a t h e r than o l d e r a d u l t s might have been a t l e a s t p a r t i a l l y supported. N e v e r t h e l e s s , g i v e n the f i n d i n g s as they a r e , t h e r e i s l i t t l e reason t o 136 suppose that students chose adults i n their 50's because they were older, but that they chose adults they preferred for whatever reason, regardless of age. APPROACHABILITY AND FACTUAL-VALUE PATTERNS: HYPOTHESIS 3 Results relating to approachability and s i m i l a r i t y -d i s s i m i l a r i t y of factual value patterns were a l l of low magnitude. There are at least three explanations possible for these results: approachability and factual-value patterns may be unrelated; approachability and factual-value patterns may be related, but the methods used to establish such a relationship may have been inadequate; or the r e l a -tionship noted i n the l i t e r a t u r e between factual-value patterns and approachability may not pertain to student-adult approachability i n the school setting. In this re-gard, i t should be noted that i f role i s a factor i n adult approachability i n schools, as the foregoing discussion suggests, then persons i n similar roles may have diff e r e n -t i a l approachability based on s i m i l a r i t y - d i s s i m i l a r i t y of value patterns. Further research, holding role and sex constant, might uncover relationships between value patterns and approachability. If approachability and factual-value patterns are indeed unrelated, or very l i t t l e related, then a large part 137 of a t t r a c t i o n t h e o r y , t o say n o t h i n g o f c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t u i -t i v e common sense, has been i n e r r o r . To suppose t h a t the low and n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s from t h i s study s e r i o u s l y damage the p a r t o f a t t r a c t i o n t h e o r y t h a t r e l a t e s t o p e r -sons who l i k e s i m i l a r a c t i v i t i e s and s t a t e s o f b e i n g approa-c h i n g one another would be absurd, a l t h o u g h the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the t h e o r y i n s i t u a t i o n s s i m i l a r t o t h a t s t u d i e d h e r e i n might not be. Hence, the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n w i l l empha-s i z e the e x p l a n a t i o n s t h a t d e a l w i t h the p o s s i b l e inadequacy o f method and w i t h the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t , among s t u d e n t - a d u l t p a i r s i n s c h o o l s , s i m i l a r i t y of f a c t u a l - v a l u e p a t t e r n s may not r e l a t e t o a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y , o r may be f a r l e s s s a l i e n t than o t h e r f a c t o r s . Because r e s u l t s r e l a t i n g t o the t h r e e c o n t e x t s o f d i s c u s s i o n were a l l w i t h i n 10 p o i n t s o f a 0 c o r r e l a t i o n — -.05 f o r the i m p e r s o n a l - t o p i c c o n t e x t , -.03 f o r the voca-t i o n a l c h o i c e c o n t e x t , and +.09 f o r the pe r s o n a l - p r o b l e m c o n t e x t d i s c u s s i o n w i l l not be segmented i n t o the t h r e e c o n t e x t s f o r t h i s H y p o t h e s i s . Method and I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n A l t h o u g h i t has been concluded t h a t the A scor e s d i d measure t o some e x t e n t the d i f f e r e n t i a l a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y of a d u l t s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t QF and QFa d i d not measure f a c t u a l - v a l u e p a t t e r n s , and e s p e c i a l l y t h a t c o r r e l a t i o n s 138 between student-adult pairs were not true representations of person-person s i m i l a r i t y . There i s no way of esta-blishing the v a l i d i t y of QF and QFa within the outline of this study, and this remains open to serious question. Two aspects of the instruments should, however, be mentioned. One i s the p o s s i b i l i t y of a response set invalidating re-sults on^certain items of both QF and QFa, and the other i s that the correlations based on non-identical instruments contributed to some systematic distortions of results. Several items i n QF and i n QFa represented a c t i v i t i e s that are either highly valued by most groups i n North American society, or are s o c i a l l y disapproved. In some i n -stances either high or low values might be attributed, depending on one's reference group. In particu l a r , one wonders about the items on drug use, drinking alcoholic beverages, sexual a c t i v i t i e s (for unmarried respondents), and to a lesser extent studying, going to church, going to one's present school, or being on i t s s t a f f , to name a few. Both students and adult subjects may have been tempted to hide such items i n the middle p i l e , wishing the investigator to think that they had not been experienced, or may have over-compensated by putting a s o c i a l l y approved item high i n importance, when i t may not have been, or putting a so c i a l l y disapproved item low i n importance when i t may not have been low to the respondent. 139 There i s some evidence that this was done by adults, an extraordinarily large number of whom placed the drug item lowest i n importance which, i f they had followed d i r -ections , would have meant that they had indulged i n drug use, since non-experienced a c t i v i t i e s were supposed to be placed i n the middle p i l e . On the other hand, there i s e v i -dence that some of the student group, those who put this item above the mean i n importance, were not f akincr and had taken the investigator's pledge of co n f i d e n t i a l i t y seriously. For both students and adults there i s further evidence of honesty i n that the "Going to church" item was frequently placed low i n importance, often lowest of a l l . (Of course, some subjects, presumably honestly, put i t high i n importance.) It i s the investicrator' s hope that whatever response sets were operating i n the placement of non-bland items may have cancelled one another out, though they certainly contributed to error variance. Nevertheless, i t i s a d i s t i n c t p o s s i b i l i t y that some 6 or 7 items led to some faking, conscious or unconscious. Another d i f f i c u l t y with the instrumentation was that QF and QFa were not i d e n t i c a l , as has been described on page 45. There i s l i t t l e doubt that, for instance, "Being with your wife, husband, or a particular friend of the opposite sex," i s not an exact equivalent of "Being with a particular friend of the opposite sex," the student item. Married adults i n the sample miaht well have put the item high i n importance,an 140 importance that might not have been so s a l i e n t for a student. Further, married adults might have f e l t constrained to i n -clude the item among those high i n importance, a compunction students would not f e e l about i t s non-exact equivalent. The same i s certainly true of the item "Being with one or more of your children," placed high by.many adults and never placed low, and i t s non-exact equivalent. "Being with one or both of your parents," placed high i n a smaller number of instances by students, and often placed low. The distortions that may have been produced by the lack of equivalence between the two Q sorts would, however, be limited to the fiv e items and the subsequent differences in ordering brought about by their systematically di f f e r e n t p i l e placements. I t may have led to smaller s i m i l a r i t i e s between students and married adults than would have been present had the items been omitted, and to greater s i m i l a r i -t i e s between students and unmarried adults than would have been present had they been omitted. There i s some evidence, however, that distortions were not serious; adults i n the 20-30 age range seemed l i t t l e different from adults i n the 60+ age range in their mean z_r results with students who knew them, and the few differences that did appear, making some younger adults somewhat more similar to students than older adults were 141 based on a cluster of items having to do with a sort of exuberant/aesthetic set of preferences—for l i s t e n i n g to music, creating beautiful things, going out with friends, and the l i k e . Such a c t i v i t i e s were placed high by minority groups of both students and adults i n each school. Instrumentation, though open to serious question, may not have been the sole reason for lack of discrimination between approachable and non-approachable adults on the basis of factual-value patterns. More serious, perhaps, i s the generality of low positive correlations of a l l adults with a l l the students who knew them. The mean z between students who knew them and the 9 7 adults who completed QF was .226, equivalent to an r of .22, and the standard de-viati o n was .08. There were rare instances of z 's for — r individual student-adult pairs i n the .70's, and one i n the w 801 s, but for the most part z_r fluctuated between .33 and .15. Its dis t r i b u t i o n was essentially normal. If the instrument was to any extent measuring the value patterns of the two groups, these figures seem to indicate that such patterns, though somewhat similar, are different enough across groups to make any sort of discrimination for approach-a b i l i t y d i f f i c u l t . Essentially, what may have happened was that a student faced with a choice among adults almost a l l of whom were 142 rather di f f e r e n t from him, simply could not have discrimin-ated who was most l i k e him i n preferences for a c t i v i t i e s and states of being, even had he wished to do so consciously. It i s possible that adults' preferences for a c t i v i t i e s and states of being are kept under wraps to an extent that stu-dents have cues only for the most obvious and school-oriented of them—such a c t i v i t i e s as debating, acting before an audi-ence, and sports. In this connection a small group of adults with QF z_r of .33 (1 SD above the mean QF z_^) or higher, who are also approachable (A scores of .10 or higher) on one or more of the contexts become of interest: there are 5 of them, a l l i n the 20-30 and 31-40 age ranges, and t h e i r speci-a l t i e s include commerce, English, drama, s o c i a l studies, mathematics, art, and music. Adults with QF mean .z_ scores higher than .33 who were never chosen form a roughly opposite group, a l l i n each of the 3 youngest age ranges with profes-sional specialties of administration y mathematics, l i b r a r y , home economics, and science. Speculation i s perilous with such small numbers, but i t i s suggested that the nature of an adult's interaction with students may l i m i t or enlarge the intake of information by the student that would enable him to real i z e that the adult i s , to some extent, more or less like-minded. In the high approachable group of adults who sorted QF items with r e l a t i v e l y high s i m i l a r i t y to the students who knew 143 there are s p e c i a l i s t s who might be expected to be outgoing or to work closely with individual students and small groups of students. The presence of fewer such persons among the less approachable group i s suggestive. The kinds of class-room a c t i v i t i e s — e i t h e r those involving discussion groups or personal attention to students as individuals—may have led to approachability because of'the past experience of students with such teachers, or because of more accurate student knowledge of the value-pattern s i m i l a r i t y between themselves and the teachers. On the other hand, i t i s possible that persons who specialxze i n more humanistic subject areas are either more approachable for other reasons or are more similar i n value patterns to students. I t would be of interest to locate and study adults i n extreme groups of s i m i l a r i t y - d i s s i m i l a r i t y to students i n value patterns, or to study adults of exceptionally high and low approachability, to see whether interactions among these and other variables exist. In summary, the low and non-significant results that f a i l to support Hypothesis 3 are explicable p a r t i a l l y by inadequacy of method and instrumentation, and p a r t i a l l y because approachability of adults may not have a r e l a t i o n -ship with s i m i l a r i t y of factual-value patterns with students because students may not be able to know, consciously or unconsciously, which adults have more and which have less similar factual values. Possibly results would be clearer 144 i f a study of a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y were r e s t r i c t e d t o more homo-geneous s e t s of a d u l t s such as male s o c i a l s t u d i e s t e a c h e r s , female c o u n s e l o r s , and the l i k e . The second s e c t i o n o f H y p o t h e s i s 3, which s t a t e d t h a t s t u d e n t s choosing a p a r t i c u l a r a d u l t , would have more s i m i l a r v a l u e p a t t e r n s t o t h a t a d u l t than would s t u d e n t s who knew him but d i d not choose him was not s u p p o r t e d . Re-s u l t s f o r a l l t h r e e c o n t e x t s of approach were s i m i l a r i n t h a t t h e r e were many i n s t a n c e s i n which choosers d i d have more s i m i l a r f a c t u a l - v a l u e p a t t e r n s , and many i n which they d i d n o t , and i n t h a t few r e s u l t s were s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i -c a l l y , and these i n both d i r e c t i o n s . I n making 36, 28, and 40 t t e s t s f o r the 3 k i n d s of c o n t e x t , one would expect a c e r t a i n number t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t by chance a l o n e . Hence n o t h i n g can be s a i d t o j u s t i f y f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r -a t i o n of t h e s e r e s u l t s except t o add t h a t the d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h methodology, and the p o s s i b l e l a c k o f p e r c e p t i o n of a d u l t s ' f a c t u a l - v a l u e p a t t e r n s by s t u d e n t s , d i s c u s s e d i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n , may have l e d t o these r e s u l t s i f chance d i d n o t . APPROACHABILITY AND NORMATIVE/INSTRUMENTAL-VALUE PATTERNS: HYPOTHESIS 4 Hypothesis 4, S e c t i o n A. s t a t e s t h a t s t u d e n t s would choose t o approach a d u l t s w i t h s i m i l a r n o r m a t i v e / i n s t r u m e n t a l -145 value patterns to students-in-general. Section B states that adults would be more often chosen by individual stu-dents with more similar normative/instrumental-value patterns, and would less often be chosen by students who had less similar normative/instrumental-value patterns. For discussions of vocational choice and of personal problems, results were of low magnitude for the f i r s t sec-tion of the Hypothesis. For the vocational-choice context of approach, r was -.10; for the personal-problem context of approach, r was +.09. For discussions of impersonal topics, however, r was +.17, and a trend i n the direction of the hypothesis was noted. Students did tend to choose adults who were more li k e students-in-general on QN for discussions of impersonal topics. Several questions are raised by this finding of a possible trend. In view of the fact that high approacha-b i l i t y i n this context of approach has some relationship with s o c i a l studies teaching, there i s a s l i g h t p o s s i b i l i t y that the inter-relationship between s o c i a l studies teachers and students who know them may be a factor i n the dynamics of approachability. The causality direction, of course, remains unknown. But the fact that these adults, more than any others i n the schools, would have reason to discuss 146 values with students i n the context of the history of s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l movements, for instance, may have led to an exchange of ideas i n which one group may have influenced the other. In the course of discussions or lectures, s o c i a l studies teachers may have somehow revealed or demonstrated their own values i n a way that appealed to students. This may not have been the case for the other two contexts of discussion, one of which, vocational choice, was viewed as informational and objective i n nature, and the other viewed as possibly so idiosyncratic that values i n global terms did not become involved. The low magnitude of the results for the contexts of vocational choice and personal problems i s not readily ex-plained, i n view of the support, limited though i t was, with the impersonal-topic concept. Had a l l results been s i m i l a r l y close to zero, methodology and lack of perceptions of adults' value patterns by students might be suggested, as they were for Hypothesis 3. To a certain extent they may s t i l l be, although the particular questions about correlations between QF and QFa and their lack of equivalence do not apply, since QN was i d e n t i c a l for both groups. I t i s true, too, that a l l respondents were operating i n a realm of higher abstraction when dealing with items l i k e "Being honest," and "Being r e l i a b l e , " than they were when dealing with "Sunbathing," 147 and "Studying," i n sorting QF and QFa items. In a sense, devising a rank order of QN items i s far removed from every-day l i f e , when decisions between two courses based on an either-or situation are seldom clear-cut, and i n some i n -stances d i f f i c u l t to imagine. Adults chosen for discussions of vocational choice were least l i k e students i n general, and these included, as has been shown, a majority of coun-selors. The counselors may, for reasons unknown, have had as a group less similar values to those of the young people; alternatively, they may have had less wish, or less oppor-tunity i n their work, to reveal their normative/instrumental values to students. Or, students may'have sensed or known something of the values of their counselors, but this may not have been a salient factor i n their choice of counselors for discussions of vocational choice, which may be perceived as a value-free situation, one i n which objective i n f o r -mation i s given by a person appointed to do so. The low positive correlation of +.09 between QN results for students i n general and approachability for discussion of personal problems represents a relationship of some interest because, as has been stated, students appeared to be operating with less r i g i d i t y i n this context insofar as choosing persons i n certain roles was concerned. To be sure, counselors, many of whom had low correlations with students i n general, were prominently chosen for d i s -148 c u s s i o n s of p e r s o n a l problems. But i f the r e s u l t s f o r f r e q u e n t l y chosen a d u l t s f o r the pers o n a l - p r o b l e m s c o n t e x t are a r b i t r a r i l y t r u n c a t e d , and o n l y those chosen by 10 p e r -cent o r more o f the st u d e n t s who knew them are c o n s i d e r e d , t h e r e are 10 c o u n s e l o r s and 11 non-counselors i n the group. The mean z_r of QN s c o r e s f o r the c o u n s e l o r s was .26, t h a t f o r non-counselors was .32. The d i f f e r e n c e i s s l i g h t , and t h e r e i s no t h e o r e t i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g such a c u t t i n g p o i n t , but the presence of f i v e n on-counselors i n t h i s group w i t h z_r s c o r e s of .40 and above, and the presence o f o n l y one c o u n s e l o r w i t h a sc o r e above .40 i s s u g g e s t i v e t h a t , had c o u n s e l o r s been removed from the sample, o r had stu d e n t s not been g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o choose c o u n s e l o r s , some c l e a r e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between n o r m a t i v e / i n s t r u m e n t a l -v a l u e p a t t e r n s and a p p r o a c h a b i l i t y might have been e s t a b l i s h e d . A g a i n , i t i s suggested t h a t a f u r t h e r study of approacha-b i l i t y might w e l l d e a l w i t h a d u l t s p l a y i n g p a r t i c u l a r r o l e s , r a t h e r than w i t h a l l a d u l t s i n a s c h o o l . The second s e c t i o n of Hypothesis 4 s t a t e s t h a t s t u d e n t s choosing a p a r t i c u l a r a d u l t would have more s i m i l a r n o r m a t i v e / i n s t r u m e n t a l v a l u e p a t t e r n s t o h i s than would stu d e n t s who knew him but d i d not choose him. R e s u l t s f o r a l l t h r e e con-t e x t s of approach were s i m i l a r i n t h a t t h e r e were many i n -stances i n which the choosers d i d have more s i m i l a r v a l u e 149 p a t t e r n s than the non-choosers, and many i n s t a n c e s i n which they d i d not . There were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ences i n 16 i n s t a n c e s , 12 i n the d i r e c t i o n s u p p o r t i n g the h y p o t h e s i s and 4 i n the o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n . A l t h o u g h these r e s u l t s c l e a r l y l e n d no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t s u p port t o the h y p o t h e s i s , two p o i n t s s h o u l d be noted: the 23 i n s t a n c e s i n which choosers d i d have a h i g h e r mean z_r compared t o the 12 i n s t a n c e s i n which they d i d n ot f o r t he approach c o n t e x t of p e r s o n a l problems i s some s l i g h t tendency i n support of the h y p o t h e s i s , as are the l a r g e r number o f s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e t s c o r e s . I t sho u l d be noted, t o o , t h a t 9 o f the 12 s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i -f i c a n t t scor e s were f o r a d u l t s i n the 2 l a r g e s t s c h o o l s i n which s t u d e n t s had a g r e a t e r c h o i c e o f a d u l t s from whom t o choose. T h i s , i n combination w i t h a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e number of n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r the a d u l t s i n the s m a l l e s t s c h o o l , i s some s l i g h t evidence t h a t when c h o i c e s are made from a broader spectrum of p o s s i b i l i t i e s , they may p o s s i b l y be made more on the b a s i s of some co n s c i o u s or unconscious v a l u e s i m i l a r i t y . ACCURATE SELECTION OF PARTICULAR STUDENTS1 MOST AND LEAST PREFERRED VALUES: HYPOTHESIS 5 C o e f f i c i e n t s of c o r r e l a t i o n between A scor e s and the scores of 27 a d u l t s i n the sub-sample who s e l e c t e d p a r t i c u l a r 150 s t u d e n t s ' most and l e a s t p r e f e r r e d v a l u e s were low r e g a r d -l e s s o f whether the a d u l t s were s e l e c t i n g the QN or QF items on b e h a l f of s t u d e n t s . I t s h o u l d be noted t h a t t h i s s e c t i o n of the study was the l e a s t c l o s e l y l i n k e d t o a t t r a c t i o n t h e o r y , s i n c e i t d i d not assume so much a p e r c e i v e d l i k e n e s s between approacher and approached p e r s o n , but s i m p l y a s t r a i g h t guess t h a t t h e persons who knew most about stu d e n t s would have l i s t e n e d t o them and observed them, hence have taken an i n t e r e s t , and hence be more o f t e n approached. S u b j e c t s i n the sub-sample were asked t o do a d i f f i c u l t t a s k : a c c u r a t e s e l e c t i o n o f items from e i t h e r deck presupposes a r a t h e r f i r m knowledge of the person t o be outguessed. M e t h o d o l o g i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s arose i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the sub-sample, a l s o . As has been noted on page 106, i t was not p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n the c o o p e r a t i o n , because of p r e s s of t i m e , o f a l l the i n d i v i d u a l s who were asked t o take p a r t , and because of absence of students i t was not always p o s s i b l e t o have a d u l t s outguess more than one s t u d e n t . The data are i r r e g u l a r f o r these and o t h e r reasons p r e v i o u s l y r e f e r r e d t o . The o n l y r e g u l a r i t y of i n t e r e s t noted i n the r e s u l t s was t h a t r s f o r the v o c a t i o n a l - c h o i c e c o n t e x t were both n e g a t i v e , -.18 and -.13 f o r s e l e c t i o n scores c o r r e l a t e d w i t h A s c o r e s , w h i l e those f o r s e l e c t i o n scores c o r r e l a t e d w i t h A scores f o r the i m p e r s o n a l - t o p i c and p e r s o n a l problems 151 contexts were a l l positive. This finding i s i n large part due to the presence of 3 counselors highly approached for discussions of vocational choice, who were low (ranked 21, 22, and 24) i n the rank order of selection scores.for the QF and A score comparison, and of 3 highly approached coun-selors who were low (ranked 18, 19, and 20) i n the rank order of selection scores for the QN and A score comparison. (These were not i n every instance the same persons.) Again, considering the selection operation on i t s own, without the correlations between i t and approachability, the professional specialties of persons at the tops of the rank orders may be of interest: i n outguessing students on preferred factual values, the most accurate fiv e adults were an English and drama teacher, a counseler/home economics teacher, an art teacher, an English teacher, and a commerce teacher; i n outguessing normative/instrumental values, the most accurate three adults were: an English/drama teacher, a s o c i a l studies teacher/librarian, and an art teacher. Some of these persons were frequently chosen by students for one type of discussion, others were not, and no case i s made here for support of the hypothesis, but rather a sug-gestion that the obverse of the pattern discussed on page 116 regarding the p o s s i b i l i t y of a relationship between certain types of professional specialty and communication between students and adults--in this instance the adults ! more 152 accurate selection of student values, possibly based on knowledge of students—may also hold. SUMMARY Five aspects of approachability i n three d i f f e r e n t contexts have been investigated i n this study. Results have been equivocal for nearly a l l of them. Hypothesis 1, on same- and opposite-sex attraction, while supported i n 5 of 6 instances, was thought to indicate more useful data on approachability patterns to do with adult role than on sex qua sex. Hypothesis 2, on the assumed greater approacha-b i l i t y of younger than older adults, was not supported, and i n some instances results indicated that the opposite was true, and with Hypothesis 2, certain sample-specific data indicated that an adult's age may have l i t t l e to do with his approachability—again, his role and possibly some other personality characteristics may have been much more sali e n t . Hypothesis 3, on the place of similar or dis s i m i l a r factual-value patterns i n approachability, results were of low magnitude and i t was impossible to ascertain whether i n -adequacies of methodology or a lack of salience or lack of perception of factual-value pattern s i m i l a r i t y - d i s s i m i l a r i t y could explain the results. Hypothesis 4, on normative/ instrumental value patterns and approachability was suppor-ted for one context of approachability: discussions of 153 impersonal topics. Though low, the positive correlation between approachability and normative/instrumental values suggested that the more approachable adults were able i n some way to communicate with students on value-relevant materials, and/or that students f e l t that values were r e l e -vant to their choices of adults for these discussions. The remaining parts of Hypothesis 4 were not supported, possibly because students were choosing adults because of role rather than s i m i l a r i t y of values, either because they did not f e e l values as relevant for these discussions, or because they did not know the values of the approached persons. Hypothesis 5, on approachability and accurate selection of pa r t i c u l a r students'preferred and least preferred values, was not supported—accuracy of selection had l i t t l e or nothing to do with approachability, although some s l i g h t relationship was noted between accurate selection and a professional specialty i n the humanities, arts, and subjects i n which personal interaction between teacher and students might well take place. Because of the lack of substantive support for Hypo-theses 2, 3, 4, and 5, and the p a r t i a l support for Hypothesis 1, to say nothing of the questions raised i n the previous discussion for supported hypotheses or parts of them, the testing of hypotheses i n the study cannot, as a whole, have been said to have contributed s i g n i f i c a n t l y to a knowledge 154 of the correlates of approachability. Nevertheless, i t may have uncovered certain p o s s i b i l i t i e s that might f r u i t f u l l y be investigated i n the future, A few suggestions on these p o s s i b i l i t i e s follow. Possible Correlates of Approachability 1. The place of professional role i n the di f f e r e n -t i a l approachability of adults should be investigated, as suggested on pages 116 and 117. 2. The communication of values, especially by adults, may be generally low, even for such generally public values as factual ones. It would be interesting to ask students to outguess adults' values, to see whether those of more highly approachable adults were known better than those of non-approachable adults. 3. If the place of role i n students' choices could be controlled or minimized, i t should be ascertained whether students would choose, i n general, younger rather than older adults for discussions of personal problems. In this con-nection i t might be of interest to subdivide the context of personal problems to see whether some kinds of problems are more related to age and sex of chosen adults than others. 4. The characteristics of high approachable and low approachable adults, especially for certain groups of students, might be of interest, and might y i e l d certain correlates not covered by those studied i n this research. 155 In addition to the foregoing questions which were suggested by the frequencies relating to substantive data obtained i n the study, there are others which were un-covered during the course of the investigation, but not related to the findings per se. They are informal i n nature and anything but systematically deduced. They may, however, be suggestive of correlates of approachability that are, i n fact, r e a l , and are presented here to round out the formal presentation. Informally Sensed Correlates of Approachability 1. Most students were slow to answer SQ-2, and as has been noted a small number of them refused to make choices on 1 or 2 contexts. Many of the answers on SQ-3 were humdrum and apathetic. If such a situation were to hold i n a r e p l i c a t i o n of this study, sharper dis t i n c t i o n s might be made between levels of approachability: those adults on whose behalf students were enthusiastic could be singled out for study, as could those students who refused to choose any adult. Approachability i s a two-way process, and characteristics of approachers were not studied i n this research: they might well be i n the future. 2. Characteristics of approachable adults were in some instances v i s i b l e to the investigator i n the course of the study, and may be of interest. High approachable adults 156 were noticed to be enthusiastic persons, low approachable adults seemed generally to be less so. Of the high approach-able adults i n the sub-sample, nine were delighted with the guessing task and interested i n knowing their own results; only one non-approachable adult i n the sub-sample asked for results. The three adults i n the 51-60 age range, who con-tributed to the sample-specific results i n the chi square tables on pages 73 and 74, were outstandingly active persons with apparently high energy and emphatic good w i l l toward students. A dimension of l i v e l i n e s s seemed to d i f f e r e n t i a t e many high approachable adults from their colleagues. If some scale for measuring vim and good humor could be found or constructed, a hypothesis that adults high i n these q u a l i t i e s would be approachable to students hiah i n these q u a l i t i e s (nence a larae number of students) could be tested as a more promising f i t between Newcomb's theory and adults' approach-a b i l i t y i n schools. 3. There was some informal evidence that the way i n which classes were conducted by various adults was related to their approachability. Guidance classes taught by counselors were sometimes described by both student and adult subjects, and were informal i n nature, with small discussion groups i n operation. Certain English and s o c i a l studies teachers appeared to have adopted group and i n f o r -mal discussions as their main mode of teaching. The i n -stance of the hiah-approachable commerce teachers pointed 157 up this tendency: i n two instances i n diff e r e n t schools high-approachable commerce teachers had taken seriously a suggestion by the Department of Education that an improve-ment i n communications s k i l l s should be a part of the course called Office Practice 12. They had in s t i t u t e d d i s -cussion groups i n their classes and the discussions appeared to cover a wide range of topics and to have brought the teachers concerned much closer to the concerns of the i r students. Classroom mode might be a factor i n d i f f e r e n t i a -ting high- and low-approachable s p e c i a l i s t s i n the special-t i e s associated with high approachability, and this could be investigated. 4. Although less frequently apparent, i t i s possible that some dimension of cosmopolitanism was operating i n a direction away from the hypotheses: adults who had traveled or who had been i n other professions than teaching seemed included i n somewhat larger numbers among the approachable adults, especially for discussions of impersonal topics. Such a correlate might well be related to the enthusiasm of approachable adults mentioned i n (2) above. 5. D i f f i c u l t to describe, but thought to be a factor in the choices of certain students, was a kind of authen-t i c i t y and sincerity of chosen adults: this could be mani-fested i n some s l i g h t tendency for a small group of students 158 i n each school to choose an adult who was unlike his c o l -leagues, both i n factual-value preferences and i n bearing. Possibly some students detect the courage to l i v e by one's convictions, and put their trust i n such persons. To i n -vestigate this p o s s i b i l i t y a closer examination of student's reasons for choices would have to be made, and validated against some sophisticated measurement of adults' authen-t i c i t y . The foregoing suggestions are thought worthy of further investigation despite their informal nature. CONCLUSION The nature of approachability of adults i n schools was investigated. Formal and informal results have been discussed, and suggestions made for further investigations. On the whole, i t may be said that approachability i s e v i -dently a characteristic present i n d i f f e r e n t i a l amounts i n adults, but that i t s nature and i t s correlates have extra-ordinary complexity. Sex and role i n the school have been shown to be related to i t i n different ways for different contexts of approach, and the very s l i g h t relationship values may play i n one context was discussed. LITERATURE CITED 160 A r c h i b a l d , P. Value consensus, s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n and i n t e r -p e r s o n a l a t t r a c t i o n . (Master's t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia) Vancouver, B.C., 1966. Byrne, D., London, O., & G r i f f i t t , W. The e f f e c t of t o p i c s i m i l a r i t y - d i s s i m i l a r i t y on a t t r a c t i o n i n an i n t r a -s t r a n g e r d e s i g n . Psychonomic S c i e n c e , 1968, 2_, 303. Cook, T.E. The i n f l u e n c e of c l i e n t - c o u n s e l o r v a l u e s i m i l a r -i t y on change i n meaning d u r i n g b r i e f c o u n s e l i n g . J o u r n a l of C o u n s e l i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 13_, 77-81. E b e r d t , M. A study of most approachable and l e a s t approach-a b l e t e a c h e r s as r a t e d by h i g h - s c h o o l s t u d e n t s . The School C o u n s e l l o r , 1968a, 15, 209-214. E b e r d t , M. P e r s o n a l communication, 19 6 8b. Ferguson, G.A. S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i n psychology and e d u c a t i o n . New York: M c G r a w - H i l l , 1959. Gorlow, L., & N o l l , G.A. A study of e m p i r i c a l l y d e r i v e d v a l u e s . The J o u r n a l of S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1967, 73 , 261-269. G r i f f i t t , W. A n t i c i p a t e d r e i n f o r c e m e n t and a t t r a c t i o n . Psychonomic S c i e n c e , 1968a, L5, 209-214. G r i f f i t t , W.B. I n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t r a c t i o n as a f u n c t i o n of s e l f - c o n c e p t and p e r s o n a l i t y s i m i l a r i t y - d i s s i m i l a r i t y . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 4, 581-584. G r i f f i t t , W.B. A t t r a c t i o n toward a s t r a n g e r as a f u n c t i o n of d i r e c t and a s s o c i a t e d r e i n f o r c e m e n t . Psychonomic S c i e n c e , 1968b, 2, 147. H a r r i s , J . The b e s t t h i n g s i n l i f e a r e . . . ? — a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f v a l u e d i n c i d e n t s and f e e l i n g s o f s e c o n d a r y - s c h o o l s e n i o r s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Canadian C o u n s e l l o r / C o n s e i i l e r Canadien, 1969 ,• ^ 13-27 H e i d e r , F. Consciousness, the p e r c e p t u a l w o r l d , and communi-c a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s . I n R. T a g u i r i & L. P e t r u l l o (Eds.), P e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n and i n t e r p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o r . S t a n f o r d , C a l i f . : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1958a. 161 Heider, F. Perceiving the other person. In R. Taguiri & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and in t e r -personal behavior. Stanford, C a l i f . : Stanford University Press, 1958b. Heider, F. Social perception and phenomenal causality. In R. Taguiri & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford, C a l i f . : Stanford University Press, 1958c. Horowitz, H. Interpersonal choice i n American adolescents. Psychological Reports, 1966, 19, 371-374. J e l l i s o n , J.M., & Zeisset, P.T. Attraction as a function of the commonality of a t r a i t shared with another. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 11, 115-120. Kerlinger, F.N. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. Kessel, P., & McBrearty, J.F. Values and psychotherapy: A review of the l i t e r a t u r e . Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1967, 669-690. Margenau, H. The s c i e n t i f i c basis of value theory. In A.H. Maslow (Ed.), New knowledge i n human values. New York: Harper & Row, 1959. Mendelsohn, G.A. Effects of c l i e n t personality and c l i e n t -counselor s i m i l a r i t y on the duration of counseling: A replication and extension. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 13, 228-234. M i l l e r , D.M., Baker, J.F., Clasen, R.E., Conry, J.L., Conry, R.F., Pratt, A.D., Sheets, S.E., Wiley, D.E., & Wolfe, R.G. Elementary school teachers' viewpoints of teaching and learning. Research Report, U.S. Office of Education, 1967, University of Wisconsin Instructional Research Laboratory. Newcomb, T.M. The cognition of persons as cognizers. In R. Taguiri & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford, C a l i f . : Stanford University Press, 1958. Newcomb, T.M. The prediction of interpersonal attraction. American Psychologist, 1956, 2/1, 575-586. 162 Newcomb, T.M. The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Offer, Daniel. Studies of normal adolescents. Adolescence, 1966/67, 1, 305-320. Petony, P. Value change i n psychotherapy. Human Relations, 1966, 19, 39-45. Precker, J.A. The automorphic process i n the attr i b u t i o n of values. Journal of Personality, 1953, 21_, 356-363. Precker, J.A. Sim i l a r i t y of valuing i n selection of peers and near-authority figures. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 47, 406-TT4. Rokeach, M. A theory of organization and change within value-attitude systems. Journal of Social Issues, 1968, 2_4, 13-33. Rosenfeld, H., & Jackson, J. Effect of s i m i l a r i t y of person-a l i t i e s on interpersonal attraction. American Psychologist, 1959, 14, 366-367. Shafer, H.M. Adolescent value standards. The Clearing House, 1960, 3_5, 156-158. Smith, A.J. Si m i l a r i t y of values and i t s r e l a t i o n to acceptance and the projection of s i m i l a r i t y . The Journal of Psychology, 1957, 43_, 251-260. Strang, R. Counseling adolescents. Adolescence, 1966/67, 1, 297-303. Taguiri, R. Social preference and i t s perception. In Taguiri & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford, C a l i f . : Stanford University Press, 1958. Thompson, O.E. Student values i n Transition. C a l i f o r n i a Journal of Educational Research, 1968, 19 (2) , 77-86. Thompson, W.R., & Nishimura, R. Some determinants of friendship. Journal of Personality, 1951, 20, 305-314. Welkowitz, J., Cohen, J., & Ortmeyer, D. Value system s i m i l a r i t y : Investigation of patient-therapist dyads. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31, 48-55. A P P E N D I C E S APPENDIX A Instruments, Direction Sheets, Introductory Material given to Subjects, Details of Administration, and R e l i a b i l i t y Information INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL PRESENTED TO ALL STUDENTS 165 About the research project to be conducted by krs. R.B. Harris To the students who are asked to cooperate i n the project: The research I am doing i s on the personal preferences of grade 12 students and of adults on the staffs of their schools. I t i s part of the requirements I hope to meet i n getting the degree of Doctor of Edu-cation at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. I w i l l appreciate your cooperation i n my research very much. During this and one other period I w i l l ask you to indicate various of your preferences. I w i l l be asking some of the s t a f f members of your school to indicate their preferences also. When I have this information I w i l l be comparing your answers with answers from students i n other schools, and w i l l also compare them with answers from s t a f f members. There are no -'right'' or -'wrong" ways to have preferences. So there are no right or wrong answers. I w i l l not be testing your character or a b i l i t y i n anyway. You may not wish, however, to have your individual preferences made public—so I assure you that no one w i l l see any individual's results except me, and I w i l l not t e l l anyone about them, or publish anything that any individual t e l l s me using his name. Everyone w i l l be given a code number as soon as the project i s finished i n this school, and your names w i l l be removed from a l l the materials. As soon as I can, probably within a month, I w i l l report back to you how you as a group indicated preferences. I f 90% of you prefer football to baseball, for instance, and i f 90% of the staf f members prefer base-b a l l to f o o t b a l l , this would go into the report as an interesting d i f f e r -ence i n preferences. At a lat e r date, I w i l l also report how you com-pared to the students i n other schools, some of which are i n the c i t y , and some i n the country. As you f i n i s h reading this I w i l l be handing out the direction sheets for the f i r s t and second questionnaires. Please read the direc-tion sheets carefully and answer the questionnaires according to the direction sheets. INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL PRESENTED TO ALL ADULTS To the teachers taking part i n this research: 166 The research project I am conducting, with the approval of the D i s t r i c t Superintendent and the Prin c i p a l , i s a part of my thesis research for a doctorate i n education at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. I t concerns the personal preferences of grade-12 students and of members of the staffs of their schools. Your cooperation w i l l be very greatly appreciated. I w i l l report back to you various sorts of results: for instance rank orders of preferences of both adult and student groups, correlations, averages, and so on, together with any interesting s i m i l a r i t i e s between your school's results and results from other schools i n the project. The last-named w i l l be sent as soon as the data are analysed by computer. But information about your own school, i n approximate form, w i l l be sent within a month of my fi n i s h i n g the project here. I w i l l not report, however, any information on individuals: although the material you w i l l be asked to answer i s i n very large part s o c i a l l y approved, you s t i l l would not, perhaps, wish to make your preferences public. So please be assured that only I w i l l see these results, and I w i l l not make them known i n any way, except as anonymous averages, etc. I do need your names on the various instruments as they are completed, but you w i l l be assigned a code number as soon as a l l of them are received, and I w i l l destroy your name-labels before leaving the d i s t r i c t . The f i r s t instrument I w i l l ask you to complete i s a set of questions about yourselves. Your name: wSTUDEN'J.'-QUESTJ.ONNA.IKH-.l ( f i r ; ; t ) ( l . - a t ) lf> 7 SQ I Here i s a l i s t o f t h e s t a f f o f S e n i o r S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l , U s i n g t h e d i r e c t i o n s h e e t as a g u i d e , plea.se check (\y' ) t h o s e p e o p l e who a r e known o r n o t /g> known to you i n t h e columns p r o v i d e d , / ^ O -Q- P l e a s e do ^ / n o t w r i t e i n t h i s column Names o f a l l a d u l t s on s c h o o l s t a f f s f o r a t l e a s t 3 months were l i s t e d h e r e ; t h e y a r e d e l e t e d h e r e t o p r e s e r v e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . DIRECTION SHEET for Questionnaire I 168 F i r s t , please note that this research i s about the preferences of i n d i -viduals, not groups. Therefore, for the results to have meaning, i t i s necessary that you make your own choices, without discussing the choices with others or noticing what others are doing. Questionnaire I This i s a l i s t of the people on the staf f of your school who have been here 3 months or more. You are asked to indicate which of them you know, and which you don't know .... BUT ''knowing'" requires some explanation, so please read a l l of the direc-tions before marking the questionnaire. ""Knowing1* means you not only recognize the person when you see him or her, but also that you have some idea of what he or she i s l i k e . Knowing does not necessarily mean that you know the person very well. There are 5 columns for you to use on Questionnaire I. Column I-"Past or present teacher" should be checked i f the person has been your teacher or i s your teacher now. (Do not check people who have substituted once or twice for a regular teacher; do check anyone who has taught you long enough so that you have some idea of what he or she i s like.) Column II-"Club sponsor, coach,etc." should be checked i f the person i s known to you because you have worked with him or her i n some school a c t i v i t y other than being taught by him or her. Column III-"Counselor, adviser,etc." should be checked i f you have had some relationship i n school with him or her, other than as your teacher or i n an extra-curricular school a c t i v i t y . I f you have spoken with a counselor, or discussed something other than your course work with a per-son, put a check beside his or her name i n Column I I I . Column IV-"Known outside school" should be checked i f you have been ac-quainted with the person outside of school, possibly i n a community ac t i v i t y , or as a friend or member of your family, or as an employer. NOTE that i f you do know the adult, you w i l l check at least one of Columns I through IV, and you may check 2, 3 , or a l l 4 of them. COLUMN V-"Not known" should be checked i f you don't know the person at a l l , except possibly knowing his or her name or what he or she looks l i k e . Now indicate on the questionnaire which adults you know, and how, and which you don't know. S TUDKNT --QUE S TI ON NAIRV) - 2 1G 9 L ll 1 1 1 'J-i.' Q J ' l l l U ' l i i i i i l l l i l l i l i i n M U S l t i i n i n i i i i . i i i M l H l M i n i i m n m h ' i l l H i i i i l H i ' i in H i 1  n • i u 1t , i o t n u u i t SQ I I Here i s a l i s t o f t h e s t a f f o f C\Z1 IL& S e n i o r S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l . U s i n g t h e d i r e c t i o n s h e e t as a g u i d e , p l e a s e put a check i n d i c a t i n g y o u r f i r s t c h o i c e o f a p e r s o n f o r each of t h e 3 t y p e s o f d i s c u s -s i o n s i n t h e f i r s t 3 columns. Then c i r c l e y o u r 3 c h e c k s . Then Eiake any a d d i t i o n a l c h e c k s f o r o t h e r s y o u might / l i k e to have d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h . Do n o t / c i r c l e t h e a d d i t i o n a l c h e c k s . Then p l a c e c h e c k s i n column IV as d i r e c t e d •—an- t he-d r r e c-t-rorr -sh e e i r ; — '•  o, si o, O -Or c? ' 3 t "7 a o'/ ^ / Vy . or P l e a s e ' do NOT w r i t e i n t h i s column I I Names o f a l l a d u l t s on s c h o o l s t a f f s f o r a t l e a s t 3 months were l i s t e d h e r e ; t h e y a r e d e l e t e d h e r e t o p r e s e r v e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . II1_ _IV X ^DIRECTION SHEET f o r Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I I 1 7 0 Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I I i s a s i m i l a r l i s t o f t h e s t a f f o f y o u r s c h o o l . I t f f lease r e a d t h e f o l l o w i n g b e f o r e m a r k i n g i t . Ijjnagine t h e f o l l o w i n g s i t u a t i o n : ^.You w i s h t o d i s c u s s s o m e t h i n g s e r i o u s l y w i t h an o l d e r p e r s o n some t ime f w i t h i n a w e e k . A l l t h e p e o p l e on t h e l i s t have f r e e t i m e s e t a s i d e t o " h a v e d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h g r a d e 12 s t u d e n t s , and y o u c an go s e e a n y one o f v t h e m . Y o u have t h r e e d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s on y o u r m i n d : 1. Some i n t e r e s t i n t a l k i n g o v e r some m a t t e r t o do w i t h w o r l d a f f a i r s , p o l i t i c s , p h i l o s o p h y , r e l i g i o n , and t h e l i k e ; 2. Y o u r c h o i c e o f a v o c a t i o n . ( I f y o u have a l r e a d y d e c i d e d on a . v o c a t i o n , p r e t e n d t h a t y o u h a v e n T t . ) 3. A s e r i o u s p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m t o do w i t h y o u r f e e l i n g s , r e l a t i o n s h i p s * o r w o r r i e s . . Do n o t i m a g i n e t h e p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m t o be d i f f i c u l t y w i t h a • ^ p a r t i c u l a r c o u r s e y o u a r e t a k i n g . IKPTE-You a r e n o t b e i n g a s k e d t o r a t e y o u r t e a c h e r s on how good t h e y a r e seat t e a c h i n g , o r how g o o d t h e y a r e as p e o p l e . Y o u a r e j u s t g o i n g t o i n -d i c a t e p r e f e r e n c e s o f w h i c h one y o u w o u l d go t o i n t h e i m a g i n a r y s i t u -Jijsations o u t l i n e d a b o v e . . # fhe re a r e 4 Co lumns on Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I I : C o n s i d e r Co lumns I t h r o u g h I I I . TPo lumn I-- 'World a f f a i r s , e t c . ' ' s h o u l d be c h e c k e d o n c e , a t f i r s t , b e s i d e 4?fcfce name o f t h e p e r s o n y o u w o u l d c h o o s e f o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f a m a t t e r t o I'do w i t h w o r l d a f f a i r s , p o l i t i c s , e t c . , as d e s c r i b e d i n ( l ) a b o v e . ^Co lumn I I - " T o c a t i o n s " s h o u l d be c h e c k e d o n c e , a t f i r s t , b e s i d e t h e name ,_of t h e p e r s o n y o u w o u l d c h o o s e f o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f y o u r c h o i c e o f a v o c a t i o n , as d e s c r i b e d i n (2) a b o v e . i-T".": j-Column I I I - " P e r s o n a l p r o b l e m s " s h o u l d be c h e c k e d o n c e , a t f i r s t , b e s i d e '*the name o f a p e r s o n y o u w o u l d choose f o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f a p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m , as d e s c r i b e d i n (3) a b o v e . -'"MOTE-You c an c h e c k 3 d i f f e r e n t a d u l t s , one f o r e a c h t y p e o f d i s c u s s i o n , p f i r 2 a d u l t s — o n e f o r one t y p e o f d i s c u s s i o n and one f o r t h e o t h e r 2 t y p e s , ^ • r y o u c a n c h e c k one p e r s o n f o r a l l 3 d i s c u s s i o n s . • | i f e u s h o u l d now have one c h e c k i n e a c h o f Co lumns I t h r o u g h I I I . P l e a s e . f f u t a c i r c l e a r o u n d t h e s e c h e c k s . Now, i f t h e r e a r e o t h e r p e o p l e on t h e ' ; l i s t t h a t y o u w o u l d go t o f o r t h e s e k i n d s o f d i s c u s s i o n s , pu t c h e c k s be-i#s ide t h e i r names . Check as many a d d i t i o n a l p e o p l e as y o u w i s h , and none " i f y o u w i s h . Do n o t c i r c l e t h e a d d i t i o n a l c h e c k s . I F • ow c o n s i d e r Co lumn I V . I f y o u have i n f a c t had a d i s c u s s i o n o f any o f t he ypes d e s c r i b e d above w i t h anyone on t h e l i s t , pu t a c h e c k b e s i d e h i s o r t*©r: name >'in Co lumn I V . 171 STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE-3 Y o u r name: f i r s t l a s t QUESTIONNAIRE I I I On Q u e s t i o n n a i r e I I y o u i n d i c a t e d w h i c h p e o p l e y o u w o u l d c h o o s e f o r d i s c u s s i o n s o f v a r i o u s t o p i c s . I ' d l i k e t o know b r i e f l y w h y , s o p l e a s e f i l l i n t h e f o l l o w i n g b l a n k s . 1. F o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f w o r l d a f f a i r s , e t c . , I c h o s e | b e c a u s e (name o f s t a f f member) 2. F o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f v o c a t i o n s , I c h o s e ; (name o f s t a f f member) b e c a u s e — 3 . F o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f a p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m I c h o s e b e c a u s e (name o f s t a f f member) ADULT QUESTIONNAIHE 172 Your name: TiuIstT T f i r s t J " 1. Sex 2. Age as o f l a s t b i r t h d a y M F 20« 30 31-4-0 51-60 60+ T e a c h i n g o r o t h e r s p e c i a l i t i e s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Art^ Commerce C o u n s e l i n g E n g l i sh F r e n c h Home economics * I n d u s t r i a l e d u c a t i o n _ L i b r a r i a n " M a t h e m a t i c s ' Music P h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n S c i e n c e S o c i a l s t u d i e s O t h e r s — • P l e a s e s p e c i f y Y o u r name: ( l a s t [YlrctT" 4. Number o f y e a r s o f t e a -c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e ( c o u n t 1968-69 as one y e a r ) 1-2 3-5. 6-10 11-20" 20+ * 5. S c h o o l e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s S p o n s o r o f a.t l e a s t one c l u b o r s i m i l a r a c t i v i t y t h i s y e a r C o a c h i n g a t l e a s t one team t h i s y e a r None on r e g u l a r b a s i s O t h e r - - p l e a s e s p e c i f y : 6. N o n - s c h o o l a c t i v i t i e s x^rith young p e o p l e R e g u l a r a c t i v i t y w i t h c h u r c h , community, o r s c o u t / g u i d e group, e t c , F r e q u e n t b u t i n f o r m a l a c t i v i t y w i t h y o u t h I n f r e q u e n t o r no n o n - s c h o o l a c t i v i t y w i t h y o u t h O t h e r - - p l e a s e s p e c i f y 173 Q S o r t of F a c t u a l Values as Sorted by a Student Subject . O S T I M P O R T A N T A - T ^ E S . . ( n o t necessor iW « ~ P i L E 2 c v T M O S T I M P O R T A N T A C T 1 V -! ? , E S H T C J T H S S E . « P I - H I -, , b y some other person or Be ing neeaed by persons. s ions, debates, Having d i s coss i . ..not necessar . ly orargo ments r i \ y sexua Being ^ J£ -by someone o l\y) beautiful things--<°r m Creating b e a UV painting, writing, compos.ng. P stance Fee l i ng copoble and competent abou, who, you're doing. Meeting new people. 174 Being * i opposite sex. th a particu | a r friend of the Be ing with a group of people of your , . x a „ d c lose to your own age. L ci^ter (< r s isters) or a E £ r ! ? b ^ 3 ^ ^ e s s o r i l y o l . of them. Being acce pted by people your own oge. Be ing with one or both of your parents. Be ing with o group of ' eop and c lose to your own age. F i x i ng , adjust ing, ebuilding things. Look ing at beautiful th incs-natura manmade. 1 or I I S D or other druglike sub-^ ^ n e c e s s a r i l y more than one or frequently. L i s ten ing to music. M V E U N E X T MOST I M P O R T A N T T O T H O S E IN P I L E 3. Part ic ipat ing m one or more sport Making useful things. Travelling--not necessar i ly on long trips. Helping peo p|e who need help. Being free to make your dec is ions . 175 ?S!T!I D O N ' T VNOW A B O U T . Be ing wi parents i t h adult relat ions other than Going out with fr iends. Being a c t i v e for its own sake. Going for walks. Sunbathing. Having one good friend. Learning for its own sake. Be ing alone sometimes. Being with sma \| chi ldren. Daydreaming. Wearing clothes you l ike. Working for its own sake. Reading for pleasure. L i v ing in Canada rather than anywhere else in the world. 176 PILE 6 . t .C C T H A T A R E L E S S IM-OR A R E D I SL IKED . A R E M O R E D I S L IKED . Drinking a lcohol ic beverages sariW al l kinds or frequently. not neces-m o r e than one them. Being with a particu own sex. lar friend of your nnized by awards or attention Being recognizee oy {or good achievement. Be ing wi Hhadul tsother than your re lat ives. Studying. Going to church. f the things that Owning one or more o are important to you. taking place or on T V . Spending money. Having many fr iends. Doing everday work around your home. Belonging to a club or a team. Driv ing or riding in ve h i d e s of any sort. Be ing wi ,h one or more of your teachers. Being a leader. Being with pets or animals you l ike. 177 DIRECTION SHEETS FOR Q SORTS OF FACTUAL VALUES 178 DIRECTIONS FOR THIS SORTING PROJECT: You w i l l be given a deck of l i t t l e cards. Please do not examine them u n t i l you have read down to step 1, below. In this project I am asking you to t e l l me which a c t i v i t i e s you prefer most and least. A l l of them have been mentioned as liked a c t i v i t i e s by senior students i n B.C. A few of them are a c t i v i t i e s that are not gen-e r a l l y approved of by society—nevertheless they were liked by some stu-dents . I hope you w i l l be honest about your own preferences—remember only I w i l l see the results, and I w i l l not report individual's prefer-ences to anyone else. You are to consider the a c t i v i t i e s on the basis of how important they are to you. I f you have d i f f i c u l t y deciding, think of which one you would hate giving up the most. Step 1. Remove the rubber bands, and write your f i r s t and las t names on the top card, which i s blank. Now set aside your name card and the green cards. Step 2. Go through the white cards and separate them into 3 piles: a pile of a c t i v i t i e s that are important to you; a pile of a c t i v i t i e s that you d i s l i k e ( i f you d i s l i k e any of them); and a pile of a c t i v i t i e s that you haven't experienced and those that you have experienced but that are unimportant to you. Step 3 » Set aside the piles of d i s l i k e d and not-experienced a c t i v i t i e s , and count the number of s l i p s you have i n the pile of a c t i v i t i e s that are important to you. I f you have more than 22 cards, reduce the pile to 22 by setting aside those which are less important than the 22. I f you have fewer than 22, add enough from the ones you thought unimportant so that you have the 22 most important i n one p i l e . Do NOT add any a c t i v i t i e s you have not experienced to the top 22. Step 4« Take the 22 cards i n the most important p i l e , and divide them into the 11 most important, and the 11 less important. Step 5 . Take the 11 most important, and select from them the 5 that are most important of a l l . Step 6. From the 5 most important, select the 2 very most important of a l l — t h o s e you would hate most to give up. Step 7» You should now have 6 p i l e s : the 2 most important of a l l , called Pile 1; the next 3 , called Pile 2; the 6 which follow i n importance, c a l -led Pile 3 ; the 11 which follow next, called Pile 4; a pile which you haven't experienced or which you think are unimportant to you; and a pile of d i s l i k e d a c t i v i t i e s . Put piles 1 through 4 aside for a moment. Step 8. Count the s l i p s i n your dis l i k e d pile and increase or decrease i t to 22 by adding unimportant but known a c t i v i t i e s , or by removing less disliked a c t i v i t i e s . This pile of 22 may include either your 22 most dis-liked a c t i v i t i e s , or the a c t i v i t i e s you d i s l i k e plus some that are simply of the least importance to you. Keep those a c t i v i t i e s which you have not experienced i n the "center" f i l e . 179 2. Step 9. Take the 22 cards you have just been working with, and divide them into the 11 most di s l i k e d (or least important) and the 11 less d i s l i k e d , or more important. Step 10. From the -'bottom" 11—the most di s l i k e d or least important— select the 5 that are most disliked or least important of a l l . I f you have at least 5 di s l i k e d a c t i v i t i e s i n the p i l e , select those. Ste_p__ll. From the 5 you just selected, pick the -'bottom" 2—the 2 you d i s l i k e the most or, i f you haven't at least 2 dis l i k e d a c t i v i t i e s , select the very least important 1 and a di s l i k e d 1, or the 2 least important. Step 12. (You're nearly finished.) You should now have 9 piles of cards. Please check them for numbers i n each, and arrange them i n a row: Pil e 1—2 a c t i v i t i e s most important of a l l . P i l e 2—3 next most important to those i n Pile 1. Pile 3 — 6 next most important. Pile ly—11 next most important. Pi l e 5—1' which include a l l those a c t i v i t i e s that you you haven't experienced, and some that are less important than those i n piles 1 through 4. Pil e 6—11 less important than those i n Piles 1 through 5, plus possibly some that are s l i g h t l y d i s l i k e d . P i l e 7—6 cards less important or more disliked than those i n Piles 1 through 6. Pile 8—3 cards less important or more disliked than those i n Piles 1 through 7• Pil e 9—2 cards with the most disliked or least important a c t i v i t i e s of a l l . Make sure you have been as accurate as possible i n your decisions, and make any changes you want to make EXCEPT that you cannot change the number of cards i n a p i l e . NOTE: you do not have to arrange the cards i n order within a p i l e . Step 13. Take the green s l i p s . They are labels for your 9 p i l e s . Put a label on top of the appropriate pi l e s . Make sure you don't reverse the l a b e l s — i . e . do put the Pile 1 label on top of your 2 most important a c t i v i t i e s . Step 14. P i l e the piles together, putting pile 9 on the bottom, with i t s label on top of i t ; p i l e 8 and label on top of pile 9, and so on u n t i l Pile 1 i s on top of Pile 2. Put your name card on top of the pile — i t should be on top of the Pi l e 1 label. Now secure the whole pile with the elas t i c bands, one around the pile longwise, and one shortwise, and put the deck i n the box provided. And thank you very much again for your cooperation. 180 DESCRIPTION OF QF AND ITS ADMINISTRATION QF c o n s i s t e d of the f o l l o w i n g : 1. 60 1-1/2 x 2-3/4 i n c h w h i t e cards on which 60 d i f f e r e n t f a c t u a l - v a l u e items were p r i n t e d on one s i d e , and a randomly a s s i g n e d item number was p r i n t e d on the o t h e r . 2. 9 green 1-1/2 x 2-3/4 i n c h green cards on which l a b e l i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t o a s s i s t i n s o r t i n g and s c o r i n g was p r i n t e d on both s i d e s . 3. A bl a n k green 1-1/2 x 2-3/4 i n c h c a r d t o be used as an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n c a r d . 4. A 2-page d i r e c t i o n sheet g i v i n g s t e p - b y - s t e p d i r -e c t i o n s f o r s o r t i n g the Q deck. 5. A rubber band f o r s e c u r i n g the deck b e f o r e and a f t e r s o r t i n g . White i t e m cards were s h u f f l e d b e f o r e each adminis-t r a t i o n and were thus p r e s e n t e d i n random orde r w i t h i n the deck. L a b e l cards were i n s e r i a l o r d e r , and the blank c a r d was on top of the deck. Students s o r t e d the deck f o l l o w i n g the d i r e c t i o n s h e e t s , and w i t h the i n v e s t i g a t o r p r e s e n t t o answer any questions r e g a r d i n g procedure. D i r e c t i o n s i n s t r u c -t e d s t u d e n t s t o w r i t e t h e i r f i r s t and l a s t names on the blank c a r d , s e t a s i d e the green c a r d s , and t o s o r t the whi t e cards i n t o 3 p i l e s , c o n s i s t i n g of items v e r y i m p o r t a n t t o him, those r e l a t i v e l y unimportant, and those d i s l i k e d - He was then d i r e c t e d t o reduce or i n c r e a s e h i s p i l e of very i m p o r t a n t items u n t i l t h i s p i l e i n c l u d e d 22 or the items i n the deck 181 most important to him, and to further subdivide the p i l e into the most important 11 items, and 11 items less important, to subdivide the most important 11 items into 5 most impor-tant and 6 less so, and f i n a l l y to subdivide the 5 most im-portant items into the 2 very most important and the 3 less so. This completed, the student was instructed to keep these p i l e s separate, and perform the same operation on the d i s -liked items, adding to them (in a l l instances there were fewer than 22 d i s l i k e d items) items from the r e l a t i v e l y -unimportant-item p i l e those of least importance, so that the end of the di s t r i b u t i o n low i n importance to t a l l e d 22, and to further subdivide this p i l e i n the same manner as described above u n t i l the 2 most di s l i k e d or least important items were i n the lowest p i l e , and items of less d i s l i k e or somewhat more importance were i n p i l e s of 3, 6, and 11. Having sub-divided the decx into 9 p i l e s , the student was then urged to check the p i l e placements of a l l the items to make sure they reflected his best iudgement of the rel a t i v e importance to him of the items, to make anv alterations he wished without changing the t o t a l number of cards i n each p i l e , and, when s a t i s f i e d , to place the appropriate labels on top of each p i l e , to place the p i l e lowest i n importance on the bottom, the p i l e next lowest on top of i t , and so on u n t i l the 2 items most important were on top of the 3 next-most important, with green labels on top of each p i l e , and f i n a l l y with his name card on top of the deck. He was then asked to secure 182 the deck with the rubber band and return the sorted deck to the investigator. Q decks were scored by the investigator by recording item numbers f a l l i n g i n each p i l e placement for each S_ on IBM Coding sheets, giving the following weights to items i n each p i l e placement: highest 2, i n p i l e 1, 9; next highest 3, i n p i l e 2, 8; next highest 6, i n p i l e 3, 7; next highest 11, i n p i l e 4, 6; middle 16, i n p i l e 5, 5; 11 less high than the mean, i n p i l e 6, 4; 6 less important than p i l e 6, i n p i l e 7, 3; 3 less important or more d i s l i k e d than those i n p i l e 7, i n p i l e 8, 2; two least important or most d i s l i k e d , i n p i l e 9, 1. Administration QF was administered to students i n regular class periods. QFa (described i n the text on page 44 ) was administered to adults at s t a f f meetings after school i n four schools, with the exception of 7 adults who, because of other engagements at staff-meeting times, listened to verbal introductions of the research project by the investigator and then took QFa home to complete i n the evening. In the f i f t h school, the inves-tigator met with adults i n small groups and individually during free periods or after school, and was present during the administration of QFa to a l l the adults on that school's s t a f f . 183 TABLE A - l R e l i a b i l i t y of QF: Coefficients of Correlation for Test-Retest R e l i a b i l i t y for 40 Grade-XII Students Tested 10 and 20 Days after F i r s t Test and Average Correlation for Each Group rxx: Retest After 10 with F i r s t Test Days (N=18) rxx • Retest after 20 Days With F i r s t Test(N=22). .851 .601 .835 .702 .707 .835 .670 .665 .686 .920 .809 .883 .777 .702 .590 .814 .862 .814 .612 .888 .638 .590 .606 .707 .745 .825 .750 .867 .771 .888 .8 83 .777 .707 . .910 .883 .516 .771 .713 .590 .803 r = .760 r = .786 Note: Coefficients were transformed to z_ scores, using Fisher's z_r tables, for the calculation of r x x . Note: The Q deck from one S was noted to have misplaced labels i n both test and retest results, and was dropped from the calculations because the decks could not be scored. 184 Q S o r t of Normative/Instrumental Values as Sorted by a Student Subject Ve i n g moderate-no. going to extremes Us ing reason rathe' than emotion. Being brave DIRECTION SHEET FOR Q SORT OF NORMATIVE/INSTRUMENTAL VALUES QN DIRECTION SHEET You w i l l receive a l i t t l e packet of cards on which different phrases appear. The cards are to be sorted by you on the basis of how important the phrases_ on_.them are to you. A l l of the phrases are ways to l i v e that are generally approved of by society, and you may think a l l of them are important. But you w i l l be asked to decide about the i r relative importance to you. There are no "wrong" or "right" ways to sort the cards. Please do your own sorting—don"t consult with or watch anyone else. Disregard the numbers on the backs of the cards—they are only for my use i n recording. So, following the directions below, arrange the cards in order of importance. You w i l l be thinking about how you think you should be, not necessarily how you are. Now unclip the cards. The top one i s blank—on i t write your f i r s t and l a s t name. Now go through the cards and put i n a separate p i l e those that are very important to you. Then spread out a l l 15 cards with the very important ones on one side, a.nd arrange them a l l i n order, from the most to the least important. When you are sa t i s f i e d that you have got them spread out with the most important one at one end, and the least important at the other, you are ready to p i l e the cards together again. Please note how to p i l e them carefully: Put theJLeast important card on the bottom, and on top of i t put the second-least-most important, and so on u n t i l you have them i n order of importance in the p i l e with the most icvportant card on top. On top of the most important card, put the card with your name on i t , with your name face-up. Now put the c l i p on the whole p i l e to secure i t , and put the packet in the box provided. You are now finished with the f i r s t session of the research project, and I thank you for your cooperation. I ' l l be seeing you one more time, for another different sorting project. 186 DESCRIPTION OF QN AND ITS ADMINISTRATION QN consisted of 15 1-1/2 x 2-3/4 green cards on one side of which normative/instrumental values were printed and identifying numbers, assigned randomly, printed on the reverse; a green blank card; and a direction sheet. Decks were secured before and after sorting by rubber bands. Printed item cards were shuffled before each adminis-tration of QN and thus presented i n random order. The blank caret was on top of the deck. The direction sheet instructed Ss to sort the items f i r s t into 2 p i l e s , those very important and those less so, and then to arrange the 15 items i n rank order from most to least important. £s were encouraged to make any alterations i n the rank order they wished u n t i l they were f i n a l l y s a t i s f i e d that i t represented the relat i v e importance to them of each item, and tnen to arrange the items i n order i n the deck, with the one most important on top- and that of least importance on the bottom. Ss then placed their name cards on top of the most important item, secured the deck with the rubber band, and returned i t to the investigator-Rank orders of QN xtems for each S were recorded by the investiaator on IBM Coding forms with the followincr weiahts assianed: most important, +15, next-most important, +14 and so on until a weight of +1 was assigned the least important item. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n QN was a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a l l s t u d e n t s i n r e g u l a r c l a s p e r i o d s , a f t e r they had completed SQ-1, SQ-2, and SQ-3. I was a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a d u l t s i n s t a f f meetings i n 4 s c h o o l s , and i n s m a l l e r group and i n d i v i d u a l meetings i n the f i f t h s c h o o l , as d e s c r i b e d on page 182. . 188 TABLE A-2 R e l i a b i l i t y o f QN: C o e f f i c i e n t s of C o r r e l a t i o n f o r T e s t -R e t e s t R e l i a b i l i t y f o r 39 Grade-XI and Grade-XII Students Tested 14 and 25 Days A f t e r F i r s t T e s t and Average C o r r e l a t i o n f o r Each Group r X X : R e t e s t A f t e r 14 w i t h F i r s t T e s t Days (N=1.5.), . r : x x R e t e s t a f t e r 25 With F i r s t T e s t Days (N.=.2.4) .782 .868 .638 .688 .714 .509 .684 .648 .721 .754 .777 .671 .707 .973 .736 .964 .779 .541 .386 .496 .854 .786 .739 .941 .875 .821 .914 .698 .496 .671 .614 = .746 .721 .779 .957 .857 .618 .886 .783 .764 r = .800 Note: C o e f f i c i e n t s were transformed t o z_r s c o r e s , u s i n g F i s h e r ' s z t a b l e s , f o r the c a l c u l a t i o n of r . APPENDIX B Supplementary Tables on the Sample 190 TABLE B-l Characteristics of the Adult Sample: Years of Experience on School Staffs for Each School and Totals for A l l Schools School 1 2 3 4 5 Total Years of experience: 1 - 2 4 5 0 1 1 11 3 - 5 1 3 4 4 7 19 6 -10 9 4 11 3 3 30 11 -20 0 4 10 4 10 28 20+ 1 2 3 4 1 11 Total 15 18 28 16 22 99 191 TABLE B-2 Characteristics of the Adult Sample: Fields of Specialization Listed by Adults i n the Sample* Specialty Number of Adults Specialty Number of Adults Administration 12 Industrial Education 6 Agriculture 1 Law 1 Art 3 Library 4 Commerce 11 Mathematics 23 Counseling 14 Music 5 Drama 2 Occupational Education 2 English 24 Physical Education 11 French 5 Science 18 Home Economics 8 Social Studies 23 * Adults l i s t e d from 1 to 4 specialties 192 TABLE B-3 Characteristics of the Adult Sample: Extra-Curricular School A c t i v i t i e s Listed by Adults i n Each School and Totals for A l l Schools* School 1 2 3 4 5 Total A c t i v i t y : Club sponsor, etc. 9 11 19 9 14 62 Coach, etc. 7 4 8 5 2 26 None 4 5 5 3 5 22 Other** 0 0 3 1 0 4 * Some adults l i s t e d more than one a c t i v i t y . ** Occasional a c t i v i t i e s such as organizing graduation cere-monies and fashion shows were included i n this category. 193 TABLE B-4 Characteristics of the Adult Sample: Non-School A c t i v i t i e s with Youth Listed by Adults i n Each School and Totals for a l l Schools School 1 2 3 4 5 Total A c t i v i t y : Regular with clubs, church groups, etc. 3 3 5 4 4 19 Frequent but informal a c t i v i t i e s 3 6 8 3 7 27 Infrequent or no a c t i v i t y 9 9 16 9 11 54 Other* 0 0 1 0 0 1 Note: Some adults l i s t e d both regular and informal a c t i v i t i e s . * The adult l i s t i n g "other" specified family l i f e with teen-aged children. 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106681/manifest

Comment

Related Items