Wendy Young, Associate Director,
Judicial Affairs, JMU
Chris Orem, PhD Candidate,
Center for Assessment & Research Studies, JMU





Discuss how student affairs and assessment professionals
can collaborate to create or improve intentional
educational programming.
Identify pertinent literature that informs the research
areas of interest.
Evaluate the results from two years worth of research
involving the relationships between dysfunctional
impulsivity, entitlement, and the judicial student
population.
Discuss a pilot study done on dysfunctional impulsivity
and peer influence that expands the understanding of this
relationship in order to begin to inform programmatic
technique.
Develop strategies for using data gathered on
characteristics of student populations to make
programmatic and instructional changes.
Establishing
Objectives
Using Information
Analyzing/
Maintaining
Information
Selecting/
Designing
Instrument
Collecting
Information
*Note: Adapted to fit research instead of
program development





Objective—Understand the characteristics of
judicial students more in order to provide better
education and services
Office began looking at decision-making of college
students as a construct
Found decision-making construct to be broad with
many components
Brought in an expert from our Psychology
department on cognitive psychology and behavior
At the expert’s suggestion, we decided to look at
characteristics we perceive may lead to poor
decisions for college students who break a code of
conduct


Had a discussion of characteristics
we perceive in students who go
through a judicial process
What characteristics do you believe
describe this population of students?
**It’s what we think, what our gut tells us, but do we
really know?
Impulsive
Lower Self Esteem
Entitled



After deciding on which characteristics, the
CARS graduate students did a review of the
literature to find appropriate measures
Judicial staff met with CARS to determine
measures
Chose 3 instruments:
--Dysfunctional Impulsivity (Dickman, 1990)
--Perceived Entitlement Scale (Campbell et
al, 2004)
-- Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1989)



Measures of Dysfunctional Impulsivity (DI),
Self Esteem, & Entitlement were given to all
students who were found responsible for a
violation of the code of conduct and received
an educational sanction
Dysfunctional Impulsivity (DI), Self Esteem, &
Entitlement measures were given on
Assessment Day to the freshman class as well
(comparison group)
Analyses were done in the summer of 2010

By the Numbers:
*Two hour program
*Community standards, laws, resources,
risk reduction
*Minor violations of alcohol policy

hours total)
*Decision-making and alcohol
*Major violations or multiple violations of
alcohol policy
Back On Track:
*Five weeks, two hours each week (10
hours total)
*Physiology of addiction, Stages of
Change and Health Belief Models,
attendance in AA or NA, resources
*Major alcohol/drug violations and
repeated substance violations

High Expectations:
*Two hour online program & 2 hour
workshop
*Minor violations of drug policy for
marijuana
Values In Action:
*Two weeks, two hours each week (4 hours
total)
*Personal values and decision making in
personal and community life
Calling the Shots:
*Three weeks, two hours each week (6



Site Experience:
*30,
45, or 60 site hours
*Connection to the university through
involvement
*Reflection paper & groups

Mentor Experience:
*8, 10, 12, or 15 hour-long meetings with
volunteer faculty or staff member
*Develop personal mission, goals, and
action items
*Connection to the university through
development of personal direction
*Reflection paper

Participants (two samples):


3,600 Freshmen
1,200 Students required to visit Judicial Affairs
 719 Assigned to Educational Sanctions
 483=Freshmen, 170=Sophomore, 49=Juniors, 17=Seniors

13 research questions were investigated

Do first year students who visited the Office of Judicial
Affairs differ from those who didn’t visit on measures
of entitlement, dysfunctional impulsivity, and/or selfesteem?
Scale
Entitlement
Dysfunctional
Impulsivity
Note. ***p<.001
Student Type
Visited Judicial Affairs
Did Not Visit Judicial
Affairs
Visited Judicial Affairs
Did Not Visit Judicial
Affairs
n
784
Mean
27.43
SD
10.09
2930
27.01
9.94
767
41.80
10.37
2842
38.48
10.77
t
d
1.05
0.10
7.63**
0.31

Do students who visited Judicial Affairs differ on entitlement,
dysfunctional impulsivity, and self-esteem depending on their
year in school?
Scale
Entitlement
Academic Year
n
Mean
SD
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
483
170
49
17
24.81
27.79
27.27
24.94
10.10
10.18
9.38
7.43
Total
719
25.69
10.09
483
170
49
17
719
34.98
33.45
34.33
37.29
34.63
10.39
10.20
10.57
12.29
10.41
Freshman
Sophomore
DysfunctionaI
Junior
Impulsivity
Senior
Total
Note. **p<.01
F
4.16**
1.30

Do students who visited Judicial Affairs differ on entitlement,
dysfunctional impulsivity, and self-esteem depending on the program
they were sanctioned?
Scale
Dysfunctional
Impulsivity
OJA Program
n
By the Numbers
431
Calling the Shots/Back on Track 85
High Expectations
28
Values in Action
39
Mentor/Site Experience
34
BASICS
84
Total
701
Mean
33.81
36.93
37.25
34.59
39.24
34.11
34.67
SD
F
9.85
11.84
9.54 3.15*
10.62
12.71
10.00
10.39

Did students with multiple visits to Judicial
Affairs differ on entitlement, dysfunctional
impulsivity, and self-esteem than one-time
offenders?
Scale
Entitlement
Dysfunctional
Impulsivity
Note. **p<.01
Student Group
n
Mean
SD
One Time Visitor
627 27.25
Multiple Visits
157 28.17 10.57
One Time Visitor
620 41.25 10.19
Multiple Visits
9.97
153 43.82 10.90
t
d
1.02
0.09
2.75** 0.24

Did students with a non-compliance charge
differ in entitlement, dysfunctional impulsivity,
and/or self-esteem than those without a similar
charge?
Scale
Student Group
Compliant
n
Mean
SD
Note. ***p<.001
d
0.72
0.09
665 25.60 10.11
Entitlement
Dysfunctional
Impulsivity
t
Non-Compliance Charge
55
26.62
9.80
Compliant
665 34.14 10.25
4.42*** 0.60
Non-Compliance Charge
55
40.51 10.47
Significant differences in dysfunctional
impulsivity surfaced in multiple tests
Older students seemed to be more entitled, while
younger students were more impulsive
We were only testing students who received an
educational sanction, not all students found
responsible




Give entitlement and dysfunctional impulsivity
again to see if replication will occur; give to all
students found responsible
Begin sharing results with assistant directors
overseeing educational programs
Begin brainstorming how we might change
programs or processes
Design a pilot study to look at any correlation
between dysfunctional impulsivity and peer
influence (since most of our programming is
peer-based)



DI & Entitlement were given to all students
who were found responsible for a violation of
the code of conduct
DI & Entitlement were given on Assessment
Day to the freshman class as well (comparison
group)
Pilot correlation study was done in Fall 2010 on
Peer Influence & DI



Participants:
--N=665 (Female-530; Male-131)
--Voluntarily took a qualtrics survey sent in an email in
November 2010
--170 freshmen, 118 sophomores, 130 juniors, 172 seniors,
and 74 graduate students
Measures:
--Peer & Parent Influence Scale (PPI; Werner-Wilson and
Arbel, 2000)
--Dysfunctional Impulsivity (Dickman, 1990)
Main Finding:
-- There is a small, positive correlation between
dysfunctional impulsivity and peer influence
(Spearman=.258; p<.0001, N=665)

Participants (two samples):


3,745 Freshmen
1,181 Students charged with at least one violation
 570 Sanctioned to Educational Programs
 394=Freshmen, 130=Sophomore, 46=Juniors and Seniors,


13 research questions were investigated
When appropriate, 2009-2010 data were
combined with 2010-2011 data

Do freshmen students who visited the Office of
Judicial Affairs differ from those who didn’t
visit on measures of entitlement and /or
dysfunctional impulsivity?
Scale
Student Type
Visited Judicial Affairs
Dysfunctional
Impulsivity
Note. ***p<.001
Did Not Visit Judicial
Affairs
n
682
3015
Mean
SD
t
d
8.14**
0.34
40.80 10.67
37.14 10.60

Do students who visited Judicial Affairs differ on
entitlement and/or dysfunctional impulsivity
depending on their year in school?
Scale
Entitlement
Academic Year
n
Mean
SD
Freshman
Sophomore
394
130
25.07 10.40
25.65 11.97
Junior/Senior
46
25.11 10.28
Total
570
25.21 10.75
394
130
46
570
35.23
34.77
35.02
35.11
Freshman
Dysfunctional Sophomore
Impulsivity Junior/Senior
Total
Note. **p<.01
10.93
10.80
10.59
10.85
F
.14
.09

Did students with multiple visits to Judicial
Affairs differ on entitlement and dysfunctional
impulsivity than one-time offenders?
Scale
Dysfunctional
Impulsivity
Note. ***p<.001
Student Group
One Time Visitor
Multiple Visits
n
Mean
SD
895
34.13
10.48
265
37.31
10.58
t
d
4.33***
0.30

Do students who visited Judicial Affairs differ on entitlement,
dysfunctional impulsivity, and self-esteem depending on the program
they were sanctioned?
Scale
Dysfunctional
Impulsivity
Note. **p=.002
OJA Program
By the Numbers
Calling the Shots/Back on Track
High Expectations
Values in Action
Mentor/Site Experience
BASICS
Total
n
Mean
743
133
51
63
34
84
1108
34.11
36.99
37.45
34.59
39.24
34.11
34.85
SD
F
10.31
11.40
9.44 3.81**
10.49
12.71
10.00
10.54

Did students with a non-compliance charge
differ in entitlement, dysfunctional impulsivity,
and/or self-esteem than those without a similar
charge?
Scale
Dysfunctional
Impulsivity
Note. ***p<.001
Student Group
Compliant
Non-Compliance Charge
n
Mea
n
SD
t
d
3.84***
0.42
1069 34.51 10.52
91
38.92 10.50

Do students who are not assigned to
educational sanctions differ in levels of
entitlement and/or dysfunctional impulsivity
from students who are assigned to educational
sanctions?
Scale
Dysfunctional
Impulsivity
Student Group
Educational Program
Probation/Other
n
Mean
SD
502
35.14
10.92
49
35.04
9.87
Note. Sample only includes the first case in which the student was involved.
t
d
.066
.00





Any effects involving entitlement were nonexistent.
Students (particularly freshmen) who visited
Judicial Affairs are slightly more dysfunctionally
impulsive than students who did not visit.
Students in higher level alcohol programs had
higher levels of DI than students in lower level
programs.
Non-compliance may be more related to DI than to
entitlement, as originally hypothesized.
Students who were sanctioned to probation did
not differ from those who received educational
sanctions.


Implement additional follow up studies to look
at the relationship between peer influence and
dysfunctional impulsivity for the judicial
student population
Do a qualitative study by talking with students
who score higher and lower in dysfunctional
impulsivity to see how they experience
decision-making and how they experience our
programs





Introduce classroom strategies that work best for students
high in DI (e.g. ADD/ADHD research), especially in higher
level programs
Give instruments before program attendance to determine
which program the student is assigned to (e.g. all high DI
students in same program)
Use language and strategies that work best for students high
in DI (e.g. ADD/ADHD research) in our proactive
education
If we continue to see relationship between DI and peer
influence, look for strategies for having peers be more
involved, in various ways, with our proactive education and
our classroom environments (e.g. teaching, videos, peer
mentoring)
Look for ways to educate students with non-compliance
charges keeping DI in mind
Questions &
Discussion
Wendy Young
Associate Director
540-568-6218
young2wm@jmu.edu
Chris Orem
Doctoral Candidate, CARS
540-568-6706
oremcd@jmu.edu