The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2 - 14

Karen Erlandson

told they were required to complete the study with their roommate, and interested sets of roommates signed up for a time to report together. Roommate pairs reported to an office in the Communication Studies Department where they were given instructions and signed an informed consent. Once consent was obtained, the roommate pairs were separated into different classrooms to complete the survey measures in order to ensure that they would answer questions regarding satisfaction with their roommate honestly.

Roommate satisfaction was measured by asking the participants to rank their satisfaction with their roommate on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest. Roommates were also asked a series of demographic questions such as how long they have known and how long they have lived with their current roommate. See Appendix B for the complete demographic survey.

RESULTS
The roommate dyads had lived with each other for 1 to 48 months, with an average of 14.8 months (SD = 11.56). They had known each other for 1 to 96 months with an average of 34.64 months (SD = 18.03). The mean scores for satisfaction were 8.6 (SD = 1.4). Roommates who had chosen to live together were more satisfied with their roommates than those who had been assigned to live together (F(1,100) = 12.65, p < .01).2 This is consistent with previous research that found that roommates who chose each other liked each other more than those who did not (Heckert et al., 1999). The similarity of needs for inclusion, openness, and control was measured by using a median split to classify roommate pairs into one of three categories: both roommates high on a given dimension, both roommates low, and roommates different (one high, one low) for each measured item. Each of these was then used in a one-way analysis of variance as

Measures
Interpersonal needs were measured using Schutz’s FIRO elements of desired inclusion, openness, and control (1992). The scale consisted of 30 questions (see Appendix A), 10 relating to each dimension. Items were ranked on a 5-point scale with 1 being never and 5 being always. Examples from the inclusion scale included statements such as “I try to belong to or join social groups” and “I want other people to include me in their activities.” Items from the openness scale included statements such as “I make an effort to get close to people” and “I enjoy it when people share their feelings with me.” Items from the control scale included statements such as “I try to be the leader in groups” and “I try to exert control and influence over things.” All three scales had acceptable alpha levels: inclusion a = .83, openness a = .86, and control, a = .82.1

When assessing the validity of coded observations, the most common method is calculating the percentage of agreement between two independent coders who are blind to the hypotheses or research questions. This is called intercoder reliability and is most often measured using Cronbach’s alpha. Any alpha (a) above .70 is typically considered acceptable. For a complete review of this method, see Cronbach (1951).

2 Analysis of Variance is a statistical procedure used to test differences among three or more groups. The calculated value that results from an ANOVA is the F value. The F value is considered significant (meaning there is a significant difference between the groups on the variable measured) when it is below .05. For a complete review of this procedure, see Frey, Botan, & Kreps (2000).

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITy STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 36, No. 2