Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Ego development, locus of control and the primary-secondary alcoholic dichotomy Wilson, Celesta Joy 1981

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1981_A8 W54.pdf [ 3.8MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054322.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054322-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054322-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054322-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054322-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054322-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054322-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054322-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054322.ris

Full Text

EGO DEVELOPMENT, LOCUS OF . CONTROL AND THE PRIMARY-SECONDARY ALCOHOLIC DICHOTOMY by CELESTA JOY WILSON B.A., Nebraska Wesleyan University, 1966 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Counselling Psychology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIN October 1981 © Celesta Joy Wilson, 1981 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a llowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of C o u n s e l l i n g Psychology The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date October 19, 1981 DE-6 (2/79) i i ABSTRACT A study was done to investigate the well documented heterogeneous nature of the a l c o h o l i c population. Loevinger's Ego Development Sentence Completion Scale and Rotter's Locus of Control Question-naire were used to investigate s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c subtypes. No differences between primary and secondary alc o h o l i c s were found on either the Ego Development or Locus of Control scales. The reasons for and implications of such findings were discussed. (Thesis Chairman i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS C H A P T E R PAGE A b s t r a c t i i L i s t o f T a b l e s . . . vv L i s t o f F i g u r e s v i A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s v i i I I N T R O D U C T I O N TO THE STUDY 1 N a t u r e o f t h e S t u d y 2 P u r p o s e o f t h e S t u d y . . . . . . 2 D e f i n i t i o n o f T e r m s . . . . . . 3 A l c o h o l i s m 3 P r i m a r y A l c o h o l i s m . . 3 Secondary Alcoholism 4 E g o D e v e l o p m e n t 5 I n t e r n a l - E x t e r n a l L o c u s o f C o n t r o l 7 S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e S t u d y 7 L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e S t u d y 8 O v e r v i e w o f t h e S t u d y 10 I I R E V I E W O F T H E L I T E R A T U R E 11 I n t r o d u c t i o n 11 E g o D e v e l o p m e n t . . . . . . . . . 11 L o c u s o f C o n t r o l 17 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e A l c o h o l i c 18 S u b g r o u p i n g s Within the Alcoholic P o p u l a t i o n . . . . 19 Ego D e v e l o p m e n t and the Alcoholic 20 Locus of Control a n d the Alcoholic 21 Summary 2 2 T h e P u r p o s e R e s t a t e d 22 i v CHAPTER PAGE R e s e a r c h Questions 2 3 I I I METHODOLOGY . 2 4 Su b j e c t s V 2 4 D i f f e r e n t i a t i n g Primary "from Secondary A l c o h o l i c s . 2 4 The C l i n i c a l T o o l s , A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and S c o r i n g . . 26 Ego Development S c a l e 26 Ego Stages o f th e . S c a l e 2 7 Locus o f C o n t r o l Scale 31 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 31 A n a l y s i s o f Data 31 IV RESULTS 3 3 Subject V a r i a b l e s - Age, E d u c a t i o n and Income . . . 3 3 Ego L e v e l , Locus o f C o n t r o l , & Primary/Secondary . 34 V DISCUSSION 39 A p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e Primary/Secondary Dichotomy 4 0 Ego Development and Locus o f C o n t r o l as Inadequate Measures 4 6 In a p p r o p r i a t e Subject P o p u l a t i o n 4 9 F u r t h e r Research 50 REFERENCES " 5 4 APPENDIX 6 1 V LIST OF TABLES T a b l e D e s c r i p t i o n Page 1. Some M i l e s t o n e s o f Ego Development 6 2 . Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s o f Primary and Secondary A l c o h o l i c s Age, Years o f Formal E d u c a t i o n and Gross Y e a r l y Income 33 3 - I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f Ego Development, Locus o f C o n t r o l and Primary/Secondary D e s i g n a t i o n . . . 35 k. Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s , and t Values f o r Comparisons Between Primary and Secondary A l c o h o l i c s on Ego Development and Locus o f C o n t r o l 36 5 . I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f Ego Development and Locus o f C o n t r o l With Age, Gross Y e a r l y Income, and Years o f Formal E d u c a t i o n 38 v i LIST OF FIGURES F i e u r e Description 1. Relationship between ego l e v e l and locus of control scores f o r each subject . . . . . . P a g e 3^ 2. Percentage of t o t a l item frequency for each ego l e v e l c o l l a t e d separately f o r a l l primary and a l l secondary protocols 37 v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In completing t h i s t h e s i s I would l i k e to thank the Chairman of my th e s i s committee, Dr. Richard Young, for h i s prompt atten-t i o n , h i s careful e d i t i n g and substantive d i r e c t i o n and comments throughout the course of t h i s work. In addition I would l i k e to thank Dr. Marvin Westwood and Dr. Harold R a t z l a f f for t h e i r support and comments regarding the substance of the present research. I would also l i k e to thank the s t a f f and c l i e n t s at P a c i f i c a for t h e i r cooperation and forebearance during a l l phases of t h i s research. And f i n a l l y , thanks to my husband for h i s assistance i n the o f t e n t e d i o u s work o f s c o r i n g the p r o t o c o l s . CHAPTER I I n t r o d u c t i o n to the Study Although a l c o h o l i s m i s c o n s i d e r e d by many to be a monumental problem f a c i n g our s o c i e t y ( J e l l i n e k , I 9 6 0 ) , we have onl y r e c e n t l y begun to f u l l y u t i l i z e our knowledge r e g a r d i n g the heterogeneous nature o f the a l c o h o l i c p o p u l a t i o n as an a i d to the understanding o f the e t i o l o g y and proper treatment o f a l c o h o l i s m (Barnes, 1 9 7 9 ) • The treatment o f a l c o h o l i c s i s a demanding and complex p r o c e s s o f t e n c h a r a c t e r i z e d by c l i e n t r e l a p s e as w e l l as t h e r a p i s t f r u s t r a -t i o n ( V a l l i e n t , 1 9 7 8 ) . The t h e r a p i s t i s o f t e n faced with an enormous a r r a y o f s o c i a l , environmental, and p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s seemingly unique to each a l c o h o l i c c l i e n t . The t h e r a p i s t t r i e s to c a t e g o r i z e c l i e n t s a l o n g c e r t a i n meaningful and o f t e n s u b j e c t i v e dimensions i n order to f a c i l i t a t e treatment. T h i s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i s , an important aspect o f any treatment program. Knowledge o f the c l i e n t not onl y as an i n d i v i d u a l , but a l s o as a member o f a l a r g e r subgrouping w i t h i n the treatment p o p u l a t i o n can g r e a t l y enhance the t h e r a p i s t ' s a b i l i t y to f u n c t i o n e f f e c t i v e l y . The o b j e c t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f sub-groupings w i t h i n an a l c o h o l i c treatment p o p u l a t i o n i s a v i t a l a d j u n c t to proper therapy (Blume, 1 9 7 8 ) . I f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f i d e n t i f i a b l e a l c o h o l i c subtypes can be embellished i n meaning-f u l ways, the t h e r a p i s t ' s e f f e c t i v e n e s s should be g r e a t l y enhanced. The present r e s e a r c h i s designed to expand our knowledge r e g a r d i n g s p e c i f i c p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f two important and r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e a l c o h o l i c subtypes (Blume, 1 9 7 8 ) . 1 2 Nature o f the Problem Primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c subtypes have a r i s e n as the most f r u i t f u l d i c h o t o m i z a t i o n p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e (Fox, 1957; S c h u c k i t , 1973J Blume, 1978). The primary-secondary d i s t i n c t i o n concerns the r o l e o f a l c o h o l i n the person's present a l c o h o l r e l a t e d maladjustment. A l c o h o l i s c o n s i d e r e d c e n t r a l to the primary a l c o h o l i c ' s d i f f i c u l t i e s , while o n l y another m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f the secondary's general maladjustment to s o c i e t y . While c a t e -g o r i z i n g an a l c o h o l i c as e i t h e r primary o r secondary i s r e l a t i v e l y s t r a i g h t forward (Blume, 1978) , the problem a r i s e s when s p e c i f y i n g the more s u b t l e p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f these two subtypes. I t i s important t h a t a thorough knowledge o f the p s y c h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f each subtype i s o b t a i n e d so t h a t the understand-i n g and treatment o f the heterogeneous p o p u l a t i o n o f a l c o h o l i c s can be enhanced. Purpose o f the Study The present r e s e a r c h i s concerned w i t h the s p e c i f i c char-a c t e r i z a t i o n o f primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s a l o n g p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions t h a t i n c r e a s e our understanding o f the two a l c o h o l i c subtypes and enhance our a b i l i t y to o f f e r a p p r o p r i a t e treatment. The two p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s chosen f o r t h i s purpose are L o e v i n g e r ' s (1976) Ego Development S c a l e and R o t t e r ' s (1966) I n t e r n a l - E x t e r n a l Locus o f C o n t r o l S c a l e . Lower ego l e v e l s i n the a d u l t are c o n s i d e r e d i n d i c a t i v e o f developmental s t a g n a t i o n (Loevinger, 1976). In a d d i t i o n an e x t e r n a l c a u s a l o r i e n t a t i o n towards why events occur i n one's l i f e ( R o t t e r , 1966) i s g e n e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e d 3 with maladjustment. Secondary a l c o h o l i c s , "because o f t h e i r pro-longed h i s t o r y o f maladjustment r e l a t i v e to primary a l c o h o l i c s , would be expected to show g r e a t e r p e r s o n a l i t y d e f i c i t s than p r i -mary a l c o h o l i c s on the two measures chosen f o r use i n the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h . D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms A l c o h o l i s m The a l c o h o l i c i s b e s t d e s c r i b e d as an i n d i v i d u a l whose a l c o h o l i n g e s t i o n i m p a i r s h i s o r her s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , h e a l t h , job e f f i c i e n c y , a b i l i t y to a v o i d l e g a l d i f f i c u l t i e s or c o n f l i c t s with the c u l t u r a l mores ( V a i l l a n t , 1978; P l a u t , 1967; World H e a l t h O r g a n i z a t i o n , 1969). 0 Primary A l c o h o l i s m . Fox (1957» P» 164) has e l o q u e n t l y des-c r i b e d the essence o f the primary a l c o h o l i c as, "... those persons not o b v i o u s l y n e u r o t i c i n t h e i r e a r l y l i f e , who have s l i p p e d i n l a t e r l i f e i n t o p a t h o l o g i c a l d r i n k i n g through some k i n d o f h a b i t u a -t i o n p r o c e s s . They are o f t e n persons o f great t a l e n t and a b i l i t y who have f o r y e a r s been heavy s o c i a l d r i n k e r s . To t h e i r dismay, they f i n d they have l o s t c o n t r o l . Having once stepped over the b o r d e r l i n e i n t o a l c o h o l i c d r i n k i n g , they can never resume d r i n k i n g i n a c o n t r o l l e d f a s h i o n . " S c h u c k i t and Gunderson (1975i p. 268) d e f i n e primary a l c o h o l i s m , "... the a l c o h o l i c p r o c e s s i s the only, or f i r s t appearing, p s y c h i a t r i c i l l n e s s . " The primary a l c o h o l i c i s c o n s i d e r e d to be f r e e o f any gross maladaptive symtomatology p r i o r to t h e i r a l c o h o l i c abuse. 4 It i s very important that the primary and secondary alco-h o l i c be c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . The primary a l c o h o l i c , p r i o r to t h e i r alcohol abuse and often following, i s a stable member of society. In addition they appear p s y c h i a t r i c a l l y stable i n terms of gross a n t i s o c i a l behaviors. Certainly they have no police record, no hist o r y of delinquent behaviors, aggressive behaviors, gross sexual actions, or any of the behaviors generally associated with the a n t i s o c i a l or sociopathic designation. Secondary Alcoholism. Fox, (1957, p. 164) has described the secondary as, "... those persons who have been emotionally mal-adjusted since childhood. Alcohol has seemed a godsend to them, helping to solve temporarily t h e i r basic s o c i a l and psychological problems. They usually have become alc o h o l i c s at a very early age, and they are more d i f f i c u l t to tre a t than the (primary) addicts since they have never used the more mature avenues of s e l f -expression. They tend to have the emotional equipment of a c h i l d . When every d i f f i c u l t y has been met by evading i t through alcohol, they have developed few other, more mature techniques of l i v i n g . They must be helped to grow up." In short, the secondary a l c o h o l i c appears to be severely l i m i t e d i n almost every aspect of normal personality growth (Madsen, 1974). Madsen has offered numerous descriptors of the al c o h o l i c subtype which f i t quite neatly into Jane Loevinger's four facets of ego development! Lack of emotional control/wild swings i n mood (impulse control); Passive, alie n a t i n g , dependent ( i n t e r -personal s t y l e ) ; Psychosomatic complaints (conscious preoccupa-t i o n ) ; and f i n a l l y , Confused (cognitive s t y l e ) . 5 S c h u c k i t (1973) and Blume (1978) p o i n t out t h a t the secondary a l c o h o l i c ' s d r i n k i n g has been antedated by ot h e r p r e e x i s t i n g psy-c h o p a t h o l o g i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s w h i le the primary b e g i n s d r i n k i n g with a h i s t o r y c l e a r o f a l l o t h e r p s y c h i a t r i c problems. In c o n c l u s i o n the secondary a l c o h o l i c with r e s p e c t to t h e i r past s o c i a l b e h a v i o r i s d i a m e t r i c a l l y o p p o s i t e the primary. They are c l e a r l y a n t i s o c i a l / s o c i o p a t h i c i n t h e i r o v e r t b e h a v i o r s . T h e i r l i f e h i s t o r y i s permeated with a n t i s o c i a l b e h a v i o r s from an e a r l y age. School attendance has u s u a l l y been t r u a n t , o f t e n ending i n e x p u l s i o n . Home l i f e has been awkward, o f t e n punctuated by ru n n i n g away. D e l i n q u e n t b e h a v i o r s as w e l l as a d u l t crimes are o f t e n presents work h i s t o r y i s poor and uneven. A h i s t o r y o f a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r s i s o f t e n p r e s e n t . Sexual deviance, p r o m i s c u i t y , even pimping i s not uncommon. Thus, i t i s c l e a r t h a t a person t h a t meets the above d e s c r i p t o r s i s d i f f e r e n t i n important ways from a primary a l c o h o l i c . Ego Development Ego development i s viewed as an i n v a r i a n t sequence o f stages from c o n c e p t u a l l y l e s s e r t o g r e a t e r l e v e l s o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and moving from simple to more complex l e v e l s o f ego i n t e g r a t i o n , a "Master T r a i t " ( L o e v i n g e r , 1970) c o n c e p t u a l l y d i s t i n c t from phy-s i c a l , psychosexual, and i n t e l l e c t u a l development. Each person i s assumed to have a t y p i c a l p e r c e p t u a l view o f h i m s e l f and the world around him. T h i s p e r c e p t u a l view i s s a i d to move towards a more and more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d p e r c e p t i o n o f one's s e l f , one's s o c i a l world, and o f one's thoughts and emotional responses as they a f f e c t Table 1 Some Mil e s t o n e s of Ego Development* Stage Code Impulse control, character development Interpersonal style Conscious preoccupations Cognitive style Presocial Symbiotic Impulsive Self-protective Conformist 1-3 Conscientious-conformist 1-3/4 Conscientious Individualistic Autonomous 1-4 1-4/5 1-5 Impulsive, fear of retaliation Fear of being caught, externalising blame, opportunistic Conformity to external rules, shame, guilt for breaking rules Differentiation of norms, goals Self-evaluated standards, self-criticism, guilt for consequences, long-term goals and ideals Add: Respect for individuality Add: Coping with conflicting inner needs, toleration Autistic Symbiotic Receiving, dependent, exploitative Wary, manipulative, exploitative Belonging, superficial Aware of self in relation to group, helping Intensive, responsible, mutual, concern for communication Add: Dependence as an emotional problem Add: Respect for autonomy, interdependence Integrated 1-6 Add: Reconciling inner conflicts, renunciation of unattainable Add: Cherishing of individuality Self v. non-self Bodily feelings, especially sexual and aggressive Self-protection, trouble, wishes, advantage, control Appearance, social acceptability, banal feelings, behaviour Adjustment, problems, reasons, opportunities (vague) Differentiated feelings, motives for behaviour, self-respect, achievements, traits, expression Add: Development, social problems, differentiation of inner life from outer Vividly conveyed feelings, physiological r-and psychological, psychological causation of behaviour, role conception, self-fulfillment, self in social context Add: Identity Stereotyping, conceptual j confusion Conceptual simplicity, stereotypes, cliches Multiplicity Conceptual complexity, idea of patterning i Add: Distinction of process and outcome Increased conceptual complexity, complex patterns, toleration for ambiguity, broad scope, objectivity Note: 'Add' means in addition to the description applying to the previous level. * From Head and Shayer (1980) CD cm o C b CD < CD M O Xi 3 CD <+ P a p CD P ^ CD O c+ CD a. a* << o CD i-3 P cf CD o p 3 V CD P Xi co o1 CD CO c r P b CD CO O ^ a" CD 7 I n t e r n a l - E x t e r n a l Locus o f C o n t r o l R o t t e r (1966) has developed a 2 9-item instrument designed to determine g e n e r a l i z e d expectancy o f a person's i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t . An i n t e r n a l l y c o n t r o l l e d person i s an i n d i v i d u a l who has a s t r o n g and p e r v a s i v e b e l i e f t h a t r e i n f o r c e m e n t s are c o n t i n g e n t on h i s own beh a v i o r . An e x t e r n a l l y c o n t r o l l e d person l o o k s to f a c t o r s such as l u c k , f a t e , and the c o n t r o l exerted by o t h e r s as c o n t r i b u t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y to a person's l i f e s i t u a t i o n . S i g n i f i c a n c e o f the Study Because o f the demonstrated heterogeneous nature o f the a l c o h o l i c p o p u l a t i o n (Barnes, 1979)» i t i s important not only to i d e n t i f y v a l i d subgroupings but a l s o to extend and deepen our know-ledge r e g a r d i n g those subgroupings. Although the primary-secondary d i s t i n c t i o n appears to be a v i a b l e and v a l i d d i c h o t o m i z a t i o n , i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t we become thoroughly knowledgeable r e g a r d i n g the nature o f these subgroupings. In f a c t , Emrick (1976) has suggested t h a t a moratorium be p l a c e d on s t u d i e s t h a t do not take i n t o account the b a s i c h e t e r o g e n e i t y o f the a l c o h o l i c p o p u l a t i o n . I t i s o n l y r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t l y t h a t the heterogeneous nature o f a l c o h o l i c s has begun to r e c e i v e s u b s t a n t i a l r e s e a r c h a t t e n t i o n (Barnes, 1 9 7 9 ) . With the advent o f the primary-secondary d i s t i n -c t i o n between a l c o h o l i c s ( S c h u c k i t et a l . , 1 9 6 9 ) , a s i g n i f i c a n t realignment o f the area has become p o s s i b l e . I t seems obvious t h a t r e l i a b l e subgroupings with a c l i n i c a l p o p u l a t i o n can l e a d to a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n our knowledge not only o f the subgroup-8 i n g s themselves , hut a l s o the e t i o l o g y and p o s s i b l e treatment s t r a t e g i e s to be employed. The present r e s e a r c h i s an e f f o r t to g a i n a broader and more thorough knowledge o f two major subgroups w i t h i n the a l c o h o l i c p o p u l a t i o n . By d o i n g t h i s i t i s hoped t h a t a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d -i n g o f the e t i o l o g y , proper treatment s t r a t e g i e s , and p r o g n o s i s o f a l c o h o l i s m can be a c h i e v e d . L i m i t a t i o n s o f the Study The present r e s e a r c h i s designed to i n v e s t i g a t e the c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s o f pr imary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s a l o n g two p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s , ego development and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l . The r e s e a r c h i s not d i r e c t l y concerned with v a l i d a t i n g the pr imary-secondary dichotomy, but r a t h e r extending our knowledge o f t h i s dichotomy. The author accepts the dichotomy as v a l i d and u s e f u l , based both on r e s e a r c h (Blume, 1978) and p e r s o n a l experience over t h r e e years as a t h e r a p i s t a t an a l c o h o l t reatment c e n t e r . Matching the p r i m a r y - s e c o n d a r y a l c o h o l i c s on major v a r i a b l e s such as socio-economic s t a t u s , age, e d u c a t i o n , and p o l y - d r u g abuse i s d i f f i c u l t . I f p r i m a r y and secondary a l c o h o l i c s d i f f e r on ego development and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l , the next l o g i c a l q u e s t i o n i s : Ar< the d i f f e r e n c e s due to the pr imary-secondary d i s t i n c t i o n o r to the c o v a r i a t e s o f age, socio-economic s t a t u s , e d u c a t i o n , and/or p o l y - d r u g abuse. Secondary a l c o h o l i c s , presumably because o f t h e i r demonstrated e a r l y d i f f i c u l t i e s , seldom escape s o c i e t y ' s n o t i c e and t h e r e f o r e tend to become i n v o l v e d w i t h treatment at an e a r l y age. T h e i r 9 obvious antisocial tendencies also restrict their socio-economic development, their educational development, and predispose them towards poly-drug abuse (Schuckit, 1 9 7 3 ) • If an attempt i s made to match primary and secondary alcoholics on the variables of age, socio-economic status, educational level, and poly-drug abuse, the effort may result in our comparing primary alcoholics with very mild secondary alcoholics. Because of the nature of the primary-secondary dichotomy, secondary alcoholics are almost of necessity younger, lower in socio-economic status and educational level and certainly tend towards poly-drug abuse com-pared to primary alcoholics. Attempting to match on these variables may effectively remove the true secondary alcoholic from the study. Another approach to this limitation i s to show that each of our variables, ego development and locus of control, are indepen-dent of age, socio-economic status, education and poly-drug abuse. Loevinger ( 19 70) has reported very l i t t l e relationship between ego level and age after twenty years of age. There i s no specific research regarding socio-economic level and ego level. Regarding locus of control, Caster & Parsons ( 1 9 7 7 ) reported no significant correlation between age and locus of control in 9 8 alcoholics using Levenson'.s ( 1 9 7 3 ) locus of control scale. Poly-drug abuse i s generally considered symptomatic of under-lying social or personality disorders (Vaillant, 1978) and of course underlying social or personality disorders is the major characteris-t i c of secondary alcoholics. This effectively negates any serious attempt to match primaries and secondaries on this variable. In the o p i n i o n o f the present author, matching on age and p o l y -drug abuse i s i m p o s s i b l e while matching on socio-economic s t a t u s and e d u c a t i o n i s p o s s i b l e . Overview of the Study The t h e s i s as i n t r o d u c e d i n t h i s chapter w i l l proceed as f o l l o w s Chapter I I c o n t a i n s a review of the r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e and i s con-cluded by s t a t i n g the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s . T h i s i s f o l l o w e d i n Chap-t e r I I I by a d i s c u s s i o n of the methodology employed i n the study. The t h e s i s concludes in Chapters IV and V with a p r e s e n t a t i o n of the r e s u l t s of the study, d i s c u s s i o n of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of those r e s u l t s and suggestions f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . CHAPTER I I Review o f the L i t e r a t u r e I n t r o d u c t i o n The l i t e r a t u r e on p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the a l c o h o l i p o p u l a t i o n i s e x t e n s i v e (Barnes, 1979). The pr e s e n t review w i l l f o c u s on those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which support heterogeneous sub-t y p i n g s w i t h i n the a l c o h o l i c p o p u l a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , the concept o f ego development and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n terms o f how they may h e l p us to b e t t e r understand the h e t e r o g e n e i t y o f the a l c o h o l i c p o p u l a t i o n . Ego Develo-pment Jane L o e v i n g e r ' s concept o f ego development p r o v i d e s a com-p l e x and r i c h paradigm f o r understanding an i n d i v i d u a l ' s l e v e l o f i n t e g r a t i o n and frame o f r e f e r e n c e . The term ' i n t e g r a t i o n ' i s an enormous a b s t r a c t i o n based upon L o e v i n g e r ' s concept o f the f u l l y f u n c t i o n i n g human be i n g . T h i s s t r i v i n g towards a f u l l y f u n c t i o n -i n g human b e i n g i s not o f course unique to L o e v i n g e r ' s c o n c e p t i o n o f ego development. Others have attempted to d e l i n e a t e a s i m i l a r o r r e l a t e d c o n c e p t i o n o f human b e h a v i o r ( S u l l i v a n , Grant & Grant, 1957; Peck & Havinghurst, 1965; Maslow, 1962} and Kohlberg, 1964). L o e v i n g e r c o n c e i v e s o f ego development as u n i d i m e n s i o n a l . One broad category o f ego development encompasses what Lo e v i n g e r r e f e r s to as " f a c e t s o f a s i n g l e coherent p r o c e s s " (Loevinger, 1976, p. 2 6 ) These f o u r f a c e t s are (1) impulse c o n t r o l / m o r a l s t y l e ( 2 ) i n t e r -p e r s o n a l s t y l e (3) co n s c i o u s p r e o c c u p a t i o n s and (4) c o g n i t i v e s t y l The impulse control facet moves from the impulsiveness of the c h i l d to the sophisticated integration of inner c o n f l i c t s . The facet, interpersonal s t y l e , ranges from the almost a u t i s t i c i n -a b i l i t y of the infant to 'different iate_ vself. from- others to the in d i v i d u a l ' s cherishing of hie and other's i n d i v i d u a l i t y . The conscious preoccupation facet extends from the t o t a l l y egocentric g r a t i f i c a t i o n o f immediate needs to the ind i v i d u a l ' s coming to an appreciation of h i s own i d e n t i t y . The cognitive style facet deals with the common sense notion of conceptual complexity ranging from conceptual confusion to a sophisticated a b i l i t y to deal with complex r e l a t i o n s h i p s and ambiguities. In essence Loevinger has conceptualized the development of a dimension of human behavior which she f e e l s i s central to the essence of human development. Obviously, not everyone reaches the integrated l e v e l of function-ing. In fac t Loevinger suggests that approximately Ifo of the pop-lu a t i o n ever a t t a i n t h i s l e v e l of ego development. Loevinger attempts to tap the various l e v e l s of ego function-ing through a 36-item sentence completion t e s t . The test consists of sentence stems which are to be completed by the c l i e n t . The completed sentences are then rated according to s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i o n . Loevinger sees the developmental sequence as invariant and consisting of seven h i e r a r c h i c a l stages with three t r a n s i -lions. Hauser ( 1 9 7 6 ) has c r i t i q u e d the assumption of invariant order by pointing out that the only sat i s f a c t o r y way of te s t i n g t h i s i s through a lo n g i t u d i n a l , repeated measuring of the same ind i v i d u a l s over a substantial time period. The only research done to date ( B l a s i , 1 9 7 1 ) bearing on the invariant order question, while showing favorable r e s u l t s , was not a longitudinal study and thus inadequate. However, even i f such a l o n g i t u d i n a l study were done, n e g a t i v e r e s u l t s would not be c o n c l u s i v e evidence a g a i n s t i n v a r i a n t o r d e r because one c o u l d always argue t h a t the time i n t e r v a l s between t e s t i n g were too l o n g to c a t c h each develop-ment. And o f course i n t e r v a l s t h a t are too short, thus r e q u i r i n g many t e s t i n g s , : introduce.^considerable e r r o r ' i n t o ' t h e whole e x e r c i s e (Redmore & Waldman, 1975) . M a r t i n and Redmore (1978) obtained p o s i t i v e evidence f o r the i n v a r i a n t o r d e r o f ego development by r e t e s t i n g B l a s i ' s (1971) s i x t h graders when they were i n the t w e l f t h grade. 1-2 ( i m p u l s i v e ) was the median f o r the s i x t h g raders and 1-3 ( c o n f o r m i s t ) f o r the t w e l f t h graders. T h i r t y o f 32 s u b j e c t s r e t e s t e d showed i n c r e a s e s i n ego l e v e l . Even though the above study argues f o r i n v a r i a n t order, we cannot be sure of th s i n c e s i x y e a r s i n t e r v e n e d between t e s t i n g s . O b v i o u s l y , we cannot be sure i f the i n t e r v e n i n g ego l e v e l s of d e l t a ( s e l f - p r o t e c -t i v e ) and delta/3-were passed through o r skipped s i n c e t h e r e i s no data on t h i s . T h e r e f o r e , even though M a r t i n & Redmore's (1978) r e s u l t s are i n the r i g h t d i r e c t i o n t h e i r data i s i n no way con-c l u s i v e evidence f o r i n v a r i a n t o r d e r . Jane L o e v i n g e r ' s concept o f ego development can be c o n s i d e r e d a 'master t r a i t ' , a frame o f r e f e r e n c e around which the c o n s t r u c -t i o n o f p e r s o n a l i t y o c c u r s . Ego development i s e s p e c i a l l y u s e f u l not o n l y because Jane L o e v i n g e r and her c o l l e a g u e s have developed a f a i r l y r i g o r o u s t o o l f o r i t s a n a l y s i s , but a l s o because o f the breadth o f the concept. M o r a l i z a t i o n , i n t e g r a t i o n , r e l a t a b i l i t y , s e l f - s y s t e m , and c o g n i t i v e complexity are c r i t i c a l n o t i o n s w i t h i n the framework o f ego development (Hauser, 1976). These as p e c t s p r o v i d e us with an extremely useful-window on a person's f u n c t i o n -14 i n g . L o e v i n g e r has r e d e f i n e d the t r a d i t i o n a l concept o f ego u s u a l l y viewed w i t h i n a framework o f psychosexual o r i n t e l l e c t u a l development with a f a r r i c h e r and broader c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n . I t ' s b r e a d t h and depth i s perhaps one o f the g r e a t e s t s t r e n g t h s o f Loe-v i n g e r ' s concept. Thus when we a p p l y t h i s paradigm to an i n d i v i d u a l we are able to g a i n a depth and b r e a d t h o f understanding t h a t i s not e a s i l y matched. T h i s r i c h n e s s , ..in c o n j u n c t i o n with the i n h e r e n t developmental nature o f ego, a l l o w s us to not o n l y view a person w i t h i n the context o f time but a l s o w i t h i n a m u l t i f a c e t e d conceptual framework. Much o f the r e s e a r c h to date has been concerned p r i m a r i l y with e s t a b l i s h i n g the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y o f ego development. I n t e r r a t e r c o r r e l a t i c n s o f between .? 6 and . 9 2 have been c o n s i s -t e n t l y shown ( L o e v i n g e r & Wessler, 1 9 7 0 ; Cox, 1974; Hoppe, 1 9 7 2 ) . R e l i a b i l i t y o f the sentence completion t e s t has g e n e r a l l y been c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h (Redmore & Waldman, 1 9 7 5 ) . T e s t - r e t e s t , and s p l i t h a l f measurements o f r e l i a b i l i t y have c o n s i s t e n t l y been o b t a i n e d i n the . 7 9 to .91 range. There i s , however, a s t r o n g s u g g e s t i o n by Redmore and Waldman ( 1 9 7 5 ) t h a t " m o t i v a t i o n a l s e t s " can have important i n f l u e n c e on r a t e d ego l e v e l . I t i s encumbent on the t e s t e r to ensure t h a t the s u b j e c t s understand t h a t t h e i r responses should be a c l e a r and s e r i o u s r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e i r t r u e thoughts and f e e l i n g s and not simply responses to the p e r c e i v e d demands o f the s i t u a t i o n . A great d e a l o f work has been done concerning the v a l i d i t y o f ego development. Paramount among the approaches to the q u e s t i o n o f v a l i d i t y i s , o f course, c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y . I s the c o n s t r u c t o f ego development a v i a b l e and u s e f u l one both i n i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to o t h e r v a r i a b l e s and i n terms o f i t s own s t r u c t u r a l i n t e g r i t y . S e v e r a l s t u d i e s (e.g., Frank & Quinlan, 1976 ; Hoppe & Loevinger, 1972) have been done attempting to r e l a t e ego l e v e l to r e a l l i f e b e h a v i o r s . These attempts have not always met with success. A n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n i s the r e s e a r c h o f Frank and Qu i n l a n ( 1 9 7 6 ) . They i n v e s t i g a t e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d e l i n q u e n t b e h a v i o r s and ego development. T h e i r s u b j e c t s were 66 m i n o r i t y female a d o l e s c e n t s . The study found t h a t the s u b j e c t s t h a t were c a t e g o r i z e d as d e l i n q u e n t s were found to be at a lower ego develop-ment l e v e l than those not c a t e g o r i z e d as d e l i n q u e n t . In f a c t 85$ o f the 1-2 s u b j e c t s came from the d e l i n q u e n t group while o n l y 9 1/2$ at o r above the D e l t a / 3 l e v e l were d e l i n q u e n t a d o l e s c e n t s . I t ' s a l s o i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t s u b j e c t s at D e l t a and lower r e p o r t e d s i g n i f -i c a n t l y more i n c i d e n c e s o f f i g h t i n g , homosexuality and running away than the a d o l e s c e n t s a t a l l the o t h e r stages. Hoppe and Loevinger'( 1 9 7 2 ), another impressive exception, showed t h a t c o n f o r m i t y b e h a v i o r s measured i n a v a r i e t y o f ways were maximu" i n those s u b j e c t s , middle c l a s s a d o l e s c e n t boys, r a t e d by the sentence completion t e s t as f a l l i n g i n the conf o r m i s t range ( D e l t a / 3 , I - 3 » 1-3/4) as opposed to p r e - c o n f o r m i s t ( 1 - 2 , D e l t a ) and p o s t - c o n f o r m i s t s ( 1 - 4 , 1 - 4 / 5 , 1 - 5 ) • O t h e r s have had d i f f i c u l t y showing r e l a t i o n s h i p s . De Loach ( 1 9 7 6 ) found t h a t stage o f ego f u n c t i o n i n g as measured by the Washington U n i v e r s i t y Sentence Completion Test (Loevinger, 1970) f a i l e d to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between s u b j e c t s who continued i n i n d i v i d u a l psychotherapy f o r more than one month from s u b j e c t s who f a i l e d to be g i n o r who terminated therapy w i t h i n the f i r s t month. De Loach a l s o r e p o r t e d t h a t the degree o f psychopathology (MMPI) and ego 1 6 strength were unrelated to ego development l e v e l . Nemroff (1975) hypothesized that sympathy towards women's ri g h t s issues would be p o s i t i v e l y related to ego development while stereotyped . domestic sex-role behaviors would be negatively related to ego development l e v e l . Although there were expected trends i n the data, neither hypothesis was confirmed. Comeau ( 1 9 7 7 ) hypothesized that ego development would be stimulated by an academic t r a i n i n g program involving t r a i n i n g i n empathy and cognitive complexity. Ego development was found not to increase as a function of t h i s program. The author did, however, point out several inadequacies of the program which mitigated against increase i n ego development. Studies concerned with the re l a t i o n s h i p between ego l e v e l and i n t e l l i g e n c e or verbal fluency have generally shown s a t i s f a c t o r i l y low c o r r e l a t i o n . B l a s i (197l ) t and Hoppe (1972) showed c o r r e l a -t i o n between IQ and ego l e v e l of .46-.50 and .14 respectively. Loevinger & Wessler (1970) showed s i m i l a r l y low correlations ( . 2 3 to . 5 1 ) between number of words i n a protocol and ego l e v e l . One i n t e r e s t i n g recent study by Head and Shayer (1980) showed that 12-14 year old g i r l s scored higher on ego development than 12-14 year o l d boys. However, by age 17 t h i s difference was no longer present. Also, at age 14 boys opting for science showed lower ego l e v e l s than boys opting f o r the humanities. From the preceding l i t e r a t u r e review one can hopefully appreciate the pote n t i a l of the concept of ego development. However, i t also seems clear that the notion of ego development i s s t i l l i n i t s i n f a n c y . There i s a c o n t i n u i n g need to b e t t e r d e f i n e the boundaries o f uses to which the ego development t o o l may be a p p l i e d . Locus o f C o n t r o l R o t t e r (1966) has c h a r a c t e r i z e d people's n o t i o n r e g a r d i n g degree o f c o n t r o l over what happens to them as e i t h e r p r i m a r i l y i n t e r n a l i n o r i e n t a t i o n o r e x t e r n a l . I n t e r n a l l y o r i e n t e d people appear to be b e t t e r p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y a d j u s t e d i n comparison to those t h a t view t h e i r l i v e s as p r i m a r i l y under the c o n t r o l o f e x t e r n a l i n f l u e n c e s ( E p s t e i n & Komorita, 1970; F i t c h , 1970; Joe, 1971; Seligman, 1973) . Phares (1976) has p o s t u l a t e d t h a t a d j u s t -ment and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l were r e a l l y r e l a t e d i n a c u r v i l i n e a r way. Extreme i n t e r n a l i z e r s or e x t e r n a l i z e r s are prob a b l y p o o r l y a d j u s t e d w hile people who score i n the middle are l i k e l y to be b e t t e r a d j u s t e d . There has been some c r i t i c i s m o f R o t t e r ' s s c a l e as assuming an un i d i m e n s i o n a l nature to degree o f p e r c e i v e d c o n t r o l over one's l i f e . M i r e l s (1970) has noted t h a t R o t t e r ' s s c a l e com-b i n e s c o n t r o l over one's p e r s o n a l l i f e w ith c o n t r o l over the "system" Levenson (1973) has i n f a c t come up with a v e r s i o n o f the s c a l e which separates out these v a r i o u s p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Research with t h i s new s c a l e has f a i l e d to r e s o l v e the un i d i m e n s i o n a l vs. multidimen-s i o n a l d i s c u s s i o n r e g a r d i n g l o c u s o f c o n t r o l . R o t t e r (1975) suggests many reasons f o r the c o n f u s i o n b e s i d e s the p o s s i b i l i t y o f m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y . 18 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the A l c o h o l i c Although many i n v e s t i g a t o r s see no c o n s i s t e n t p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which d i f f e r e n t i a t e a l c o h o l i c s from non a l c o h o l i c s (Tremper, 1972; Zucker & Van'Horn, 1972; Nathan, 1976, 1979; L a w l i s & Rubin, 1971; T i e b o u t , 1946; Wexberg, 19^9)» o t h e r s suggest c e r t a i n t r a i t s o r p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which should c e r t a i n l y be c o n s i d e r e d . Catanzaro (1967, p. 58) has p o i n t e d out the f o l l o w -i n g p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as b e i n g most important to a l c o h o l abuse i (1) a h i g h l e v e l o f a n x i e t y i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s ; (2) emotional immaturity; (3) ambivalence toward a u t h o r i t y ; (4) low f r u s t r a t i o n t o l e r a n c e ; (5) g r a n d i o s i t y ; (6) low s e l f esteem; (7) f e e l i n g s o f i s o l a t i o n ; (8) p e r f e c t i o n i s m ; (9) g u i l t ; (10) compulsiveness; (11) angry over-dependency; (12) s e x - r o l e c o n f u s i o n ; (13) i n a b i l i t y to express angry f e e l i n g s adequately. Catanzaro (1967) while su g g e s t i n g the above d e s c r i p t o r s o f a l c o h o l i c s i s c e r t a i n l y not t a k i n g i n t o account the c l e a r h e t e r o -g e n e i t y o f the a l c o h o l i c p o p u l a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , the above d e s c r i -p t o r s should p r o b a b l y be viewed not as a d e s c r i p t i o n o f every a l c o h o l i c but r a t h e r as o f f e r i n g an overview w i t h i n which there are numerous subgroupings with s p e c i f i c combinations and l e v e l s o f the above g e n e r a l l y maladaptive c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . W i l l i a m s , (1968) MacAndrew, (1965) ; O v e r a l l & P a t r i c k (1972) and Dahlstrom et a l . (1972) among o t h e r s , have demonstrated t h a t the MMPI i s s e n s i t i v e to s e v e r i t y o f a l c o h o l abuse. The MMPI su b s c a l e s most s e n s i t i v e were the psychopathic d e v i a t e s c a l e , the d e p r e s s i o n s c a l e , and the p s y c h o s t e n i a s c a l e . The a l c o h o l i c t y p i c a l l y s c o r e s h i g h on each o f these sub s c a l e s . 1 9 Numerous o t h e r t o o l s have been used to i d e n t i f y a l c o h o l i c subgroupings. Among them the S i x t e e n P e r s o n a l i t y F a c t o r Q u e s t i o n -n a i r e (16PF), and the Rorschach ( C l o p t o n , 1978; Barnes, 1979). One c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t a c r o s s numerous s t u d i e s i s the v a r i e t y o f r e s u l t s w h i l e s t i l l m a i n t a i n i n g some ge n e r a l s i m i l a r i t i e s (Barnes, 1979. Clopton, 1978). One apparent e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the d i v e r s e r e s u l t s appears to be i n the h e t e r o g e n e i t y o f the a l c o h o l i c pop-u l a t i o n . Subgroupings W i t h i n the A l c o h o l i c P o p u l a t i o n C o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h has supported the heterogeneous nature o f the a l c o h o l i c p o p u l a t i o n (Blume, 1978; J e l l i n e k , I 9 6 0 ; Barnes, 1979. Clopton, 1978). Work with the MMPI has shown s p e c i f i c d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n w i t h i n the a l c o h o l i c p o p u l a t i o n on the psychopathic d e v i a t e s c a l e , the d e p r e s s i o n s c a l e , and the ps y c h a s t h e n i a s c a l e ( G o l d s t e i n & Linden, 1969; Whitelock et a l . , 1971; Rosen, I 9 6 0 ; Brown, 1 9 5 0 ) . The 16PF has a l s o been used to d i f f e r e n t i a t e a l c o -h o l i c subgroupings (Walton, I 9 6 8 ; L a w l i s & Rubin, 1971t Nerviano & Gross, 1 9 7 3 ) . A v a r i e t y o f c l u s t e r s were found d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g v a r i o u s subgroupings. One s u b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme t h a t seemed e s p e c i a l l y r e l i a b l e noted three subgroups; m a l a d a p t i v e - f r u s t r a t e d , s o c i o p a t h i c , and a g g r e s s i v e ( L a w l i s & Rubin, 1971)• Even r e s e a r c h e r u s i n g the Rorschach have commented on the h e t e r o g e n e i t y o f a l c o h o l i c response p r o f i l e s (Rudie & McGaughran, 1961; B e r t r a n d & Masleng, 1 9 6 9 ) . The r e s e a r c h to date, .-although l a c k i n g o v e r a l l cohesion r e g a r d i n g the nature o f the h e t e r o g e n e i t y o f a l c o h o l i c s , has d e f i n i t e l y p o i n t e d towards the e x i s t e n c e o f a l c o h o l i c subgroup-i n g s . In f a c t the d i f f e r e n c e s between v a r i o u s subgroupings o f a l c o h o l i c s i s o f t e n c o n s i d e r e d g r e a t e r than the d i f f e r e n c e s between a l c o h o l i c s and normals (Rosen, i 9 6 0 ) . C e r t a i n l y a s t r o n g d i s t i n c -t i o n t h a t has emerged i s the d i f f e r e n c e between Primary and Secondary a l c o h o l i c s (Blume, 1978j S c h u c k i t e t a l . , 1969s S c h u c k i t , 1973; Madsen, 1974; S c h u c k i t & Gunderson, 1975s Fox, 1957) . I n f a c t Blume (1978, p. 13) s t a t e s t h a t , "...the most important and p r o -d u c t i v e s u b t y p i n g i s ... primary v e r s u s ... secondary a l c o h o l i s m . " Ego Development and the A l c o h o l i c The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h i s d i r e c t e d toward the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the concept, ego development to the c l i n i c a l problem o f a l c o h o l i s m . As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned the p e r s o n a l i t y o f the " a l c o h o l i c " has not always been e a s i l y a s c e r t a i n e d . In f a c t Franks ( 1970) has suggested t r a d i t i o n a l p sychometrics i s p r o b a b l y inadequate f o r the task o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the p e r s o n a l i t y o f the a l c o h o l i c . In s p i t e o f t h i s , some r e s e a r c h e r s (e.g. Jones, 1968; Armor, P o l i c h & Sta n b u l , 1976) c l a i m to have i s o l a t e d c e r t a i n t e n d e n c i e s such as s t r e s s t o l e r a n c e , dependency, i s o l a t i o n , d e p r e s s i o n , and impul-s i v i t y i n the e t i o l o g y o f the a l c o h o l i c . Many o f the d e s c r i p t i v e a d j e c t i v e s r e l a t i n g to the " a l c o h o l i c " p e r s o n a l i t y have d i r e c t c o r r e l a t e s i n Jane L o e v i n g e r ' s concept o f ego development. The Ego Development Sc a l e i s e s p e c i a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e i n view o f the p e r s o n a l i t y f a c e t s the s c a l e i s designed to r e v e a l . D e f i -c i e n c i e s i n these f a c e t s (impulse c o n t r o l / c h a r a c t e r development, i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t y l e , conscious p r e o c c u p a t i o n s and c o g n i t i v e s t y l e ) have a l l been a l l u d e d to as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f subgrouping o f persons who abuse a l c o h o l (Cantanzaro, 1 9 6 7 ; Poley, 1 9 7 4 ) . The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h i s f o c u s i n g on the n o t i o n o f developmental s t a g -n a t i o n , f i x i t y o r stuntedness o f the secondary a l c o h o l i c which should be d i s c e r n i b l e when a p p l y i n g the concept o f ego develop-ment to p e r s o n a l i t y growth. Because o f the general maladjustment o f secondary a l c o h o l i c s i t i s reasonable to assume t h a t they would be u n l i k e l y to pursue the s o l u t i o n t o t h e i r problems i n a way t h a t would encourage normal p e r s o n a l i t y development. The primary a l c o h o l i c , however, would be expected to experience more s u b s t a n t i a l p e r s o n a l i t y development and g e n e r a l l y be b e t t e r a d j u s t e d (Fox, 1957; Blume, 1978). I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t the secondary a l c o -h o l i c ' s ego l e v e l w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than t h a t o f the primary a l c o h o l i c . There has been very l i t t l e r e s e a r c h on ego development and the a l c o h o l i c Harvey (1976) f a i l e d to show any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between a l c o h o l i c and n o n - a l c o h o l i c women.in t h e i r l e v e l o f ego development. Harvey's r e s e a r c h d i d not d i s t i n g u i s h between primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s . Locus o f C o n t r o l and the A l c o h o l i c Although t h e r e have been numerous r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s d i r e c t e d towards d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g a l c o h o l i c s from n o n - a l c o h o l i c s i n terms o f t h e i r i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l l o c u s o f c o n t r o l ( B u t t s & C h o t l o s , 1973? C o s t e l l o & Manders, 197^; D i s t e f a n o et a l . , 1972; G o z a l i & Sloan, 1971; Donavan & O'Leary, 1975)1 t h e r e has been l i t t l e r e s e a r c h r e g a r d i n g l o c u s o f c o n t r o l and a l c o h o l i c subtypes. However, because o f the confused nature o f the r e s u l t s to date (Barnes, 1979) i t seems reasonable t h a t an e f f o r t to look at the source o f h e t e r o -2 2 g e n e i t y , i . e . , a l c o h o l i c subtypes, might produce more c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s . In f a c t o t h e r s (O'Leary et a l . , 1974, 1976) have found t h a t i n t e r n a l l y o r i e n t e d a l c o h o l i c s tend t o be l e s s c l i n i c a l l y maladjusted than e x t e r n a l l y o r i e n t e d a l c o h o l i c s . T h i s o f course c o i n c i d e s with the present r e s e a r c h h y p o t h e s i s . Summary The l i t e r a t u r e on the p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a l c o h o l i c s has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been a confused area. A reasonable e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s i n v o l v e s the n o t i o n o f h e t e r o g e n e i t y , i . e . , a l c o h o l i c subtypes. The two most impressive subtypes thus f a r d e l i n e a t e d are the primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c . Two p e r s o n a l i t y dimen-s i o n s t h a t can o f f e r the a l c o h o l r e s e a r c h e r and t h e r a p i s t i n c r e a s e d knowledge r e g a r d i n g the o b j e c t o f t h e i r e f f e c t s are ego development and the i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l dimension. Knowledge r e g a r d i n g the d i f f e r e n c e s between primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s a l o n g these two p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions can o f f e r us a more ind e p t h know-ledge o f the heterogeneous nature o f a l c o h o l i s m . The Purpose Restated The present r e s e a r c h i s designed to attempt to s p e c i f y the d i f f e r e n c e s between primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s a l o n g the p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions o f ego development and i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l l o c u s o f c o n t r o l . 2 3 Research Questions The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h h y p o t h e s i s can be s t a t e d i n two p a r t s : 1) Primary a l c o h o l i c s - w i l l : . h a v e a h i g h e r average ego l e v e l as measured by Loevinger*s Ego Development S c a l e than secondary, a l c o h o l i c s . 2) Primary a l c o h o l i c s w i l l have a lower average score on R o t t e r ' s (1966) Locus o f C o n t r o l S cale than secondary a l c o h o l i c s . CHAPTER III Methodology Subjects Twenty seven male alco h o l i c s ; 13 primary and 14 secondary inpatients at P a c i f i c a Treatment Centre, served as subjects. Groups were matched on: mean education, and socio-economic level''. A l l subjects were i n residence at the time of completing the ego development sentence completion te s t which was administered during the second week of treatment. Each subject signed a consent form ( see Appendix). The treatment at P a c i f i c a consists of a four-week, five-day per week, intensive r e s i d e n t i a l program. The c l i e n t ' s time i s heavily structured and revolves around group therapy. Cl i e n t s have weekends free. Each c l i e n t i s put i n a group of approx-imately 10 where he stays for the duration of treatment. Two counsellors stay with a p a r t i c u l a r group f o r the entire four week pro gram. D i f f e r e n t i a t i n g Primary from Secondary Alcoholics One hundred and three male al c o h o l i c s were screened over a period of four months for designation as either primary or secondary. Twenty seven o f these were c l e a r l y distinguishable as either primary or secondary a l c o h o l i c s . The i n i t i a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was determined on the basis of questionnaires (see Appendix) handed out i n group, explained, and 24 25 t i m e g i v e n f o r c o m p l e t i n g t h e m . The p r i m a r y r e s e a r c h e r d i s t r i b u t e d and c o l l e c t e d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . C a t e g o r i z i n g a s u b j e c t a s e i t h e r a p r i m a r y o r s e c o n d a r y a l c o -h o l i c was a c c o m p l i s h e d b y u s i n g a c o m p o s i t e o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r -i o n . Any c a s e s w h i c h were n o t c l e a r c u t were n o t i n c l u d e d . A p e r s o n was d e s i g n a t e d a p r i m a r y a l c o h o l i c i f : 1) t h e r e was no h i s t o r y o f any m a j o r p s y c h i a t r i c d i s o r d e r , e . g . , a n t i s o c i a l p e r s o n a l i t y o r s o c i o - p a t h o l o g y a n t e d a t i n g a l c o h o l i c a b u s e , 2) t h e y had a s t a b l e work h i s t o r y p r i o r t o a l c o h o l a b u s e , 3) no p o l i c e r e c o r d p r i o r t o a l c o h o l a b u s e , 4) no h i s t o r y o f any b e h a v i o r a l i n s t a b i l i t i e s p r i o r t o a l c o h o l a b u s e , i . e . , f r e q u e n t r u n n i n g away f r o m home a s a c h i l d o r a d o l e s c e n t , r e p e a t e d a g g r e s s i v e , h o s t i l e a c t s ; s e x u a l p r o m i s c u i t y , l y i n g , e t c . A p e r s o n was d e s i g n a t e d a s e c o n d a r y a l c o h o l i c i f t h e r e was a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n o f a n t i s o c i a l o r s o c i o p a t h i c b e h a v i o r s p r i o r t o t h e o n s e t o f a l c o h o l a b u s e . A t l e a s t f o u r o f t h e f o l l o w i n g b e h a v i o r s were i n e v i d e n c e b e f o r e l a b e l i n g a s u b j e c t a s a s e c o n d a r y a l c o h o l i c ( S c h u c k i t , 1 9 7 3 ) ' 1) r e p e a t e d t r u a n c y , o r s u s p e n s i o n o r e x p u l -s i o n f r o m s c h o o l on a t l e a s t t h r e e t o f i v e o c c a s i o n s ; 2) r e p e a t e d r u n n i n g away f r o m home f o r a t l e a s t o v e r n i g h t ; 3) two o r more n o n -t r a f f i c p o l i c e o f f e n s e s , f o u r o r more a r r e s t s o f any t y p e , o r a t l e a s t one f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n ; 4) work h i s t o r y c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y r e p e a t e d l y b e i n g d i s m i s s e d ( t h r e e o r more) o r f r e q u e n t i m p u l s i v e j o b c h a n g e s ; 5) r e p e a t e d o u t b u r s t s o f r a g e o r f i g h t i n g ( t h r e e o r m o r e ) ; 6 ) f l a g r a n t s e x u a l p r o m i s c u i t y , e . g . , numerous c a s u a l s e x u a l p a r t n e r s r e p o r t e d , p r o s t i t u t i o n o r p i m p i n g ; 7) a p e r i o d o f w a n d e r l u s t w i t h s i x months o r more o f w a n d e r i n g w i t h no a r r a n g e d j o b o r f i x e d abode; 8 ) p e r s i s t e n t and r e p e a t e d l y i n g o r u s e o f an a l i a s . 26 In a d d i t i o n , f u r t h e r i n t e r v i e w i n g as w e l l as c o n s u l t a t i o n with o t h e r t h e r a p i s t s , f a m i l y , and examination o f c l i e n t ' s r e c o r d s o c c u r r e d b e f o r e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n was f i n a l i z e d . Each c a t e g o r i z a t i o n was v e r i f i e d by two o t h e r t h e r a p i s t s and any major disagreement r e s u l t e d i n the s u b j e c t b e i n g removed from the study. The C l i n i c a l T o o l s , A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and S c o r i n g Ego Development S c a l e . The Ego Development Sentence Comple-t i o n T e s t c o n s i s t s o f 37 sentence stems, i n c l u d i n g one a d d i t i o n , " A l c o h o l seems to ." Male forms o f the t e s t were used ( see Appendix). The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the t e s t was done a c c o r d i n g to L oevinger, ( 1 9 7 6 ) . Item s c o r i n g f o l l o w e d the c r i t e r i o n as p r o v i d e d b y L o e v i n g e r et a l . ( 1 9 7 0 ) , and t o t a l p r o t o c o l r a t i n g used the ogive method (L o e v i n g e r et a l . , 1 9 7 0 ) . The r a t e r s c o n s i s t e d o f the author and one o t h e r t r a i n e d r a t e r , a d o c t o r a l l e v e l p s y c h o l o g i s t . Rater t r a i n i n g i s an e s p e c i a l l y important f a c e t o f any study i n v o l v i n g the ego development s c a l e . The r a t e r s i n the present study completed L o e v i n g e r ' s 2-3 month s e l f t r a i n i n g procedures as d i s c u s s e d i n L o e v i n g e r et a l ' s . , 1 9 7 0 , V o l . 1 T r a i n -i n g Manual. I n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y was obtained on p r a c t i c e p r o -t o c o l s and was c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h (90%-95% agreement). Each item was independently r a t e d py each r a t e r . An i n t e r -r a t e r c o r r e l a t i o n o f . 8 1 was o b t a i n e d over a l l items r a t e d . T h i s i s i n l i n e with p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g s (Loevinger & Wessler, 1 9 7 0 ) . Disagreements were i d e n t i f i e d and d i s c u s s e d . The vast m a j o r i t y o f disagreements were modest i n terms o f assigned ego l e v e l , and u s u a l l y a consensus was easy to r e a c h . I f no consensus c o u l d be reached i n a reasonable l e n g t h o f time, a mean ego l e v e l g i v e n by the two 27 r a t e r s was used, but t h i s was r a r e l y necessary. S c o r i n g was done u s i n g the d e t a i l e d s c o r i n g manual o f Loevinger, Wessler and Redmore ( 1 9 7 0 ) . Ego stages o f the s c a l e . The f i r s t stage i s h a r d l y worth mentioning i n terms o f the sentence completion task s i n c e i t i s prelanguage, p r e s o c i a l , and c h a r a c t e r i z e d i n i t s l a t e r stage by a symbiotic dependence o f the i n f a n t on the mother. T h i s stage i s known as the 1-1 stage and i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the words p r e s o c i a l and symbiotic. The second stage i s o f more i n t e r e s t . -fThis stage i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the word 'im p u l s i v e * . One's moral c h a r a c t e r (impulse c o n t r o l ) r e v o l v e s around the s i m p l i s t i c n o t i o n o f bad and good, punishment and reward. A person at t h i s l e v e l i s dependent, e x p l o i t a t i v e , and extremely s e l f centered ( i n t e r p e r s o n a l ) . Con- s c i o u s p r e o c c u p a t i o n s cent e r around b o d i l y impulses, e s p e c i a l l y sexual and a g g r e s s i v e . The c o g n i t i v e s t y l e i s one o f e x c e s s i v e s t e r e o t y p i n g and a g e n e r a l conceptual c o n f u s i o n . There i s a l a c k o f understanding o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l c a u s a t i o n . T r o u b l e i s not seen as r e s u l t i n g from w i t h i n but r a t h e r as some e x t e r n a l event or s i t -u a t i o n . The sentence stem, "The t h i n g I l i k e about myself i s ^ may be answered wi t h the word "nothing" o r the phrase "I am cute" o r "I am c l e a n " . The next stage i s c a l l e d D e l t a and i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the word ' s e l f p r o t e c t i v e ' . C o n t r o l o f impulses i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by m a n i p u l a t i n g and e x p l o i t a t i o n . Conscious p r e o c c u p a t i o n i s w i t h t h i n g s , advantages, t a k i n g c o n t r o l g e n e r a l l y s e l f p r o t e c t i v e . C o g n i t i v e s t y l e i s moving, or i n t r a n s i t i o n , from conceptual con-28 f u s i o n to conceptual s i m p l i c i t y . A D e l t a response to the p r e -v i o u s l y mentioned sentence stem "The t h i n g I l i k e about myself i s " might be " a l l o f me" o r "I am so l o v e a b l e " , There i s a g e n e r a l denying o f f a u l t s and d e f e c t s and an e x a g g e r a t i o n o f v i r t u e s . The next stage i s r e a l l y a t r a n s i t i o n a l stage between the s e l f p r o t e c t i v e n e s s o f the D e l t a to the Conformist o f I-J. T h i s stage i s a p p r o p r i a t e l y l a b e l l e d D e l t a - 3 . There i s an obediance and conforming to s o c i a l norms t h a t i s s i m p l i s t i c , almost t r i t e (impulse c o n t r o l ) . I n t e r p e r s o n a l s t y l e i s s t i l l c h a r a c t e r i z e d by m a n i p u l a t i v e n e s s w i t h the a d d i t i o n o f obediance. Conscious p r e - o c c u p a t i o n h a s moved from s e l f p r o t e c t i o n t o p h y s i c a l c a u s a t i o n , a n d c o n c e r n w i t h t h e c o n c r e t e a s p e c t s o f t r a d i t i o n a l s e x r o l e s . C o g n i t i v e s t y l e i s s i m p l i s t i c and s t e r e o t y p i c . The sentence stem "The t h i n g I l i k e about m y s e l f i s " i s o f t e n answered with s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e to one f e a t u r e o f the body such as "my eyes", o r "my s m i l e " o r "my body". The next phase i s l a b e l l e d 1-3 and c e n t e r s around the word 'conformist' ( s t a g e s p r i o r to t h i s l e v e l are o f t e n r e f e r r e d to as " P r e - c o n f o r m i s t " ) . Impulse i s now under the c o n t r o l o f e x t e r n a l r u l e s . F e e l i n g s o f shame and g u i l t manifest themselves at t h i s l e v e l . There i s a g r e a t sense o f b e l o n g i n g , e s p e c i a l l y to s p e c i f i c and w e l l d e l i n e a t e d groups. Thus the i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t y l e moves toward concern f o r t h e group. Conscious p r e o c c u p a t i o n i s now centered around s o c i a l a c c e p t a b i l i t y and such banal f e e l i n g s a s happy, sad, and g l a d . The c o n f o r m i s t i s d e v e l o p i n g an i n n e r l i f e , b u t i t i s s t i l l r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l i s t i c . The c o g n i t i v e s t y l e i s 2 9 s t i l l c o n c e p t u a l l y s i m p l i s t i c , s t e r e o t y p i c and prone to cliche's. The sentence stem "The t h i n g I l i k e about myself i s " c e n t e r s around responses concerned w i t h s o c i a b i l i t y , e.g. "I la u g h a l o t , " "I'm a t r u e f r i e n d " , "I'm c o n s i d e r a t e " . The next stage i s another t r a n s i t i o n stage. The person i s moving from the c o n f o r m i s t to the c o n s c i e n t i o u s 1-4. T h i s stage i s l a b e l l e d the 1-3/4 stage and, a c c o r d i n g to Lo e v i n g e r , i s the mode f o r the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n . Impulse c o n t r o l i s now coming under more s o p h i s t i c a t e d c o n t r o l o f standards and c o n t i n g e n c i e s . I n t e r p e r s o n a l s t y l e i s .moving, i n t o a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d concern f o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s with o t h e r s . Conscious p r e o c c u p a t i o n i s with the s e l f as separate from the group, and a r e c o g n i t i o n o f an i n n e r l i f e o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l c a u s a t i o n . C o g n i t i v e s t y l e i s now moving from conceptual s i m p l i c i t y to a more complex awareness o f d i f f e r -i n g human a t t i t u d e s , i n t e r e s t s and a b i l i t i e s . The sentence stem "The t h i n g I l i k e about myself i s " i s o f t e n answered with such responses as "I t r y to get al o n g with everyone", or "I get p l e a s u r e out o f h e l p i n g o t h e r s " , o r "I always t r y to be honest w i t h o t h e r s " . The 1-4 o r c o n s c i e n t i o u s stage has i n t e r n a l i z e d the r u l e s o f the game. Impulse c o n t r o l now comes from w i t h i n i n the form o f s e l f e v a l u a t e d standards. I n t e r p e r s o n a l s t y l e i s i n t e n s i v e , r e s -ponsive and mutual; a genuine concern f o r communication between people. Conscious p r e o c c u p a t i o n i s with a r i c h and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n n e r l i f e . F e e l i n g s are more f i n e l y tuned. Achievement and s e l f r e s p e c t are c e n t r a l to the 1-4's thoughts. C o g n i t i v e s t y l e has n a t u r a l l y become more complex. Things are no l o n g e r c l a s s e d 30 s i m p l i s t i c a l l y as r i g h t o r wrong, but more i n terms o f p o l a r i t i e s such as dependent v e r s u s independent. The sentence stem "The T h i n g I l i k e about myself i s " may be answered with "that I have perseverence and courage and f o l l o w my own c o n v i c t i o n s " . The t r a n s i t i o n from c o n s c i e n t i o u s 1-4 to Autonomous 1-5 i s c a l l e d 1-4/5 and i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an i n c r e a s i n g a b i l i t y to cope with i n n e r c o n f l i c t (impulse c o n t r o l ) . An i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t y l e which has moved from i n t e n s i v e i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s to a c h e r i s h i n g o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s . Conscious p r e o c c u p a t i o n i s with communicating and e x p r e s s i n g i d e a s and f e e l i n g s . C o C T i t i v e  s t y l e i s not o n l y c o n c e p t u a l l y complex, but i n c l u d e s an a b i l i t y to t o l e r a t e c o n t r a d i c t i o n and see the paradoxes o f l i f e . The 1-4/5 c l i e n t may respond to the sentence stem "The thing I l i k e about myself i s " with "that I am honest about myself, o b j e c t i v e about myself. The l a s t stage t h a t o c c u r s w i t h any s i g n i f i c a n t frequency i s the 1-5 l e v e l . Coping with i n n e r c o n f l i c t , needs and d u t i e s , becomes more s o p h i s t i c a t e d at t h i s l e v e l (impulse c o n t r o l ) . I n t e r - p e r s o n a l s t y l e i s not o n l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a c h e r i s h i n g o f r e l a -t i o n s h i p s but a l s o r e s p e c t f o r the autonomy o f the i n d i v i d u a l i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p . Conscious p r e o c c u p a t i o n i s a v i v i d and f u l l i n t e -g r a t i o n o f p h y s i o l o g i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l c a u s a t i o n . And o f course the autonomous person i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a s o p h i s t i c a t e d c onceptual complexity, t o l e r a t i o n f o r ambiguity and a more sweeping concern f o r s o c i a l i d e a s and j u s t i c e ( c o g n i t i v e s t y l e ) . The sentence stem "The t h i n g I l i k e about myself is " may be answered with "my s e n s i t i v i t y to the world around me, to people's f e e l i n g s , and my sense o f humor." 31 The f i n a l stage i s l a b e l l e d the 1-6 stage and i s characterized by the central theme running through the conception of ego develop-ment, "integrated". The person at t h i s l e v e l has come to grips with inner turmoil, has reconciled inner c o n f l i c t and renounces the unattainable (impulse control). The interpersonal style not only cherishes interpersonal r e l a t i o n s and respects the autonomy within . those r e l a t i o n s , but now also cherishes the concept of i n d i v i d u a l -i t y . Conscious preoccupation i s with id e n t i t y . And, of course, as Jane Loevinger has pointed out, the r a r i t y of t h i s stage makes i t a d i f f i c u l t one to f u l l y describe and appreciate. Locus of control scale. Rotter's (1966) Locus of Control Scale consists of a 29-item forced choice instrument with 6 f i l l e r items (Appendix). Each item consists o f two statements regarding some l i f e s i t u a t i o n with each statement describing either an external locus of control or an inter n a l locus of control. One point i s given f o r each question answered with an external emphasis. Total possible score i s 2 3 . Degree of external locus of control i s p o s i t i v e l y related to the t o t a l score. Administration. The Ego Development Scale and the Locus of Control Scale were administered sequentially in a counter balanced order within the same period of time. A l l c l i e n t s of a p a r t i c u l a r treatment group received simultaneous instructions and were then given adequate time to complete the forms with the experimenter present. Analysis of Data There were two types of s t a t i s t i c s used in the present research: 3 2 a) d e s c r i p t i v e ; and b) i n f e r e n t i a l . The d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s were: a) means and standard d e v i a t i o n s ; and b) Pearson r ' s and p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s . The i n f e r e n t i a l s t a t i s t i c s used were t - t e s t s . Ego Development Scores were transformed to ; nume r i c a l e q u i v a l e n t s where a p p r o p r i a t e . CHAPTER IV Results The e s s e n t i a l data along with a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s are r e p o r t e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r ^ Because the ego development and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l measures can"be«considered as q u a s i - i n t e r v a l s c a l e s ( R o t t e r , 1 9 6 6 ; Loevinger, 1 9 7 6 ) , parametric s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s were performed on the data. P r o b a b i l i t i e s l e s s than .05 were co n s i d e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t . Sub.ject V a r i a b l e s - Age. E d u c a t i o n and Income As i n d i c a t e d i n Table 2 , the mean age of primary v e r s u s secondary a l c o h o l i c s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y . No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n mean y e a r s o f formal education o r i n mean gross yearly incomes. T a b l e 2 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s o f Primary and Secondary A l c o h o l i c s ' Age, Years o f Formal Education, and Gross Y e a r l y Income Primary Secondary t value Age Mean SD 49.92 7.65 31.14 5.95 7.14* E d u c a t i o n Mean SD 11.54 2.54 11.07 2.43 .49 Income Mean SD 2 2 , 2 3 0 6 , 9 2 0 17,857 8, 090 1.5 * p < . 0 5 33 34 E g o .Level, Locus o f C o n t r o l , and Primary/Secondary N e i t h e r r e s e a r c h h y p o t h e s i s was confirmed: 1) Primary a l c o h o l i c s A V i l l .have a h i g h e r average ego l e v e l as measured .by L o e v i n g e r ' s Ego Development Scale than secondary a l c o h o l i c s . 2) Primary a l c o h o l i c s w i l l have a lower average score on R o t t e r ' s Locus o f C o n t r o l S c a l e than secondary a l c o h o l i c s . F i g u r e 1 i s a s c a t t e r p l o t o f each s u b j e c t ' s score on ego l e v e l and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l . Table 3 shows the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s between ego l e v e l , l o c u s o f c o n t r o l , and the primary/secondary dichotomy. F i g u r e 1 and the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s p r e s e n t e d i n Table 3 confirm t h a t there was 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 cor-r e l a t i o n s among any of the three variables. A Pearson r was per-formed between ego l e v e l and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l with n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s while s i m i l a r l y n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d u s i n g 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 performed between ego l e v e l and the primary/secondary dichotomy and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l and the primary/ secondary dichotomy. Tab l e 4 p r e s e n t s f u r t h e r r e s u l t s to confirm those presented i n F i g u r e 1 and T a b l e 3. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s on e i t h e r the ego develop-ment s c a l e or the l o c u s o f c o n t r o l s c a l e ( p . > .05t d f 25). F u r t h e r c o n f i r m a t i o n o f a complete l a c k o f any d i f f e r e n c e s between primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s a l o n g the ego dimension i s p r e s e n t e d in F i g u r e 2. The t o t a l number of items rated at each ego l e v e l i s presented as a percentage of t o t a l items rated f o r p r i m a r i e s versus s e c o n d a r i e s . A t t e s t was done on the data (t= .97, P y .05. .dfi 915)i and as can be seen with r e f e r e n c e to Figure 2, 3 5 rH O u -p c o o o CO o o 1-3 16 12 10 . s •p« D e l t a 3 1-3 . s — . s _ 1-3/4 . s •P . s • p • p . s •Pc 1-4 . s . s 1-4/5 Ego L e v e l F i g u r e 1. R e l a t i o n s h i p between ego l e v e l and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l scores f o r each subject (primary - p, secondary 36 Table 3 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f Ego Development, Locus o f C o n t r o l and P r i -mary/Secondary D e s i g n a t i o n Locus o f C o n t r o l Primary/Secondary Ego L e v e l -.24* - . 0 2 5 * * Locus o f C o n t r o l . 0 8 3 * * * Pearson r ** P o i n t - b i s e r i a l •Table 4 Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s , and t Values f o r Comparisons Between Primary and Secondary A l c o h o l i c s on Ego Development and Locus o f C o n t r o l Primary Secondary t value Ego L e v e l * Mean 3.46 3 . 4 3 . 0 6 SD 1 . 13 1.28 LOC M e a n 7.69 8 . 3 2 .419 SD 3 . 2 5 4.86 * Delta / 3 = 1 , 1 - 3 * 2 , 1-3/4=3, 1-4=4, 1-4/5=5 37 n o d i f f e r e n c e s were obtained. Ta b l e 5 shows the Pearson r c o r r e l a t i o n s between ego develop-ment, l o c u s o f c o n t r o l and each o f the sub j e c t v a r i a b l e s age, income, and ed u c a t i o n . As can be seen, none o f the c o r r e l a t i o n s were l a r g e and none were s i g n i f i c a n t . I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o r . s o f E g o D e v e l o p m e n t a n d L o c u s o f C o n t r o l W i t h A g e , G r o s s Y e a r l y I n c o m e , a n d Y e a r s o f F o r m a l E d u c a t i o n T a b l e 5 Age I n c o m e E d u c a t i o n Ego L e v e l . 13 - . 2 1 - . 1 5 LOC - . 2 2 - . 1 2 - . 2 3 3 8 0 1-2 Delta Delta / 3 1-3 I - 3 / 4 1-4 1-4/5 1-5 1-6 Ego Level Figure 2 . Percentage of t o t a l item frequency for each ego l e v e l collated separately for a l l primary and a l l secondary protocols (x x , primary; 0 0 , secondary). CHAPTER V D i s c u s s i o n The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h shows t h a t primary and secondary a l c o -h o l i c s do not d i f f e r with r e s p e c t to e i t h e r ego l e v e l o r degree o f i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l .control a s measured i n t h i s study. The r e s e a r c h hypotheses s t a t e d i n Chapter I I w e r e i 1. Primary a l c o h o l i c s w i l l have a h i g h e r average ego l e v e l as measured by L o e v i n g e r ' s Ego Development S c a l e than secondary a l c o h o l i c s . 2. Primary a l c o h o l i c s w i l l have a lower average score on R o t t e r ' s X19-66) L o c u s of C o n t r o l S c a l e than secondary a l c o h o l i c s . Both r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s have u n e q u i v o c a l l y remained unsupported by the present data. I n f a c t the degree t o which both primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s responded s i m i l a r l y to the ego l e v e l q u e s t i o n n a i r e and the L O C q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s to some extent s t a r t -l i n g and worthy o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n i t s own r i g h t . The r e s u l t s o f the present r e s e a r c h s i g n i f i c a n t l y extend not o n l y our knowledge r e g a r d i n g primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s , but a l s o our n o t i o n s r e g a r d i n g ego development and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l . The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h w a s undertaken i n response t o the now w e l l agreed upon but p o o r l y researched heterogeneous nature o f the a l c o h o l i c p o p u l a t i o n (Emrick, 1 9 7 6 ) . Not o n l y do a l c o h o l i c s d i f f e r on many r e l e v a n t demographic v a r i a b l e s (Madsen, 1974) but they also d i f f e r on many c l i n i c a l measurements as w e l l (Barnes, 1 9 7 9 ) . I t i s t h e r e f o r e o f some t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t t h a t g i v e n the present acknowledged h e t e r o g e n e i t y o f the a l c o h o l i c p o p u l a t i o n t h a t two measures o f p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions o f primary and secondary alcoho-39 40 l i e s should y i e l d r e s u l t s so d r a m a t i c a l l y l a c k i n g i n d i f f e r e n c e s . Of course no s i n g l e reason can be o f f e r e d as an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the p r e s e n t r e s u l t s , but s e v e r a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s can be explored Among the more s a l i e n t p o s s i b i l i t i e s are the f o l l o w i n g ! 1. The primary/secondary dichotomy i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e w i t h i n the a l c o h o l i c p o p u l a t i o n . 2. Ego development and l o c u s of c o n t r o l are inadequate measures. 3. The s u b j e c t p o p u l a t i o n i n the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h was i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r some reason. A p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f the Primary/Secondary Dichotomy As t h o r o u g h l y d i s c u s s e d i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n and review o f l i t e r a t u r e o f the present study the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the p r i m a r y / secondary d i s t i n c t i o n i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e seems u n l i k e l y (Madsen, 1974; S c h u c k i t , 1973s Blume, 1978; Fox, 1957). I t i s important to remember t h a t although Barnes (1979) and Clopton (1978) do not s p e c i f i c a l l y mention the primary/secondary a l c o h o l i c subgroupings, the b a s i c t h r u s t o f t h e i r reviews l e a d d i r e c t l y to such a d i s t i n c -t i o n . The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h used a f a i r l y r i g o r o u s c r i t e r i o n which without q u e s t i o n r e s u l t e d i n two very d i s t i n c t groups o f a l c o h o l i c s . T h e i r mean ages were c o n s i d e r a b l y d i f f e r e n t ( p r i m a r i e s , 49.92 vs s e c o n d a r i e s , 3 1 t l 4 ) which corresponds to other r e s e a r c h ( S c h u c k i t , 1973)' In f a c t o n l y one primary overlapped with the secondaries i n age. T h i s o f course conforms to the e a r l i e r onset o f the secon-d a r i e s ' problems and t h e i r g e n e r a l l y g r e a t e r i n a b i l i t y to a v o i d d e t e c t i o n by s o c i e t y compared to the primary a l c o h o l i c . The 41 t y p i c a l secondary a l c o h o l i c i n the p r e s e n t study c e r t a i n l y f i t s the d e s c r i p t i o n o f s o c i a l m i s f i t i f not s o c i o p a t h . T h e i r d e s c r i p -t i o n o f t h e i r l i v e s , e s p e c i a l l y t h e i r p a s t r a r e l y f a i l s t o impress the r e s e a r c h e r with a c e r t a i n sense o f tragedy. T y p i c a l l y , s t o r i e s o f c h i l d h o o d s c h a r a c t e r i z e d a t b e s t by i n d i f f e r e n c e and at worst by abuse are r e l a t e d . T h e i r l i v e s seem e s p e c i a l l y problem o r i e n t e d from an e a r l y age. The primary a l c o h o l i c s on the o t h e r hand appear much more o r d i n a r y i n t h e i r g e n e r a l l i f e e x periences. However, as McCord (197?) has p o i n t e d out a l c o h o l i c s i n g e n e r a l are l e s s l i k e l y to be the r e s u l t o f secure p a r e n t a l a t t e n t i o n . But c e r t a i n l y with r e f e r e n c e to the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h the primary a l c o h o l i c s d i d not even approach the secondaries i n the d i s p l a y o f a n t i s o c i a l b e h a v i o r s at an e a r l y age. The p r i m a r i e s ' a d o l e s -cence can e a s i l y be d e s c r i b e d as t y p i c a l as opposed to one c h a r a c t e r -i z e d by truancy, r u n n i n g away, f i g h t i n g , and o t h e r a t y p i c a l s o r t s o f b e h a v i o r s extending i n t o young adulthood. As the above d i s c u s s i o n i n d i c a t e s the primary/secondary d i s t i n c t i o n i s r e a l enough. However, the l a r g e r q u e s t i o n i s the u s e f u l n e s s o f such a d i s t i n c t i o n . S c h u c k i t (1973) suggests v e r y s t r o n g l y t h a t secondary a l c o h o l i c s have a poorer p r o g n o s i s r e g a r d i n g a l c o h o l abuse than p r i m a r i e s . T h i s , o f course, i s an important f a c t o r when attempting to t r e a t any d i s o r d e r . The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h was p r i m a r i l y aimed at i n v e s t i g a t i n g i n more depth the nature o f the primary/secondary dichotomy. Obviously with r e g a r d to ego development and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l the primary/ secondary d i s t i n c t i o n appears u s e l e s s . Whether t h i s t e l l s us something about primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s or about ego 42 development and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l i s another q u e s t i o n . I f , as the d a t a suggest, t h a t p r i m a r y and secondary a l c o h o l i c s r e a l l y do not d i f f e r on ego development o r degree o f i n t e r n a l / e x t e r n a l o r i e n t a t i o n towards the world, then we have an i n t e r -e s t i n g f i n d i n g . The r e s u l t s have d e f i n i t e p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a -t i o n . One can c e r t a i n l y not use the primary/secondary d i s t i n c -t i o n to i n f e r l o c u s o f c o n t r o l and thus some s p e c i f i c treatment s t r a t e g y . N e i t h e r can one i n f e r ego l e v e l from knowledge o f primary/secondary c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . There i s a b s o l u t e l y n o t h i n g i n the data to a l l o w one any i n f e r e n c e s r e g a r d i n g the nature o f primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s a l o n g the l o c u s o f c o n t r o l or . ego dimension. Regarding l o c u s o f c o n t r o l the heterogeneous nature o f a l c o h o l i c s was confirmed (Barnes, 1 9 7 9 ) . There seemed to be f o u r groups o f people which cut a c r o s s the primary/secondary d i s t i n c t i o n . There were seven p r i m a r i e s above the mean o f 7«69 and s i x below the mean. There were seven secondaries above the mean o f 8 . 5 and seven below. I t seems s u r p r i s i n g t h a t two groups o f people with such r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t b e h a v i o r a l background should show no s i g n i f i c a n t mean d i f f e r e n c e on a measure such as l o c u s o f c o n t r o l . A p p a r e n t l y t h e i r a l c o h o l abuse i s not i n any fundamental way r e l a t e d to t h e i r view r e g a r d i n g the source o f c o n t r o l i n t h e i r l i v e s . The range i n the l o c u s o f c o n t r o l data was extreme r a n g i n g from 2 to 13 i n the p r i m a r i e s and from 0 to 16 among the s e c o n d a r i e s . The p r i m a r i e s were s l i g h t l y more c o n s i s t e n t i n t h i s study (Sd=3.25 vs Sd=4.85) than the se c o n d a r i e s , but i t i s d i f f i c u l t to say what, i f anything, t h i s 43 means. I t should he noted t h a t Phares (1976) s p e c u l a t e s t h a t l o c u s o f c o n t r o l and adjustment may be c u r v l l i n e a r a l l y r e l a t e d . People at the extremes, e i t h e r i n t e m a l i z e r s o r e x t e r n a l i z e r s , may be p o o r l y a d j u s t e d . Regarding the present r e s e a r c h , t h e r e i s a suggestion o f more extreme.JLocus of c o n t r o l scores f o r secondary a l c o h o l i c s . C e r t a i n l y the i n c o n c l u s i v e r e s u l t s to date r e g a r d i n g . l o c u s of c o n t r o l and a l c o h o l i s m have not been r e s o l v e d by the present r e s e a r c h . The means o f 7.79 and 8.5 are s l i g h t l y h i g h e r than the r e s u l t s u s u a l l y obtained with a l c o h o l i c s (Barnes, 1979), e s p e c i a l l y the 8.5 f o r the secondaries, but the v a r i a b i l i t y overshadows any mean d i f f e r e n c e s . The ego l e v e l s o f primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s seemed e q u a l l y unresponsive to q u i t e d i f f e r e n t b e h a v i o r a l h i s t o r i e s i n t h a t s e c o n d a r i e s had engaged i n numerous o v e r t b e h a v i o r s as a d o l e s -cents which would g e n e r a l l y be c o n s i d e r e d maladjusted whereas the p r i m a r i e s had not. As F i g u r e 2 shows, remarkably s i m i l a r r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d from both groups. I f primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s indeed do not d i f f e r i n terms o f t h e i r core ego l e v e l , i t i s e s p e c i a l l y i n s t r u c t i v e . L o e v i n g e r ' s (1976) f o u r f a c e t s , impulse c o n t r o l , i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t y l e , c o nscious p r e o c c u p a t i o n , and c o g n i t i v e s t y l e are c e r t a i n l y v a l u a b l e a s p e c t s o f a person's i n n e r workings f o r one to be aware. The mean p r o t o c o l r a t i n g f o r both groups was midway between 1-3/4 and 1-4. C e r t a i n l y the mean ego l e v e l and the general d i s t r i b u -t i o n o f ego l e v e l s as r e p o r t e d i n the r e s u l t s seem q u i t e t y p i c a l ( L o evinger, 1976). There i s a b s o l u t e l y no b a s i s upon which to say 44 any thing else. The secondary a l c o h o l i c s who were hypothesized to be i n some way stunted i n core ego development because of t h e i r early experiences seem t o t a l l y unfounded. As a group as well as ind i v i d u a l s they are c e r t a i n l y as a r t i c u l a t e and sophisticated i n displaying the concerns of.the 1-3/4 and 1-4 l e v e l protocol as are the primaries. According to Loevinger's model the majority of primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s can be categorized as being close to or at the conscientious (1-4) ego l e v e l . I f one uses Loevinger's descriptors of t h i s l e v e l i t c e r t a i n l y appears that both primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s i n the present study are reasonably sophisticated.' The 1-3/4 i s i n t r a n s i t i o n from the conformist (1-3) to the conscientious (1-4) l e v e l . The conformist i s characterized as a rather s i m p l i s t i c person i n terms of t r a d i -t i o n a l notions of shame, g u i l t , belonging, being h e l p f u l , concern with appearances, displaying rather banal feelings and thinking along rather s i m p l i s t i c , stereotypic l i n e s . The conscientious (1-4) person i s characterized by a more internal s e l f evaluated and c r i t i c a l a t t itude, with more of a mutual concern for communication between people, f e e l i n g s tend to be more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , and motives more complex, and f i n a l l y conceptual notions and ideas are more complex. With reference to the present research, the ego l e v e l r e s u l t s put a rather strong emphasis on viewing both the primary and second-ary a l c o h o l i c s as v e r b a l i z i n g at l e v e l s which seem to be l i t t l e , impaired by either t h e i r a l c o h o l i c history or t h e i r personal experiences. The present r e s u l t s concerning al c o h o l i c subtypes allow cert a i n 4 5 broad c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g the e t i o l o g y and treatment p o s s i b i l i t i e s surrounding the primary/secondary l a b e l l i n g o f a l c o h o l i c s . The r a d i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the l i f e h i s t o r i e s o f primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s i n no way appears to .prejudice them towards any p a r t i c u l a r world view c e n t e r e d on an i n t e r n a l o r e x t e r n a l o r i e n t a t i o n . Nor does t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n past h i s t o r y appear to a f f e c t the develop-ment o f ego. And because both the primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s scored r e l a t i v e l y high on ego l e v e l , one cannot conclude t h a t the present group o f s u b j e c t s s u f f e r e d a p p r e c i a b l e s t u n t i n g i n t h i s dimension. Regarding t r e a t m e n t , ' i t i s perhaps comforting to know t h a t as f a r as the presen t r e s u l t s are concerned one can d i s r e g a r d the primary/secondary d i s t i n c t i o n when f o c u s i n g on p e r c e p t i o n o f con-t r o l and g e n e r a l s o p h i s t i c a t i o n o f ego l e v e l . I t should be added, however, t h a t knowledge o f l o c u s o f c o n t r o l l e v e l and ego l e v e l can no doubt be h i g h l y u s e f u l when a p p l i e d on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s . In f a c t , the present r e s e a r c h shows q u i t e c l e a r l y , e s p e c i a l l y with l o c u s o f c o n t r o l , t h a t there are gre a t i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s which should not be ign o r e d i n treatment. C e r t a i n l y a t h e r a p i s t can and should make use o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s degree o f i n t e r n a l i t y / e x t e r n a l i t y and ego l e v e l when pu r s u i n g t r e a t -ment. I t seems c l e a r t h a t i n the present r e s e a r c h a l l s u b j e c t s , whether h i g h o r low on l o c u s o f c o n t r o l o r ego l e v e l , have adopted a very harmful ada p t i v e response to t h e i r environments. S u r e l y by knowing a person's l o c u s o f c o n t r o l and ego l e v e l one can more q u i c k l y p i n p o i n t the nature and complexity o f a c l i e n t ' s b e l i e f s , f e e l i n g s , and b e h a v i o r s , and i n t u r n move the c l i e n t more q u i c k l y - a n d e f f e c t i v e l y towards d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s , f e e l i n g s and b e h a v i o r s . 46 Epo Development and and Locus of C o n t r o l as Inadequate M e a s u r e s T h i s q u e s t i o n r e a l l y concerns the v a l i d i t y o f both measure-ments used i n the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h . L o e v i n g e r and Wessler ( 1970) suggested r a t h e r s t r o n g l y t h a t the t o o l may not be a p p r o p r i a t e i n d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g groups t h a t c l e a r l y d i f f e r on o t h e r b e h a v i o r a l measures. As mentioned i n the review o f l i t e r a t u r e most s t u d i e s designed to show d i f f e r e n c e s have met w i t h mixed success (Harvey, 1 9 7 6 ; Frank &. Q u i n l a n , 1 9 7 6 ) . Hauser ( 1976) p o i n t s out q u i t e c l e a r l y t h a t the q u e s t i o n o f v a l i d i t y i s a complex one r e g a r d i n g L o e v i n g e r ' s Ego Development S c a l e . Hauser's g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n was, however, f a v o r a b l e i n a s s e s s i n g ego l e v e l i n terms o f d i s c r i m i n a n t v a l i d i t y , p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y and c o n s t r u c t v a l -i d i t y . On t h e s u r f a c e i t c e r t a i n l y seems s u r p r i s i n g t h a t secondary a l c o h o l i c s scored a t the same l e v e l as primary a l c o h o l i c s . I f the c o n f o r m i s t l e v e l ( 1 - 3 ) i s c o n s i d e r e d the mid-point then i t would seem t h a t s e c o n d a r i e s would score at the p r e - c o n f o r m i s t l e v e l s and p r i m a r i e s a t the p o s t - c o n f o r m i s t l e v e l . T h i s was c l e a r l y not the case i n the present study. In f a c t there was not a h i n t o f d i f f e r e n c e s between p r i m a r i e s and s e c o n d a r i e s . I t c o u l d be t h a t the ego development s c a l e i s designed to measure not o n l y core ego f u n c t i o n i n g but a l s o i n some sense an awareness o f s o c i e t y ' s requirements and e x p e c t a t i o n s . Thus the p r e s e n t r e s u l t s may be composed o f people who completed the sentence stems i n a p e r s o n a l way,.thus g i v i n g a v a l i d window i n t o t h e i r ego f u n c t i o n i n g and those t h a t answered i n terms o f t h e i r awareness o f s o c i e t y ' s requirements and e x p e c t a t i o n s . T h i s problem i s , o f course, a g e n e r a l concern with these types o f t e s t s . However, i n 47 the present s i t u a t i o n we are dealing with two groups that d i f f e r on age, but have s i m i l a r incomes and educational backgrounds. These s i m i l a r i t i e s may of course lead to s i m i l a r i t i e s i n awareness of society's expectations and requirements. Because we are deal-ing with a l c o h o l i c s who are often known to be quite manipulative (Madsen, 1974) and i n addition we have spec i f i e d a subgrouping designated secondaries, we may have stacked the deck against gaining easy access to core ego functioning. A f t e r a l l , secondaries in addition to being a l c o h o l i c are also i n many ways sociopathic or at l e a s t behaviorally very much a n t i s o c i a l . Thus, we might expect them to be even more l i k e l y to express answers of a non-personal, perhaps even of a manipulative nature. Many of the sen-tence stems on the ego development questionnaire have a very strong " p u l l " , as Loevinger says, and i n fact may predispose people to answer at more of an i n t e l l e c t u a l l e v e l i n terms of t h e i r general awareness of the rules of the game rather than responding at a l e v e l more consistent with t h e i r inner thoughts and feelings. I t should be noted that i f i n fact the secondary's ego l e v e l i s an accurate representation of t h e i r ego development, then there appears to be some incongruence between the descriptor of the post conformist l e v e l and the past behaviors of the secondary a l c o h o l i c . Of course, the present research defined primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s l a r g e l y on the basis of t h e i r past behaviors. This i s consistent with the approach of other researchers (Schuckit, 1973)• However, one could argue that some independent tool that validates present personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n terms of the primary/ secondary d i s t i n c t i o n might prove valuable. 48 Another p o t e n t i a l problem i s i n L o e v i n g e r ' s n o t i o n o f the f o u r f a c e t s o f ego development, i . e . , impulse c o n t r o l , i n t e r -p e r s o n a l s t y l e , c o n s c i o u s p r e o c c u p a t i o n , and c o g n i t i v e s t y l e . I t may very w e l l be t h a t the secondary's h i g h ego l e v e l r e f l e c t s an emphasis on d i f f e r e n t f a c e t s o f ego development than the p r i m a r i e s . Because L o e v i n g e r has made no p r o v i s i o n f o r such an a n a l y s i s i t i s not p o s s i b l e to pursue such a p o s s i b i l i t y . The l o c u s o f c o n t r o l r e s u l t s seem l e s s s u s c e p t i b l e to the above c r i t i c i s m s s i n c e the items are worded i n a way t h a t i s o f t e n ambig-uous i n terms o f r e l a t i n g them to o v e r a l l s o c i e t a l e x p e c t a t i o n s and i n j u n c t i o n s . The l o c u s o f c o n t r o l has been c r i t i c i z e d as assuming t h a t i t i s measuring a u n i d i m e n s i o n a l phenomenon (Levenson, 1973)' However, attempts at t e a s i n g out the c o n f u s i o n i n l o c u s o f c o n t r o l and a l c o h o l i c s have not met with much success ( C a s t e r & Parsons, 1977; Barnes, 1979). On the s u r f a c e the l o c u s o f c o n t r o l t o o l seems appro-p r i a t e f o r the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h purposes. Some r e s e a r c h has suggested a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between sociopathy and e x t e r n a l i t y ( C a s t e r & Parsons, 1977). However, the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s no such tendency. As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned the l o c u s o f c o n t r o l q u e s t i o n n a i r e f a i l e d to show any d i f f e r e n c e s between p r i m a r i e s and s e c o n d a r i e s . Although the l o c u s o f c o n t r o l s c a l e has been c r i t i c i z e d , i t seems with r e g a r d to the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h the l a c k o f d i f f e r e n c e s i s u n l i k e l y to be the r e s u l t o f the v a l i d i t y o f the l o c u s o f c o n t r o l . And f i n a l l y , i f we are c o r r e c t i n l a b e l l i n g the secondary as s o c i o p a t h i c to a s i g n i f i c a n t extent ( S c h u c k i t , 1973)• then i t may be t h a t o t h e r measures would be more a p p r o p r i a t e . Perhaps because o f the e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h r e g a r d i n g d i s o r d e r s o f a f f e c t i v e respon-49 s i v i t y i n t h e s o c i o p a t h ( H a r e , 197Q; S c h a c t e r & L a t a n e , 1964), t o o l s w h i c h t a p t h i s f a c e t may be more a p p r o p r i a t e ( i . e . , T a y l o r M a n i f e s t A n x i e t y S c a l e ) . I n a p p r o p r i a t e S u b j e c t P o p u l a t i o n P e r h a p s any r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n ego l e v e l o r LOC were washed o u t b y s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r s u b j e c t s u s e d o r t h e s p e c i f i c t r e a t m e n t s i t u a t i o n u s e d i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . P e r -h a p s an e l a t i o n e f f e c t was p r e s e n t , o r t h e s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s a t P a c i f i c a b i a s e d i n f a v o r o f more s t a b l e c l i e n t s , o r more m o t i v a t e d c l i e n t s . P a c i f i c a does r e q u i r e a c e r t a i n d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f s t a b i l i t y , i . e . , e i t h e r a r e c e n t work h i s t o r y a n d / o r a f u n c t i o n i n g f a m i l y s u p p o r t s y s t e m . L o e v i n g e r (1976) h a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o t e m p o r -a r i l y r a i s e o n e ' s ego l e v e l even a f t e r l e a r n i n g a b o u t t h e t h e o r y . S i n c e b o t h g r o u p s a r e e x p o s e d e q u a l l y t o t h e above m e n t i o n e d c i r -c u m s t a n c e s t h e s e k i n d s o f e x p l a n a t i o n s seem u n l i k e l y t o g e t one v e r y f a r . One o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t p r i o r t r e a t m e n t i n o t h e r f a c i l -i t i e s , o u t p a t i e n t c o u n s e l l i n g , A l c o h o l i c s Anonymous, e t c . , h a s r a i s e d ego l e v e l s . O f c o u r s e , i f t h i s were t r u e , any p r i o r d i f f e r -e n c e s b e t w e e n p r i m a r y and s e c o n d a r y a l c o h o l i c s s h o u l d r e m a i n c o n -s t a n t . A s p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n e d i t i s n o t t h a t e a s y t o r a i s e ego l e v e l even when g i v i n g s p e c i f i c e d u c a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e t o p i c . I n a d d i t i o n , what r e s e a r c h h a s b e e n done has n o t b e e n a b l e t o show s u b s t a n t i a l r e s u l t s r e g a r d i n g l i f e e x p e r i e n c e s and ego change ( L o e v i n g e r , 1976). And f i n a l l y , t h e p r e s e n t d a t a were l o o k e d a t 50 i n terms o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r i o r treatment e x p e r i e n c e s and ego l e v e l . A p o i n t b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was done (treatment/no treatment with ego l e v e l ) and no r e l a t i o n s h i p was found. P r i o r treatment was d e f i n e d as a t l e a s t s e v e r a l weeks of involvement i n a formal treatment program, i n c l u d i n g A l c o h o l i c s Anonymous. The d i s t i n c t i o n was q u i t e easy to determine s i n c e c l i e n t s without e x c e p t i o n e i t h e r had v i r t u a l l y no p r i o r treatment experiences o r a s u b s t a n t i a l amount. In c o n c l u s i o n the three p o s s i b i l i t i e s mentioned can a l l be viewed as c o n t r i b u t i v e to the presen t r e s u l t s . However, i t would seem t h a t the second p o s s i b i l i t y , t h a t ego development and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l measurements are inadequate with r e s p e c t to the primary/ s e c o n d a r y d i c h o t o m y , i s p e r h a p s t h e more a p p r o p r i a t e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the pr e s e n t r e s u l t s . F u r t h e r Research The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h was an e f f o r t to b e t t e r d e l i n e a t e primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s a l o n g s p e c i f i c measures o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n i n g . Of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t was the u t i l i z a t i o n o f L o e v i n g e r ' s ego development concepts. However, both ego development and the l o c u s o f c o n t r o l measurements f a i l e d to d e t e c t any d i f f e r e n c e s . There are three o p t i o n s a t t h i s p o i n t : 1 . Pursue the presen t r e s e a r c h f u r t h e r , 2 . Use d i f f e r e n t measurements, or 3» D i s r e g a r d t h e primary/secondary d i s t i n c t i o n . The p r e s e n t a u t h o r i s not e n t h u s i a s t i c about t h e f i r s t o p t i o n . The present study was done w i t h a g r e a t d e a l o f c a r e and i t i s 51 u n l i k e l y t h a t the o b t a i n e d r e s u l t s are u n r e l i a b l e . A c a r e f u l , but i n f o r m a l , item a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d s i x ego development sentence stems t h a t might be used i n a fo l l o w - u p study. These items might p o s s i b l y e l i c i t d i f f e r e n t responses from primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s . Of course, i f j u s t a few sentence stems were used, i t would no l o n g e r a l l o w t o t a l p r o t o c o l r a t i n g s . However, t o t a l p r o t o c o l r a t i n g s may r e a l l y be unnecessary and somewhat a waste o f time. Ego development theory i s i n t r i g u i n g and c e r t a i n l y o f v a l u e when l o o k i n g at c l i e n t s and attempting to g a i n some p e r s p e c t i v e r e g a r d i n g t h e i r l e v e l s o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n i n g . The p r e s e n t author has a s u s p i c i o n t h a t 6 to 10 items would pr o b a b l y be s u f -f i c i e n t i n j u d g i n g a c l i e n t ' s ego l e v e l . As f a r as the LOC i s concerned i t i s u n l i k e l y that a n y t h i n g f u r t h e r can be accomplished with r e s p e c t to primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s . The second o p t i o n seems to have more promise. There a r e , o f course, numerous o t h e r t e s t s and i n f a c t some r e s e a r c h with the MMPI (Cl o p t o n , 1978) and o t h e r t e s t s (Barnes, 1979) c l e a r l y show subgroupings w i t h i n the a l c o h o l i c p o p u l a t i o n . However, the prese n t r e s e a r c h was d i r e c t e d p r i m a r i l y a t u s i n g the ego development con-cept because o f i t s depth and r i c h n e s s . Although many o f these o t h e r t e s t s can no doubt be used, the i n f o r m a t i o n to be gained does not somehow seem as p o t e n t i a l l y u s e f u l as data r e g a r d i n g ego development. The t h i r d o p t i o n , o f course, l e a d s us to q u e s t i o n the f u n -damental u t i l i t y o f the primary/secondary d i s t i n c t i o n . The pr i m a r y / secondary d i s t i n c t i o n i s c l e a r l y w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d and p r o v i d e s one 52 o f the p r e s e n t l y b e s t a v a i l a b l e ways i n which to c a t e g o r i z e c l i e n t s i n terms o f t h e i r probable i n i t i a l r e a c t i o n to therapy as w e l l as t h e i r l o n g term p r o g n o s i s . As d i s c u s s e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e review there i s c o n s i d e r a b l e reason to view the primary/secondary d i s t i n c t i o n as a v a l i d one ( S c h u c k i t , 1973; Blume, 1978). Not o n l y i s t h e r e c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r e s t p r e s e n t l y i n t h i s dichotomy, but h i s t o r i c a l l y b e g i n n i n g with Fox (1957) th e r e seems to have been a c l e a r r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h i s dichotomy. I f one l o o k s c l o s e l y at the b a s i s upon which the primary/secondary d i s t i n c t i o n was made i n the present study, i t seems c l e a r t h a t we are d e a l i n g with two d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f people. Perhaps f u t u r e r e s e a r c h can be even more r e s t r i c t i v e i n c l a s s i f y -i n g a person as e i t h e r primary or secondary. However, i n the o p i n i o n o f the author t h i s would probably not produce a n y t h i n g more i n r e l a t i o n to the p r e s e n t r e s u l t s . By r e s t r i c t i n g one's c r i t e r i o n more and more the group t h a t i s l e f t would be such a small p e r -centage o f a l c o h o l i c s t h a t t h e i r d e t a i l e d study at t h i s time seems h a r d l y worthwhile. A f t e r a l l , the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h was an attempt to f i n d u s e f u l measurements o f primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s t h a t might be used i n t h e i r treatment, o r a t l e a s t l e a d to a b e t t e r understanding o f them. As i t was, we had to go through over lOO a l c o h o l i c s to f i n d 2? t h a t c l e a r l y met our c r i t e r i o n . That i s b a r e l y 25% o f the a l c o h o l i c p o p u l a t i o n t h a t we are s t u d y i n g . Another approach c o u l d be to develop a primary/secondary continuum model whereby one d e v i s e s a method o f g i v i n g an a c t u a l score based on a person's past h i s t o r y . T h i s would r e q u i r e a r i g o r o u s s t a n d a r d i z e d s c o r i n g system perhaps combined with a w e i g h t i n g f a c t o r depending upon the s o c i o p a t h i c s t a t u r e o f each 53 behavior s p e c i f i e d in the r a t i n g system. This approach i s , of course, a research project a l l i t s own. In conclusion the research area of secondary/primary alcoholism seems a f r u i t f u l and worthwhile area of investigation. Certainly pursuing the d i s t i n c t i o n with other tools should lead us to a better understanding of the etiology and proper treatment for such a heterogeneous group. By elaborating the s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences amongst subgroupings within the a l c o h o l i c population we can only gain i n our knowledge of c l i n i c a l disorders. 54 REFERENCE 5 5 REFERENCES Armor, D.J., Ponch, J.M., & Stambul, H . B . Rand report  alcoholism and treatment. Santa Monica, Calif.« The Rand Corporation, 1976. Barnes, G. The alcoholic personality, a reanalysis of the literature. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1979 • 40. 571-633* Bertrand, S., & Masling, J. Oral imagery and alcoholism. Journal  of Abnormal Psychology. 1969, £ 4 , 50 -53 . Blasi, A. A developmental approach to responsibility training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University, 1971' Blume, S.B. Diagnosis, casefinding, and treatment of alcohol problems in women. Alcohol Health and Research 'World, 1978, J, 10 -22 . Brown, M.A. Alcoholic profiles on the Minnesota Multiphasic. Journal of Cl i n i c a l Psychology. 1950, 6, 266-269. Butts, S., & Chotlos, J. A comparison of alcoholics and non-alcoholics on perceived locus of control. Quarterly Journal  of Studies cn Alcohol, 1 9 7 3 . J& i 1 3 2 7 - 1 3 3 2 . Caster, D.U., & Parsons, O.A. Locus of control in alcoholics and treatment outcome. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 19771 38, 2087-2095. Catanzaro, R.J. Psychiatric aspects of alcoholism. In D.J. Pittman (Ed.), Alcoholism. New York: Harper & Row, 1967. Clopton, J.R. Alcoholism and the MMPI. Journal of Studies on  Alcohol, 1978, 21, 1540-1558. Comeau, L.H. The effect of teaching counselling s k i l l s and con-cepts to women college student advisors. Dissertation  Abstracts. 1977. Costello, R.M., & Manders, K.R. Locus of control and alcoholism. Bri t i s h Journal of Addiction, 1974, 6 £ , 1 1 - 1 ? . Cox, N. Prior help, ego development, and helping behavior. Child  Development. 1974, £ 5 , 594-603. Dahlstrom, W.G., 'Welsh, G.S., & Dahlstrom, L.E. MMPI Handbook. Vol. I, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1972. De Coach, S. Level of ego development, degree of psychopathology, and continuation or termination of outpatient psychotherapy involvement. Dissertation Abstracts, 1976. 56. D i s t e f a n o , M.K. , J r . , Pryer, M.W., & G a r r i s o n , J.L. I n t e r n a l -e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l among a l c o h o l i c s . J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l Psy-chology, 1972, 2 8 , 36-37. Donovan, D.M., & O'Leary, M.R. Comparison o f p e r c e i v e d and experienced c o n t r o l among a l c o h o l i c s and n o n a l c o h o l i c s . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal Psychology. 1975t 84, 726-728. Emrick, C. Review o f a follow-up study o f c l i e n t s a t s e l e c t e d a l c o h o l i s m treatment c e n t e r s by W.I. Ruggles, D.J. Armor, J.M. P o l i c h , A. Mothershead,'& M. Stephen. J o u r n a l o f S t u d i e s  o f A l c o h o l . I976, 21* 1902-1907. E p s t e i n , R.f & Komorita, S. Self-esteem, s u c c e s s - f a i l u r e , and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l i n negro c h i l d r e n . Developmental Psychology, 1970, 4, 2-8. F i t c h , G. E f f e c t s o f sel f - e s t e e m , p e r c e i v e d performance, and cho i c e on c a s u a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and  S o c i a l Psychology, 1970, 16, 311-315. Fox, R. Treatment o f a l c o h o l i s m . In H.E. Himwich, (Ed.), A l c o h o l i s m : b a s i c a s p e c t s and treatment. American A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the Advancement o f Sc i e n c e , 1957. Frank, S., & Quinlan, D. Ego development and female delinquency: a c o g n i t i v e - d e v e l o p m e n t a l approach. Abnormal Psychology, 1 9 7 6 , 85, 505-510 F r a n k s , C M . A l c o h o l i s m . In C.G. C o s t a l l o (Ed,), Symptoms o f  Psychopathology. New York: Wiley, 197°. G o l d s t e i n , S.G., & Linden, J.D. M u l t i v a r i a t e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f a l c o h o l i c s by means o f the MMPI. J o u r n a l o f Abnormal P s y c h o l -ogy. 1969, 'A* 661-669. G o z a l i , J . , & Sloan, J . C o n t r o l o r i e n t a t i o n as a p e r s o n a l i t y dimension among.alcoholics. Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f S t u d i e s  o f A l c o h o l . 1971, 12, 159-161. Hare, R.D. Psychopathy theory and r e s e a r c h . New York: Wiley, 1970. Harvey, R.C. F i e l d dependence, l e v e l o f ego development, and female sex r o l e p e r c e p t i o n s o f a l c o h o l i c and n o n a l c o h o l i c women. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 1976. Hauser, S. L o e v i n g e r ' s model and measure o f ego development; a c r i t i c a l review. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1976, 83_, 928-955. Head, J . , & Shayer, M. L o e v i n g e r ' s ego development measures -a new r e s e a r c h t o o l ? B r i t i s h E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , I960, 6 , 2 1 - 2 7 . 5 7 Holmes, W.D. The development of an emperical MMPI scale for alcoholism. Unpublished master's thesis, San Jose State College, 1 9 5 3 . Hoppe, C.F. Ego development and conformity behaviors. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Washington University, 1972. Hoppe, C.F., & Loevinger, J."'Ego development and conformity; a construct v a l i d i t y study of-the Washington University Sentence Completion Test. .Journal of Personality Assessment. 1977» 41, 497-503. J e l l i n e k , E.M. The disease concept of alcoholism. New Haven: Hillhouse Press, i960. Joe, V.C. Review of the internal-external control construct as a personality variable. Psychological Reports, 1971» 28, 619-640. Jones, M.C. Personality correlates and antecedents of drinking patterns i n adult males. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 1938, J2, 1-12. Kohlberg, L. Development of moral character and moral ideology. In M.L. Hoffman and L . W . Hoffman (Eds.), Review of Child  Development Research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1 9 6 4 . Lawlis, G.F., & Rubin, S.E. Sixteen-PF study of personality patterns in,alcoholics. Quarterly Journal of Studies on  Alcohol. 1971. 12, 318-327. Levenson, H. Multidimensional locus of control i n psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 1973. 41, 397-404. Loevinger, J . Ego development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass :-• . " • Publishers, 1976. y Loevinger, J . , Wessler,.g., & Redmore, C. Measuring ego develop-ment II: scoring manual for women and g i r l s . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970. MacAndrew, C. The d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of male alcoholic outpatients from nonalcoholic p s y c h i a t r i c outpatients by means of the MMPI. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1965, 26, 238-246. Madsen, W. The American a l c o h o l i c . S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, 1 9 7 4 . Martin, J . , & Redmore, C. A longitudinal study of ego develop-ment. Developmental Psychology, 1 9 7 8 , 1 4 , 1 8 9 - 1 9 0 . Maslow, A.H. Motivation and personality. New York: Von No strand, 1 9 6 2 . 5 8 M c C o r d , J . E t i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s i n a l c o h o l i s m : f a m i l y a n d p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f S t u d i e s i n A l c o h o l , 1 9 7 2 , J j , 1 0 2 0 - 1 0 2 7 . N a t h a n , P . E . A l c o h o l i s m . I n H. L e i t e n b e r ( E d . ) , H a n d b o o k o f  b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n a n d b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1976. N a t h a n , P . E . , & L i p s c o m b , ' T".R. B e h a v i o r t h e r a p y a n d b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t h e ^ t r e a t m e n t o f a l c o h o l i s m . I n U . M e n d e l s o n , N . M e l l o , & K . M e l l o ( E d s . ) , D i a g n o s i s a n d T r e a t m e n t o f  A l c o h o l i s m . 1979. N e m r o f f , M . E g o d e v e l o p m e n t s e x - r o l e a t t i t u d e s , a n d t h e d o m e s t i c d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r i n h u s b a n d s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l women. D i s s e r -t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 1975. N e r v i a n o , V . J . , & G r o s s , W . F . A m u l t i v a r i a t e d e l i n e a t i o n o f two a l c o h o l i c p r o f i l e t y p e s o n t h e 1 6 P F . J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l  P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 3 , 39_, 3 7 1 - 3 7 4 . O ' L e a r y , M . R . , D o n o v a n , D . M . , & H a g u e , W . H . R e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n l o c u s o f c o n t r o l , s e l f - r e p o r t a n d n o n o b t r u s i v e m e a s u r e s o f a n x i e t y . J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 ? 4 , jSO, 3 7 2 - 3 7 3 . O ' L e a r y , K . R . , D o n o v a n , D.M., & H a g u e , W.H. R e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n l o c u s o f c o n t r o l a n d MMPI s c a l e s among a l c o h o l i c s ; a r e p l i c a t i o n a n d e x t e n s i o n . J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1 9 7 4 , 30, 3 1 2 - 3 1 4 . - O v e r a l l , J . E . , & P a t r i c k , J . H . U n i t a r y a l c o h o l i s m f a c t o r a n d i t s p e r s o n a l i t y c o r r e l a t e s . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 7 2 , 21* 3 1 3 - 3 1 9 . P e c k , R . F . , & H a v i n g h u r s t , R . J . T h e p s y c h o l o g y o f c h a r a c t e r  d e v e l o p m e n t . New Y o r k : W i l e y , i960. P h a r e s , J . E . L o c u s o f c o n t r o l i n p e r s o n a l i t y . M o r r i s t o w n , New J e r s e y : C e n t r a l L e a r n i n g P r e s s , 1976. P l a u t , T . F . A . C o o p e r a t i v e c o m m i s s i o n o n t h e s t u d y o f a l c o h o l i s m , a l c o h o l p r o b l e m s : A r e p o r t t o t h e n a t i o n . New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 196?. P o l e y , W. P e r s o n a l i t y , p r e d i s p o s i t i o n , c o n d i t i o n a b i l i t y , a n d a l c o h o l c o n s u m p t i o n ; A p s y c h o b i o l o g i c a l a p p r o a c h . I n R . N u t t e r a n d W. P o l e y ( E d s . ; , P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e S i x t h A n n u a l  R e s e a r c h S y m p o s i u m o f t h e A l b e r t a A l c o h o l i s m a n d D r u g A b u s e  C o m m i s s i o n . E d m o n t o n : A l b e r t a A l c o h o l i s m a n d D r u g A b u s e C o m m i s s i o n , 1 9 7 4 . 59 Redmore, C , & Waldman, K. R e l i a b i l i t y o f a sentence completion measure o f ego development. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment, 1975, 22, 236-243. R o t t e r , J.B. G e n e r a l i z e d e x p e c t a n c i e s f o r i n t e r n a l versus e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 1966, 80, 1-28. Schacter, S., & Latane, B. Crime, c o g n i t i o n , and the autonomic nervous system. In D. L e v i n e ( E d . ) , Nebraska Symposium on  M o t i v a t i o n , V o l . 12, L i n c o l n : U n i v e r s i t y o f Nebraska Press, 1964. S c h u c k i t , M., P i t t s , F.N., R e i c h , T., King, L . J . , & Winokur, G. A l c o h o l i s m I: two types o f a l c o h o l i s m i n women. A r c h i v e s  o f General Psychology. 1 9 6 9 , 20, 3 0 1 - 3 0 6 . S c h u c k i t , M. A l c o h o l i s m and soCiopathy d i a g n o s t i c c o n f u s i o n . Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f S t u d i e s o f A l c o h o l i s m . 1973, J4, 157-164. Sc h u c k i t , M.A., & Gunderson, E.K. A l c o h o l i s m i n navy and marine corps women: a f i r s t l o ok. M i l i t a r y Medicine, 1975, 268-270. Seligman, M.F.P. F a l l i n t o h e l p l e s s n e s s . Psychology Today, 1973, 2, 43-48. S u l l i v a n , C , Grant, M.Q., & Grant, J.D. The development o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l m a t u r i t y : a p p l i c a t i o n s to delinquency. P s y c h i a t r y , 1 9 5 7 , 2 0 , 373-385. T i e b o u t , H.M. Psychology and treatment o f a l c o h o l i s m . Q u a r t e r l y  J o u r n a l o f the S t u d i e s o f A l c o h o l , 1946, 2» 214-227. Tremper, M. Dependency i n a l c o h o l i c s : a s o c i o l o g i c a l view. Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f S t u d i e s on A l c o h o l . 1972, J J , 186-190. V a i l l a n t , G.E. A l c o h o l i s m and drug dependence. In A.M. N i c h o l i , J r . ( E d . ) , The Harvard Guide to Modern P s y c h i a t r y . Cambridge, Mass: The Belkmap Press o f Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1978. Walton, H.J. P e r s o n a l i t y as a determinant o f the form o f a l c o h o l -ism. B r i t i s h J o u r n a l o f P s y c h i a t r y . 1968, 114, 7 6 I - 7 6 6 . Wexberg, L.E. Psychodynamics o f p a t i e n t s with c h r o n i c a l c o h o l i s m . J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l Psychopathology. 1 9 4 9 , 1 0 , 127-157. Whitelock, P.R., O v e r a l l , J.E., & P a t r i c k , J.H. P e r s o n a l i t y p a t t e r n s and a l c o h o l abuse i n a s t a t e h o s p i t a l p o p u l a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal Psychology-, 1971, 7_8, 9-16. W i l l i a m s , J.H. C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n and follow-up o f a l c o h o l i c p a t i e n t s . In R.J. Catanzaro (Ed.), A l c o h o l i s m : The t o t a l  treatment approach. S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s : C.C. Thomas, 1 9 6 8 . 6 0 World Health Organization. Expert committee on drug dependence (sixteenth report), WHO technical report series No. 4 0 7 . Geneva: World Health Organization, 1969. Zucker, R., & Von Horn, H. S i b l i n g s o c i a l structure and o r a l behavior: drinking and smoking i n adolescence. Quarterly  Journal of the Studies on Alcohol. 1972, 23_, 193-197. APPENDI Consent Form 6 2 i f , consent to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the present study on a l c o h o l i s m . I am aware t h a t t h i s w i l l i n v o l v e one s e s s i o n of a p p r o x i m a t e l y one hour. The s e s s i o n w i l l i n v o l v e f i l l i n g out t h r e e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s one b e i n g a sentence c o m p l e t i o n t a s k , w h i l e the o t h e r two are s e l e c t i n g prearranged i tems t h a t e i t h e r a p p l y t o me or concur w i t h my b e l i e f s . A b r i e f p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w may occur i f deemed necessary f o r f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n . As w e l l , a s h o r t d i s c u s s i o n w i t h my t h e r a p i s t and f a m i l y members on F a m i l y Day may o c c u r , a g a i n f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n . The r e s e a r c h e r may a l s o use i n f o r m a t i o n which I p r o v i d e d to P a c i f i c a T r e a t -ment Center i n my alcohol history form and/or intake form. The information w i l l be gathered and maintained by the p r i n c i p a l i n v e s t i g a t o r , C e l e s t a W i l s o n . I understand t h a t the s t r i c t e s t c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of the i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d w i l l be m a i n t a i n e d and t h a t no i n d i v i d u a l r e s u l t s w i l l be r e l e a s e d . I a l s o understand t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s p r o j e c t i s v o l u n t a r y and may be t e r m i n a t e d at any t ime w i t h o u t jeopardy t o my t reatment . Signed. :Purpose of P r o j e c t 63 As. you know, a l l c l i e n t s 1 coming through here a r r i v e under the u m b r e l l a of a l c o h o l i s m . We-know .-there are s i m i l a r i t i e s b u t a l s o d i f f e r e n c e s i n the p e r s o n a l i t i e s of a l c o h o l i c s . The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e s are designed t o g a i n i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g those s i m i l a r i t i e s arid d i f f e r e n c e s . I N I T IALS 6 4 O f t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s , c h e c k o f f t h e ones t h a t y o u f e e l c l e a r l y aPP5-Y t o y o u : N o t e i f t h e s e happened b e f o r e 16 o r a f t e r age 16. (1) r e p e a t e d t r u a n c y ( s k i p p i n g s c h o o l ) , s u s p e n s i o n o r e x p u l -s i o n f r o m s c h o o l (3 t o 5 t i m e s ) . (2) r e p e a t e d r u n n i n g away f r o m home f o r a t l e a s t o v e r n i g h t . (3) 2 o r more n o n t r a f f i c p o l i c e o f f e n s e s , 4 o r more a r r e s t s o f any t y p e , o r a t l e a s t one f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n . '"('4') w o r k h i s t o r y c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y r e p e a t e d l y b e i n g d i s m i s s e d (3 o r more) o r f r e q u e n t i m p u l s i v e j o b c h a n g e s . (5) r e p e a t e d o u t b u r s t s o f r a g e o r f i g h t i n g (3 o r m o r e ) . (6) s e x u a l p r o m i s c u i t y ( l o t s o f c a s u a l s e x p a r t n e r s ) . ( 7 ) p r o s t i t u t i o n o r p i m p i n g . (8) a period of d r i f t i n g w i t h 6 months o r more of wandering with no a r r a n g e d job o r f i x e d a d d r e s s . (9) use of o t h e r d r u g s b e s i d e s a l c o h o l on more than an exper-i m e n t a l basis. (10) period of r e p e a t e d l y i n g o r u s e o f an a l i a s (assumed name) . (11) A l c o h o l i c p a r e n t : a . 1 b . 2 c . n e i t h e r (12) F a m i l y o f o r i g i n - as y o u grew u p : - 2 n a t u r a l p a r e n t s l i v i n g w i t h 1 o r more c h i l d r e n - 2 p a r e n t s - one n o t my p a r e n t - s i n g l e p a r e n t - n o p a r e n t , b u t some o t h e r a d u l t - r e s i d e n t i a l c a r e , f o s t e r homes (13) A t m o s p h e r e o f f a m i l y when g r o w i n g u p : - p o o r _ O . K . _ good (14) I m p r e s s i o n s of m o t h e r : I m p r e s s i o n s of f a t h e r : - warm - i n d i f f e r e n t - a b u s i v e - warm - i n d i f f e r e n t - a b u s i v e ATTITUDE SURVEY 6 ^ T h i s i s a q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o f i n d o u t t h e way i n w h i c h c e r t a i n i m p o r t a n t e v e n t s i n o u r s o c i e t y a f f e c t d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e . Each i t e m c o n s i s t s o f a p a i r o f a l t e r n a t i v e s l e t t e r e d a and b. P l e a s e s e l e c t t h e one s t a t e m e n t o f each p a i r (and o n l y one) w h i c h you more s t r o n g l y BELIEVE t o be the case as f a r as y o u ' r e c o n c e r n e d . Be s u r e t o s e l e c t the one you a c t u a l l y B£LIEVE t o be more t r u e r a t h e r than t h e one you t h i n k you s h o u l d choose o r t h e one you would l i k e t o be t r u e . In some i n s t a n c e s you may d i s c o v e r t h a t you b e l i e v e b o t h s t a t e m e n t s o r n e i t h e r one. In such c a s e s , be s u r e t o s e l e c t the ONE you more s t r o n g l y b e l i e v e t o be the c a s e as f a r as y o u ' r e c o n c e r n e d . A l s o t r y t o respond t o each i t e m i n d e p e n d e n t l y when making y o u r c h o i c e ; do not be i n f l u e n c e d by y o u r p r e v i o u s c h o i c e s . PLEASE CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE LETTER'. 1. a. C h i l d r e n get i n t o t r o u b l e -because t h e i r p a r e n t s p u n i s h them too much. b.* The t r o u b l e w i t h most c h i l d r e n nowadays i s t h a t t h e i r p a r e n t s a r e too easy w i t h them. 2. a. Many o f t h e unhappy t h i n g s i n p e o p l e ' s l i v e s a r e p a r t l y due t o bad l u c k , b. P e o p l e ' s m i s f o r t u n e s r e s u l t from the m i s t a k e s t h e y make. 3 . a. One o f t h e major reasons why we have wars i s because p e o p l e don't take enough i n t e r e s t i n p o l i t i c s , b. There w i l l a l w a y s be w a r s , no m a t t e r how h a r d p e o p l e t r y t o p r e v e n t them. ^. a. In the l o n g run p e o p l e get t h e r e s p e c t they d e s e r v e i n t h i s w o r l d . b. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , an i n d i v i d u a l ' s w o r t h o f t e n p a s s e s u n r e c o g n i z e d no m a t t e r how h a r d he t r i e s . 5. a. In t h e c a s e o f t h e w e l l p r e p a r e d s t u d e n t t h e r e i s r a r e l y i f e v e r s u c h a t h i n g as an u n f a i r t e s t , b. Many t i m e s exam q u e s t i o n s tend t o be so u n r e l a t e d t o c o u r s e work t h a t s t u d y i n g i s r e a l l y u s e l e s s . 6. a. Becoming a s u c c e s s i s a m a t t e r o f h a r d work, l u c k has l i t t l e o r n o t h i n g t o do wi t h i t . b. G e t t i n g a good j o b depends m a i n l y on b e i n g i n the r i g h t p l a c e a t the r i g h t t ime. 7. a. The a v e r a g e c i t i z e n can have an i n f l u e n c e i n government d e c i s i o n s . b. T h i s w o r l d i s run by t h e few p e o p l e i n power, and t h e r e i s not much t h e l i t t l e guy can do about i t . 8. a. The i d e a t h a t t e a c h e r s a r e u n f a i r t o s t u d e n t s i s nonsense. b. Most s t u d e n t s don't r e a l i z e t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e i r g rades a r e i n f l u e n c e d by a c c i d e n t a l h a p p e n i n g s . 9. a. W i t h o u t t h e r i g h t b r e a k s one cannot be an e f f e c t i v e l e a d e r . b. C a p a b l e p e o p l e who f a i l t o become l e a d e r s have not t a k e n advantage o f t h e i r o p p o r t u n i t i e s . PLEASE TURN OVER! 65a 10. a. No m a t t e r how h a r d y ou t r y some p e o p l e j u s t don't l i k e you. b. P e o p l e who c a n ' t get o t h e r s t o l i k e them don't u n d e r s t a n d how t o get a l o n g wi t h o t h e r s . 11. a. H e r e d i t y p l a y s the major r o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g one's p e r s o n a l i t y . b. I t i s one's e x p e r i e n c e s i n l i f e w h i c h d e t e r m i n e what t h e y ' r e l i k e . 12. a. I have o f t e n found t h a t what i s g o i n g t o happen w i l l happen, b. T r u s t i n g t o f a t e has ne v e r t u r n e d o u t . 13. a. When I make p l a n s , I am a l m o s t c e r t a i n t h a t I can make them work. b. I t i s not a l w a y s w i s e t o p l a n t o o f a r ahead because many t h i n g s t u r n o u t t o be a m a t t e r o f good o r bad f o r t u n e anyhow. 1**. a. There a r e c e r t a i n p e o p l e who a r e j u s t no good, b. T h e r e i s some good i n ev e r y b o d y . 15. a. In my case g e t t i n g what I want has l i t t l e o r n o t h i n g t o do w i t h l u c k , b. Many times we might j u s t as w e l l d e c i d e what t o do by f l i p p i n g a c o i n . 16. a. Who g e t s t o be t h e boss o f t e n depends on who was l u c k y enough t o be i n the r i g h t p l a c e f i r s t . b. G e t t i n g p e o p l e t o do the r i g h t t h i n g depends upon a b i l i t y , l u c k has l i t t l e o r n o t h i n g t o do w i t h i t . 17- a. As f a r as w o r l d a f f a i r s a r e c o n c e r n e d , most o f us a r e t h e v i c t i m s o f f o r c e s we can n e i t h e r u n d e r s t a n d , nor c o n t r o l , b. By t a k i n g an a c t i v e p a r t i n p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l a f f a i r s t h e p e o p l e can c o n t r o l w o r l d e v e n t s . 18. a. Most p e o p l e don't r e a l i z e t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e i r l i v e s a r e c o n t r o l l e d by a c c i d e n t a l h a p p e n i n g s , b. T h e r e r e a l l y i s no s u c h t h i n g as " l u c k " . 19. a. One s h o u l d a l w a y s be w i l l i n g t o admit m i s t a k e s , b. I t i s u s u a l l y b e s t t o cov e r up one's m i s t a k e s . 20. a. I t i s hard to know whether o r not a pe r s o n r e a l l y l i k e s you. b. How many f r i e n d s you have depends upon how n i c e a p e r s o n you a r e . 21. a. In t h e l o n g run the bad t h i n g s t h a t happen t o us a r e b a l a n c e d by the good o n e s , b. Most m i s f o r t u n e s a r e t h e r e s u l t o f l a c k o f a b i l i t y , i g n o r a n c e , l a z i n e s s , o r al 1 t h r e e . 22. a. W i t h enough e f f o r t we can wipe out p o l i t i c a l c o r r u p t i o n . b. I t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r p e o p l e t o have much c o n t r o l o v e r the t h i n g s p o l i t i c i a n s do i n o f f i c e . 23. a. Sometimes I c a n ' t u n d e r s t a n d how t e a c h e r s a r r i v e a t t h e grades t h e y g i v e , b. There i s a d i r e c t c o n n e c t i o n between how h a r d I s t u d y and the grades I g e t . 2k. a. A good l e a d e r e x p e c t s people t o d e c i d e f o r the m s e l v e s what they s h o u l d do. b. A good l e a d e r makes i t c l e a r t o ev e r y b o d y what t h e i r j o b s a r e . 25. a. Many times I f e e l t h a t I have l i t t l e i n f l u e n c e o v e r the t h i n g s t h a t happen t o me. b. I t i s i m p o s s i b l e f o r me t o b e l i e v e t h a t chance o r l u c k p l a y s an i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n my I i f e . 26. a. P e o p l e a r e l o n e l y because they don't t r y t o be f r i e n d l y . b. There's not much use i n t r y i n g t oo h a r d t o p l e a s e p e o p l e , i f they l i k e y o u , they 1i ke you. 27. a. There i s t o o much emphasis on a t h l e t i c s i n h i g h s c h o o l , b. Team s p o r t s a r e an e x c e l l e n t way t o b u i l d c h a r a c t e r . 28. a. What happens t o me i s my own d o i n g . b. Sometimes I f e e l t h a t I don't have enough c o n t r o l o v e r t h e d i r e c t i o n o f my l i f e i s t a k i n g . 29. a. Most o f t h e time I c a n ' t u n d e r s t a n d why p o l i t i c i a n s behave the way they do. b. In t h e l o n g run t h e p e o p l e a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r bad government on a n a t i o n a l as w e l l as on a l o c a l l e v e l . 66 SENTENCE COMPLETION FOR MALES Name Age E d u c a t i o n G r o s s Income 1980 I n s t r u c t i o n s : C o m p l e t e t h e f o l l o w i n g s e n t e n c e s . 1 . R a i s i n g a f a m i l y 2. When a c h i l d w i l l n o t j o i n i n g r o u p a c t i v i t i e s 3. When t h e y a v o i d e d me 4. A man's j o b 5. B e i n g w i t h o t h e r p e o p l e 6. The t h i n g I l i k e a b o u t m y s e l f i s 7. I f my mother SENTENCE COMPLETION FOR MALES 6 7 8.. I f I c a n ' t g e t what I want 9. When I was y o u n g e r 10. E d u c a t i o n 11. When p e o p l e a r e h e l p l e s s 12. Women a r e l u c k y b e c a u s e i. •3. What g e t s me i n t o t r o u b l e i s 14. A good f a t h e r 15. I f I were a k i n g SENTENCE COMPLETION FOR MALES 6 8 16. A wife should 17. I f e e l s o r r y 18. A man should always 19. Rules are 20. He f e l t proud t h a t he 21. Men are lucky because 22. My f a t h e r and I 23. A man f e e l s good when SENTENCE COMPLETION FOR MALES 24. When I get mad 69 25. At times he worried about 26. When h i s wife asked him to help with the housework 27. My main problem i s 28. When I am c r i t i c i z e d 29. Sometimes he wished t h a t 30. A husband has a r i g h t to 31. When he thought of h i s mother, he SENTENCE COMPLETION POR MALES 32. The worst t h i n g about being a man 70 3 3 . I f I had more money 3 4 . I j u s t can't stand people who 3 5 . My conscience bothers me i f 36. Crime and delinquency c o u l d be h a l t e d i f 3 7 . A l c o h o l seems to 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054322/manifest

Comment

Related Items