KIN 442
EUI Project
Greek Life Group Analysis
Mary Beth Versaci, Jennifer Howe, Taylor Molitor
Background
The goal of our research project was to examine Greek system stereotypes based on
houses and the tier system, where these stereotypes come from, and how they affect the way
members of the Greek system perceive themselves and others. Stereotypes are evident
everywhere on our campus, and they affect the way we see and treat others and even the way
we see and treat ourselves. We chose to focus on the Greek system because as the largest
Greek system in the nation, it makes up a large portion of our specific campus. The Greek
system here is divided into three tiers: top, middle and bottom. The top tier consists of three
male and three female houses. The middle tier is actually the largest tier, both in terms of
number of houses and members. The system also includes a third tier, but we did not focus on
that for our project. Tier and house stereotypes can influence how a house is ranked and
whether that house retains that ranking. This may also be due to tradition. This idea of “ranks” is
troublesome on its own but even more so if the ranking system is based more on stereotypes
than on actual recruitment data. Through our research, we hoped to explore both the roots of
these stereotypes, as well as the many ways they branch off and affect various parts of sorority
and fraternity members’ lives.
Research Questions
Our main research question asked: How do stereotypes affect self-identity and
perceptions of others across Greek affiliations? Our other research questions included: When
Greek-affiliated students think of certain “tiers” of the Greek system, what do they initially think
of the people who are involved with the houses within those tiers? Do members of the Greek
1
KIN 442
EUI Project
system think they fall into the stereotypes of the specific house or tier they belong to? In what
ways do they think they conform/differ from these stereotypes? What are the main components
of the stereotypes? Do they include consumer culture, i.e. wearing certain brands, throwing
certain types of parties, in some way? How true do they think the stereotypes associated with
certain houses or tiers of the Greek system are? What are the major factors that affect the way
members of the Greek system perceive themselves? How do they believe others perceive them
based on their appearance and Greek affiliation?
Hypothesis
We believed that stereotypes would have a significant effect on self-identity and
perceptions of others across Greek affiliations. Specifically, we believed that someone’s top tier
status would have a greater influence on his/her self-identity than a person’s middle tier status
would have on his/her self-identity. Overall, we thought people from both the top and middle
tiers would use stereotypes to judge people from the opposite tier.
Significant Findings
We found that stereotypes based on house and tier do have some effect on Greekaffiliated students’ perceptions of themselves and others. However, these stereotypes do not
have as much of an influence as we had hypothesized. While Greek affiliations do make up
part of students’ identities, they do not make up their entire identities or their entire views of
others. According to our interviews, students listed many other factors as having more influence
over the way they view themselves than their Greek affiliations, including their individual values
and morals. Survey data also showed that many students (78% of the upper tier and 80% of
the middle tier respondents) only believe these stereotypes to be “somewhat true,” thus implying
that they do not hold these stereotypes to be completely strict and reliable ways by which they
2
KIN 442
EUI Project
can measure and evaluate others. However, although the people who participated in the
surveys and interviews addressed the imperfect nature of the stereotypes, they still
acknowledged that they judge others according to them and feel judged in return. In addition,
Greek members said they actually feel more judged by those outside of the Greek system than
those within it because those who are Greek generally have a more well-rounded view of the
stereotypes and their validity.
We also found in our interviews and surveys that the stereotypes are well-known, and
interviews also indicated that they are passed down year-to-year based on what people observe
and say. In a similar way, the tier system is based on history and tradition (which may include
stereotypes) and not necessarily entirely on recruitment data. According to recruitment data,
the top three sororities generally have the most members, but the house ranked in fourth is
consistently somewhere among the recruitment levels of those in the top tier. In fall 2009, that
house actually had more members: 190 to the top three houses’ 184, 189 and 186. Some
years, other houses also met the top three houses in terms of recruitment. Fraternities were
similar in that the fourth house actually had more members in general than all three top houses
every year from fall 2007 to spring 2011 (except two years when they had less or tied). Other
houses sometimes had more members than those in the top tier. This brings up an interesting
question of balance of power within the Greek system, whether power comes from having the
most members or being the most selective in order to maintain a small elite. This idea of a
small elite might contribute to the top tier’s having more pride in their affiliation, as well as
stereotypes of arrogance associated with that tier. Similarly, it might contribute to a middle tier
stereotype of being “average” since there are more people within that tier.
Discussion
3
KIN 442
EUI Project
Stereotypes are deeply-embedded in Greek life at the University of Illinois. The
stereotypes of each of the social tiers are well-known by the vast majority of members of the
Greek system. The hierarchical system of Greek life at this University shows many similarities
to socioeconomic class systems of general American society, with the top minority group
promoting their status, while the large middle group is seen as average. The stereotypes are
ingrained in the overall system, and members of this system are aware of them and have
accepted them as a potential way of identifying themselves and others in the Greek system.
Figure 1: Members per House in Top and Middle Tiers
Top Tier
Houses
Fall
2007
Fall
2008
Spring
2009
Fall
2009
Spring
2010
Fall
2010
Spring
2011
Female House
1:
181
181
179
184
184
184
181
Female House
2:
190
185
185
189
186
176
173
Female House
3:
186
189
187
186
180
186
180
Male House 1:
145
156
155
153
156
155
159
Male House 2:
135
153
145
125
127
124
134
Male House 3:
125
122
114
114
110
127
119
Female House
4
177
186
186
190
178
180
175
Female House
5
163
176
175
178
168
169
160
Female House
6
180
185
177
161
162
178
171
Female House
175
173
166
166
160
175
166
Middle Tier
Houses
4
KIN 442
EUI Project
7
Female House
8
178
176
177
179
174
174
172
Female House
9
180
189
188
181
177
165
160
Female House
10
181
173
167
161
156
173
172
Female House
11
167
161
145
164
159
166
151
Male House 4:
171
153
167
172
175
158
155
Male house 5:
98
101
102
99
93
93
92
Male house 6:
61
66
62
75
77
80
80
Male House 7:
148
151
151
157
156
168
177
male house 8:
99
106
116
113
115
126
126
Male House 9:
125
122
121
125
129
148
149
Male House
10:
129
134
130
92
99
107
112
Male House
11:
80
66
59
59
51
52
58
Male House
12:
85
73
75
75
67
51
82
Figure 2: Percentages of Members per Tier within the Greek Population
Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Total number
of Females
3374
3539
3501
3462
3462
3456
3368
Total Female Top Tier
557
555
551
559
550
546
534
Total Female Middle Tier
1401
1419
1381
1380
1334
1380
1327
Percentage of Top Tier
Females in population
16.50%
15.70%
15.70%
16.10%
15.90%
15.80%
15.90%
5
KIN 442
EUI Project
Percentage of Middle Tier
Females in population
41.50%
40.10%
39.40%
39.90%
38.50%
39.90%
39.40%
Total number of Male
Greek Members
3320
3347
3325
3300
3300
3255
3301
Total Number of
Male Top Tier
405
431
414
392
393
406
412
Total Number of Male
Middle Tier
996
972
983
967
962
983
1031
Percentage of Top Tier
Males in population
12.20%
12.90%
12.50%
11.90%
11.90%
12.47%
12.48%
Percentage of Middle Tier
Males in Population
30%
29.04%
29.60%
29.30%
29.15%
30.10%
31.23%
Total Number of Greek
Members (male and female)
6694
6886
6826
6762
6762
6711
6669
Total Percentage of Top Tier
Individuals in population
14.40%
14.30%
14.14%
14.10%
13.95%
14.18%
14.19%
Total Number of Middle Tier
Individuals in Population
35.80%
34.72%
34.63%
34.71%
34%
35.21%
35.35%
Figure 3: Panhellenic Female Potential New Members (PNM) statistic data
Panhellenic
Recruitment Statistics
Number of
Registered PNMS
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010 Average
1387
1201
1346
1228
1291
1225
# Receiving 1st Choice
849
726
822
755
746
721
# Receiving 2nd Choice
144
128
104
119
129
138
Number of
Receiving Their Choice
6
KIN 442
EUI Project
# Receiving 3rd Choice
40
34
20
13
33
33
Total # Withdrew
315
268
357
335
360
296
Total # released by all chapters
35
34
0
1
2
12
The numbers above are from the Office of the Dean of Students through the Panhellenic
Council. The Panhellenic Council maintains information regarding membership numbers and
other data for the sororities, and the Interfraternity Council does the same for fraternities on
campus. The recruitment data helps to indicate where houses actually stand within the tier
system, if it were based entirely on the number of members each house has.
The above statistics show how many people are in each house and what percentage each
tier constitutes of the entire Greek system. Figure 1 shows how many people are members in
each chapter of the six top tier houses and the seventeen middle tier houses on campus from
the Fall Rush of 2007 to the Spring Rush of 2011. Within this table, it can be seen that the top
tier houses for both men and women usually have the highest amount of members (ranging
from 150 to 200) throughout each of the seven rushes. The middle tiers seem to have lower
numbers that steadily increase throughout the years, and some houses actually fall into the
same size range as the top tier houses for a few or more years.
Figure 2 represents the percentages of each tier within the Greek system. Looking at the
numbers, the top tier represents a relatively small portion of the entire Greek system. This may
be due to the fact that there are only 150-200 people in each house and there are only six
houses that are considered to be in the top tier. Also, the middle tier has a greater majority due
to the fact that there is an increasing number of people joining the 17 middle tier houses.
Another important factor is that there is not a definite line between the middle and bottom tiers
like there is between the top and middle tiers. This variable allows for there to be overflow of
7
KIN 442
EUI Project
individuals into the middle tier, which will increase the general percentage across the
population.
The third and final figure is a chart showing how many girls actually participate in rush
each year. The average is around 900 girls (1200 girls originally with about 300 dropping out
during the process), which would mean that if the girls were divided equally between the 24
Panhellenic houses, each house would have about 37 girls, which means that most houses
would be close to meeting the ideal number of girls they would like, or the “quota,” but this even
division rarely happens. As it can be seen, the top tier houses have, on average, 40-50 girls per
pledge class, which means that there are some bottom tier classes with only 20 members at
times.
Survey data taken from the top tier women and the middle tier men and women show
that one’s tier affects the member’s identity, specifically in terms of stereotypes. The data
shows that each tier in the Greek system has their own set of stereotypes and the houses that
are found to be in those tiers also are perceived to have this stereotype. There are several
examples in the survey data that show what these specific stereotypes are and how they affect
the members of the Greek system.
According to the surveys, all respondents (100%) were aware of the stereotypes
associated with their house and tier, and all but one person was aware of the stereotypes
associated with houses and tiers other than their own. This shows that the stereotypes of the
houses are well-known by members of both tiers and are ingrained in the Greek system itself.
The survey data provided the specific characteristics associated with each tier. For the
middle tier survey data, the surveyors indicated which of the characteristics come to mind when
thinking about the upper tier. The majority of surveyors (92%) chose snobby, while 83% chose
stuck-up, 75% chose popular, 58% chose hot, 58% chose materialistic and 50% chose rich. The
least chosen characteristics (0%) include smart, motivated, hard-working, nerdy, down-to-earth,
8
KIN 442
EUI Project
unattractive and uncool. These results show specific stereotypes associated with the top tier in
the Greek system because the same few characteristics were chosen over others. This means
that people are not going off of personal experience but instead the common stereotypes they
are aware of. Distinct stereotypes emerged when the upper tier was asked about the middle tier
as well. When asked about the characteristics that come to mind when hearing “second tier” or
“middle tier” groups, most people chose average (74%), 70% chose nice, 46% chose cool and
41% chose down-to-earth. The least chosen characteristics included materialistic (4%), snobby
(6%), rich (7%), stuck-up (7%), popular (9%) and hot (9%). These results are very interesting
because it shows that the stereotypes of the middle tier group are words that characterize the
members of this tier as average or normal, as opposed to the upper tier stereotypes that
included more arrogant characteristics. The difference in the minority top tier stereotypes and
the majority or middle tier stereotypes is comparable to a class system of society such as the
one in the United States. Middle class citizens, being the majority, are seen as average or
normal people living at regular means while the select upper class people are stereotypically
viewed as proud, uncaring and haughty. These stereotypes are mirrored in the words chosen to
describe each of the tiers.
As in the class system, the smaller upper class seems to be very proud of their affiliation
and embrace the idea of it being selective. This can be seen when comparing how often these
groups wear their Greek letters out in public. Most of these middle tier surveyors (47%)
indicated that they wear their Greek letters 3-4 days of the week. None of the surveyors
responded 5-6 or 7 days. Most of the upper tier survey responders stated that they wore their
Greek letters 5-6 days per week on average (31%). Several reasons emerge regarding why the
upper tier responders wear their Greek letters more often in public. One explanation is they are
prouder to promote their affiliation and have more of a collection of clothing with their letters on
it because of their pride in their organization. Middle tier participants wear their letters 3-4 days
9
KIN 442
EUI Project
on average, meaning that they are still promoting their organization but not to the same
extreme.
Another interesting finding is that most of the surveyors, from both the upper tier and
middle tier, stated that the stereotypes associated with their Greek house were “somewhat true”
(78% for upper tier and 80% for middle tier). This leads to the question of whether men and
women join Greek houses because they fit the stereotype of the house or whether they change
as people as a result of joining the house. It also demonstrates that while the stereotypes are
true for many members of the tier group, it certainly does not apply to all of them. The data state
that the stereotypes are widely acknowledged and that many of the participants feel they are
moderately true for their identity and their Greek house.
Most of the middle tier surveyors selected the “neutral” answer choice when asked if
their Greek house affiliation influences the types of clothes they wear (27%) and the amount of
time they put into their appearance (40%). The upper tier Greeks seemed to deny that their
house affiliation affects their appearance in the next few questions. Forty-nine percent
disagreed that their house influences the types of clothes they wear, and 36% disagreed that
their house affects the time and effort put into appearance. This data implies that many Greeks
do not change the way they dress because of their choice to join a Greek organization.
However, this may be an example of Goffman’s distinction of virtual and actual social identities.
The virtual self is defined as a change in one’s identity based on the given social context or
circumstances. The actual social identity is the real social, cultural and physical attributes of the
person. This concept states that people mold how they view themselves to fit the normal
requirements of the situation they are in. The participants of this survey may have stated that
their actual self did not change because of their choice to be Greek, but their virtual selves may
have shifted due to the stereotypes that they encounter with being Greek. They conform to them
due to the need of the virtual self to change because of a situation or social context.
10
KIN 442
EUI Project
The survey data shows how stereotypes affect how others view one person based on
their Greek affiliation. Most middle tier surveyors (40%) stated that they slightly agreed that
other people judged them according to their house and 33% strongly agreed. They also stated
that they judge others based on their house (47%), but only 7% strongly agreed. When asked if
their house affiliation affects their identity, 40% stated slightly agree. This was the most chosen
answer. Similar trends were seen for the upper tier participants. Most top tier surveyors
“agreed” (55%) and “strongly agreed” (22%) that they are judged by others according to their
affiliation. Like the last group of surveyors, the majority of this group agreed that they judge
others according to their houses too (33%). Lastly, the majority of surveyors stated that their
house affiliation has some affect on how they view and identify themselves (29%). Most
surveyors in both survey groups “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they are judged by others
according to their house affiliation.
Most people in both groups stated that other people also judge them on the same
principle. This shows that those involved in the Greek system are aware of the stereotypes and
realize that they are being judged by others because of it. The majority of the participants also
state that they use the stereotypes set in place in the system to judge other fellow Greeks. Most
of the participants actively understand that they are participating in judgment based on
stereotypes alone. Most of the participants also realize that their Greek life is having some
impact on their self-identity. The data demonstrates that stereotypes affect all of the Greek
social tiers. The different tiers each have their own specific set of stereotypes, and these
perceived characteristics have been shown to change how one perceives him or herself.
These stereotypes lead individuals to judge other members of the system, and individuals also
are aware of judgment towards themselves based on their house or tier. However, most of the
participants feel that their personal house stereotypes are somewhat true and that they have
some sort of effect on how they view themselves.
11
KIN 442
EUI Project
When looking at that social aspect of the data, it can be seen that the stereotypes do
seem to exist, but the question arises if people have stopped to contradict this social norm. The
stereotypes of the houses and the fact that there is a tier system is based upon a hegemony. A
hegemony is the social, cultural, or even ideological influence exerted by a dominant group.
When applying this to the topic at hand, the dominant group would be the top tier pushing their
socially derived “power” upon the other tiers in the system. This hegemony can be explained by
Foucault’s “buying in” theory. The system of “tiers” and social hierarchy has been in place for so
long, that no one seems to stand up against the norm and individuals just seem to believe that it
is true (class notes).
Interviews with one female and one male from the middle tier support the conclusion that
stereotypes within the Greek system are well-known. Both interviewees were able to name
stereotypes associated with their own houses, such as being a sorority that cares about their
grades but still likes to have fun and being a fraternity that is non-hazing and mostly made up of
tall, athletic, Caucasian males. They also both said they thought most members of the Greek
system knew about the stereotypes. The interviewees spoke about the origins of stereotypes.
The female from the second tier (referred to as “T2F” starting here) said that the stereotypes are
based on evidence. There is evidence that a certain house always has the highest grade point
average because those numbers are published. And if people see members of a certain house
going out a lot, they are going to base a stereotype on that pattern. The male from the second
tier (“T2M”) spoke about the Greek system as a “self-fulfilling and self-policed community.” He
said that members of the Greek system reinforce stereotypes and values based on status within
the tier system through things such as online message boards that gossip about Greek life and
just through regular talk. He said freshmen and others who are rushing hear stories about
houses, sometimes even from other houses, and self-select where they rush based on that.
However, T2M also reinforced the idea that stereotypes can be based on evidence. For
12
KIN 442
EUI Project
example, he said that when you’re rushing and “you observe a culture that’s similar to you,
you’re going to want to go there.” Therefore, people might actually observe a pattern and since
that pattern is similar to their own behavior or values, they will want to join that house, thus
carrying on the behavior to match the house’s stereotypes. In this way too, the Greek system is
a “self-fulfilling and self-policed community.”
However, despite the widespread knowledge of these stereotypes and their origin based
in evidence (at least to a certain degree), both interviewees from the middle tier acknowledged
that the stereotypes do not apply to every person. When T2F spoke about herself, she said
there are some stereotypes she matches. She also brought up how there are times when she
might match up with one stereotypes but other times when she will not. Similarly, she also
acknowledged that even when someone might observe a pattern associated with a house, it
does not mean that “they’re all like that.” She said it is hard not to initially judge people based
on what she has heard about them or their house. But she said if she gets to know someone
better, that’s how she will judge the other person, not based on the stereotypes she has heard.
For example, she got to know another student from a top tier sorority through class, and now
they are very good friends. The two of them also studied abroad together. T2F brought up how
studying abroad was helpful in getting to know this other student better because they were able
to get away from campus and the Greek scene to a place where Greek stereotypes do not
matter. T2M also said that “until you know someone really well…the only way you can really
make judgments on people is their affiliations.” He gave an example of going out with members
of his fraternity and almost getting into a fight with another fraternity. T2M had gone to high
school with a member of the other fraternity, and that student actually addressed how the
stereotype associated with his fraternity is that they are jerks. He outright told T2M, however,
that not all members are like that. Both T2F and T2M also felt that people within the Greek
system actually have a more well-rounded view of each other than those outside of it. They
13
KIN 442
EUI Project
said people within the system are less likely to completely believe a stereotype. They feel more
judged by those outside of the system than by members of other houses.
Although their Greek affiliations did affect their self-identity to a certain degree, neither
T2F nor T2M cited their Greek affiliation as the most important factor they consider in the way
they view themselves and judge others. T2F talked about how her family and morals are the
most important factors in the way she views herself. She ranked her affiliations, such as her
sorority, as coming after these things, as well as after her friends. She also cited a person’s
morals as one of the main ways she judges him or her. T2M said he took pride in being an
“enigma.” He said he has a lot of different interests, but his values, such as the power of the
individual, self-reliance and self-improvement, influence a lot of the way he views himself. He
said, however, that these values are actually right on track with his house, which emphasizes
the same types of values in all its members (which is one of the reasons he was attracted to this
house in the first place). He also said that in general, people are usually surprised to discover
he is in a fraternity. He was not sure whether this is because he is just all over the place
socially or if he simply does not fit people’s ideas of what a person in a fraternity is supposed to
look like. This relates to the concept of “self-idea.” A person’s self-idea develops in three
phases: in relation to how we imagine we appear to others, in relation to how we imagine
others judge our appearance, and through the self-feeling produced by our imagination of these
judgments. Because people are usually surprised to learn he is in a fraternity, T2M’s self-idea is
affected. He views himself as an “enigma” and prides himself on that. This concept also relates
to T2F and how she views herself. She said that she usually tries to look presentable by
dressing nice and taking the time to wash her face and fix her hair before she goes to class or
work. Because she believes this gives other people, including professors and bosses, the
impression that she is prepared and cares enough to take care of herself, she continues to take
the time to do so.
14
KIN 442
EUI Project
Both T2F and T2M did not seem to think the tier system was entirely accurate when it
came to their houses. T2F said that statistically, her house is a top rushing house, but because
of tradition and history, those specific three sororities are always regarded as the top tier
houses. She said she is not entirely sure what a “top tier house means,” but it has always been
like that. T2M also said that the members of his fraternity tend to think of their house as set
apart from the rest of the Greek system, and they pride themselves on that. Although their
social calendar is comparable to the fraternities traditionally thought of as “top tier,” they do not
haze, which is also thought of as part of the top tier culture.
T2M discussed how social calendars are factored into a house’s standing within the
Greek system. Traditionally, houses with better social calendars are considered to have a
higher standing within the system. In this way, T2M’s fraternity is on the same level as the top
tier houses. Social calendars play this role because certain houses are considered to be more
“popular” than others, and there is a greater desire from the rest of the Greek system to hold
social events with them. These houses are therefore able to take an elite stance and be
selective in who they hold events with. The top tier’s pride in being selective and elite allows
that tier to have social power and influence within the Greek system. The top tier also is able to
be selective when it comes to recruitment. T2M said that the people who typically are interested
in being a part of the Greek system are also typically interested in status. Most people’s high
schools are small enough for students to recognize one or two popular groups. At a big
university, however, that’s a lot harder to identify when it comes to individual people and smaller
groups of individuals. So instead of looking at individuals, T2M said people go to organizations.
Therefore, if people who are looking to join the Greek system are also those interested in having
some sort of status on campus, it is natural for them to look to the houses with the highest
statuses within the Greek system so that they, too, can enjoy the highest social status possible.
Being in a top tier house gives social value to those individuals. This desire for status and
15
KIN 442
EUI Project
social value from those rushing allows for more selectivity from the top tier sororities and
fraternities.
Future Plans
There are several ways in which we would go about conducting further research into this
topic. In terms of fieldwork, we could go back and search for more archival information or
update our existing information. We could send out more surveys and receive more responses.
This could be done either with the same survey as previously used or with an updated survey
featuring questions not included on the first one. One way of making sure the surveys are
achieving the correct data is to be a little more specific in each of the questions. A few of the
questions on the original survey did not ask if the surveyor felt that other Greeks judged them
specifically; it just asked if others judge them. This means that the answers they provided may
not be as specific as we would like in order to pull information from our raw data. Another way
of furthering our research would be to perform follow-up interviews with the same interviewees
as before. We could ask them additional questions concerning the research topic. With more
time we would also be able to interview several more people in order to have more opinions
about Greek life. Incorporating observations into the research methods would also be
beneficial. We could attend a Greek-sponsored event and observe the ways people dressed,
behaved and interacted with one another across Greek organizations. This would allow for
some very interesting data for this project. Our research plan would have been basically the
same when incorporating the additional fieldwork into the project. The only difference would be
that we would have more data to work with and to discuss, and the information we extracted
would most likely lead to some differences in our discussion as well.
16