The purposes of this study were first to determine if there were significant differences
in living environment press, i.e., the pressure on an individual to behave in a
certain way, between those fraternity chapters that had the highest freshman pledge
retention rates and those that had the lowest. If significant differences were determined
to exist, the second purpose was to investigate how those differences related to
differences in the retention rates for freshman fraternity pledges.
The data were obtained from the records of all freshman pledges in the Oregon
State University fraternity system for a four-year period. From these data the high
pledge retention and low pledge retention fraternities were determined. The sample
for the remainder of this study was two of the three highest and two of the three lowest
pledge retention fraternities. The highest and lowest pledge retention fraternities
were eliminated.
Analyses included: Pearson Correlation Coefficients to determine if there
were significant correlations between retention of pledges in the fraternity system and
six factors involving grades and the number of members and pledges living in the
fraternities; two-way, fixed analyses of variance to determine if there were significant
differences between the high retention fraternities (HRFs) and the low retention fraternities (LRFs) with respect to pledge high school grade point averages and Scholastic
Aptitude Test scores; chi square contingencies to determine if there were significant
differences between the HRFs and the LRFs with respect to 14 different characteristic,
background, and satisfaction variables; and F-test analyses to determine if
there were significant living environment differences between the HRFs and the LRFs
on each of the subscales of the University Residence Environment Scale, Form R.
The conclusions of the study were:
1. Neither high school nor college grades, SAT scores, nor individual characteristics,
background, and satisfaction levels can be used to define differences in
pledge retention between the HRF and LRF houses.
2. The differences within the living environment, and primarily the relationship
dimension of that environment, of the two groups offer the best explanation of
the pledge retention differences between the two groups.
3. The overt pressure exerted by the LRFs on their pledges to study and
achieve academic success did not result in greater academic success than in HRFs, but
did tend to limit the degree of social integration achieved by their pledges.
4. Social integration has a significant positive impact on pledge retention,
while overt pressure toward academic integration has a probable negative impact on
pledge retention.
5. Successful social integration, while having a positive impact on pledge retention,
does not have a negative impact on academic performance. In fact, the impact
on academic performance may be positive.
6. A crucial element in the Tinto (1987) model should be a relationship
building block within the peer group interactin portion of the social system.
Recommendations for further study were made. / Graduation date: 1991
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ORGSU/oai:ir.library.oregonstate.edu:1957/37434 |
| Date | 20 November 1990 |
| Creators | Smith, Clayton Nowlin |
| Contributors | LeMay, Morris L. |
| Source Sets | Oregon State University |
| Language | en_US |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis/Dissertation |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds