The psychology of sorority recruitment

[violetpretty]

Originally Posted by KDMafia

See I am not to sure about this. I believe that a lot can be learned in recruitment if the sorority members ask the right questions. Learning about part time jobs in high school and college, learning about leadership in their EC. You can find out about loyalty talking about family or high school friends, empathy in their current and past friendships or even connection to past pets. It's learning how to take the time you have and ask the right questions. I think it also helps you identify the ones who are taking sorority membership seriously. Recruitment shouldn't be treated as the elephant in the room. If sororities take the selection process seriously it will help the PNMs as well.

I think this also helps chapters identify which PNMs are interested in them as well. Someone who rolls her eyes when you ask her about experience volunteering or gives one word answers shows they are not interested in impressing you, while if you focus just on small talk can make it easier for the uninterested PNM so seem more engaged just based on the amount of effort they need to put forth.

Absolutely. This is one of the challenges a "popular" chapter faces during recruitment in the era of RFM. They essentially have their pick, but because they have to cut so many women early in recruitment, they have to know what they are looking for and how to determine if a PNM has those qualities. If all they're looking for is "cute" and "bubbly" that is their right to choose PNMs that way, but if they want more women with more substance, they must ask the right questions. You have to have all of your members on the same page about wanting certain things in PNMs and educate them how to steer conversations to be productive. Otherwise, you'll have a bunch of your members gushing about PNMs and they can't really give you concrete reasons why they'd be good members.

I do agree that cute girls with bubbly personalities tend to do better in recruitment, though. Social psychologists know that people who are attractive are more likely to be perceived positively, and unattractive people are more likely to be perceived negatively, even if you have an identical conversations. It's ingrained in our brains.

[AXOrushadvisor]

Originally Posted by violetpretty

Absolutely. This is one of the challenges a "popular" chapter faces during recruitment in the era of RFM. They essentially have their pick, but because they have to cut so many women early in recruitment, they have to know what they are looking for and how to determine if a PNM has those qualities. If all they're looking for is "cute" and "bubbly" that is their right to choose PNMs that way, but if they want more women with more substance, they must ask the right questions. You have to have all of your members on the same page about wanting certain things in PNMs and educate them how to steer conversations to be productive. Otherwise, you'll have a bunch of your members gushing about PNMs and they can't really give you concrete reasons why they'd be good members.

I do agree that cute girls with bubbly personalities tend to do better in recruitment, though. Social psychologists know that people who are attractive are more likely to be perceived positively, and unattractive people are more likely to be perceived negatively, even if you have an identical conversations. It's ingrained in our brains.

I TOTALLY agree with this, BUT how do you really get to know a young women and ask the right questions in 5 minutes? Maybe the real answer here is to have the first round go a little longer, but I know for a lot of Universities there are major time constraints.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by AXOrushadvisor

I TOTALLY agree with this, BUT how do you really get to know a young women and ask the right questions in 5 minutes? Maybe the real answer here is to have the first round go a little longer, but I know for a lot of Universities there are major time constraints.

Aren't those major time constraints artificially induced? Isn't it up to the school administration and the Panhellenic council to set the rush schedule? Scheduling it over several weekends instead of over 3-5 days presents other challenges, but presents more opportunity for increased interaction. Those who believe rush must be accomplished before school begins, but choose not to let it go on for two weeks or so, set the constraints.

Different strokes and all that, but the point is that time constraints are a choice.

[UGAalum94]

Doesn't what we were talking about in the networking/who you knew before recruitment kind of take care of this for the top chapters? We kind of advanced the idea that they already had before recruitment a relatively big number of girls who they actually knew well in real life.

If that's the case, will another round of parties really do much more than prolong the inevitable?

ETA: I've found myself wondering if the psychology of guaranteed placement/near guaranteed placement after prefs hurts retention for reasons beyond girls simply being added to the groups they listed last on the bid card. I tend to think, and I think there's some research to back up, that we value things that we think are selective or scare more that things that are easily attainable. Girls who are matched to less selective groups (even if they don't officially know the RFs for each chapter) may not value being selected as much as girls bid by highly selective groups, for that reason alone, even if the experience of being in the groups is fairly comparable (which is sort of unlikely if you are talking about the popularity of social groups, but still)

I wonder if the perception that a lot of girls got dropped completely make everyone else more pleased with her bid.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by violetpretty

Absolutely. This is one of the challenges a "popular" chapter faces during recruitment in the era of RFM. They essentially have their pick, but because they have to cut so many women early in recruitment, they have to know what they are looking for and how to determine if a PNM has those qualities. If all they're looking for is "cute" and "bubbly" that is their right to choose PNMs that way, but if they want more women with more substance, they must ask the right questions. You have to have all of your members on the same page about wanting certain things in PNMs and educate them how to steer conversations to be productive. Otherwise, you'll have a bunch of your members gushing about PNMs and they can't really give you concrete reasons why they'd be good members.

I know that our chapters are supposed to employ that kind of thing - i.e. we get together and talk it out and decide we want women who have A, B and C quality. "OMG she's so sweet" doesn't cut it. If the worst thing happening to you as a popular chapter is that you actually have to think about this stuff, that's really not that bad of a thing.

Originally Posted by DGTess

Aren't those major time constraints artificially induced? Isn't it up to the school administration and the Panhellenic council to set the rush schedule? Scheduling it over several weekends instead of over 3-5 days presents other challenges, but presents more opportunity for increased interaction. Those who believe rush must be accomplished before school begins, but choose not to let it go on for two weeks or so, set the constraints.

Different strokes and all that, but the point is that time constraints are a choice.

It's a lot easier for (using my school as an example) 300 sorority women and 75 rushees to clear their schedules for multiple weekends than it is for (Bama as an example) 3400 sorority women and 1700 rushees.

I'm sure those women would love to have hours and days and weeks to get to know all the rushees inside and out, but they need to get their lives back at some point.

[carnation]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Doesn't what we were talking about in the networking/who you knew before recruitment kind of take care of this for the top chapters? We kind of advanced the idea that they already had before recruitment a relatively big number of girls who they actually knew well in real life.

If that's the case, will another round of parties really do much more than prolong the inevitable?

ETA: I've found myself wondering if the psychology of guaranteed placement/near guaranteed placement after prefs hurts retention for reasons beyond girls simply being added to the groups they listed last on the bid card. I tend to think, and I think there's some research to back up, that we value things that we think are selective or scare more that things that are easily attainable. Girls who are matched to less selective groups (even if they don't officially know the RFs for each chapter) may not value being selected as much as girls bid by highly selective groups, for that reason alone, even if the experience of being in the groups is fairly comparable (which is sort of unlikely if you are talking about the popularity of social groups, but still)

I wonder if the perception that a lot of girls got dropped completely make everyone else more pleased with her bid.

This is good. Especially what you said about prolonging the inevitable...at the first university I went to, rush was delayed until sophomore year. Supposedly that meant more opportunities to interact and each sorority was even allowed a certain number of "rush dates" with each PNM. What happened was that the women you would expect them to want got all the rush dates and at least half the PNMs (as a result of a survey that got Arkansas moving towards freshman recruitment) had absolutely no rush dates at all.

Since it was a bed rush, with less than half of the PNMs receiving bids, the sororities cut down who they wanted to focus on pretty early. It was kind of obvious to the others and resulted in a year's worth of hurt added to the week of hurt they might have had without it. Still, some women soldiered on to their usual release from recruitment.

[violetpretty]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Doesn't what we were talking about in the networking/who you knew before recruitment kind of take care of this for the top chapters? We kind of advanced the idea that they already had before recruitment a relatively big number of girls who they actually knew well in real life.

I agree that networking is vital in the SEC---but not everywhere. I re-watched that Northwestern video and I was writing this from the viewpoint of popular chapters in schools less competitive than the SEC (like private schools with students from around the country or public schools outside the South), where recs are less common, most women may not think about recruitment until the summer after graduation, where each chapter member doesn't already have 5 BFFs each going through recruitment. I apologize for not making this clear.

[DubaiSis]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

ETA: I've found myself wondering if the psychology of guaranteed placement/near guaranteed placement after prefs hurts retention for reasons beyond girls simply being added to the groups they listed last on the bid card. I tend to think, and I think there's some research to back up, that we value things that we think are selective or scare more that things that are easily attainable. Girls who are matched to less selective groups (even if they don't officially know the RFs for each chapter) may not value being selected as much as girls bid by highly selective groups, for that reason alone, even if the experience of being in the groups is fairly comparable (which is sort of unlikely if you are talking about the popularity of social groups, but still)

I wonder if the perception that a lot of girls got dropped completely make everyone else more pleased with her bid.

I would contend the opposite is possible. My chapter was one of the small ones on campus and our retention was very good. The base argument may, however, be similar - maybe these girls are more proud to have gotten into A sorority than the girls who had an easy go through the whole process. I've also wondered who is more likely to stay involved as an alum - the one from that huge chapter or the one from the chapter who struggled year after year? The problem is quantifying "involved."