Attitudes and Perceptions About Sorority Women
Sponsored by Missouri Western State University Sponsored by a grant from the National Science Foundation DUE-97-51113
Home |
The proper APA Style reference for this manuscript is:
AYRE, T. M. (2002). Attitudes and Perceptions About Sorority Women. National Undergraduate Research Clearinghouse, 5. Available online at Retrieved April 25, 2017 .

Attitudes and Perceptions About Sorority Women

Sponsored by: MUKUL BHALLA (
This study looked at college students’ attitudes toward sorority women and which students had the most negative attitudes about these women. A survey and a task were used to measure 79 participants’ attitudes directly and indirectly. The task involved the participant looking at pictures of two different women who were depicted as either affiliated with a Greek organization or not and then circling adjectives that described the women. The survey asked the participants directly what characteristics and demographics they thought a sorority member had. The hypotheses were that older, male, and non-Greek participants would have more negative stereotypes of sorority women. There was support that Greeks had more positive attitudes than non-Greeks. No support for the other hypotheses was found. This implied that Greek membership had a stronger effect on the participants’ uses of stereotypes.

Stereotypes and negative perceptions pervade almost every aspect of our lives. College campuses deal with these issues, not only in the form of racism and sexism, but even stereotypes based on what activities in which students are involved. One stereotype that affects the popular student activity of Greek Life is the perceptions and attitudes toward sorority women. These women tend to have negative stereotypes attached to their reputations. Even the term “sorority girls” can cause a person to think of partying, promiscuity, and scornfulness. As is with all stereotypes, people make judgments on these women’s characters and actions without accurate information. A lot of this has to do with the idea of in-group vs. out-group.Ellemers, Van Rijwijk, Roefs, and Simons (1997) conducted a study looking at a group that was associated with negative traits (according to a pilot test), and how the group members reacted to the negative image of their group. Using two similar student organizations—one with and described by other students as having positive traits and another described with negative traits—members of each group answered a questionnaire about identifying with their own organization and also rated the other group. The members of the lower status group favored their own group more than the members of the higher status group by de-emphasizing the unfavorable traits. This study concluded that being aware of such stereotypes ultimately influences the way the stereotyped person thinks of himself or herself and of his or her group identity. If a person perceives a negative stereotype or perception of his or her group, he or she will embrace a positive attitude of his or her group, despite the fact it may be an unrealistic picture of the group . Instead of looking at the internal aspect of group identification, Mullen, Dovidio, Johnson, and Copper (1992) studied the external social projection differences of in-groups versus that of out-groups. Participants were told that a wealthy publisher had left a large sum of money and presented with two different allocations of the money, in which one gave half of the money to the freshmen and the other half to the three other classes. The other option was that the money be distributed equally between all four classes. The participants chose the option they personally supported, estimated which allocation plan their peers would choose, and then estimated the consensus of the other three classes. The participants’ peers were based on what year in school they were (freshmen vs. upperclassmen). It turned out that members of the in-group tended to assume that every member thinks the same way and believes the same things. Freshmen and upperclassmen alike estimated that their opinion was the consensus of their own class. Members of each group (freshmen or upperclassmen) estimated that the other group wanted a different option than what their group class supported. There was no difference found in the answers of freshmen and upperclassmen. Participants from both groups made the generalization that members of their own group thought as the individual participant did. Participants from both groups also thought that the other group would want the option that the participant’s group supported. Not only does this study show that freshmen and upperclassmen reacted similarly, it also showed the willingness of the participants to make generalizations about their own group and the group to which they did not belong. This situation makes the groups easily identifiable to the person by using the small stereotype that their group is similar and the other group is different. Realizing this, it is easy to see how someone who is not Greek may stereotype all members of Greek life as excessive drinkers in order to differentiate that group from his or her own group (those who are not Greek). Judd and Park (1988) took this idea that in-groups view out-groups as different from the in-group a little further. This 1988 study looked at how in-groups, in identifying the out-group as different, tended to assume there was no diversity among the out-group members. In other words, the in-group might identify the out-group as a group that drinks excessively, but in making that assumption, the in-group does not acknowledge that there may be variety in the individual drinking patterns of the out-group members. The researchers put two groups in cooperative and competitive situations to see if working with or against the out-group made a difference in whether or not the in-group acknowledged the variety among the individual out-group diverse. Judd and Park randomly assigned the participants to two groups that then had to work together either competitively or cooperatively. The researchers also asked the participants to make judgments about participants in the other group. In competition, the in-group saw the out-group was seen as less diverse, whereas in cooperation, the in-group did not see the out-group as particularly similar or particularly diverse; there is no change in the variability of the out-group.This study showed that there is a tendency to ignore the diversity within an out-group when there is no positive interaction with the out-group. If someone who is not a member of a Greek organization has no friends who are members and does not ever work cooperatively with any members of Greek organizations, then he or she does not have the opportunity to witness the individual members. It is easy to attach the stereotype of the typical “frat boy” or “sorority girl” personas to Greek organizations instead of recognizing the individuality within the out-group when there has been no positive interaction with individual Greek members. Ryan and Bogart’s 1997 and 2001 studies looked at the in-group’s perception of its own diversity. The researchers questioned 84 sorority pledges throughout a nine month period about their attitudes toward the sorority. The pledges first identified their sorority along stereotypical lines, but as the nine months went on and the women got to know the older members individually, the pledges began to describe more diversity within the group and stayed away from the stereotypes when describing the sorority (Ryan & Bogart, 2001). As former members of the out-group (assuming those not in a Greek letter organization are the out-group), the pledges entered the sorority with some stereotypes as their perception of the in-group. This shows that the in-group’s views and perceptions of itself are different from those perceptions of the out-group, which, in this study, were based mainly on stereotypes. Once the women became members of a Greek organization, they stopped using stereotypes in identifying their organization.Noel, Branscombe, and Wann (1995) looked not at the stereotypes new in-group members had of their own group, but at the negative judgments these new members made about out-groups in the article found in the Annual Reviews: Psychology Online website. Participants were either active members or pledges of fraternities or sororities. The periphery members (the pledges) had more negative public judgments about out-groups than did core members (the active members). The periphery members’ judgments were more positive when expressed privately. The negative statements made by the periphery members were meant to impress the core members so as to gain acceptance, rather than to express actual negative feelings. The dynamics within the in-group could be a cause of contention between the in-group and out-groups, as periphery members express negative attitudes that they might not actually hold. If Noel, Branscombe, and Wann’s study is accurate in its conclusions, this could encourage negative interaction that the Judd and Park study found to discourage the in-group’s acknowledgement of the out-group’s internal diversity (1988). In discussing previous studies of in-group and out-group dynamics, it is necessary to look at this topic in context with Greek life and, in particular, sorority women. It has been found by different studies that many stereotypes affect sorority women by setting a standard by which these women are expected to live their lives. Whipple It is not just students putting labels on Greeks; the universities themselves seem to subject the members of Greek letter organizations to higher expectations than non-Greeks. and Sullivan’s look at Greek life showed that the university administration expected more out of sorority and fraternity members than non-Greeks (1998). Roles, such as campus leaders and involvement in student activities, that define Greeks are roles that the administration gives them. This higher standard set by the university has been a trend ever since the beginnings of Greek life (Scott, 1965). This division of Greeks and non-Greeks only provides further grounds in the in-group—out-group dynamic for the non-Greeks to form negative stereotypes to make themselves feel better about not being Greek. All these stereotypes affect Greeks negatively, making many seek unhealthy habits in order to cope with the pressure.Kashubeck, Marchand-Martella, Neal, and Larson’s investigation of college women and bulimia revealed that many Greek women resort to bulimia in order to deal with the pressure of trying to fit all these different molds expected of them (1997). Sorority women must take on the feminine role, as well as the role of the active, involved campus leader, because those are roles expected of them by society and by the university itself (Kashubeck, Marchand-Martella, Neal, & Larson, 1997). The perceptions of the out-group on the in-group are not just hurting people’s feelings. Some sorority women become bulimic as a control in their lives. Stereotypes and other expectations seem, to these women, to control everything else in their lives—clothing, friends, social activities, and academics—that eating is the only thing not stereotyped (Kashubeck, Marchand-Martella, Neal, & Larson, 1997). Now, with more and more cases of bulimia among sorority women, stereotypes increasingly characterize eating disorders as a common practice among Greek women.Our study seeks to further these in-group—out-group findings using stereotypes as a basis for comparison. Previous studies have looked at in-groups’ perceptions of out-groups. They did not specifically focus on negative perceptions, as we have here. This study, unlike previous studies, has sought to find what participants tended to exhibit negative perceptions of a certain group (sorority women). Previous studies have looked at the estimations by in-groups on how out-groups think, revealing the in-group’s focus on difference (Mullen, Dovidio, Johnson & Copper, 1992). Other studies have shown that when groups are set against each other, the in-group tends to view the out-group members as lacking diversity (Judd & Park, 1988). Some studies even looked at in-groups and the usage of stereotypes of the in-group by new in-group members, as well as new members’ views of out-groups (Ryan & Bogart, 1997, 2001; Noel, Branscombe & Wann, 1995). Our study took the in-group—out-group concepts discussed in these other studies, and looked at how different groups used stereotypes to describe out-groups. Instead of only looking at one in-group versus one out-group, we looked at male participants versus female participants, older participants (juniors and seniors) versus younger participants (freshmen and sophomores), as well as Greek participants versus non-Greek participants. We also looked for whether or not each group had negative or positive perceptions of sorority women. The study also took into account any interactions between the groups studied may have with each other.We used a task that featured four pictures total (two depicting a woman affiliated with a Greek organization and two with a woman without affiliation) to show how participants judge women differently based on affiliation with sororities when circling adjectives to describe those women. We used trait scales to ask the participants directly about their views of sorority women. The trait scales compared responses given by Greek-affiliated participants and those not involved in the Greek system, as well as compare male responses to female responses and the responses of younger participants to those of older participants. We predicted that perceptions and attitudes pertaining to sorority women will be more negative if the participant expresses more negative stereotypes of sororities, is not a member of a fraternity or sorority, is male, and is older.


The participants were undergraduate students at Loyola University New Orleans who volunteered to take part in this study. We recruited 79 participants through convenience sampling. There were 19 male and 60 female, all above the age of 18, 13 of which were members of Greek organizations. Those participants recruited out of the Psychology Department Human Subject Pool participated for class credit. We recruited the rest of the participants by passing out the survey in classes with the permission of the professors.

The informed consent form was entitled “Perceptions of Women” with no reference to Greek Life whatsoever. It also listed the benefits and risks of the study. The task featured four pictures of the same scenario: three women talking on a bench with one woman standing behind the bench (she is the focus of the picture). Two different women—both of whom were Caucasian, were similar in height, and had blonde hair—posed for the pictures. Two pictures featured one of the women (who had her hair in pigtails) in two conditions. In one picture, she was in depicted as a member of a sorority. Having Greek letters on her shirt signified this affiliation. The second picture featured the woman in pigtails in the same pose, but without the letters. The other woman (who had her hair down) was also featured in two pictures. She also had one picture with Greek letters on my shirt, and the second one without the letters. Participants saw only two of the four pictures: either the woman in pigtails in the sorority condition and the woman with her hair down in the non-sorority condition, or they saw the woman with her hair down in the sorority condition and the woman in pigtails in the non-sorority condition. The pictures were put on paper accompanied by an adjective list for each picture. The adjective list was compiled both from students in the PSYCA301-001/A303-001 class, as well as from a website that listed the traits used in the Meyers Briggs personality test ( The adjectives chosen from these two sources were a balance of positive, negative, and neutral adjectives that each described the same trait (such as intelligent, know-it-all, and smart to describe intellect). The participants circled adjectives from the list describing the woman standing in each picture.The trait scales were broken down into two parts. The scale used was on a 1-5 scale with 1 being the negative trait and 5 being the positive trait. The first part of the trait scale asked to specifically rate traits, such as talkative and not talkative, with 1 being talkative and 5 being not talkative. Some traits were reverse scored, because they had the positive trait as 1 and the negative trait as 5. The second part of the trait scale asked how much the participant agreed or disagreed with a statement, such as “Most sorority girls are nice”, with 1 being strongly agree and 5 being strongly disagree. Some of the statements referred positive traits and some referred to negative traits. The ones that referred to negative traits were reverse scored, so that all the individual scales had 1 as the negative end and 5 as the positive end. The last part of the survey asked for the participant’s age, sex, class, major, and whether or not the participant is involved in Greek Life. The second to last question of the survey asked why or why not the participant is or is not part of Greek Life. The last question asked if the participants’ attitudes toward sorority women have changed since arriving at college and why. The participants filled everything out with either a pen or a pencil.

This study looked at the independent variable of affiliation with Greek letter organizations, and how such affiliation affects college students’ perceptions of sorority women. The study had a 2 x 2 mixed design. The independent variable was membership in a Greek letter organization, with the dependent variable being which adjectives the participants circled. All participants were shown two pictures of the four pictures mentioned above. Random distribution was used to determine which participates received which pair of pictures. The pictures were also counterbalanced to avoid order as a confounder. Negative perceptions are defined as choosing the adjectives or the extreme of a trait with negative connotations. The participants were greeted at a designated classroom and then seated. The participants received two copies of the informed consent, returning one to the researchers signed if they desired to take part in the survey. The instructions for the task and the trait scales were read. As this was a voluntary activity, the participants were told that they could leave the study at any time and that their data would not be used. After the instructions and the invitation to leave, the task, consisting of pictures of the two women with the adjective list, was passed out and completed by the participants. No matter which set of pictures the participants received, the same adjective list for each picture accompanied each of the two pictures. Upon finishing the task, the participants returned the pictures with the list to the researchers who then gave the participant the trait scales. All of the participants filled out the same trait scales. The participants had no time-constraints in which to complete any portion of the survey, although completing the picture part and the survey took no longer than 20-30 minutes. The participants were debriefed as they individually finished the trait scales, and the focus of the study, stereotypes and sorority women, was explained. It was at this time that the researchers dismissed the participants.

All statistical tests were run using SPSS. A scale was created to look at all the trait score scores recorded from each individual participant, which was used to find any significant differences there. This is referred to as the overall scale. Two other scales were created (section A and section B scales) for the subsets of the trait scale. Section A scale measured the scores that dealt with specific traits (i.e. talkative versus not talkative). Section B scale measure the scores of the statements (i.e. “Most sorority girls are nice”). For the survey trait scale, the Cronbach alpha was found to be .7108. There were 60 female and 19 male participants, making the total number of participants 79. Out of that 79, 13 were members of Greek organizations and 66 were not Greek. Sixteen participants were 18 years old, 30 participants were 19 years old, 14 participants were 20 years old, 14 participants were 21years old, two participants were 22 years old, and three participants were 23 years old. The participants were comprised of 21 freshmen, 25 sophomores, 15 juniors, and 18 seniors. Thirty-eight of the participants received pictures of the woman with pigtails portrayed as a sorority member and the woman with her hair down with no affiliation with a Greek organization . The other 41 participants received pictures of the woman with her hair down as a sorority member and the woman in pigtails without any affiliation with Greek Life whatsoeverTo test the hypotheses directly, an independent t-test was conducted looking at which sex circled more negative adjectives on the task section. Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of the positive and negative adjectives circled for the women in the pictures for both the sorority and non-sorority conditions. The means for all participants are reflected in the means for women and men. No significant difference was found in the positive adjectives for the sorority condition (ns). The negative adjectives in the sorority condition yielded similar results (ns). Positive adjectives chosen in the non-sorority condition also yielded no significant difference (ns). There was no significant difference in negative adjectives for the non-sorority condition, either(ns). There was also no significant difference found in the trait scale(ns). The mean of the scale scores for women was 3.173 with a standard deviation of .3497. For men, the mean of the scale scores was 3.083 with a standard deviation of .2889. This showed that both genders remained relatively neutral in the trait scale. Thus, there was no support of the hypothesis that men have more negative attitudes than women toward sorority members.Using a one-way ANOVA, there was no significant difference found between any individual age (18 to 23) in either the survey or the task. An independent samples t-test found no significant difference between men and women in the overall scale (t(77) = .314) or in the trait scale (t(77) = .508) or the task (t(77) = .188) alone with p = .001. The individual classes, on the other hand, did yield a significant difference between classes on the trait scale. A one-way ANOVA found a significant difference of F(3,75) = 2.956 with p = .038. A post-hoc test (Tukey HSD) revealed that there was a significant difference between sophomores and juniors, with a mean difference of -.3997 and p = .023. The juniors exhibited more negative attitudes toward sorority women on the trait scale than the sophomores. There was no other significant difference between upperclassmen (seniors and juniors) and underclassmen (sophomores and freshmen) as the hypotheses had predicted. Despite the lack of evidence found in the study, there was some support of the hypotheses when analyzing the Greek and non-Greek participants’ scores. A significant difference was found on the survey in testing the attitudes of Greek versus non-Greek participants. An independent samples t-test showed that Greeks had more positive perceptions of sorority women than non-Greeks on the trait scale (t(77) = 3.988, p < .001), following the predictions of the hypotheses.Tests had to be run on the task itself to determine its validity. There was a significant difference when looking at the individual women used in the pictures and how many negative adjectives were circled for each woman (t(77) = 2.425, p = .018). Table 2 shows the difference in the means of the positive and negative adjectives circled for the woman with pigtails and the woman with her hair down. A follow up ANOVA was used to look at the significant difference more closely. The test found that there was no significant difference in the number of negative adjectives chosen for the woman in pigtails when she was depicted as a sorority member versus when she was depicted without any Greek affiliation (F(1,37) = 2.646, p = .112). There was, however, a significant difference between positive adjectives for the woman in pigtails when she was in each condition, sorority and non-sorority, with F(1, 37) = 4.933 and p = .033. Participants circled more negative adjectives for the woman with her hair down than for the woman in pigtails, regardless of whether the woman with her hair down was featured in the sorority or non-sorority condition. When in the non-sorority condition, though, there was a significant difference in the woman with her hair down and negative adjectives (F(1,40) = 17.544, p < .001). Participants circled more negative adjectives when the woman with her hair down was affiliated with a Greek organization.

This study looked at stereotypes of sorority women and who (in the population studied) holds the most negative ones. The survey section supported one aspect of the hypotheses: that non-Greeks held more negative attitudes than Greeks. This was found despite low power; there were only 13 Greek participants. Ryan and Bogart’s 1997 and 2001 studies found similar results in that as people became members of a group, they ceased to use stereotypes to describe their group. These results were also consistent with the Ellemers, Van Rijswijk, Roefs, and Simons study that found that members of groups that are described negatively tend to have more positive attitudes toward their groups (1997). Here, the members of Greek organizations showed much more positive attitudes than non-Greeks, who tended to be neutral on the subject. The task did not yield the same results, and, in fact, showed that there was no difference in which adjectives Greeks chose versus the adjectives non-Greeks chose. The other hypotheses, however, were completely unsupported. Age and sex had no effect on whether the participants chose negative or positive stereotypes on the task, nor whether the participants chose more or less negative characteristics on the survey. Looking at the Noel, Branscombe, and Wann study that found that new in-group members expressed more negative views toward out-groups, we had expected some difference between the younger participants, who were newer members in the Loyola community, and the older participants (1995).The study did find one thing not related to the hypotheses that was not anticipated. There was a difference found between sophomores and juniors in their attitudes towards sorority women. This has nothing to do with age, though, as the results for that variable showed no significant difference. The hypothesis stated that the difference would occur between older students (upperclassmen: juniors and seniors) and younger students (underclassmen: freshmen and sophomores), not sophomores and juniors. This kind of result has not been found in any known studies, as similar studies, such as the 1992 Mullen, Dovidio, Johnson, and Copper study, which looked at freshmen and upperclassmen, but did not look at the class of the participants. The result was somewhat similar to the results of the previous study, as there was no difference between freshmen and upperclassmen in out-group perceptions in that study either (1992).

The big problem for the study was that there simply were not enough male participants. With only 19 males to compare to 60 females, the study could not look at an adequate sample of males and their attitudes. There was certainly not enough male participants in Greek organizations either. Any future studies on the subject need to have a more representative sample, focusing on equal numbers of males and females, as well as Greeks and non-Greek among the male participants.Another problem was found in the task itself. The participants disliked one of the women featured in the pictures more than the other, which was reflected in the results. The woman with her hair down got more negative adjectives regardless of whether she was in the sorority condition or not. If the appeal of the women to the participants had been more neutral, the results of the task might have been more conclusive. To avoid this problem in the future, researchers should do a pilot test of the task to eliminate any women used in the task that participants may have a bias toward.

One hypothesis was partially supported by the study. This showed that there is some effect of the Greek versus non-Greek variable on people’s stereotypes of sorority women, which is consistent with the in-group—out-group bias discussed in previous research (Ryan & Bogart, 2001). The fact that a significant difference was found with such a small sample of Greek participants shows that membership in the group had a big impact on participants’ use of stereotype. The lack of support for the other hypotheses also suggests that sex and age have little effect on people’s use of stereotypes in this case. Since there was such a drastic result with the small sample of Greek participants, the lack of results from the small sample of male participants suggests that there was probably not as strong of an impact on the participants’ use of stereotypes. That being said, this does not mean that sex has no effect on stereotypes, but that if there is an effect, it is most likely not as strong as the effect of Greek membership. Other studies may want to look at the usage of stereotypes based on different Greek systems, such as a small school’s system (Loyola) against a large school’s system (Louisiana State University). LSU students have been exposed to a bigger Greek system with more organizations. By looking at different Greek systems, the study could see if more variance in the Greek system makes any difference in the in-group—out-group bias that this study found.Sorority women will probably never get away from the negative attitudes that some have about their organizations, just as ethnic minorities will probably always be subject to racism in some way. People tend to assume that because they do not belong to a certain group, that particular group has completely different interests and ideas. Then, people tend to assume that members of that particular group all think and act in that same way. Stereotypes provide an easy way to group those members together as one faceless group that has no individuality or variance among its members. Just because stereotypes exist does not mean that it is all right to use them negatively, if at all. In having this in-group—out-group bias, people tend to make generalizations about those who are not in their in-group because of a negative stereotype. Understanding the factors that contribute to the in-group—out-group dynamics and the stereotype usage associated with those dynamics provides the opportunity to avoid having negative perceptions of a group and using negative stereotypes without having accurate information the group. Hopefully, this study has shed some light on people’s use of stereotypes that will make others reconsider stereotypes before they label a group.

Ellemers, N., Van Rijswijk, W., Roefs, M. & Simons, C. (1997). Bias in Intergroup Perceptions: Balancing Group Identity with Social Reality. Annual Reviews: Psychology Online, 53, 161-168.Kashubeck, S., Marchand-Martella, N., Neal, C., and Larson, C. (1997). Sorority Membership, Campus Pressures, and Bulimic Symptomatology on College Women: A Preliminary Investigation. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 40-48.Meyers-Briggs Traits Inventory. (n.d.) Retrieved on October 7,2002, from, B., Dovidio, J.F., Johnson, C. & Copper, C. (1992). In-group—Out-group Differences in Social Projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 422.Noel, J.G., Branscombe, N.R., & Wann, D.L. (1995). Peripheral Ingroup Membership Status and Public Negativity Toward Outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 127.Ryan, C.S., & Bogart, L.M. (1997). Development of New Group Members’ In-group and Out-group Stereotypes: Changes in Perceived Variability and Ethnocentrism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 719-732.Ryan, C.S., & Bogart, L.M. (2001). Longitudinal Changes in the Accuracy of New Group Members’ In-group and Out-Group Stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 118-133.Scott, William A. (1965). Values and Organizations: A Study of Fraternities and Sororities. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.Shonrock, M. D. (1998). Standards and Expectations for Greek Letter Organizations. New Directions for Student Services, 81, 79-85.Whipple, E.G., & Sullivan, E.G. (1998). Greek Letter Organizations: Communities of Learners? New Directions for Student Services, 81, 7-18.



 Mean of Adjectives Circled for Women in Task Pictures


Sorority Non-Sorority ___________________ ______________________Type of Adjectives Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation____________________________________________________________________________

All ParticipantsPositive 5.924 3.234 5.658 3.467Negative 2.380 3.520 1.810 2.797____________________________________________________________________________

Female ParticipantsPositive 6.200 3.139 5.900 3.251Negative 2.400 3.600 1.783 2.888____________________________________________________________________________

Male ParticipantsPositive 5.053 3.456 4.89 4.081Negative 2.316 3.351 1.895 2.558


 Mean of Adjectives Circled for Each Woman in Task Pictures


Sorority Non-Sorority ___________________ ______________________Type of Adjectives Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation____________________________________________________________________________

Woman in PigtailsPositive 6.21 3.51 5.03 3.15Negative 1.66 2.94 2.58 3.22____________________________________________________________________________

Woman With Her Hair DownPositive 5.65 2.97 6.24 3.68Negative 3.05 3.90 1.10 2.14


Appendix A could not be added to the manuscript, as it included pictures that could not be downloaded. These were the pictures of the women used in the task and included this adjective list:

Snobby Innocent Excited Confident Cheerful AssertiveInterfering Organized Tactful Studious Sociable Rich Inquisitive Adaptive Nosy Worldly Studious SelectiveFake Spirited Well Informed Ditzy Energetic UniqueBright Annoying Spontaneous Naïve Fanatic RudeEnthusiastic Slutty Clique-ish Feisty Talkative InvolvedAggressive Know-it-all Individualistic Concerned ExclusiveLoaded Considerate Well-off Self-absorbed ObnoxiousOver-enthusiastic Methodical Smart Opinionated IntrusiveAnal Retentive Shallow Gossips Friendly DeceitfulSelf-centered Unpredictable Outgoing Flighty Bookish

Survey (Consisting of Parts A, B, & C)A. In the following list of descriptions, please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, according to where you think that the subject of the sentence ranks. Sorority girls are: not talkative talkative 1 2 3 4 5 shy not shy 1 2 3 4 5 easygoing not easygoing 1 2 3 4 5 not smart smart 1 2 3 4 5 personable not personable 1 2 3 4 5 gossips not gossips 1 2 3 4 5cheerful not cheerful 1 2 3 4 5party goers not party goers 1 2 3 4 5 feminine not feminine 1 2 3 4 5

sincere not sincere 1 2 3 4 5 tactful not tactful 1 2 3 4 5 pretty not pretty 1 2 3 4 5 soft-spoken not soft spoken 1 2 3 4 5 childlike not childlike 1 2 3 4 5 thin not thin 1 2 3 4 5 jealous not jealous 1 2 3 4 5 sympathetic not sympathetic 1 2 3 4 5 leader follower 1 2 3 4 5 considerate not considerate 1 2 3 4 5

B. In this part, please choose 1 for strongly agree to 5 for strongly disagree in accordance to your beliefs.

1. Most sorority girls are nice. 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly agree) (strongly disagree)2. Most sorority girls care about their sisters. 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly agree) (strongly disagree)3. Most sorority girls are compassionate. 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly agree) (strongly disagree)4. Most sorority girls wouldn’t say anything bad about one of their sisters. 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly agree) (strongly disagree)5. Most sorority girls are easily flattered. 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly agree) (strongly disagree)6. Most sorority girls are warm. 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly agree) (strongly disagree)7. Most sorority girls are approachable. 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly agree) (strongly disagree)

8. Most sorority girls are likable. 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly agree) (strongly disagree)9. Most sorority girls are very image oriented. 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly agree) (strongly disagree)10. Most sorority girls are conceited. 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly agree) (strongly disagree)11. I would hang out with most of the sorority girls on campus. 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly agree) (strongly disagree)12. Most sorority girls are attractive. 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly agree) (strongly disagree)13. Most sorority girls are smart. 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly agree) (strongly disagree)14. Most sorority girls like to party. 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly agree) (strongly disagree)15. Most sorority girls are studious. 1 2 3 4 5 (strongly agree) (strongly disagree)C. Please fill in the following information.1. Gender (circle one): M F2. Age: _____3. Year (circle one): FR SO JR SR4. Major: ________________5. Are you (or have you ever been) in a sorority/fraternity? _________________6. Why or why not? (If you have been in a sorority/fraternity please indicate why you left.)

7. Have your attitudes pertaining to sorority girls changed since you arrived at college, and if so, how?

Submitted 12/12/2002 10:54:06 AM
Last Edited 12/12/2002 11:17:44 AM
Converted to New Site 03/09/2009

Rated by 0 users. Users who logon can rate manuscripts and write reviews.

© 2017 National Undergraduate Research Clearinghouse. All rights reserved. The National Undergraduate Research Clearinghouse is not responsible for the content posted on this site. If you discover material that violates copyright law, please notify the administrator. This site receives money through the Google AdSense program when users are directed to useful commercial sites. We do not encourage or condone clicking on the displayed ads unless you have a legitimate interest in the advertisement.