APPROVAL SHEET Title of Thesis: A Confirmatory Study on the Motivational Orientations of Older Adults Involved in Formal Education at the University of Maryland Name of Candidate: Megan Catherine McMahon Master of Arts, 1988 Thesis and Abstract Approved: ~JLd~ ~~ Dr. Carol Cutler Riddick Assistant Professor Department of Recreation Date Approved: ABSTRACT Title of Thesis: A Confirmatory Study on the Motivational Orientations of Older Adults Involved in Education at the University of Maryland Megan Catherine McMahon, Master of Arts, 1988 Thesis directed by: Dr. Carol Cutler Riddick, Assistant Professor, Department of Recreation The purpose of this study was two-fold. One objective was to confirm Pritchard's (1978) typology of older adults' motives for education participation. Another purpose was to examine the influence that selected demographic variables (age, gender, socioeconomic status, and marital status) had on motivations of older students to participate in the "Golden Identification" (Golden I.D.) Program at the University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. The sample consisted of 160 participants from the Golden I.D. Program who were selected through a systematic probability sampling procedure. A mailed questionnaire comprised of three instruments was used for conducting this research. The first part of the questionnaire measured motivational orientations for participation in education by older adults and consisted of the Education Participation Scale for Older Adults and the Older Learner Participation Scale. The third instrument measured demographic characteristics of the study participants. The results revealed that the motivation of the Golden I.D. students to participate in education can be divided into the following six factors (in decreasing order of importance): "cognitive interest," "self actualization," "adaptation/self-understanding," "social contact," "social contribution," and "escape/stimulation . " Furthermore, significant relationships emerged between the socioeconomic status of the participant, and the motives "social contribution," "escape/stimulation," and "self actualization." The implications of these findings and recommendations for further research are discussed. A CONFIRMATORY STUDY ON THE MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATIONS OF OLDER ADULTS INVOLVED IN FORMAL EDUCATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND by Megan Catherine McMahon I/ I Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts 1988 C, I Advisory Committee: Carol Cutler Riddick, Ph.D . Fred Humphrey, Ph . D. Mary Ellen Hrutka, Ph . D. >, I I I M I I DEDICATION To my family, whose love, tolerance, and encouragement provided me with the opportunity and support to complete this work, and to Peter, who stood by me, I dedicate this thesis with love and gratitude. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My sincere appreciation is extended to the Golden I . D. students who particpated in this study, for without their time and input I could not have conducted this project .? The ongoing assistance and support of my comrnitee chair, Dr. Carol Cutler Ri ddick is particularly appre,? iated. And finally, I would like to thank my committe members, Drs . Fred Humphrey , and Mary Ellen Hrutka, who contributed invaluable expertise to this research effort. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I. INTRODUCTION .............................. . 1 Theoretical framework.................... 3 Significance of the study............... 4 Statement of the problem................. 5 Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Operational definitions.................. 8 Delimitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? 9 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ....................... 10 Motivational orientation research ........ 10 Factors linked to motivational orientations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Age..................... .. ............... 18 Gender................................... 20 Socioeconomic Status ..................... 21 Marital Status ..... . ..................... 23 I I I . PROCEDURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 Sample................................... 24 Intervention .. . ..... .. ................... 24 Instrumentation .......................... 25 Collection of data ....................... 28 iv Statistical analysis ...................... 30 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA .. . ... ..... . ......... ...... 33 Sample ............ .. .................... . 3.3 Motivational orientation factor structure ............................. . .37 Overview . . ........ .. ............ .. ...... . 37 Factor structure ........................... 37 Hypotheses testing .... ... .... .. ......... . 44 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................... 47 Summary of procedures ..... . .............. 47 Summary of findings ..................... . 48 ~ Conclusions . ... .. ........................ 1, 51 ~ Discussion and implications ... ............ (,, 51 ~, ,,, Recommendations for further research .... . /54 ,,'',' ' I REFERENCES .............. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ......... . 56 APPENDICES . . .. .. ..... ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? .- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? . ,nI 60 ? ,,;' A. Questionnaire ............................... . 61 /J.~ B. Socioeconomic status index scoring ..... .... . I 68 ,,? IP C. Cover letter ...... . ... .... .................. . 80 I' D. First follow-up postcard ..................... 82 E. Second follow-up letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 F. Human subjects form .......................... 86 G. Statistics used for computation of factor scores .......................... . 88 V List of Tables Table Page 1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents .... 34 2. Items by Factor Mean and Standard Deviaiton ... 38 3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Motivation Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 vi List of Figures Figure Page 1. Hypothesized relationship between demographic variables and motivational factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ? vii 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTIO~ America is growing older . The number and proportion of older adults, 65 years of age anc older, has increa~ed and will continue t o grow more rapidly than any other age group. It is estimated that in the year 2000 there will be at least 36 million Americans over the age of 60 (United States Special Committee of Aging, 1985). Education has emerged during tte last two decades as being instrumental in off-setting m~ny of the physical, social, and psychological problems facing the growing number of elderly persons (Heisel, Darkenwald & Anderson, 1981; McGraw, 1982). It has been argued by professionals that participation in an educational experience can be an instrumental way of meeting the demands of later life . That is, such involvements can lead to diminished disengagement and give people the ability to take part in new interests and activities; as well as facilitate career change from active employment to retirement (Havinghurst, 1976; Heisel et al., 1981; Mizer, 1975; Perkins, & Robertson-Tchabo, 1981; Stanford, 1972). Additionally, participation in educational prograns has been identified as one potential way to fill leisure hours (Bynum, Cooper, & Acuff, 1978). Since the early 1970s many stat es have developed statewide legislation or po l icies d i rected toward the older student (Romaniuk, 1984; Timmerman, 1985). Older adults in 2 at least 43 states and the District of Columbia are able to enroll in reduced or tuition free programs in public higher education institutions on a space-available basis (Kingston, 1982; Perkins & Robertson-Tchabo, 1981). Even so, only a small proportion of those over 60 take advantage of the education opportunities offered (Goodrow, 1975; Kauffman & Luby, 1974; Kingston, 1982; Marcus, 1978). The National Center for Education Statistics (1981) noted that only 3% of those age 65 and over participate in adult education. Statewide surveys of participation in education among older adults report even lower levels of participation. For example, a California Post-secondary Education Study (1981) estimated less than 1% of the continuing education participants in the California State University and college system were over 65 years of age (Romaniuk, 1984). Similarly, it has been reported that fewer than 1% of students participating in the North Carolina community college system were age 65 and over (Daniel, Templin & Shearon, 1977). In short, these figures indicate that community colleges and state universities are not reaching the growing population of persons over the age of 65. According to Stanford and Pritchard (1977) and Spencer (1980), one concern that should be confronting higher education administrators is a better understanding of the motives of those elderly who are participating in structured educational programs . 3 Theoretical Framework One theory that appears applicable for examining the motivational orientations for participation in education by older adults is proposed by Pritchard (1978). Pritchard has put forth the theoretical generalization that participation in education clusters into one or more of six motivational constructs or: escape/stimulation, social contribution, social contact, cognitive interest, self actualization, and adaptation self-understanding. The foundation for Pritchard's work can be traced back to the earlier works of Houle (1961), Maslow (1968, 1970, 1971), Boshier (1971, 1973, 1977), Riddell, (1976), and Boshier and Riddell (1978). Houle (1961) identified three motivational types of learners or: goal-oriented, activity-oriented, and learning-oriented. Based on the early works of Houle (1961) and Maslow (1968, 1970, 1971), Boshier (1971, 1973, 1977) developed a conceptual model that linked reasons for participation in education to psychological states of growth or deficiency . Riddell (1976) and Boshier and Riddell (1978) refined Boshier's earlier model by advancing the notion that there were four motivational orientations for participation or: escape/stimulation, social contribution, social contact, and cognitive interest. Pritchard (1978) then expanded Boshier and Riddell's four factor model by adding two additional factors (based on factor analysis tests), or self actualization and adaptation self-understanding 4 factors. Although Pritchard's theoretical model of the motivational orientations for participation in education by older adults provides a beginning to the conceptualization of motives of older learners, it may be simplistic . Moreover, the findings of studies that have examined older adult participati on in formal education programs suggest that there are a number of factors (such as age, gender, socioeconomic status , and marital status) that may influence the motives of the older adult learner (Green & ,,,, Enderline, 1980; Marcus, 1978; McGraw, 1982; Pritchard, I,a: 1978; Riddell, 1976) . / ,l,,' ;,','~ ' ,-l I Significance of the Study ,,, ' There are at least two reasons why this study is ~., . . ,I,?, ; significant. First, the study's findings can assist education and gerontology professionals in better understanding the differences in motivational orientations of older adult students as well as the factors influencing the motives of the older student . Identifying these differences could suggest varied approaches to the -- Planning, designing, implementing, and marketing of educational programs . to older adults . Second, by testing Pritchard's theoretical model of older adults' motivational orientations for educational participation, this study adds to our existing knowledge base . 5 Statement of the Problem One purpose of the study was to test Pritchard's typology of older adults' motives for education participation. A second purpose of this study was to examine the influence that selected demographic variables (age, gender, socioeconomic status, and marital status) have on motivation to participate in the "Golden Identification" (Golden I.D.) Fro~ r. a1 .. at the University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. A subproblem of the study was to ascertain the reliability of the motivational orientations for educational participation .. index. Hypotheses The basis for the following hypotheses was previous research (see Chapter 2 for more details). More specifically, hypotheses related to the problem statement are (see Figure 1): 1. The motivational orientations of older adult learners can be classified into one or more of the following six factors: escape/stimulation, social contribution, social contact, cognitive interest, self actualization, and adaptation-self understanding. 2. There is a positive relationship between the age of Golden I.D. participants and the educational participation motive "social contri l.,ution . " .I M Figure 1 6 VARIABLES MOTIVES Escape stimulation Age Social contribution Self actualization Socioeconomic status Social contact b Marital status Cognitive interest Adaptation/ self-understanding Note. A negative sign constitutes a negative relationship between the variable and motive specified. A positive sign constitutes a positive relationship between the variable and the motive specified . a The nature of the speculated relationship is that women are more likely then men to report being motivated to participate in adult education because of self- actualization reasons. b The nature of the speculated relationship is that divorced individuals are more likely than non-divorcees to report being motivated to participate in adult education because of social contribution reasons. Figure 1 . Hypothesized relationship between demographic variables and motivational factors . 7 3. There is a negative relationship between the age of Golden I.D. participants and the educational participation motive "self actualization." 4. There is an association between gender and the educational part i i pation motive "cognitive interest; " such that female participants relative to male participants are more likely to report they were motivated to participate in adult education because of cognitive interest reasons. 5. There is a negative relationship between the socioeconomic status of Golden I.D. participants and the educational participation motive "escape/stimulation." 6. There is a negative relationship between the socioeconomic status of Golden I.D. participants and the educational participation motive "social contribution." 7. There is a positive relationship between the socioeconomic status of Golden I.D. participants and the educational participation motive "self actualization." 8. There is a negative relationship between the socioeconomic status of Golden I.D. participants and the educational participation motive "cognitive interest." 9. There is an association between the marital status of Golden I.D. participants and the educational participation motive "social contribution." That is, participants who are divorced relative to non-divorcees are more likely to report they were motivated to participate in adult education because of social contribution reasons . J 8 Operational Definitions The following operational definitions are used to represent the six factors identified in this study: 1. Adaptation/self-understanding--to learn to cope with the survival needs of later life (i . e., finances, consumerism, physical fitness, and health related Problems); to develop a greater understanding of personal needs and losses . 2. Cognitive interest--to learn for the sake of learning, to satisfy an inquiring mind . 3. Escape/stimulation--to become involved in a stimulating activity; to escape boredom, responsibilities, or relationships . 4. Self actualization - - to fulf i ll a need for personal growth and creativity. 5 . Social contact--to fulfill a need for personal associations, affiliation, and friendship; to participate in group activity. 6. Social contribution--to prepare for service to the community; to become a more effective citizen. Delimitations The present study was exploratory in nature and focused on the motivational orientations of a sample of older adult participants involved in education at one university . The study sample included only the individuals, 60 years of age and older, who were enrolled in the Golden Identification Program at the University of 9 Maryland duri n g t h e Spring, 1987 semester and who were willing to complete the survey. Limitations 1. The sample population was not drawn from the overall population of all older adult education Participants in Maryland; therefore, generalizations beyond the University of Maryland Golden I.D. population shoul c: not be done. 2. The revised instrument used to measure the motivational orientations has only demonstrated face validity; therefore, validity of the instrument may be in question. 10 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE This study investigated the motivational orientations of older adults who are participating ~n formal education. More specifically, the study aimed to: (a) test Pritchard's (1978) typology of older adults' motives for educational participation, and (b) examine the influence that selected demographic variables have on older adults' motivation to participate in the "Golden Identification" program at the University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. This chapter is divided i..n to two sections. The first ?? a'~:? , ~11 section summarizes the motivational orientation research. ,,, 11 ll The second section reviews the literature that has dealt ?~'-'? with the effect of certain factors (or age, gender, socioeconomic status, and marital status) on senior adults' participation in formal education . In addition, the second section summarizes research findings that have focused on the relationship between the demographic variable under examination and motivational orientations for older adults' participation in educational programs. Motivational Orientation Research Perhaps one of the earliest investigations into motivational orientations was conducted by Houle (1961), who conducted taped interviews with 22 continuing education participants in the Chicago area . Houle concluded that participants could be classified into thxee types. The first type was the "goal-oriented" learnEJr who used 11 education as a means of accomplishing clear cut objectives . The second type of learner was the "activity-oriented " learner who took part in education because of a meaning derived from the circumstances of learning that had no necessary relationship with the announced purposes of the class . The third type of learner was the " learning-oriented " individual, or someone who participated in education for its own sake. Houle :- ..., ated that these were not "pure" or independent learning types, but rather that the best way to represent the three types pictorially would be as three circles overlapping at the edges . Nevertheless, Houle r maintained that the central emphasis of each type of ,, ,I,i learner orientation was clear . ii Sheffield (1964), using the Houle typology, identified 11 I ,I participants' motives for involvement in education via 11 factor analysis. More specifically, Sheffield developed . the Continuing Learning Orientation Index (CLOI), a list of 58 reasons why adults say they participated in adult education classes . The list contained 16 reasons that were judged to be representative of each of Houle's three hypothesized orientations, plus an additional 10 items . Respondents in the study were 453 adult education participants in 20 continuing education conferences held at 8 universities in the Un i ted States. Factor analysis Yielded seven factors, five of which related directly t o Houle's (1961) typology . Two of these factors were goal - oriented (personal - goal orientation and societal - goal 12 orientation); two were activity-oriented (desire-activity orientation and need-activity orientation); and one factor was learning-oriented (learning-orientation). Boshier (1971) also utilized Houle's (1961) typology as well as the highest loading items from the Sheffield (1964) study to assemble a 48 item instrument dealing with reasons for participation in education. The instrument was named the Education Participation Scale (EPS) and utilized a 9 point Likert scale . In order to determine EPS factors, 233 participants enrolled in continuing adult education courses in New Zealand were randomly selected for study . A six week test retest reliability study for EPS involved 20 students from Boshier's "Personality Studies" University Extension class and revealed test retest correlations from .68 to 1.00. Results identified four independent and uncorrelated factors, two of which were vocationally oriented (inner versus other-directed advancement and Professional future orientedness) and two related to socio-psychological motivations (self versus other-centeredness and social contact). Boshier (1971) concluded that the four factors were similar to Houle's typology. Other research has been conducted to examine the motivational orientations of educational participation. Morstain and Smart (1974) utilized Boshier's (1971 ) Education Participation Scale with 648 adults enrolled in Part- time course work at Glassboro State College during the - 13 1972 semester . The factors obtained from the study (social relationships, external expectatiois, social welfare, professional advancement, escape/s:imulation, cognitive interest) were similar to those identified by Boshier (1971) although the names for the :actors vary. The researchers concluded that these f ~ndings supported the "usefulness" and reliability of the EPS. Nevertheless, it was pointed out that the motivational orientations for participation were more complex than Houle's (1961) original three part typology. Burgess (1971) conducted a study that explored the educational orientations of adult participants and developed the Reasons for Educ ati o nal Participation Index. The instrument consisted of 70 itens derived from a number of sources and tested eight hypothesized orientations. The instrument was administered to 1,046 subjects in the metropolitan area of St. Louis, Missouri. Findings revealed 15 factors, seven of whi ch were interpretable (desire to know, desire to reach a personal goal, desire to reach a social goal, desire to reach a religious goal, desire to escape, desire to take part in an activity, and desire to comply with formal requirements) and accounted for 63% of the total variance in the data. To investigate further the motivational orientations for participation in education, Boshier (1971, 1973, 1977) attempted to conceptualize a psychosocial theory for motivational orientations. Boshier (1971, 1973) first 14 identified motivations as being growth-oriented or deficiency-oriented and later (1977) proposed the model of "life-space" and "life-chance" motivation. The term "life-space" was used as a synonym for growth motivation and the term "life-chance" was used as a synonym for deficiency motivation (Boshier, 1977). According to Bo shier, "life-space" and "life-chance" motivation are opposite ends a of a single continuum, a psychological dimension that underlies reasons for participation. The theory was tested with a population of 242 Vancover adult education participants who completed the Educational Participation Scale (EPS). Data were analyzed using principal components factor analysis and orthogonal varimax rotation. Items loading .40 or higher after rotation Yielded five factors. Results indicated that two factors could be associated with "life-space" (social welfare and cognitive interest), and that three factors correlated with "life-chance" (escape/stimulation, professional advancement, and external expectations) . Boshier (1977) stated that: It appears that motivational orientations are more than just superficial clusters of reasons for enrollment. They seem to be surface manifestations of psychological states which are in turn probably related to psycho-social conditions in various age and socio-economic groups (p. 112). The motivational orientation research reviewed to this Point focused on a broad age range of adult learners including older learners but not limited to them. Only a few studies have specifically examined older adults' 15 motivational orientation for participation in education and a brief review of these studies follows. Riddell (1976), working under Boshier, hypothesized that motivations of older learners to participate in continuing education were related to psycho-social characteristics. Riddell employed Boshier's (1971) EPS to derive five motivational orientations for older learners : professional advancement, social welfare, external expectations, cognitive interest, and escape/stimulation. In particular, one factor, escape/stimulation, was associated with certain aspec~s of older participants' functioning. That is, this factor correlated negatively with social participation, adjustment to developmental tasks, and life satisfaction. Riddell (1976) concluded that the findings supported the idea that older persons are motivated to participate in education because of psycho-social characteristics and personal life styles rather than for particular course content. In 1978 Boshier and Riddell continued the study of older adults' motivational orientat: ons for education participation. Specifically, the focus of this study was to create a short form of the EPS that did not contain job-related items (those loading highly on the professional advancement factor), but retained a clear factor structure suitable for simple factor scoring. With the job-related items deleted the short form of the EPS consisted of 35 items. This short EPS was subjected to reliability and 16 factor analysis checks using a sample of 84 adults enrolled in a course designed for older learners. The test-retest reliability for the revised EPS was reported as .60 (Boshier & Riddell, 1978). The short form of the EPS 'was factor analyzed using principal conponent analysis and orthogonal rotation. The first unrestricted factoring produced 11 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 . The matrix was then re-factored to produce a three, four, and five factor solution. Since in the four factor solution each item was "pure" (i.e., loaded significantly on only one factor), the researchers chose it as the most appropriate model. The factors were titled "escape/stimulation," "social welfare," "social contact, " and "cognitive interest," and inclt.;ded only items that loaded .40 or higher . Boshier and Riddell (1978) stated that the fact that the 35 items were contained in the four factors was in itself significant, and that consequently the short form was suitable for use with older adults. Pritchard (1978) examined older adult participants' motivational orientations and utilized Boshier's revised EPS (35 item EPS) as well as a n umber of additional items that he developed to examine the motivational orientations of older adult learners. More specifically, to supplement the EPS, Pritchard drew on McClusky's (1974) theoretical conceptualization of educational needs of older persons, Havinghurst's (1972) developmental tasks framework, and Burgess' (1971) educational parti c ipation research. The 17 additional ite ms we re revi ewed for content validity by a panel of 20 olde r learners, and were then subjected to factor analysis, t he reby r educing the number of items used to 20. Thes e 20 i tems were labeled the Older Learners Participat i on Sca le (OLPS ) and this scale was intended to be alminist e r ed a long with the EPS. In an at tempt to establish reliability and validity of the OLPS and EPS, Pri t chard (1978) tested the combined scales with 10 older learne rs. The test-retest reliability coefficient emerged a s . 80 . The EPS was factor analyzed by itself and resulted i n fa c tors similar to Riddell's (1976) study of an olde r l e arner population. Additionally, when both scales were fa c t o r analyzed together (principal component analysis with varimax rotation), the original EPS factors were confirmed ( esc ape/stimulation, social contribution, social i zati on/stimulation, and cognitive interest), and two separate factors also emerged (self actualization and adaptati on/self-understanding). Also, Pritchard reported that in several instances items from the EPS combined with i tems fr on the OLPS to constitute the factor, suggesting that "construct validity was inherent in the creation of l ogi c a l l earning orientations based on the items included in the me asurement instrument" (p . 81) . Factors Linked t o Motivati onal Orientations A number of d emographic vari ables have been identified as possible inf l uences on o l der adults' motivation to participate in e ducation. Hore specifically, previous 18 study results s ugge s t that age, gender, socioeconomic status, and marital status exert an influence on older adults' educational motivations. Age. Age of the participants is one variable that has been linked to participation in formal education by older adults (Havinghurst, 1976; Heisel et al., 1981; Lumsden, 1985; Pritchard, 1978). Indeed, various researchers have identified a need for the examination of age differences, especially within the "o l d-age' range. For example, it has been pointed out (Lumsden, 1985) that there is a need to distinguish between the "young~old" (interpreted as those who are 65 to 75 years of age), and the "old-old" (those over 75 years o l d). Moreover, Heisel, Darkenwald, and Anderson (1981) comment that, considering current life expectancy and the average age of retirement, 55 is not even a valid lower limit for the broad category of "older adult " . In summary, a review of literature reveals that few if any studies have examined age differences between the "young-old" and the "old- old" when investigating motives for older adults' participation in education. Among the studies dealing with age as a characteristic of participants in education was that by Johnstone & Rivera (1965). Data for the study cane from a national survey of 24,000 adults involved in postsecondary learning activities. Study results revealed that a decline in participation in education began at the age of 50 and became quite pronounced after the age of 65. Anderson & 19 Darkenwald (1979) examined how age was related to the Participation of older adults in continuing education. It was noted that older adults (aged 60 and over) were less likely to participate in adult education than younger adults (under 60 years of age). A few studies have focused on how age has affected the motivational orientations of older adult learners. Heisel, Darkenwald, and Anderson (1981) conducted a study based on a representative sample of 510 persons aged 60 years and older. For purposes of the analysis, respondents were classified into one of three age categories, or 60 to 64, 65 to 69, and 70 years and older. Among other things it was reported that proportionately more among those 70 years and older reported taking courses for social and recreational reasons. It was also reported that Proportionately more of the 65 to 69 age group reported taking courses because of personal interest and general information purposes. Likewise, Pritchard (1978) conducted a study to identify the underlying motivational patterns that influence older persons to participate in educational Programs. The sample consisted of 358 senior adult educational participants in classes at San Diego State University's College of Extended Studies during fall semester, 1977. In contrast to the findings of Heisel, Darkenwald, and Anderson (1981), Pritchard reported that age had a significant negative relationship (p<.03) with 20 the motivational factor "self actualization." The younger cohort in the study (i.e., those 55 to 65 years of age) were more likely to be motivated by the motivational factor "self actualization" than participants who were over 70. Further, Pritchard (1978) found a positive relationship (p<.05) between the factor "social contribution" and age such that the factor was more influential for the "old-old" than for the "young-old." Gender. Gender has been identified as a variable that affects the education participation of older persons. In Pritchard's (1978) study of older participants in continuing education, a significant correlation (p< .000) was found between gender and the motivational factor of "cognitive interest." That is, female respondents were more likely to be motivated to participate in the education by the motivational factor "cognitive interest" than the males in the study. Socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status (as measured by educational attainment, income level, and/or occupation) has also emerged as a variable with predictive utility in relation to the understanding of the motives of older adults (Anderson et al., 1979; Graney & Hays, 1976; G~een & Enderline, 1980; Heisel et al., 1981; Pritchard, 1978). Pritchard (1978) has reported significant negative correlations (p<.01) between educational attainment and the three factors of "escape/stimulation," "social contribution," and "cognitive interest . " That is, 21 motivations to escape or to contribute socially were stronger influences for those participants from an eighth grade or below educational background in comparison to all those with greater than an eighth grade educational attainment level. Similarly, those with an educational level below high school graduation were more influenced (p <. 01) by the motivati onal factor "cognitive interest" than participants with a graduate degree. This particular finding was consistent with that reported by Heisel, Darken~ald, and Anderson (1981) . Other research conducted on participation in education of older adults identified income level as a variable with some relation to 'educational participation (Anderson et al., 1979; Covey, 1980; Goodrow, 1975; Green & Enderline, 1980; Heisel et al., 1981; Pritchard, 1978). Green and Enderline (1980) tested the hypothesis that the learning needs of the elderly vary according to socioeconomic strata (determined by income). Based on a study population of 143 older learners, it was found that upper- and middle-class white women expressed confidence in their ability to cope with life, and in their ability to find information they might need in the future from the education. The lower-class older adults expressed concern over their inability to cope with today's world or with unforeseen events that may occur in the future. The researchers stated that: 22 In general, as t h e i n divi d ua l cescended the socioeconomic ladde r , the s h ift of needs from the self actualization are a t o the inf o rmation area became dramatic . Although all member s indicated a general concern over the ir saf ety fr om crime, the need for information b e c a me evi dent pa r t icularly in the lower two socio-economi c groups ( p . 15). Pritchard (1978 ) noted that o l der adult learners from the lowest inc ome bracket (d e f ined 2s having a yearly income of under $ 3 , 000) we r e mo re i~fluenced (p <.02) to participate for reasons of " e scape " than were those in the highest bracket ($20,00 0 and over a year). This particular finding is consistent wi th that r e ported by Riddell (1976). Pritchard also foun d t hat t he motivational factor of "social contribution " s i gni f icant ly influenced (p<.04) the participation of t he income group r eporting to have a yearly income of $3 , 000 t o $4, 999 but failed to influence those from the highest income l evel ($20,000 and over a year). Marital status. Earl ie r s t udi es suggest that older adults' participation o r desire t o participate in educational activi ti e s may b e aff ect ed by the adjustment made by both sexes to changes wr ought by widowhood, divorce, absence of s pou se, o r the continuation of a single life (Spouce, 1980 ). Lon e liness, isolation, and the tendency to withdra w fr om parti c ipa t ion in many activities may become part of the adju s tme n t process . Pritchard (1978), for instance, r eport e d a si gnificant relationshi p (p < .05) between marital s t a t u s and the motivational factor of "social contribution . " Mo r e s p e ci fically, it was f ound 23 that thos e who h a d be e n divorced we re more motivated by the factor "social contribu t i on" to part icipate in the e ducat ion tha n non divo r c ed participants. 24 CHAPTER III PROCEDURES The purpose of the study was two-fold. One aim of the study was to identify the motivational orientations of older adult learners who participate in the Golden Identification (I.D.) Program at the University of Maryland. A second Ll im was to examine the influence that selected demographic variables (age, gender, socioeconomic status, and marital status) have on the motivations of Golden I.D. Program participants. Sample The sample in this study consisted of participants from the Golden I.D. Program at the University of Maryland College Park, Maryland. The sampling frame used for this investigation was the list of 375 students registered in the Spring 1987 Golden I.D. Program. Systematic Probability sampling procedure (with a sampling interval of 3) was used. The sample size of 200 was determined by assuming that 50% response rate resulting in at least 100 useable questionnaires-- a number recommended by Bailey (1978). lntervention The Golden I.D. Program makes available to eligible individuals, regular University of Maryland college-level courses and services (such as the use of libraries and free admission to athletic events. Tuition and most other fees are waived for individuals qualifying under the Golden I.D. 25 Program. In order to be eligible for the Golden I.D. Program, an individual must be at least 60 years of age or older by the first class day of the semester they desire to enroll in; a Maryland resident; retired (not engaged in gainful employment for more than 20 hours per week); or those under 60 years of age and retired and disabled (as defined by the Social Security or Railroad Retirement Act). Instrumentation Three instruments were used to conduct this study. In order to measure motivational orientations for education participation by older adults , Boshier and Riddell's (1978) ? Educational Participation Scale for Older Adults (EPSOA) and Pritchard's (1978) revi sed Older Learner Participation Scale (OLPS) were used (see Appendix A, Part I, items 1 through 30 and 31 through 47 are the EPSOA and OLPS, respectively). Both the EPSOA and the OLPS have been tested for validity and reliability (Pritchard, 1978). The original EPSOA has documented construct validity (Boshier, 1971, 1973, 1977; Morstain & Smart , 1974; Riddell, 1976). Furthermore, Pritchard (1978 ) reported that the combined index (EPSOA and the OLPS), when subjected to factor analysis, consistently produced factors similar to those produced when the EPSOA or the OLPS index alone were subject to factor analysis . Given these results, Pritchard concluded that the OLPS had construct validity. Pritchard 26 (1978) also reports that the comb ined EPSOA and OLPS has an overall test-retest r eli a b il i ty coefficient of .80. For each item used in t he EPSOA and the OLPS, a 4-point Likert res p onse cat ego ry scale was used . An answer of "much influence " r eceived a s core of 4 points, "moderate influence" rece ive d a score o f 3 p c,ints, "little influence" received a sco re o f 2 points, a nd "no influen,~E:" rece iv1:;d a score of 1 point . Pritchard (19 78 ) divided the 47 items of the two scales ~nto 6 f a ctors of mo t ivational orientations through a factor analysis proce s s. In o r der to extract the factors, Pritchard (197 8) used Pr ir.cipal Factoring with Iteration procedure o f f act o r analysis augmented by orthogonal rotati on using t he Var i max method. Factor scores in the form of~ s core s wer e produced. Factor number one was called "escape s timulation" and was comprised of items #4, 1 2 , 1 3, 16, 23, 24, 25 26, and 30 . Factor two was called " s ocia l contl'ibution" and included items #2, 8, 14, 15 , 21, 29, 44, and 46. Facto r three, labeled "self actualizat ion" included items #31, 33, 35, 39, 40, and 42 . Factor fou r , called "social contact " was comprised of items #3, 6 , 7, 9, 10 , 18, 19, 20, 22, 28, 36, 38, and 41. Factor f ive was label ed "cognitive interest " and included quest ion s #1 , 5, 17, 27, and 32. And factor six was called "adaptation self - un derstanding" and included items #11, 34, 37, 4 3, 4 5, and 47. 27 The third instrument used in the study measured demographic characteristics (see Appendix A, Part II). Based on face validity (as judged by the principal investigator) age, gender, and marital status were each measured by one question. Response categories for marital status were: single (never been married), married, divorced, separated and widowed. Socioeconomic status was measured by using the Duncan Socioeconomic Index (Miller, 1977). The Duncan Index calculates a prestige score for occupations based on educational attainment and income associated with the occupation. The construct validity for the Duncan Index has been reported as .91 (Miller, 1977). Additionally, the Duncan Index has reported .99 test-retest reliability (Hodge, Siefel, & Rossi, 1964). In order to calculate the Duncan Index, respondents Were asked to indicate and briefly describe their Preretirement occupation (see Appendix A, Part II items 6 and 7) . Based on the occupation indicated by the Participant, a socioeconomic rating in the form of a ~umber score between o and 99 was assigned (see App~ndix B). For descriptive purposes only, the occupational status scores Were broken down into three categories by the proportional distribution of actual responses (Bailey, 1978, pp,86-87). That is, scores between 71-100 were considered "high," scores between 36 and 70 were considered "medium," and scores between O and 35 were considered "low . " Occupations 28 not included in the Duncan Index were assigned ratings, by the principal investigator, on the basis of their similarity to occupations that were included. Additionally, two questions dealing with income and educational attainment (see Appendix A, Part II items 4 and 5) of the participant were asked. The rationale for asking these questions was to be able to compare characteristics of the sample group with 1980 Census data on the characteristics of Prince George and Montgomery County, Maryland senior residents since the majority of Golden I.D. students resided in one of these two counties (in the Spring 1987, 154 or 42% of Golden I.D. students resided in Prince George County and 206 or 51% resided in Montgomery County). These questions used response categories identical to the ones used in the 1980 U.S. census (United States Bureau of the Census, 1986). Demographic questions that were unanswered were treated as "missing data," and the percentages reported for these questions were adjusted to reflect usable responses . .Q.ollection of Data A mailed questionnaire technique was used for conducting this research. The questionnaire construction and data collection was designed based on the principles outlined by Dillman (1978). The questionnaire was printed in large capital type in order to make it easier to read. The initial mailing of the questionnaire was sent out in February, 1987. Each potential participant was sent a 29 questionnaire with a cover letter individualized with their name (see Appendix C) and a self-addressed, stamped return envelope. Individuals were asked to return the questionnaire as soon as possible. A follow-up reminder ~as sent within two weeks of the first mailing in the form of a postcaru ( see Appendix D). A second follow up reminder was sent to the non-respondents three weeks after the initial mailing . This mailing consisted of a cover letter that informed the non-respondents that their questionnaire had not yet been received (see Appendix E), and a replacement questionnaire. Each questionnaire was coded with an identification number in order to reduce mailing costs in the follow-up Phases. The methodology for this study was approved by the Human Subjects Committee of the Department of Recreation at the University of Maryland (See Appendix F) . To examine the clarity and sensitivity of questions and directions contained in the questionnaire a pilot study was conducted. The instrument was given to a convenience sample of 20 older adult learners participating in educational programs through the Montgomery County Community College sy?stem. The pilot group was asked to complete the questionnaire and to give comments regarding the clarity and sensitivity of the questions and response categories as well as the design of the questionnaire and letters. Results of the pilot revealed no problems with questionnaire construction, questionnaire length, nor did 30 the pilot sample take exception t o anr of the posed questions. Statistical Analysis An a priori decision was made by the investigator to delete a questionnaire from the study if the respondent failed to answer 10% or more of the mJtivation ite;1s posed. Those questionnaires that met this criterion but had missing data for the motivational orientation items were replaced with an estimate of the items' score. This step was taken in order to retain variance in the data. The estimate of the score was-obtained by an equation that adds to the group's mean(~) score (f Jr respondents who had provided answers to the missing item ~nder examination) the product of a random number (between O and +l) that has been multiplied by the s t andard deviation for the item. [M+(random number x standard deviation)]. The random number (.516) was derived by the SPSSK subprogram Seed (SPSSX User's Guide, 1986) . The standard deviation for a motivational orientation item was derived by using a regression equation for the item (i.e. , an item that had a missing value) using gender as a dependent variable. Gender was judged by the researcher as an appropriate d~pendent variable for the missing value equation because it could lend the variance necessary . The final number resulting from the equation was then rounded to the closest whole number between 1 and 4, and the value was used to replace the item's missing value . 31 The next step in the statistical analysis was to perform confirmatory factor analysis using the sample data and the motivational orientation model proposed by Pritchard (1978). Confirmatory factor analysis proced~re was conducted utilizing the Lisrel analysis of linear structural relationships by the rneth0d of maximum likelihood program (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986). One measure of fit available with the maximun likelihood option is the Lambda X test which produces t-values. Joreskog and Sorbom (1986) .state that t-values larger than two in magnitude are normally judged to be different from zero and therefore represent a significant fit of the data to the model and support for the use of the model . The next phase of analysis ~as to compute factor scores. The formula that was used to compute the factor scores was: the factor score c oefficient (FSC) multiplied by the item score (X) minus the mean (M) for the particular item divided by the standard deviation for that item(~) or FSC(X-M)/~ (SPSSX User's Gui de, 1986) The factor score coefficients were supplied by Pr : tchar \ ( ! . C. Pritchard, personal communication, October 2, 1987) and can be found in Appendix G. The item means and item standard deviations came from the study data and are also cited in Appendix G. Factor scores for each participant were computed for each of the six factors and were the n used as dependent variables in the further analy s is. 32 The remaining hypotheses were tested by using either Pearson-Product moment correlation (Hypothesis 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8) or one-tailed analysis o f variance (Hypotheses 4 and 9). Additionally, for descriptive purposes, measures of association associated with correlation analysis (i.e ., 2 2 r ) and analysis of variance (i.e . , eta ) were calculated. Statistical analyses were executed by using the University of Maryland's Sperry-Ur.ivac 1100/82 Computer System. Release 10 of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSSX User's Guide, 1986) was used for the statistical calculations. I .!,~ ?l,,. .~I 33 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA A mail questionnaire was used to collect data on the motivational orientations and demographic background of Participants in the Golden I.D . Program at the University of Maryland. A total of 200 subjects were choosen (through a systematic probability sampling procedure) from a sampling frame of 375 participants enrolled in the Spring l987 Golden I.D. Program . After a six week period 169 out of the 200 mailed questionnaires were returned. Using the a Priori requirement that 90% or more of the motive items had to be completed in order for the questionnaire to be included in the data analysis (see Chapter 3), nine of the returned questionnaires were deleted from data consideration, (resulting in an 80% response rate) . Qample Table 1 contains descriptive information on the sample. The mean age of the participants was 66, and the age of the participants in the sample ranged from 57 to 82 Years of age. Males and females were represented about equally. That is, 81 were female and 79 were male. Over three-fourths of the respondents were married (76 .2%). Of the remaining study participants, 15% were widowed, 6% were divorced, 1% were single and less than 1% were separated. There was one respondent who did not give his/her marital status . 34 Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Frequencies Characteristics (N = 160) Percentage Mean 66.92 Range 57 to 82 Gender Male 79 49.4 Female 81 50.6 11 Educational Attainment I ,:,f 4 Years of high school 12 7.5 1 to 3 years of college 22 13.8 4 Years of college 17 10 . 7 Some graduate work 34 21. 4 Masters degree 50 31. 4 Doctorate degree, M.D., and J.D. 19 12.1 Graduate Degree but type not specified 5 3 . 1 1.ncome $ 5,000 to $9,999 1 0.7 $10,000 to $14,999 4 2.7 $15,000 to $19,999 9 6.0 $20,000 to $24,999 18 12 . 1 $25,000 to $34,000 20 13.4 $35,000 to $49,999 46 30.9 $50,000 and over 51 34.2 ..... 35 Table 1 Continued .Characteristics Frequencies Percentage Qccupational Status Score Mean 70.7 Range 15 to 96 Scores 0 to 35 11 7.6 36 to 70 39 26.9 71 to 100 95 65 . 5 .Marital status Single 2 1. 3 'f Married 122 76.7 Divorced ? 10 ri ? 6.3 ;I Separated 1 0.6 Wi dowed 24 1: 15 . 1 1 ., : ,; ., l'' I ~ I-' 1:fl ,1 ,,1,,I 36 The level of educational attainment of study Participants ranged fro~ the completion of 4 years of high school to a doctorate degree. The modal educational level of the students was completion of a master's degree (31%). Another 20% of the sample reported having completed graduate wor k. Of the remaining study participants, 10% had 4 Years of college, 13% had 1 to 3 years of college, and 7% had 4 years of high school. The mean income of the sample was in the $25,000 to $ 34,000 a year category, and respondents reported incomes ranging from $5,000 per year to over $50,000 per year. Since the majority of the Golden I.D. students reside in Montgomery County and Prince George County, Maryland, both of these c0unties were considered in the comparison of mean annual incomes . In 1979 the average annual income of Persons 65 years of age or older was reported to be $26,706 in Montgomery County and $17,836 for Prince George's County (United States Bureau of the Census, 1983) . When translated into 1986 dollars, these values become $40,538 and $27,074, respectively (based on an increase of the United States Department of Labor Cons umer Price Index from 217 in 1979 to 330 in early 1986). Consequently, the income for the sample was representative of the annual income of $27,074 for those 65 years of age or older living in Prince George's County, Maryland but it was slightly lower than the income of $40,538 reported for those 65 37 Years of age and older living in Montgomery County, Maryland. The occupational status scores for the sample ranged from 15 to 96. The mean occupational score for the sample Participants was 70.7 and the standard deviation was 17.5 . Fo r thG sample partj c ipants only 7 . 6% scored low (scores ranged from Oto 35) and . 2 6.9% scored in the medium level . The largest percentage of the group scored in high range (65.5%). Of those who scored high 31% were between 72 and 80 and 35% were between 81 and 96. Motivational Orientation Factor Structure Overview. The mean and standard deviation for each factor item can be found in Tabl ~ 2. Mean factor scores revealed that the !0llowing were, in decreasing order of importance, motives for participation in the Golden I . D. Program: "cognitive interest (M = 3 . 3), "self actualization" 01 = 2.8), "adaptation/self-understanding" (11 = 2. 2), "social contact" (M = 2 . 0), "social contribution" (M = 1.9), and "escape/stimulation" (M = 1. 3). Eactor structure. Confirmatory factor analysis by the maximum likelihood method was used to evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed model of older adults' motivational orientations to participate in education (Pritchard, 1978). The confirmatory factor analysis Produced t-values for each item named on a particular factor (see Table 3) . All but 3 of the items (or items 13 , 38 Table 2 Item by Factor Mean and Standard Deviation a Item by factor name .M One: "Escape/stimulation" 1. 29 4. To carry out the recommendations of some authority 1.19 .62 12. To help me earn a degree, diploma, or certificate 1. 59 1.05 13. To escape television 1. 39 .80 16. To have a few hours away from responsibilities 1. 35 .74 23. To meet formal requirements 1. 35 .83 24. To maintain of improve my social position 1. 34 .68 25. to escape an unhappy relationship 1.07 .36 26. To comply with the suggestions of someone else 1. 21 .62 30. To comply with instructions from someone else 1.15 .56 Two: "Social contribution" 1.90 2. To become more effective as a citizen 2.11 1. 13 8. To acquire knowledge to help with other educational courses 1. 87 1. 12 14. To prepare for community services 1. 59 .94 15. To gain insight into human relations 2.33 1. 10 21. To improve my ability to serve mankind 2.03 1.06 39 Table 2 continued a Item by factor M Two: "Social contribution" 29. To improve my ability to participate in community work 1. 61 .93 44. To better understand today's social problems 2.34 1. 12 46. To learn to be a better consumer 1. 34 .70 Three: "Self actualization" 2.75 31 . To have a feeling of challenge and accomplishments 3.12 1. 04 33 . To learn a specific skill 2.21 1. 24 35. To improve my personal competency 2.90 1.08 39. To feel a sense of achievement 3.20 .94 40. To make use of my talents 2.73 1. 15 42. To learn to be more creative 2.38 1.17 Four : "Social contact?? 1. 97 3. To get relief from boredom 1. 90 1. 01 6. To overcome the frustration of day to day living 1. 69 .92 7. To be accepted by others 1. 42 .74 9. To fulfill a need for personal associations and friendships 2.00 .93 10 . To participate in group activity 1. 96 .97 18. To become acquainted with congenial people 2.23 . 89 40 Table 2 continued a Item by factor M Four: "Social contact" 19. To provide a contrast to the rest of my life 1. 92 1.03 20. To get a break in the routine of home or work 1. 75 .96 22. To improve my social relationships 1. 63 .82 28. To make new friends 1. 86 .84 36. To learn how best to use my leisure time 1. 92 1.02 38. To satisfy a desire to? develop new interests 2.87 1. 09 41. To find more satisfying leisure activities 2.56 l. 07 Five: "Cognitive interest" 3.34 1. To seek knowledge for its own sake 3.58 .83 5. To satisfy an inquiring mind 3.71 .62 17. To learn just for the joy of learning 3.10 .68 27. To learn just for the sake of learning 3.47 .92 32. To keep up-to-date with changes in everyday living 2.25 1.16 41 Table 2 continued a Item by factor M Six: "Adaptation/self-understanding" 2.24 11. To gain insight into my personal problems 1.52 . 89 34. To better prepare myself for retirement living 2 . 00 1 . 14 37. To better cope with challenges of daily living 1. 77 .95 43 . To make a better adjustment in retirement 2.23 1.12 45 . To change my lifestyle 1. 64 .95 47. To understand myself better 2.06 1.09 a Possible responses were: no influence= 1 points, little influence= 2 points, moderate influence= 3 points, and much influence= 4 points. Table 3 42 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Motivation Variables Lambda X Numbers = T-Values l..t em MQ:tiv~2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 7.0 2 3 9 . 8 5.4 4 6 . 2 5 7 . 9 6 8 . 1 7 5.4 8 9 5.6 9.2 10 8.7 11 12 8.4 "' 9 . 7a 13 '~ 1 . 2 14 ~ 15 10.7 16 .9a 7.4 ;a, 17 10 . 7 18 11. 0 - 19 ,,,,. 6.2 20 :'; 7 . 0 21 22 12.1 9.0 "' 23 12 . 1 24 4.7 :',I 25 2.8 26 4.2 27 8.8 28 9 . 3 29 30 11. 4 2.0 31 10.4 32 1. 4a 33 5.2 34 10 . 9 35 7.4 36 7.1 37 10 . 2 38 4.5 39 11. 3 40 9.2 43 Table 3 continued Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Moti v ation Variables Continued Lambda X/T-Values Item Moti.ves 1 2 3 4 5 6 41 7.6 42 7 . 5 43 11. 2 44 8.0 45 7.1 46 6.0 47 8.4 Note: Motives are as follows : 1 = e s cape stimulation, 2 = social contribution, 3 = self act ualization, 4 = social contact, 5 = cognitive interest, and 6 = adaptation/ self - understanding . See Appendix A, Part I for list of items. a These scores are not signifi c ant a t the 2.0 level. .; '',-, 44 16, and 32) reported scores over 2.0 (the established cut off point for significance). Indeed, the data basically "fit" the proposed model. Given these results, hypothesis one was not rejected. Hypotheses Testing Analysis of variance and Pearson-product moment correlation were used to investigate the effect specific demographic variables had on Golden I.D. students' motivational orientations to participate in education. The results of the study supported two of the remaining eight hypotheses . Hypothesis number 2 stated that there was a positive relationship between age and the educational participation motive "social contribution." Instead, a negative and insignificant association emerged between age and "social contribution," .I: (154) =-.08, 12 = .16. Hypothesis 3 stated that there would b e a negative relationship between age and the motive "self actualization." A negative, though insignificant association, emerged between age and "self actualization, " I (154) = - . 08, 12 = .17. The fourth hypothesis stated that there would be an association between gender and the motive "self actualization, " such that female participants relative to male participants were more likely to report they were motivated to participate in adult e ducation because of self actualization reasons. The mean scores on this motive for 45 males and females were -.29 and - . 22, respectively. Analysis of variance testing revealed, however, an insignificant relationship between gender and "self actualization," I:= (1,159) = .50, :Q = .24. Hypothesis 5 stated that there would be a negative relationship between socioeconomic status and the motive "escape/stimulation . " The nature of the relationship between socioeconomic status and this motive indeed turned out to be negative and significant, x (145) = -.16, :Q = 2 . 03 . Additionally, the r for this hypothesis was . 03, indicating that 3% of the variance in "escape stimulation" was accounted for by the variable socioeconomic status . Hypothesis 6 linked socioeconomic status and the motive "social contribution" by speculating that there would be a negative relationship between the two variables. As hypothesized, a significant negative relationship between these two variables did emerge,~ (145) = - .23, :Q < 2 .01. The r for this hypothesis was .05 demonstrating that 5% of the variance in the factor "social contribution" was explained by the socioeconomic status of the participant. Hypothesis 7 posited a positive relationship between the socioeconomic status of the participant and the motive "self actualization." Instead, a significant negative association emerged between socioeconomic status and "self actualization,".: (145) = -.25, :Q < .01. In addition, 2 the r was .06 establishing that 6% of the variance in the 46 motive "self actualization" was explained by the socioeconomic status of the older student. Hypothesis 8 stated a negative relationship between socioeconomic status and the motive "cognitive interes't. " A negative but insignificant relationship emerged between t..he participant's socioeconomic status and "cognitive interest," 1: (145) = -.05, J2 =.29. The ninth hypothesis stated that there would be an association between marital status and the educational partici_pation motive "social contribution," such that divorced participants relative to non-divorced participants were more likely to report they were motivated to participate in adult education because of social contribution reasons. The mean scores on this motive for divorcees and non-divorcees were -.07 and .00, respectively. Furthermore, analysis of variance testing revealed, an insignificant relationship between marital status and "social contribution," E = (1,158) = .39, Q = .27. 47 CHAPTER V SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS The purpose of the study was two-fold. One purpose of the study was to identify the motivational orientations of older adult learners who participate in the Golden Identification (I.D .) Program at the University of Maryland . A second purpose was to examine the influence that selected demographic variables (age, gender, socioeconomic status, and marital status) have on the motivations of older adults to participate in the Golden. I . D. Program. This chapter is divided into the following five sections: (1) summary of procedures; (2) summary of findings; ( 3) conclusions; ( 4) discussion and implications; and (5) recommendations for further research. Summary of Procedures A total of 200 subjects were chosen (through a systematic probability sampling procedure) from a sampling frame of 375 participants enrolled in the Spring 1987 Golden I.D. Program at the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland. After a six week period, t 69 surveys were returned. Of this number, 160 perscns returned completed and usable questionnaires (corresporjing to an 80% response rate). A two-part survey questi , nnairE was developed, using the principles outlined JY Di ~lman (1978), and was used to collect data on the me ~i v at i onal orientations and demographic background of par+lcipa~ts in the Golden I.D . 48 Program at the University of Maryland. The data were recorded and examined using confirmatory factor analysis, analysis of variance, Pearson-Product Moment Correlations, and measures of association associated with correlation 2 analysis (i.e., r ) and analysis of variance (i.e., 2 eta ). Summary of Findings Confirmatory factor analysis by the maximum likeJihood method was performed using the original study's (Pritchard, 1978) six factors and the data collected from the present survey. This analysis produced t-values for each item and 91% of the items had scores over 2.0, the established cut- off point for significance (see Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986). This high number of significant items confirmed the appropriateness of using these factors in the present study. Consequently, the six factors (from the original model) were used in hypotheses testing as dependent variables in the study described herein. The hypothesized positive relationship between the age of participants and the educational participation motive "social contribution" was not upheld by the findings of this investigation. Statistical analysis revealed an insignificant negative relationship between age and "social contribution." This finding is contrary to the positive significant relationship between age and the motive "social contribution" reported by Pritchard (1978). 49 The hypothesized positive relationship between age and "self actualization" was not substantiated. A negative insignificant relationship emerged between these two variables. This finding conflicts with the significant positive relationship Pritchard (1978) reported between socioeconomic status and the motive "self actualization." It was hypothesized that females relative to males would be more likely to participate in adult education for "cognitive interest" reasons. The present study revealed an insignificant association between gender and the motive "cognitive interest." Although the mean scores for the two gender groups were both negative, the findings suggested a tendency for women to be more influenced than men by the motive. Contrastingly, Pritchard (1978), found a significant association between gender and "cognitive interest." As speculated, the study's findings confirmed that a significant negative relationship existed between socioeconomic status and the motives "escape/stimulation" and "social contribution." Such findings are supportive of those reported by Pritchard (1978) and Riddell (1976). Additionally, it was ? hypothesized that there would be a positive relationship between socioeconomic status and the motive "self actualization . " Contrary to what was hypothesized, a significant negative relationship emerged between the two variables. Such a finding is in direct conflict to what Green and Enderline (1980) have reported. 50 Additionally, socioeconomic status was expected to correlate negatively with the motive "cognitive interest." Although a negative relationship occurred between socioeconomic status and "cognitive interest," this relationship was found to be insignificant. In comparison, Pritcha~d (1978) reported a significan~ negative relationship between socioeconomic status and "cognitive interest." Finally, it was predicted that divorced participants would be influenced to a greater extent by the motive "social contribution" than non?-di vorced older students. The mean scores did not, however, reflect this association (~ = .00 and -.07 for non-divorcees and divorcees, respectively) nor was there a significant association found between marital status and "social contribution." These results do not support the previous findings of Pritchard (1978). Conclusions Based upon the findings and within the limitations of this study, the results suggest that the motivation of older adults to participate in education is complex and determined by both social and psychological motives. Furthermore, the motivation of University of Maryland Golden I.D. students to participate in education can be divided into the six factors or motives that were proposed by Pritchard (1978). More specifically, the most frequent reported motives for participating in the Golden I.D. 52 Returning for a post-graduate course has provided a satisfying mental stimulation adding a welcome factor to the required completion of certain household chores. The structure of this experience has had an additional salutary effect. I enjoy the classes and the different types of people one meets. I participate in order to keep using my brain to retard senility. A perennial student, I love learning, problem solving, and the challenge of courses. I enjoy helping others where I can contribute. There is no end to learning, learning is living and the more I learn the more I live. My primary goal is to gain knowledge in areas that will help me pursue interests that have been on the "back-burner" for a long time because of lack of time during my working years. I am at present participating in the Golden I.D. Program to learn as much as I can about General Agriculture with the prospects of going to a country in West Africa to assist where I am needed in scientific farming. I feel if I completed a program, got a degree, I would feel more like a person . I was already enrolled as a post-graduate student before becoming eligible for Golden I.D . status . When due to ill health, I had to reduce my professional work-load, I gladly profited from the program to continue doing what I liked to do ... becoming more knowledgable for my own sake and sharing that knowledge with elderly as a fellow elderly. To broaden one's knowledge in areas or subjects that one did not learn or specialize in earlier life. Also one's mental exercise, i.e., to learn, think, read should never stop as an active activity of life. The primary purpose for participation in the Golden I.D. program is self satisfaction-you might call it entertainment ... I do not take courses to improve myself or the world, nor do I take them to learn to enrich my life . I take them because they do enrich my life. I take subjects in which I have an interest, and as the courses unfold I see facets that are intrinsically fascinating and at hold my attention, much as is the case of the artist who observes the 53 passing scene and sees things he may not have seen before. The purpose is not to find more satisfying leisure activities (question 41 your questionnaire), but to engage in satisfying activities. It is not to change my life style (question 45) but to exploit my environment to the fullest to gain satisfaction. To learn and understand unravels the mystery of the universe. The findings regarding the relationships between the motives and the socioeconomic status of Golden I . D. students raises a number of issues. Since only one third of the Golden I . D. participants are low socioeconomic status, one question that arises is whether or not the university is adequately meeting the special needs of low socioeconomic status older persons. Moreover, do the variety of courses that are offered appeal to the "escape/stimulation" and "cognitive interest" needs of low socioeconomic status persons? And, is the availability of such courses is known to these individuals? Insignificant results can be explained by a number of plausible explanations exist. First, the difference between sample sizes, when comparing Pritchard's (1978) investigation (N = 358) to the study described herein (N - 160), could explain why different results were noted . Second, given the 9 year span between the two studies, cohort differences and period effects could possibly explain the differences in results. Still, this investigation has specific implications for service providers. The findings suggest that, in order to stimulate greater participation in educational programs , publicity techniques, counseling services, and outreach 54 methods should take into consideration the motivational orientations of older adults. Additionally, other service providers, such as recreators, should consider this information on motivations when programming recreational activities for older adults . In summary, dealing in depth with one specific group of older adult learners, this investigation has added to the existing understanding of the motivations of older adults who participate in education. Also, it has served to confirm the validity of the revised OLPS the EPSOA index proposed by Pritchard (1978). Recommendations for Further Research This study has added to the research regarding selected demographic variables as they relate to the motives of older adult education participants. There is, however, a need for further research dealing with older adults' motivation to participate in education. First, studies using the combined OLPS and the EPSOA scales with other older adult learner groups seems warranted in order to examine the external validity of the noted findings. Second, studies conducted with older learners from different learning settings (such as community college, Elder Hostel, or Life Long Learning Institutions) could provide insights to how setting and course content affects educational motives . Third, future investigations should assess how changes in the sociodemographic characterist i cs of the older population will affect motivational 55 orientations. Fourth, evaluation studies on the effectiveness of outreach and publicity efforts, that utilized motivational orientations in program planning and recruitment, should be undertaken . Finally, studies need to be conducted to ex p lore the reasons older adults are not i nvolved in educati on a l programs and offerings . 56 REFERENCES Anderson, R.E., & Darkenwald, G.G. (1979). Participation and persistence in American adult education. New York: The College Board. Bailey, K. (1978). Methods of social research New York: The Free Press. Boshier, R. (1971). Motivational orientations of adult education participants: A factor analytic exploration of Houle's typology. Adult Education, 21, 3-26. Boshier, R. (1973). Educational participation and dropout: A theoretical model. Adult Education, ,21, 255-282. Boshier, R. (1977). Motivational orientations revisited: Life-space motives and the education participation scale. Adult Education, 27, 89-115_ Boshier, R., & Riddell, G. (1978). Education participation scale factor for older adults. Adult Education, 27, 165-175. Burgess, P.D. (1971). Reasons for adult participation in group educational activities. Adult Education, 22, 3-29. Bynum, J.E., Cooper, B.L., & Acuff, F.G. (1978). Retirement reorientation: Senior adult education. Journal of Gerontology, 33, 252-261. California Postsecondary Education Commission. (1981). 1981 information digest. Sacramento: California . Covey, H.C. (1980). An exploratory study of the acquisition of a college student role by older people. The Gerontologist. 20, 173-181. Daniel, D.E., Templin, R.G., & Shearon, R.W. (1977). The value orientations of older adults toward education . Educational Gerontology, 2, 33-42. Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Goodrow, B.A. (1975). Limiting factors in reducing participation in older adult learning opportunities. The Gerontologist,~. 418-423. 57 Graney, M.J., & Hays, W.C. (1976). Senior students: Higher education after age 62. Educational Gerontology, 1, 343-359. Green, R.E., & Enderline, M.A. (1980). A new bottle for good wine . Lifelong Learning, n, 12-15. Havinghurst, R.J. (1972). Developmental tasks and education. New York: David McKay. Havinghurst, R.J. (1976). Education through the adult life span. Educatidnal Gerontology, 1, 41-51. Heisel, M.A., Darkenwald, G.G., & Anderson R.E. (1981). Participation in organized educational activities among adults age 60 and over. Educational Gerontology, Q, 227-240. Hodge, R.W., Siegel, P.M., & Rossi, P.H. (1964). Occupational prestige in the United States, 1925-63. American JourDal of Sociology, 70, 286-302. Houle, C. 0. (1961). The inquiring mind. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Johnstone, J., & Rivera, R. (1965). Volunteers for learning: A studv of the educational pursuits of American adults. Chicago:Aldine. Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1986). Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood:User's guide version V and VI. Chicago: National Education Resources, Inc. Kauffman, E., & Luby, P. (1974). Non-traditional education: Some new approaches to a dynamic culture. In S. Grabowski & W. D. Mason (Eds.), Learning for aging. Washington, D. C.: Adult Education Association of the United States. Kingston, A.J. (1982). The senior citizen as a college student. Educational Gerontology, 1, 43-52. Lumsden, D.B. (1985). The older adult learner. Washington: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation. Marcus, E.E. (1978). Effects of age, sex, and status on perception of the utility of educational participation . Educational Gerontology. J, 295-319. Maslow, A.H . (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. 58 Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: Viking. McClusky, H.Y . (1974). Education for aging: The scope of field and perspectives for the future. In S. Grabowski & D. Mason (Eds . ), Learriing for aging. Washington D.C.: Adult Educ~tion Association. McGraw, E.D. (1982). Older adul~ learners: Reasons and preferences for participating in organized-learning activities (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43,12A. Miller, D.E. (1977). Handbook of research design and social measurement (3rd ed.). New York: Longman. Mizer, M.M. (1975). ? Differences between educationally active and noneducationally active older adults in reading, interpers onal valu~s, and life satisfaction . (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1975) . Dissertation Abstracts Internati onal,~. 250A. Morstain, P.R . , & Smart, J . C. (1974). Reasons for participation in adult education courses: A multivariate analysis of group differences. Adult Education, .2.i, 83-98. National Center for Education Statistics. (1981). Participation in adult education, Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Perkins, H.V., & Robertson-Tchabo, E . A. (1981). Retiree 3 return to college: An evaluative study at one university campus. Educational Gerontology, Q, 273-287. Pritchard, D.C. (1978). Motivational organization of older adult participants in adult education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1978) . Dissertation Abstracts International, 39 , 09A. Riddell, B.G. (1976) . Psycho-social concomitants of motivational orientation in a group of older adult education participants . Unpublished master's thesis , University of British Columb i a. 59 Romaniuk, J.G. (1984). Tuition-waiver policies for older adults what are the assumptions? Educational Gerontology, lQ., 119-133. Sheffield, S.B. (1964). The orientations of adult continuing learners. In D. Soloman (Eds.),~ Continuing Learner. Chicago: Center for the Study of Liberal Education for Adults. Spencer, B. (1980). Overcoming the age bias of continuing education. In G. Darkenwald & G. Larson (Eds.), New directions for continuing education. San Francisco; Jessey-Bass Inc. Spouce, B.M. (1981). Motivations for older adult participation in age segregated and age-intergrated continuing education, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Dissertration Abstracts International, 42, 07A. SPSS, Incorporated. (1986). SPSS X User's Guide. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Stanford, E.P . (1972). Education and aging: New task for education. Adult Leadership, .2.Q, 281-282. Stanford, E.P., & Pritchard, D.C. (1977). Programs for the elderly. International encvclopedia of higher education (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. Timmerman, S. (1985). Options in aging education for developing institutions. Association for Gerontol0gy .II in Higher Education Exchange,~. 4. United States Bureau of the Census. (1986). Statistical Abstract of the United States:1986 (106th ea.). Washington D.C.: Bureau of the Census. United States Special Committee on Aging. (1985). Aging America trends and projections (1985-86 Edition). Washington D.C.: American Association of Retired Persons, the Federal Council on the Aging and the Administration on Aging. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. ( 1987). Consumer Price Index. In li.fili Almanac 41st Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. 60 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE jl 61 PART I DIRECTIONS: IN AN EFFORT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE MOTIVES OF THOSE OLDER ADULTS WHO ARE PARTICIPATING IN EDUCATION, WE ARE STUDYING GOLDEN IDENTIFICATION STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND . THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS DEAL WITH REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION IN EDUCATION . PLEASE INDICATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH EACH OF THE REASONS LISTED BELOW INFLUENCED YOU TO PARTICIPATE IN THE GOLDEN IDENTIFICATION PROGRAf1. THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS . . . BUT PLEASE BE HONEST! SOMETIMES THE "HUCH INFLUENCE " CATEGORY IS ON THE RIGHT - HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE , SOMETIMES IT IS ON THE LEFT . FOR EVERY QUESTION POSED, CIRCLE ONLY ONE ANSWER . EXTENT INFLUENCED (CIRCLE ANSWER) 1 . TO SEEK KNOWLEDGE MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO FOR ITS OWN SAKE ...... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 2 . TO BECOME HORE EFFECTIVE AS NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH A CITIZEN . ... . ... . . . . . INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 3 . TO GET RELIEF FROM HUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO BOREDOM . ..... . .. .. .... INFLUENGE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 4 . TO CARRY OUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF NO LITTLE MODERATE HUCH SOME AUTHORITY .. . ... . . INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 5 . TO SATISFY AN INQUIRING MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO MIND .. . ............. . . INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 6 . TO OVERCOME THE FRUSTRATION OF DAY NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH TO DAY LIVING ........ . INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 7. TO BE ACCEPTED MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO ,,.. BY OTHERS .... . .. .. . ... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 8 . TO ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE TO HELP WITH OTHER NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH EDUCATIONAL COURSES .. . INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 9 . TO FULFILL A NEED FOR PERSONAL ASSOCIATIONS HUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO AND FRIENDSHIPS .. . . . .. INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 10. TO PARTICIPATE IN NO LITTLE MODERATE HUCH GROUP ACTIVITY . ... . ... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 62 EXTENT INFLUENCED (CIRCLE ANSWER) 11. TO GAIN INSIGHT INTO MY PERSONAL MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO' PROBLEMS ...... . ...... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 12 . TO HELP ME EARN A DEGREE, DIPLOMA, NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH OR CERTIFICATE .. ...... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 13 . TO ESCAPE MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO TELEVISION ......... . .. INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 14 . TO PREPARE FOR NO LITTLE MODERATE HUCH COMMUNITY SERVICE ..... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 15. TO GAIN INSIGHT INTO MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO HUMAN RELATIONS . . . ... . INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 1111 16 ,? TO HAVE A FEW HOURS 1111 AWAY FROM NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH :, RESPONSIBILITIES .... .. INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE ,.., ulfl 1111 17. TO LEARN JUST FOR THE MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO ,_ JOY OF LEARNING ....... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE :1 ,I 18 . TO BECOME ACQUAINTED WITH NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH Ill CONGENIAL PEOPLE .. .. .. INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE .., 19. TO PROVIDE A ? CONTRAST TO THE MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO "- REST OF MY LIFE ....... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 20. TO GET A BREAK ,- IN THE ROUTINE NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH OF HOME OR WORK . INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE ,, j 21. TO IMPROVE MY ABILITY TO SERVE MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO MANKIND .... ..... . ..... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 22 . TO IMPROVE MY SOCIAL NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH RELATIONSHIPS ......... INFL UENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 23. TO MEET FORMAL MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO REQUIREMENTS .......... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 24 . TO MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE MY SOCIAL NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH POSITION ...... ... ?. .. .. INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 63 EXTENT INFLUENCED ( CIRCLE ANSWER) 25 . TO ESCAPE AN UNHAPPY MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO RELATIONSHIP .. . ....... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 26 . TO COMPLY WITH THE SUGGESTIONS OF NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH SOMEONE ELSE .......... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 27. TO LEARN JUST FOR THE MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO SAKE OF LEARNING .. . ... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 28. TO MAKE NEW NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH FRIENDS ............... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 29 . TO IMPROVE MY ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO COMMUNITY WORK ........ INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE -jl?l_, 30 . TO COMPLY WITH -? INSTRUCTIONS FROM NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH SOMEONE ELSE .......... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE '-? 3 1. TO HAVE A FEELING ? OF CHALLENGE AND MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO ACCOMPLISHMENTS ..... . . INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE ? 32 . TO KEEP UP-TO-DATE -. WITH CHANGES IN NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH , l,,i, EVERYDAY LIVING ....... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE - 33 . TO LEARN A MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO 1,1 SPECIFIC SKILL ........ NFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE , 34 . TO BETTER PREPARE MYSELF FOR NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH ~? RETIREMENT LIVING ..... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE .I 35 . TO IMPROVE MY MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO PERSONAL COMPETENCY ... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 36 . TO LEARN HOW BEST TO USE MY LEISURE NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH TIME .. . .... . ... . .. . ... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 37 . TO BETTER COPE WITH CHALLENGES OF DAILY MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO LIVING .... . ...... . .... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 64 EXTENT INFLUENCED (CIRCLE ANSWER) 3 8 . TO SATISFY A DESIRE TO DEVELOP NEW NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH INTERESTS ............. INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 39 . TO FEEL A SENSE MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO OF ACHIEVEMENT ........ INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 40 . TO MAKE USE OF MY NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH TALENTS .............. ? INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 41. TO FIND MORE SATISFYING LEISURE MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO ACTIVITIES ............ INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 42 . TO LEARN TO BE MORE NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH CREATIVE ........... ,?? INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE ,., 1?' 43 . TO MAKE A BETTER 1!1 111 ADJUSTMENT IN MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO I~ RETIREMENT ...... ,.???? INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 11 44 . TO BETTER (D 111 UNDERSTAND TODAY ' S NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH ,a SOCIAL PROBLEMS ..... ?? INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE ,,, 45 . TO CHANGE MY MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO LIFESTYLE ......... ,,.? INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE .,-.! ~ 46?. TO LEARN TO BE A NO LITTLE MODERATE MUCH BETTER CONSUMER ...... ? INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE ~ 47 . TO UNDERSTAND MUCH MODERATE LITTLE NO ~ MYSELF BETTER ......... INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE INFLUENCE 11 11 65 PART II DIRECTIONS: FINALLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOURSELF TO HELP INTERPRET THE RESULTS. 1. WHAT IS YOUR SEX (CIRCLE NUMBER)? 1. MALE 2. FEMALE 2. WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT MARITAL STATUS (CIRCLE NUMBER)? 1. SINGLE (NEVER BEEN MARRIED) 2 . MARRIED 3. DIVORCED 4. SEPARATED 5 . WIDOWED , ,.I 3. WHAT IS YOUR AGE (SPECIFY)? ________ , ,I I I I 'I 4 . WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES BEST DESCRIBE~. YOPR TOTAL FAMILY INCOME DURING 1986 (CIRCLE NUMBER) ? 1. $ 0 - $1,999 I I 2. $ 2,000 - $ 4,999 l I 3. $ 5,000 - $ 9,999 'I 4. $10,000 - $14,999 5. $15,000 - $19,999 6. $20,000 - $24,999 '.II 7. $25,000 - $34,999 8. $35,000 - $49,999 9. $50,000 AND OVER 5 . WHICH IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION THAT YOU HAVE COMPLETED (CIRCLE NUMBER)? 1. 0 - 4 YEARS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2. 5 - 7 YEARS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 3. 8 YEARS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 4 . . 1 - 3 YEARS OF HIGH SCHOOL 5. 4 YEARS OF HIGH SCHOOL 6. 1 - 3 YEARS OF COLLEGE 7. 4 YEARS OF COLLEGE 8. SOME GRADUATE WORK 9. A GRADUATE DEGREE(S)(CIRCLE ANSWER) MASTERS DOCTORATE M.D. OTHER (SPECIFY) _____ 66 6 ? PRIOR TO RETIREMENT WHAT WAS YOUR MAJOR OCCUPATION? 7 PLEASE GIVE A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THAT OCCUPATION : 11 ,NI 11.,, 1 )I nl M ii .II 11 JI 11 ~ II 67 IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO TELL US ABOUT YOUR MOTIVATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE GOLDEN I.D. PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND? IF SO, PLEASE USE THIS SPACE FOR THAT PURPOSE. ,, ",, ,,",, 11 11 11 II ,, II 1, ,,I 11 ,I I I YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO THIS EFFORT IS VERY GREATLY APPRECIATED. IF YOU WOULD LIKE A SUMMARY OF RESULTS, PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ON THE BACK OF THE RETURN ENVELOPE (NOT ON THIS QUESTIONNAIRE). WE WILL SEE THAT YOU GET IT. 6 8 APPENDIX B SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS INDEX SCORING 1? I ,,1,,' ,, I 69 Soci Index (SEI) Scores for Occupations by Duncan oeconomic Duncan's SEI Score Category Professi9na1,technical and kindered workers 78 Accountants and auditors 60 AAc79 ir tpolrasn e pilots and navigators 90 Architects 67 Artists and art teachers 52 Athletes 76 Authors 75 Chiropractors 52 CCloelrlgeygme enp 84 residents, professors, and instructors 45 Dancers and dancing teachers 96 Dentists 73 DDeiseitgintie rs 39 ans and nutritionists 67 Draftsmen 82 Editors and reporters 85 Engineers, technical 87 Aeronautical 90 Chemical 84 84 Civil Electrical 86 Industrial 82 Meecthaallnuicrgali 82 cal, and metallurgists 85 87 MNoint inegls ewhere classified 31 Entertainers 83 Farm and home management advisors 48 Foresters and conservationists 59 Funeral directors and embalmers 83 so Lawyers and judges 52 MLiubsriacriaianns s and music teachers Natural Scientists 79 Chemists , t 80 Other natural scientiS s 46 Nurses professional 51 Nurses: student professional 79 96 Optometrists ations workers 84 Osteopaths labor rel 82 Personnel an d so Pharmacists 92 Photographers Physicians and surgeons 70 Proofessional,technical and kindered workers continued 82 Public relations men and publicity writers 69 Radio operators 67 Recreation and group workers 56 Religious workers 64 Social and welfare workers, except group 81 Social scientists 64 Sports instructors and officials 48 Surveyors 72 Teachers 48 Technicians, medical and dental 62 Technicians, electrical and electronic 62 Technicians, other engineering and physical sciences 62 Technicians 58 Therapists and healers 78 Veterinarians 65 Professional, technical, and kindered workers (n.e.c) Managers, officials, and proprietors, except farm 72 Buyers and department heads, store 33 Buyers and shippers, farm products 58 Conductors, railroad 74 Credit men 50 Floormen and floor managers, store 63 Inspectors, public administration 72 Federal public administration and postal service 54 State public administration 56 Local public administration 32 Managers and superintendents, building 54 Officers, pilots, pursers, and engineers, ship 66 Officials & administrators, public administration 84 Federal public adminstration 66 State public administration 54 Local public administration 58 Officials, lodge, society, union, etc. 60 Postmasters 77 Purchasing agents and buyers 68 Managers, officials, and proprietors-Salaried 60 Construction 79 Manufacturing 71 Transportation 76 Communications, and utilities and sanitary services 70 Wholesale trade 56 Retail trade 71 Managers, officials, and proprietors. except farm continued 50 Food and dairy products stores Retail trade continued 39 Eating and drinking places 68 General merchandise and limited price variety stores 69 Apparel and accessories stores 68 Furniture, housefurnishings, and equipment stores 64 Motor vehicles and accessories retailing 31 Gasoline service stations 64 Hardware, farm implement, & building material retailing 59 Other retail trade 85 Banking and other finance 84 Insurance and real estate 80 Business services 47 Automobile repair- services and garages ? 53 Miscellaneous repair sevices 50 Personal services 62 All other industries (incl. not reported) 48 Managers, officials, & proprietors--Self - employed 51 Construction 61 Manufacturing 43 Transportation 44 Communications, and utilities and sanitary services 59 Wholesale trade 43 Retail trade 33 Food and dairy products stores 37 Eating and drinking places 47 General merchandise and limited price variety stores 65 Apparel and accessories stores 59 Furniture, housefurnishings, and equipment stores 70 Motor vehicles and accessories retailing 33 Gasoline service stations 61 Hardware, farm implement, & building material retailing 49? Other retail trade 85 Banking and other finance 76 Insurance and real esate 67 Business services 36 Automobile repair services and garages 3 4 Miscellaneous repair services 41 Personal service 72 Clerical and kindred workers continued 49 All other industries(incl. not reported) 68 Agents 44 Attendants and assistants, library 38 Attendants, physician's and dentist's office 25 Baggagement, transportation 52 Bank tellers 51 Bookkeepers 44 Cashiers 39 Collectors, bill and account 40 Dispatchers and starters, vehicle 67 Express messengers and railway mail clerks 44 File clerks 62 Insurance adjusters, examiners, and investigators 53 Mail carriers 28 Messengers and office boys 45 Office machine operators 44 Payroll and timekeeping clerks 44 Postal clerks 44 Receptionists 61 Secretaries 22 Shiping and receiving clerks 61 Stenographers 44 Stock clerks and storekeepers 22 Telegraph messengers 47 Telegraph operators 45 Telephone operators 60 Ticket, station, and express agents 61 Typists 44 Clerical and kindered workers (n.e.c) Sales workers 66 Advertising agents and salesmen 40 Auctioneers 35 Demostrators 08 Hucksters and peddlers 66 Insurance agents, brokers, and underwriters 27 Newsboys 62 Real estate agents and brokers 73 Stock and bond salesmen 47 Salesmen and sales clerks 65 Manufacturing 61 Wholesale trade 39 Retail trade 50 Other industries (incl . not reported) Craftsmen, formen, and kindred workers 22 Bakers 16 Blacksmiths 73 Craftsmen, formen, and kindred workers continued 33 Boilermakers 39 Bookbinders 27 Brickmasons, stonemasons, and tile setters 23 Cabinet makers 19 Carpenters 19 Cement and concrete finishers 52 Compositors and typesetters 21 Cranemen, derrickmen, and hoistmen 40 Decorators and window dressers 44 Electricians 55 Electrotypers and stereotypers 47 Engravers, except photoengravers 24 Excavating, gradin, androd machinery operators 49 Foremen 40 Construction 53 Manufacturing 54 M8tal industries 60 Machinery, except electrical 60 Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies 66 Transportation equipment 41 Other durable goods 39 Textiles, textile products, and apparel 53 Other nondurable goods (incl.not specified mfg.) 36 Railroads and railway express service 45 Transportaion, except railroad 56 Communications, and utilities and sanitary .:,ervices 44 Other industries (incl. not reported) 23 Forgemen and hammermen 39 Furriers 26 Glaziers 22 Heat treaters, annealers, and temperers 23 Inspectors, scalers, and graders, log and lumber 41 Inspectors 46 Construction 41 Railroads and railway expres service 45 Transportaiton, etc. R.R., commun. & other public util. 38 Other industries (incl. not reported) 36 Jewlers, watchmakers, goldsmiths, and silvermiths 28 Job setters, metal 49 Linemen and servicemen, telegraph, telephone, and power 58 Locomotive engineers 45 Locomotive fir8men 10 Loom fixers 33 Machinists 74 Craftsmen. formen. and kindred workers continued 25 Mechanics and repairment 48 Airplane 19 Automobile 36 Office machine 36 Radio and television 23 Raiload and car shop 27 Not elsewhere classified 19 Millers, grain, flour, feed, etc . .3 1 Millwrights 12 Molders, metal 43 Motion picture projectionists 39 Opticians, and lens grinders and polishers 16 Painters, construction and maintenance 10 Paperhangers 44 Pattern and model makers, except paper 64 Photoengrvers and lithographers 38 Piano and organ tuners and repairmen 25 Plasterers 34 Plumbers and pipe fitters 49 Pressmen and plate printers, printing 22 Rollers and roll hands, metal 15 Roofers and slaters 12 Shoemakers and repairers, except factory 47 Stationary engineers 25 Stone cutters and stone carvers 34 Structural metal workers 23 Tailors 33 Tinsmiths, coppersmiths, and sheet metal workers 50 Toolmakers, and die makers and setters 22 Upholsterers 32 Craftsmen and kindred workers (n.e.c.) 18 Former members of the Armed Forces Operatives and kindred workers 35 Apprentices 25 Auto mechanics 32 Bricklayers and masons 31 Carpenters 37 Electricians 41 Machinists and toolmakers 34 Mechanics, except auto 33 Plumbers and pipe fitters 29 Building trades 33 Metalworking trades 40 Priniting trades 31 Other specified trades 39 Trade not specified .32 Asbestos and insulation workers 75 Operatives and kindred workers continued 17 Assemblers 19 Attendants, auto service and parking 11 Blasters and powdermen 24 Boatmen, canalmen, and lock keepers 42 Brakemen, railroad 24 Bus drivers 25 Chainmen, rodmen, and axmen, surveying 17 Checkers, examiners, and inspectors, mfg. 30 Conductors, bus and street railway 32 Deliverymen and routmen 23 Dressmakers and seamstresses, except factory 12 Dryers 22 Filers, grinders, and polishers, metal 10 Fruit, nut, and vegetable graders and packers, exc factory 18 Furnacemen, smeltermen, and pourers 17 Graders and sorters, mfg. 29 Heaters, metal 21 Knitters, loopers, and toppers, textile 15 Laundry and dry cleaning operatives 29 Meat cutters, except slaughter and packing house 21 Milliners 10 Mine operatives and laborers 02 Coal mining 38 Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction 12 Mining and quarry, except fuel 03 Motormen, mine, factory, logging camp, etc. 34 Motormen, street, subway, and elevated railway 15 Oilers and greasers, except auto 18 Packers and wrappers 18 Painters, except construction and maintenance 42 Photographic process workers 50 Power station operators 16 Sailors and deck hands 05 Sawyers 17 Sewers and stichers, mfg. 05 Spinners, textiles 17 Stationary firemen 44 Switchmen, railroad 10 Taxica?b drivers and chauffeurs 15 Truck and tractor drivers 06 Weavers, textile 24 Welders and flame--cutters 18 Operatives and kindred workers (n.e.c.) 17 Manufacturing Durable goods 07 Sawmills, planing mills, and misc. wood 07 Sawmills, planing mills, and mill work 09 Miscellaneous wood products 09 Furniture and fixtures 76 Operatives and kindred workers continued 17 Stone, clay, and glass products 23 Glass and glass products 10 Cement, and concrete, gypsum, and plaster products 10 Structural clay products 21 Pottery and related products] 15 Misc. nonmetallic mineral and stone products Metal industries 15 Primary metal industries 17 Blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling and finishing mills 12 Other primary iron and steel industries 15 Primary nonferrous indusries 16 Fabricated metal industries (incl . not spec. metal) 16 Cutlery, handtools, and other hardware 16 Fabricated structural metal products 15 Miscellaneous fabricated metal products 14 Not specifie~ metal industries 2 Machinery, except electrical 21 Farm machinery and equipment 31 Office, computing, and accounting machines 22 Miscellaneous machinery 26 Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies 23 Transportation equipment 21 Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment 34 Aircraft and parts 16 Ship and boat building and repairing 23 Railroad and misc. transportation equipment 29 Professional and photographic equipment, and watches 23 Professional equipment and supplies 40 Photographic equipment and supplies 28 Watches, clocks, and clockwork-operated devices 16 Miscellaneous manuf3cturing industries Nondurable goods 16 Food and kindred products 16 Meat products 22 Dairy products 09 Canning and preserving fruits, vegetables, and sea foods 14. Grain-mill products 15 Bakery products 12 Confectionery and related products 19 Beverage industries 11 Misc. food preparations and kindred products 19 Not specified food industries 02 Tobacco manufacturers 06 Textile mill products 21 Knitting mills 77 Operatives and kindred workers continued 08 Dyeing and finishing textiles, exc. wool and knit goods 14 Floor coverings, except hard surface 02 Yarn, thread, and fabric mills 10 Miscellaneous fabricated textile products 21 Apparel and other fabricated textile products 22 Apparel and accessories 17 Miscellaneous fabricated textile products 19 Paper and allied products 19 Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills 17 Paperboard containers and boxes 19 Miscellaneous paper and pulp products 19 Printing, publishing, and allied industries 20 Chemicals and allied products 09 Synthetic fibers 26 Drugs and medicines 15 Paints, varnishes, and related products 23 Miscellaneous chemicals and allied products 51 Petroleum and coal products 56 Petroleum refining 14 Miscellaneous petroleum and coal products 22 Rubber and misc. plastic products 12 Rubber products 16 Leather and leather products 10 Leather,tanned, curried, and finished 09 Footwear, except rubber 14 Leather products, except footwear 16 Not specified manufacturing industries 18 Nonmanufacturing industries (incl. not reported) 18 Construction 15 Railroads and railway express service 23 Transportation, except railroad 21 Communications, and utilities and sanitary services 17 Wholesale and retail trade 19 Business and reapir services 11 Personal services 17 Public adminstration 20 All other industries (incl. not reported) Private household workers 07 Baby sitters, private household 1 9 Homemakers, private household 10 Living in 21 Living out 12 Laundresses, private household 07 Private household workers 12 Living in 06 Living out 78 Service workers. except private household 13 Attendants, hospital and othe institution 26 Attendants, professional and personal service 19 Attendants, recreation amusement 17 Barbers 19 Bartenders 30 Boarding and lodging house keepers 08 Bootblacks 11 Chambermaids and maids, except private household 10 Charwomen and cleaners 15 Cooks, except private household 17 Counter and fountain workers 10 Elevator operators 17 Hairdressers and cosmetologists 31 Housekeepers and stewards, except private household 09 Janitors and sextons 11 Kitchen workers, except private household 37 Midwives 04 Porters 22 Practical nurses Protective service workers 37 Firemen, fire protection 18 Guards, watchmen, and doorkeepers 21 Marshals and constables 39 Policemen and detectives 40 Public 36 Private 34 Sheriffs and bailiffs 17 Watchmen (crossing) and bridge tenders 25 Ushers, recreation and amusement 16 Waiters 11 Service workers, except private household Laborers, except farm and mine 07 Carpenters' helpers, except logging and mining 10 Fishermen and oystermen 08 Garage laborers, and car washers and greasers 11 Gardeners, except farm, and groundkeepers 11 Longshoremen and stevedores 04 Lumbermen, raftsmen, and wood choppers 08 Teamsters 09 Truck drivers' helpers 08 Warehousemen Laborers 08 Manufacturing Durable goods 03 Sawmills, planing mills, and misc . wood products 79 Laborers. except farm and mine continued 03 Sawmills, planing mills, and mill work 02 Miscellaneous wood products 05 Furniture and fixtures 07 Stone, clay, and glass products 14 Glass and glass products 05 Cement, and concrete, gypsum,and plaster 05 Structural clay products 07 Pottery and related products 05 Misc. nonmetallic mineral and stone products 07 Metal industries 07 Primary meal industries 09 Blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling and finishing mills 04 Other primary iron and stell industries 06 Primary nonferrous industries 07 Fabricated metal industries (incl. not spec. metal) 07 Cutlery, hand tools, and other hardware 07 Fabricated structural metal products 07 Misc. fabricated metal products 10 Not specified metal industries 11 Machinery, except electrical 14 Farm machinery and equipment 17 Office, computing, and accounting machines 10 Miscellanerous machiner 14 Electrical machinery, equipment and supplies 11 Transportation equipment 13 Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment 15 Aircaft and part 02 Ship and boat building and repairing 08 Railroad and misc. transportation equipment 11 Professional and photographic equipment, and watches 10 Professional equipment and supplies 16 Photographic equipment and supplies 11 Watches, clocks, and clockwork-operated devices 12 Miscellaneous manufacturing industries Nondurable goods 09 Food and kindred products 08 Meat products 13 Dairy products 06 Canning and preserving fruits, vegetables, and sea foods 80 Nondurable goods continued 06 Grain-mill products 10 Bakery products 10 Confectionery and related products 16 Beverage industries 05 Misc. food preparttions and kindred products 14 Not specified food industries 03 Textile mill products 01 Yarn, thread, and fabric mills 06 Other textile mill products 09 Appael and other fabricated textile products 07 Paper and allied products 06 Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills 10 Paperboard containers an dboxes 08 Miscellaneous paper and pulp products 23 Printing, publishing, and allied industries 08 Chemical and allied products 04 Synthetic fibers 22 Drugs and medicines 08 Paints, varnishes, and related products 08 Miscellaneous chemicals and allied products 22 Petroleum and coal products 26 Petroleum refining 03 Miscellaneous petroleum and coal products 12 Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products 06 Leather and leather products 02 Not specified manufacturing industries 07 Nonmanufacturing industries (incl. not reported) 07 Construction 03 Railrod and railway express service 09 Transportation, except railroad 06 Communications, and utilities and sanitary services 12 Wholesale and retail trade 09 Business and repair services 05 Personal services 07 Public administration 06 All other industries (incl. not reported) 19 Occupation not reported Note. From Handbook of research design and social measurement (p . 117-130) by D.C. Miller, 1977, New York:Longman 81 ? APPENDIX C COVER LETTER 82 00000 TI-fE UNIVERSITY Of MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK CAMPUS COiiege ol PhVS1Ccl EduceliOn. Recaiatf