UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Submissiveness : a re-conceptualized view 1991

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1991_A2 J63.pdf
UBC_1991_A2 J63.pdf [ 16.42MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0053630.json
JSON-LD: 1.0053630+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0053630.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0053630+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0053630+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0053630+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0053630.ris

Full Text

SUBMISSIVENESS: A RE-CONCEPTUALIZED VIEW By JOANNE EDYTHE (JODY) JOHNSON Reg. N., Calgary General Hospital, 1966 Sc.N., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1969 M.Sc, The University of Calgary, 1980 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Counselling Psychology) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1991 (£) Joanne Edythe (Jody) Johnson, 1991 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Counselling Psychology The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date A P r i l 2 6 • 1 9 9 1 DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT V o l i t i o n a l submissiveness i s proposed as the adaptive dimension of t r a i t submissiveness. The intention to be s e l f - g i v i n g i s a c r i t i c a l factor distinguishing t h i s dimension of submissiveness from the t r a d i t i o n a l (low dominance) view of the t r a i t . V o l i t i o n a l submissiveness i s described as an intrapersonal orientation manifest by i n t e n t i o n a l l y choosing to place the well-being of another person ahead of one's own needs i n order to achieve a goal or purpose that i s consistent with i n t e r n a l i z e d values and deemed worthy of the cost of s e l f - g i v i n g . This behavior was found to be motivated by caring, helping, propriety, and desire to enhance or maintain a r e l a t i o n s h i p . The V o l i t i o n a l Submissiveness Scale (VSS) was developed to measure the t r a i t . The following c o e f f i c i e n t s of r e l i a b i l i t y were obtained: an i n t e r n a l consistency r e l i a b i l i t y (Cronbach alpha) of .78; t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y (Pearson r) of .68 (p < .001); c o r r e l a t i o n with peer ratings of .60 (n = 40, p_ < .0001). Construct v a l i d i t y was demonstrated by s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between the VSS and ego development, s e l f - e f f i c a c y , intimacy, altruism, and s a t i s f a c t i o n with s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; negative c o r r e l a t i o n s with neuroticism and exchange o r i e n t a t i o n ; and a f i n d i n g of no rela t i o n s h i p with the CPI (Gough, 1987) dominance scale. Evidence of c r i t e r i o n related v a l i d i t y was provided by obtaining s i g n i f i c a n t differences (p < .0001) i n the mean VSS scores of two targeted groups (therapists versus addicts); and a s i g n i f i c a n t relationship (p_ < .01) between v o l i t i o n a l s e l f - g i v i n g behavior and VSS score i n an experimental condition. In a p r i n c i p a l component analysis (n = 234) , three factors (caring, affirming, and enhancing) accounted f o r 28% of the t o t a l variance. This study provided i n i t i a l evidence for an adaptive dimension of t r a i t submissiveness that was unrelated to gender and a t r a d i t i o n a l measure of submissiveness, but was correlated with several personality and behavioral c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that are associated with well-being. By taking the meaning of behavior into account, the tendency to care and to be responsive to the needs of others surfaced as the primary motive for v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness, suggesting a personality p r o f i l e characterized by higher l e v e l s of psychological development and well-being. These findings contradict the conceptualization of submissiveness as a weak, feminine t r a i t opposite dominance on circumplexes of interpersonal behavior. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i L i s t of Tables . v i i Acknowledgements v i i i CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Background to the Problem: Conceptual Foundations. 4 Dominance, Subordination,and Submissiveness 4 Statement of the Problem 7 Submissiveness as Subordination 8 Submissiveness: the Opposite of Dominance 12 Submissiveness: Psychological Chara c t e r i s t i c s 17 Personality Correlates of the Adaptive Dimension.. 21 Self-esteem 22 Locus of control 24 S e l f - e f f i c a c y 26 Ego development 27 Moral development 30 Behavioral Correlates of the Adaptive Dimension... 31 Objectives of the Study 35 Research Questions and Hypotheses 36 Significance 40 Delimitations 42 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE 44 The H i s t o r i c a l Basis of the Conceptualization 45 Submissiveness: a T r a i t of Personality 45 Submissiveness: Subordination 57 Submissiveness: the Opposite of Dominance 59 Submissiveness: A Feminine Char a c t e r i s t i c 68 The Psychological Characteristics 71 Summary 76 Submissiveness: A Re-conceptualization 78 I n t r i n s i c Motivation 82 Si t u a t i o n a l context 84 In t e n t i o n a l i t y 89 Submissiveness: T r a i t or State 92 Coherence 95 A P r o f i l e of the V o l i t i o n a l l y Submissive Person... 96 The Epistemology of the T r a i t 103 CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND PROCEDURES 107 C r i t i c a l incident interviews 107 Construction of the VSS 110 Pretesting of the Scale I l l V V a l i d i t y and R e l i a b i l i t y Studies 113 Relationship to Demographic Variables 116 Tests of C r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d V a l i d i t y 116 Further Tests of R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y 122 Factor Structure of the VSS 124 Summary of Research Procedures 125 Instrumentation 126 Eagly Revision (1967) of the J a n i s - F i e l d Scale.. 126 Internal Control Index 127 Washington University Sentence Completion Test.. 128 The S e l f - E f f i c a c y Scale 134 Defining Issues Test 137 Communal Orientation Scale 14 0 M i l l e r Social Intimacy Scale 141 The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale 143 The S a t i s f a c t i o n With L i f e Scale 144 The Self-report Altruism Scale 145 Dyadic Adjustment Scale 147 The NEO Personality Inventory 148 The C a l i f o r n i a Psychological Inventory 149 Problematic Social Ties 151 The Marlowe-Crowne Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale.... 152 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 154 Phase 1: C r i t i c a l Incident Interviews 154 The Interviews 156 Phase 2: Development and Pre-testing of the Instrument 160 Writing the Items 160 Assessing Face V a l i d i t y 162 Pretest 1 163 Scoring the Revised VSS (Dichotomous) 166 Pretest 2 167 Phase 3: F i e l d Testing of the Instrument 17 0 Charact e r i s t i c s of the Phase 3 Sample 171 Scoring the Data 172 Tests of R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y 173 Hypotheses-Testing Analyses 178 Tests of Hypotheses 1 - 20 179 Tests of Hypotheses 21 and 22 190 The Post Hoc Scoring Method 19 3 Relationship of Demographic Variables and VSS 2 02 P r i n c i p a l Component Analysis of VSS 203 v i CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 208 Interpretation of Findings 209 Research Question 1 209 Research Question 2 212 Research Question 3 214 Research Question 4 230 Research Question 5 233 Research Question 6 233 Implications and Recommendations for Future Research 2 34 Limitations of the Study 244 Summary and Conclusions 247 REFERENCES 250 APPENDICES 276 Appendix 1 277 C r i t i c a l Incident Interview 278 Appendix 2 281 Form 1: VSS 282 Appendix 3 298 Instructions to Professional Raters 299 Appendix 4 3 02 Form 2: VSS 3 03 Appendix 5 314 Instructions for Scoring (Dichotomous Method) 315 Appendix 6 340 Post Hoc Scoring Categories 341 Appendix 7 348 Demographic Questionnaire 349 Appendix 8 351 Summary of Demographic Data 3 52 Appendix 9 353 Instructions to Subjects: "Z" Experiment 354 Appendix 10. . 355 Debriefing Experimental Subjects 356 Appendix 11: Measures 357 Appendix 12 377 Letter of I n i t i a l Contact with Agency 378 Appendix 13 379 Information to Subjects 380 Appendix 14: Personal Communication 381 v i i L i s t of Tables Table 1 - Analysis of VSS (Form 1) Motivational Subscales... 164 2 - Summary of Item S t a t i s t i c s (Pretest 2) 169 3 - VSS Analysis (Dichotomous Scoring) 174 4 - Summary of VSS Item S t a t i s t i c s ( F i e l d Study) 176 5 - Correlation of VSS with Submissiveness, Retest, Peer ratings and Self ratings 178 6 - Correlations of VSS with Personality C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 188 7 - Comparison of VSS and Personality C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by Gender 189 8 - Comparison of VSS Scores for Therapist and C l i e n t Groups 190 9 - ANOVA for Therapist and Client Groups 191 10 - Comparison of VSS Scores by Groups 193 11 - VSS Analysis (Post hoc Scoring Method) 199 12 - Summary of Item S t a t i s t i c s (Post hoc Scoring Method) 200 13 - Summary of VSS Correlations with Submissiveness, Retest, Peer and Self Ratings (Post hoc Scoring).. 2 01 14 - Primary-factor Pattern Coefficients for B.C. Ferry Sample with Eigenvalues and Percents of Va r i a t i o n for Three Factors 2 07 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am g r a t e f u l to Richard Young, chairperson of the d i s s e r t a t i o n committee, for his counsel throughout the l i t e r a r y and empirical phases; and to Donald A l l i s o n , Susan Butt, and Daniel Perlman, for t h e i r interest, encouragement and valuable suggestions at various stages of the project. I acknowledge the contribution of Larry Cochran and numerous other scholars whose work gre a t l y aided i n my conceptualization of the t r a i t . To the subjects who w i l l i n g l y gave t h e i r time to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study, my sincere appreciation. The love of friends and family helped more than they could know. Christin e MacMillan and Debra Wilson were p a r t i c u l a r i l y generous. Brian, Geoff and Carrie often placed my needs ahead of t h e i r own while I was writ i n g . A l l of these exemplify the t r a i t that I have described. " The one who c a l l s you i s f a i t h f u l . " CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION The manner i n which people relate to one another and the complexities of those interactions are matters of continuing and considerable importance. One type of r e l a t i o n s h i p that seems to have p a r t i c u l a r l y intrigued researchers during the past several decades i s that of dominance/submission. Relationships of dominance/submission have been observed so widely and for so long that some t h e o r i s t s consider that the urge to dominate i s rooted i n the primate heritage of human beings (see for example, Omark, Strayer & Freedman, 1980). Of the two t r a i t s , dominance appears to have e l i c i t e d more i n t e r e s t from t h e o r i s t s and researchers than has submissiveness; an observation that i s consistent with the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y associated with these t r a i t s i n our culture. The current l i t e r a t u r e generally suggests that dominance i s functional i n terms of s t r u c t u r i n g aggression (Festinger, 1950), improving s o c i a l rank (Omark et a l . , 1980), maintaining s o c i a l order (Freedman, 1980; Savin-Williams, 1980) and acquiring resources. However, e a r l i e r i n t h i s century, the more unfavorable aspects of dominance were noted. For example, Wertheimer (reported i n Maslow, 1942, p. 269) considered dominance to be an i n d i c a t i o n of i n s e c u r i t y or A s l i g h t sickness' i n a person. Maslow (1942) s i m i l a r l y suggested that when dominance-feeling motivates an insecure i n d i v i d u a l i t r e s u l t s in domination over others, urge 1 for power, and self-seeking. C a t t e l l (1957) related dominance to aggression and egotism. References to the unfavorable aspects of dominance can also be found i n contemporary l i t e r a t u r e which pertains to the more extreme or exploitive forms of domination (Tuan, 1984; Goodfriend & C h r i s t i e , 1981; Minces, 1982). However, the l i t e r a t u r e suggests that i n many cultures dominance has achieved greater s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y than submissiveness. In psychology, t h i s trend seems to have begun with Maslow's studies. Maslow's (1942) work i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n that, although he did d i s t i n g u i s h between secure and insecure people i n the way that dominance i s manifest, he associated dominance-feeling with s e l f - esteem. This association continues to be p a r t i c u l a r i l y evident i n the psychological l i t e r a t u r e . In t h i s l i t e r a t u r e , dominance i s c o n s i s t e n t l y defined as a psychological posture of personal power deriving from p o s i t i v e self-regard (Buss & Craik, 1980; Gough, McClosky, & Meehl, 1951; Wiggins, 1979). Dominance i s seen, f o r example, as a means to achieve i n d i v i d u a l or group gains (Gough et a l . , 1951), as being motivated by factors such as power-mastery, task-completion, superior a b i l i t y , and personal and s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (Butt & Fiske, 1968), and i s defined with such adjectives as powerful, assertive, self-confident, and self-assured (Wiggins, 1979). In contrast to the extensive Adominance' l i t e r a t u r e , there are few psychological studies s p e c i f i c a l l y directed toward submissiveness, and the l i t e r a t u r e that does r e l a t e to 2 submissiveness seems to have evolved more from i t s perceived r e l a t i o n s h i p to dominance than as independently i n s p i r e d studies of submissive behavior. For example, i t i s generally agreed that submissiveness i s the opposite of dominance (Gough et a l . , 1951; Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1979); consequently, submissiveness i s defined i n terms opposite to those that describe dominance: p a s s i v i t y , weakness, and unassertiveness. On circumplex models of interpersonal t r a i t s , * submit' i s found at the weak pole opposite the power dimension of Adominate' (Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1979) . The submissive person, i n contrast to the dominant person, i s characterized as lacking i n self-esteem. Leary (1957) theorized that submissive behavior consists of obedience and "doing one's duty" at the posi t i v e extreme, and masochistic, weak and spineless actions at the other. Submissiveness as a personality t r a i t i s described by Wiggins (1979) with the 70 adjectives self-effacement, self-doubt, forcelessness and t i m i d i t y (Wiggins, 1979) . In general, the t r a i t appears to have been conceptualized i n a r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous way. Evidence for the dimensionality of interpersonal t r a i t s has recently been provided by Wiggins, P h i l l i p s , and Trapnell (1988) . They propose that a t r a i t varies in i t s degree of "adaptiveness" depending on the intensity with which i t i s expressed by an i n d i v i d u a l . One may therefore expect that submissiveness, l i k e any other t r a i t , i s adaptive or maladaptive i n i t s expression depending on the intensity with which i t i s manifest. This study 3 seeks to i d e n t i f y and investigate whether an "adaptive" dimension of submissiveness can be defined, and i f so, to i d e n t i f y i t s personality correlates, and to discover the role that i t plays i n interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Background to the Problem: Conceptual Foundations Dominance, Subordination and Submissiveness If i t i s the case i n psychology that the "adaptive" aspects of dominance behavior (power, self-confidence, mastery) have been emphasized more than the "maladaptive" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (domination, self-seeking), i t follows that i n s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s dominance i s l i k e l y to be valued. In North American culture, dominance i s considered to be a masculine t r a i t and being "number 1" a popular goal. Both of these fac t o r s ( i . e . , being masculine and being common) are associated with s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y (Edwards, 1990). However, f a i l u r e to recognize the maladaptive dimension of dominance ignores the fa c t that dominance reguires subordination. One cannot be dominant except i n r e l a t i o n to others. In competition, t h i s i s sanctioned (see Butt, 1987, pp. 12-18) but interdependent or close r e l a t i o n s h i p s are more l i k e l y to be mutually b e n e f i c i a l i f a cooperative rather than a dominance structure i s operative. In fact, the destructive nature of dominance i n close interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s has recently been documented. For example, Greenberg and Johnson (1986) i d e n t i f i e d dominance-submission i n couple i n t e r a c t i o n as the most c r u c i a l index for assessing 4 marital dysfunction. Although submissiveness i s generally thought to be the counterpart of dominance, t h i s thesis argues that when dominance i s exercised subordination i s actually fostered. The r a t i o n a l e for t h i s p o s i t i o n i s as follows. One cannot be dominant except i n r e l a t i o n to someone else and i f a person succeeds i n placing him or h e r s e l f f i r s t ( i . e . , being dominant) i t i s always i n r e l a t i o n to another person. When one achieves dominance status, another person or persons must be subordinate. S i m i l i a r i l y , i f dominance i s a means of achieving success, the achievements of those who are not dominant must be secondary to the one who i s . Those who are subordinate may thereby be denied or r e s t r i c t e d i n t h e i r achievement of se l f - s e l e c t e d goals because they have f a i l e d to place themselves f i r s t and achieve dominance. Therefore, i f s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n depends on dominance i t may be unattainable for many persons because everyone cannot occupy " f i r s t " place. And i f success depends on being dominant or placing oneself f i r s t , i n a sense i t i s achieved at the expense of those who do not achieve dominance status (see M i l l e r , 1976, for example). Studies which portray dominance as a healthy dimension of personality do not generally discuss subordination as a consequence of i t . Many of the ideals of western culture: r e a l i z i n g personal po t e n t i a l , achieving personal goals, and choosing f o r oneself, have occurred i n a context i n which dominance i s accepted as a desirable t r a i t of personality. The 5 goals of s e l f - r e a l i z a t i o n and s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t are portrayed as achievements for which a l l should s t r i v e (Bellah, Madsen, Su l l i v a n , Swider, & Tipton, 1985; Rogers, 1961). Oppression (at a t h e o r e t i c a l level) i s rejected by the culture and there i s an understandable reluctance on the part of i n d i v i d u a l s to surrender personal freedom or to be subordinate. In fact, people i n western s o c i e t i e s could be said to be personally s e n s i t i z e d to the i n e q u i t i e s and i n j u s t i c e s of domination, but to be i n s e n s i t i v e to the consequences for others of acting dominantly. However, i t i s untenable to approve of dominating behavior ( i . e . , choose that behavior for oneself) and r e j e c t the prospect of oneself being dominated or not consider the e f f e c t of one's dominance on another. A current approach for resolving t h i s dilemma i s to place r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for being dominated on the person who i s i n the subordinate p o s i t i o n . I t i s assumed that subordinate i n d i v i d u a l s are disposed to take a submissive role by v i r t u e of t h e i r psychological make-up. (The synonymous use of the terms submissiveness and subordination i n t h i s way i s common i n the l i t e r a t u r e . ) I t i s reasoned one would not submit to dominance i f one were more s o c i a l l y competent, less passive, or more ass e r t i v e . As a consequence, assertiveness t r a i n i n g has arisen as a way of teaching people how to r e s i s t domination appropriately. Since submissiveness i s seen as a r e f l e c t i o n of inadequate valuing of the s e l f , i t i s considered to be the 6 submissive ind i v i d u a l ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to learn to value the s e l f more. The behaviors of submission: accepting another's w i l l or authority, placing another's interests or needs ahead of one's own, and e f f a c i n g oneself, seem i m p l i c i t l y (in our culture) to manifest an impoverished sense of s e l f . As such they are undesirable behaviors for one to practice oneself. Benjamin (1974) has pointed out that when a behavior becomes s o c i a l l y undesirable i t also becomes "abnormal". Consequently, i t may be that because submissiveness i s viewed as an undesirable behavior, i t has also become somewhat "abnormal" behavior. Statement of the Problem In personality research the task of accounting for differences between individuals has been approached from the conviction that the natural language of the culture provides the t o o l s for describing human tendencies (Wiggins, 1979) . However, a d i s t i n c t i v e q u a l i t y of culture i s that unique meanings often acquire general acceptance within the culture. Here the i n t e r a c t i o n of science and culture can be seen i n the way that development and a l t e r a t i o n i n the meaning of words and concepts are dependent upon the s i g n i f i c a n c e that those concepts hold within the culture, but science may also determine the s i g n i f i c a n c e of c e r t a i n concepts i n the culture. The following section examines the meaning of the concept of submissiveness within psychology and i n western society. The 7 current conceptualization i s analyzed to determine whether i t accounts f o r the complexity of motivations underlying submissive behavior and the d i v e r s i t y of i t s manifestations i n interpersonal behaviors. Submissiveness as Subordination The word "submission" i s derived from the L a t i n ^submissio' which i s defined as "the act of lowering" oneself. According to Webster (1985), submission describes a condition of humility or compliance i n r e l a t i o n to another person; a y i e l d i n g of one's person to the w i l l or authority of another. I t r e f e r s to behavior, both i n conduct and in bearing, that i s humble and deferent. The d e f i n i t i o n suggests that submission may be eith e r self-chosen or imposed. On t h i s basis, i t may be distinguished from subordination i n that the l a t t e r , defined as an i n f e r i o r or lower rank or p o s i t i o n into which one i s placed (Webster, 1985), lacks the condition of personal v o l i t i o n . By d e f i n i t i o n , an i n d i v i d u a l i s subordinate to another by v i r t u e of dif f e r e n c e i n rank, power, or authority. Consequently, subordination i s determined rather than self-chosen. Secondly, subordination can be distinguished from submission i n that a person cannot at the same time be subordinate and equal in a r e l a t i o n s h i p . Being subordinate implies some kind of i n f e r i o r i t y . However, one may choose to submit to an equal. Being submissive does not i n i t s e l f require a h i e r a r c h i c a l structure. Difference i n rank, authority, or power i s a s u f f i c i e n t but not necessary condition 8 for submission. I t i s , of course, true that a person may submit under circumstances i n which one feels a sense of duty, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , or even expediency. However, t h i s behavior can s t i l l be distinguished from subordination, and even from the maladaptive dimension of submission, i f the element of v o l i t i o n — of choosing to submit, i s a s a l i e n t feature both i n defining the act and i n determining i t s consequences. In these s i t u a t i o n s a person may submit i n the b e l i e f that doing so i s consistent with held values, or i s conducive to a desired outcome. A number of factors may have contributed to the lack of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between the concepts of submissiveness and subordination. F i r s t , the importance of the i n d i v i d u a l i n western society has produced a climate i n which individualism i s c u l t u r a l l y approved (Bellah et a l . , 1985; Lasch, 1978; May, 1981; Sampson, 1977). Personal e f f i c a c y i s conceptualized i n terms of i n d i v i d u a l s e l f - a c t u a l i z i n g goals: r e a l i z i n g p o t e n t i a l , achieving personal aims, r e l y i n g upon oneself i n pursuit of those aims, and being personally responsible for choices. Dominance i s considered to be a means by which ind i v i d u a l success can be achieved; consequently, submissiveness i s viewed as deleterious to success and a sign of personal weakness. Humble deference to another i s not a v i r t u e i n such a context. I t i s feared that submissiveness, because i t i s a position of heightened v u l n e r a b i l i t y , may provide an opportunity for dominance, thus 9 creating a r e l a t i o n s h i p i n which one may become subordinate (Unger, 1984). Secondly, current measures of submissiveness are based on the meaning of submission held by those members of the culture who tend to make up research populations; that i s , college populations. Buss and Craik (1981), for example, u t i l i z e d undergraduate classes to i d e n t i f y x p r o t o t y p i c a l ' submissive acts. Their l i s t of submissive acts r e f l e c t s a tendency to y i e l d to pressure with varying degrees of masochism. The meaning of submissiveness that i s held by t h i s rather unique group may not be representative of the general population. I f , as hypothesized i n t h i s study, attitudes toward submissiveness change as i n d i v i d u a l s achieve higher levels of personality development, acts that place the interests or needs of others ahead of one's own may a c t u a l l y r e f l e c t maturity rather than masochism. If they do, such acts would presumably be consciously chosen to achieve a s p e c i f i c purpose and be accomplished without any sense of personal loss occurring. As a manifestation of more advanced l e v e l s of personal development, the s e l f - g i v i n g or other- enhancing dimension of submissive behavior would be expected to be r e l a t e d to a g e / l i f e experience and therefore more l i k e l y to be found i n mature adults than i n a young, t y p i c a l college sample. Thi r d l y , an essential feature i n the present conceptualization of submissiveness, i s that submissiveness has been defined larg e l y on the basis of observer judgements of what 10 comprises submissive behavior. Observers' accounts f a i l to comprehend the meaning that the behavior has for the person who i s acting. Without consideration for the meaning that the behavior has for the person, the arbitrary l a b e l l i n g of that behavior provides a considerable source of po t e n t i a l error. The c r i t i c a l nature of personal meaning to the defining of behavior i s demonstrated i n the l i f e story of Harriet Brent Jacobs (Goodfriend & C h r i s t i e , 1981), a black American slave g i r l i n the nineteenth century. Her story demonstrates an instance i n which submissive and subordinate behavior may not be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by an observer but are very d i f f e r e n t for the actor. Upon the death of both parents and her mistress, Harrie t was bequeathed at age thirteen to her mistress' niece, a c h i l d of f i v e . The c h i l d ' s father became her master. He co n t i n u a l l y enforced her subjection to his w i l l , abusing and molesting her, reminding her that she belonged to him, that he had the r i g h t to do with her as he li k e d , that he could k i l l her i f he pleased, and that he would compel her to submit to him. Without l e g a l recourse to protect her from violence or death, and with not so much as a confidante with whom she could dare to share her su f f e r i n g , H a r r i e t gave the appearance of being compliant because there was no opportunity to do otherwise. But i n her s p i r i t she never submitted. She despised the man, her soul revolted against him, and she vowed never to give in to him. Eventually, at age 11 twenty-one she succeeded i n running away and remained hidden for seven years u n t i l she was able to escape to the north. Harriet Brent Jacobs' experience demonstrates the d i s p a r i t y between behavior as i t i s observed and behavior as i t has meaning to the actor. For Harriet, she was xsubordinate' to her master as a means of preventing further abuse or death. This was f o r her the only meaning of her compliance. Yet a person who did not know Harriet's intention and who observed her, may have thought she was submissive. However, because she never yielded her w i l l to him, she could never be said to have submitted to him. In her s p i r i t she refused to submit. Her r e l a t i o n s h i p to the man seems more l i k e subordination; the position into which she was forced i n a circumstance of domination. Personal choice ( v o l i t i o n ) and meaning appear to be s i g n i f i c a n t factors i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between submissive and subordinate behavior. Submissiveness: the Opposite of Dominance Submissiveness has been placed opposite dominance on circumplex models of personality t r a i t s (Benjamin, 1974; Buss & Craik, 1980; Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1979), perhaps as a consequence of associating submissiveness with subordination conceptually. Doing so i s consistent with subordination being defined as the antonym of dominance (Webster, 1985). I t follows that submissiveness, as i t i s perceived to be the personality t r a i t that would predispose an in d i v i d u a l to be subordinate, would be placed opposite the power dimension of dominance. S e l f - 12 giving, y i e l d i n g , and deferring — the postures of submission, are perceived as weakness and are placed opposite the power dimension of dominance. A l l p o r t ' s (1928) and Maslow's (1940, 1942) works on ascendance and submission, which provided a foundation for the conceptualization of these terms, have had an important influence i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the dir e c t i o n of dominance/submissiveness research. Maslow (194 0), for example, suggested on the basis of animal studies that an association existed between dominance and self-esteem. He e x p l i c i t l y linked self-esteem with the term "dominance-feeling" using the terms interchangeably. (Note the t i t l e s of these a r t i c l e s : "A Test for Dominance-feeling (Self- esteem) i n College Women" published i n The Journal of So c i a l Psychology, 1940, and: "Self-esteem (Dominance-Feeling) and Sexuality i n Women" published in the same journal i n 1942.) Maslow believed that dominance-feeling was a manifestation of self-esteem and that lack of self-esteem was c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of xlow-dominance'. The "dominance syndrome" was represented for Maslow by such behaviors or attitudes as self-confidence, s o c i a l poise, extroversion, feelings of cap a b i l i t y , and independence; whereas "low-dominance" was characterized by t i m i d i t y , shyness, self-consciousness, i n h i b i t i o n , low self-esteem, and in s e c u r i t y . A l l p o r t (1928) i n his studies of "ascendance-submission" noted that there was an obvious s o c i a l preference for ascendance ( i . e . , dominance) but defended submissiveness as a worthwhile 13 personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , suggesting that the submissive person " s t i l l often makes a successful adjustment" to l i f e ( A l l p o r t , 1928, p. 134). His own descriptions of ascendant and submissive behaviors markedly favored the former; at least as behaviors one would prefer for oneself. This i s perhaps best summarized i n h i s quotation from Herbert Spencer, that individuals must decide whether they w i l l be a boot or a door mat i n our competitive society ( A l l p o r t , 1961, p. 339). In the next decade, Gough et a l . (1951) polarized dominance and submissiveness as * opposite' t r a i t s with the d e f i n i t i v e statement that "people with low-dominance are submissive" (p. 3 61). The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c descriptions of submissiveness that evolved a f t e r Gough's d e f i n i t i v e statement suggest that being dominant i s preferable to being submissiveness, at le a s t i n terms of descriptors one would choose for oneself. Wiggins (1979) for example, on h i s circumplex model of interpersonal t r a i t s , placed the l a b e l "lazy-submissive" at the weak pole opposite the power category l a b e l l e d "ambitious-dominant". The "lazy-submissive" l a b e l describes those interpersonal interactions that involve incompetence, passive resistance, submission or obedience. These diverse a t t r i b u t e s are considered to share i n common the semantic features of denying status to s e l f , denying love to both s e l f and other, and granting status to others" (Wiggins, 1979, p. 398). "Submissiveness (weakness)" i s defined by Wiggins with the adjectives self-doubting, s e l f - e f f a c i n g , timid, meek, unbold, unaggressive, forceless, unauthoritative. On the opposite pole, "dominant (power)" refers to interpersonal actions that are a s s e r t i v e , f o r c e f u l , domineering, firm, self-confident, s e l f - assured and un-self-conscious (p. 405). Dominance i s considered to grant love and status to s e l f , and deny status but grant love to others. The bipolar adjective clusters for the submissive (weakness) and dominant (power) dimensions are highly negatively correlated. Theoretically they are believed to share no features i n common. The t h e o r e t i c a l assumption that these t r a i t s are polar opposites has been frequently tested but the r e l a t i o n s h i p has not been c o n s i s t e n t l y demonstrated. For example, Wiggins (1979) was surprised to f i n d that of the sixteen interpersonal adjective scales that he developed, the smallest psychometric differences occured on the ambitious-dominant and lazy-submissive items. Also, Russell (1979), investigating the b i p o l a r i t y of a f f e c t i v e space, found no evidence for the b i p o l a r i t y of dominance and submissiveness. His explanation for t h i s "puzzling" f i n d i n g was based on the lack of v a l i d variance i n the submissiveness scales, thus precluding meaningful conclusions. Buss and Craik (1981) suggested that the problem may l i e i n conceptualizing submissiveness as the opposite of dominance. They hypothesized that acts i d e n t i f i e d as being p r o t o t y p i c a l l y submissive would be predicted by two relevant scales: the Dominance Scale from the C a l i f o r n i a Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1957) and the 15 Dominance Scale from the Jackson Personality Research Form-E (PRF-E; Jackson, 1967). (Similar predictions were made with respect to three other t r a i t s : dominance, aloofness, and gregariousness.) Subjects' reported performance of submissive acts were correlated with t h e i r score on the submissive sub- scales of the predictor inventories. The hypotheses were confirmed for the three other dispositions (dominance, aloofness, gregariousness) but not for submissiveness. Only the c o r r e l a t i o n s of two of the multiple-act c r i t e r i a d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from zero (Buss & Craik, 1981). Buss and Craik (1981) state that, although speculative and perhaps c o u n t e r i n t u i t i v e , "dominance and submissiveness may not be properly conceptualized as polar opposites, as i s generally done" (p. 190). They suggest that attention needs to turn to the construction of scales s p e c i f i c to the domain of submissive acts and that the ingredients of masochism, abasement, and deference may provide clues to the nature of the construct. Since personality tests r e f l e c t current understanding of the phenomena being measured, t h i s study proposes that the d i f f i c u l t y with submissiveness may l i e i n the conceptualization of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r t r a i t primarily in maladaptive terms. Because the maladapative dimension has already been described i n the l i t e r a t u r e , t h i s study w i l l investigate whether interpersonal contexts e x i s t i n which submissiveness has adaptive consequences, and i f so, attempt to discover whether the psychological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of individuals engaging i n these behaviors are consistent with the current p r o f i l e of a submissive personality. Submissiveness: Psychological Characteristics of the Adaptive Dimension This study proposes that submissiveness, when i t occurs i n the context of a subjective sense of psychological well-being and r e s u l t s i n p o s i t i v e relationship outcomes, i s an adaptive t r a i t not represented by the present descriptors: weak, powerless, passive. Although presently there i s meagre evidence to support the contention that the current conceptualization i s incomplete or inaccurate (e.g., Buss & Craik, 1981), the proposal derives from the observation that frequently persons who appear to manifest psychological health, who demonstrate or express a subjective sense of well-being and who evidently experience success i n t h e i r interpersonal relationships, act submissively. That i s , they are s e l f - g i v i n g ; they set aside t h e i r own needs or wishes i n order to serve the need of another person; or they defer to the wishes of another i n order to please that person or to achieve some purpose that i s consistent with t h e i r i n t e r n a l i z e d values. In the l i v e s of such people, these behaviors are consistent, appearing as i d e n t i f y i n g features of t h e i r personality. The acts appear to serve a functional, constructive r o l e i n promoting inter-relatedness. Submissive acts of t h i s nature i n fact appear to derive from personal 17 q u a l i t i e s that are generally indicative of higher l e v e l s of personality development. The following biography provides an i l l u s t r a t i v e example of t h i s hypothesized dimension of submissive behavior and indicates the profound impact that such behavior has i n the world today. A contemporary example of "adaptive" submissiveness. She was young, only 12 years old, when she decided that her l i f e was not to be one of pleasing herself but was to be given to God. At age eighteen she l e f t her Yugoslavian peasant family and entered the convent. F i f t e e n years l a t e r , with f i v e rupees i n her pocket, she l e f t the c l o i s t e r e d l i f e and made her way to the most wretched part of Calcutta where she found lodging and gathered a few abandoned children together to begin a school. For over f i f t y years she has, i n her own words, "despoiled [herself] of a l l that i s not God", l i v i n g in poverty and detachment, renouncing her w i l l , her in c l i n a t i o n s , her whims and fancies, to make h e r s e l f "a w i l l i n g slave to the w i l l of God" (Muggeridge, 1971, p. 67). In p r a c t i c a l terms t h i s means so t o t a l an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the d e r e l i c t and destitute that she shares the same food, wears the same clothing, and possesses as l i t t l e as possible. She l i v e s for others, r e f e r r i n g to h e r s e l f as a mere instrument, a w i l l i n g slave of the most wretched of the world's humanity. S t r i v i n g not only to abase, but to abolish s e l f by being completely submissive to God and the service of others i s an 18 uncommon desire. With no other knowledge of the person, one might conclude that excessive g u i l t , masochism or low self-esteem must underlie such self-deprecation. She seeks to be nothing and claims no c r e d i t , f e e l i n g undeserving of her t i t l e and s t r i v i n g to f e e l no pride or vanity i n her work (Gonzales-Balado, 1987) . The personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that have been used i n the psychological d e f i n i t i o n s of submissiveness (meek, s e l f - e f f a c i n g , y i e l d i n g , surrendering, deferring, etc.) characterize her pe r f e c t l y , and she i n turn, seeks to be characterized by them. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are, i n the psychological l i t e r a t u r e , associated with low self-esteem and are not generally a t t r i b u t e d to a person of unusual and exemplary personhood. However, to describe Mother Teresa, a Nobel Prize winner, with adjectives that suggest psychological weakness i s to deny s i g n i f i c a n t aspects of her character. Consider the adjectives that currently describe submissiveness: self-doubting, s e l f - e f f a c i n g , timid, meek, forceless, unbold, unaggressive and unauthoritative (Wiggins, 1979). They do, by her own admission, describe her, but not i n a weak way. She i s self-doubting and s e l f - e f f a c i n g , claiming no strength, no i n i t i a t i v e , no c r e d i t : " I t comes from Christ and the Sacrament", she says (Muggeridge, 1971, p. 107). She i s meek and s e r v i l e , weak and unpersuasive i n physical stature and manner; but her achievements demonstrate her forcefulness and the impact she has had on the world. She r e f r a i n s from any appearance of personal p u b l i c i t y or praise; yet 19 she i s known and recognized throughout the world. She asks for nothing for herself and personifies humility and poverty; yet her e f f o r t s have resulted i n houses for the dying being established i n many countries, and care being given to thousands of people. She i s a small, homely woman, who i s neither p a r t i c u l a r l y clever nor a r t i c u l a t e , who acknowledges great personal weakness but claims divine transformation of weakness into strength, boldly abandoning safety and her own physical needs to search for the dying, and f o r c e f u l l y asserting her duty to serve them. Seeing that they are helped i s her mission, regardless of personal cost. Mother Teresa's l i f e i l l u s t r a t e s how extreme submissiveness can be adaptive and how the present conceptualization f a i l s to acknowledge t h i s . Submissiveness manifest i n behaviors of t h i s kind would not usually be recognized as submissiveness because of the tendency to connote submissiveness negatively. They would l i k e l y be i d e n t i f i e d as unselfishness, love, or altruism. These descriptors obscure the inherent submissiveness: the s e t t i n g aside of oneself for another that i s basic to submissive behavior and that i s perhaps the disp o s i t i o n which enables a person to love, act u n s e l f i s h l y or be a l t r u i s t i c . If the behavior i s understood to be submissive by the actor's own admission (as i t i s i n Mother Teresa's case), or i f i t meets the c r i t e r i a by d e f i n i t i o n , ( i . e . , conveying the notion of deference, meekness and s e l f - g i v i n g ) , should such behavior not also be considered a dimension of submissiveness? 20 There are other less dramatic, more commonplace examples of submissiveness which occur in the context of psychological health. For example, the I-Thou relationship described by Buber (1960) and enacted i n the counselling relationship, i s one i n which the "adaptive" dimension of submissive behavior may be observed. The counselor sets aside his or her own needs to attend to the counsellee; the counselor does not seek to be affirmed or to have personal needs met in the therapeutic r e l a t i o n s h i p ; the counselor empathizes, attempting to a c t u a l l y "know" the counsellee's pain. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s require that the counselor assume a "submissive" posture i n r e l a t i o n to the counsellee. Doing so could not be thought to s i g n i f y poor psychological health but rather i s interpreted as the counselor providing a model of psychologically healthy behavior. The personality and behavioral c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that are expected to be associated with the adaptive dimension of submissiveness w i l l now be presented along with the r a t i o n a l e for p r e d i c t i n g them. Personality Correlates of the Adaptive Dimension of Submissiveness T h e o r e t i c a l l y , i f a dimension of adaptive submissiveness i s to be i d e n t i f i e d , one would expect to f i n d i t within a context of other personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that are related to psychological well-being. Evaluations of what constitutes well-being have been suggested to d i f f e r depending upon whose perspective i s taken: 21 mental health worker, society or the in d i v i d u a l (Strupp & Hadley, 1977) . Although the individual's appraisal of personal w e l l - being may not be consistent with the views of society or the professional, i t i s believed to have v a l i d i t y . During the past decade, some of the personality factors that have been associated with a subjective sense of well-being are self-esteem (Anderson, 1977; Coopersmith, 1967), internal locus of control, (Baker, 1977; Brandt, 1980; Duttweiller, 1984; Rotter, 1966), and perceived personal e f f i c a c y (Campbell, 1976; Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, Rogers, 1982). In addition, such behavioral factors as intimacy (Reis & Shaver, 1988) , s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n (Bradburn, 1969; Peplau & Perlman, 1982), s a t i s f a c t i o n with friends (Anderson, 1977; Campbell, 1976), and s a t i s f a c t i o n i n a love relationship (Diener, 1984) have been i d e n t i f i e d as factors related to a subjective sense of w e l l - being. Therefore, i t w i l l be important to discover whether the adaptive dimension of submissiveness i s associated with any of these variables. I t i s hypothesized that the following personality and behavioral attributes w i l l be correlated with the adaptive dimension of submissiveness. Self-esteem Self-esteem i s generally understood to r e f e r to a subjective appraisal of one's worth (Coopersmith, 1967). I t has been i d e n t i f i e d repeatedly as a s i g n i f i c a n t determinant of personal s a t i s f a c t i o n , emotional well-being, and mental health. P o s i t i v e 22 s e l f - a p p r a i s a l s have been i d e n t i f i e d as r e l i a b l e predictors of higher l e v e l s of physical health while negative s e l f - a p p r a i s a l s have been correlated with physical disease, anxiety and academic f a i l u r e s (Coopersmith, 1967). T r a d i t i o n a l l y , p o s i t i v e (or high) self-esteem has been associated with dominance and assertiveness; negative (or low) self-esteem with submissiveness ( A l l p o r t , 1928; Maslow, 1940, 1942). The l a t t e r i s of course defined as the tendency to be passive, weak, or unassertive i n interpersonal r e l a t i o n s . However, low self-esteem has not been demonstrated emp i r i c a l l y to characterize submissive actions i n which the i n d i v i d u a l has chosen to place the other's needs ahead of h i s or her own f o r a p a r t i c u l a r reason. Choosing to submit i n order to achieve a purpose that the individual considers worthy of s e l f - g i v i n g would appear to be a q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t behavior than submission motivated by low self-esteem. This i n v e s t i g a t i o n postulates that v o l u n t a r i l y chosen acts of submission more l o g i c a l l y derive from posi t i v e s e l f - a p p r a i s a l s that are rooted i n consistent and stable convictions that one i s worthwhile, adequate, and s i g n i f i c a n t . D.K. Clark's (1985) d i s t i n c t i o n between self-esteem based on feelings of "worthfulness" rather than f e e l i n g s of "worthiness" i d e n t i f i e s the c r i t i c a l element that i s being suggested here. Self-esteem i n a s e l f - g i v i n g person l i k e Mother Teresa would not l i k e l y be based on the b e l i e f that one i s deserving, e n t i t l e d , or worthy, but upon a recognition that one has worth by vi r t u e of being human. Assurance of worth frees an in d i v i d u a l from the pre-occupation with s e l f that plagues persons low i n t h e i r esteem of s e l f , who are beset with thoughts of personal d i f f i c u l t i e s , inadequacies and powerlessness (Coopersmith, 1967). Thus energy and intere s t can be directed outside oneself to other persons and pursuits. This i s consistent with Maslow's (1942) description of secure i n d i v i d u a l s as people i n whom high self-esteem re s u l t s i n strength and cooperation. In secure people as Maslow saw them, personal power i s not thought of primarily i n terms of enhancing one's own po s i t i o n but rather i n cooperating to achieve a common good. Locus of Control The locus of control construct has been developed to r e f e r to an in d i v i d u a l ' s perception of the relevance of t h e i r behavior to an outcome. The construct derives from the proposition of s o c i a l learning theory that human behavior i s determined by the perceived value of reinforcements and that persons d i f f e r i n the degree to which they believe the reinforcement i s either dependent upon, or independent of his or her actions (Duttweiller, 1984). Locus of control i d e n t i f i e s the person's expectancy for reinforcement as being either i n t e r n a l l y or externally located. A person who i s i n t e r n a l l y oriented believes that outcome i s contingent upon behavior; whereas, the externally oriented person considers luck, chance or powerful others to determine what happens (Rotter, 1966) . A s i g n i f i c a n t factor i n the locus of control construct r e l a t e s to f e l t mastery over the course of one's l i f e (Mirels, 1970). Rotter (1966) suggested that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between internal/external locus of control and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s attempt to control the environment was related to powerlessness, i n that an external orientation results in persons perceiving l i t t l e c o n trol over l i f e circumstances. Extreme e x t e r n a l i t y i s i n d i c a t i v e of p a s s i v i t y in the face of environmental pressures (Rotter, 1966). I t would seem l o g i c a l to expect that submissive persons, as the t r a i t i s currently defined i n the l i t e r a t u r e , tend to be externally oriented, responding to pressures from without rather than convictions from within. Conversely, persons who are i n t e r n a l l y oriented tend to f e e l more i n control of t h e i r environment and are more attuned to relevant information that can be u t i l i z e d to influence the s i t u a t i o n . They tend to respond a c t i v e l y with the expectation that what they do determines what w i l l happen. This investigation suggests that persons who choose to place the need of others ahead of t h e i r own or to v o l i t i o n a l l y submit, are l i k e l y to be i n t e r n a l l y oriented. Having considered various a l t e r n a t i v e actions and the p o t e n t i a l consequences, they choose to submit i n the b e l i e f that doing so i s most conducive to achieving the desired e f f e c t . They then submit without f e e l i n g that personal control has been given up. Rotter's (1966) studies of conformity are applicable to t h i s deduction. He found that i n d i v i d u a l s who are i n t e r n a l l y oriented may perceive an advantage i n conforming and thus choose to conform, f e e l i n g that they r e t a i n control since the option to r e s i s t manipulation or unwelcome influence i s always maintained. I t may be that Bender's (1928) early observation that a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between higher scholarship and submissiveness i s r e l a t e d to t h i s aspect of locus of control. Five factors have been i d e n t i f i e d as being pertinent to i n t e r n a l locus of control (Duttweiller, 1984; Lefcourt, 1976). The factors consist of cognitive processing, autonomy, resistance to influence attempts, delay of g r a t i f i c a t i o n , and s e l f - confidence. These factors are expected to be c e n t r a l to adaptive manifestations of submissiveness: the act i s chosen on the basis of being the most e f f e c t i v e way to achieve a desired purpose; the i n d i v i d u a l i s capable of autonomous action as an i n d i c a t i o n of ego development; the i n d i v i d u a l acts independently of external influence; and by v i r t u e of possessing a higher l e v e l of personality development i s able to delay g r a t i f i c a t i o n and a n t i c i p a t e long-term s a t i s f a c t i o n . S e l f - e f f i c a c y A f a c t o r that has been i d e n t i f i e d as having a powerful e f f e c t upon behavior change i s the b e l i e f that one i s able to act i n a way that w i l l bring about the desired outcome. This expectancy i s termed s e l f - e f f i c a c y and involves an i n d i v i d u a l ' s willingness to i n i t i a t e behavior, to expend e f f o r t to complete the behavior, and to p e r s i s t i n the face of d i f f i c u l t y (Sherer 26 et a l . , 1982). Because submitting to another (putting another person ahead of oneself, deferring to another) i s d i f f i c u l t behavior for most people, i t would appear that a person who submits (in a manner that would be considered adaptive) would need to be strongly motivated to engage i n the behavior and then carry i t out, often at considerable personal cost. The motivation f o r t h i s kind of behavior may derive from concern for an i n d i v i d u a l , commitment to a relationship, desire to care f o r or help another, or a b e l i e f that one i s acting morally. Regardless of motivation, the individual must believe that the behavior w i l l produce the desired outcome. Submissive acts as they are currently i d e n t i f i e d (Buss & Craik, 1981) do not convey t h i s notion of personal involvement i n i n i t i a t i n g and p e r s i s t i n g i n goal-directed behavior, whereas an adaptive dimension of s e l f - chosen submissiveness does. Ego Development Ego development has been defined i n numerous and somewhat ambiguous ways (Hauser, 1976; Loevinger, 1979) and n o n c l i n i c a l assessments of i t have been d i f f i c u l t to achieve. However, i t remains a useful construct for describing the patterning and progressive d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n perceptions of s e l f and of s e l f i n r e l a t i o n to the s o c i a l world (Helson, M i t c h e l l & Hart, 1985; Holt, 1980; McCrae & Costa, 1980). Loevinger (1969) conceives of ego development as a continuum along which people proceed, each i n customary patterns that r e f l e c t t h e i r o r i e n t a t i o n to 27 themselves and to the world. According to her model the i d e n t i f i a b l e stages along the continuum r e f l e c t sequential changes i n structures of meaning and character (Loevinger, 1 9 6 9 ; Loevinger & Wessler, 1 9 7 0 ). Seven stages plus three t r a n s i t i o n a l stages are defined, each representing greater complexity than the preceeding one and each being pre-requisite to the one following. B r i e f l y , the stages are i d e n t i f i e d as the Pre s o c i a l and Symbiotic (1 -1) stage of the infant characterized by g r a t i f i c a t i o n of immediate needs; the Impulsive stage (1-2), of early childhood i n which egocentricity, demandingness and conceptual s i m p l i c i t y are common and impulse control and a preoccupation with the s a t i s f a c t i o n of physical needs i s c e n t r a l ; and the Se l f - P r o t e c t i v e stage, a normal phase i n childhood characterized by greater impulse control, more s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , and conformity to rules for reasons of s e l f - i n t e r e s t and short- term advantage. The Conformist (1-3) stage, i s the stage c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of adolescence i n which disapproval and shame for the transgression of rules are important issues, as are concerns for material things, status, reputation, and appearance. The t r a n s i t i o n (1-3/4) between t h i s stage and the next marks the appearance of introspective capacities and an awakening of s e l f - awareness and s e l f - c r i t i c i s m ; the s o c i a l group no longer provides absolute guidelines for behavior. A number of studies (Hauser, 1976) have found more people to be at t h i s stage of ego development than any other. The f i f t h stage, termed 28 Conscientious (1-4), i s marked by morality which has become i n t e r n a l i z e d and inner rules take precedence over those of peers or a u t h o r i t i e s ; obligations, ideals, t r a i t s , and achievements are evaluated by i n t e r n a l standards. The t r a n s i t i o n a l stage (1-4/5) marks the achievement of greater complexity i n conceptualizing interpersonal relationships, greater tolerance for paradoxical r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and i n general great valuing of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s . The s i x t h stage, Autonomous (1-5), describes a period of development i n which i n d i v i d u a l i t y , role d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , and s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t are the themes of conscious thought and i n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t s r e s u l t i n g from divergent needs, ideals and perceptions are the e x p e r i e n t i a l processes of t h i s stage. The highest or f i n a l stage, the Integrated (1-6), sees the i n d i v i d u a l beyond the stage of coping with c o n f l i c t to r e c o n c i l i a t i o n and where necessary, renunciation of the unattainable (Loevinger, 1969). This i s b a s i c a l l y a t h e o r e t i c a l stage with an expected 1 % of persons achieving t h i s l e v e l of development. The person who demonstrates the capacity to consistently submit i n a way that i s adaptive would be expected to have developed higher lev e l s of ego development, perhaps stage 1-4 (Conscientious) or beyond. The influence of conscious thought, i n t e r n a l i z e d ideals, awareness of s o c i a l obligations, autonomous attitudes, and greater valuing of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s that i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the higher lev e l s could be expected to motivate acts of v o l i t i o n a l submission. As well, the greater tolerance for paradox that i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a higher l e v e l of ego development may dispose the individual to submissive acts that have an adaptive outcome. The element of paradox, a p h i l o s o p h i c a l basis for s e l f - g i v i n g , i s r e f l e c t e d i n b i b l i c a l statements l i k e these: the master i s servant to a l l , the l a s t s h a l l be f i r s t , and the least s h a l l be greatest. Moral Development Moral behavior i s believed to derive from a person's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of j u s t i c e or fairness in s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s (Rest, 1979, 1986). Four basic psychological processes are thought to precede moral behavior: the a b i l i t y to i n t e r p r e t a s i t u a t i o n as to possible actions; the a b i l i t y to judge which action i s morally r i g h t ; the a b i l i t y to give p r i o r i t y to moral rather than personal values; and the a b i l i t y to follow through with the intention to behave morally. Moral behavior i s believed to r e f l e c t the p a r t i c u l a r stage of development at which the i n d i v i d u a l i s operating.< Rest (1979), following Kohlberg, suggests that individuals progress through stages from the most basic morality of obedience to the highest stage exemplified by non-arbitrary s o c i a l cooperation. On the basis of Rest's (1979) model of moral development, t r a d i t i o n a l submissiveness would seem to manifest lower l e v e l s of moral development: obedience (stage 1); simple exchange (stage 2) ; interpersonal concordance (stage 3) ; duty to the s o c i a l order (stage 4); or s o c i e t a l consensus (stage 5). For example, when 30 i n d i v i d u a l s whose moral development i s characterized as stage one are faced with a moral dilemma, they may submit i n simple obedience to an order even i f doing so c o n f l i c t e d with personal b e l i e f s or values. Such behavior could be interpreted as r e f l e c t i n g low self-esteem, self-doubt, weakness, forcelessness, and so f o r t h . People i n the successive stages of development may submit because they stand to gain a r e c i p r o c a l benefit; because they want to keep peace; because i t i s t h e i r duty or the accepted thing to do. However, at the higher stages of p r i n c i p l e d moral reasoning the i n d i v i d u a l acts on the basis of values that r e f l e c t s o c i a l cooperation. P r i n c i p l e d moral reasoning i s hypothesized i n t h i s study to be related to submissive behavior that i s s e l f - chosen and adaptive i n nature. Behavioral Correlates of the Adaptive Dimension of Submissiveness I t i s predicted that the following behavioral a t t r i b u t e s w i l l characterize the l i v e s of people i n which submissive behavior i s chosen v o l u n t a r i l y and has an adaptive e f f e c t i n t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s : intimacy, communality, marital s a t i s f a c t i o n , well-being, and s a t i s f y i n g s o c i a l t i e s . The ra t i o n a l e underlying these predictions i s as follows. Intimacy has been conceptualized by Reis and Shaver (1988) as a dynamic interpersonal transactional process that i s influenced by the pa r t i c i p a n t s ' goals and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p h i s t o r i e s . In r e c i p r o c a l interactions, intimacy tends to 31 strengthen and deepen the relationship and to make the partners f e e l v alidated and supported. However, intense f e e l i n g s of intimacy may also be engendered i n non-reciprocal r e l a t i o n s h i p s such as c l i e n t - t h e r a p i s t or parent-child dyads. The c r i t i c a l feature i n any interaction, i f i t i s to be experienced as intimate, i s that the participants must perceive one another to be understanding, v a l i d a t i n g and caring (Reis & Shaver, 1988) . Reis and Shaver (1988) postulate that caring i s an e s s e n t i a l component of intimacy, and assert that i t i s u n l i k e l y that intimacy can occur i n the absence of caring. In a s i m i l a r vein, M i l l s and Clark (1982) contend that intimacy i s established, i n t e n s i f i e d and maintained by the way that i n t e r a c t i n g participants attend to each other's needs. They theorize (see for example, Clark, 1985; and Clark, M i l l s & Powell, 1986) that a "needs" rule i s followed i n communal re l a t i o n s h i p s which i n f e r s that partners w i l l have a general o b l i g a t i o n to be concerned about each other's well-being and w i l l respond to needs as they are perceived. Partners i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p therefore determine or control the l e v e l of intimacy achieved i n t h e i r interactions by t h e i r responsiveness to each other's needs. I f caring and v a l i d a t i o n i s demonstrated through responsiveness to the other's needs - e x p l i c i t or i n f e r r e d , responding adequately often requires that a person be able to put aside personal needs i n order to attend to the other person. I t 32 i s at t h i s point, when s e l f - g i v i n g i s required, that submissiveness may be a c r i t i c a l personality variable i n promoting the development of intimacy, because submissiveness i s a t r a i t that orients a person toward recognizing the v a l i d i t y of another person's need and responding to i t . A submissive o r i e n t a t i o n may allow a person to be more consistent i n demonstrating caring behavior because, when i t i s c a l l e d f o r , he or she can put another person's needs or wishes f i r s t . Marriage i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p that may c a l l for t h i s kind of s e l f - g i v i n g . The p r o v i s i o n of care for a c h i l d also often requires that the caregiver's own needs be secondary to the needs of the c h i l d , and that the adult, therefore, must submit to the c h i l d i n order to provide adequate and necessary care. Acts of submission of t h i s nature, occurring i n healthy relationships, are comparable to what Murstein, Cerreto, and MacDonald (1977) have c a l l e d nonexchange-oriented interactions. In these interactions, persons tend not to be aware of inequities of exchange, e i t h e r because they are simply unaware of what they do for others, or i f they are aware that an exchange i s unfavorable toward themselves they are undisturbed, because t h e i r action i s consistent with i n t e r n a l i z e d i d e a l s . Acts which place the needs of another ahead of one's own needs as a gesture of caring, v a l i d a t i o n or understanding, would be expected to promote intimacy i n the re l a t i o n s h i p . I f t h i s i s so, a posit i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p would be expected between adaptive submissiveness and intimacy. 33 Furthermore, since intimacy has been found to be p o s i t i v e l y c orrelated with a sense of subjective well-being (Reis, 1987), the adaptive dimension of submissiveness would also be expected to be re l a t e d to the subjective experience of well-being and to general l i f e s a t i s f a c t i o n (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Bradburn, 1969) . Following a sim i l a r rationale, recent research has indicated that intimacy i s a central determinant of c e r t a i n kinds of s o c i a l support (Reis, 1987). Intimate or "high-quality" marriages are re l a t i o n s h i p s that have been demonstrated to provide s o c i a l support (Gove, Hughes, & Style, 1983), as are marriages that supply the r e l a t i o n a l provisions proposed by Weiss (1974). S o c i a l support and relationship s a t i s f a c t i o n have i n turn been demonstrated to benefit health s u b s t a n t i a l l y and to contribute to a sense of well-being (Reis, 1987). I f , as i t has been suggested here, the adaptive expressions of submissiveness are re l a t e d to the achievement of intimacy and the r e l a t i o n a l provisions of marriage, i t should follow that a person's submission i n p o s i t i v e (adaptive) ways to his or her marriage partner should be rel a t e d to m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . Furthermore, i n the same way that the absence of r e l a t i o n a l provisions have been shown to r e s u l t i n loneliness (Weiss, 1973) and that the lack of intimate i n t e r a c t i o n s tend to produce feelings of personal f a i l u r e , anxiety, depression, helplessness and self-deprecation which are experienced as loneliness (Peplau & Perlman, 1982; Reis & Shaver, 34 1988), the p o s i t i v e consequences of adaptive acts of submissiveness should be demonstrated by an inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p to l o n e l i n e s s . Objectives of the Study This study addresses the concern that the conceptualization of t r a i t submissiveness has arisen primarily as a by-product of dominance research, and as such the concept i s presently viewed uni-dimensionally as a weak dimension i n interpersonal i n t e r a c t i o n s . I t has been suggested that the early work on dominance and submission have influenced t h i s view, as well as the tendency that has been noted (see for example, Goldberg, 1981) f o r some constructs ( i . e . , dominance) to become the target of personality research to the exclusion of others ( i . e . , submissiveness). One consequence of maintaining the accepted view and f a i l i n g to investigate other pot e n t i a l aspects of a t r a i t , i s that important dimensions of behavior may be excluded from t h e o r e t i c a l and empirical attention (Buss & Craik, 1985). The objectives of t h i s study are to (a) examine the present conceptualization of submissiveness, (b) present a t h e o r e t i c a l conceptualization of an adaptive dimension of submissiveness, hereafter r e f e r r e d to as v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness, (c) develop a measure of v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and (d) t e s t i t s hypothesized correlates. 35 Research Questions Six research questions were posed to address the problem i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s chapter and to achieve the objectives outlined above. Each question i s addressed by some aspect of the research; however, the hypotheses pertain only to research questions 3, 5 and 6. 1. Can behavioral acts that characterize the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness construct be e l i c i t e d and i d e n t i f i e d by using the c r i t i c a l incident interview method? 2. I f v o l i t i o n a l l y submissive behaviors are i d e n t i f i e d , are they measurable? 3. Is there an adaptive dimension of the submissiveness t r a i t that can be distinguished by behaviors that are q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from the behaviors that currently comprise the domain of submissive acts, i n that they are correlated with psychological well-being and have the e f f e c t of enhancing interpersonal relationships? 4. What motivations underlie v o l i t i o n a l l y submissive behavior? 5. Can groups be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on the basis of predicted score on the t e s t of v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness? 6. Is the hypothesized t r a i t , v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness, capable of p r e d i c t i n g behavioral response? Research Hypotheses The following hypotheses w i l l be tested: 1. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or 36 c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the V o l i t i o n a l Submissiveness Scale (VSS) and self-esteem as measured by the Eagly Revision of the Janis F i e l d Self-Esteem Scale (1967) . 2. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between submissiveness as measured by the CPI (Gough, 1987) and self-esteem as measured by the Eagly Revision of the Janis F i e l d Self-Esteem Scale. 3. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between submissiveness as measured by the VSS and i n t e r n a l locus of control as measured by the Internal Control Index (Duttweiler, 1984). 4. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between submissiveness as measured by the CPI and i n t e r n a l locus of control as measured by the Internal Control Index. 5. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and ego development as measured by the Sentence Completion Test (Loevinger, 1970). 6. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and s e l f - e f f i c a c y as measured by the S e l f - e f f i c a c y Scale (Scherer, et a l . 1982). 7. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and p r i n c i p l e d moral reasoning as measured by the Defining Issues Test (Rest, 1972). 8. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and neuroticism as measured by the NEO Inventory (McCrae & Costa, 1983). 9. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between submissiveness as measured by the CPI and neuroticism as measured by the NEO Inventory. 10. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and conscientiousness as measured by the NEO Inventory. 11. There i s no re l a t i o n s h i p or cor r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and submissiveness as measured by the CPI. 12. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p Or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and marital s a t i s f a c t i o n as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976). 13. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and intimacy as measured by the Close Social Relationships Scale ( M i l l e r & Lefcourt, 1982). 14. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p 38 or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and well-being as measured by the S a t i s f a c t i o n with L i f e Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larson, & G r i f f i n , 1983). 15. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and communal orientation as measured by the Relationship Orientation Scales (Clark, Ouelette, Powell & Mil l b e r g , 1987) . 16. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and exchange orientation as measured by the Relationship Orientation Scales. 17. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and loneliness as measured by the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980). 18. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and altruism as measured by the Altruism Checklist (Rushton, Chrisjohn, & Fekken, 1981). 19. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and cost of care-giving as measured by the t e s t of Problematic Social Ties (Rook, 1984). 20. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and 39 s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y as measured by the Marlowe-Crowne Scale, (1960). 21. The mean VSS score of the targeted therapist group w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the mean VSS score of the c l i e n t group. 22. S e l f - g i v i n g behavior (giving up the "Z" i n a behavioral experiment) w i l l be p o s i t i v e l y correlated with VSS score. Significance Submissiveness as i t i s presently defined i s not a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c that one i s l i k e l y to claim for oneself. I t i s assumed to r e f l e c t low self-esteem and a component of psychological maladjustment. This conception of submissiveness accounts for the tendency of some people to respond to dominance with p a s s i v i t y , and i n these instances i t appears to r e f l e c t psychological weakness. But i t may be that t h i s view f a i l s to consider some important aspects of interaction behavior, such as the meaning that behavior has for the actor. As has been noted by Carlson (1985), the most "human" of our endowments i s our capacity for d i f f e r e n t i a t e d thoughts and feeli n g s . This should be the s t a r t i n g point for personological enquiry. F a i l u r e to recognize differences i n the underlying i n d i v i d u a l psychological structures that give r i s e to submissive behavior, and to i d e n t i f y the meaning and the consequence of the behavior, may lead to misconceptions. Thus, t h i s study attempts to i d e n t i f y and investigate the t r a i t from the perspective of i n d i v i d u a l s who 40 choose to act i n submissive ways i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Secondly, submissiveness has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been sterotyped as a "feminine" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which, along with some other feminine q u a l i t i e s that contribute to interpersonal effectiveness, have been thought to make women better " f i t " than men for r e l a t i o n a l roles and for family and child-care r o l e s . The e f f e c t of stereotyping submissiveness as a feminine t r a i t i s twofold. F i r s t , as Lewis (1985) observed, relegating interpersonal and r e l a t i o n a l roles to women has resulted i n women carrying the burden of our culture's devaluation of s o c i a b i l i t y . The importance of s o c i a l support systems i s minimized by a conception of mental health that equates healthy adult adjustment with "masculine" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as independence, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , and autonomy (Rosenkrantz, Vogel,- Bee, Broverman, & Broverman, 1968; Broverman, Broverman, & Clarkson, 1970). Stereotyping interpersonal t r a i t s that promote i n t e r - connectedness as "feminine" has robbed them of the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y factor that i s necessary to make them more androgenous. As with other stereotyped behaviors, the need i s not to eliminate the behavior but to expand i t s u t i l i t y to appropriate interpersonal relationships for both genders. Stereotyping has, by virtue of placing submissiveness within the domain of the feminine and therefore of the r e l a t i o n a l t r a i t s , served at least to point to the rol e that submissiveness plays i n human re l a t i o n s h i p s . 41 Secondly, the negative effect of feminine stereotyping i s that the descriptors (weak, passive, forceless) have excluded an adaptive p o t e n t i a l manifest i n positive interpersonal actions. The negative consequences of maladaptive submissiveness are very apparent, but the p o s i t i v e consequences of the adaptive dimension have not been described or explored. For example, being dominated by another i s obviously unpleasant and negatively r e l a t e d to one's sense of well-being. However, putting the needs of one's c h i l d ahead of one's own needs i n the process of e f f e c t i v e parenting and l a b e l l i n g t h i s behavior as a manifestation of self-chosen, adaptive submissiveness i d e n t i f i e s an interpersonal context i n which submissiveness i s desirable. This study seeks to i d e n t i f y the adaptive dimension of t h i s t r a i t , to investigate the relationship of the adaptive dimension to other factors that have been shown to be indicators of psychological adjustment, and to suggest conditions which must be met i n order for submissiveness to be adaptive and to promote or enhance r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Delimitations The i n v e s t i g a t i o n was limited i n that the r e s u l t s may not be generalized to a l l populations. The data for the study were c o l l e c t e d from men and women between 19 and 68 years of age. The r e s u l t s cannot be generalized outside t h i s age group. An attempt was made to randomly sample an adult population but the sample w i l l not be representative of the general population because the 42 majority of subjects consist of passengers on B.C. F e r r i e s t r a v e l l i n g between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay harbours. This population was chosen because i t provided a somewhat randomized sampling of B r i t i s h Columbians l i v i n g i n an area accessible to the University of B.C. and i t was anticipated that the questionnaire could be completed during the one hour and f o r t y minutes of t r a v e l so that a higher rate of return could be ensured than i f subjects were requested to take questionnaires home and complete them on t h e i r own time. Subjects were not offered payment as an incentive to complete and return the questionnaire even though i t required a considerable time investment because no funds were available for t h i s purpose. In addition, subjects were recruited for various other parts of the study from the University of B.C., T r i n i t y Western University, The Salvation Army Homestead, and a community pre-school parents group i n Surrey, B.C. The subjects were primarily Caucasian, lower-mainland residents representative of the middle range of the socio-economic structure, so generalizations are l i m i t e d to a s i m i l a r sample. F i n a l l y , the res u l t s are limited to adults who are voluntary participants, and who are i n that sense, s e l f - selected for the study. 43 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE The basic task for the science of personality has been, and i s , that of attempting to describe personality e m p i r i c a l l y . Levy (1970) summarized the role of personality research and theory as that of "learning the best way to describe what kind of a person a man [sic] i s , how he [sic] got that way, what keeps him [sic] that way, what might make him [sic] change, and how we might use a l l t h i s to explain why he [sic] behaves as he [sic] does and pre d i c t how he [sic] w i l l behave i n the future" (p. 29) . Describing what kind of a person one i s : the q u a l i t i e s , a t t r i b u t e s , or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that are manifest with some degree of consistency, and at some le v e l of int e n s i t y , over time and across s i t u a t i o n s , requires a considerable depth of knowledge of a person's motives, b e l i e f s , values and way of looking at l i f e . Recently, i t has been argued (see for example, Lamiell, 1981) that the assessment of differences between i n d i v i d u a l s , the paradigm which has dominated personality research during t h i s century, has f a i l e d to describe the personality of any given i n d i v i d u a l . Carlson's (1971) query: "Where i s the person i n personality research?" expresses t h i s concern. The present study seeks to investigate "the person" who i s submissive. I t w i l l attempt p a r t i c u l a r i l y to i d e n t i f y adaptive expressions of submissive behavior that are d i s t i n c t from the behaviors that have been i d e n t i f i e d to date i n the l i t e r a t u r e as t y p i f y i n g the t r a i t . This section begins with a review of the 44 early studies of submissiveness, providing the h i s t o r i c a l or t r a d i t i o n a l basis for the current conceptualization. The influence of the early work on the conceptualization of the - t r a i t , p a r t i c u l a r i l y i n r e l a t i o n to dominance, i s then discussed i n terms of conceptual b l u r r i n g between the two constructs, submissiveness and subordination. The rather extensive l i t e r a t u r e that portrays submissiveness as the opposite of dominance w i l l then be reviewed, as w i l l the l i t e r a t u r e describing the psychological context which submissiveness i s presently considered to manifest. The H i s t o r i c a l Basis of the Current Conceptualization Submissiveness: A T r a i t of Personality Early i n the h i s t o r y of personality research, A l l p o r t (1928) emphasized the r o l e of the researcher and the s c i e n t i f i c process i n defining such personality variables as t r a i t s . He advised that the t r a i t concept must be established on " r a t i o n a l , s t a t i s t i c a l , and i f possible, on neurological grounds, before i t can be employed with j u s t i f i c a t i o n " (p. 118). The person, apart from being the object of study, was not otherwise very s a l i e n t to the understanding of the t r a i t i n terms of providing personal information about the meaning of behavior within the context i n which i t was enacted. A t r a i t was defined by A l l p o r t as "a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c form of behavior more generalized than the s i n g l e reaction or simple habit" and rather l i k e a generalized habit or a "prominent determining tendency" (p. 119). Two "trends i n behavior" that A l l p o r t (1928) i n i t i a l l y described and established as t r a i t s were ascendance and submission. He provided the following r a t i o n a l e : In most s o c i a l situations comprising only two people there i s psychologically a dominant personality and a submissive personality. I t does not matter whether the r e l a t i o n s h i p be f r i e n d l y or in i m i c a l . Occasionally the rol e s of the persons may be reversed, when for instance, the conversation turns to a subject i n which the experience of the submissive person i s superior. Taking the aggregate of the responses over a period of time, however, i t i s often possible to detect an enduring di s p o s i t i o n on the part of one of the p a i r to assume a role of supremacy, the other a r o l e of subordination, (p. 120) A l l p o r t (1928) suggested that i f one were to follow these i n d i v i d u a l s into other face-to-face situations, the same tendencies to assume either the dominant or submissive r o l e s would be observed as a r e l a t i v e l y constant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n t h e i r behavior; any single acts of dominance or submission would not be merely dissociated, or chance reactions that were unrelated to the general trend of the person's behavior but, he believed, could provide "an index to an abiding t r a i t " (p. 120) . As i s currently the case, A l l p o r t believed that ascendance and submission are cor r e c t l y conceptualized as two separate 46 t r a i t s rather than submission being merely the absence of ascendance. However, he considered each i n d i v i d u a l to have an ascendant and submissive integration; that i s , each person possessed both t r a i t s . In some he thought the t r a i t s may be expressed about equally, but in most persons one of the two tendencies i s s u f f i c i e n t l y pronounced to i d e n t i f y them as eithe r an ascendent or a submissive personality (Allport, 1928). This i s the predominant view expressed in the l i t e r a t u r e today. As f o r personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , A l l p o r t (1928) defined submissiveness as the "strongly marked tendency to be passive i n contacts;" whereas, ascendence was described as the "strongly marked tendency to take the active role, to dominate, lead, and organize, i n dealing with [one's] fellows" (p. 127). The extent to which A l l p o r t considered submissiveness to be a passive or weak response i s i l l u s t r a t e d in the comparison of behaviors that he suggested were manifestations of ascendance and submission. For A l l p o r t (1928), ascendance was demonstrated by seeking out useful contacts with important people, whereas submissive behavior consisted of not seeking such contacts or f e e l i n g reluctant to make them. Ascendance, he believed, was revealed by acting i n accordance with one's own desires, while submissiveness was indicated by y i e l d i n g to the desires of others. I t i s in t e r e s t i n g to note here that A l l p o r t d i d not address the p o s s i b i l i t y that one's own desire may be to y i e l d to the desires of others i f i t were seen as a way to strengthen the r e l a t i o n s h i p , please another person, or act i n accord with some in t e r n a l value. Perhaps he did not perceive t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e because he viewed submission primarily i n terms of taking "a r o l e of subordination" (Allport, 1928, p. 120). A l l p o r t further described ascendant behavior as that which placed oneself i n a position of advantage i f i t did not inconvenience others (and sometimes i f i t did), whereas submissive behavior consisted of not seeking the p o s i t i o n of advantage i f i n so doing one would be conspicuous. A l l p o r t believed that ascendance permits a person to speak one's mind or p a r t i c i p a t e i n a discussion without f e e l i n g unduly s e l f - conscious; the submissive person i s l i k e l y to r a r e l y or never speak under such circumstances and to f e e l very self-conscious. Ascendance, he thought, may be manifest by open q u a r r e l l i n g , the ascendant person r e s i s t i n g v i o l a t i o n of righ t s even when t r i v i a l , whereas, the submissive person i s disturbed by quarrels and avoids them at any price, refusing to object to transgressions against personal rig h t s even though inwardly provoked. To shoulder r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , to be chosen as president or the recognized leader of groups, or to be at ease s o c i a l l y , are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that A l l p o r t associated with the ascendant personality. Avoiding r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , being found r a r e l y i n executive positions, and being suggestible, i n his opinion exemplified submissiveness. A l l p o r t ' s description i s f a i r l y consistent with the view of dominance and submissiveness that i s 48 c u r r e n t l y found i n psychological l i t e r a t u r e . The portrayal of submissiveness as a more weak, passive interpersonal stance i s re f l e c t e d in the occupations that A l l p o r t suggested were suitable choices for the submissive person. He stated that "a young woman with a submissive score might not, for example, f i n d herself at a disadvantage [ i t a l i c s added] i n such occupations as li b r a r i a n s h i p , nursing, s e c r e t a r i a l or c l e r i c a l work, e d i t o r i a l work.... On the other hand, women with high scores [that i s , those who are ascendant] might, i f they have the other r e q u i s i t e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , safely [ i t a l i c s added] consider salesmanship, s o c i a l work, re p o r t o r i a l work, the management of clubs, tea rooms or stores, law, medicine..." (p. 134). A l l p o r t seemed to imply that submissiveness may place one at a disadvantage for certain careers, while being ascendant provides ^safety' f o r other choices. Bender (1928) expressed s i m i l i a r sentiments when he explained that the tendency he had observed for submissive students to achieve higher scholarship than dominant students may be that scholarship i s a means of compensating for submissiveness. However, A l l p o r t (1928) noted and commented on the c u l t u r a l preference at that time for ascendance, and stated that the submissive person should be reassured that i t i s a "mistaken notion...that ascendance i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y more desirable than submission" (p. 134). Oddly, i n his test of ascendant-submissive behavior, he assigned a positive symbol to ascendance and a 49 negative symbol to submission, commenting that the symbol implied no merit or lack of i t . He defends submissiveness as a personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c by stating that "the submissive person i s often s o c i a l l y charming, and i n the long run as successful i n h i s adjustment as the ascendent person" (Allport, 1928, p. 134) . In summary, A l l p o r t described submissiveness as a passive, feminine tendency with a p o t e n t i a l l y disadvantageous aspect. Maslow (1940) elaborated t h i s view and further contributed to the early conceptual description of submissiveness by way of h i s studies of dominance. On the basis of observations of dominant and subordinate status amongst primates, Maslow (1940) reported what he believed were rather stable styles or behavioral syndromes among r e l a t i v e l y normal individuals i n his c l i n i c a l population, and attempted to discover the thread of dominance-feeling within the t o t a l personality of his subjects. Although Maslow, as A l l p o r t , cautioned against the tendency to regard high dominance f e e l i n g as desirable and low dominance f e e l i n g as undesirable, the tendency to do so i s nonetheless evident. For example, Maslow (1942) used the terms "dominance or self-esteem syndrome" and "self-esteem (dominance-feeling)" creating a conceptual l i n k between dominance and self-esteem which has persisted i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Coopersmith (1967) comments on t h i s association, s t a t i n g that "the behavior manifestations of high self-esteem have been described by such terms as dominance and assertiveness" (p. 25); whereas, "negative s e l f - a p p r a i s a l , or low self-esteem, i s often equated with i n f e r i o r i t y , t i m i d i t y , self-hatred, lack of personal acceptance, and submissiveness" (p. 260). Maslow (1942) defined self-esteem (or dominance-feeling) as e m p i r i c a l l y involving "good self-confidence, self-assurance, high evaluations of the s e l f , feelings of general c a p a b i l i t y or s u p e r i o r i t y , and lack of shyness, self-consciousness or embarrassment" (p. 2 60). It i s generally assumed today that self-esteem and the manifestations of i t are r e l a t e d to psychological health or adjustment. It i s unusual today to think of an insecure person as having xself-esteem'. Yet Maslow emphatically drew a d i s t i n c t i o n between self-esteem i n psychologically secure individuals and self-esteem i n the insecure. The p o s s i b i l i t y that one could have self-confidence, be self-assured, and possess high evaluations of oneself, yet be psychologically insecure, was a p o s s i b i l i t y that was consistently expressed i n Maslow's writing and was expected to be manifest d i f f e r e n t l y i n the person who possessed those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s but was secure. For example, Maslow (1942) wrote: Wertheimer has pointed out that any discussion of dominance must be a discussion of insecure people, that i s , of s l i g h t l y sick people. Our data show t h i s to be true.... High self-esteem i n secure individuals r e s u l t s i n strength rather than power-seeking, i n cooperation rather than competition. High self-esteem i n insecure i n d i v i d u a l s 51 eventuates i n domination, urge for power over other people and self-seeking, (p. 269) The importance of the psychological context i n which s e l f - esteem was manifest was important to these early authors. The view that dominance behavior i s related to self-esteem has been maintained; however, i t s expression i s not contingent upon the condition of psychological security. Maslow (1940) described high dominance-feeling i n much the same way that A l l p o r t described ascendance: self-confidence, s o c i a l poise and freer personality expression; being relaxed, extroverted and self-assured; having high self-esteem, f e e l i n g s of c a p a b i l i t y or superiority, an autonomous code of ethi c s , a love f o r adventure, a tendency to use people; being somewhat more secure, l e s s r e s p e c t f u l of rules, more independent, l e s s r e l i g i o u s , more masculine, less p o l i t e . He concluded that maladjustment and neurosis were among the variables that were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with high dominance. Similar to A l l p o r t ' s description of submissiveness, and i n contrast to dominance-feeling (self-esteem), Maslow (1942) suggested that low dominance (low self-esteem) was manifest by t i m i d i t y , shyness, self-consciousness, modesty, introv e r s i o n , i n f e r i o r i t y f e e l i n g s , low self-estimate, and less psychological sec u r i t y . He believed that low-dominance people were f a r more strongly s o c i a l i z e d or inh i b i t e d . This may have accounted f o r some of the more p o s i t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that Maslow associated 52 with low-dominance (for example, being more honest, r e l i a b l e , prompt and f a i t h f u l ) . However, the low-dominance syndrome generally exemplified "extreme feelings of general and s p e c i f i c i n f e r i o r i t y , shyness, timidness, fearfulness and s e l f - consciousness" (Maslow, 1942, p. 288). He also associated low dominance with being more feminine. Maslow (1940), l i k e A l l p o r t , cautioned against the tendency to regard high dominance-feeling as desirable and low dominance-feeling as undesirable, s t a t i n g that the l a t t e r " i s not necessarily an indicator of maladjustment, nor of neurotic tendencies" (p. 2 64). Maslow's (1940) observations of marriage indicate that he maintained the stereotype of dominance/masculinity and low dominance/femininity. He condoned male dominance i n marriage so long as i t was not markedly so, suggesting that i t led to better marital adjustment; whereas he thought that the dominance of wife over husband predicted s o c i a l and sexual f a i l u r e . The high- dominance woman, he said, demands only a high-dominance man and a sexual r e l a t i o n s h i p i n which "she must be dominated, must be forced into subordinate status" (Maslow, 1940, p. 284). Again i t must be noted that his comments are linked to ego se c u r i t y i n that he stated that the concept of dominance i s of l i t t l e use i n "equal" or "secure" marriages: ... the best marriages i n our society (unless both husband and wife are d e f i n i t e l y secure individuals) seem to be those i n which the husband and wife are at about the same l e v e l of 53 dominance-feeling or in which the husband i s somewhat higher i n dominance-feeling than the wife. In terms of status t h i s means that marriages with equality status or " s p l i t - dominance" status, or the husband i n dominant status (but not markedly so) are most conducive to happiness and good adjustment for both husband and wife. In those marriages i n which the wife i s d e f i n i t e l y dominant over her husband, trouble i s very l i k e l y to ensue i n the form of both s o c i a l and sexual maladjustment unless they are both very secure i n d i v i d u a l s . This seems to be true also, but to a l e s s e r extent, i n those marriages in which the husband i s very markedly dominant over his wife. (Maslow, 1942, p. 278) Maslow's conclusions i n respect to dominance and ma r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n contradict an e a r l i e r c i t a t i o n i n which Greenberg and Johnson (1986) were quoted to say that dominance-submission i s a c r i t i c a l index for assessing marital dysfunction i n couple i n t e r a c t i o n . Deutsch (1975) has s i m i l a r l y theorized that asymmetrical power undermines a f f e c t i o n a l bonds i n close r e l a t i o n s h i p s and Emerson (cited in Huston, 1983) seems to suggest that imbalance of power i n marriage i s usually uncomfortable, p a r t i c u l a r i l y for the person who has le a s t power. Peplau (1983) reported that studies have generally supported Maslow's contention that higher levels of s a t i s f a c t i o n are found i n both male-dominant and e g a l i t a r i a n marriages, and lower l e v e l s 54 i n female-dominant marriages. Peplau (1983) interpreted these findings to mean that "the s p e c i f i c pattern of i n t e r a c t i o n that a couple adopts may be less important to s a t i s f a c t i o n than whether the partners agree about the pattern" (p. 262). Huston (1983) supported t h i s view, suggesting that asymmetrical exercise of power when i t proves unsatisfactory i s perhaps because the partners are i d e o l o g i c a l l y uncomfortable with such a pattern. Asymmetries of power that deviate from c u l t u r a l norms have been postulated to be more l i k e l y to produce tension than those that are consistent with culture (Huston, 1983). Thus i t may be that Greenberg and Johnson's assessment w i l l be increasingly true i n the future as relationships r e f l e c t the e g a l i t a r i a n values of the culture. Furthermore, i n respect to the masochistic element i n submissive behavior, Maslow (1942) observed that the "standardized c u l t u r a l formulation i s that women i n love and sex re l a t i o n s are supposed to be yie l d i n g , submissive and even to some extent masochistic" (p. 288). The " c u l t u r a l conventional" view that submissiveness e n t a i l s some degree of masochism has been noted by others (Buss & Craik, 1981; Leary, 1957). Maslow (1942) suggested that t h i s tendency was demonstrated by the woman del i g h t i n g i n "the superior physical strength, height, hardness, and i n i t i a t i v e of the male, and that generally regards men as superior to women" (p. 289). Cultural-conventional submissive tendencies, Maslow claimed, were present to greater or lesser 55 degrees i n nearly a l l his subjects. Those few women who showed no signs of t h i s c u l t u r a l l y expected attitude of deference to men demonstrated what Maslow thought was a more t r u l y masochistic at t i t u d e , i n a psychological rather than a cultural-conventional sense. Maslow explained that these women s t r i v e incessantly to dominate and tend to be s a d i s t i c i n t h e i r dominance i n so f a r as culture allows. When confronted by a man who cannot be dominated, "who proves himself stronger", then these women become d e f i n i t e l y masochistic, and "glory in being dominated" (Maslow, 1942, p. 289). Although the myth of feminine masochism has since been challenged i n the l i t e r a t u r e (Caplan, 1984), the s i g n i f i c a n t point to be noted here i s that Maslow i d e n t i f i e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s of dominance-subordination as manifestations of maladjustment, and sexual behavior one "channel through which dominance- subordination may be expressed" (Maslow, 1942, p. 291). Maslow j u s t i f i e d retaining the term dominance-feeling and using i t interchangeably with the term self-esteem, because h i s research began with the use of that concept. In the next decade low-dominance was defined as submissiveness. Gough, McCloskey, and Meehl (1951) provided the next important l i n k i n the conceptual chain when they asserted that "people with low dominance are submissive" (p. 361). Submissive i n d i v i d u a l s , they said, appear and f e e l weaker i n face-to-face contacts, have d i f f i c u l t y asserting themselves, and are more e a s i l y influenced and intimidated by others. In t h e i r 56 d e s c r i p t i o n of dominant and submissive behavior a close resemblance to A l l p o r t ' s description can be noted. Gough et a l . (1951) contend that: ...the dominant person tends to be the "stronger" i n face- to-face personal situations.... able to influence others, to gain t h e i r automatic respect, and i f necessary to control them. He [sic] i s not read i l y intimidated or defeated, and hi s [ s i c ] own feelings i n most face-to-face s i t u a t i o n s seems to be fee l i n g s of safety, security, personal Tightness, and self-confidence. Such a person i s often described by others as " f o r c e f u l " , "masterful", "strong", "confident", "authoritative", and "sure of himself [ s i c ] " , (p. 361) These dominance descriptors: confident, masterful, and strong, are consistent with Maslow's depiction of high dominance manifesting self-esteem and t h e i r characterization of submissiveness as interpersonal weakness maintained i t s association with low self-esteem. However, more recent empirical studies of submissiveness have not demonstrated t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . Deluty (1979) hypothesized, for example, that submissive c h i l d r e n would have low self-esteem, but t h i s p r e d i c t i o n was not supported empirically. Submissiveness: Subordination The foregoing l i t e r a t u r e reviewed the t h e o r e t i c a l formulations which established submissiveness as a t r a i t and 57 provided the basis for i t s t r a d i t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p to dominance. The early i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a relationship to dominance may have contributed to a view of submissiveness i n which the notion of subordination was incorporated. This association has for the most part been i m p l i c i t , although i t was o r i g i n a l l y explicated by A l l p o r t (1928) when he suggested that a submissive person assumes a r o l e of subordination i n r e l a t i o n to a dominant person who takes a r o l e of supremacy. It was noted e a r l i e r that Maslow (1940, 1942) also tended to li n k the two concepts. He believed that a tendency prevailed for insecure people to u t i l i z e dominance to exert power over others — to dominate them, and he i d e n t i f i e d subordination as the consequence of domination. He described interpersonal power dynamics as being characterized by domination-subordination, but he then used the term submissive to re f e r to the behavior of women in sexual r e l a t i o n s h i p s which were characterized by domination-subordination. No e x p l i c i t d i s t i n c t i o n can be found i n the psychological l i t e r a t u r e between the concepts of subordination and submissiveness. The terms are found to be casually used interchangeably i n professional and secular l i t e r a t u r e . Although Maslow preferred to use the term low dominance instead of the terms submission or subordination, his use of both terms on occasion (for example, i n reference to the c u l t u r a l expectations for women) and his use of low dominance to describe the low s e l f - esteem syndrome, maintained a conceptual association between 58 submissive behavior and subordination. Gough et a l . (1951), by d e f i n i n g low dominance as submissiveness, assisted i n the conceptualization of submissive behaviors p o l a r i z i n g opposite to dominance tendencies. Because subordination i s the antonym for dominance (Webster, 1985), i t i s not surprising that the two constructs have been considered to be roughly synonymous. Leary (1957) made an important observation r e l a t i n g to the s e l e c t i o n of adjectives to describe the interpersonal domain which may provide an explanation for the tendency to equate subordination and submissiveness. He pointed out that terms used by the interpersonal s c i e n t i s t do not necessarily have the same meaning that they do i n everyday l i f e , but that words employed by the general public are operationally re-defined by the s c i e n t i s t . He advised that i t i s best to keep the s c i e n t i f i c meaning as close as possible to that which i s used by the culture being studied, but the s c i e n t i s t must continually be c l e a r about the meaning of the words with which he or she deals. Research that r e l i e s on the subjective reporting of i n t e r n a l states (which submissiveness does) must, as much as possible, define the concepts i n the same way as they are defined i n the population. Apart from college samples, very l i t t l e e f f o r t has been taken to i d e n t i f y how the t r a i t i s defined i n the culture. Submissiveness: the Opposite of Dominance Having defined low dominance as submissiveness, Gough et a l . (1951) described dominance and submissiveness i n behavioral terms as opposite tendencies. As noted e a r l i e r , they maintained the view that the dominant person c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y tends to be the stronger i n face-to-face situations and the submissive person weaker; they described the dominant person as being able to influence and the submissive person as having d i f f i c u l t y being asser t i v e ; they depicted the dominant person as being able to control others, the submissive person as being influenced and intimidated by others (Gough et a l . 1951, p. 3 61). The s i m i l a r i t y to A l l p o r t ' s and Maslow's descriptions i s s t r i k i n g . The obviously opposite tendencies of the dominant and submissive personality as described to t h i s point i n time were elaborated by Leary (1957) who used dominance-submission as the opposing dimensions of the power axis on a circumplex of interpersonal t r a i t s . Leary lab e l l e d the general category under which submit occurred as Self-effacing--Masochistic. S e l f - e f f a c i n g represented a moderate int e n s i t y of submissive response; masochistic represented the pathological i n t e n s i t y . The adaptive r e f l e x was to "do one's duty, obey", but the pathological r e f l e x (masochism) was defined i n the terms: "weak and spineless actions, submit" (Leary, 1957, p. 108). Reflec t i n g Leary's counsel that the s c i e n t i s t be mindful of the culture's understanding of the concepts being described, Wiggins' (1979) circumplex of interpersonal t r a i t s i s based on the assumption that the natural language of the culture contains the vocabulary to describe the content of human tendencies, and 60 that a taxonomy of " t r a i t - d e s c r i p t i v e terms must precede meaningful empirical studies" (p.396). The labels given to h i s interpersonal categories share the semantic " f l a v o r " of the other terms i n that p r o f i l e . Variables that have no semantic features i n common occur opposite each other on the circumplex (Wiggins, 1979, p.396). Thus, the label "ambitious-dominant" occurs opposite the la b e l "lazy-submissive" or "unassured-submissive" (Wiggins, P h i l l i p s , and Trapnell, 1988). The l a t t e r category, according to Wiggins, shares the features of interpersonal transactions involving incompetence, passive resistance, submission, or obedience; attributes that are seen to possess the "common semantic features of denying status to s e l f , denying love to both s e l f and other, and granting status to other" (Wiggins, 1979, p. 398). The category "ambitious-dominant" shares features involving success, s e l f - d i s c i p l i n e , power, and self-confidence. As an opposite tendency having no features i n common with the "lazy-submissive" category, these attributes would be expected to be s i m i l a r i n granting status to s e l f but denying status to other, and granting love to s e l f and other. The ambitious- dominant category occurs at the "power" dimension of the circumplex. The items i n t h i s category would be expected to be highly negatively correlated with the items i n the lazy- submissive category which are at the opposite "weak" pole. The submissive category l i e s between the labels: "lazy ( f a i l u r e ) " and "unassuming (modesty)" (Wiggins, 1979, p. 402): items which would 61 be expected to have a moderately posi t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with submissiveness. Wiggins (1979) argued that the taxonomy i s Ap s y c h o l o g i c a l ' rather than xsemantic' since " i t i s assumed that the semantic structures underlying s o c i a l perception i n t h i s culture cannot be in f e r r e d i n any obvious way from dictionary d e f i n i t i o n s " (p. 4 00). However, i n respect to the selection of the l a b e l "submissive" for the category of tendencies that include the descriptors self-doubting, s e l f - e f f a c i n g , timid, meek, unbold, unaggressive, forceless, and unauthoritative, i t must be determined that these are i n fact the adjectives that a representative sample of the general population would use to describe submissiveness, and that submissive behavior i s understood by most people to mean a denial of love to the other and a denial of love and status to s e l f . For example, i n North America many people claim to endorse a Judeo-Christian b e l i e f system i n which submissiveness i s not understood to be weak, self-doubting, and forceless and that does not deny love to others. Within t h i s b e l i e f system, submission i s seen as a r e f l e c t i o n of personal power, an indication of security and of id e n t i t y , and a manifestation of one's sense of personal worth. For C h r i s t i a n s , submissive behavior could be said to manifest status and love for s e l f by granting status and love to others. (How people who profess to hold the Christian view r e c o n c i l e the c o n f l i c t i n g c u l t u r a l interpretation of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r construct 62 has not been systematically studied nor empirically demonstrated.) At any rate, i t should be determined that the terms are conceptualized i n as broad a manner as a diverse representation of the culture uses them, otherwise the conclusions may not be generalized to populations to whom the data do not apply ( i . e . , non-college populations). Buss and Craik (1981) discovered that submissive acts, even as t r a d i t i o n a l l y (currently) conceptualized, could not be predicted by current dominance scales as they had anticipated. They speculated that perhaps "dominance and submissiveness may not be properly conceptualized as polar opposites, as i s generally done" (Buss & Craik, 1981, p. 190). Could Wiggins' (1979) fi n d i n g that the smallest psychometric differences i n h i s study occurred on the ambitious-dominant and lazy-submissive adjective scales also r e l a t e to the factor of conceptualization? Russell (1979) s i m i l a r l y found no evidence for b i p o l a r i t y i n the dominant-submissive dimension of a f f e c t i v e space. Although the usual practice i s to conceptualize submissiveness as the opposite of dominance, there are some va r i a t i o n s that should be noted. These variati o n s do not e x p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f y dominance and submissiveness as opposites, but the general view of submissiveness as a weak interpersonal posture i s maintained. For example, Benjamin (1974) attempted to resolve t h e o r e t i c a l differences r e s u l t i n g from Leary's placement of dominate and submit as opposites on the v e r t i c a l 63 axis, and Schaefer's (1965) notion of "autonomy" being opposite "dominate" by defining submit as the complement of dominate. That i s , submit appears i n her model on the c h i l d l i k e plane i n a p o s i t i o n complementary to dominate which i s located on the parentlike plane. Parentlike behaviors are active i n nature and r e l a t e to "what i s going to be done to or for the other person"; c h i l d l i k e behaviors are reactive and r e l a t e to "what i s going to be done to or for the s e l f " (Benjamin, 1974, p.395). "Emancipate" here i s the opposite of dominate; "be emancipated" the opposite of submit. The characterization of submissiveness as p a s s i v i t y i s maintained. Another view that i n d i r e c t l y places submissiveness opposite dominance, i s the one ar t i c u l a t e d by Deluty (1979). He defined submissiveness as one form of unassertiveness and c a l l e d i t "a non-hostile act that involves considering the f e e l i n g s , power, or authority of others while denying (or not standing up for) one's own r i g h t s and f e e l i n g s " (Deluty, 1981a, pp. 155-156). The opposite tendency, assertiveness, he defined as the expression of s e l f without the v i o l a t i o n of other's r i g h t s . However, raters (both c h i l d r e n and teachers) experienced d i f f i c u l t y making assertive-submissive discriminations. Deluty's explanation for t h i s , and for the lack of s i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n between assertiveness and submissiveness scores (Deluty, 1979, p. 1066), l i e i n the d e f i n i t i o n s of submissive and a s s e r t i v e acts that he employed. They are not complete opposites, but share two important commonalities: both are non-hostile acts, and neither involves the expression of rights and feelings at the expense of others. Although Deluty perceives i t to be otherwise, t h i s f i n d i n g could mean that submissiveness i s indeed a form of s e l f - a ssertion. This explanation, ( i . e . , submissiveness i s a form of s e l f - a s s e r t i o n ) i s consistent with his additional f i n d i n g that the cognitive repertoires of submissive g i r l s were dominated by as s e r t i v e alternatives (Deluty, 1981b). Submissive childr e n appeared to regard assertive alternatives s i m i l a r l y to assertive c h i l d r e n i n respect to the success, strength, bravery and masculinity of the behaviors. Deluty's research provided l i t t l e evidence f o r his contention that submissiveness i s a form of non- assertiveness. Deluty (1979) contended that submissive behavior considers the f e e l i n g s , power, or authority of others while denying or not defending one's own rights and feelings, and on the basis of t h i s understanding predicted that submissiveness i n childr e n would be p o s i t i v e l y correlated with low self-esteem. However, he found no s i g n i f i c a n t relationships i n either the boys' or g i r l s ' submissiveness scores and self-esteem, popularity and behavioral adjustment. In fact, his findings were consistent with Bordewick and Bornstein's (1980) finding that assertive and submissive c h i l d r e n shared s i m i l i a r perceptions. Although Deluty found a small c o r r e l a t i o n between male assertiveness and the three va r i a b l e s (self-esteem, popularity, behavioral adjustment), i t 65 was not so for g i r l s . Apparently, i t was not that g i r l s perceived the assertive responses to be too masculine to engage in — submissive g i r l s in fact rated assertive a l t e r n a t i v e s as more "feminine" than did other children (Deluty, 1983, p. 128) — but they apparently selected submissive alternatives more frequently because i t was the behavior that would make others f e e l best. Deluty (1983) concluded that submissive c h i l d r e n apparently consider assertive behaviors "too unkind, unwise, and ^bad' to e x h i b i t them" (p. 128) . An examination of some of the items on the Children's Action Tendency Scale (Deluty, 1979) may i l l u s t r a t e h i s conclusion, keeping in mind that the assertive response i s , according to Deluty, the desirable one. (Item 2) You and a friend are playing i n your house. Your f r i e n d makes a big mess, but your parents blame you and punish you. What would you do? (Assertive response) : Ask my friend to help me clean up the mess. (Aggressive response): Refuse to t a l k to or l i s t e n to my parents the next day. (Submissive response): Clean up the mess. 8. You're watching a r e a l l y t e r r i f i c show on t e l e v i s i o n . In the middle of the show, your parents t e l l you that i t ' s time for bed and turn off the T V. What would you do? (Assertive response): Promise to go to bed early tomorrow night i f they l e t me stay up late tonight. (Aggressive response): Scream at them, "I don't want to!" (Submissive response): Start crying. 9. You're having lunch i n the c a f e t e r i a . Your f r i e n d has a big bag of delic i o u s chocolates for dessert. You ask i f you can have just one, but your friend says, "No." What would you do? (Assertive response): Offer to trade something of mine for the chocolate. (Aggressive response): C a l l the kid mean and s e l f i s h . (Submissive response): Forget about i t and continue eating my lunch. 13. You're playing with a friend in your house and you're making a l o t of noise. Your parents get r e a l l y angry and s t a r t y e l l i n g at you for making so much noise. What would you do? (Assertive response): T e l l them, "I'm sorry, but I can't play the game without making noise." (Aggressive response): Ignore t h e i r y e l l i n g and continue to make noise. (Submissive response): Find something else to do. (Deluty, 1979). Deluty considered the aggressive and submissive responses to be maladaptive. He did not apparently consider other factors such as the s i t u a t i o n a l context of the behavior, or the meaning of the behavior for the c h i l d , i n making the designations of 67 adaptive or maladaptive. To i l l u s t r a t e , i f Deluty were to apply Maslow's condition of ego security to explain submissive behavior, he may conclude that a "secure" c h i l d s e l e c t s a submissive a l t e r n a t i v e as a se l f - a s s e r t i o n i n which he or she says: "I w i l l take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for my behavior" (Item 2); or "I respect you" (Item 8); or "I accept your r i g h t to do what you l i k e with your goods" (Item 9); or "I respect your r i g h t s and w i l l not v i o l a t e them in preference for my own" (Item 13). Some parents may argue that the submissive responses provided by Deluty are the desirable ones. The theme that i s common to each of the views presented i n t h i s section i s that submissiveness represents the weak pole of interpersonal interaction, and tends to be maladaptive. This thread may be traced further throughout the chara c t e r i z a t i o n of submissiveness as a feminine t r a i t . Submissiveness: A Feminine Characteristic Feminine: Soft, delicate, gentle, tender, d o c i l e , submissive, amenable, de f e r e n t i a l . . . . Masculine: Robust, strong, lusty, energetic, potent, brave, bold, f e a r l e s s . . . . (Sample of synonyms from The Synonym Finder by J . O. Rodale i n Reinisch, Rosenblum, & Sanders, 1987). A s u p e r f i c i a l review of psychological l i t e r a t u r e and even minimal knowledge of the culture suggests that submissiveness i s associated with femininity. I t has been suggested i n fa c t , that 68 females incorporate the stereotypes of submissiveness and incompetence into t h e i r self-images (Deaux, 1979; Denmark, 1980). Tender, d o c i l e , d e f e r e n t i a l submissiveness i s employed i n the ro l e that women have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been considered best suited for (Lewis, 1985): that of caring for others. M i l l e r (1976) contends that women's psyches are structured around the p r i n c i p l e that they e x i s t to serve other people's needs. "Women have t r a d i t i o n a l l y b u i l t a sense of self-worth", she states, "on a c t i v i t i e s that they can manage to define as taking care of and giving to others" ( M i l l e r , 1976, p. 53). But serving others' needs, even though someone must do i t , i s not valued i n our culture ( M i l l e r , 1976) and l i k e submissiveness, i t i s not associated with conceptions of psychological health (Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz, & Vogel, 1970). The consequence of defining oneself i n terms of the needs of others has been suggested by G i l l i g a n (1982) to r e s u l t i n a reduction i n the power that women hold. This i s consistent with the p r a c t i c e of locating submissiveness at the weak pole of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s . However, others have argued that while a feminine morality appears to concede power, s e l f - s a c r i f i c e may also be a strategy by which women exercise control and power (Janeway, 1971, 1981; Rosenblum, 198 6). That i s , by s a c r i f i c i n g s e l f - i n t e r e s t ostensibly to meet the needs of others, "powerless" women obligate and make recipients dependent upon them. This argument i s i n l i n e with the dysfunctional care-taking of co- 69 dependency (Beattie, 1987) that i s a coping behavior learned i n re l a t i o n s h i p s where there i s an excessive imbalance of needs. Rosenblum (1986) suggests that the ethic of s e l f - s a c r i f i c e that defines femininity masks the fact that " s a c r i f i c e i s a matter of choice", because the injunction to please others disguises the fac t that one i s choosing to s a c r i f i c e (p. 98). What i s advocated i s not that women abandon t h e i r commitment to care (Rosenblum, 1986), but rather that attending to one's own in t e r e s t s and desires be legitimized for women and accepted along with serving and caring for others (Miller, 1976). Thus, rather than women t r a n s l a t i n g t h e i r own motivations into means by which they may serve others, an integration must be achieved i n which s e l f and others are served simultaneously; a f u l l e r a b i l i t y to r e l a t e to others being achieved along with the f u l l e s t development of s e l f (Miller, 1976). Furthermore, i t i s the sex stereotyping of caring and serving a c t i v i t i e s that must be abandoned i n order that both men and women be allowed access to the avenues of personal development that engaging i n these a c t i v i t i e s brings. M i l l e r (1976) expressed the conviction that a f f i l i a t i o n i s not only a required condition for the existence of human beings and the advancement of society, i t i s the only means by which i n d i v i d u a l development proceeds. The major task f o r the human community i s how to incorporate the necessity of serving others into everyone's development, male and female, without imposing subservience (Miller, 1976). I t i s hoped that t h i s 70 study w i l l advance understanding of the personality a t t r i b u t e s that allow people to serve and care for others i n the way M i l l e r envisioned. The Psychological Characteristics of Submissiveness The various psychological descriptions of submissiveness that have been reviewed to t h i s point, focus primarily on the maladaptive dimension of the t r a i t : "weak and spineless actions" (Leary, 1957)/ self-doubt, self-effacement, t i m i d i t y , meekness, unboldness, forcelessness, unauthoritativeness (Wiggins, 1979) ; masochism (Buss & Craik, 1981); lack of self-confidence, non- assertiveness, p a s s i v i t y , conformity, lack of control over s e l f and others, need for emotional support and care (Mehrabian & Hines, 1978) and not defending one's own right s and fe e l i n g s (Deluty, 1979) . The focus on the maladaptive dimension i n defining submissive behavior i s further demonstrated i n Buss and Craik's (1981) research. These authors acquired, from a sample of 37 undergraduate students, a l i s t of the following acts that they determined to be most prototypical of submissiveness: accepting an unfair grade without questioning i t ; agreeing one was wrong when i n fac t one was not; not complaining when a personal possession was used without permission; not complaining when one was over-charged at the store; smoking marijuana against one's own wishes because everyone else did i t ; allowing one's lover to bring another date home; and allowing one's roommate to play the stereo when i t obviously interfered with h i s or her own work or study. The authors observe that the acts designated as being p r o t o t y p i c a l of submissiveness "seem to imply more than simply the absence of dominant behavior" (Buss & Craik, 1981, p. 182). They make the observation that has been noted previously: the designated acts seem to share in common a degree of masochism that goes beyond simply y i e l d i n g to the pressure of another i n d i v i d u a l or group, and thereby are set apart from the simple denotation of xabsence of dominance' (Buss & Craik, 1981; Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1979). Whether masochism i s the motive or not, the acts that Buss and Craik i d e n t i f y do not denote an optimal l e v e l of interpersonal functioning. As " s o c i o - c u l t u r a l products" (Buss & Craik, 1981, p.188), the se l e c t i o n of these x p r o t o t y p i c a l ' acts r e f l e c t s the way in which submissiveness i s perceived, at least by t h i s sample of young people. The students also i d e n t i f i e d acts that they considered to be prototypes of dominance which were i n obvious contrast to submissive behaviors, such as: issuing orders to get a group organized, taking charge, assigning ro l e s , taking command and deciding for the group (Buss & Craik, 1980, p. 384) . Dominant acts were rated high i n s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y i f they entailed leadership and resulted i n group gain; low i f they were d i r e c t i v e but self-centered. Submissive behaviors d i f f e r e d from dominant behaviors i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to achieve the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y rating, for obvious reasons. Russell (1979) too defined submissiveness i n terms that 72 denote lack of power and influence. He used the adjectives c o n t r o l l e d , influenced, awed, and guided to describe submissiveness i n contrast to the adjectives used to describe dominance: c o n t r o l l i n g , i n f l u e n t i a l , important, autonomous. The s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y associated with f e e l i n g important, i n f l u e n t i a l , and autonomous i s evident in comparison to being influenced, controlled, awed, or guided. Further research that relates to the maladaptive expression of submissiveness i s that reported by Russell and Mehrabian (1977) . They described c h a r a c t e r i s t i c emotional states i n terms of basic dimensions of temperament: t r a i t pleasure-displeasure, arousability-stimulus screening, and dominance-submissiveness, and proposed that an emotional state could be i d e n t i f i e d i n terms of i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the three dimensions. For example, the authors suggested that anxiety would be associated with displeasure, arousal, and submissiveness; while anger would be associated with displeasure, arousal, and dominance (Russell & Mehrabian, 1977). The association of anxiety with submissiveness i s consistent with a maladaptive perception. Mehrabian and Hines (1978) employed the above assumptions to develop a questionnaire measure of individual differences i n dominance-submissiveness. The questionnaire items i d e n t i f y submissiveness through behaviors that indicate (1) lack of s e l f - confidence (not defending personal opinions, being unsure of one's a b i l i t y , having d i f f i c u l t y speaking p u b l i c a l l y , lacking 73 confidence i n one's ideas, lacking confidence i n s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s ) ; (2) non-assertiveness (having d i f f i c u l t y saying "no", not adhering to personal convictions, not i n s i s t i n g on one's r i g h t s , avoiding confrontation); (3) passive roles (conforming to others, r e l y i n g on experts, being w i l l i n g to follow d i r e c t i o n s , taking the role of follower); (4) lacking control over one's personal l i f e , one's emotions, and others; (5) needing emotional support; (6) tending to be cared for by others; (7) tolerance for others; (8) conformity. The concept of submissiveness that i s exemplified by these items on the whole convey the idea of low self-esteem, p a s s i v i t y , and psychological and interpersonal weakness. F i n a l l y , Benjamin's (1974) placement of submit on the c h i l d l i k e plane of her model, in a location complementary to "dominate" on the parentlike plane, maintains the view that submissiveness exemplifies weakness. "Be emancipated" conveys the notion that submissive behavior i s responsive. In t h i s model, submission i s also not depicted within the sphere of adult behaviors. The absence of v o l i t i o n , that i s , of choosing to submit, i s observed i n the placement of "submit" on the c h i l d l i k e surface which Benjamin reserves for behaviors that are reactive and r e l a t e to what i s going to be done to or for the s e l f (Benjamin, 1974, p. 395). The antidote that Benjamin's model prescribes f o r submissiveness i s s p e c i f i e d by i d e n t i f y i n g i t s opposite (be emancipated) and then finding the p o s i t i o n on the p a r e n t l i k e surface that i s complementary to i t ( i . e . , emancipate). In other words, the antidote for submissiveness i s fo r the person who i s dominating to move from a d i s a f f i l i a t i v e status (dominate) to an a f f i l i a t i v e status (emancipate) and assume le s s interpersonal power. The submissive posture, being passive, does not activate an antidote for dominating behavior. One submits to the domination of another and one i s emancipated from i t . Furthermore, "submit" does not appear on the t h i r d surface (that i s , the intrapersonal dimension) which represents attitudes taken toward the s e l f : actually, internalized perceptions of how one i s treated by s i g n i f i c a n t others. Points on t h i s surface were deduced by taking parentlike behaviors and x t u r n i n g them inward'. Consequently, "dominating" becomes "I am my own master". "Submit", because i t occurs on the c h i l d l i k e surface i s not i n t r o j e c t e d , so there i s no internalized counterpart f o r i t . This r e i n f o r c e s the view that submissiveness i s a reactive behavior and not a way of being that i s incorporated into the self-concept. The p r a c t i c e of considering submissiveness as a s o c i a l l y undesirable, maladaptive behavioral t r a i t may be explained at l e a s t p a r t i a l l y i n terms of what Broverman et a l . (1970) have ref e r r e d to as the "adjustment" notion of health. They argued that c l i n i c i a n s accept the notion that health consists of a good adjustment to one's environment. Therefore, since men and women 75 are s o c i a l i z e d d i f f e r e n t l y i n our society, and since the adjustment notion of health attributes greater s o c i a l value to masculine stereotypic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , submissiveness has, by v i r t u e of being considered a feminine c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , been viewed as an i n d i c a t i o n of lack of health. Also, North American culture has not questioned the competitive ethic (Butt, 1987) which encourages the maximizing of individual p r o f i t s (Lerner, 1982) i n many areas of s o c i a l interaction and thereby fosters a mentality that i s accepting of dominance behavior. Therefore, conceptions of what constitutes health, being dependent upon and r e l a t i v e to c u l t u r a l or environmental conditions, have resulted i n submissive behavior i n general being devalued. Depth of empathy, cooperativeness, and the a b i l i t y to help others have not been the c r i t e r i a by which health i s assessed but may be better i n d i c a t o r s of i t than adaptation to prev a i l i n g values. Summary In the psychological l i t e r a t u r e during the past f i v e decades, the concept of submissiveness has progressively been defined i n terms of subordination and interpersonal weakness. A l l p o r t (1928) described submissiveness as a strongly marked tendency to be passive i n interpersonal contacts; Gough et a l . (1951) described the submissive person as one who appears and f e e l s weaker i n relationships and i s more e a s i l y influenced and 76 intimidated by others; Leary (1957) denoted the dimensions of submissiveness as behaviors ranging i n i n t e n s i t y from obedience to weak and spineless actions; Wiggins (1979) applied the labels lazy-submissive and unassertive-submissive to interpersonal transactions involving incompetence and passive-resistance; and Russell (1979) defines submission as being controlled, influenced, awed and guided. Lacking control over s e l f and others, and requiring nurturance and emotional support are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that have been associated with submissiveness (Mehrabian & Hines, 1978), as i s a neurotic element, p a r t i c u l a r i l y masochism (Bronzaft, Hayes, Welch, & Koltuv, 1960; Buss & Craik, 1981; Leary, 1957; Maslow, 1940). Once low-dominance was defined as submissiveness (Gough et a l . 1951), the l a t t e r has primarily been studied as the opposite of dominance. This writer has been unable to locate any studies devoted s p e c i f i c a l l y to the conceptual i n v e s t i g a t i o n of submissiveness. The absence of descriptive research, as well as the i n d i r e c t findings of Wiggins (1979, p. 407), Russell (1979, p. 351), and Buss and Craik (1981, p. 190) suggest that there i s a need to examine the accuracy of the current conceptualization. The next section i n t h i s chapter presents a t h e o r e t i c a l framework in which the concept of submissiveness i s examined from the perspective of inner experiencing. 77 Submissiveness: A Re-conceptualization A review of the l i t e r a t u r e suggests that the d e s c r i p t i v e conceptualization of submissiveness, and the a t t r i b u t i o n of that s p e c i f i c t r a i t l a b e l to individuals depends to a large extent on the way behavior i s interpreted. The person — h i s or her values, i d e a l s , l i f e plan, and actual meaning underlying behavior, may be overlooked i n the quest for the more objective data of behavior (Carson, 1969). Cochran (1984, 1986) has argued that i n a t t r i b u t i n g t r a i t s to individuals i t i s important to d i s t i n g u i s h between t r a i t s that can be attributed on the basis of an outward view of a person's actions and those that depend on an inward view of what a person i s . He employed the notion of "ori e n t a t i o n " to describe t r a i t s that require an inward view of the person or that express the stance or position that a person has adopted. A person's stance or position can be accurately i d e n t i f i e d only by determining the meaning that the observed behavior has for him or her since outward manifestations i n themselves do not provide evidence for an orientation. In t h i s regard, Cochran (1984) states that " i f we ask what behaviors s i g n i f y , what they actually r e f l e c t i n a person, we are obligated to give some account of the person and what things mean to him or her" (p. 194) . Therefore, i f one says that a person possesses a p a r t i c u l a r t r a i t ( i f that t r a i t i s one that requires an o r i e n t a t i o n ) , one must say something about what the person i s as well as about what the person does. 78 In psychology the t r a i t "submissiveness" i s currently defined on the basis of manifest (outward) behavior, rather than according to the inward meaning that the behavior has for the actor. For example, Buss and Craik (1980) acquired t h e i r l i s t of submissive acts by asking subjects to think of the most submissive persons they knew and then l i s t the things that they observed i n these persons that were i n keeping with that designation. These acts were then rated for t h e i r p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y to submissiveness by other judges who had no knowledge of the actors at a l l . Thus, the personal meaning of observed behavior was not taken into account at a l l . Wiggins (1979) had subjects rate the accuracy of s p e c i f i c semantic labels to t h e i r self-perceptions on the presumption that the meaning that a p a r t i c u l a r l a b e l had for an in d i v i d u a l was the same as the usual meaning of that descriptive term within the language. However, differences i n personal meaning could account for a considerable amount of v a r i a b l i t y . Take the lab e l " s e l f - e f f a c i n g " on the XHI' or submissive scale, for example, and imagine the difference i n meaning that there could be for a person l i k e Mother Teresa and for an adolescent for whom s e l f - effacement represents a negative s e l f image, even though each may f e e l the adjective applies quite aptly to them. Without knowledge of personal meaning the behavior i s la r g e l y unexplained. According to Cochran's (1986) formulation, submissiveness i s 79 the kind of t r a i t that requires an orientation to be enacted because i t requires that a position be adopted; a consistent way of "being" i n r e l a t i o n to s e l f and i n r e l a t i o n to others outside of s e l f . (To r e a l i z e the difference between t r a i t s which require an o r i e n t a t i o n and those which do not, compare submissiveness with a t r a i t l i k e absentmindedness.) To count as a t r a i t that manifests a personal position or orientation, the submissive behavior must r e f l e c t what the individual i s r e a l l y l i k e . For Mother Teresa, her position i s that she s t r i v e s to be worthy to serve, which means for her, s t r i v i n g to be completely submissive (Gonzalez-Balado, 1987). Her position i s manifest through meekness and submissive acts of s e l f - d e n i a l and self-effacement. Other persons may act i n some ways l i k e her: deny s e l f , act meek and humble, and serve others, but they may be acting out a very d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n . Their actions may r e f l e c t d i s t r u s t or disregard for s e l f , a lack of control over the outcome of t h e i r actions, or d i s t r u s t and fear of others, and would be more l i k e l y to characterize the maladaptive dimension of submissiveness that i s depicted i n the l i t e r a t u r e . I f an observer s t r i v e s to interpret behavior on the basis of a person's inner perspective (that i s , according to what a person is) , the meaning that the actions have for the i n d i v i d u a l must be an important consideration. Krebs (1982) argues i n respect to a l t r u i s t i c acts that "phenotypically s i m i l a r behaviors may stem from q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t sources" and "that d i s t i n g u i s h i n g 80 among such behaviors i n terms of t h e i r intentions and motives i s more accurate than grouping them together i n terms of t h e i r external appearance because the former approach supplies a more sophisticated ... model of r e a l i t y " (p. 449). Observing that a person acts passively, shows deference, or i s subject to someone else, cannot automatically or accurately lead to the conclusion that the person i s oriented in a submissive way. The behavior, the outward manifestation, i s the data to be explained i n the l i g h t of inner experiencing when making the t r a i t a t t r i b u t i o n . The following example (source unknown) i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s point. A young and powerless houseboy was constantly harassed by p r a c t i c a l jokes played on him by the m i l i t a r y men he was forced to serve. Despite t h e i r heartlessness, he continued to serve with apparent submission. Eventually they were convinced that hi s nature was unprovokable and in view of the boy's apparent v i r t u e , some of the men regretted being so unkind and promised to stop tormenting him. Recognizing t h e i r change of heart, the boy seized upon the opportunity and conceded that he would then no longer s p i t into t h e i r soup. The boy's manifest behavior f u l l y concealed what he r e a l l y was. In fact, h i s manifest tolerance and subservience a c t u a l l y provided a way to enact h i s orientation and was more a r e f l e c t i o n of h i s i n c l i n a t i o n to r e t a l i a t e than to be submissive. Cochran (1984) rel a t e d Benjamin Franklin's struggle with pride as a further i l l u s t r a t i o n of the necessity of determining the meaning 81 of behavior. Franklin's determined e f f o r t s to subdue pride and in i t s place to c u l t i v a t e humility were so i n e f f e c t i v e that he was forced to conclude that a l l he had acquired was a great deal of the appearance of humility and very l i t t l e of the r e a l i t y of i t . He f e l t so unsuccessful i n a l t e r i n g h is pride that he believed that even i f he could have completely overcome i t , he would probably have been proud of his humility. Cochran (1984) suggested several c r i t e r i a by which to evaluate whether an orientation i s being enacted. The f i r s t i s that the behavior must be i n t r i n s i c a l l y motivated. I t must also occur within a s i t u a t i o n a l context that allows for that motivation. I t must be intentional, must f i t coherently within the i n d i v i d u a l ' s t o t a l l i f e pattern and be compatible with other personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Each of these c r i t e r i a w i l l now be b r i e f l y examined i n r e l a t i o n to submissiveness. I n t r i n s i c Motivation In order for an act to be said to r e f l e c t a submissive o r i e n t a t i o n , the determination to be submissive must come from within the person. Choosing to submit, to defer to another or to deny s e l f - i n t e r e s t for the well-being of another, i s a c r i t i c a l f a c t o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g behavior that r e f l e c t s a d i s p o s i t i o n to help from behavior that r e f l e c t s passive subordination to the demands of others. Again, Krebs (1982) noted t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n respect to behaviors that appear outwardly to be a l t r u i s t i c and suggests that objective d e f i n i t i o n s that f a i l to make a 82 d i s t i n c t i o n between the aims, goals and intentions of a behavior and i t s e f f e c t s are inadequate. He proposes that one of the reasons that i t i s important to i d e n t i f y the intention underlying an act i s that intention supplies a better view of the personality or character of a person than does the act i t s e l f , and thus provides a sounder basis for predicting subsequent behavior (Krebs, 1982). Cochran (1984) agreed, s t a t i n g that when an action i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y motivated, "that action i s pure, a r e f l e c t i o n of the d i s p o s i t i o n within" (p. 195). I f a person defers to another but f e e l s no choice i n the matter, or f e e l s intimidated or coerced to submit, the behavior does not r e f l e c t an inward d i s p o s i t i o n but i s motivated by external f a c t o r s . Such behavior characterizes submissiveness as i t i s currently described i n the l i t e r a t u r e as subordination. I t would seem that the interpersonal e f f e c t of choosing to submit stands d i s t i n c t l y apart from interactions i n which a person f e e l s lacking i n v o l i t i o n because the chosen act of submitting i s purposeful and i n t e n t i o n a l . I t would be expected to be motivated by personal desire and to be received p o s i t i v e l y ; whereas actions that lack v o l i t i o n are l i k e l y to inspire resentment and h o s t i l i t y . Kelley (1983) commented that a t t r i b u t i n g personal v o l i t i o n versus external compulsion to an act of goodness has a markedly d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t on both the r e c i p i e n t and the giver. In marriage, for example, a partner's s a c r i f i c e i s most l i k e l y perceived as an i n d i c a t i o n of love unless i t i s interpreted as 83 motivated by e x t r i n s i c conditions such as r o l e requirements or duty. S i t u a t i o n a l Context The second c r i t e r i o n that determines whether or not an o r i e n t a t i o n i s being enacted relates to the s i t u a t i o n a l context i n which the behavior occurs. If the undertaking does not allow submission to be i n t r i n s i c a l l y motivated, and i f the circumstances are contradictory to expressing concern for another's well-being, then the enactments — whatever they appear to be externally — cannot be considered instances of the adaptive dimension of submission. For example, one would not consider the victims of World War II internment camps to have been submissive on the basis of t h e i r actions. Their submission did not r e f l e c t t h e i r b e l i e f s and c e r t a i n l y could not be said to have been i n t r i n s i c a l l y motivated. Within the context, t h e i r y i e l d i n g resulted from external intimidation and were more t r u l y acts of subordination. In marked contrast to coercive r e l a t i o n s h i p s , close r e l a t i o n s h i p s such as occur between family members, friends or romantic partners, are l o g i c a l contexts i n which submissive orientations may be enacted with a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t . In close r e l a t i o n s h i p s , people f e e l a special r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for one another's welfare and give, either i n response to the other's need or simply to please the other person. Clark (1986) used the term "communal" to describe these kinds of r e l a t i o n s h i p s where 84 members follow a norm of mutual responsiveness ( P r u i t t , 1972) , g i v i n g and receiving benefits not as part of an exchange but as a general o b l i g a t i o n to be concerned about the other's welfare (Clark & M i l l s , 1979; Clark & Muchant, 1988). Although the degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y that a person assumes for the other's needs may vary, concern i s manifest through helping. Clark (1985) provided evidence that helping i s not only more common i n communal r e l a t i o n s h i p s but i t i s an important aspect of maintaining compatibility between members. The marital r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a l o g i c a l context i n which to discover that a submissive orientation i s being enacted because marriage i s most usually perceived by the p a r t i c i p a n t s to be a communal r e l a t i o n s h i p . M i l l s and Clark (1988) believe that i n marriage there i s no substitute for choosing to follow communal norms and to provide mutual help or benefits to one another v o l u n t a r i l y . However, experience in a marriage r e l a t i o n s h i p confirms that at least occasionally ( i f not frequently) c o n f l i c t i n g needs ar i s e , and one must choose between helping the other and s a t i s f y i n g one's own need. If a partner chooses to help the other, i t i s important (in following communal norms) to communicate a p r i n c i p a l concern for the other person's welfare. Actions based on communal norms do not convey that they are intended to benefit oneself, or that they are to be reciprocated ( M i l l s & Clark, 1988). They are c l e a r l y intended to benefit the other person. This feature d i f f e r e n t i a t e s a communal o r i e n t a t i o n 85 from the process of systematic accommodation described by Borden and Levinger (1987). According to Borden and Levinger's conception, personal preferences are put aside or altered i n order to adapt to one's partner, the transformation being highly dependent upon the continuation of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . They state that when caring stops, the motivation to adapt ceases, suggesting that the accommodation was based upon the a n t i c i p a t i o n of at l e a s t some personal benefit. This study proposes that adaptive behaviors of submissiveness are l i k e l y to be enacted i n a context of mutual responsiveness that occurs within a communal ori e n t a t i o n and are not explained by formulations that suggest that helping may be motivated by personal benefits accrued d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y from the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Thus helping, when i t derives from a submissive orientation, would be expected to be more person- focused and not s o l e l y dependent upon the existence of a r e l a t i o n s h i p . The relationship would surely benefit from acts which place the other's well-being f i r s t , but the s e l f - g i v i n g behavior i s not motivated primarily by thoughts of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . This d i s t i n c t i o n also suggests that behaviors that r e f l e c t a submissive orientation are most l i k e l y to be found i n c e r t a i n kinds of love relationships. For example, Maslow's (1955) characterization of unneeded, un s e l f i s h B-love, which i s capable of "creating" the other by giving a self-image, s e l f - 86 acceptance and a fe e l i n g of love-worthiness, describes a context i n which voluntary acts of submission would be expected. Lee's (1977) concept of "storgic" and "agapic" love s t y l e s s i m i l a r l y suggest stable, s e l f - g i v i n g love that i s free of s e l f - i n t e r e s t and i s devoted to enhancing the beloved other. An analogous concept i s a l t r u i s t i c love (Kelley, 1983) i n which caring i s perceived as an i n t r i n s i c a l l y motivated, s e l f - s a c r i f i c i n g behavior intended to promote the other's welfare rather than to e l i c i t r e c i p r o c a l behavior. A l t r u i s t i c love and B-love are epitomized i n the love of healthy parents for t h e i r c h i l d , but i n re l a t i o n s h i p s between men and women such love i s believed to be a c u l t u r a l i d e a l that i s seldom achieved (Lee, 1977) , although i t may be a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of mature love (Rubin, 1973). A l t r u i s t i c love i s c l o s e l y related to the concept of communal o r i e n t a t i o n i n that " a l t r u i s t i c benefits to a partner are geared s o l e l y to the partner's needs and involve no consideration of one's own needs, whether past, present, or future" (Kelley, 1983, p. 285). This research proposes that i f a communal r e l a t i o n s h i p provides a s i t u a t i o n a l context i n which a submissive o r i e n t a t i o n may be enacted, then submissiveness i s one personality a t t r i b u t e or t r a i t that enables an individual to follow communal norms, to place the well-being of another person ahead of h i s or her own needs or in t e r e s t s , or to love a l t r u i s t i c a l l y . Interpreted i n t h i s way, t r a i t submissiveness i s the means by which a partner may l i v e up to the expectations of a communal r e l a t i o n s h i p ; or, 87 to employ Kelley's (1979) terminology, i t i s the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c that gives substance to the transformations that are made i n taking another person's needs into account. If a l t r u i s t i c love provides a context for the adaptive dimension of submissiveness to be demonstrated, i t i s apparent that rather extensive development of personal character i s necessary for i t s enactment. Interpersonally, i t would be expected i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s that are characterized by intimacy, commitment and s a t i s f a c t i o n as opposed to those that are s u p e r f i c i a l , e x p l o i t i v e or unstable. Clark (1985) observed that mutual concern for each other's needs implies that there i s an expectation of commitment and that the r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l endure. Kelley (1983) noted that commitment in close r e l a t i o n s h i p s involves aggregating experiences over a lengthy period, discounting present s a c r i f i c e or d i f f i c u l t y i n view of the broader perspective of past s a t i s f a c t i o n s , future benefits and long-term consequences. He stated that the self-regulatory processes that are required to maintain commitment i n close r e l a t i o n s h i p s have not been analyzed or f u l l y i d e n t i f i e d (Kelley, 1983). A question that may be posed for future research i s whether the a b i l i t y to be submissive to one's partner as an expression of concern for his or her well-being i s one aspect of that process. Deferring to another or placing the other person's in t e r e s t s ahead of one's own ( i . e . , submitting) as a p o s i t i o n of heightened v u l n e r a b i l i t y , may not only serve to indicate one's 88 commitment to the other, but may also serve to strengthen the commitment of both partners to the r e l a t i o n s h i p . I n t e n t i o n a l i t y I m p l i c i t within the conditions of i n t r i n s i c motivation and compatible context, i s the notion of i n t e n t i o n a l i t y (Cochran, 1984). Actions that r e f l e c t what one i s , or that are evidence of an o r i e n t a t i o n , must be enacted i n t e n t i o n a l l y . Behavior that i s intentional tends to be d i r e c t e d toward a desired goal or end. Deutsch (1975, 1985) i m p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f i e d i n t e n t i o n a l i t y as a factor involved i n the tendency of people to follow need-based norms when cooperation and p o s i t i v e socio- emotional bonds are the goals i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p . Clark, M i l l s , and Powell (1986) also affirm the role of i n t e n t i o n a l i t y i n communal interactions when they report that people keep track of each other's needs and give help, not for reasons of r e c i p r o c a l exchange but rather to maintain the communal nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Acts that r e f l e c t a submissive or i e n t a t i o n , i f they are voluntary acts directed toward the well-being of another person, are also marked by i n t e n t i o n a l i t y . Furthermore, i n t e n t i o n a l i t y implies taking r e s p o n s i b i l i t y fo r the outcome of one's actions. Thus, when helping requires deference or s e l f - s a c r i f i c e , submission may be viewed simply as a cost incurred by helping. Perceiving i t i n t h i s way would not l i k e l y r e s u l t i n self-deprecating, negative f e e l i n g s because i t i s self-chosen. On the contrary, acts of submission that are 89 voluntary and are intended to benefit another person would be expected to r e s u l t i n feelings of accomplishment and s a t i s f a c t i o n , of having had a part i n the other's well-being. The p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of even rather mundane, everyday acts of helping are just now being documented i n terms of actual benefits to the p h y s i c a l and emotional health of the helper (Luks, 1988). People, f o r example, have reported that they f e e l calmed and r e l i e v e d of emotional stress, and that self-worth i s enhanced as a r e s u l t of simple acts of helping. Further, because i t has been demonstrated that the more a person feels responsible for the other the more costs he or she i s w i l l i n g to incur i n meeting the other's needs (Hays, 1985), i t may be reasonable to expect that the more responsible a person feels for the other the more he or she w i l l be w i l l i n g to bear the cost of being submissive to the other. Accumulating evidence related to the consequences of, and motivation for helping suggests that people may indeed act out of t r u l y a l t r u i s t i c , u n s e l f i s h motives (Batson & Coke, 1981; Rushton & Sorrentino, 1981). However, Batson and Coke (1981) suggest that i t i s d i f f i c u l t to distinguish between e g o i s t i c and a l t r u i s t i c motivation because motivation cannot be observed. They make the following d i s t i n c t i o n : egoistically-motivated helping i s directed toward increasing the helper's own welfare whereas " a l t r u i s t i c a l l y - m o t i v a t e d helping i s directed toward the end-state goal of increasing the other's welfare", i t i s an end i n i t s e l f and any "personal gain i s an unintended by-product and not the goal of the behavior" (Batson & Coke, 1981, p. 172) . The Hobbesian view — that people always act out of s e l f - i n t e r e s t , which has dominated psychology p a r t i c u l a r i l y i n the behaviorist and psychoanalytic t r a d i t i o n s , i s being challenged by evidence that demonstrates that helping begins very early i n l i f e and i s not always motivated by need for approval or to a l l e v i a t e personal d i s t r e s s and avoid g u i l t . Evidence such as t h i s , and constructs l i k e genuine altruism help to make the behaviors of voluntary submissiveness plausible because putting oneself aside, placing the needs of others ahead of one's own, attempting to achieve p o s i t i v e outcomes for another rather than for the s e l f — often at considerable cost to s e l f — require genuine a l t r u i s t i c motivation. Recent evidence indicates that there i s a basic human tendency to be responsive to the needs of others (Kohn, 1988) and that a person may receive i n d i r e c t benefits to health (e.g. "the helper's calm", Luks, 1988) as a r e s u l t of helping supports the contention that people may also submit to others, p a r t i c u l a r i l y to persons toward whom they empathize (Batson & Coke, 1981) and who they perceive as being s i m i l a r to themselves (Krebs & Russell, 1981) i n a genuinely a l t r u i s t i c way without such behavior manifesting maladjustment or neurosis. From t h i s perspective, the adaptive dimension of submissiveness, v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness, can be viewed as a personality a t t r i b u t e that accounts for i n d i v i d u a l differences i n altruism. V o l i t i o n a l Submissiveness: T r a i t or State Viewing submissiveness as the intentional enactment of an o r i e n t a t i o n r a i s e s the question of whether the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness construct i s a t r a i t or a state. A l l p o r t (1928) acknowledged the enduring t r a i t - l i k e tendency of one person to be passive and the other to be dominant i n interpersonal i n t e r a c t i o n . However, Bernstein (1980) argued for a more sta t e - l i k e view of dominance; an argument that could presumably be applicable to submissiveness. He argued that dominance i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p rather than the permanent at t r i b u t e of an i n d i v i d u a l , because dominance rank continually changes with manipulations of the group. The role of i n t e n t i o n a l i t y would seem to be c e n t r a l to t h i s view, because an i n d i v i d u a l would be expected to assess the nuances of each r e l a t i o n s h i p and then act accordingly: dominantly, not so dominantly, or submissively. Thus i t could be argued that voluntary submissiveness i s also a hypothetical variable to be demonstrated i n a p a r t i c u l a r context; a state rather than a t r a i t . However, Chaplin, John and Goldberg (1988) have recently i d e n t i f i e d f i v e a t t r i b u t e s that d i f f e r e n t i a t e stable t r a i t s from temporary states. They present an appealing argument which i f adopted, c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e s voluntary submissiveness as a t r a i t . F i r s t l y , they assert that most central to the t r a i t - s t a t e 92 d i s t i n c t i o n i s the att r i b u t e of temporal s t a b i l i t y : t r a i t s are stable or consistent over long periods of time, states are temporary or inconsistent manifestations. V o l i t i o n a l submissiveness would be expected to be manifest i n consistent acts of consideration of others' needs because recognizing and responding to others' needs require that a person be oriented i n such a way that needs are important. Infrequent occurrences would appear to be related to circumstance (state-like) rather than as a manifestation of character. Prototypical examples of people who are submissive (for example, Mother Teresa), demonstrate a great deal of s t a b i l i t y i n the behavior and the appropriateness of the t r a i t designation to the underlying d i s p o s i t i o n . Mother Teresa i s so consistently oriented that submissiveness i s observed as an enduring c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of her personality. This does not mean that the behaviors of submissiveness are natural or unintentionally evoked. In her own words, Mother Teresa acknowledged that her submission requires a "r e a l l i v i n g determination" to renounce her w i l l and make herse l f a w i l l i n g slave to God (Muggeridge, 1971, p. 66). This i s where the notion of orientation i s h e l p f u l because i t i d e n t i f i e s a person's stance or position as one of the factors responsible for the s t a b i l i t y of the t r a i t . Mother Teresa's p o s i t i o n i s that she wants to be obedient to God. Her submissiveness i s manifest i n her consistent and stable determination to surrender unconditionally to God's w i l l : "taking 93 what He gives and giving what He takes" (Mother Teresa, personal communication, June 20, 1989) . The second distinguishing attribute i s duration. T r a i t s describe experiences or behaviors that are l a s t i n g ; states are of shorter duration. If incidents of submissiveness occurred as f l e e t i n g reactions to external situations, they would be described as states. However, when behavior r e f l e c t s a person's o r i e n t a t i o n and i s directed — often toward long-range goals — time i s required for the behavior to be enacted and the benefit to be r e a l i z e d . Persistance, determination, and delayed g r a t i f i c a t i o n are personal q u a l i t i e s that allow adaptive submissiveness to be enacted. The t h i r d a t t r i b u t e i s locus of caus a l i t y . T r a i t s are viewed as i n t e r n a l l y caused c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , whereas states are ex t e r n a l l y caused. This attribute coincides with Cochran's (1986) condition of i n t r i n s i c motivation. The intention behind the act i d e n t i f i e s the meaning of the behavior, and the character of the person who i n i t i a t e s i t . Fourthly, the frequency of an action within a given period of time distinguishes t r a i t s from states. Infrequent incidents of submissive behavior do not q u a l i f y for the t r a i t l a b e l ; frequent acts of s e l f - g i v i n g are required. F i n a l l y , and r e l a t e d to frequency, i s the attribute of s i t u a t i o n a l scope. Behavior that occurs across a wide scope of situations are c a l l e d t r a i t s ; those that have a narrow scope are states. Therefore, 94 submissiveness, because i t r e f l e c t s character and an orie n t a t i o n , would be expected to be manifest consistently across a wide scope of s o c i a l contexts, but p a r t i c u l a r i l y in close or intimate r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Coherence A f i n a l c r i t e r i o n by which to judge whether an or i e n t a t i o n i s being enacted i s that the t r a i t exists within a pattern of behaviors so that i t s manifestation makes sense. That i s , " i f one i s coherently orientated, there i s apt to be a sensible pattern" evident i n one's l i f e (Cochran, 1984, p. 195). Furthermore, not only w i l l actions that manifest the or i e n t a t i o n be expected i n c e r t a i n situations, t h e i r absence i n other s i t u a t i o n s w i l l confirm that the orientation i s held. For example, submissiveness i s demonstrated as much by Mother Teresa's humility as i t i s by her forcefulness when she r e s i s t s v i o l a t i o n s that deny respect, dignity or basic r i g h t s to people. The therapist who adopts Buber's (1958) model of the I-Thou r e l a t i o n s h i p furnishes a context i n the therapy session i n which the therapist's voluntary submission to the needs of the c l i e n t make sense within the broader purpose of attempting to enhance the c l i e n t ' s well-being. The t h e r a p i s t - c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p i s an imbalanced r e l a t i o n s h i p of "one-sided inclus i o n " i n which the thera p i s t submits to the "great task, self-imposed... to supplement t h i s need of [the c l i e n t ' s ] and to do rather more than i n the normal s i t u a t i o n " (Buber, 1960, p.212). Because i t i s imbalanced, the "I-Thou" relationship i s therapeutic because i t provides an opportunity " i n which the s e l f comes into being and through which i t f u l f i l l s and authenticates i t s e l f " (Friedman, 1976, p. x v i i ) . This a b i l i t y of the therapist to be acceptingly aware of the l i m i t a t i o n s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p and to be affirmed through the xThou' and the act of s e l f - g i v i n g , i s a coherent part of the whole of his/her l i f e . An i n d i v i d u a l ' s use of s o c i a l manners i s another common example of behavior that i s a coherent expression of a submissive o r i e n t a t i o n . In the company of others and i n the proximity of d a i l y l i v i n g , manners convey a willingness to recognize and respect the needs and comfort of others. A person who i s mannerly would be expected to be oriented i n a way that i s cognizant of the needs of others and that communicates regard for others by placing t h e i r comfort ahead of one's own. A P r o f i l e of the V o l i t i o n a l l y Submissive Personality I f an adaptive dimension of submissive behavior i s to be found, the c r i t e r i o n of coherence would suggest that i t be located amidst other psychological, behavioral, and r e l a t i o n a l indicators of health or well-being. In the absence of a subjective sense of well-being, v o l i t i o n a l acts of submissiveness could not be manifestations of health. One component of general well-being i s l i f e s a t i s f a c t i o n (Andrews & Withey, 1976; Diener, 1984) . 96 Aggregated submissive acts, i f adaptive, should contribute to a person's p o s i t i v e cognitive appraisal of l i f e . Such appraisals are not required to r e l a t e primarily or immediately to the a f f e c t of s a t i s f a c t i o n , but to cognitive evaluations of outcome because submissiveness i s perceived as a cost incurred by caring. As theories of altruism (Rushton, 1980) imply, placing the other person's i n t e r e s t s ahead of one's own may require that immediate happiness be s a c r i f i c e d i n order to achieve a future goal. The general l i f e s a t i s f a c t i o n experienced by a person i s therefore a better i n d i c a t o r of the adaptiveness of the behavior than current mood. Several personality variables that have consistently been demonstrated to bear a relationship to subjective well-being would also be expected i n the p r o f i l e of the adaptively submissive person. The f i r s t , and one of the strongest predictors of well-being, i s high self-esteem (Anderson, 1977; Campbell, 1976; Diener, 1984; Wilson, 1967). The person who demonstrates adaptive acts of submission i s expected to f e e l "worthful" and t h i s has been suggested to be pre-requisite to the a b i l i t y to be s e l f - g i v i n g (Wetzel, 1984). Two other variables that have consistently been shown to c o r r e l a t e with subjective well-being are i n t e r n a l i t y (Baker, 1977; Brandt, 1980) and s e l f - e f f i c a c y (Campbell, 1976; Eisenberg, 1981). A t t r i b u t i n g outcomes to oneself and perceiving control over one's l i f e are important factors i n one's well-being and 97 would seem to be s i g n i f i c a n t factors i n determining the meaning of submissive behaviors. If a person who perceives choice and control over his or her l i f e v o l u n t a r i l y submits to another person without thought of reciprocation and then a t t r i b u t e s the outcome of the action to his or her behavior, the action can be seen as goal-directed and intentional. As previously argued, behavior that r e f l e c t s an o r i e n t a t i o n i s consistent across a variety of situations. Consistency has been suggested by some (Hartshorne & May, 1928; Rushton & Sorrentino, 1981) to be i n d i c a t i v e of an integration of personality or of personal i n t e g r i t y . Hartshorne and May (1928- 30) found d i s t i n c t relationships between i n t e g r i t y and emotional s t a b i l i t y , and between both of these and persistence and resistance to suggestion. Therefore, i t seems l o g i c a l that persons who submit v o l u n t a r i l y are l i k e l y to be dependable and persistent i n the pursuit of long-range goals, even considering t h e i r need to submit as a cost incurred to a t t a i n the goal. They are not l i k e l y to be e a s i l y influenced, neither by persausion nor by the d i f f i c u l t y of the task, to abandon t h e i r goal. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : persistence, consistency and resistance to suggestion have been related to higher l e v e l s of ego strength (Rushton, 1981). Both ego strength and higher l e v e l s of moral development (Eisenberg-Berg, 1979; Krebs & Rosenwald, 1977) have i n turn been associated with more prosocial, a l t r u i s t i c behavior. Thus, voluntary submission would be expected to be correlated 98 with higher l e v e l s of ego and moral development because s e l f i s securely possessed and therefore viewed as something that can be given up v o l u n t a r i l y without fear or threat of loss of i d e n t i t y . Submissiveness, when i t i s self-chosen and meets the above c r i t e r i a , could be a vehicle allowing genuinely a l t r u i s t i c acts to be expressed. Therefore, voluntary submissiveness would be expected to have a s i g n i f i c a n t , positive c o r r e l a t i o n with measures of altruism. I t would l o g i c a l l y be expected to be found with le s s competitive attitudes (Rutherford & Mussen, 1968) and with a greater sense of s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (Berkowitz & Daniels, 1964) . Each of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have also been found to be associated with ego strength and a l t r u i s t i c behavior. The i n d i v i d u a l whose l i f e i s characterized by voluntary acts of submissiveness would be expected to experience intimacy i n personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Intimacy has been described as the capacity f o r deep relationships (Sharabany, 1983) ; as the a b i l i t y to experience open, supportive and tender r e l a t i o n s h i p s without fear of l o s i n g i d e n t i t y i n the process (Neuman & Neuman, 1986); and as the closeness between two people that v a l i d a t e s personal worth (Sullivan, 1953). The q u a l i t i e s that are i m p l i c i t i n d e f i n i t i o n s of intimacy and which Reis and Shaver (1988) have e x p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f i e d as q u a l i t i e s that are necessary i f an i n t e r a c t i o n i s to be experienced as intimate are that a person f e e l understood, validated and cared for. I f the adaptive dimension of submissiveness has a r o l e i n 99 the genesis of intimacy, i t would be expected primarily i n r e l a t i o n to the caring component, although i t may also be a necessary a t t r i b u t e to permit the kind of l i s t e n i n g to occur that promotes understanding. Understanding that derives from attending f u l l y to another person, an I-Thou attending, i s postulated as an example of adaptive submission. The inherent s a t i s f a c t i o n of such l i s t e n i n g i s attested to by the intensely intimate feelings that persons (e.g., therapists, parents, teachers) report i n non-reciprocal relationships (Reis & Shaver, 1988). When another person's actions meet one's needs, f e e l i n g s of being cared for and understood are engendered (Clark, 1985) : the components of intimacy are provided. Appropriate responding enhances feelings of connectedness and, as studies of infants have demonstrated, fosters deeply s a t i s f y i n g feelings of interpersonal t r u s t and intimate bonding (Reis & Shaver, 1988) . However, as S u l l i v a n (1953) has noted, responding may require making adjustments i n s e l f - i n t e r e s t s i n order to meet the requirements of the other's need. I t i s at t h i s point of making the "adjustment" that a person may be required to deny s e l f - i n t e r e s t s or to temporarily set aside his or her own needs to meet the needs of the other, and i t i s here that a submissive o r i e n t a t i o n comes into play. The a b i l i t y to deny s e l f - i n t e r e s t ( i . e . , to be submissive) i s perhaps the c r i t i c a l t e s t of whether intimacy w i l l develop and be sustained i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p . The r a t i o n a l e for t h i s unappealing proposition ( i . e . , that intimacy 100 requires v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness) i s related to the association that has been noted between the formation of stable i d e n t i t y and the achievement of intimacy (Erikson, 1968; 1974; Houle & Kiel y , 1984) . Erikson (1950, 1968) has theorized that i d e n t i t y i s a necessary prerequisite to the establishment of intimacy, while more recent research has suggested that the two are at le a s t concurrent processes (Houle & Kiely, 1984). I t has previously been noted that a person must be secure in his or her possession of s e l f i n order to give up s e l f : one cannot give up what one does not possess (Wetzel, 1984). Therefore, submissive acts of s e l f - g i v i n g that are vo l u n t a r i l y chosen and intended for the well-being of the other person would be expected to r e f l e c t a r e l a t i v e l y secure i d e n t i t y and to be a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of intimate r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Conversely, the i n a b i l i t y or unwillingness to be submissive when confronted by the needs of a person with whom one would o r d i n a r i l y be expected to desire intimacy, would suggest l i m i t a t i o n s i n the development of identi t y , and pre d i c t f a i l u r e to achieve intimacy. The degree of id e n t i t y formation that one has achieved and, therefore, one's a b i l i t y to submit, may also suggest the pot e n t i a l l e v e l of intimacy that a person i s capable of bringing to the relationship. A study by Houle and K i e l y (1984) for example, has indicated that women generally experience higher l e v e l s of intimacy than t h e i r husbands at the beginning of marriage but that over time, men i n stable marriages achieve a l e v e l of intimacy comparable to that reported by t h e i r wives. 101 Houle and K i e l y have interpreted t h i s finding to mean that women are s o c i a l i z e d to desire and expect more intimate r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and have been able to push t h e i r husband toward greater mutuality. This i n fact i s the goal of healthy s e l f - g i v i n g , whether i n marriage or i n therapy: to supplement the other and encourage greater mutuality. People generally express a desire for closeness and intimacy and tend to interpret the absense of intimate s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s as a personal f a i l u r e (Reis & Shaver, 1988). The absence of intimate interaction has been i d e n t i f i e d as a cause of loneli n e s s , because i t i s a better predictor of loneliness than a number of other q u a l i t a t i v e and quantitative indices (Reis & Shaver, 1988). Loneliness, the negative discrepancy between actual and desired s o c i a l r e l ations (Peplau & Perlman, 1982) has been suggested to r e f l e c t f a i l u r e in t r a d i t i o n a l sources of intimate bonds: a by-product of urbanism, divorce and s i n g l e - parent f a m i l i e s (Perlman & Fehr, 1987). Kagan (1985) has predicted, based on comparative studies of r u r a l and urban cultures, that as the world becomes more urbanized i t w i l l become more competitive and i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c . His pr e d i c t i o n i s that loneliness w i l l become an increasingly common phenomenon. This i s consistent with the finding that the desire for intimacy has r i s e n dramatically i n American society during the past three decades (Veroff, Douvan, & Kulka, 1981). 102 The Epistemology of the T r a i t : V o l i t i o n a l Submissiveness Kenrick and Funder (1988) have recently summarized the main hypotheses i n the controversy of the past twenty years regarding the existence of consensual, discriminative personality t r a i t s , and i d e n t i f i e d the c r i t e r i a that must be met to acquire p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y from t r a i t ratings. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t has become apparent that raters who are thoroughly f a m i l i a r with the person being rated demonstrate greater consensus i n making a t r a i t a t t r i b u t i o n than ratings made by strangers; multiple behavioral observations are superior to single or unaggregated observations; and dimensions that are p u b l i c l y observable are reported with better agreement than t r a i t s that cannot be observed. Buss and Craik (1985) also enumerated c r i t e r i a by which to i d e n t i f y the t h e o r e t i c a l and empirical worthiness of a t r a i t . They suggested that the disposition must represent a c l e a r , meaningful and reasonably sized category of acts; i t must possess d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s ; i t must generate consensus about which acts are p r o t o t y p i c a l examples; and i t must demonstrate stable act-trends over time. Furthermore, there should be marked differences between i n d i v i d u a l s i n manifestations of the d i s p o s i t i o n , and some consideration should be given to the base rate of the d i s p o s i t i o n within the culture. With consideration to the conditions indicated by Kenrick and Funder (1988) and Buss and Craik (1985), and based on the 103 r a t i o n a l e presented i n the foregoing discussion, the d e f i n i t i o n and hypothetical description of the adaptive dimension of submissiveness ( i . e . , v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness) i s presented as follows. V o l i t i o n a l submissiveness i s theorized to be the interpersonal manifestation of an intrapersonal o r i e n t a t i o n which i s enacted when an ind i v i d u a l chooses to give p r i o r i t y to the needs or in t e r e s t s of another person, ir r e s p e c t i v e of that person's power, authority or status. Placing another person's needs or in t e r e s t s ahead of oneself implies that one's own needs, in t e r e s t s or feelings are, at least temporarily, secondary to the achievement of a p o s i t i v e outcome for the other person. Submissive acts of t h i s nature r e f l e c t what kind of person one i s and are conceptualized as the means employed by a psychologically healthy person to achieve s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n a l and a l t r u i s t i c ends. The following c r i t e r i a provide guidelines by which to i d e n t i f y the t r a i t , v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. F i r s t , an interpersonal s i t u a t i o n exists i n which the need of another person i s expressed, and i s opposed i n some way to one's own need. This i s a necessary condition for any act of submission to occur, because i f there i s no c o n f l i c t of in t e r e s t or w i l l s , there i s no need for one to submit. The c o n f l i c t i n i t i a t e s a c o g n i t i v e - a f f e c t i v e process i n which the in d i v i d u a l assesses the demands of the s i t u a t i o n , examines alternatives, evaluates the 104 costs, and anticipates long-range outcomes. Perhaps the most s a l i e n t considerations relate to whether the purpose that i s to be achieved by submitting exceeds the cost to oneself. The second c r i t e r i o n i s that the c o n f l i c t of needs or i n t e r e s t s i s resolved by choosing, voluntarily, to place the other's needs ahead of one's own needs, to deny s e l f temporarily and serve the other person. Personal cost now becomes secondary to the outcome that i s envisioned. The other's need becomes one's own, transformed into a single, regnant goal. The conditions of i n t r i n s i c motivation and i n t e n t i o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n t i a t e voluntary submissive s e l f - g i v i n g from other acts that may appear s i m i l i a r on the surface, but are in fact instances of subordination, compliance, or acquiescense. In submissive behavior that i s self-chosen, s e l f i s not denied i n a masochistic, passive way r e f l e c t i n g lower levels of psychological development; rather i t i s v o l u n t a r i l y given from a sense of s u f f i c i e n c y . I t has enough to give. I t i s s u f f i c i e n t l y secure to withstand temporary depletion or deprivation. It i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the inner development of the person. The t h i r d c r i t e r i o n i s that the submissive act must be di r e c t e d toward some goal or purpose that the i n d i v i d u a l f e e l s i s worthy of the cost. I t i s a means of achieving an end, and that end i s r e l a t e d to the welfare of the other person. I t i s , therefore, hypothesized to be an u n s e l f i s h behavior motivated by love and a communal orientation, and lacking i n motives that 105 imply personal gain or need for reciprocation. V o l i t i o n a l submissiveness d i f f e r s from other constructs i n which the i n d i v i d u a l stands to benefit i n some way from the adaptation (Borden & Levinger, 1987; Kelley, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). F i n a l l y , the outcome of the submissive act consists not only i n the contribution that i s made to the other person's w e l l - being, but i n an uncalculated benefit to the giver. S e l f - g i v i n g has s i g n a l l e d commitment to the other. I t has gone beyond the realm of duty and indicated concern for the other that ranks above concern for s e l f . Recognizing that the behavior i s an act of generosity, the recipient i s l i k e l y to respond with appreciation and a f f e c t i o n . Rather than being an act of depletion, the act of s e l f - g i v i n g becomes an experience of intimacy; strengthening and deepening the rel a t i o n s h i p , and enhancing the individual's own sense of psychological well-being. 106 CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND PROCEDURES This chapter describes the research design employed i n the study. The research was conducted i n three phases: (1) c r i t i c a l incident interviews, (2) development and pre-testing of the V o l i t i o n a l Submissiveness Scale (VSS), and (3) f i e l d t e s t s to assess the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the VSS. For each phase of the research, the sample and the method of data analyses w i l l be described. A description of the instruments employed to va l i d a t e the VSS i s also given. Phase 1 — C r i t i c a l Incident Interviews The study attempted to provide a descriptive analysis of the adaptive dimension of submissiveness. Because an understanding of the i n t r i n s i c motivations and meanings underlying submissive behavior was believed c r i t i c a l to accurately l a b e l submissiveness as adaptive, the c r i t i c a l incident method was used i n the f i r s t phase of the research. This method provided a way of gaining access to people's inner worlds of experience, enriching understanding by making meaning the s t a r t i n g point of the research and regarding human experience as the most v a l i d foundation for understanding psychological processes (Carlson, 1985; McConville, 1978). In t h i s regard Bogdan and Taylor (1975) stated that to attend to phenomenon as i t i s and to discover something about a person, the researcher must ask the person about t h e i r meaning. Brandt (1982) asserted that approaches that 107 seek access to meaning potentiate change by creating new conceptualizations, new meanings and new ways of making sense out of experience. The researcher's s e l f - s c r u t i n y and awareness of personal experience, the effectiveness of the d i a l o g i c a l encounter, and the cooperation of researcher and subjects were c r i t i c a l features i n t h i s process. The narratives provided the contexts i n which interpersonal experiences of voluntary submission occurred. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the narrative related to discovering what meaning the submissive behavior held for the in d i v i d u a l and i n understanding the individual's motivation for acting submissively. I t was anticipated that the nuances of intention and meaning would d i f f e r e n t i a t e submissive behavior that had a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t and could be considered adaptive from submissive behavior that had a psychologically negative impact and would be considered maladaptive. The Sample In order to achieve adequate coverage of the content domain of the t r a i t , an attempt was made when sele c t i n g subjects f o r t h i s part of the study to ensure that subjects represented a range i n the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (e.g., age, experience, psychological maturity) that were considered important aspects of the t r a i t (Woolsey, 1986). The sample consisted of an approximately equal number of men and women who were at l e a s t 35 years of age or older, known to the researcher or r e f e r r e d by 108 other professionals on the basis that the i n d i v i d u a l demonstrated psychological well-being and relationship s k i l l . Subjects who appeared to be psychologically well-adjusted were selected for the interviews because i t was theorized that v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness would be associated with higher l e v e l s of personality development and well-being. Judgements of psychological adjustment were based on observations of s a t i s f a c t i o n with l i f e , interpersonal s k i l l s , s o c i a l networks, family r e l a t i o n s h i p s , personal achievements or marital adjustment. A l l subjects resided i n the lower mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia. Potential subjects were i n v i t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n an interview that they were t o l d was part of a study r e l a t i n g to " c o n f l i c t i n g needs i n relationships". The Interviews A l l the interviews were conducted by the researcher using a standardized interview guide (Appendix 1). The interviews were audiotaped and met the conditions of the c r i t i c a l incident method (Flanagan, 1954) and the th e o r e t i c a l c r i t e r i a of the t r a i t . In respect to the former, an incident was defined as "any observable human a c t i v i t y that i s s u f f i c i e n t l y complete i n i t s e l f to permit inferences and predictions to be made about the person performing the act" (Flanagan, 1954, p. 327). In addition, the s i t u a t i o n a l context of the incident must be such that the intent of the act i s c l e a r and the consequences leave l i t t l e doubt about the 109 e f f e c t s of the act. The c r i t e r i a for the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness t r a i t , outlined i n chapter 2, were as follows: a need was expressed i n a relationship that c o n f l i c t e d with the subject's need; the subject v o l u n t a r i l y chose to place the other's need ahead of his/her own need; the subject claimed that his/her reason for submitting was to achieve a goal or purpose and benefit the other person i n some way; and f i n a l l y , i n addition to benefiting the other person, the subject i d e n t i f i e d an uncalculated personal benefit, usually a sense of pleasure i n the other's well-being or a perceived growth of intimacy i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Checks were made to v e r i f y that each incident did i n f a c t meet both the conditions and the c r i t e r i a . The interviews continued u n t i l the incidents became redundant. Woolsey (1986) reported that 25 respondents provided an adequate number of incidents to meet the redundancy c r i t e r i o n . Phase 2 — Construction of the V o l i t i o n a l Submissiveness Scale Each incident was transcribed and examined a second time to determine whether the c r i t e r i a were met. The incidents that met the c r i t e r i a were used to write items for the V o l i t i o n a l Submissiveness Scale (VSS). A test item consisted of (1) a c o n f l i c t i n g need scenario, (2) a submissive and non-submissive response to the scenario, and (3) a motive. The scenarios r e f l e c t e d , as c l o s e l y as possible, the c r i t i c a l incidents that subjects' reported i n the interviews. The submissive response to 110 the scenario consisted of the subject's behavior as he/she reported i t . The non-submissive response was made up by the researcher. In the f i r s t form of the scale (Appendix 2), the motive part of the item was developed using Butt's (1969) method; that i s , following each item a number of possible motives that a person may a t t r i b u t e to him/herself were l i s t e d . As theorized, the motives for v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness pertained to caring, helping, enhancing the relationship, maintaining a s o c i a l connection, or doing the "right" thing. These motives were written so that they related to each scenario. A motive that pertained to the current passive view of submissiveness was also included i n order to i d e n t i f y those subjects who responded i n a t r a d i t i o n a l l y submissive way. Test-takers were asked to i d e n t i f y which motive would account for responding i n the way that they indicated. As a method of assessing the face v a l i d i t y of the t e s t items, professionals i n the f i e l d of psychology and counselling ( i . e . , professors and counsellors) were asked to judge the extent to which items represented the t r a i t as i t was defined. Pretesting of the Scale A pretest of the f i r s t form of the V o l i t i o n a l Submissiveness Scale (Appendix 2) was conducted. Item means, standard deviations, inter-item correlations and a c o e f f i c i e n t of i n t e r n a l consistency were calculated. On the basis of the findings of 111 Pretest 1, refinements were made to the scale and a second pretest was conducted. The Sample Pretest 1. Forty subjects who were 19 to 68 years of age and l i v e d i n the lower mainland p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the f i r s t pretest. Fourteen subjects were recruited from an adult education class i n a church in the researcher's community, 15 were p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a community group for parents of preschool chi l d r e n , and 11 were graduate students i n a research course i n Educational Psychology at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Twenty-three of the subjects were women, 17 were men. The average age of the sample was 3 6 years. The response rate was 80% ( f i f t y questionnaires were di s t r i b u t e d of which 10 were not completed). . Pretest 2. The revised form of the VSS (Appendix 4) was tested i n a second pretest study. The sample for t h i s study consisted of 50 adults who were members of an adult education c l a s s i n a Surrey, B r i t i s h Columbia church (a d i f f e r e n t church than p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the f i r s t pretest). The age range of the subjects was 19 to 68 years; the average age was 37 years. Seventeen of the subjects were male, 33 were female. Subjects completed the 24-item VSS and the dominance scale of the C a l i f o r n i a Psychological Inventory (CPI). The response rate for t h i s study was 85% (60 questionnaires were c i r c u l a t e d , 9 were not returned, 1 was incomplete). 112 S t a t i s t i c a l Analyses Item analyses were conducted using the data from both pretests and measures of the scale's internal consistency were obtained. In the second pretest, the C a l i f o r n i a Personality Inventory (CPI) dominance scale was correlated with the VSS, as were age and gender. Phase 3 — V a l i d i t y and R e l i a b i l i t y Studies Phase three of the research was conducted i n three parts. F i r s t , the construct and discriminant v a l i d i t y of the VSS was assessed i n t e s t s of hypotheses 1 - 20, as was the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the VSS with a number of demographic variables. Second, two te s t s of c r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d v a l i d i t y were conducted (tests of hypotheses 21 and 22). Third, the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the VSS were further assessed by employing peer ratings, r e t e s t s , and s e l f ratings of submissive behavior and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. Tests of Hypotheses 1 - 20 A number of personality and behavioral c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were hypothesized to be associated with the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness construct. VSS scores were correlated with the data obtained on 15 personality scales i n tests of hypotheses 1 to 20. The measures employed i n the c o r r e l a t i o n a l study were: the Eagly (1967) r e v i s i o n of the Janis F i e l d Self-esteem Scale, the Marlowe-Crowne (1960) Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale, the dominance 113 scale of the C a l i f o r n i a Personality Inventory (Gough, 1987), the S a t i s f a c t i o n With L i f e Scale (Diener, 1983), the Internal Control Index (Duttweiler, 1984), the short-form of the Sentence Completion Test of Ego Development (Loevinger, 1970), the neuroticism scale of the NEO Personality Inventory (McCrae & Costa, 1983), the S e l f - E f f i c a c y Scale (Sherer et a l . 1982), the Defining Issues Test (Rest, 1979) of moral development, the short-form of the UCLA Revised Loneliness Scale (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980), the problematic s o c i a l t i e s questionnaire (Rook, 1984) , the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976), the M i l l e r S o c i a l Intimacy Scale (Miller & Lefcourt, 1982) , the Relationship Orientation Scales (Clark, Ouellette, Powell, & Mil l b e r g , 1987) , and the Altruism Checklist (Rushton, Chrisjohn, & Fekken, 1981). Description of the Sample The sample for the c o r r e l a t i o n a l study was selected on the basis of the following rationale. Buss and Craik (1980, 1981, 1985) i n acquiring t h e i r l i s t of submissive acts recognized the l i m i t a t i o n s of e n l i s t i n g university undergraduates as the sole source of subjects i n the sample and suggested that the number and q u a l i t y of acts nominated to represent a t r a i t i s l i k e l y to vary according to such background variables as age, education and socioeconomic status of the subjects. Based on Buss and Craik's observation and on the hypothesis that submissiveness i s a 114 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c that becomes more evident as maturing of the personality occurs, t h i s study attempted to broaden the sample beyond u n i v e r s i t y undergraduates. The sample consisted of 2 34 subjects between 19 and 68 years of age; the average age being 35.4 years. Of these, 118 were male and 116 were female. The subjects completed a 352-item questionnaire consisting of the VSS and the scales l i s t e d above, as well as some biographical questions (Appendix 7). Subjects were passengers on B.C. Ferries t r a v e l l i n g between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay terminal. The data were obtained i n the following manner. Permission was granted to the researcher from B.C. F e r r i e s administration to request passenger p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the project. Ferry passes and n o t i f i c a t i o n to f e r r y personnel were arranged by the public relations o f f i c e r . The researcher worked alone on seven return t r i p s between September and November, 1989, using both weekdays and weekends to c o l l e c t data. Shortly a f t e r boarding, passengers were approached i n a random order (alternate seats, alternate rows, a l l sections except dining), a b r i e f explanation of the project was given and p a r t i c i p a t i o n was requested. About an 85% p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate was recorded. That i s , of those passengers approached and asked to complete the questionnaire an average of 5 per round t r i p declined; the res t were w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e . Questionnaires were d i s t r i b u t e d for approximately 3 0 minutes at the beginning of each s a i l i n g (so that every subject had at least 1 hour to work) , and then were 115 c o l l e c t e d as passengers de-boarded. On each round t r i p 3 0 to 40 completed questionnaires were obtained. Relationship of VSS to Demographic Variables Biographical information was obtained from subjects who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the c o r r e l a t i o n a l study and VSS scores were correlated with the following variables: age, gender, education, marital status, number of children, church a f f i l i a t i o n , church attendance, attendance at a c h u r c h - a f f i l i a t e d school, adherance to reading the Bible or holy book, and the s i g n i f i c a n c e of r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s to approach to l i f e . Tests of C r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d V a l i d i t y Test of Hypothesis 21. V o l i t i o n a l submissiveness theory proposes that individuals who possess higher l e v e l s of personality development w i l l v o l u n t a r i l y place the needs of others ahead of t h e i r own i n conflicting-need situations when doing so i s consistent with held values and contributes to a goal or outcome that the person deems worthy of s e l f - g i v i n g . To t e s t t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l assumption and to address the research question: "Can two groups be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on the basis of predicted VSS scores?" the VSS was administered to two groups of subjects. One group was predicted to possess a low l e v e l of the t r a i t and to score s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on the scale than the second group who was predicted to possess a higher l e v e l of the t r a i t and achieve higher scores on the VSS. Would s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n VSS 116 scores be demonstrated between groups selected on the basis of perceived l e v e l of psychological well-being? Substance (alcohol and narcotic) addicted i n d i v i d u a l s were predicted to score low on the VSS because addiction i s considered to be a compulsive behavior and i s c l a s s i f i e d i n the DSM-III-R as a major p s y c h i a t r i c disorder. Addiction would be expected to be associated with compromised levels of psychological health and therefore, l i m i t e d a b i l i t y to place the needs of others ahead of personal needs. Therapists and counsellors working i n the treatment f a c i l i t i e s for these addicts were predicted to score high on the t e s t for presumably obvious reasons. Description of the sample. The sample consisted of 55 subjects: 2 9 women i n r e s i d e n t i a l treatment for addiction at The Salvation Army Homestead in Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, between September and December, 1989; and 26 counsellors and therapists working i n three associated f a c i l i t i e s during the same time period. The three f a c i l i t i e s were the Homestead ( r e s i d e n t i a l treatment f o r women with addictions), Kate Booth House (a safe house for women and children needing s h e l t e r ) , and the Crosswalk (a drop-in center in Vancouver's skid row). These f a c i l i t i e s are administered by the same directors; s t a f f are c l o s e l y associated with one another and may work at more than one s i t e ; and c l i e n t s are r e f e r r e d among the three f a c i l i t i e s depending on t h e i r presenting needs. The c l i e n t group completed the VSS during a r e g u l a r i l y 117 scheduled addiction education class. A discussion led by the researcher on the topic of c o n f l i c t i n g needs i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s was given afterwards as a means of compensation. Therapists and counsellors were requested to a s s i s t i n the researcher's study on " c o n f l i c t i n g needs i n relationships" and completed the scale on t h e i r own time. They received no compensation. Data analyses. Questionnaires were scored and the data analyzed: mean scores and standard deviations were calculated for each group and a one-way analysis of variance was performed to compare the mean scores of the two groups. Test of Hypothesis 22. A behavioral experiment was designed and conducted i n order to determine whether behavior could be predicted on the basis of VSS scores. The experiment consisted of a contrived s i t u a t i o n in which a c o n f l i c t of needs would a r i s e between an experimental subject and a confederate, so that the subject's a b i l i t y to vo l u n t a r i l y place the need of the confederate ahead of his/her own need could be tested and the r e s u l t correlated with VSS score. The s i t u a t i o n included the conditions of (a) a c o n f l i c t i n g need, (b) personal r i g h t s , (c) opportunity to v o l u n t a r i l y place the need of another ahead of one's own need. These conditions met the c r i t e r i a of the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness t r a i t i n that the other had a need that could be met i f the subject chose to give up a personal r i g h t , no opportunity for the other to reciprocate was provided, and the subject was free to choose to make a personal s a c r i f i c e to meet 118 the other's need. I t was hypothesized that a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p would be demonstrated between subjects' VSS scores and meeting the confederate's need. The sample. Subjects i n the experiment were 2 5 graduate students i n a research class at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia and 15 fourth year students at T r i n i t y Western Unive r s i t y at Langley, B r i t i s h Columbia who were registered i n a research methods class. Subjects were selected and the data obtained i n the following way. The researcher obtained permission from the professors to attend a class, request student p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the experiment, and then administer the questionnaire to the class. Subjects were t o l d that the researcher was studying what people do when needs c o n f l i c t i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p . They were informed that p a r t i c i p a t i o n was voluntary, that the researcher required subjects to complete a 24-item questionnaire, and that some of them would be contacted by telephone within two weeks and requested to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a psychology experiment that would take about 15 minutes. Before administering the scale, the researcher stated that peer ratings were required and made the request that students obtain peer ratings from a spouse, partner, family member or someone who knew them well. Scales and instructions to peer raters were given to students who were w i l l i n g to attempt to obtain peer ratings. The VSS was then administered i n class and c o l l e c t e d . None of the students refused to p a r t i c i p a t e i n completing the scale. In a 119 future c l a s s , the researcher discussed the research and scale construction as a method of compensation. Seventy students (40 at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia and 3 0 at T r i n i t y Western University) completed questionnaires. Twenty-five of the highest and lowest scoring subjects were contacted by telephone and requested to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the experiment. Ten subjects were unable to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the experiment due to absence, i l l n e s s , or other scheduling d i f f i c u l t y . The experiment. Subjects were asked to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a psychology experiment that ostensibly was a "word power" game on the order of Scrabble. Upon a r r i v i n g at the room where the experiment was to take place, the subjects were t o l d that t h e i r partner for the experiment had not yet arrived. In the case of the UBC students, the confederate was waiting i n an adjoining room and came i n afte r the subject was seated, giv i n g the appearance that she was lat e . The confederate was introduced as a student from another faculty and made an apology f o r being l a t e . Because of the smaller campus size at TWU, the confederate was introduced as a guest who was lecturing for the professor whose o f f i c e was being used i n the experiment. She stated that she had misunderstood the time of the lecture and because she was early, consented to pa r t i c i p a t e in the experiment. The same confederate p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a l l of the experiments. The subject and confederate were seated across from one 120 another at a small table; the confederate always sat to the r i g h t of the researcher. A cardboard p a r t i t i o n placed between the subject and confederate on the table allowed for eye contact but prevented either partner from viewing the other's playing area. The researcher then read the rules of the game (Appendix 7) st a t i n g that each person would select 7 l e t t e r t i l e s from a box, that the task consisted of constructing a word with the highest point value possible from the l e t t e r s selected, and that they would have 3 minutes to work. They were also instructed that they could request l e t t e r s from each other and that they could give away l e t t e r s i f they wished to, but that they did not need to do so. They were t o l d that they did not need to t e l l t h e i r partner what l e t t e r s they had but only to answer yes or no to each request, and that i t did not matter how many l e t t e r s they ended up with so that i t was not necessary to "exchange" l e t t e r s . The person on the researcher's r i g h t (the confederate) was asked to se l e c t seven t i l e s from the box which had been placed i n a pre-arranged order. The subject then picked up the remaining t i l e s which consisted of the l e t t e r s : G R A Z E D N. The " Z 11 i s a 10-point l e t t e r . The timer was set and play began. The confederate was instructed to act somewhat fr u s t r a t e d with the d i f f i c u l t y of the task and to convey that, given the l e t t e r s she had selected, she was having great d i f f i c u l t y with the task. She was instructed to say that she did not have any of the l e t t e r s that the subject might request and to request two 121 l e t t e r s from the subject that she knew the subject d i d not have. During the f i n a l minute of the game, the confederate feigned sudden recognition of a word that she could construct and asked the subject i f he/she had a " Z 11. If the subject responded negatively, the confederate was instructed to appear disappointed, attempt to make the word i n another way, and then ask the subject again i f he/she was certa i n that he/she did not have a " Z 11. The researcher then indicated that time was up. Subjects were thanked, questioned to determine whether any were suspicious about any aspects of the experiment or the confederate, and then de-briefed. De-briefing consisted of determining whether the c r i t e r i a of the t r a i t were met: (a) was the behavior v o l i t i o n a l ? (2) how did subjects f e e l about t h e i r action? (c) what was the subjects' motivation? (d) what did subjects hope to achieve? and (e) was the outcome what they hoped for? S t a t i s t i c a l analyses. The subjects' responses to the confederate's request for the " Z 11 was correlated with t h e i r VSS score. A comparison of the mean VSS scores of subjects who gave up the " Z and those who did not was also conducted. Further Tests of R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y VSS data were analyzed to assess the i n t e r n a l consistency of the scale. A measure of tes t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y was obtained from data provided by the subjects who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the " Z " 122 experiment using the following procedure. When the experiment was f i n i s h e d , the researcher offered subjects a summary of the r e s u l t s of the study i f they l e f t t h e i r names and addresses on a sheet of paper placed on the table just outside the door. She also t o l d subjects that retest data were required and asked them ( i f they were wi l l i n g ) to take a copy of the scale and a s e l f - addressed envelope from the table, to complete the scale one month following the f i r s t testing, and mail i t back to the researcher. Eighteen subjects returned completed r e t e s t questionnaires. Peer ratings were also obtained and correlated with subjects' VSS s e l f ratings. Raters who are well acquainted with the subject have been found to give consistently better ratings of personality than external c r i t e r i o n of s e l f - r e p o r t s (Kenrick & Funder, 1988; McCrae & Costa, 1987; Norman & Goldberg, 1966). The si n g l e r a t i n g of a spouse has been suggested as a s u f f i c i e n t and accurate source of personality description for c o r r e l a t i o n with s e l f - r e p o r t s (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Peer ratings were obtained i n the following manner. At the time of i n i t i a l completion of the VSS for the 11 Z 11 experiment, 70 subjects were asked to obtain VSS ratings on themselves made by a "peer": a partner, spouse, or close acquaintance. Subjects who were w i l l i n g to attempt to obtain peer ratings were given written i n s t r u c t i o n s for the peer-rater and a form of the VSS and asked to give these to t h e i r peer rater. They were t o l d that i t 123 was important for the peer to make independent ratings and that no consultation should occur between the subject and the peer. Peer ratings were made at the rater's convenience and the subjects returned the peer ratings i n a sealed envelope to the researcher's mailbox. Data were analyzed and the r e s u l t s c o r r e l a t e d with s e l f ratings. One f i n a l t e s t of v a l i d i t y consisted of a s e l f r a t i n g question at the end of the VSS. An explanation of v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness was given and subjects were asked to estimate what percent of the time, i n t h e i r close relationships, they would act in that manner. This rating was correlated with VSS score. Factor Structure of the VSS An exploratory factor analysis of the scale was conducted for the purpose of id e n t i f y i n g p r i n c i p a l components. In order to determine whether VSS data collected from a l l subjects who pa r t i c i p a t e d i n the t h i r d phase of the research ( c o r r e l a t i o n a l study, behavioral experiment and target groups) should be pooled, the homogeneity of the variance-covariance matrices and the differences between means were tested, comparing subjects who pa r t i c i p a t e d i n the co r r e l a t i o n a l study (the B.C. Ferry sample) with subjects who were recruited for the behavioral experiment and the target groups. Having made t h i s determination, two methods (maximum li k e l i h o o d factor analysis and scree tests) were used to determine the number of factors to extract. Orthogonal (varimax) transformations were then performed and conceptual 124 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of each factor were made. The factor structure of the scale was expected to relate to the motives underlying v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. Summary of Research Procedures 1. Subjects were recruited to parti c i p a t e i n an audio-taped c r i t i c a l incident interview in which they were asked to t a l k about a r e l a t i o n s h i p with a s i g n i f i c a n t person i n t h e i r l i f e . 2. Interviews continued u n t i l the redundancy c r i t e r i o n was s a t i s f i e d (Flanagan, 1954; Woolsey, 1986). 3. The interview t r a n s c r i p t s were analyzed and written into items that depicted v o l i t i o n a l acts of submissiveness. 4. Professional psychologists and counsellors were asked to make p r o t o t y p i c a l i t y judgements of the items. 5. Based on the above ratings, 15 items comprised the f i r s t form of the V o l i t i o n a l Submissiveness Scale. 6. The scale was administered to a sample of 40 adults i n a f i r s t pretest of the instrument. 7. Items were analyzed and a c o e f f i c i e n t of i n t e r n a l consistency calculated using data acquired i n the f i r s t pretest. 8. Necessary refinements were made to the scale including the addition of 9 more items. The scale was then subjected to a second pretest using a sample of 50 adults. 9. The construct and discriminant v a l i d i t y of the 24-item VSS was assessed by co r r e l a t i n g personality and behavioral 125 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that were hypothesized to be associated with v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness with the VSS. Subjects for the c o r r e l a t i o n a l study were passengers on B.C. Ferries who completed a questionnaire consisting of the VSS, 15 personality measures, and demographic questions. The complete questionnaire consisted of a t o t a l of 352 items plus the biographical questions and required about one and one-half hours to complete. An opportunity to be informed of the r e s u l t s and findings of the study was offered to subjects upon completion of the project. 10. Subjects f o r the behavioral experiment, peer-ratings, and t e s t - r e t e s t s were recruited from the University of B r i t i s h Columbia and T r i n i t y Western University. Subjects who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the target groups were recruited from The Salvation Army Homestead. Instrumentation The following instruments were correlated with the VSS i n t e s t s of hypotheses 1 - 2 0 . Eagly Revision (1967) of the J a n i s - F i e l d Scale Development of the scale. Eagly (1967) developed a measure of self-esteem based on the Janis and F i e l d (1959) "Feelings of Inadequacy Scale". Ten items from that scale that were worded so that the affirmative indicated low self-esteem were supplemented by items i n which the wording was reversed so that an a f f i r m a t i v e 126 response indicated high self-esteem. The content of the supplementary items were very similar, though not exact reversals of the o r i g i n a l Janis and F i e l d items. R e l i a b i l i t y . Based on a sample of 144 subjects, the s p l i t - h a l f c o e f f i c i e n t of r e l i a b i l i t y was .72. The t e s t was divided so that each h a l f consisted of equal numbers of p o s i t i v e l y and negatively worded items. The r e l i a b i l i t y of the t e s t was .84 when corrected according to the Spearman-Brown formula and the c o r r e l a t i o n between po s i t i v e and negative halves was .54. Internal Control Index (Duttweiler, 1984) Development of the scale. The Internal Control Index (Duttweiler, 1984) was developed to provide a stronger, more r e l i a b l e measure of the locus of control construct than the widely used I-E Scale (Rotter, 1966) , and' one that would be free of the problems that have been i d e n t i f i e d with the I-E Scale (Duttweiler, 1984). I t was also thought desirable to focus on aspects of i n t e r n a l control rather than external factors (fate, chance and luck) as does the I-E Scale. Consequently, the Internal Control Index focuses on such aspects as personal choice, b e l i e f i n one's s e l f , and independent action (Duttweiler, 1984, p. 217). The items were based on those v a r i a b l e s that had been previously i d e n t i f i e d as being most pertinent to i n t e r n a l locus of c o n t r o l : autonomy, cognitive processing, resistance to influence, delay of g r a t i f i c a t i o n and self-confidence (Lefcourt, 1976). Following pretest evaluations, a tryout t e s t was c a r r i e d 127 out with a sample of 548 university and college students. These data were subjected to item and factor analysis and on the basis of these r e s u l t s 28 items were selected. These items were then evaluated i n a f i e l d t e s t with 684 subjects and the r e s u l t i n g data were subjected to factor analysis, item analysis and analysis of variance. R e l i a b i l i t y . With the item total-score removed, co r r e l a t i o n s (Pearson product-moment) for each item and estimates of r e l i a b i l i t y were acquired for a f i e l d t e s t sample as well as one a d d i t i o n a l (junior college) population. The c o e f f i c i e n t alpha estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y for the f i e l d t e s t was .84 and for the junior college sample .85 (Duttweiler, 1984). V a l i d i t y . Administration of Mirels' (1970) Factor I of Rotter's I-E Scale to the junior college sample produced a s i g n i f i c a n t (p <.0001) negative c o r r e l a t i o n (r = - 0.385) between the scores on the Internal Control Index and M i r e l s ' Factor I of the I-E Scale. The s t a t i s t i c a l analyses completed to date suggest that the Internal Control Index may be a stronger, more r e l i a b l e measure of int e r n a l locus of control i n adults than previously developed instruments. For research purposes t h i s instrument demonstrates higher r e l i a b i l i t y than alternate instruments, and evidence of convergent v a l i d i t y . Washington University Sentence Completion Test of Ego Development (Loevinger, 1970): Male and Female Short Forms (Holt, 1980) 128 Development of the scale. The Sentence Completion Test of Ego Development was designed as an assessment technique by which an i n d i v i d u a l ' s orientation to s e l f and the world, construed as ego development, could be amenable to systematic empirical research (Hauser, 1976). Loevinger's conceptualization of ego development assumes that individuals possess c h a r a c t e r i s t i c orientations toward themselves and the world and that these frames of reference and integrative processes can be arranged along a continuum. The continuum represents ego development and i s characterized by progressively greater d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of perceptions of s e l f and the world (Candee, 1974). The continuum i s represented by seven sequential stages (plus three t r a n s i t i o n a l stages) that comprise an invariant h i e r a r c h i c a l order (Hauser, 1976). Since adults can be characterized according to the stage of development that they have achieved, the system i n e f f e c t generates a "typology of i n d i v i d u a l differences i n xcharacter s t y l e s ' " (Hauser, 1976, p. 930). The t e s t assumes that each person has a core l e v e l of ego functioning that i s manifest i n the way that the items (sentence stems) are completed. Holt (1980) tested twelve-item forms of the t e s t on male and female samples of American youths aged 16 to 26 and scored them according to Loevinger's procedure. Scoring. Holt's short form of the t e s t consists of 12 of Loevinger's 36 sentence stems. A complex scoring system has been constucted by Loevinger and her associates (Loevinger & Wessler, 129 1970; Loevinger, Wessler & Redmore, 1970). The subject's response to each of the sentence stems i s assigned to a l e v e l of ego development by matching the subject's response with response categories provided i n the scoring manual. The manual provides s e l f - t r a i n i n g exercises which have been demonstrated to produce high l e v e l s of agreement between s e l f - t r a i n e d raters and r a t e r s trained personally by Loevinger (Hauser, 1976). Consequently, the ego development score reported by the researcher using the r a t i n g procedures and scoring algorithms outlined i n the manual, can be assumed to be congruent with one another and the procedure developed by Loevinger. R e l i a b i l i t y . Tests of r e l i a b i l i t y are related to the scoring system (i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y ) , and to the t e s t i t s e l f . Holt (1980) reported favorable comparisons with Loevinger's data with respect to percentage of complete agreement between p a i r s of r a t e r s . He reported a range of 66% to 91%, and a median of 81.5% of t o t a l agreements across 12 items for females compared to Loevinger's range of 60% to 86% and median of 77% across 36 items. He reported an almost i d e n t i c a l rate of agreement as Loevinger f o r the male sample: a median of 76%. Holt (1980) reports c o r r e l a t i o n a l r e l i a b i l i t i e s of .825 (median) f o r females and .78 (median) for males as indices of rater agreement which are s l i g h t l y better than those reported by Loevinger and Wessler (1970). Indices of rater consistency provide an estimate of the r e l i a b i l i t y of the study's basic scores. Here Holt (1980) 130 reported a median c o e f f i c i e n t of .91 for females and .88 for males. Loevinger and Wessler (1970, Vol. 1, p. 44) report an alpha c o e f f i c i e n t of .91 as the measure of i n t e r n a l consistency using a mixed sample of 543 women on the 36 items. Based on the assumption that the items are comparable psychometrically, the predicted r e l i a b i l i t y using the Spearman-Brown formula for 12 randomly chosen items would be alpha (r = .77), which i s what Holt (1980) obtained i n his sample of females (.76 for males). He suggests that these c o e f f i c i e n t s of i n t e r n a l consistency are s u f f i c i e n t l y good to make the 12-item form usable for research purposes (Holt, 1980, p. 914) although there i s some hesitancy that i n using the abbreviated form persons above the 1-4 l e v e l may not be r e l i a b l y c l a s s i f i e d . V a l i d i t y . Holt (1980) states that no simple statement about the v a l i d i t y of the Sentence Completion Test i s possible because ego develoment i s a complex concept for which no f a c e - v a l i d c r i t e r i o n measure exists. Hauser (1976) reports studies r e l a t i n g to the discriminative v a l i d i t y , p r edictive v a l i d i t y , and construct v a l i d i t y of the Sentence Completion Test. Discriminative v a l i d i t y . IQ l e v e l and verbal fluency are two v a r i a b l e s that have been associated with the r a t i n g of ego development. B l a s i (1972) and Loevinger and Wessler (1970) found that, at most, 16% and 2 5% of ego development l e v e l variance could be accounted for by IQ l e v e l . Hoppe (1972) reported a nonsignificant c o r r e l a t i o n between IQ score and ego development 131 l e v e l scores (r = .14) suggesting that IQ and ego development are not merely overlapping measures. Loevinger and Wessler (1970) correlated number of words i n subject's response with t h e i r t o t a l r a t i n g and found that the median cor r e l a t i o n was .31 (n = 204) and .35 (n = 543). Some correlation i s to be expected since conceptual complexity i s an aspect of the construct (Loevinger & Wessler, 1970, p. 51). As Hauser (1976) pointed out, " i t i s impossible to decide whether high verbal fluency i s an e s s e n t i a l aspect of high ego development levels, rather than an a r t i f a c t imposed by the nature of the testing instrument i t s e l f " (p. 938) since the measurement of the construct r e l i e s on verbal fluency. P r e d i c t i v e V a l i d i t y . Although Loevinger's model does not pr e d i c t any r e l a t i o n s h i p between ego development and overt behavior, patterns of behavior which are congruent with p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l s of development may be predictable. Cox (1974) investigated children's helping behavior as a function of ego l e v e l and p r i o r help and obtained nonsignificant c o r r e l a t i o n s . A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c orrelation (r = .45) was found between ego development score and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n organized sports for one group and between ego score and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n educational a c t i v i t i e s (r = .33) for another. Her data suggest the p o s s i b i l i t y that some interaction i s present between ego l e v e l and the s i t u a t i o n a l variable, p r i o r help. Future p r e d i c t i v e studies are warranted i n which experimental conditions and dependent variables are based on t h e o r e t i c a l l y derived 132 predictions. Construct v a l i d i t y . A study by Frank and Quinlan, reported by Hauser (1976), tested and confirmed the hypotheses that delinquent adolescents would be at lower stages of ego development than nondelinquent adolescents of s i m i l i a r sex, s o c i a l c l a s s , and ethnic background, and that the impulsive stage of development would characterize delinquent behavior. Lucas (1971) investigated the relat i o n s h i p between subjects' ego development l e v e l as determined by the Sentence Completion Test and as infer r e d from ratings obtained from interview data. A global assessment of ego l e v e l based on interview t r a n s c r i p t s was determined by two raters which correlated .81, while the c o r r e l a t i o n between these two sets of interview ratings and the SCT was .58 and .61. B l a s i (1972) obtained a c o r r e l a t i o n of .56 ( g i r l s ) and .54 (boys) between r e s p o n s i b i l i t y functioning and ego development and Hoppe (1972) found, as predicted, a maximum of conformity behavior within the conformist range of ego development. One further area i n which substantial c o r r e l a t i o n s may be expected i s between leve l s of ego development and moral development. Sull i v a n , McCullough, and Stager (1970) obtained an o v e r a l l c o r r e l a t i o n of .66 between moral and ego development but a p a r t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n of .40 when controlled for age. Separate analyses f o r age groups revealed that younger subjects (12 year olds) d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from older (14 and 17 year old) 133 subjects, the co r r e l a t i o n being .19 and .54 respe c t i v e l y . Lambert (1972) obtained an overall c o r r e l a t i o n of .80 between t o t a l protocol ratings of ego development and a global r a t i n g of moral judgment which again, decreased to .60 when c o n t r o l l e d for age. These findings suggest that a moderate c o r r e l a t i o n probably e x i s t s between these variables. In summary, Holt (1980) ascribes the wide use of the Sentence Completion Test to i t s highly developed, r e l i a b l e scoring system and the fact that i t alone measures ego development. The abbreviated form appears to be a reasonably r e l i a b l e instrument for research purposes using male and female subjects. The S e l f - E f f i c a c y Scale (Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, & Rogers, 1982) Development of the scale. S e l f - e f f i c a c y theory proposes that two kinds of personal expectancies s i g n i f i c a n t l y influence behavior: outcome expectancies and s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectancies. The former r e f e r s to b e l i e f s that certain behaviors w i l l produce c e r t a i n outcomes; the s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectancy — posited to be the most powerful determinant of behavioral change (Bandura, 1977), r e f e r s to the b e l i e f that one i s able to perform the behavior that w i l l produce the desired outcome. This scale was developed as a generalized measure of s e l f - e f f i c a c y that would be independent of s p e c i f i c situations or behaviors. Items were written that focused on s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectancies r e l a t i n g to 134 willingness to i n i t i a t e behavior, willingness to expend e f f o r t to complete the behavior, and persistance i n the face of adversity (Sherer et a l . , 1982). Twenty-three items met the c r i t e r i a of loading at the .40 l e v e l or above on only one factor. Factor 1 accounted for 2 6.5% of the t o t a l variance and contained 17 items which measure general s e l f - e f f i c a c y . The six items of Factor 2 r e f l e c t e f f i c a c y expectancies i n s o c i a l situations and accounted for 8.5% of the t o t a l variance. R e l i a b i l i t y . Sherer et a l . (1982) reported alpha r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s of .86 for the General S e l f - e f f i c a c y subscale and .71 for the Social S e l f - e f f i c a c y subscale, on a t o t a l of 23 items. The refined scale, consisting of 23 items plus 7 f i l l e r items, was administered to a second sample of 298 students with r e s u l t s r e p l i c a t i n g the o r i g i n a l two-factor s o l u t i o n . V a l i d i t y . Construct v a l i d i t y of the S e l f - e f f i c a c y Scale was assessed by c o r r e l a t i n g scores achieved on the scale with measures of personality related to but not synonymous with s e l f - e f f i c a c y : locus of control (I-E Scale, Rotter, 1966), personal control (Personal Control Subscale of the I-E Scale, Gurin, Gurin, Lao, & Beattie, 1969), s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y (Marlowe-Crowne So c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale, Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), ego strength (Ego Strength Scale, Barron, 1953), interpersonal competency (Interpersonal Competency Scale, Holland & Baird, 1968), and self-esteem (Self-esteem Scale, Rosenberg, 1965). The 135 c o r r e l a t i o n s obtained were moderate i n magnitude, i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n , confirming the predicted conceptual r e l a t i o n s h i p of these variables with the s e l f - e f f i c a c y construct. A further t e s t of construct v a l i d i t y (Sherer & Adams, 1983) was obtained by co r r e l a t i n g scores on the S e l f - e f f i c a c y subscales with scores on three v a l i d i t y and 10 c l i n i c a l scales of the MMPI, on the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (Rathus, 197 3), and on the Masculinity and Femininity scales of the Bern Sex-role Inventory (Bern, 1974) . As predicted, General S e l f - e f f i c a c y correlated p o s i t i v e l y with better adjustment (measured by the D, Pt, and S i scales of the MMPI); Social S e l f - e f f i c a c y was inversely r e l a t e d to s o c i a l introversion (Si scale of MMPI); General and S o c i a l S e l f - e f f i c a c y was associated with assertiveness and masculinity. Ad d i t i o n a l studies are needed to assess the unpredicted r e l a t i o n s h i p of General S e l f - e f f i c a c y with the F, K, Hs, Sc, and Ma scales of the MMPI; of Social S e l f - e f f i c a c y with the Ma scale; and General S e l f - e f f i c a c y with femininity (Sherer & Adams, 1983). C r i t e r i o n v a l i d i t y was assessed by attempting to demonstrate that previous successes i n education, vocational and m i l i t a r y pursuits are p o s i t i v e l y correlated with S e l f - e f f i c a c y scores. The research subjects consisted of 150 inpatients being treated for alcoholism at the time of th e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the study. The r e s u l t s indicated that General S e l f - e f f i c a c y scores are p o s i t i v e l y correlated with educational l e v e l and m i l i t a r y rank; S o c i a l S e l f - e f f i c a c y was negatively correlated with number of 136 jobs q u i t and number of times f i r e d , suggesting that lower s o c i a l s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s related to d i f f i c u l t y i n holding jobs (Sherer et a l . , 1982) . In summary, preliminary studies indicate that f o r research purposes the S e l f - e f f i c a c y Scale i s a r e l i a b l e and v a l i d measure of generalized s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectations. Defining Issues Test (Rest, 1979) Development of the scale. The Defining Issues Test (DIT) i s based on a d e f i n i t i o n of morality that rests on j u s t i c e and fairness i n s o c i a l interactions. The t h e o r e t i c a l basis for the research was a re-formulation of Kohlberg's six-stage scheme. Piagetian thought, p a r t i c u l a r i l y in respect to the c o g n i t i v e - developmental framework and notions of cooperation, i s also evident. The DIT i s a multiple-choice test i n which subjects rate and rank statements. Six dilemmas, each accompanied by 12 items, are written i n the form of questions that represent d i f f e r e n t considerations that are indicative of d i f f e r e n t schemes of f a i r n e s s . The most frequently used score i s the 11P" ("principled morality") score of stages 5 and 6 which i s calculated by summing the number of times that stage 5 and 6 items are chosen as the f i r s t , second, t h i r d , or fourth most important consideration and weighting them accordingly. R e l i a b l i t y . Rest (1979) reports in t e r n a l consistency 137 r e l i a b i l i t e s for the four d i f f e r e n t scoring methods of the Defining Issues Test that range between .70 and .90 and r e l i a b i l i t i e s of .58 to .83 for a shortened 3-dilemma version of the same t e s t . Internal consistency and t e s t r e - t e s t r e l i a b i l i t i e s are also reported for each of the s i x stage scores (Rest, 1979). V a l i d i t y . Construct v a l i d i t y has been established from data c o l l e c t e d i n cross-sectional and longitudinal studies comparing development i n moral judgement with age, formal education, moral education t r a i n i n g , gender differences, c u l t u r a l differences and r e l i g i o n . Thoma (1986) analyzed over 6000 subjects to f i n d that the age/education variable accounted for 52% of the variance i n DIT scores. Numerous longitudinal and c r o s s - c u l t u r a l studies demonstrate age trends i n the data, providing evidence for a general developmental trend i n moral development (Rest, 1979) . One of the strongest and most consistent correlates of development i n moral judgement i s years of formal education. Rest (1986) reported a 10-year longitudinal study of DIT scores which indicated that they are dramatically affected by formal education. There i s also evidence to suggest that persons who score high on moral development can be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from low scorers on the basis of experiences that foster general s o c i a l development, and development i n moral judgement seems to be p r e d i c t i v e of s o c i a l development. Social stimulation and s o c i a l support for development accounted for 26% of the variance i n the 138 DIT scores of young adults over t h e i r i n i t i a l DIT scores i n high school (Rest, 1986). Thoma (1986) applied meta- and secondary analysis procedures to a representative sample of 56 DIT studies of over 6000 subjects and found that across a l l studies less that one-half of 1% of the variance i n DIT scores was attributable to gender. A two-way ANOVA (sex by age/educational level) revealed that the age/education variable i s more than 250 times more powerful than gender i n accounting for DIT score variance. Moon (198 6) demonstrated s i m i l i a r l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t gender differences on i n d i v i d u a l items of the DIT. A review of 55 studies i n which the DIT was used to measure the e f f e c t of moral education programs revealed that groups that received some type of deliberate moral educational intervention demonstrated modestly s i g n i f i c a n t gains i n moral development compared to those who received either none or a non-related experience (Rest, 1986). A review of 30 studies by Thoma (1986) reveal a consistent pattern of moderately s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between DIT scores and behavioral measures of delinquency and cheating i n the expected d i r e c t i o n s . Higher l e v e l s of moral judgement have been demonstrated to be negatively correlated with attitudes of j u s t i c e that give unlimited power to a u t h o r i t i e s or that advocate maintenance of s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s at the expense of i n d i v i d u a l well-being (Rest, 1979) . Twenty c r o s s - c u l t u r a l studies tested the u n i v e r s a l i t y of moral judgement 139 development i n 15 cultures using the DIT (reported i n Rest, 1986). Increase i n average moral judgement scores with age/educational l e v e l i s demonstrated although the data suggest i t i s not as powerful a correlate of moral development i n non- western countries. Communal Orientation Scale (Clark, Ouellette, Powell, & Mill b e r g , 1987) Development of the scale. Clark and her colleagues developed a measure of communal orientation to assess whether a subject t y p i c a l l y behaves i n a communal way toward others and expects others to behave i n a communal fashion toward him or her. The subject rates the 14 descriptive statements according to the extent to which the statement characterizes him or her. Half the items are worded p o s i t i v e l y , the remainder are negatively phrased. The scale has been found to consist of three f a c t o r s : the f i r s t f actor on which a l l 14 items load accounts for 26% of the variance and i s described as a general communal fa c t o r ; the second i s described as a desire for other's help factor and accounts for 12% of the variance; and the t h i r d , l a b e l l e d "locus of i n i t i a t i o n " accounts for an additional 8% of the variance (Clark, Ouellette, Powell, & Milberg, 1987). R e l i a b i l i t y . The scale demonstrates adequate r e l i a b i l i t y . The authors report that Cronbach's alpha was .78 based on the responses of a sample of 561 college students. A t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y of .68 i s reported using a sample of 128 college 140 students retested a f t e r an 11-week i n t e r v a l . Item-total c o r r e l a t i o n s (with item deleted) suggest that items are not redundant with one another. V a l i d i t y . Scores on the communal scale were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y (r = .18). They were s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with conceptually s i m i l a r constructs: s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as measured by Berkowitz and Lutterman's (1968) scale on which low scores indicate greater s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (r = -.36), and emotional empathy as measured by Mehrabian and Epstein's (1972) scale (r = .58). This scale appears to be a useful research instrument with demonstrated r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y for assessing communal or i e n t a t i o n . M i l l e r S o c i a l Intimacy Scale (Miller & Lefcourt, 1982) Development of the scale. The M i l l e r S o c i a l Intimacy Scale (MSIS) was developed to measure the maximum l e v e l of intimacy current l y experienced i n the context of a va r i e t y of interpersonal rel a t i o n s h i p s . The subjects describe t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p with the person to whom they f e e l c l o s e s t , permitting an assessment of intimacy i n both the context of friendship and of marriage. The scale consists of 17 items that demonstrate inter-item and item-total correlations greater than .50 and that rate frequency (six items) and i n t e n s i t y (11 items) of intimacy. 141 R e l i a b i l i t y . Internal consistency was demonstrated by a Cronbach alpha c o e f f i c i e n t of .91 which i s of s u f f i c i e n t magnitude to suggest that the items assess a single construct. Test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y of r = .96 over a 2-month i n t e r v a l and r = .84 over a 1-month i n t e r v a l suggest s t a b i l i t y over time i n the construct being measured. V a l i d i t y . Convergent v a l i d i t y was demonstrated by a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n (r = .71) with the Schlein, Guerney and Stover t r u s t and intimacy scale (Guerney, 1977) and a negative c o r r e l a t i o n with the UCLA Loneliness Scale (r = -.65). Discriminant v a l i d i t y was demonstrated by a moderately p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (r =.48); by c o r r e l a t i o n s with the PRF for females with need for nurturance (r = .44) and for males with a f f i l i a t i o n (r = .41), dominance (r = .46), f r i e n d l y extraversion (r = .57), aggression (r = -.42); and s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t correlations with the Marlowe- Crowne Need for Approval Scale (males .36; females .02). Construct v a l i d i t y was demonstrated by s t a t i s t i c a l l y higher scores on the MSIS for descriptions of a closest f r i e n d as compared to a casual fr i e n d (t = 9.18); for married students compared to unmarried (t = 8.17), and for married students compared to a distressed c l i n i c sample (t = 6.41). An i n d i c a t i o n of the accuracy of the MSIS as an assessment technique i s suggested by the s t a t i s t i c a l l y greater mean MSIS score of the unmarried student sample than of the distressed c l i n i c sample. 142 The psychometric data support the MSIS as a r e l i a b l e , v a l i d measure of s o c i a l intimacy. The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980) Development of the scale. The revised version of the UCLA Loneliness Scale was developed in order to correct several problems that were evident i n the reasonably adequate o r i g i n a l scale. The revised version incorporates 10 new p o s i t i v e l y worded items which r e f l e c t s a t i s f a c t i o n with s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and which balance the 10 negatively worded o r i g i n a l items of the f i r s t scale. Items were selected on the basis of t h e i r c o r r e l a t i o n with a s e l f - l a b e l l i n g loneliness index. The revised scale also provides evidence for concurrent and discriminant v a l i d i t y . A 4-item survey version of the scale consisting of two p o s i t i v e l y worded and two negatively worded items has also been developed and i s recommended by the authors to investigators wanting a shortened version of the loneliness scale. Items for the short version consist of the set of four items (numbers 1, 13, 15, 18) that best predicted scores on the s e l f - l a b e l l i n g l o n e l i ness index. R e l i a b i l i t y . The internal consistency of the revised scale ( c o e f f i c i e n t alpha .94 obtained i n two studies) compares favorably with that obtained for the o r i g i n a l scale ( c o e f f i c i e n t alpha .96). A co r r e l a t i o n of .91 between the o r i g i n a l and the revised scale was obtained i n two studies. A c o e f f i c i e n t alpha 143 of .75 was obtained for the four-item loneliness scale. A t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of .62 over a 7-month period has been reported. V a l i d i t y . Measures of concurrent v a l i d i t y of the revised scale were obtained by c o r r e l a t i n g loneliness scores with measures of emotional states. Loneliness scores were s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with depression, anxiety, f e e l i n g abandoned, empty, hopeless, isolated and self-enclosed. Loneliness scores were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with f e e l i n g sociable, s a t i s f i e d , creative, sensitive, embarrassed, surprised or thoughtful. An inverse relationship was found between loneliness scores and s o c i a l a c t i v i t y , and a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between loneliness and having fewer close friends was demonstrated. Loneliness scores also c o r r e l a t e more highly with other measures of loneliness than with measures of mood and personality. Scores on the loneliness measure were not unrelated to s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale i s currently a widely- used, r e l i a b l e and seemingly v a l i d measure for assessing the experience of loneliness. The S a t i s f a c t i o n With L i f e Scale (Diener, 1983) Development of the scale. The scale was developed to assess general s a t i s f a c t i o n construed as the global evaluation of q u a l i t y of l i f e according to subjective c r i t e r i a . The scale was 144 based on a set of 4 8 s elf-report items r e l a t i n g to s a t i s f a c t i o n with l i f e which, when factor analyzed, yielded three f a c t o r s : p o s i t i v e a f f e c t , negative af f e c t and s a t i s f a c t i o n . Items with loadings of less than .60 were eliminated to y i e l d a f i n a l scale c o n s i s t i n g of f i v e items. R e l i a b i l i t y . A measure of the int e r n a l consistency of the scale was obtained from a sample of 176 undergraduate students and the inter-item correlations were found to range between .44 and .71. The t e s t - r e t e s t correlation c o e f f i c i e n t with a 2-month i n t e r v a l was .82. V a l i d i t y . The author reports moderately strong c o r r e l a t i o n s between The S a t i s f a c t i o n With L i f e Scale and other measures of subjective well-being. The scale was also found to c o r r e l a t e p o s i t i v e l y with self-esteem (r = .54), negatively with neuroticism scale (r = -.48), negatively with symptomology (r = - .41), negatively with emotionality (r = -.25) and negatively with impulsivity (r = -.03). The scale i s uncorrelated (r = .02) with the Marlowe-Crowne measure of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . Diener (1984) concludes that the scale possesses adequate psychometric properties to assess the general l i f e s a t i s f a c t i o n component of well-being. The Self-Report Altruism Scale (Rushton, Chrisjohn, & Fekken, 1981) Development of the scale. The Self-Report Altruism Scale (SRA) i s a 20-item scale i n which subjects rate the frequency 145 with which they have engaged in a l t r u i s t i c behaviors using categories ranging from *never' to xvery often'. R e l i a b i l i t y . Comparable sample means and standard deviations produced from data collected from separate samples of males and females, and internal consistency c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r four samples that ranged between .78 (n = 118) and .87 (n = 146) suggest that the instrument demonstrates psychometrically stable properties. R e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s calculated f o r peer ratings yielded a s p l i t - h a l f i n t er-rater r e l i a b i l i t y of r(78) = + 0.51 (p <.01). The i n t e r n a l consistency of the peer r a t i n g form was found to be .89 (n = 416). V a l i d i t y . The v a l i d i t y of the SRA scale was assessed by c o r r e l a t i n g i t with the peer ratings and finding a c o r r e l a t i o n of r(86) = 0.35 (p <.001). Using Spearman's correction formula and s u b s t i t u t i n g c o e f f i c i e n t alpha as the r e l i a b i l i t y of the SRA scale and then using interrater correlations as the r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the peer ratings produced a correlations of r (78) = 0.56. Further, a s i g n i f i c a n t , positive c o r r e l a t i o n was found with the SRA scale and four other measures of altruism, as well as with measures of s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , empathy, having equality and helpfulness as personal values, and having *high' l e v e l s of moral reasoning. I t was negatively and s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with Machiavellianism. Low but s i g n i f i c a n t l y p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s were found between s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y and p r o s o c i a l o r i e n t a t i o n . 146 Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976) Development of the scale. Despite widespread c r i t i c i s m of such terms as "marital s a t i s f a c t i o n " , "happiness", and "marital adjustment", Spanier (1976) and his colleagues (Spanier, Lewis, & Cole, 1975) were convinced of the need for an adequate measure to assess the q u a l i t y of marital relationships. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale was based on a d e f i n i t i o n that viewed adjustment as a process of movement along a continuum; a process which can be evaluated at any point i n time on a dimension from well-adjusted to maladjusted. The items i n the scale were selected from a pool of a l l items that had ever been used i n any scale of marital adjustment; 300 items i n a l l . These items were examined for content v a l i d i t y , c r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d v a l i d i t y , and concurrent v a l i d i t y . A t o t a l of 32 items met these c r i t e r i a . R e l i a b i l i t y . An estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y was established for each of the component subscales and for the t o t a l scale using Cronbach's c o e f f i e c i e n t alpha. The r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s for the subscales are as follows: dyadic consensus .90, dyadic s a t i s f a c t i o n .94, dyadic cohesion .86, and a f f e c t i o n a l expression .73. Total scale r e l i a b i l i t y i s .96. V a l i d i t y . C r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d v a l i d i t y was established by c o r r e l a t i n g scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale with scores on the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Scale (1959). The c o r r e l a t i o n was found to be .86 among married respondents and .88 among divorced respondents. Factor analysis of the f i n a l 32 147 items u t i l i z e d i n the scale confirmed the presence of four i n t e r r e l a t e d components of marital adjustment: consensus, s a t i s f a c t i o n , cohesion, and a f f e c t i o n a l expression. The four components comprise the t o t a l scale as separately i d e n t i f i a b l e subscales with r e l i a b i l i t i e s as reported above. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale i s a widely used measure of marital adjustment with demonstrated r e l i a b l e psychometric properties. The NEO Inventory (McCrae & Costa, 1983) Development of the scale. Research demonstrates that the f i v e f a c t o r model of personality (Tupes & C h r i s t a l , 1961) c o n s i s t i n g of neuroticism versus emotional s t a b i l i t y , extraversion, culture (openness to experience), agreeableness and conscientiousness comprises a recurrent and comprehensive taxonomy of personality t r a i t s (McCrae & Costa, 1987) . The NEO Inventory i s a questionnaire measure of three of the domains of perso n a l i t y : neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience, which are postulated as a basic set of second-order dimensions of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1983) . Theorists have not always agreed on exactly how to conceptualize the f a c t o r s . Neuroticism i s perhaps the most common and least contentious of the f a c t o r s , and i s defined by Costa and McCrae (1987) with such terms as worrying, insecure, self-conscious and temperamental. Theorists generally concur on the c e n t r a l i t y of negative a f f e c t (anxiety, depression, anger, and embarrassment) to neuroticism 148 and some behavioral and cognitive features have also been suggested: mistrust and self-reference (Guilford, Zimmerman & G u i l f o r d , 1976), impulsivity (Costa & McCrae, 1980), i r r a t i o n a l b e l i e f s (Teasdale & Rachman, 1983; Vestre, 1984), and poor coping e f f o r t s (McCrae & Costa, 1986). The construct, neuroticism, i s contrasted with emotional s t a b i l i t y . The NEO Inventory i s a 144-item questionnaire obtained a f t e r p o s i t i v e l y and negatively-written items were factor analyzed and selected on the basis of best f i t to the conceptualized model. Seventy-six items i n the Neurotic (N) domain remained. A second- stage analysis of items within each domain resulted i n eight items from each factor with the highest loading on the intended factor being selected (McCrae & Costa, 1983). Scales measuring anxiety, h o s t i l i t y , depression, self-consciousness, impulsivenss and v u l n e r a b i l i t y to stress are included as facets of N. The o v e r a l l domain score i s obtained by summing the scores of the six facets withing the domain. R e l i a b i l i t y . Internal consistency ranges from .61 to .81 for the i n d i v i d u a l facets. Three-month t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y for the three global domain scores range from .85 to .93; s i x - month t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y for individual facets range from .66 to .92. The C a l i f o r n i a Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1987) Development of the scale. The conceptual system underlying 149 the C a l i f o r n i a Psychological Inventory (CPI) has existed since the l a t e 194 0s, and the Dominance scale was developed early i n the next decade (Gough, McClosky, & Meehl, 1951). The inventory was developed to assess f o l k concepts or the "everyday variables that ordinary people use in t h e i r d a i l y l i v e s to understand, c l a s s i f y , and predict t h e i r own behavior and that of others" (Gough, 1987, p. 1). The inventory, which presently consists of 20 scales and a t o t a l of 462 items, was conceptualized i n such a way that items or elements could be removed and added as necessary. The new dominance scale consists of 3 6 items as compared to the o r i g i n a l 46. The c o r r e l a t i o n between the old and new dominance scale i s i d e n t i c a l (.97) for males and females (n = 1000 f o r each sample). Higher dominance scores are interpreted to s i g n i f y confidence, assertiveness, dominant and task-oriented behavior. The intended implications of lower scores are "unassuming, not f o r c e f u l " behavior (Gough, 1987, p. 6), and i t should be r e c a l l e d that Gough et a l . (1951) stated that "people with low dominance are submissive" (p. 361). R e l i a b i l i t y . The internal consistency (alpha) c o r r e l a t i o n s for the dominance scale, computed from samples of 200 college males and 200 college females and the combined sample of 400 students were .77 for males, .77 for females, and .79 f o r the combined sample. The correlations for p a r a l l e l forms of the t e s t (English and French versions administered one week apart) obtained from a sample of high school students were .69 f o r 150 males (n = 85) and .68 for females (n = 38). Test-retest c o r r e l a t i o n s obtained from high school students i n the eleventh grade and again i n the twelfth grade were .62 for the male sample (n = 102) and .68 for the female sample (n = 128). V a l i d i t y . I ntercorrelation of the dominance scale with other scales i n the inventory indicate that the dominance scale (Do) i s most highly correlated with Cs (Capacity for status), Sy ( S o c i a b i l i t y ) , Sp (Social presence), Sa (Self-acceptance), In (Independence), and Em (Empathy). Factor analysis produced four factors with eigenvalues greater than one. The f i r s t f a c t o r for both sexes i s primarily defined by high loadings on the Do, Cs, SY/ SP/ S a / I n a n d Em scales which a l l r e l a t e to interpersonal behavior which implies poise, self-assurance, i n i t i a t i v e , and resourcefulness and i n which there i s a q u a l i t y of extraversion or o r i e n t a t i o n toward others (Gough, 1987). This factor has been c a l l e d Extraversion and "persons ranking high on t h i s f a c t o r present themselves as outgoing, self-confident, poised, and e n t e r p r i s i n g " (Gough, 1987, p. 33). Problematic S o c i a l Ties (Rook, 1984) Development of the scale. Based on the recognition that s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s e n t a i l costs as well as rewards, Rook (1984) constructed a measure to assess the costs or "...the troublesome aspects of r e l a t i n g to others" (p. 1098). Rook (1984) states that " f o r researchers interested i n the e f f e c t s of s o c i a l t i e s on personal well-being, i t i s important to assess the benefits of 151 such t i e s i n r e l a t i o n to the costs" (p. 1098). The measure consists of f i v e questions that ask subjects about the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s which were sources of various problems f o r them: having privacy invaded, being taken advantage of, having promises of help broken, being provoked to c o n f l i c t or anger, and a general question which asked i f there was someone who was a consistent source of problems for them. The Marlowe-Crowne Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) Development of the scale. The Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale (M-C SDS) was developed with the objective that a scale be devised that eliminated pathology-relevant items. For i n c l u s i o n i n the scale, items had to meet the c r i t e r i o n of c u l t u r a l approval ( i . e . , items tap behaviors that are c u l t u r a l l y sanctioned but improbable of occurence), and have minimal pathological or abnormal implications. Judges rated the items fo r s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . Unanimous agreement was obtained on 36 items, 90% agreement on 11 additional items. Judges also rated the M-C SDS and the Edwards SDS (Edwards, 1957) for degree of maladjustment implied by s o c i a l l y undesirable responses to the items. A t - t e s t of the significance of the difference between the means was s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .0001 l e v e l i n d i c a t i n g that the judges considered s o c i a l l y undesirable responding on the Edwards SDS to be highly in d i c a t i v e of maladjustment compared to 152 the M-C SDS. Item analysis following p i l o t t e s t i n g of the preliminary scale (n = 76) resulted i n 33 items that discriminated at the .05 le v e l or better between high and low t o t a l scores. The authors state that a response set i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of scores i s improbable since 18 items are keyed true and 15 f a l s e . R e l i a b i l i t y . The internal consistency c o e f f i c i e n t f o r the f i n a l form of the scale i s reported by the authors to be .88 using the Kuder-Richardson formula 20 (n = 39). A t e s t - r e t e s t c o r r e l a t i o n of .89 was obtained after a 1-month i n t e r v a l . V a l i d i t y . Crowne and Marlowe (1960) report a c o r r e l a t i o n of .35 between the M-C SDS and the Edwards SDS obtained from a sample of 120 univers i t y students. Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n s were computed between the M-C SDS and the Edwards SDS and 17 MMPI v a l i d i t y , c l i n i c a l , and derived scales. Consistently higher correlations were obtained between the MMPI scales and the Edwards SDS than between the MMPI scales and the M-C SDS. The magnitude of the correlations between the M-C SDS and the MMPI i s interpreted by the authors as an i n d i c a t i o n of "...the need of subjects to respond i n c u l t u r a l l y sanctioned ways." (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960, p. 354) 153 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS The research findings w i l l be presented i n t h i s chapter i n the order i n which the three phases of the research were conducted: (1) c r i t i c a l incident interviews, (2) development and pretesting of the V o l i t i o n a l Submissiveness Scale (VSS), and (3) te s t s of the hypotheses and other tests of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . Data were co l l e c t e d from a t o t a l of 480 subjects: 30 ( c r i t i c a l incident interviews), 40 ( f i r s t pretest), 50 (second pr e t e s t ) , 234 ( f i e l d t e s t i n g ) , 126 (predicted groups, behavioral experiment, t e s t - retest, peer ratings). The r e s u l t s w i l l be reported separately for each phase. Phase 1 — C r i t i c a l Incident Interviews C r i t i c a l incident interviews provided an important basis for the research. Their purpose was twofold: (1) to determine whether people could actually i d e n t i f y personal experiences that met the c r i t e r i a of the hypothesized t r a i t , and (2) i f incidents could be i d e n t i f i e d , to use them to generate items f o r an instrument that would measure v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. Description of the Sample C r i t i c a l incident interviews were conducted with 3 0 in d i v i d u a l s between August and November, 1988. Subjects who appeared to be psychologically well-adjusted were i n v i t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a study r e l a t i n g to " c o n f l i c t i n g needs i n re l a t i o n s h i p s " . The personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that led to the 154 s e l e c t i o n of subjects for the interviews are demonstrated by the following description of one subject. This subject, a woman of seventy years of age, appeared to be highly i n t e l l i g e n t , demonstrated a strong, p o s i t i v e mental a t t i t u d e , and was sensitive and compassionate. She and her husband had l o s t t h e i r status as European royalty and became refugees during World War II. Eventually they a r r i v e d i n Canada but i t was d i f f i c u l t to find employment. Her husband was h i r e d as a u n i v e r s i t y professor but she was unable to f i n d work i n her f i e l d (chemistry), so she accepted employment as an u n s k i l l e d o f f i c e worker and remained i n that position for many years because she believed i t was important to s t a b i l i z e geographically for the sake of t h e i r children. In the interview, she recounted the hardships — not with regret but with an obvious sense of acceptance, taking pleasure i n the way the old world had blended into her l i f e i n Canada. Now she described her most recent adjustment to widowhood; she spoke fondly of her husband, her enjoyment of t h e i r children and grandchildren, neighbors and frie n d s , and her very active l i f e despite f a i l i n g health. A f t e r a number of interviews had been conducted, i t was evident that the subjects who had been selected on the basis that they appeared to be outstanding or exceptionally "healthy" had no d i f f i c u l t y i d e n t i f y i n g interpersonal experiences that met the c r i t e r i a of the t r a i t . Consequently, the stringency for s e l e c t i n g subjects was relaxed somewhat to s t i l l include people 155 whom the researcher i n t u i t i v e l y judged to be "psychologically healthy" but who were otherwise ordinary people. Gender bias i n the interviews was avoided by s e l e c t i n g an approximately equal number of men and women. The interview subjects ranged i n age from 36 to 77 years; the average age being 49 years. Although the average age of these subjects was greater than the average age of subjects p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n subsequent aspects of the study (37.5 years), the incidents themselves were not biased age-wise because incidents that were reported tended to have occurred i n the subjects' early years or i n m i d - l i f e . For example, a subject who at the time of the interview was about 70 years old, related an incident from her adolescence. Thus, the incidents were not s p e c i f i c to gender or age so that adults of a l l ages and both genders could imagine or r e l a t e to them. The Interviews Interviewing was continued u n t i l incidents began to be r e p e t i t i v e , suggesting that the redundancy c r i t e r i a had been met and that the domain of situations had been adequately sampled. The content of the l a s t s i x interviews was b a s i c a l l y s i m i l a r to incidents that had been reported previously; for example, caring for or spending time with e l d e r l y family members was reported by three subjects. The incidents were required to meet the conditions of the c r i t i c a l incident method as well as the theorized c r i t e r i a of the 156 v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness t r a i t . Checks were made to v e r i f y that each incident did i n fact meet both sets of conditions. The conditions were met i n a l l but one interview. (The interview which f a i l e d to meet the c r i t e r i a i s discussed l a t e r i n t h i s s e ction). The ease with which subjects were able to i d e n t i f y a c r i t i c a l incident, the immediacy and c l a r i t y of r e c a l l of the incidents, and the emotional significance that the incident had for the i n d i v i d u a l was s t r i k i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y since a number of the incidents had occurred many years previously. Subjects' motives for placing the needs or in t e r e s t s of another person ahead of t h e i r own needs was a c r i t i c a l f actor i n i d e n t i f y i n g whether the behavior conformed to the adaptive dimension. The motivations for, and consequences of the acts were investigated by having subjects i d e n t i f y what goals or purposes they hoped to achieve, how they f e l t about themselves and the other person both at the time and as they r e f l e c t e d on the incident during the interview, how they perceived that t h e i r behavior affected the other person, and what the outcome was. Motives that subjects frequently i d e n t i f i e d were the desire to help, to demonstrate caring, to do the r i g h t thing, or to enhance or maintain the rela t i o n s h i p . These motives were consistent with those that were theorized. Subjects, with the exception of one, were able to i d e n t i f y a po s i t i v e outcome i n which they f e l t enlarged by the s e l f - g i v i n g behavior and currently expressed an on-going sense of g r a t i f i c a t i o n for having resolved the 157 c o n f l i c t i n g need scenario in the manner described. One incident i s c i t e d here as an example to demonstrate how an incident met the conditions of the method and the c r i t e r i a of the t r a i t . My youngest brother married and wanted to farm a f t e r our father passed away. He didn't have a farm so my husband and I had him come and farm next to us. He used everything that we had because we were somewhat established then and he became j u s t l i k e a son: no charge and no accounting hardly, e i t h e r he or h i s wife, just to get them started. They did get started [in farming] and did a r e a l l y good job. This was f o r about three years. They l i v e d with us only u n t i l they got t h e i r house ready and then we worked together. I f there was a p r o f i t , we would channel i t t h e i r way because they were s t a r t i n g and we were established. I wouldn't say i t was a hardship but there were times when emotionally I needed something d i f f e r e n t because of his wife, but I kept quiet because of him, and i t was a good thing. I haven't talked about t h i s ever because I s e t t l e d i t i n my own mind: we invited them, but i t was to share, not to "show" them. We had no children and he had no dad, so we wanted them to have a good home on the farm. The outcome was r i g h t so I don't remember the bumps and we were close r i g h t to the end...but after they had the f i r s t l i t t l e boy, I was just r e a l l y fond of that l i t t l e boy. His mother was possessive of him and wouldn't share the joy of having him with me. I understood that i t was because t h i s was one thing that was hers that I didn't have and wasn't going to have. There were a l o t of things l i k e that with her. I sort of understood that she didn't have the nature that she could j u s t accept what had been done for her so I didn't l e t on. I wanted to keep i t together for t h e i r sake. I overlooked the h u r t f u l things so that i t would work out for them, fo r a l l of us. And i t has. We were always close fri e n d s , her and I and him, and they did so w e l l . Last year when my brother died we went back to the farm where the family s t i l l l i v e . During the funeral, the town f l a g flew at half mast in mourning for him, and the funeral procession passed by the school that was named for him. I f e l t so proud of him and so deeply g r a t i f i e d because of what we had been able to do for them so many years ago. I t was the r i g h t thing to do, to put that need of t h e i r ' s ahead of my own f e e l i n g s . Only one incident f a i l e d to meet the c r i t e r i a of the t r a i t . That interview was, therefore, not included i n the data pool used 158 i n the second phase of the research. In t h i s case a woman i d e n t i f i e d a s i t u a t i o n i n which a c o n f l i c t of needs existed, she placed the other's need ahead of her own, her reason for doing so was l a r g e l y to benefit the other; however, her submission required that she compromise personally held values. This caused inner c o n f l i c t , resentment and her eventual withdrawal from the re l a t i o n s h i p . Her behavior was much more consistent with the t r a d i t i o n a l , passive view of submissiveness. The interviewer's success i n obtaining incidents that met the c r i t e r i a i n a l l other cases was unexpected. The effectiveness of the c r i t i c a l incident interview method, the a b i l i t y of the questions to e l i c i t incidents of v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness, and the selection of psychologically healthy i n d i v i d u a l s are possible explanations for t h i s r e s u l t . On the other hand, perhaps placing the needs of others ahead of one's own need i s a banal r e a l i t y i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s and people can r e a d i l y i d e n t i f y these incidents, p a r t i c u l a r i l y i f the cost to s e l f has been considerable. Future research with diverse populations may c l a r i f y t h i s r e s u l t . When 3 0 interviews had been completed, they were transcribed to check again that the t r a i t c r i t e r i a had been met, and to thoroughly f a m i l i a r i z e the researcher with each incident i n preparation for writing items. 159 Phase 2 — Development and Pre-testing of the Instrument Writing Scale Items The c r i t i c a l incidents were used i n the following way to develop items for the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness scale. F i f t e e n incidents were selected from the transcribed interviews, eight of which were contributed by male subjects and seven by females. Each incident was studied i n order to c l e a r l y i d e n t i f y the c o n f l i c t i n g need and the context i n which i t arose. Personal pronouns were used i n writing the scenario for each item i n an attempt to help the tes t taker imagine being i n the s i t u a t i o n that was described. Careful attention was paid to avoid gender bias. I t appears these objectives were achieved because subjects did not express d i f f i c u l t y i n ide n t i f y i n g with the scenarios and many subjects made notations to the e f f e c t that they had been i n a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n or were presently i n i t . Each scenario was followed by a statement that asked the test-taker to suppose that he/she had chosen to place the need of the other person ahead of his/her own need (that i s , to act i n a submissive way). The question: "To what extent would the following reasons influence you to do t h i s ? " was then posed i n order to i d e n t i f y the motive underlying the hypothetical behavior. Six motivations for each scenario followed, each with a scale for r a t i n g the motive from 1 (not at a l l ) to 5 (exactly). I d e n t i f y i n g the motive was considered to be an important function of the t e s t because of the t h e o r e t i c a l proposition that 160 submissiveness i s a t r a i t that requires an orientation, and that understanding the meaning that behavior has for the person i s e s s e n t i a l to l a b e l l i n g the t r a i t c o r r e c t l y . Devising a way to i d e n t i f y what the test-taker's motivation might be for acting submissively proved to be the most d i f f i c u l t step i n constructing the t e s t . Five p o t e n t i a l motives for acting i n a v o l i t i o n a l l y submissive way (caring, helping, relationship enhancing, r e l a t i o n s h i p maintaining, and propriety) had been postulated, based on a review of the l i t e r a t u r e and the t h e o r e t i c a l formulation of the t r a i t . The t e s t writer used each of these motives to make up a sentence that pertained to each scenario (Appendix 2) . A s i x t h motive (passive unassertiveness), corresponding to the current view of submissiveness, was added i n order to d i s t i n g u i s h the maladaptive dimension of submissiveness from the v o l i t i o n a l dimension. A blank space was provided f o r t e s t takers to i d e n t i f y t h e i r own motive i f none of those given suited them. The t h i r d part of the item consisted of a submissive and a non-submissive behavior for each scenario and a question asking test-takers to indicate which behavior would a c t u a l l y be most l i k e them. The submissive alternative consisted of the behavior reported by the subject i n the c r i t i c a l incident interview. The non-submissive al t e r n a t i v e was a fabricated a l t e r n a t i v e r e l a t e d to the scenario. If the submissive alternative was selected, the test-taker's motive for acting i n a submissive way would be used 161 to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between v o l i t i o n a l and t r a d i t i o n a l submissiveness. F i n a l l y , the test-taker was asked to indicate what most influenced his/her actual behavior: personal philosophy, family values, s o c i e t a l expectation, moral convictions, other. Assessing Face V a l i d i t y In order to assess the face v a l i d i t y of the items, 10 professionals (psychologists, professors, counsellors and educators) were given the d e f i n i t i o n and des c r i p t i o n of the t r a i t and were asked to rate each item according to how well i t represented the construct. They were also given d e f i n i t i o n s of the s i x motives and asked to i d e n t i f y the motive to which each sentence referred. (See Appendix 3 for ins t r u c t i o n s to raters.) Of the 15 items, the raters unanimously i d e n t i f i e d item 11 as representing the concept "very well". Items 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 15 were judged as representing the item "well"; the remaining items as representing the construct "adequately". None of the items were judged to represent the construct "poorly"; therefore, a l l of the items were retained for pretesting of the scale. With respect to the motivation sentences, raters were not co n s i s t e n t l y able to i d e n t i f y the motive to which each sentence re f e r r e d . Consequently, the sentences that were most commonly m i s i d e n t i f i e d were re-worded and re - d i s t r i b u t e d to the 162 professionals to be rated again. The res u l t s improved but were s t i l l not perfect. Additional refinements were made to the sentences that continued to be ambiguous. I t was decided to pretest the scale rather than get further subjective r a t i n g s . Pretesting of the Scale Pretest 1. The f i r s t form of the V o l i t i o n a l Submissiveness Scale (VSS, Appendix 2) was pretested using a sample that consisted of 40 adults (23 women, 17 men). The average age of the sample was 3 6 years. The response rate for t h i s pretest was 80% ( f i f t y scales were distributed, 10 were not returned). The VSS t o t a l score was acquired by summing the number of submissive a l t e r n a t i v e s that were selected, provided that the subject had selected v o l i t i o n a l (as opposed to passive) motives for acting submissively. The possible range for the VSS t o t a l score was 0 to 15. The VSS t o t a l scores obtained i n the f i r s t p retesting of the scale ranged from 8 to 14 with a mean score of 10.75, standard deviation 1.46. The c o e f f i c i e n t alpha (Hoyt) estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y was .20; standard error of measurement 1.49. The motivational subscales demonstrated individual r e l i a b i l i t i e s ranging from .79 to .91; the c o e f f i c i e n t alpha estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y for the composite of the subscales was .90. A c o e f f i c i e n t of t h i s magnitude suggests that the subscales bear considerable s i m i l a r i t y to one another and are probably not measuring d i s t i n c t motivations. The professional r a t e r s 163 i n a b i l i t y to d i s t i n g u i s h between subscales i s l i k e l y r e l a t e d to t h i s f a c t o r . A summary of subscale s t a t i s t i c s i s presented i n Table 1. Table 1 Analysis of VSS (Form 1) Motivational Subscales Subscale M SD r error Caring 57.05 8.92 .79 3 .94 Helping 52 .77 11.47 .91 4.01 Propriety 50.97 10.94 .83 4.33 Enhance 53 .15 12 .32 .87 4.23 Maintain 50. 30 11.43 .85 4 . 24 Passive 53.63 10.48 .83 4 .17 Note. Data obtained from pretest 1, n = 40. Low i n t e r n a l consistency of the t o t a l scale demonstrated i n the f i r s t pretesting of the VSS was attributed to t e s t structure and number of items. F i r s t , the structure of the t e s t was such that the VSS score was acquired a f t e r the test-taker had been asked to imagine having chosen the submissive response and s e l e c t i n g a motive. Five of the motives rel a t e d to p o s i t i v e 164 q u a l i t i e s such as caring, helping, and enhancing the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Perhaps exposure to these motives influenced t e s t - takers beyond t h e i r a b i l i t y to respond objec t i v e l y to the question "what would you actually do?" This p o t e n t i a l d i f f i c u l t y was addressed by writing the item so that the c o n f l i c t i n g needs scenario was followed immediately by the se l e c t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e behaviors. Secondly, the motivational sentences continued to be awkward. For each item, one motive was supplied by the c r i t i c a l incident interview subject, the rest were constructed to conform to the other hypothetical motives. For example, i n item 1 (Appendix 2) the f i r s t motive was supplied by the subject (caring) , the next f i v e motives were constructed by the writer to represent helping, propriety, relationship maintaining, r e l a t i o n s h i p enhancing, passive (traditional) submissiveness. The p r o f e s s i o n a l raters had experienced d i f f i c u l t y discriminating between motives and the estimate of in t e r n a l consistency of the composite of subscales suggested that they were not necessarily d i s t i n c t from one another. Further, a person might be motivated to act as much by caring as by wanting to help, to do the r i g h t thing, to maintain the relationship, and so on. I t was questionable whether the motivation sentences were a c t u a l l y getting at d i s t i n c t reasons for submitting. F i n a l l y , the f i v e motives f o r v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness were not balanced by an equal number of " t r a d i t i o n a l " motives and to do so would have 165 resulted i n an excessively lengthy scale ( i . e . , 10 motivation sentences for each item). Consequently, i t was decided to drop the motivational subscales and attempt to access subjects' motivation d i r e c t l y by asking subjects to complete the sentence stem: "My reason for responding t h i s way would be...." The sentence completion would comprise the VSS t o t a l score, scored with a subjective r a t i n g based on whether the response met or f a i l e d to meet the c r i t e r i a for the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness t r a i t . Instructions for scoring were prepared so that raters could be trained to score the test (Appendix 5). Thirdly, nine items were added to the scale using the same procedure as was used i n writing the previous 15 items. The revised form of the VSS (Appendix 4) now consisted of 24 items each made up of: (1) a c o n f l i c t i n g needs scenario; (2) two behavioral options (a submissive alternative obtained from the c r i t i c a l incident interview and a non-submissive fabricated a l t e r n a t i v e ) ; and (3) the motivational sentence stem. At the end of the scale, a s e l f - r a t i n g question was included i n which the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness construct was defined and subjects were asked to estimate how l i k e l y they were to place the needs of a person with whom they shared a close re l a t i o n s h i p ahead of t h e i r own needs. Scoring the Revised VSS Two scores are derived from the VSS. The f i r s t i s a submissiveness score obtained by summing the subject's s e l f 166 r a t i n g of the behavioral alternatives. The s e l f ratings are based on a L i k e r t scale ranging from 1 ( d e f i n i t e l y does not sound l i k e me) to 5 ( d e f i n i t e l y sounds l i k e me), so that the t e s t taker's submissiveness score f a l l s within a range of 24 (minimum) to 12 0 (maximum). This score does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e between t r a d i t i o n a l and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. I t i s simply the t e s t taker's judgement of the extent to which the submissive behavior sounds l i k e him/her. The sentence completion (motivational statement) i s e s s e n t i a l to determine whether the behavior conforms to the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness construct, the t r a d i t i o n a l conceptualization of submissiveness, or, i f the non- submissive a l t e r n a t i v e was selected, i s consistent with that response. The v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness score i s the more important score and i s obtained by rating the sentence completion. The sentence completion must be coherent with the behavioral a l t e r n a t i v e that was selected. Both the behavioral a l t e r n a t i v e and the sentence completion are necessary to i n t e r p r e t and score the item. Sentence completions were scored dichotomously: a value of 1 was assigned i f the response was consistent with the c r i t e r i a of the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness t r a i t ; a value of 0 i f the response f a i l e d to meet the c r i t e r i a , was consistent with the s e l e c t i o n of the non-submissive alternative, or was l e f t blank. Scores p o t e n t i a l l y ranged from 0 to 24 (Appendix 5). Pretest 2. The revised 24-item form of the VSS (Appendix 4) 167 was pretested a second time using a sample of 50 adults (17 men, 3 3 women); the average age of the sample was 37 years. Subjects completed the VSS and the dominance scale of the CPI. The data were scored using the dichotomous method described above and the r e s u l t s analyzed. VSS scores ranged from 1 to 24, the mean score was 17.59, standard deviation 4.79, the Hoyt estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y was .80, standard error of measurement 2.10. A summary of item correlations are presented i n Table 2. The hypothesis of no relationship between the VSS and the CPI dominance scale was supported suggesting that d i f f e r e n t constructs were being measured. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y non-significant c o r r e l a t i o n (r = .039; p_ >.01) was obtained. No r e l a t i o n s h i p was demonstrated between age (r = .032) or gender (r = .081); but p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s were demonstrated between VSS score and s e l f ratings of v o l i t i o n a l l y submissive behavior (r = .575) and VSS score and ratings of extent to which submissive behavior "sounds l i k e me" (r = .515) at the .01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Because the scale demonstrated adequate r e l i a b i l i t y on t h i s pretest, further t e s t i n g of the scale and the research hypotheses appeared warranted. Only one further r e v i s i o n was made to the scale. Subjects reported that i t had taken 3 0 minutes to 1 hour to complete the scale, so the ideol o g i c a l question pertaining to primary influence underlying behavior was removed from each item i n the i n t e r e s t of shortening the tes t as much as possible. The research advanced to the t h i r d phase. 168 Table 2 Summary of VSS Item S t a t i s t i c s (Pretest 2) Item Mean SD Correlation Item Mean SD Correlation ST TT ST TT 1 1.24 .431 .335 . 171 13 1.38 .490 . 095 . 151 2 1. 68 .471 . 185 .297 14 1.48 .505 .364 .433 3 1.30 .463 . 139 .229 15 1.46 .503 .460 .454 4 1.84 .370 .316 .245 16 1.70 .463 . 386 . 163 5 1.22 .418 .277 . 309 17 1.50 .505 .426 .375 6 1.44 .501 .474 .478 18 1. 66 .479 . 577 .445 7 1.62 .490 . 378 .220 19 1.40 .495 .271 . 105 8 1.40 .495 .335 . 321 20 1.46 . 503 .285 . 343 9 1.58 .499 .419 .369 21 1. 32 .471 . 066 .006 10 1. 62 .490 .313 .257 22 1.26 .443 . 309 .234 11 1.40 .495 .486 .428 23 1.48 .505 .438 .366 12 1.12 .328 .301 .234 24 1. 62 .490 .435 .474 Note. ST = item-total c o r r e l a t i o n corrected for overlap; TT = item t o t a l - s c o r e correlations. (n = 50) 169 Phase 3 — F i e l d Testing of the Instrument The r e l i a b i l i t y , v a l i d i t y and factor structure of the VSS were explored i n t h i s phase of the research. The following measures of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y were obtained: a c o e f f i c i e n t of i n t e r n a l consistency, a correlation between t e s t - r e t e s t scores, and a c o r r e l a t i o n between s e l f and peer ratings. Construct v a l i d i t y was assessed by c o r r e l a t i n g measures of personality and behavioral c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s with VSS scores. C r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d v a l i d i t y was assessed by administering two t e s t s . In the f i r s t t e s t of c r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d v a l i d i t y , the VSS was administered to two target groups: one was predicted to score high on the VSS and one was predicted to score low. In the second, an experimental study was conducted to determine whether behavior could be predicted on the basis of VSS scores. F i n a l l y , a preliminary analysis of the factor structure of the scale was conducted using a post hoc scoring method that employed a range score. Missing Data Missing data were handled i n the following manner. If more than three items were missing from the VSS, the e n t i r e case was dropped from the study. Only seven cases were excluded from the study because 4 or more VSS items were incomplete. I f occasional (3 or fewer) items were missed, a neutral score (3) was given to the behavioral a l t e r n a t i v e s and a score of 0 was assigned when 170 the sentence stem (motivation) was not completed. If any of the te s t s that were being correlated with the VSS were incomplete, the incomplete test(s) was not included i n that subject's data f i l e . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Phase 3_ Sample A t o t a l of 357 subjects participated i n the various t e s t s included i n phase three: 153 were male and 204 were female. Age and gender data were coll e c t e d on a l l subjects; other biographical data were only requested from the B.C. Ferry subjects. Of t h i s l a t t e r group, not a l l subjects completed the biographical questionnaire because i t was requested l a s t and many subjects experienced d i f f i c u l t y completing the f u l l questionnaire. The ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the subjects who pa r t i c i p a t e d i n the co r r e l a t i o n a l study follows. Description of the B.C. Ferry sample. Of the 234 subjects who completed the 352-item questionnaire, 118 were male and 116 were female. The age range was 19 to 68 years; the average age was 35.4 years (standard deviation 11.7). Marital status was reported by 112 subjects; the mean number of years married was 13 years (standard deviation 9.2); mean number of children 1.8. Only 69 subjects reported family income, the mean of which was i n the range of $41,000 to $50,000. Years of education was reported by 108 subjects. The mean was 14 years; that i s , 2 years beyond grade 12. C o l l e c t i o n of data. The data were c o l l e c t e d from passengers 171 on B.C. F e r r i e s t r a v e l l i n g between the Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay terminal. Interesting differences were observed i n test-taking behavior that are beyond the scope of t h i s study but w i l l be mentioned b r i e f l y here because they may pose i n t e r e s t i n g questions for future study. Most of the refusals to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study were by men and women seated i n the smoking section and by people who were actually smoking. Also, fewer questionnaires were completed in the smoking sections than i n the non-smoking, viewing sections. Women tended to adopt a very task-oriented approach to answering the questions, and consequently many were able to complete a l l 352 questions. Men, on the other hand, tended to be much less focused on the task, stopping for coffee, v i s i t i n g and looking at the scenery. Fewer men than women completed the entire questionnaire. An attempt to minimize the e f f e c t s caused by non-completion of t e s t s was made by random ordering the 15 scales that were to be correlated with the VSS. (The arrangment of the questionnaire booklet was as follows: VSS, the 15 other personality tests i n random order, and the biographical questionnaire.) Scoring the Data The VSS was scored using the dichotomous scoring method described previously. The scoring was done by the researcher a f t e r she and three other raters had achieved an 88% rate of i n t e r - r a t e r agreement. The raters were collegues; one held a 172 masters degree i n counselling psychology, one a Ph.D. i n psychology, and one a s o c i a l services c e r t i f i c a t e . P eriodic checks were made throughout the scoring to ensure that t h i s rate of agreement was maintained. A l l of the 15 other personality t e s t s were scored by the researcher and an assistant who was trained by the researcher to score the tes t s . Tests of R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y R e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the VSS was assessed by obtaining an estimate of internal consistency and by c o r r e l a t i n g VSS scores with ret e s t scores, peer ratings, and s e l f ratings of submissiveness and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. Separate analyses were conducted by gender. Using the dichotomous scoring method, a minimum t o t a l VSS score of 0 and a maximum t o t a l score of 24 was possible. The obtained minimum score was 1 and the maximum 2 3 with a mean score of 11.19, a standard deviation of 4.66, and a standard error of measurement of 2.14. The c o e f f i c i e n t alpha (Hoyt) estimate of r e l i a b i l i t y was .78. When the data were analyzed by gender, the c o e f f i c i e n t of in t e r n a l consistency obtained for males was .80 and for females .76. VSS data were analyzed with the deletion of items with low inter-item c o r r e l a t i o n s to determine t h e i r e f f e c t on the i n t e r n a l consistency of the scale. Deleting items (e.g. item #5) always had the e f f e c t of lowering s l i g h t l y , rather than increasing, the r e l i a b i l i t y of the t o t a l t e s t . A comparison of item means, 173 variances, inter-item covariances, and inter-item c o r r e l a t i o n s i s presented i n Table 3. A summary of item s t a t i s t i c s i s presented for a l l cases and by gender in Table 4. Table 3 VSS Analysis (Dichotomous Scoring) A l l cases Male Female Item Means .466 .446 .482 Item Variances .228 .226 .228 Inter-item Covariances . 030 . 032 . 027 Inter-item Correlations .130 . 143 . 120 C o e f f i c i e n t Alpha .783 . 801 .766 Note. Data obtained from (males: n = 153, females: a l l phase 3 subjects, n = n = 204). 3 57; A c o r r e l a t i o n of the submissiveness score ( i . e . , the t e s t - takers' s e l f r a t i n g of the extent to which the submissive a l t e r n a t i v e sounded li k e / u n l i k e them) with the v o l i t i o n a l score was obtained. A po s i t i v e correlation was expected but since some responses represent t r a d i t i o n a l , passive submissiveness i t should not be highly correlated. The obtained c o r r e l a t i o n between the two scores was .649 which i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the .0001 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . A r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t alpha of .72 174 was obtained for the submissiveness scale. Re-test r e l i a b i l i t y , which i s essential to measures of personality t r a i t s since t r a i t s are expected to show l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n over time, was assessed by co r r e l a t i n g the VSS scores of 18 subjects with t h e i r scores obtained i n a second administration of the test one month l a t e r . A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p_ <.001) corr e l a t i o n (r = .678). between t e s t and re- te s t scores was obtained. 175 Table 4 Summary of VSS Item S t a t i s t i c s ( F i e l d Study) A l l Cases Females Males Corrected item - t o t a l c o r r e l a t i o n n= 357 n= 204 n= 153 n = 357 Item M SD M SD M SD 1 .258 .438 .260 .440 .255 .437 .402 2 .574 .495 .525 .501 . 641 .481 .403 3 .333 .472 .382 .487 .268 .444 .357 4 .829 .377 . 873 .334 .771 .421 . 345 5 .233 .423 .216 .412 .255 .437 .237 6 . 471 .500 .495 .501 .438 .498 .442 7 . 625 .485 .613 .488 . 641 .481 .428 8 .560 .497 .559 .498 .562 .498 .416 9 .580 .494 .564 .497 .601 .491 . 377 10 .585 .493 .608 .489 .556 .499 .454 11 .434 .496 .466 .500 .392 .490 .408 12 .423 .495 .466 .500 .366 .483 . 373 13 .409 .492 .407 .493 .412 .494 . 344 14 . 543 .499 . 608 .489 .458 . 500 .518 15 .524 .500 .559 .498 .477 .501 .409 16 . 611 .488 .628 .485 . 588 .494 .485 17 . 342 .475 .407 . 493 .255 .437 .416 18 .571 .496 .583 .494 .557 .499 .414 19 . 384 .487 . 378 .486 . 392 .490 .425 20 .406 .492 .422 .495 .386 . 488 .407 21 .174 .379 . 157 .365 . 196 . 398 . 377 22 .269 .444 .309 .463 .216 .413 .462 23 .499 .501 .510 .501 .484 .501 .419 24 .555 .498 .569 .497 .536 .500 .427 Peer ratings were obtained from the spouses, partners, or close acquaintances of 40 subjects (relationship of rater to subject was not s p e c i f i e d ) . The peers' VSS ratings were correlated with the subjects' own VSS ratings and a s t a t i s t i c a l l y 176 s i g n i f i c a n t (p_ <.0001) correlation (r = .602) was obtained. A f t e r completing the VSS items, subjects were requested to estimate what percent of the time they v o l u n t a r i l y chose to give up t h e i r own r i g h t s and put the other person's needs ahead of t h e i r own needs, not hoping to benefit personally but f e e l i n g good about acting i n the best interest of the other because of some longer range benefit that they believed to be worthy of the e f f o r t . This r a t i n g was intended as a simple v a l i d i t y check, s i m i l a r to that employed by Costa and McCrae (1985). Self ratings were provided by 222 subjects and correlated with t h e i r scores on the VSS. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p_ <.0001) c o r r e l a t i o n (r = .369) was obtained. S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t correlations of VSS scores were obtained with s e l f ratings of submissiveness, peer ratings, r e- te s t s and s e l f ratings of v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. Table 5 summarizes the r e s u l t s of these correlations. 177 Table 5 Correlation of VSS with Submissiveness, Retests, Peer ratings, and Self ratings Test VSS n Submissiveness .649 ** 357 Retests .678 * 18 Peer ratings .602 ** 40 Self ratings .369 ** 222 * p < .001 ** p < .0001 Hypothesis-Testing Analyses To assess the construct and discriminant v a l i d i t y of the VSS, scores on t h i s scale were correlated with measures of other personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that were hypothesized to be associated with the theorized v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness t r a i t using the Pearson product-moment co r r e l a t i o n procedure. Due to the number of correlations that were performed, alpha was set at .01 i n order to reduce the l i k e l i h o o d of making a Type 1 error. A .01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e approximates that required by the Bonferroni inequality procedure which would set the alpha l e v e l at .0066. Because the d i r e c t i o n of the relationships had been hypothesized, one-tailed tests of s i g n i f i c a n c e were performed. Since not a l l subjects provided data for a l l the personality measures, pairwise comparisons were made. Missing data were 178 handled i n the manner described previously. Data on measures that were to be correlated with the VSS were c o l l e c t e d from at le a s t 150 subjects on each of the 15 tests except i n the case of the NEO Personality Inventory (n = 131), the Defining Issues Test (n = 13 9) , and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (n = 74); perhaps due to the length and d i f f i c u l t y of the f i r s t two t e s t s , and because the i r d d i d not apply to everyone. Tests of Hypotheses 1 - 2 0 Hypothesis 1. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or co r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and self-esteem as measured by the Eagly Revision of the Janis F i e l d Self-Esteem Scale (1967). This hypothesis was not supported. The c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and self-esteem was not s i g n i f i c a n t (r = .0497, £ >.01). Hypothesis 2. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p or co r r e l a t i o n between submissiveness as measured by the CPI (Gough, 1987) and self-esteem as measured by the Eagly Revision of the Janis F i e l d Self-Esteem Scale. This hypothesis was supported. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p was demonstrated between the CPI and s e l f - esteem (r = .644, p_ <.0001). A posi t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n indicates that CPI dominance i s related to self-esteem as measured by the Janis F i e l d scale. Because the CPI scale defines submissiveness 179 as low dominance, a negative correlation would consequently be expected between submissiveness as measured by the CPI and s e l f - esteem as measured by the Janis F i e l d scale. Hypothesis 3. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and internal locus of control as measured by the Internal Control Index (Duttweiler,1984). This hypothesis was not supported. The c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and locus of control f a i l e d to reach the .01 l e v e l of sig n i f i c a n c e (r = .147, p > .01). Hypothesis 4_. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between submissiveness as measured by the CPI and i n t e r n a l locus of control as measured by the Internal Control Index. This hypothesis was supported. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n was demonstrated between the CPI and i n t e r n a l locus of control as measured by the ICI (r = .632, p <.0001). Because the CPI defines low dominance as submissiveness, submissiveness i s indicated by a low score. S i m i l a r l y , a high score on the ICI i s suggestive of i n t e r n a l locus of co n t r o l . Therefore, a posit i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between these measures suggests a negative relationship between CPI submissiveness and i n t e r n a l i t y of locus of control. Hypothesis 5. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as 180 measured by the VSS and ego development as measured by the Sentence Completion Test (Loevinger, 1970). This hypothesis was supported. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was demonstrated between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and ego development (r = .269, p <.001). Hypothesis 6. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and s e l f - e f f i c a c y as measured by the S e l f - E f f i c a c y Scale (Scherer et a l . , 1982). This hypothesis was supported. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was demonstrated between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and s e l f - e f f i c a c y (r = .175, p_ < .01). Hypothesis 7. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and p r i n c i p l e d moral reasoning as measured by the Defining Issues Test (Rest, 1972). This hypothesis was not supported. A non-significant negative r e l a t i o n s h i p was obtained between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and p r i n c i p l e d moral reasoning (r = -.174, p >.01) . Hypothesis 8. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and neuroticism as measured by the NEO PI (McCrae & Costa, 1983). This hypothesis was supported. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t 181 negative r e l a t i o n s h i p was demonstrated between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and neuroticism (r = -.219, g <.01). When the facets of the neuroticism scale were analyzed separately, s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative correlations were demonstrated between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and anxiety (r = -.2 07, £ < .01) and h o s t i l i t y (r = -.247, p < .01). The c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and self-consciousness f a i l e d to reach the required .01 l e v e l of significance (r = -.187, p_ > .01), as did the correlations between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and depression (r = -.171, p_ >.01), imp u l s i v i t y (r = -.127, £ >.01) and v u l n e r a b i l i t y (r = -.071, p_ >.01). Hypothesis 9. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between submissiveness as measured by the CPI and neuroticism as measured by the NEO PI. This hypothesis was supported. A negative c o r r e l a t i o n was demonstrated between dominance and neuroticism (r = -.545, p_ < .0001). Because submissiveness i s defined by Gough (1951) as low dominance, low scores on the CPI ( i . e . , submissiveness) would be expected to be related to high neuroticism scores as measured by the NEO PI. Hypothesis 10. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or correlation between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and conscientiousness as measured by the NEO PI. This hypothesis was not supported. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y 182 s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was not demonstrated between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and conscientiousness (r = .070, £ > .01). Hypothesis 11. There i s no rela t i o n s h i p or c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and submissiveness as measured by the CPI. This hypothesis was supported. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was not demonstrated between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and t r a d i t i o n a l submissiveness (r = .037, p_ >.01). Hypothesis 12. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or co r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and marital s a t i s f a c t i o n as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976). This hypothesis was not supported. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was not demonstrated between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and marital s a t i s f a c t i o n (r = .045, £ >.01). Hypothesis 13. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or co r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and intimacy as measured by the Close So c i a l Relationships Scale ( M i l l e r & Lefcourt, 1982). This hypothesis was supported. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p was demonstrated between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and intimacy (r = .251, £ <.001). Hypothesis 14. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or co r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and well-being as measured 183 by the S a t i s f a c t i o n with L i f e Scale (Diener et a l . , 1983) . This hypothesis was not supported. The c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and well-being f a i l e d to reach the required l e v e l of significance (r = .155, p_ > .01). Hypothesis 15. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or correlation between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and communal or i e n t a t i o n as measured by the Relationship Orientation Scales (Clark et a l . , 1987) . This hypothesis was not supported. The c o r r e l a t i o n between submissiveness and communal orientation f a i l e d to reach the required l e v e l of significance (r = .148, p >.01). Hypothesis 16. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p or correlation between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and exchange o r i e n t a t i o n as measured by the Relationship Orientation Scales. This hypothesis was supported. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n was demonstrated between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and exchange orientation (r = -.208, p_ <.01). Hypothesis 17. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p or correlation between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and loneliness as measured by the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, Peplau & Cutrona, 1980). This hypothesis was not supported. The c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and loneliness f a i l e d to reach the 184 required .01 l e v e l of significance (r = -.156, p >.01). Hypothesis 18. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p or correlation between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and altruism as measured by the Altruism Checklist (Rushton, Chrisjohn & Fekken, 1981). This hypothesis was supported. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p was demonstrated between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and altruism (r = .203, p <.01). Hypothesis 19. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p or co r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and cost of care-giving as measured by the t e s t of Problematic Social Ties (Rook, 1984) . This hypothesis was supported. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p was demonstrated between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and the Problematic Social Ties interview question: "How s a t i s f i e d are you with your r e l a t i o n s h i p s with your frie n d s ? " where low scores indicate very u n s a t i s f i e d and high scores indicate very s a t i s f i e d (r = .327, p <.0001). No s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t relationship was demonstrated between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and f e e l i n g bothered by someone (r = -.011, p >.01), knowing someone who i s too busy to help (r = -.006, p >.01), or f e e l i n g "taken advantage of" (r = .064, p >.01). No s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and number of people who cause problems (r = -.100, p >.01). 185 The c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and the question: "Is there anyone with whom you f e e l angry when you are with them or thinking about them?" f a i l e d to reach the required l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e (r = .166, p >.01). Hypothesis 20. There i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS and s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y as measured by the Marlowe-Crowne Scale (1960). This hypothesis was not supported. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e relationship was demonstrated between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y (r = .303, p <•0001). Summary of Tests of Hypotheses 1 - 2 0 The findings support the hypotheses that v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness as measured by the VSS i s p o s i t i v e l y correlated with (a) ego development, (b) s e l f - e f f i c a c y , (c) intimacy, (d) altruism; and negatively correlated with (e) neuroticism (composite scale and anxiety and h o s t i l i t y subscales) and (f) exchange orient a t i o n . As hypothesized, the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the CPI (low-)dominance scale and the following measures were demonstrated: (a) no correlation with the VSS, (b) a negative c o r r e l a t i o n with self-esteem, (c) a negative c o r r e l a t i o n with i n t e r n a l locus of control, and (d) a po s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n with neuroticism. The hypotheses that were not supported were: p o s i t i v e 186 c o r r e l a t i o n s of VSS with (a) self-esteem, (b) locus of con t r o l , (c) moral development (d) conscientiousness, (e) marital s a t i s f a c t i o n (f) well-being, (g) communal orientation; and negative c o r r e l a t i o n s with (h) loneliness, and (i) s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . A summary of the cor r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s are presented i n Table 6. The data were also analyzed by gender using the same procedure and these c o e f f i c i e n t s are presented i n Table 7. (A post hoc scoring method was developed and i s described i n a l a t e r section of t h i s chapter. Data were re-scored and analyzed using t h i s scoring method. The correlations obtained using the post hoc scoring method are included at the r i g h t of the tables for comparison purposes.) 187 Table 6 Correlation of VSS with Personality C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Instrument n VSS VSS(Post hoc) Eagly Self-Esteem Scale 153 . 050 .017 Internal Control Index (ICI) 161 . 147 . 074 SCT of ego development 141 .269 *** .253 *** S e l f - e f f i c a c y Scale 163 . 175 * . 157 Defining Issues Test (DIT) 120 -.174 -.188 NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI) -Neuroticism 131 -.219 ** -.190 * -Anxiety 134 -.207 * -.179 - H o s t i l i t y 133 -.247 ** -.232 ** -Depression 133 -.172 -.136 -Self-Conscious 130 -.187 -.168 -Impulsive 131 -.127 -.114 -Vulnerable 131 -.071 -.048 -Conscientious 131 .070 . 068 CPI 148 . 037 . 097 Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) 73 . 045 . 057 M i l l e r S o c i a l Intimacy Scale(MSIS) 154 . 251 *** .204 ** S a t i s f a c t i o n with L i f e Scale(SWLS) 151 . 155 . 114 Relationship Orientation Scale(ROS) -Communal orientation 154 . 148 . 143 -Exchange orientation 153 -.208 ** -.148 UCLA Rev. Loneliness Scale 157 -.156 -.143 Altruism Checklist (AC) 154 .203 ** . 189 * Problematic Social Ties (PST) -Relationship S a t i s f a c t i o n 150 . 327 * * * * . 352 **** -Bothered by People 149 -.011 -.057 -Other too busy 150 -.006 -.031 -Feeling angry with others 149 . 166 .064 -Taken advantage of 148 . 064 . 004 -Number of problem people 146 -.098 -.032 Marlowe-Crowne Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale (MC SDS) 147 .303 * * * * .274 **** * p_<.01 ** p<.005 *** p_<.001 **** p_<.0001 188 Table 7 Correlations of VSS and Personality C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by Gender Dichotomous Scoring Post hoc Scoring Male Female Male Female Instrument n r n r Eagly Rev.SES 66 .209 87 .015 . 100 . 019 ICI 70 . 166 91 . 160 . 124 . 052 SCT (ego dev't.) 59 .318** 82 .228 .241 .250* S e l f - e f f i c a c y 66 . 159 97 . 207 . 135 . 189 DIT 48 -.313 72 -.060 -.294 -.105 NEO PI: -Neuroticism 49 -.157 82 -.299** -.225 -.203 -Anxiety 50 -.151 84 -.282** -.214 -.192 - H o s t i l i t y 50 -.096 83 -.343*** -.115 -.304** -Depression 50 -.142 83 -.221 -.154 -.156 -Self-Conscious 48 -.254 82 -.158 -.254 -.122 -Impulsive 49 .045 82 -.276** -.074 -.168 -Vulnerable 49 -.039 82 -.139 -.107 -.050 -Conscientious 49 . 058 82 . 177 .023 . 090 CPI 56 .095 92 . 035 .200 . 061 DAS 28 .205 45 -.084 . 250 -.084 MSIS 58 . 175 96 .284** . 168 .205 SWLS 54 .133 97 . 166 . 176 . 068 ROS -Communal 68 .187 86 . 062 . 136 . 122 -Exchange 68 -.199 85 -.193 -.230 -.046 UCLA Loneliness 68 -.099 89 -.197 -.119 -.154 Altruism C k l i s t 59 . 177 95 .218 .264 . 129 Prob.Soc.Ties 54 .333* 96 .302*** .419*** .284** MC SDS 56 .229 91 . 352**** .239 .288** Note, n i s the same for post hoc : and dichotomous scoring. * £<.01 ** p<. 005 *** p_<. 001 **** p<.0001 189 Tests of Hypotheses 21 and 22 Hypothesis 21. The mean VSS score of the targeted therapist group w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the mean VSS score of the c l i e n t group. This hypothesis was supported. The mean score for the predicted high-scoring (therapist) group was 18.19, standard deviation 2.42; the mean score for the predicted low-scoring (client) group was 8.69, standard deviation 2.41. Table 8 summarizes the r e s u l t s for the two groups. Table 8 Comparison of VSS Scores for Therapist and C l i e n t Groups Group VSS Therapist (n = 26) Cl i e n t (n = 29) Minimum score 14 4 Maximum score 23 13 M 18.19 8.69 SD 2.42 2.41 190 A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to compare the therapist and c l i e n t groups i n terms of t h e i r mean scores. The r e s u l t s are reported in Table 9. Table 9 ANOVA for Therapist and C l i e n t Groups SS df MS F p error 1237.936 1,53 1237.94 212.85 .0001 308.25 The r e s u l t s indicate s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the means of the two groups and suggest that the VSS has the a b i l i t y to discriminate between groups that were predicted to score high and low on the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness t r a i t on the basis of apparent l e v e l of psychological well-being. Hypothesis 22. Self-giving behavior (giving up the 11 Z 11 i n a behavioral experiment) w i l l be p o s i t i v e l y correlated with VSS score. This hypothesis was supported. Fourteen subjects gave up the 11 Z 11. Each met the c r i t e r i a of (a) giving up the l e t t e r v o l u n t a r i l y , (b) not f e e l i n g psychologically diminished, (c) acting to benefit the confederate. Twenty-six subjects withheld the 11 Z " from the confederate. In the de-briefing, none of the subjects reported being suspicious of the confederate or any part 191 of the experiment. Giving up the 11 Z " was correlated with VSS score using the p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n procedure. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n (r = .411, p_ =.005) was obtained. (The same analysis using the post hoc scoring method described i n the following section, also yielded a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n : r = .439, p_ <.002.) A comparison of subjects' VSS scores by groups ( i . e . , subjects who gave up the " Z 11 and subjects who did not) , i s reported i n Table 10. Comparison of means between groups yielded a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t (t = 2.74; p_ < .01). (Using the post hoc scoring method, a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the means was also demonstrated: t = 3.02; p_ <.005.) The r e s u l t s of the behavioral experiment suggest that v o l i t i o n a l l y submissive behavior can be predicted on the basis of VSS score. 192 Table 10 Comparison of VSS Scores by Groups Group Gave 11 Z " Withheld " Z " (n =14) (n = 26) Minimum VSS score 10 4 Maximum VSS score 21 19 M 15.71 11.84 SD 4.03 4.34 The Post Hoc Scoring Method In the process of scoring the VSS using the dichotomous method, a number of observations were made. F i r s t , s i m i l a r responses and themes emerged across subjects. For example, the view was frequently expressed that when family members had needs they should s t i c k together and help each other; whereas, partners should accept the consequences of t h e i r choices and act independently. Secondly, individual subjects commonly demonstrated consistent responses. In these cases, respondents' sentence completions were so c h a r a c t e r i s t i c that a p r o f i l e of the i n d i v i d u a l often emerged, supporting the t h e o r e t i c a l proposition that people possess orientations or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ways of responding to c o n f l i c t i n g need situations. These p r o f i l e s ranged 193 from a h o s t i l e r e j e c t i o n of s e l f - g i v i n g at the one extreme, to a firm conviction at the other that s e l f - g i v i n g i s warranted i n many interpersonal contexts. Thirdly, substantive differences were apparent i n responses that were judged as meeting the c r i t e r i a of the t r a i t ; however, i n using a dichotomous scoring method such differences could not be taken into account. Responses that met the c r i t e r i a were always given a score of 1. The matter of differences and how they could be taken into account was explored using the following procedure and a "post hoc" scoring method was developed. Iden t i f y i n g s i m i l a r responses. The responses given by the f i r s t f i f t y subjects to each of the 24 items were l i s t e d together, item by item, and examined. Responses that were s i m i l a r were grouped together. It became apparent that the s i g n i f i c a n t differences were not in type of motivation (caring, helping) as had been expected, but rather i n the subjects' a b i l i t y or willingness to place others' needs ahead of t h e i r own. At one extreme, subjects' reacted with h o s t i l i t y to the idea of deferring need g r a t i f i c a t i o n to another. At the other, subjects i d e n t i f i e d the ultimate good that could be achieved by deferring g r a t i f i c a t i o n and meeting the other's need. By grouping s i m i l a r responses together, several categories of s e l f - g i v i n g behavior were apparent. Seven groups of responses resulted which were arranged sequentially on a continuum from least s e l f - g i v i n g ( i . e . , h o s t i l e r e j e c t i o n of the idea) to most s e l f - g i v i n g ( i . e . , 194 recognition that the action contributed to the attainment of a worthwhile purpose). The points on the continuum were l a b e l l e d according to the theme represented by the responses within that group as follows: (1) I n d i v i d u a l i s t i c ; (2) T r a d i t i o n a l ; (3) Compromising/Reciprocal; (4) Compatible; (5) Approval Seeking; (6) Empathic S e l f - g i v i n g ; (7) Outcome Oriented S e l f - g i v i n g . A de s c r i p t i o n of each category i s reported i n Appendix 6. Upon examination of the groupings, s i m i l a r i t y to Kohlberg's stages of moral development was apparent. Acknowledging the s i m i l a r i t i e s , the categories were ordered along the same l i n e s . To i l l u s t r a t e , Kohlberg's f i r s t l e v e l of preconventional morality consists of two stages, the f i r s t characterized by egocentricity. This corresponds to the f i r s t category of VSS responses l a b e l l e d I n d i v i d u a l i s t i c . At t h i s l e v e l the idea of placing the needs of another person ahead of one's own i s rejected o u t r i g h t l y , (e.g.: " t h i s i s an unreasonable request") often with h o s t i l i t y implied or d i r e c t l y expressed. Kohlberg's second stage of the f i r s t l e v e l i s characterized by right and wrong being defined i n terms of obedience and punishment: being "good" means giving unquestioning obedience to authority figures. VSS category two responses are those that express a t r a d i t i o n a l view of submissiveness (e.g.: "a wife should follow her husband", "the husband i s to be the provider and the wife should be working as a support and not i n c o n f l i c t " , " l e t the husband make the f i n a l d e c i s i o n " ) . 195 Kohlberg's second stage i s characterized by hedonistic concerns; r i g h t actions are those that bring g r a t i f i c a t i o n , wrong actions those that produce negative consequences for s e l f . Interactions at t h i s stage tend to be governed by the p r i n c i p l e : "you scratch my back and I ' l l scratch yours". This i s s i m i l a r to the t h i r d category of VSS responses — Compromise/Reciprocity, i n which subjects conveyed the idea that they expect r e c i p r o c i t y ("I'd expect the same i f the shoe were on the other foot") or a compromise ("try to fi n d an area that f i l l s both needs"). At mid-point on the VSS continuum are those responses that have a "neutral" quality. These responses include statements that suggest compatibility ("we both enjoy entertaining", "I don't l i k e being around people e i t h e r " ) ; therefore, no c o n f l i c t of needs e x i s t s . Also included in t h i s category are statements to the e f f e c t that the situation does not create c o n f l i c t because the i n d i v i d u a l simply adapts to the wishes of the other by v i r t u e of his/her f l e x i b i l i t y ("no big deal, I'm f l e x i b l e " ) . Kohlberg's second major le v e l of moral development i s conventional morality. Stage three morality i s based on acquiring the approval or disapproval of others. This corresponds to the f i f t h VSS category of responses that indicate a willingness on the part of the subject to take the other's needs into consideration but acknowledge as well that s e l f stands to bene f i t i n some way by doing so ("it would give me s a t i s f a c t i o n that my friend needs me"). S e l f - g i v i n g i s not 196 "pure" because the person seems to recognize a personal benefit. Included i n t h i s category are responses that correspond to Kohlberg's stage four and express an unwillingness to hurt others, to consider others' rights, or to do the morally correct thing. Kohlberg's f i f t h stage of postconventional morality i s demonstrated by c r i t i c a l examination of basic moral p r i n c i p l e s , upholding s o c i e t a l values, and respecting i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s . This corresponds with the sixth VSS category i n which s e l f - g i v i n g acts are seen as a demonstration of commitment, l o y a l t y or affirmation. They are expressions of empathic understanding. At Kohlberg's s i x t h and f i n a l stage, the in d i v i d u a l adopts s e l f - chosen e t h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s that possess universal q u a l i t i e s such as the equality of human rights and j u s t i c e . In the corresponding VSS category, responses are characterized by a willingness to make personal s a c r i f i c e s i n order to achieve some ultimate goal or purpose that benefits the other person. Meeting the other's need i s seen to r e s u l t i n a state that j u s t i f i e s the cost of s e l f - g i v i n g ("the pain must be dealt with before the joy of l i f e can continue"). Like the stages of moral development, few responses q u a l i f y for the seventh VSS category. Scoring. The score for a sentence completion using the post hoc method was determined by i d e n t i f y i n g which category the response belonged i n and then assigning the category number (1 to 7) to the response. Three raters, using descriptions of the 197 seven categories (Appendix 6), separately rated i d e n t i c a l scales and comparisons of the ratings were made. The raters were colleagues: one held a s o c i a l work c e r t i f i c a t e , one a master's degree, the t h i r d a doctorate i n psychology. Inter-rater agreement of 83% was obtained on f i r s t comparisons with further t e s t i n g s achieving agreement of at least 83% or greater. Periodic checks were carried out to ensure on-going r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y . A l l questionnaires were re-scored using the post hoc method, the data were re-analyzed, comparisons were made between the dichotomous and the post hoc method, hypotheses were tested and an exploratory factor analysis was conducted to i d e n t i f y p r i n c i p a l components. The following r e s u l t s were obtained using the post hoe method. Item analysis. A mean item score of 3.17 (range 1 to 7), mean item variance 2.94, mean inter-item covariance .337, and mean inter-item correlations of .114 were obtained. A comparison of means, variances, inter-item covariances, and inter-item correlations for a l l cases and by gender i s presented i n Table 11, a summary of item s t a t i s t i c s i n Table 12. 198 Table 11 VSS Analysis (Post Hoc Scoring Method) A l l cases Male Female (n=357) (n=153) (n=204) Item Means 3.165 3 .124 3.196 Item Variances 2.944 3.071 2.837 Inter-item Covariances . 337 . 391 . 298 Inter-item Correlations . 114 . 126 . 105 C o e f f i c i e n t Alpha .756 .778 .738 R e l i a b i l i t y . The c o e f f i c i e n t alpha (Hoyt) estimate of i n t e r n a l consistency obtained using the post hoc scoring method was .76. When the scores were analyzed by gender, a c o e f f i c i e n t of .77 for males and .73 for females was obtained. A c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of .88 was obtained between the dichotomous scoring method and the post hoc method. A c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of .805 (p <.0001) between t e s t and r e t e s t scores using the post hoc method was obtained (compared with r = .678, p <.001 using the dichotomous method). 199 Table 12 Summary of Item S t a t i s t i c s (Post Hoc Scoring Method) A l l cases Females Males Corrected item - t o t a l c o r r e l a t i o n (n= =357) (n= =204) (n= 153) (n=357) Item M SD M SD M SD 1 2.94 1. 52 2.83 1.49 3.05 1.55 .292 2 3.76 1. 63 3 . 64 1.59 3.91 1. 67 .233 3 2.81 1. 62 2.85 1.57 2.77 1.68 .283 4 4.68 1.51 4.79 1.41 4.54 1. 63 .222 5 2.46 1.48 2 .36 1.40 2 . 60 1.58 .091 6 3.26 1.81 3.45 1.79 3.45 1.82 .301 7 3.85 1.73 3.85 1.68 3.85 1.80 .269 8 3.46 1.94 3.62 1.93 3 . 62 1.94 .263 9 3.36 1.78 3 .38 1.79 3 . 38 1.77 . 338 10 3.60 1.83 3 . 65 1.79 3.65 1.88 . 366 11 3.02 1. 84 3 .14 1.81 3 . 14 1.87 . 392 12 3 . 00 1. 65 3 . 00 1. 62 3 . 00 1. 69 . 173 13 2.99 1.81 2.87 1.79 2 . 87 1.83 .239 14 3.19 1.86 3 . 37 1.80 3.37 1.92 . 427 15 3.24 1. 64 3.21 1. 60 3.21 1. 69 .253 16 3.56 1.81 3.62 1.77 3 . 62 1.87 .442 17 2.48 1.88 2.73 1.92 2.73 1.78 .287 18 3.21 1. 74 3.30 1.69 3.30 1.79 . 329 19 2.41 1.51 2.45 1.55 2.45 1.47 .309 20 2 . 93 1.75 2.91 1.72 2.91 1.79 .265 21 2.85 1.22 2.84 1. 13 2.84 1. 34 . 328 22 2 . 54 1. 65 2.62 1. 60 2.62 1.70 . 343 23 3.03 1.87 2.99 1.87 2.99 1. 87 .263 24 3.35 1.90 3 . 22 1.84 3 .22 1.95 . 320 200 A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c orrelation (r = .665; p_ <.0001) between peer ratings and subjects' own VSS ratings was obtained, compared to r = .602 (p < .0001) using dichotomous scores. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p < .0001) co r r e l a t i o n (r =.641) was obtained between the submissive responses (extent to which subjects thought that the submissive behavior sounded l i k e / u n l i k e them) and the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness score. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n (r = .369, p_ <.0001) was also obtained between the VSS and s e l f ratings of percent of time that subjects perceived that they placed the needs of others ahead of t h e i r own. A summary of these correlations i s presented i n Table 13. Table 13 Summary of VSS Correlations with Submissiveness, Retest, Peer and Self Ratings Using Post Hoc Scoring Method Test n r Submissiveness score 357 .640 * Retest 18 .805 * Peer r a t i n g 41 .665 * Self r a t i n g 323 .385 * * p < .001 201 V a l i d i t y . The construct v a l i d i t y of the VSS was assessed by c o r r e l a t i n g scores obtained using the post hoc scoring method with the personality measures that had been hypothesized to be re l a t e d to the VSS. Since these tests have been reported e a r l i e r using the dichotomous scoring method, the r e s u l t s using the post hoc method w i l l only be summarized here. S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e correlations were demonstrated between scores on the VSS and ego development, intimacy, altruism, s a t i s f a c t i o n with relationships, and s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . S i g n i f i c a n t negative relationships were demonstrated between VSS and NEO PI h o s t i l i t y . As hypothesized, no r e l a t i o n s h i p was demonstrated between the VSS and the CPI. The hypotheses pertaining to the relationships between the VSS and s e l f esteem, locus of control, s e l f - e f f i c a c y , moral development, conscientiousness, marital s a t i s f a c t i o n , well-being, communal and exchange orientation, and loneliness did not achieve the .01 l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l significance using the post hoc method of scoring the VSS. A summary of the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s obtained for a l l measures ( a l l cases) are presented i n Table 6 and by gender i n Table 7. Relationship of Demographic Variables and VSS Demographic information requested from subjects who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the f i e l d study was correlated with VSS scores. A low negative c o r r e l a t i o n (r = -.110, p_ > .01) that d i d not reach the required l e v e l of significance was demonstrated between 202 age and VSS using both the dichotomous scoring method and the post hoc scoring method. No relationship was demonstrated between gender and VSS (r = .092, p = .04 dichotomous scoring; r = .057, p_ = .14 post hoc scoring). A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p <.01) negative relationship (r = -.205) was demonstrated between number of children and VSS (r = -.2 06, p < .01 using dichotomous scoring; r = -.192, p = .02 using post hoc scoring). No r e l a t i o n s h i p s were demonstrated between VSS and educational l e v e l , m arital status, years married or family income. S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s were demonstrated between VSS and a f f i l i a t i o n with a church (r = .315, p <.0001), church attendance (r = .382, p <.0001), attendance at a c h u r c h - a f f i l i a t e d school (r = .236, p <.007), and reading the Bible or a holy book (r = .353, p <.0001). A summary of these c o r r e l a t i o n s i s presented in Appendix 8. P r i n c i p a l Component Analysis of the VSS Because the post hoc scoring method employed range scores, an analysis of the factor structure of the scale could be performed. The SPSS program for p r i n c i p a l component fa c t o r i n g with i t e r a t i o n was used. Because VSS data were c o l l e c t e d i n phase three of the research from more than one source, consideration as to the appropriateness of pooling a l l VSS data (n = 359) preceeded factor analyses. F i r s t , data obtained from the B.C. Ferry sample (n = 234) were separated from data obtained 203 from the remaining subjects (n = 125) who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the target groups and behavioral experiment because the subjects selected for the purposes of the predictive studies could not be considered representative of the entire population. The homogeneity of the variance-covariance matrices and the differences between the means of the two groups were then tested. S i g n i f i c a n t differences were obtained between the variance- covariance matrices [F(300,206250) = 1.24, p_ <.005] using the Bartlett-Box homogeneity of dispersion procedure and between means using Hotellings method (F = 1.49, p <.05) suggesting that the two groups were not drawn from the same population and therefore, should not be pooled for factor analyses. The B.C. Ferry sample was the larger of the two groups and was obtained by a method that conformed more closely to random s e l e c t i o n ; therefore, these data were selected for further analyses. Data from the B.C. Ferry sample were further examined by gender and a t e s t for the differences between the means of the males and females i n t h i s sample was conducted. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences were noted between genders (F = 1.57, p_ > .05) i n d i c a t i n g that data from the men and women in the B.C. Ferry sample could be pooled f o r the factor analyses. P r i n c i p a l component analysis was performed on the pooled (male and female) B.C. Ferry data. Ten components demonstrated eigenvalues greater than unity; however, consistently small differences were obtained beyond the t h i r d component. (Obtained 204 eigenvalues for 10 components i n descending order were as follows: 3.74, 1.53, 1.37, 1.32, 1.27, 1.19, 1.16, 1.12, 1.04, 1.01.) The Kaiser-Guttman c r i t e r i o n retains for r o t a t i o n those components with eigenvalues greater than unity. However, because l i t t l e explanatory value was acquired by reducing 24 items to 10 facto r s , the following methods were employed to determine whether a le s s e r number of factors could be rotated. Maximum l i k e l i h o o d (ML) factor analyses were employed as one method of determining the number of factors to extract. A minimum of two and maximum of f i v e factor solutions were requested. The pro b a b i l i t y associated with the chi-square goodness-of-fit significance tests were .169 for three factors and .083 for four factors, suggesting that a four-factor solution would be a marginal f i t and three factors would provide a better f i t . Scree t e s t s were also performed on data for women, men, and both men and women together. By gender, a four-factor s o l u t i o n was indicated for the women and a two factor s o l u t i o n for the men. When both genders were considered together, three factors appeared to provide the best solution. An orthogonal (varimax) transformation was performed; a summary of the primary-factor pattern c o e f f i c i e n t s obtained for a three-factor solution i s provided i n Table 14 along with the eigenvalues and percents of var i a t i o n for three factors. Only one item (# 13) f a i l e d to load on any of the three factors above the .30 l e v e l ; 19 items loaded above the .40 l e v e l . Factor 1 205 explained 11.74 % of the t o t a l variance, Factor 2 explained 8.06 % and Factor 3 explained 7.84 %, accounting for 27.64 % of the t o t a l variance. An i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of each factor was made based on a conceptual analysis of the content of items which achieved primary-factor pattern c o e f f i c i e n t s greater than .30 on that fa c t o r . The factor structure appeared to r e l a t e to differences i n motivation as had been theorized. Factor 1 was l a b e l l e d "Caring" because i t consisted e n t i r e l y of items that c a l l e d for care or help to be given in response to a s p e c i f i c or primary need. The needs were for physical care as well as emotional and s o c i a l support. Items 10, 6, 11, 16, 7, 14, 9, 24, 8, 18 and 19 were included on t h i s factor. The second factor was labelled "Affirming" because items loading on t h i s factor suggested that the other's need was acknowledged and s a t i s f i e d by showing consideration and then accomodating to meet the need. Items 5, 23, 21, 2 0 and 22 were included on t h i s factor. Factor 3 was l a b e l l e d "Enhancing" because the s e l f - g i v i n g c a l l e d f o r by these items always seemed to f a c i l i t a t e or enhance the other's development. Items 3, 4, 2, 1, 17, 15 and 12 were included on t h i s factor. 206 Table 14 Primary-factor Pattern Coefficients for B.C. Ferry Sample with Eigenvalues and Percents of Variation for Three Factors Factor I Caring Factor II Affirming Factor III Enhancing Item Item Item 10 .632 5 .604 3 .565 6 .523 23 .536 4 .500 11 .516 21 .483 2 .419 16 .497 20 .472 1 .409 7 .491 22 .424 15 .404 14 .476 17 .347 9 .456 24 . 422 8 .414 18 .360 19 . 328 Eigen- value 2.817 .935 1.881 Total Scale Explained Variance 11.738% 8.064% 7.839% 207 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION The primary purpose of t h i s study was to provide a rudimentary t h e o r e t i c a l description of the adaptive dimension of submissiveness and to i d e n t i f y some of the underlying psychological structures manifest i n submissive behaviors that have p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p outcomes. This dimension of submissiveness was la b e l l e d v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness to d i s t i n g u i s h i t from the t r a d i t i o n a l view of the t r a i t . The study attempted to answer s i x research questions. The f i r s t research question asked whether behavioral acts that characterize the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness construct could be e l i c i t e d from people using the c r i t i c a l incident interview method. Interview subjects provided incidents that met the c r i t e r i a f o r the t r a i t ( i . e . , the incident occurred within the context of a s i g n i f i c a n t relationship, t h e i r own needs or in t e r e s t s were d i f f e r e n t from the needs or in t e r e s t s of another person; they put the other persons' needs or i n t e r e s t s ahead of t h e i r own; they hoped to benefit the person or achieve a goal that was consistent with an internalized value; and they d i d not f e e l p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y compromised by placing the others' needs ahead of t h e i r own). A scale, (the V o l i t i o n a l Submissiveness Scale, VSS), consisting of items written from the c r i t i c a l incidents was then constructed to measure v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness (research question 2) . The t h i r d purpose of the study was to determine whether the v o l i t i o n a l construct could be 208 distinguished from submissiveness as i t i s currently conceptualized i n psychology by i d e n t i f y i n g correlates of v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness (research question 3). Respect f o r the meaning that behavior has for the person, and understanding meaning before assigning a label to behavior, were underlying premises of the research. Based on the view that intention supplies a better view of character than the act i t s e l f , the scale attempted to access personal meaning by i d e n t i f y i n g the underlying motivations for submissive behavior (research question 4) . The a b i l i t y of the scale to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between groups of people on the basis of predicted VSS scores was tested (research question 5), as was the scale's a b i l i t y to accurately predict behavior (research question 6). The r e s u l t s associated with each research question w i l l be interpreted i n t h i s section af t e r the re-statement of each question. Limitations of the study, t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l implications and recommendations for future research w i l l follow. Interpretation of Findings Research Question 1 Can behavioral acts that characterize the postulated v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness construct be i d e n t i f i e d and e l i c i t e d using the c r i t i c a l incident method? An incident, as defined by Flanagan (1954) must meet the following conditions: the behavior must be observable, 209 s u f f i c i e n t l y complete to permit inferences and predictions to be made about the person performing the behavior, and the s i t u a t i o n a l context must be such that the intent and e f f e c t s of the act are c l e a r . These conditions were c l e a r l y met i n the interviews. Subjects had l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y r e c a l l i n g with c l a r i t y an instance i n which they had placed the needs or interests of a s i g n i f i c a n t person ahead of t h e i r own needs. The subjects' intentions for doing so met the conditions of the c r i t i c a l incident method and were consistent with the motives that had been proposed to explain submissive behavior i n relationships between peers and intimates. The motives that were proposed on the basis of current l i t e r a t u r e were caring (Clark, 1985; Lewis, 1985; M i l l e r , 1976), helping (Batson & Coke, 1981; Kohn, 1988; Krebs & Russell, 1981), doing the r i g h t thing (Berkowitz & Daniels, 1964; Krebs & Rosenwald, 1977; Rushton, 1981), and enhancing or maintaining a r e l a t i o n s h i p (Reis & Shaver, 1988; Sullivan, 1953; Veroff et a l . , 1981). To i l l u s t r a t e , responses given by subjects to item 9 that express these motives are as follows: Caring: "Because I love my Mom and to show I ' l l never stop caring." Helping: "Parents gave you l i f e . I f e e l you should help them." Propriety: "They're family and i t ' s the r i g h t thing to do." Relationship enhancing: "I'm very close to my parents and 210 would do what I could i f one of them was a i l i n g . " Relationship maintaining: "I only have one set of parents." The outcome of the behavior was investigated by having subjects i d e n t i f y what goals or purposes they hoped to achieve, how they f e l t about themselves and the other person — at the time of the incident and as they re f l e c t e d on i t during the interview, and how they perceived that t h e i r behavior af f e c t e d the other person. With the exception of one instance, subjects i d e n t i f i e d strongly p o s i t i v e outcomes i n which they f e l t enlarged by t h e i r s e l f - g i v i n g behavior, expressed the b e l i e f that s e l f - g i v i n g had benefited the relationship, and currently experienced some on-going sense of g r a t i f i c a t i o n for having resolved the c o n f l i c t i n g needs scenario i n the manner described. In the case of one incident that did not meet these c r i t e r i a , the subject's submission resulted i n behavior that was not consistent with i n t e r n a l i z e d values, led to resentment and c o n f l i c t , and eventual withdrawal from the relationship when she refused to continue to be submissive. The submission in t h i s incident conformed to the t r a d i t i o n a l conceptualization of submissiveness. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that only one incident of t r a d i t i o n a l submissiveness was c i t e d , suggesting that the interview questions were good t r i g g e r s to e l i c i t v o l i t i o n a l acts of submissiveness. The c r i t i c a l incident interviews provided i n i t i a l evidence for the existence of the t r a i t i n that examples of behaviors were 211 generated that met the c r i t e r i a of the theorized t r a i t . Research Question 2 I f v o l i t i o n a l l y submissive behaviors are i d e n t i f i e d , can they be measured? An instrument, The V o l i t i o n a l Submissiveness Scale (VSS), was developed to measure the theorized v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness t r a i t . Twenty-four c r i t i c a l incidents obtained i n the interviews were used to develop items for the scale. In the f i n a l d r a f t of the scale, an item consisted of (1) a c o n f l i c t i n g need incident, (2) two behavioral options: one the submissive act described by the subject i n the interview, the other a pl a u s i b l e , non- submissive behavior, and (3) a sentence stem i d e n t i f y i n g the intention for the behavior. The VSS demonstrated r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y i n respect to i n t e r n a l consistency, t e s t - r e t e s t measures, and s e l f and peer ratings. A r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t alpha of r = .78 compares favorably with the alpha value of .60 recommended by Nunnally (1978) f o r scales to be used i n basic research and suggests that the scale measures a single construct. Refinement of two of the items (#12 and #13), and the addition of more items, are recommended to improve the internal consistency of the scale. A t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of r = .678 (p < .001) over a 1-month i n t e r v a l suggests that there i s some s t a b i l i t y i n the responses of test-takers over time. This i s p a r t i c u l a r i l y 212 s i g n i f i c a n t i n that the e f f e c t of memory may have operated to influence the r e t e s t selection of the submissive/non-submissive response, but i t i s highly unlikely that the respondent would have been able to remember the motive that he/she indicated for each scenario, and t h i s i s the basis for assigning the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness score. This reasoning i s also applicable to the peer ratings which also demonstrated r e l i a b i l i t y (r = .602; £ <.0001). The spouse or friend not only rated the subject on the basis of what he/she thought the subject would do i n the s i t u a t i o n , but also i d e n t i f i e d what the subject's underlying motivation would be on the basis of t h e i r knowledge of that person. Self ratings of v o l i t i o n a l l y submissive behavior cor r e l a t e d moderately (r = .369; £ < .0001) with scale scores. Subjects were asked to estimate what percent of the time t h e i r behavior was consistent with the d e f i n i t i o n of v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. I t may have been more accurate to ask f o r a r a t i n g of the extent to which subjects considered t h e i r behavior to be consistent with the d e f i n i t i o n . Correlations i n the range of .65 are expected given a r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of .78. P r i n c i p a l component analyses were performed and three factors were obtained. Twenty-three of the 24 items achieved primary-factor pattern c o e f f i c i e n t s above .30 on a f a c t o r ; 19 items above .40. A conceptual interpretation of the factors suggested that the factor structure could i n f a c t be explained i n terms of the intention underlying s e l f - g i v i n g submissiveness 213 common to the items cl u s t e r i n g within each factor. Factor 1, named "caring", consisted of items that c a l l e d for care to be given i n response to a physical, emotional or s o c i a l need. Factor 2, l a b e l l e d "affirming", consisted of items req u i r i n g that the other person's need be acknowledged, considered and accommodated to, thus affirming that person and/or the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Factor 3 was lab e l l e d "enhancing" because submissiveness i n these items seemed to f a c i l i t a t e or contribute to the other's development. The factor structure, conceptualized i n terms of motivation underlying v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness, i s consistent with current theory that suggests i t i s a basic human tendency to be responsive to the needs of others (Kohn, 1988), p a r t i c u l a r i l y i f one empathizes with the other (Batson & Coke, 1981) or the other i s perceived to be similar to oneself (Krebs & Russell, 1981). Also, the more a person feels responsible for the other, the more cost he or she i s apparently w i l l i n g to incur i n meeting the other's needs (Hays, 1985). Approximately 27% of the variance i s explained by three f a c t o r s . A sizeable proportion of error variance remains. Research Question 3 What i s the relationship between the hypothesized correlates and the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness construct? Research hypotheses 1 to 20 were tested i n response to t h i s 214 question. The findings w i l l be interpreted for each r e l a t i o n s h i p that was hypothesized. Self-esteem and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness (Hypothesis 1). I t was hypothesized that v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness would be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to self-esteem. This r e l a t i o n s h i p was not demonstrated using the Eagly Revision of the Janis F i e l d S e l f - Esteem Scale (r = .04; p = .271). The Eagly (1967) instrument was based on an e a r l i e r "Feelings of Inadequacy Scale" (Janis & F i e l d , 1959) . Feelings of inadequacy are negative self-appraisals associated with low self-esteem. The prediction of t h i s research was that v o l i t i o n a l acts of placing the needs of others ahead of one's own needs would be based on po s i t i v e self-appraisals r e l a t i n g to one's convictions of self-worth. D.K. Clark's (1985) d i s t i n c t i o n between f e e l i n g s of worthfulness and worthiness was noted to be c r i t i c a l , and i t was proposed that self-esteem i n a s e l f - g i v i n g person would more l i k e l y derive from an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the universal worth of humankind than from feelings of entitlement or worthiness. Considering Eagly's (1967) items from t h i s point of view and imagining how a person high i n the a b i l i t y to be s e l f - g i v i n g would answer, an explanation for the re s u l t s i s offered. Hoping (or even caring) "that some day the people you know w i l l look up to you and respect you" (item # 6), f e e l i n g pleased with your performance (item #3, 8), or fee l i n g sure of yourself (items # 215 10, 11) are concerns that do not seem to pertain very much to a s e l f - g i v i n g person. For example, imagine the prototype — Mother Teresa, responding to the questions: How often do you f e e l you are a successful person? How sure of yourself do you feel? How confident do you f e e l about your a b i l i t i e s ? How often do you f e e l i n f e r i o r to most of the people you know? These questions seem inadequate to measure the condition of worth that underlies the a b i l i t y to acknowledge and respond to other's need when doing so requires delayed g r a t i f i c a t i o n of personal need. The instrument selected to measure self-esteem does not appear to measure t h i s q u a l i t y of self-worth. The r e s u l t s indicate that self-esteem as measured by the Eagly Revision of the Janis F i e l d Self-Esteem Scale i s unrelated to the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness construct as measured by the VSS. Locus of control and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness (Hypothesis 3). I t was hypothesized that v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness would be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to in t e r n a l locus of control. A small p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p that f a i l e d to reach the required l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e was obtained (r = .147; p = .03). The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the locus of control construct to v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness i s related to the v o l i t i o n a l component. For persons who are i n t e r n a l l y oriented, the action i s v o l u n t a r i l y chosen and based on the self-perception that outcome i s contingent upon behavior, so that i f one chooses to act 216 submissively i t i s because one believes that i t i s the most e f f e c t i v e way to achieve a desired goal or purpose and a f e e l i n g of having given up personal control or power does not r e s u l t because the action was voluntary. The factors associated with i n t e r n a l i t y (Duttweiller, 1984): cognitive processing, autonomy, resistance to influence, and delay of g r a t i f i c a t i o n are consistent with the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness construct. Further t e s t i n g following refinement of the VSS may demonstrate t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . Ego development and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness (Hypothesis 5) . I t was hypothesized that v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness would be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to higher levels of ego development. This r e l a t i o n s h i p was demonstrated by a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p_ <.001) c o r r e l a t i o n (r = .268) of the VSS with Loevinger's Sentence Completion Test of ego development. This was one of the strongest r e l a t i o n s h i p that was demonstrated between the hypothesized variables and the (VSS). This r e l a t i o n s h i p may suggest that higher levels of complexity i n the structure of meaning and character are associated with the a b i l i t y to choose to place the needs of others ahead of one's own needs i n order to achieve a desired outcome. I t was hypothesized that in order to engage i n s e l f - g i v i n g of t h i s nature, individuals must be developed beyond the fourth stage ( i . e . , the most common stage achieved by a d u l t s ) . In the f i f t h and s i x t h stage, inner rules take precedence over peer 217 influence (1-4), paradox can be tolerated, interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s are valued (1-4/5), and int e r n a l c o n f l i c t s r e l a t e d to divergent needs, ideals and perceptions are worked through ( I - 5). The r e s u l t s suggest that the a c q u i s i t i o n of these personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s related to v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. They may also provide support for further inquiry into the developmental nature of the t r a i t , since ego development i s conceptualized by Loevinger as occurring i n sequential stages. S e l f - e f f i c a c y and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness (Hypothesis 6). I t was hypothesized that s e l f - e f f i c a c y would be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. This r e l a t i o n s h i p was supported. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p_ <.01) c o r r e l a t i o n (r = .175) was obtained between the S e l f - E f f i c a c y Scale and the VSS which would suggest that the scales are measuring d i s t i n c t but r e l a t e d constructs. The expectancy that one can act i n such a way as to bring about a desired outcome, w i l l expend e f f o r t to carry out the behavior, and can p e r s i s t i n the face of d i f f i c u l t y are components of the s e l f - e f f i c a c y construct that would be expected i n a person who chooses to set aside his/her own need i n order to meet the need(s) of another person because of the personal cost involved i n carrying out v o l i t i o n a l l y submissive behavior. Moral development and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness (Hypothesis 7). I t was hypothesized that p r i n c i p l e d moral reasoning would be 218 p o s i t i v e l y related to v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. This r e l a t i o n s h i p was not supported; in fact, a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p (r = -.173) that f a i l e d to meet the required l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e (p_ = .03) was demonstrated between the VSS and the DIT. Rest (1979) theorized that moral behavior derives from a person's inte r p r e t a t i o n of ju s t i c e or fairness i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s . G i l l i g a n (1982) has distinguished between an et h i c of p r i n c i p l e and an ethic of care and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . V o l i t i o n a l submissiveness i s most compatible with an ethic of care and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Persons high i n v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness are l i k e l y not as concerned with j u s t i c e i n an abstract sense as they are i n the concrete, r e l a t i o n a l terms of caring. A negative c o r r e l a t i o n between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and exchange o r i e n t a t i o n (hypothesis #15) further suggests that v o l i t i o n a l l y submissive people are oriented toward meeting needs rather than keeping track of debts and fairness of exchanges. This i s consistent with the view that i n some interactions people are unaware that an exchange i s unfavorable toward themselves because t h e i r action i s consistent with internalized ideals (Murstein, Cerreto & MacDonald, 1977). Secondly, v a l i d i t y studies of the DIT have not demonstrated s i g n i f i c a n t relationships between moral development and r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n ; whereas, a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p_ <.001) c o r r e l a t i o n (r =.315) was demonstrated i n t h i s research between 219 VSS score and church a f f i l i a t i o n , church attendance (r=.387; p_ <.0001), and reading the Bible or holy book (r = .353; p <.0001). I t may be that these instruments measure very d i f f e r e n t o rientations toward "moral" behavior. The t h i r d explanation for the results r e l a t e s to the length and d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l of the DIT, considering that i t was administered along with numerous other instruments^ The length of the DIT was anticipated as a problem because of the other t e s t s administered with i t , so the researcher opted to use the less r e l i a b l e short form. As i t was, the short form was completed by only 120 subjects. Inspection of the questionaires revealed that many subjects abandoned the DIT a f t e r beginning the f i r s t item. In addition, the researcher discovered l a t e i n the data c o l l e c t i o n process that the items that had been selected for the short form were not the combination of items that had been found to contribute to the highest r e l i a b i l i t y . This error may have resu l t e d i n low r e l i a b i l i t y of the DIT short form, adversely a f f e c t i n g the findings i n t h i s study. Neuroticism and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness (Hypothesis 8). I t was hypothesized that a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p would be demonstrated between neuroticism and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. This hypothesis was supported i n terms of the composite neuroticism scale, and i n r e l a t i o n to the anxiety and h o s t i l i t y facets of the NEO PI. S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative 220 c o r r e l a t i o n s were demonstrated with neuroticism (r = -.219, p = .006) and with the anxiety (r = -.207, p_ = .008) and h o s t i l i t y (r = -.247, p = .002) facets. In respect to the other facets of neuroticism: depression, self-consciousness, impulsivity and v u l n e r a b i l i t y to stress, the correlations obtained were negative but they f a i l e d to reach the required .01 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . V o l i t i o n a l submissiveness was theorized to be the adaptive dimension of t r a i t submissiveness. Consequently, i t was reasoned that the adaptive dimension would be associated with emotional s t a b i l i t y (the absence of neurotic tendencies); whereas, the maladaptive dimension ( i . e . , the current view of submissiveness) would be correlated with neuroticism. This r e l a t i o n s h i p was supported by a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n between the VSS and neuroticism and a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between CPI submissiveness and neuroticism. The negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and neuroticism would suggest that the former i s associated with emotional s t a b i l i t y . Emotional s t a b i l i t y i s also demonstrated by the presence of what i s considered to be a f i f t h factor i n the f i v e factor model of personality: conscientiousness. I t was hypothesized that a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p would be demonstrated between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and conscientiousness (Hypothesis 10). This r e l a t i o n s h i p did not reach the required l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . This finding may be interpreted i n l i g h t of the 221 behaviors that characterize the person high i n the C fa c t o r . Conscientiousness i s defined by Costa and McCrae (1985) as the active side of s e l f - d i s c i p l i n e that i s demonstrated by being persistant, businesslike, strong-willed and determined. The conscientious person i s able to structure his or her l i f e t i g h t l y , i s neat, and l i k e l y to be "purposeful and w e l l - organized, seeing much of l i f e i n terms of tasks to be accomplished" (Costa & McCrae, 1985, p. 12). This person has been described as having a strong w i l l to achieve; a need which, along with the other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , may i n fac t c o n f l i c t considerably with the needs of others and therefore, r e s u l t i n a person high on t h i s factor from giving much consideration to other's needs. Conversely, the person who i s able to place the needs of others ahead of his/her own may be found to be much less task oriented, less driven by the need to achieve, and generally, be more f l e x i b l e and easy going. The lack of support f o r the hypothesis, i n l i g h t of the manner i n which the conscientious facet i s defined, tends to add support to the t h e o r e t i c a l conceptualization of v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. This r e s u l t i n v i t e s further investigation. M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness (Hypothesis 12) . I t was hypothesized that a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p would be demonstrated between dyadic adjustment and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. This relationship was not supported. The DAS purports to measure quality of dyadic r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; 222 q u a l i t y c o n s i s t i n g of s a t i s f a c t i o n , consensus, cohesion, and a f f e c t i o n a l expression. The absence of a demonstrated r e l a t i o n s h i p i s d i f f i c u l t to interpret, e s p e c i a l l y considering that a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e relationship was demonstrated between VSS and l e v e l of intimacy experienced i n the subjects' c l o s e s t current r e l a t i o n s h i p (hypothesis #13). Perhaps marriage i s not people's c l o s e s t r e l a t i o n s h i p ! This seems an u n l i k e l y interpretation.. What i s more l i k e l y i s that marriage i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p that t e s t s , and i s tested by, partners' a b i l i t y to be u n s e l f i s h and s e l f - g i v i n g . Because in t e r a c t i o n i n marriage (as compared to other s o c i a l relationships) i s i n t e n s i f i e d i n terms of both time and space, the tendency to place the other's needs ahead of one's own may create stress i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p , p a r t i c u l a r i l y i f partners d i f f e r i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to be s e l f - g i v i n g . Lee's (1977) suggestion that a l t r u i s t i c love i s a rare achievement i n marriage may be supported by t h i s f i n d i n g . On the other hand, i t i s evident that considerable personal cost i s involved i n placing anyone's needs ahead of one's own. Persistance i n the face of d i f f i c u l t y and the a b i l i t y to delay rewards may be a s i g n i f i c a n t aspect of v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness i n a long-term r e l a t i o n s h i p . S a t i s f a c t i o n i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p , i f i t i s viewed as a reward, may be a long-term benefit not currently experienced. The c r i t i c a l incident interviews showed t h i s to be the case i n that the outcome or benefits of s e l f - g i v i n g behavior were r e a l i z e d long (often years) a f t e r the 223 behavior occurred. This would appear to be an important r e l a t i o n s h i p for further study and understanding. The mutuality of acts of submission in marital relationships may be another fac t o r implicated i n the results which require further i n v e s t i g a t i o n . S o c i a l intimacy and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness (Hypothesis 13). I t was hypothesized that a po s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p would be demonstrated between s o c i a l intimacy and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. This hypothesis was supported. The MSIS measures the maximum l e v e l of intimacy currently experienced i n the relationship with the person to whom the subject f e e l s closest. This finding supports the t h e o r e t i c a l assumption and the general theme of the c r i t i c a l incident interviews, that placing the needs of another person ahead of one's own need enhances the relationship and creates stronger interpersonal bonds or feelings of closeness. Relationship orientation and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness (Hypothesis 15 and 16). I t was hypothesized that a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p would be found between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and communal orient a t i o n and a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and exchange ori e n t a t i o n . The c o r r e l a t i o n with communal orientation f a i l e d to reach the required l e v e l of significance; the c o r r e l a t i o n with exchange or i e n t a t i o n achieved s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . 224 M i l l s and Clark (1982) contend that a communal or i e n t a t i o n r e s u l t s i n following a "needs" rule i n which there i s a general ob l i g a t i o n to be concerned about other's well-being and a tendency to respond to needs as they are perceived. Such an o r i e n t a t i o n i s p r e c i s e l y what would be expected i n a person who possesses a high l e v e l of v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. Persons high i n v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness would be expected not to take notice of i n e q u i t i e s simply because they do not keep track of what they do for others or, because the s e l f - g i v i n g i s consistent with i n t e r n a l i z e d values, they are undisturbed when an exchange i s unfavorable toward them. The low p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n (r = .14, p = .03) that was obtained does not affi r m t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . On the other hand, a person who i s governed by an exchange ori e n t a t i o n tends to keep track of needs and differences i n responding to those needs and operates on a r e c i p r o c a l basis more t y p i c a l of a business relationship. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n (r = -.208, p = .005) was demonstrated between exchange orientation and VSS. This r e l a t i o n s h i p supports the hypothesis and the t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions stated above. Loneliness and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness (Hypothesis 17). I t was hypothesized that a negative rela t i o n s h i p would be found between loneliness and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. The c o r r e l a t i o n between these variables f a i l e d to achieve the 225 required l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l s ignificance. A negative c o r r e l a t i o n (r = -.14 3, p_ = .03) was obtained between the UCLA Loneliness Scale and the VSS. This finding i s not consistent with the p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n that was obtained i n the t e s t of hypothesis #13 which assessed the rel a t i o n s h i p between the VSS and s o c i a l intimacy, and the posi t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p obtained i n the t e s t of hypothesis #19 which assessed s a t i s f a c t i o n with s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and the s i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n with two components of the "loneliness" construct (anxiety and depression) that was obtained in the t e s t of hypothesis #8. I t i s consistent with the non-significant c o r r e l a t i o n (r = .155, p_ = .03) with well-being. Altruism and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness (Hypothesis 18). I t was hypothesized that a posi t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p would be found between altruism and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. This hypothesis was supported, suggesting that the frequency with which subjects report engaging i n a l t r u i s t i c behaviors i s p o s i t i v e l y correlated with the tendency to place the needs of others ahead of one's own ( i . e . , v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness). Since i t may be argued that the l a t t e r are a c t u a l l y expressions of altruism, i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that the co r r e l a t i o n i s small (r = .203), but achieved s t a t i s t i c a l significance with both methods of scoring: p_ <.006 using dichotomous scoring, r = .188, p_ <.01 using the post hoc method. This would suggest that d i s t i n c t but r e l a t e d constructs are being measured. 226 Problematic s o c i a l t i e s and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness (Hypothesis 19). I t was hypothesized that a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p would be found between the cost of care-giving as indicated by problematic s o c i a l t i e s and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. A s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p_ <.0001) p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p (r = .352) was demonstrated between the VSS and the question: How s a t i s f y i n g do you f i n d your relationships with people generally? (high scores i n d i c a t i n g most s a t i s f y i n g ) . Non-significant c o r r e l a t i o n s were obtained between v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness and (a) having privacy invaded, (b) f e e l i n g taken advantage of, (c) having promises of help broken, and (d) a general question asking who was a consistent source of problems. A low p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n (r =.16; p_ <.02) was found when the VSS was corre l a t e d with responses to the question: Is there someone who you f e e l angry toward when you are with them or thinking about them? The question i s non-specific about who the person i s , whether i t i s someone with whom the person shares a close r e l a t i o n s h i p or i s distant to, or to what the anger i s r e l a t e d . One male subject volunteered that the person he f e l t angry toward was the p r o v i n c i a l premier. Acknowledgement of anger may support the t h e o r e t i c a l proposition that v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness i s not passive as the t r a d i t i o n a l view of submissiveness i s . I t may also be considered to be consistent with the negative c o r r e l a t i o n with depression obtained i n testing hypothesis #8. Or i t may be that persons who are concerned about the needs that others experience are empassioned by the observed i n j u s t i c e s and misery of others. These explanations suggest a need for further study i n respect to personal costs incurred by s e l f - g i v i n g . S o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness (Hypothesis 20). I t was hypothesized that a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p would be demonstrated between s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y and the construct, v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness. This was not demonstrated. In fact, a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p <.0001) p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n (r = .27) was obtained. The Marlowe-Crowne Social D e s i r a b l i t y Inventory i s purported to consist of items that are c u l t u r a l l y approved but improbable responses, free of pathological or abnormal implications. I t i s designed to i d e n t i f y persons who tend to describe themselves i n an overly p o s i t i v e fashion and has been reported to measure a s i m i l a r construct as the MMPI Lie scale and Wiggins's Sd scale (Edwards, 1990). The influence of the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y factor i n s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s of personality t r a i t s has most recently been debated by Walsh (1990), Nicholson and Hogan (1990), and Edwards (1990). Walsh (1990) argues that the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y response r e f l e c t s early learning of c u l t u r a l norms that are maintained with considerable strength throughout l i f e except i n the case of "... major emotional d i s t r e s s or i n t e l l e c t u a l dysfunction [when] behavior becomes so disorganized that 228 i n d i v i d u a l s begin to endorse items that contain negative s e l f - references or to deny those that contain p o s i t i v e ones" (p. 290) . Consequently, the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y construct r e f l e c t s a " s o c i a l l y normative" process by which the more "normal" or enculturated the subject, the greater the tendency to endorse items that represent c u l t u r a l l y approved behaviors. S i m i l a r l y , Nicholson and Hogan (1990) prefer to think that the frequent c o r r e l a t i o n between s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scales and personality measures r e f l e c t s overlap in content between the two scales rather than that a s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y response s t y l e contaminates the personality measure. They claim that the weight of empirical evidence favors the former view. Drawing on t h i s explanation, the finding of the present research may be interpreted as resul t i n g from some overlap i n content between the VSS and the MC SDS. Some VSS submissive items may possess a s o c i a l l y desirable component f o r some subjects, p a r t i c u l a r i l y items that i d e n t i f y values that are c u l t u r a l l y approved. (For example, a common response to item #7 was a statement to the ef f e c t that one should never hinder another person's career advancement, and item #18 was most commonly answered with the reasoning that mother's have given so much, they should always be helped i n return.) Thus the low c o r r e l a t i o n (r = .27) of the MC scale with the VSS can be interpreted as not being unusual i n respect to the frequency with which personality measures tend to correlate with s o c i a l 229 d e s i r a b i l i t y scales. Furthermore, i t may well be that some of the responses that indicate a s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y response s t y l e may a c t u a l l y be behaviors that are consistent with i n t e r n a l i z e d values f o r subjects who score high on the VSS. For example, such items as "I would never think of l e t t i n g someone else be punished for my wrongdoing", or "I always try to practice what I preach" may a c t u a l l y r e f l e c t a code of conduct adopted by these subjects. T r a d i t i o n a l submissiveness and self-esteem, i n t e r n a l locus of c o n t r o l , neuroticism, and v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness (Hypotheses #2, #4, #9, and #11). It was hypothesized that no r e l a t i o n s h i p would be demonstrated between the v o l i t i o n a l and t r a d i t i o n a l dimensions of the submissiveness t r a i t . The r e s u l t s support t h i s hypothesis. A non-significant c o r r e l a t i o n (r = .04, p_ = .32) was obtained. This finding would suggest that there i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p between the constructs being measured by the VSS and the CPI dominance scale; that the v o l i t i o n a l construct i s d i s t i n c t and unrelated to CPI submissiveness. The negative relationships that would be expected between CPI submissiveness and self-esteem, int e r n a l locus of control, and emotional s t a b i l i t y were supported. Research Question 4_ What motivations underlie v o l i t i o n a l l y submissive behavior? I t was proposed that i n close interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s a person would place the needs of another person ahead of his/her 230 own to demonstrate caring, to help, to maintain the r e l a t i o n s h i p or to enhance i t , or because he/she believed the action was the r i g h t thing to do. An attempt was made to l i n k these motives with the items i n order to obtain a measure of the operative motivation i n the behavior. As discussed i n Chapter 4, motivational subscales were abandoned a f t e r the f i r s t pretest i n favor of having the subject write his/her own motive for acting. The subject's response was f i r s t scored i n a dichotomous fashion determined by whether i t met the c r i t e r i a of the t r a i t or not. However, a f t e r scoring hundreds of responses, i t became apparent that subjects' responses could be categorized on the basis of s i m i l a r or common themes. What was evident was q u a l i t a t i v e differences i n respondents' reasons for choosing the submissive a l t e r n a t i v e . As Krebs (1982) argued, phenotypically s i m i l a r acts may stem from q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t intentions. These differences are i l l u s t r a t e d i n the following subject responses to item 15: " F a i r i s f a i r ! " ; " I t i s mutually b e n e f i c i a l " ; "I would want to b u i l d him up, not make i t harder"; "My partner's goals are important to me"; "That i f I love her, the extra work won't make much differe n c e for a few years". When responses were grouped 'together on the basis of s i m i l a r i t y i t became apparent that the groups could be arranged on a continuum that quite c l e a r l y represented various l e v e l s of s e l f - g i v i n g behavior. Categorizing responses i n t h i s way 231 suggests i n d i v i d u a l differences i n s e l f - g i v i n g that may manifest varying degrees with which individuals possess the t r a i t . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that one of the strongest relationships that was demonstrated was between the VSS and ego development, a construct that i s also conceptualized i n sequential stages of development. Scoring the VSS using the post hoc method, although i t i s a subjective method, appears to be accurate, as raters have l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y assigning a category score to most responses, and i n t e r - r a t e r agreement was achieved at least 83% of the time. However, scoring would be s i m p l i f i e d by further modification of the scale so that the need to t r a i n scorers i s eliminated. This could be achieved i n the following way. Using the data obtained in the present study, the best motivational responses from each of the seven categories of responses could be selected f o r each item based on the face v a l i d i t y of the response. The r e l i a b i l i t y of the responses would be tested and those that demonstrate highest r e l i a b i l i t y i n each category could represent that category for each item. A VSS item would then consist of the scenario and the submissive/non-submissive behavioral a l t e r n a t i v e as i s presently the case; and in addition, a l i s t of seven responses which represent the seven scoring categories. The subject would s e l e c t the motivation that most c l o s e l y matches his/her motive which when t o t a l l e d over the 24 items, would provide the v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness score. This refinement to the scale i s proposed for a future study. 232 Research Question 5 Can groups be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on the basis of predicted VSS scores? A t e s t of c r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d v a l i d i t y was conducted to t e s t hypothesis 21. The VSS was administered to contrasted groups (addicts versus counselors/therapists). It was predicted that the group of addicts i n treatment would score lower on the t e s t than the group of counselors/therapists. S i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n were demonstrated. This f i n d i n g suggests that the VSS i s capable of d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between groups which i n t h i s study was predicted on the basis of perceived differences i n s e l f - g i v i n g based on observation of psychological functioning between subjects seeking and d e l i v e r i n g psychological therapy. Research Question 6 Is the theorized t r a i t , v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness, capable of p r e d i c t i n g behavioral response? The s i x t h and f i n a l question tested hypothesis 22 and r e l a t e d to the a b i l i t y of the VSS to predict s e l f - g i v i n g behavior. A behavioral experiment to t e s t the a b i l i t y of the VSS to p r e d i c t subjects' behavior i n a contrived " c o n f l i c t i n g needs" s i t u a t i o n was devised and conducted. I t was predicted that subjects who scored high on the VSS would be more l i k e l y to give up "the Z" — a high-value l e t t e r i n a word power game, than 233 would subjects who scored low on the VSS. The findings support t h i s p r e d i c t i o n . Giving up "the Z" was p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d (r = .41) with VSS score (p_ <.005). When VSS mean scores of subjects who gave up the "Z" were compared with the mean scores of those who did not, a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was obtained (t = 2.74; p_ < .01), a finding that adds support to the pr e d i c t i v e a b i l i t y of the scale. This r e s u l t suggests that s e l f - g i v i n g behavior can be predicted based on VSS score. Implications and Recommendations for Future Research The r e s u l t s of t h i s study may be considered to have the following t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l implications. T h e o r e t i c a l Implications In psychological l i t e r a t u r e , the predominant t h e o r e t i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t r a i t submissiveness views i t as a weak, feminine interpersonal posture opposite the masculine, power dimension of dominance. Recently, discrepant evidence for the b i p o l a r i t y of dominance and submissiveness has cast doubt on the accuracy of conceptualizing these t r a i t s as opposite d i s p o s i t i o n s (Buss & Craik, 1981; Russell, 1979). Currently, the maladaptive dimension of submissiveness has been elaborated, based on observations of behavior. An adaptive dimension has not been acknowledged since the early works of A l l p o r t (1928) and Maslow (1940). This study was influenced by the perspective taken by 234 Carlson (1985), Cochran (1984, 1986), Krebs (1982), Lamiell (1981), and others who argue that i t i s not enough to observe behavior and l a b e l i t as manifesting a t r a i t ; a person's aims, goals and intentions need to be acknowledged. Adopting t h i s view, an attempt was made to investigate the meaning of submissive behavior i n the context of communal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Assuming that i t i s a basic human tendency to be responsive to the needs of others (Kohn, 1988), p a r t i c u l a r i l y toward people with whom one empathizes (Batson & Coke, 1981) and perceives as being s i m i l a r (Krebs & Russell, 1981), i t was proposed that submissiveness may be operational in close r e l a t i o n s h i p s when needs c o n f l i c t , as a means of achieving a goal or purpose that i s consistent with i n t e r n a l i z e d values. The manifest behavior could appear to be s e l f - e f f a c i n g , non-assertive, meek and unauthoritative, but depending on the meaning or intention of the behavior f o r the person, the behavior could a c t u a l l y be a means of helping, of demonstrating caring or e f f i c a c y , or of enhancing intimacy. The underlying motive i s capable of transforming seemingly maladaptive behavior into adaptive acts of benevolence depending on the t r a i t — or the dimension of the t r a i t , that i s being manifest. Understanding motivation provides a view of the person that allows f o r an accurate t r a i t designation to be made. With respect to submissiveness, the condition of choice or v o l i t i o n was proposed as a fundamental factor d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g the adaptive 235 and maladaptive dimensions because v o l i t i o n i s basic to the meaning of submissive behavior. Consider the adjectives that describe the maladaptive dimension of the t r a i t and depict submissive people as weak, passive, and "acted upon" by others who are more powerful or dominant. V o l i t i o n i s lacking i n t h i s dimension of submissiveness. However, Deluty's (1981b) f i n d i n g that the cognitive repertoires of submissive childr e n were dominated by assertive alternatives may provide a key to understanding the adaptive dimension of submissiveness. When submission i s v o l i t i o n a l , choosing to submit could be a way of ex e r c i s i n g power. I t may be an assertive a l t e r n a t i v e that chooses s e l f - s a c r i f i c e as a means to achieve an end. The d i s p o s i t i o n that would allow such choosing was l a b e l l e d v o l i t i o n a l submissiveness to emphasize the importance of v o l u n t a r i l y choosing to submit and to d i s t i n g u i s h i t from the t r a d i t i o n a l concept. The c r i t i c a l incident interview method provided a means of access into the inner world of people who have experienced c o n f l i c t i n g needs i n relationships and have chosen to act submissively. Interview subjects demonstrated almost immediate r e c a l l of incidents i n which they had placed the needs and i n t e r e s t s of a s i g n i f i c a n t other person ahead of t h e i r own. A l l of the incidents were v o l i t i o n a l and required some s e l f - g i v i n g , although the extent or the costliness of the s e l f - g i v i n g varied. In every instance, the meaning of deferring to the needs or 236 i n t e r e s t s of the other person was to benefit the person i n some way or to achieve a purpose that related to an i n t e r n a l i z e d value. The outcome of the self-chosen submissive behavior, although often extremely costly, was described by subjects as being well worth the personal s a c r i f i c e . Usually t h i s was expressed i n terms of stronger a f f e c t i o n a l bonds and g r a t i f i c a t i o n because the other had prospered. The benefit to the r e l a t i o n s h i p was perceived as an enduring, unexpected reward. Based on the rationale that meaning furnishes a view of a person's character, predictions were made about the psychological nature of people who were v o l i t i o n a l l y submissive. Using Mother Teresa as a prototype, i t was propo