Greek Versus non-Greek: A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Homosexuality

[This is my undergraduate Psychology 497 thesis from 2004. The title of the study is not meant to imply an ethnographic comparison. The Greeks in my study were fraternity and sorority affiliates. When I conducted this study I was an active member of the Eta Pi chapter of the Pi Kappa Phi fraternity. A social Greek society membership includes a fair amount of societal stereotyping. Unfortunately, Greeks are one of those least-researched minorities and the research that has been conducted often presents Greek life in the most provocative and simplistic of negative terms. I conducted this study to add to the limited body of knowledge and I found that, although affiliates of fraternities and sororities are similar to male and female non-affiliates in their attitudes toward homosexuality, they experience a strong groupthink style of cohesiveness. I present this in APA format with a few web-worthy modification.]


Greek Versus non-Greek: A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Homosexuality

According to the Center for the Study of the College Fraternity (2000), an average of 17.50% of students per campus are either active members of or pledging into the Greek system. Research into the attitudes toward homosexuality of student members of social Greek societies (fraternities and sororities) has been limited. An ethnographic study conducted by Rhoads (1994) revealed a connection between negative attitudes towards lesbians, gays, and bisexuals (LGBs) and membership in a social Greek society. Further ethnographic research conducted by Rhoads (1995) at a fraternity house revealed that oppressive acts towards homosexuals serve to reaffirm masculinity. Rhoads’ conclusion supported the findings of Sanday (1990) who argues that fraternity members may be hiding “...a deep fear, hatred, and fascination with homosexuality” (p. 122).

Other research suggests that there is no empirical connection between Greeks and non-Greeks and negative attitudes toward homosexuals. With 692 heterosexual students at six liberal arts colleges participating, Hinrichs and Rosenberg (2002) investigated attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality as a function of Greek affiliation, sex role attitudes, and contact with and knowledge of LGBs. The researchers found that students who tended to be female with liberal sex role attitudes and positive contacts with LGBs were more accepting of LGBs. The results indicated that on campuses with social Greek societies, Greeks did not have significantly more negative attitudes toward homosexuals than non-Greeks. However, campuses with no social Greek societies had significantly more positive overall attitudes toward homosexuality than campuses with social Greek societies.

Kuriloff and Lottes (1994) investigated the extent to which gender, time in college, and membership in a social Greek society influenced students’ political and social attitudes. The researchers measured attitudes regarding liberalism, social conscience, feminism, male dominance, and intolerance of homosexuality. Subjects were students at an eastern United States university. A questionnaire was mailed to freshman students living in a dormitory in 1987. The same questionnaire was mailed again in 1991 to the same students who were still enrolled at the university. Of the 303 students who completed both surveys, 135 were males, 168 were females, and 35% reported membership in a social Greek society. The results indicated a substantial overall decrease of intolerance of homosexuality for all participants from 1987 to 1991. However, Greeks were not more intolerant of homosexuality than non-Greeks. The researchers concluded that Greek affiliation has little impact on student attitudes over time. Additionally, the researchers concluded that, because only a limited amount research has been conducted on the social and political attitudes of Greeks and non-Greeks, empirical support for the hypothesis that Greeks are more intolerant of homosexuality as compared to non-Greeks may exist.

In a similar study, Pratte (1993) examined differences in attitudes of males and females, college students and non-college students, and subjects of various age groups toward homosexuality. In 1986 and again in 1991, a questionnaire was distributed to 90 randomly chosen subjects. Of the 180 participants, 90 were male and 90 were females. Seventy-five were undergraduates enrolled at a university in the midwest and 105 were from a rural community. Similar to the findings of Lottes and Kuriloff, the results indicated that subjects surveyed in 1986, male subjects, and non-student subjects expressed significantly stronger anti-homosexual attitudes than subjects surveyed in 1991, female subjects, and college student subjects.

An increase in tolerance of homosexuality among college students over a period of time may be a function of proximity and past exposure. Bowen and Bourgeois (2001) hypothesized that knowing LGBs prior to college would contribute to more positive attitudes towards homosexuality. Second, they hypothesized that regardless of past exposures, contact with LGBs in student’s residence halls would result in attitudes that are more positive. Finally, the researchers hypothesized that students would rate their own attitudes as more positive than those of friends or of typical students. Subjects for the study were undergraduates living in two similar coed dormitories in close proximity. One hundred and nine students recruited by mail completed the researchers’ survey. Fifty-one were male and 58 were female. The researchers found that there was a significant positive correlation between the number of homosexuals known before college and current level of comfort with homosexuals. Student’s comfort ratings were significantly higher when they reported LGBs living within their residence hall. Student’s comfort ratings were also significantly higher when they reported LGBs living on their floor. Personal comfort with homosexuals was rated significantly higher than the perceived comfort of their friends and higher than a “typical” student’s comfort. Findings indicated that students who had more exposure to LGBs before college felt more comfortable with LGBs when compared to those with less or no pre-college exposure. However, regardless of past exposure, students who reported LGBs living on their halls or on their floors felt significantly more comfortable than students who reported not knowing any close-proximity LGBs.

In a similar study, Herek and Capitanio (1996) obtained similar results from a two-wave national telephone survey. Subjects were randomly selected and were telephoned between 1990 and ‘91 and were telephoned again one year later. Participants indicated their attitudes toward gay males during the first wave and attitudes toward gay males and lesbians during the second wave. Findings were generally similar between both waves and revealed that heterosexual participants with contact with gay males had more positive attitudes toward gay males than those without contact. Those with more and closer relationships had more positive attitudes toward gay males.

Louderback and Whitley Jr. (1997) attempted to explain why males tend to tolerate female homosexuality more so than male homosexuality. They theorized that males place a high erotic value on lesbianism, place a low erotic value on male homosexuality, and have more “traditional” sex-role attitudes. They further theorized that concurrent control of the perceived erotic value of homosexuality and sex-role attitudes would reveal that males have similar attitudes toward lesbians and gays. Subjects were undergraduates from a university in the midwest. Of the 167 subjects surveyed, 58 were males and 109 were females. Participants completed a test booklet in classrooms in same-sex groups of 5 to 20 individuals. Attitudes toward homosexuals were measures by the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) scale, a 20-item survey created by Herek (1984). The instrument includes two subscales, the Attitudes Toward Lesbians (ATL) and Attitudes Toward Gay Men (ATG) scales. An 8-item instrument developed by the researchers measured the perceived erotic value of homosexuality. Two subscales, one referring to lesbian sexuality and one referring to gay male sexuality were comprised of four items each. Sex-role attitudes were measured by the 30-item Attitudes Toward Roles of Men and Women (ATRMW) scale. This instrument has two subscales of 15 items each: the Attitudes Towards Women (ATW) and Attitudes Towards the Male’s Role (AMR) scales. The data revealed that females responded similarly on the ATLG and the perceived erotic value of homosexuality measures. On the other hand, males were more tolerant of lesbian sexuality and perceived it to be more erotic and they were less tolerant of gay male sexuality and perceived it to be less erotic. However, when the perceived erotic value and sex-role attitude scores were controlled for both males and females, the adjusted means closely resembled each other. Female’s scores remained nearly unchanged. However, scores for males were similar to females’ scores towards lesbians and gay males as measured by scores on the ATLG. The researchers concluded that because heterosexual males do not view gay male homosexuality as erotic, heterosexual males may be more likely to discriminate against gay males. Heterosexual females do not view either lesbian or gay male sexuality as erotic and therefore may discriminate equally against both.

In addition to overt intolerance, college students may be unwittingly intolerant of homosexuality. Aberson, Emerson, and Swan (1999) hypothesized that because the descriptor “gay male” may cause a desire to appear sympathetic, participants will overcompensate and prefer a gay male to a straight male in a controlled situation. Bias against a gay male will only become apparent when there is an opportunity to express negative feelings toward gay males in situations where there exists a justification that is not based on sexuality. Participants were undergraduates attending various small, private colleges in southern California. Of the 260 participants, 113 were males and 143 were females. Four subjects did not indicate gender. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: heterosexual-no justification (55), gay-no justification (51), heterosexual-justification (76), and gay-justification (78). Each group was told that their evaluations of an applicant for a new HIV-AIDS education program would affect the hiring process. The duration of the interview videos was five minutes. The actor described himself as acquiring HIV from a brief but sexually intense relationship with either a man or woman depending upon the condition. In bother justified bias conditions, when asked, “Why do you feel college students can relate to you?” the actor answered, “Look, I was a college students. I know how completely stupid and totally na├»ve college students are.” In both unjustified bias conditions, the actor answered, “Look I was a college student.” Participants were fully debriefed and duplicity was revealed after participation in the study. The evaluation measure was a 29-item instrument. Subjects responded to items on 7-point scales. The instrument included two subscales: 19 items that indicated positive traits and 10 items that indicated negative traits about the interviewee. A 7-item instrument measured attitudes toward homosexuals. Subjects responded to these items on 5-point scales. The results revealed that the gay male was rated significantly more favorable overall than the heterosexual male. The gay male in the justified bias condition was more favored than the heterosexual male in the same condition. The researchers found that participants did not rate the gay male negatively regardless of condition. However, the gay male tended to be rated higher on negative trait items and the heterosexual male in the no justification condition tended to be rated higher on positive trait items. The findings led Aberson et al. to conclude that there was evidence of a covert form of bias in which the participants elevated the heterosexual man and did not diminish the gay man.

While many strides have been made to afford homosexuals equal rights, prejudice, discrimination, and victimization still exist. In a study conducted by Norris (1992) at Oberlin College, findings indicated widespread victimization of LGBs. A survey distributed by mail was completed by 869 students of whom 26.3% of females and 15.7% of males claimed a lesbian, gay, or bisexual sexual orientation. Of the two groups, 80% of females and over 70% of males either had denied their sexual orientation or were verbally insulted for being perceived as homosexual. On the other hand, 95.5% of students supported the active campus presence of LGBs. Norris theorized that this paradox results from support of equal rights by a majority but the practice of equal rights by a minority.

Due to the lack of prior research in this area and due to the high rate of victimization of homosexuals, the purpose of this study is to examine attitudes towards homosexuals as a function of Greek affiliation. The researcher hypothesized that Greeks would score significantly higher on measures of intolerance towards homosexuality than non-Greeks.

Design

This nonexperimental study involved a between subjects multiple groups design.

Participants

Subjects were obtained from a four-year, undergraduate, liberal arts institution using availability nonrandom sampling. The majority of subjects were Caucasian freshmen and sophomores. Subjects were assigned to groups based on reported Greek affiliation.

Materials

The Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) scale, developed by Herek (1984) was used. This 20-item scale is designed to measure adult heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and women. Items are responded to on five-point Likert-type scales with “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree” anchors. The survey includes two subscales, the Attitudes Toward Lesbians (ATL) scale and the Attitudes Toward Gay Men (ATG) scale. The score for each subscale ranges from 10 to 50. Sample questions from each scale include: “The growing number of lesbians indicates a decline in American morals” and “Just as in other species, male homosexuality is a natural expression of sexuality in human men.”

When administered to college students, alpha levels of the ATLG are typically greater than .90. Test-retest reliability, demonstrated with alternate forms, is .90 (Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale). The ATLG correlates consistently with theoretically related constructs. Higher negative attitude scores correlate significantly with frequent attendance at religious services, traditional sex role attitudes, a lack of past positive contact with gay men and lesbians, and belief in a traditional family ideology (Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale).

A demographic survey developed by the researcher was designed to obtain data concerning subjects’ gender, class rank, age, ethnic background, major, Greek affiliation, and primary sexual orientation. A copy of the demographic questionnaire and the ATLG appear in Appendix A.

Procedure

The researcher chose classes from which to collect data based upon class size and availability. He contacted two instructors, described his research project, assured adherence to standards of ethics, and requested permission to solicit subjects and collect data from the instructor’s class. Once permission was obtained, the researcher entered the classroom, introduced himself, and described to the students in limited detail his research project. Participants were assured anonymity and were instructed not to write their names or any other identifying information on the surveys. Students who did not wish to participate or who had already participated were instructed to turn their surveys face down on their desks and to hand them in during collection of completed surveys. The researcher offered to provide his name and email address after survey collection to any student interested in obtaining results. Surveys were then distributed and collected after the last participant had completed responding. Students and the instructor were thanked and the researcher exited the classroom. This procedure was repeated in one additional classroom.

Permission to enter Greek council meetings was obtained through the Greek-life coordinator. The researcher solicited subjects and gathered data at Panhellenic Council, National Pan Hellenic Council, and Interfraternity Council meetings. The classroom procedure outlined above was repeated in each council meeting.

The researcher hypothesized that Greeks would score significantly higher than non-Greeks on all subscales and on the total score of the ATLG. The ATLG measures adult heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men and women.

Of the 152 heterosexual participants:
  • 36 were male and affiliated with a fraternity
  • 37 were female and affiliated with a sorority
  • 79 claimed no affiliation
Of the 36 fraternity affiliates, 33 were initiated members and 3 were associate members (pledges). Of the 37 sorority affiliates, 33 were initiated members and 4 were associate members. Of the 79 non-affiliates, 34 were males and 45 were females. The majority participant was a Caucasian female age 18 to 20 and a psychology major of junior class standing.

One hundred and forty-four participants of the original 152 completed the ATLG. The possible range of scores on this instrument is 20 to 100. In this study, scores ranged from 20 to 91 with a mean of 51.40 and a standard deviation of 17.79. See Table 1 for group ATLG means and standard deviations:



Of the 144 subjects, 68 were Greek affiliates and 76 were non-affiliates:
  • A t test was calculated to compare ATLG scores between affiliates and non-affiliates. Results of the analysis revealed no significant differences between the two groups, t(142) = .41, p > .05.
  • A t test was calculated to compare ATLG scores between fraternity affiliate and sorority affiliates. Fraternity affiliates had significantly more negative attitudes toward homosexuals than sorority affiliates, t(66) = 2.27, p = .01.
  • A t test was calculated to compare ATLG scores between males and females. Males had significantly more negative attitudes toward homosexuals than females, t(142) = 2.06, p < .05.
One hundred and forty-seven participants completed the ATL. The possible range of scores on this scale is 10 to 50. In this study, scores ranged from 10 to 45 with a mean of 22.37 and a standard deviation of 8.47. See Table 2 for group ATL means and standard deviations:


Of the 147 subjects, 70 were Greek affiliates and 77 were non-affiliates. A t test was calculated to examine ATL scores between affiliates and non-affiliates. There was no significant difference between the two groups, t(145) = 1.16, p > .05.

One hundred and forty-nine participants completed the ATG. The possible range of scores on this scale is 10 to 50. Scores in this research ranged from 10 to 50 with a mean of 29.19 and a standard deviation of 10.95. See Table 3 for group ATG means and standard deviations:


Of the 149 subjects, 71 were affiliates and 78 were non-affiliates. The following results were obtained via t tests:
  • There was no significant difference between affiliates and non-affiliates, t(147) = .40, p > .05.
  • Fraternity affiliates had significantly more negative attitudes toward gay males than non-affiliates, t(111) = 2.71, p < .01.
  • Non-affiliates had significantly more negative attitudes toward gay males than sorority affiliates, t(112) = 2.06, p < .05.
  • Fraternity affiliates had significantly more negative attitudes toward gay males than sorority affiliates, t(69) = 4.57, p < .00.
  • Males had significantly more negative attitudes toward gay males than females, t(147) = 4.36, p < .00.
  • Male non-affiliates had significantly more negative attitudes toward gay males than female non-affiliates, t(76) = 1.86, p < .05.
Male non-affiliates (33) had a mean ATG score of 31.55 and a standard deviation 10.12. Female non-affiliates (45) had a mean score of 26.87 and a standard deviation of 11.58. Fraternity affiliates (35) had a mean score of 34.80 and a standard deviation 9.93. Sorority affiliates (34) had a mean score of 24.47 and a standard deviation 9.11. See Figure 1 for a comparison of the preceding mean scores:


A one-way ANOVA was calculated to compare ATG scores among the four groups. The results indicated that ATG scores differed as a function of group, F(3,143) = 7.30, p < .00. A Tukey post-hoc test revealed that male non-affiliates had significantly more negative attitudes toward gay males than sorority affiliates. The test also revealed that fraternity affiliates had significantly more negative attitudes than female non-affiliates and sorority affiliates.

The aforementioned groups were also compared for ATL and ATLG scores. A one-way ANOVA for ATL scores was not significant, F(3,143) = .73, p > .05. Similarly a one-way ANOVA for ATLG scores was not significant, F(3,140) = 1.65, p > .05.

The researcher’s hypothesis that Greeks would score significantly higher on measures of intolerance towards homosexuality than non-Greeks was not fully supported by the results. On the ATG, fraternity affiliates scored the highest, male non-affiliates scored second highest, females non-affiliates scored third highest, and sorority affiliates scored the lowest. These results indicate that males, especially fraternity affiliates, have more negative attitudes toward gay males than do females. Because sorority affiliates scored lowest, these results suggest that intolerance of gay males is not simply a function of Greek affiliation but may be a function of gender. The finding concerning males is important because the negative attitudes they have may exclude openly gay males or males suspected of being gay from becoming affiliated with a fraternity or from becoming socially accepted by other males.

Discrimination by fraternity affiliates may be the result of lack of proximity with gay males. Fraternity affiliates tend to spend most of their social time with other members of their chapter. This aids in building emotional support and relationships, but also limits social exposure. Therefore, studies such as Bowen and Bourgeois (2001) and Pratte (1993) that have found that intolerance of homosexuality decreases as time increases and positive contact with LGBs increases may not directly apply to fraternity affiliates.

On the ATL, male non-affiliates scored the highest, female non-affiliates scored the second highest, sorority affiliates scored the third highest, and fraternity affiliates scored the lowest. These results are interesting because they suggest tolerance of lesbians as a function of Greek affiliation regardless of gender. This does not fully support the research of Louderback and Whitley Jr. (1997) who found that, overall, males are more tolerant of lesbian sexuality. Results reported here suggest that fraternity affiliates are more tolerant of lesbian sexuality. Perhaps fraternity affiliates spend more of their social time with females compared to non-affiliated males. On the other hand, perhaps fraternity members view lesbian sexuality as more erotic than do non-affiliated males. The researcher has found no research with results similar to those reported here.

Results may have more implications for males than for females. Female affiliates and female non-affiliates scored the lowers on the ATG and ATLG. If the perceived erotic value of lesbianism had been controlled for, female affiliates and female non-affiliates may have scored the lowest on the ATL as well. In general, males scored highest on all three measures. These findings support previous research on this topic.

One confound in this study is the circumstances in which the Greek affiliates completed materials for this study. Greeks affiliates talked and joked about the survey. The talking may have been a distraction for the participants and the joking may have served to avert participants from reporting individual beliefs. Another confound is the use of nonrandom sampling. Subjects and the classrooms from which subjects were solicited were chosen based upon availability.

To combat the intolerance of homosexuality of college students, Lance (2002) suggests a four part strategy. First, choose a homosexual speaker with a college background and a social class standing similar to the group of students. Second, heterosexual students should read a textbook chapter on homosexuality and write questions they would like to have answered by the speaker. Third, an unbiased introduction of the speaker should be made. The introduction should provide basic information about homosexuality. Fourth, the speaker should provide a biographical sketch, and student questions should be collected and answered. The question and answer period should be informal. Results of this type of interaction have been positive. Lance (2002) found a reduction in homophobia and maintenance of this reduction. In addition, in Lance (2002), Stevenson (1990) and Walters (1994) found that courses in human sexuality might effectively reduce homophobia.

Future research could be conducted by a university’s administration. For instance, Greek affiliates and incoming freshmen may be surveyed annually. Attitudes regarding homosexuality, liberalism, social conscience, feminism, and male dominance could be measured as a function of time in college, gender, religious background, amount of past and current contact with LGBs, and Greek affiliation. This data could be published every year.

Other future research could also study change in attitude. For example, procedures most effective in reducing negative attitudes toward homosexuals may be researched. Herek (1988) reflects the value of this kind of research in the following statement:
Attitude-change research is now a critical priority, given the extreme prejudice faced by gay men and lesbians. This is especially true since the AIDS epidemic has become identified in the United States with gay men. At present, AIDS has become a convenient vehicle for expressing hostility toward homosexual persons. (p. 473)
Although stated in 1988, this assertion is still valid today. Nine hundred thousand Americans are living with AIDS. Another 300,000 may not know they are HIV positive (Summary Fact Sheet on HIV/AIDS). Seventy-six percent of AIDS cases are male. Forty-seven percent of males acquire HIV through sex with other men (Summary Fact Sheet on HIV/AIDS). Because of the prevalence of the syndrome, especially in gay males, public information is necessary. Furthermore, Herek (1988) found that negative attitudes toward homosexuals are positively correlated with inaccurate knowledge of AIDS and negatively correlated with accurate knowledge about AIDS. He concluded, “since prejudice toward lesbians and gay men is well entrenched in the American populace, research directed toward attitude change is critical, especially as Americans confront the specter of AIDS” (Herek, 1988, p. 474).

References
  • Aberson, C. L., Emerson, E. P., & Swan, D. J. (1999). Covert discrimination against gay men by U.S. college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(3), 323-334. Retrieved October 3, 2002, from InfoTrac OneFile database.
  • Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale. Retrieved September 8, 2003, from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/atlg.html
  • Bowen, A. M., & Bourgeois, M. J. (2001). Attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students: The contribution of pluralistic ignorance, dynamic social impact, and contact theories. Journal of American College Health, 50(2), 91-96. Retrieved October 3, 2002, from InfoTrac OneFile database.
  • Center for the Study of the College Fraternity, Bloomington, IN. (2000). Status of the College Fraternity and Sorority. Retrieved November 6, 2003, from http://www.indiana.edu/~cscf/faqs.htm
  • Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451-477.
  • Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). "Some of my best friends": Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 412-424.
  • Hinrichs, D. W., & Rosenberg, P. J. (2002). Attitudes toward gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons among heterosexual liberal arts college students. Journal of Homosexuality, 43(1), 61-84.
  • Kuriloff, P. J., & Lottes, I. L. (1994). The impact of college experience on political and social attitudes. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 31(1-2), 31-54. Retrieved October 1, 2002, from InfoTrac OneFile database.
  • Lance, Larry M. (2002). Heterosexism and homophobia among college students. College Student Journal, 36(3), 410-414. Retrieved August 27, 2003, from InfoTrac OneFile database.
  • Louderback, L. A., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1997). Perceived erotic value of homosexuality and sex-role attitudes as mediators of sex differences in heterosexual college students' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. The Journal of Sex Research, 34(2), 175-182. Retrieved October 3, 2002, from InfoTrac OneFile database.
  • Norris, W. P. (1992). Liberal attitudes and homophobic acts: The paradoxes of homosexual experience in a liberal institution. Journal of Homosexuality, 21(3-4), 81-120.
  • Pratte, T. (1993). A comparative study of attitudes toward homosexuality: 1986 and 1991. Journal of Homosexuality, 26(1), 77-83.
  • Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Coming out in college: The struggle for a queer identity. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
  • Rhoads, R. A. (1995). Whale tales, dog piles, and beer goggles: An ethnographic case study of fraternity life. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 26(3), 306-323.
  • Sanday, P. R. (1990). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege on campus. New York: New York University Press.
  • Summary Fact Sheet on HIV/AIDS. (2000). The HIV/AIDS Epidemic: 20 Years in the U.S. Retrieved November 26, 2003, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/onap/facts.html

I would like to thank the following for aiding in my research:

  • Peggy Bates, Margaret Fain, Allison Faix, Robert Stevens, and Jeri Traw for being the greatest reference librarians in the state of South Carolina (and possibly the world).
  • Kimbel Library’s system of indexes.
  • Heidi Jordan for making superb surveys.
  • Dr. William Hills & Dr. Janice Cannan for allowing me use of class time to collect data.
  • Deonne Giles for gaining me permission to collect data at important Greek meetings.
  • Dr. Joan Piroch without whom my topic would still be just pencil on a sheet of loose-leaf paper.

Comments

Popular Posts