Date of Award

1-1-1970

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Education (EdD)

Department

Counseling Psychology & Community Services

Abstract

Problem: The purpose of this study was to determine the direction of change in selected attitudinal characteristics of male students who were either members of a judiciary board (Group 1, N=51), or appeared before a judiciary board (Group 2, N=ll), or had no contact with a judiciary board (Group 3, N=110) while living in the residence halls at the University of North Dakota.

Procedure: The main sources of data for this study were the Allport- Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values, the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale E, and the Adjective Check List. These instruments were administered to the research population early in the first semester and late in the second semester of the 1968-69 academic year. Specially constructed questionnaires for the student groups and the head residents provided additional data.

The statistical techniques employed in this study included analysis of variance, analysis of covariance, and Dunn's "c" test. The .05 level was employed as the critical level for determining the significance of the obtained differences.

Findings: 1. There was a significant difference among the three groups between initial testing and retesting for the open and closed mindedness variable, with Group 2 scoring higher (becoming more closed minded) than Group 1 and Group 3.

2. There was a significant difference among the three groups between initial testing and retesting for the number of unfavorable adjectives checked variable. A significant difference was found between Group 1 and Group 3, with the former scoring higher.

3. There was a significant difference found on the variable, self-control, among the retest means for the three groups. A significant difference was found between Group 2 and Group 3, with the latter scoring higher.

4. There was a significant difference found on the variable, heterosexuality, among the retest means for the three groups, with Group 2 scoring higher than Group 1 and Group 3.

5. There was a significant difference among the three groups between initial testing and retesting for the heterosexuality variable. A significant difference was found between Group 2 and Group 3, with the former scoring higher.

6. There was a significant difference found on the variable, exhibition, among the retest means for the three groups. A significant difference was found between Group 2 and Group 3, with the former scoring higher.

7. There was a significant difference found on the variable, change, among the retest means for the three groups. A significant difference was found between Group 2 and Group 3, with the former scoring higher.

8. There was a significant difference found on the variable, deference, among the retest means for the three groups, with Group 1 and Group 3 scoring higher than Group 2.

9-. There was a significant difference found on the variable, counseling readiness, among the retest means for the three groups. A significant difference was found between Group 2 and Group 3, with the latter scoring higher.

Conclusions: 1. There were no significant differences or changes in the values of students who served on a judiciary board, appeared before a judiciary board, or had no contact with a judiciary board.

2. Students who appeared before a judiciary board became more closed minded, more authoritarian, and less receptive to new ideas.

3. Students who appeared before a judiciary board lacked self-control, were outgoing, self-centered and narcissistic. In addition, they were opportunistic and manipulative, placed high priority on change and disorder, and were authoritarian, as well as ambitious.

4. Judiciary board members were increasingly perceived by their peers as being cynical, rebellious, and punitive.

Download

Share

COinS