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.

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 PRIMARYSECONDARY 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 t h i s t h e s i s 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 requirements  this thesis f o r an  of  British  it  freely available  agree t h a t for  for  that  for reference  and  study.  I  for extensive be  her  copying or shall  copying of  granted  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5 Date  DE-6  (2/79)  O c t o b e r 19,  1981  the  publication be  of  further this  Columbia  thesis  this  my  It is thesis  a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  Psychology  make  head o f  representatives.  not  Counselling  by  the  University shall  permission.  Department of  the  Library  h i s or  f i n a n c i a l gain  degree at the  p u r p o s e s may by  f u l f i l m e n t of  I agree that  permission  department or understood  advanced  Columbia,  scholarly  in partial  written  ii  ABSTRACT  A study was  done t o i n v e s t i g a t e the w e l l documented  nature o f the a l c o h o l i c p o p u l a t i o n . Sentence  heterogeneous  L o e v i n g e r ' s Ego Development  Completion Scale and R o t t e r ' s  Locus o f C o n t r o l Q u e s t i o n -  n a i r e were used t o i n v e s t i g a t e 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 the primary and  secondary a l c o h o l i c subtypes.  No 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 were found on e i t h e r the Ego Development o r Locus o f C o n t r o l  scales.  i m p l i c a t i o n s o f such f i n d i n g s were  The reasons f o r and  discussed.  ( T h e s i s Chairman  iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER  PAGE Abstract  i i  List  o f Tables  List  of Figures  .  .  .  vv v i  Acknowledgements I  v i i  I N T R O D U C T I O N TO T H E STUDY  1  Nature  2  o f the Study  Purpose  o f the Study  Definition  . . . . . .  o f Terms  .  .  .  .  2  .  .  Alcoholism  3  Primary Alcoholism  .  .  Secondary A l c o h o l i s m  5  Internal-External  Limitations Overview II  3 4  Ego D e v e l o p m e n t  Significance  3  Locus  of Control  7  o f the Study  7  o f the Study  8  o f the Study  10  REVIEW O F THE LITERATURE  11  Introduction  11  Ego D e v e l o p m e n t Locus  . . . . . . . . .  of Control  Characteristics Subgroupings  17 o f the Alcoholic  Within  Ego D e v e l o p m e n t Locus o f C o n t r o l  Purpose  the A l c o h o l i c P o p u l a t i o n  and the A l c o h o l i c a n d the A l c o h o l i c  Summary The  11  18 .  .  .  .  19 20 21 22  Restated  22  iv CHAPTER  PAGE R e s e a r c h  III  Questions  2 3  METHODOLOGY  . V  Subjects Differentiating The  Clinical  2 4  P r i m a r y "from S e c o n d a r y A l c o h o l i c s .  Tools, Administration  Ego  Development  Ego  Stages o f the.Scale  and S c o r i n g  . .  31  Scale  31 31  A n a l y s i s o f Data RESULTS Subject Ego V  3 3 V a r i a b l e s - Age, E d u c a t i o n and Income . . .  L e v e l , Locus o f C o n t r o l , & Primary/Secondary  Appropriateness o f t h e Development  P r i m a r y / S e c o n d a r y Dichotomy  4 0  4 6  Inappropriate  Subject  Research  REFERENCES APPENDIX  34  and L o c u s o f C o n t r o l a s Inadequate  Measures  Further  .  3 3  39  DISCUSSION  Ego  26  27  Administration  IV  2 4  26  Scale  Locus o f Control  2 4  Population  4 9 50 "54 6 1  V  LIST OF TABLES Table  Description  1.  Some M i l e s t o n e s o f Ego  2.  Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o f 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 Age, Y e a r s o f F o r m a l E d u c a t i o n and G r o s s Y e a r l y Income  3k.  5.  Page 6  Development  I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f Ego D e v e l o p m e n t , L o c u s o f C o n t r o l and P r i m a r y / S e c o n d a r y D e s i g n a t i o n  33  . . .  35  Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s , and t V a l u e s f o r C o m p a r i s o n s Between 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 on Ego D e v e l o p m e n t and L o c u s o f Control  36  I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f Ego D e v e l o p m e n t and L o c u s o f C o n t r o l W i t h Age, G r o s s Y e a r l y Income, and Years o f Formal E d u c a t i o n  38  vi LIST OF FIGURES F  i  e  u  1. 2.  r  e  Description 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 s u b j e c t . . . . . . Percentage o f t o t a l item frequency f o r each ego l e v e l c o l l a t e d s e p a r a t e l y f o r a l l primary and a l l secondary p r o t o c o l s  Page  3^  37  vii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  In completing  t h i s t h e s i s I would l i k e t o thank the Chairman  o f my t h e s i s committee, Dr. R i c h a r d Young, f o r h i s prompt a t t e n t i o n , h i s c a r e f u l e d i t i n g and s u b s t a n t i v e d i r e c t i o n and comments throughout the course o f t h i s work.  In a d d i t i o n I would l i k e to  thank Dr. Marvin Westwood and Dr. H a r o l d R a t z l a f f f o r t h e i r and  comments r e g a r d i n g the substance  o f the present  support  research.  I would a l s o l i k e t o thank the s t a f f and c l i e n t s a t P a c i f i c a f o r t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n and forebearance  d u r i n g a l l phases o f t h i s  research. And  f i n a l l y , thanks t o my husband f o r h i s a s s i s t a n c e 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 t h e p r o t o c o l s .  CHAPTER I Introduction Although alcoholism  i s c o n s i d e r e d b y many t o be a monumental (Jellinek, I960),  problem f a c i n g our s o c i e t y begun t o f u l l y nature  utilize  characterized  enormous a r r a y  relapse  The t h e r a p i s t  of social,  categorize  c l i e n t s along  as well i s often  as therapist faced  client.  This  i s , an important  a s p e c t o f any t r e a t m e n t p r o g r a m .  client  a s an i n d i v i d u a l , b u t a l s o  subgrouping w i t h i n therapist's  The o b j e c t i v e groupings within adjunct of ful  categorization Knowledge  can g r e a t l y  an a l c o h o l i c t r e a t m e n t p o p u l a t i o n  ways, t h e t h e r a p i s t ' s research  personality  identifiable  o f the  enhance t h e  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f sub-  (Blume, 1 9 7 8 ) .  isa  effectiveness  i s designed  i n meaning-  s h o u l d be g r e a t l y  t o expand o u r knowledge  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f two i m p o r t a n t  alcoholic  s u b t y p e s (Blume, 1 9 7 8 ) . 1  vital  I f the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  i d e n t i f i a b l e a l c o h o l i c s u b t y p e s c a n be e m b e l l i s h e d  specific  subjective  to function e f f e c t i v e l y .  to proper therapy  The p r e s e n t  tries  a s a member o f a l a r g e r  the treatment population  ability  factors  The t h e r a p i s t  treatment.  frustra-  w i t h an  c e r t a i n m e a n i n g f u l and o f t e n  dimensions i n order to f a c i l i t a t e  not only  1979)•  (Barnes,  e n v i r o n m e n t a l , and p e r s o n a l i t y  seemingly unique t o each a l c o h o l i c to  a s an a i d t o t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g  i s a d e m a n d i n g and complex p r o c e s s  by c l i e n t  ( V a l l i e n t , 1978).  recently  the heterogeneous  and p r o p e r t r e a t m e n t o f a l c o h o l i s m  The t r e a t m e n t o f a l c o h o l i c s  tion  we have o n l y  o u r knowledge r e g a r d i n g  of the a l c o h o l i c population  of the etiology  often  t o t h e Study  enhanced. regarding  and r e a d i l y  2  Nature P r i m a r y and most  fruitful  secondary  of alcohol  maladjustment.  The  secondary's  the It  forward  Alcohol  ing  i s considered central  While  cate-  i s relatively  a thorough subtype  knowledge o f t h e  subtypes.  psychological  i s o b t a i n e d so t h a t  the  population of  understand-  alcoholics  dimensions  o f p r i m a r y and  that  s u b t y p e s and two  o f the  Study  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  acterization  secondary  enhance o u r a b i l i t y  personality  characteristics  an  chosen  f o r t h i s purpose  D e v e l o p m e n t S c a l e and R o t t e r ' s  considered indicative  In a d d i t i o n  alcoholic  to o f f e r a p p r o p r i a t e treatment.  I n t e r n a l - E x t e r n a l Locus o f Control are  external  events o c c u r i n one's l i f e  char-  alcoholics along personality  i n c r e a s e o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e two  L o e v i n g e r ' s (1976) Ego  1976).  to society.  enhanced.  The  adult  the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s e two  Purpose  The  to  while only another m a n i f e s t a t i o n  and t r e a t m e n t o f t h e h e t e r o g e n e o u s  c a n be  alcohol  1 9 7 8 ) , t h e p r o b l e m a r i s e s when s p e c i f y i n g  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 each  1957;  distinction  as e i t h e r primary o r secondary  (Blume,  i s important that  (Fox,  primary-secondary  g e n e r a l maladjustment  g o r i z i n g an a l c o h o l i c straight  available  i n the person's present  primary a l c o h o l i c ' s d i f f i c u l t i e s , the  s u b t y p e s have a r i s e n a s t h e  dichotomization presently  concerns the r o l e  of  Problem  alcoholic  1973J Blume, 1978).  Schuckit,  related  o f the  Scale.  Lower ego  o f developmental  (1966)  levels  i n the  stagnation (Loevinger,  causal orientation  ( R o t t e r , 1966)  are  towards  i s generally  why  associated  3 with maladjustment. longed h i s t o r y w o u l d be  Secondary a l c o h o l i c s ,  "because o f  o f maladjustment r e l a t i v e to  expected  mary a l c o h o l i c s  to  on  primary  show g r e a t e r p e r s o n a l i t y  the  two  their  pro-  alcoholics,  deficits  m e a s u r e s c h o s e n f o r use  than  i n the  pri-  present  research.  Definition  of  Terms  Alcoholism The  alcoholic  ingestion  impairs his  efficiency, the  i s best  ability  or  to  her  avoid l e g a l  the  essence o f  life  into  t i o n process. who  pathological They are  drinking  often  into  alcoholic  a controlled  fashion."  first  is  considered  prior  to  alcohol  health,  or  1967;  job  c o n f l i c t s with  World  Health  drinking,  be  free  their alcoholic  of  those  who  have  slipped  through  some k i n d  great  they  can  "...  alcoholic  abuse.  talent To  persons  of  and  their  ability dismay,  n e v e r resume  Gunderson  illness."  The  p r o c e s s i s the  gross maladaptive  the  drinking  (1975i p.  primary  in  habitua-  H a v i n g once s t e p p e d o v e r  and  any  des-  "...  Schuckit the  eloquently  as,  social drinkers.  appearing, p s y c h i a t r i c to  has  life,  persons of  control.  define primary alcoholism, or  Plaut,  in their early  t h e y f i n d t h e y have l o s t  in  difficulties  primary a l c o h o l i c  have f o r y e a r s b e e n h e a v y  borderline  i n d i v i d u a l whose  (1957» P» 164)  Fox  the  obviously neurotic  later  an  1969).  Primary Alcoholism. cribed  as  social relationships,  c u l t u r a l mores ( V a i l l a n t , 1978;  Organization, 0  not  described  268) only,  alcoholic  symtomatology  4 I t i s very important t h a t the primary and secondary 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 ,  alcoprior  to t h e i r a l c o h o l abuse and o f t e n f o l l o w i n g , i s a s t a b l e member o f society.  I n a d d i t i o n they appear p s y c h i a t r i c a l l y s t a b l e i n terms  o f gross a n t i s o c i a l b e h a v i o r s .  C e r t a i n l y they have no p o l i c e  r e c o r d , no h i s t o r y o f d e l i n q u e n t b e h a v i o r s , a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r s , gross sexual a c t i o n s , o r any o f the b e h a v i o r s g e n e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with the a n t i s o c i a l o r s o c i o p a t h i c d e s i g n a t i o n . Secondary secondary  Alcoholism.  Fox, (1957, p. 164) has d e s c r i b e d the  as, "... those persons who have been e m o t i o n a l l y mal-  adjusted since childhood.  A l c o h o l has seemed a godsend to them,  h e l p i n g to s o l v e t e m p o r a r i l y t h e i r b a s i c s o c i a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l problems.  They u s u a l l y have become a l c o h o l i c s at a very e a r l y  age, and they are more d i f f i c u l t to t r e a t than the (primary) a d d i c t s s i n c e they have never used t h e more mature avenues o f s e l f expression.  They tend to have t h e emotional equipment o f 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 they have developed  alcohol,  few o t h e r , more mature techniques o f l i v i n g .  They must be helped to grow up." In s h o r t , the secondary  a l c o h o l i c appears to be s e v e r e l y  l i m i t e d i n almost every aspect o f normal p e r s o n a l i t y growth (Madsen, 1974).  Madsen has o f f e r e d numerous d e s c r i p t o r s o f the a l c o h o l i c  subtype which f i t q u i t e n e a t l y i n t o Jane L o e v i n g e r ' s f o u r f a c e t s o f ego development!  Lack o f emotional c o n t r o l / w i l d  mood (impulse c o n t r o l ) ; personal s t y l e ) ; tion);  P a s s i v e , a l i e n a t i n g , dependent  Psychosomatic  and f i n a l l y ,  swings i n  Confused  (inter-  complaints ( c o n s c i o u s preoccupa-  (cognitive  style).  5 Schuckit  (1973) and Blume (1978) p o i n t o u t t h a t  the  secondary  a l c o h o l i c ' s d r i n k i n g h a s b e e n a n t e d a t e d by o t h e r p r e e x i s t i n g p s y 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 while t h e primary begins with a h i s t o r y  clear o f a l l other psychiatric  In c o n c l u s i o n the secondary past  social behavior  are c l e a r l y life  history  age.  i s diametrically  antisocial/sociopathic  away.  Home l i f e  work h i s t o r y  i s poor  i s n o t uncommon.  Ego  an e a r l y  and u n e v e n . Sexual  Thus,  by r u n n i n g  crimes are o f t e n  A history  o f aggressive  d e v i a n c e , p r o m i s c u i t y , even  i t i s c l e a r that a person i n important  that  ways f r o m  a  Development development  i s viewed  a s an i n v a r i a n t  sequence o f s t a g e s  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  m o v i n g from "Master sical,  s i m p l e t o more complex l e v e l s o f ego i n t e g r a t i o n ,  Trait"  ( L o e v i n g e r , 1970)  psychosexual,  around  him.  development.  from  a  phy-  Each person i s  p e r c e p t u a l v i e w o f h i m s e l f and t h e w o r l d  T h i s p e r c e p t u a l view i s s a i d  more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  world,  conceptually distinct  and i n t e l l e c t u a l  assumed t o h a v e a t y p i c a l  and  Their  alcoholic.  Ego from  b e h a v i o r s from  as adult  meets t h e above d e s c r i p t o r s i s d i f f e r e n t primary  They  i n t h e i r overt behaviors.  h a s b e e n awkward, o f t e n p u n c t u a t e d  behaviors i s often present. pimping  with respect to t h e i r  has u s u a l l y been t r u a n t , o f t e n ending i n  Delinquent behaviors as well  presents  problems.  opposite the primary.  i s permeated w i t h a n t i s o c i a l  School attendance  expulsion.  alcoholic  drinking  t o move t o w a r d s a more  p e r c e p t i o n o f one's s e l f ,  and o f o n e ' s t h o u g h t s  and e m o t i o n a l  one's  responses  social  as they  affect  CD  cm o Cb CD  Table 1  <  CD M O  Some M i l e s t o n e s o f Ego D e v e l o p m e n t *  Xi 3 CD  Stage  Code  Presocial Symbiotic Impulsive Self-protective  Conformist  1-3  Conscientious-conformist  1-3/4  Conscientious  1-4  Individualistic  Autonomous  Integrated  Impulse control, character development  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, longterm goals and ideals 1-4/5 Add: Respect for individuality 1-5  1-6  Add: Coping with conflicting inner needs, toleration  Add: Reconciling inner conflicts, renunciation of unattainable  Interpersonal style 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  Add: Cherishing of individuality  Note: 'Add' means in addition to the description applying to the previous level.  * From Head a n d S h a y e r (1980)  Conscious preoccupations  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 rand psychological, psychological causation of behaviour, role conception, self-fulfillment, self in social context Add: Identity  <+ Cognitive style  P  a p CD  P ^ CD O  c+  CD  a.  a* << o  Stereotyping, conceptual j confusion  Conceptual simplicity, stereotypes, cliches Multiplicity  Conceptual complexity, idea of patterning i  CD  i-3  P  cf CD  o p 3  Add: Distinction of process and outcome Increased conceptual complexity, complex patterns, toleration for ambiguity, broad scope, objectivity  V CD  P Xi co  o  1  CD CO cr Pb 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 Rotter determine  (1966) h a s d e v e l o p e d a 2 9 - i t e m i n s t r u m e n t d e s i g n e d t o  g e n e r a l i z e d expectancy  control o f reinforcement. individual are  An i n t e r n a l l y  looks to f a c t o r s  Because o f the demonstrated p o p u l a t i o n (Barnes, valid  distinction essential nature  appears  1979)»  controlled  to a person's  t o be a v i a b l e  nature  i t i s important to extend  subgroupings.  subgroupings.  reinforcements  and t h e c o n t r o l  heterogeneous  t h a t we become t h o r o u g h l y  o f these  i s an  exerted  life  situation.  o f the Study  subgroupings but a l s o  ledge r e g a r d i n g those  An e x t e r n a l l y  significantly  Significance  identify  controlled person  such a s l u c k , f a t e ,  others as c o n t r i b u t i n g  alcoholic  internal/external  who h a s 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  c o n t i n g e n t on h i s own b e h a v i o r .  person by  o f a person's  not only to  and deepen o u r know-  Although and v a l i d  o f the  the  primary-secondary  dichotomization, i t i s  knowledgeable r e g a r d i n g the  In f a c t , Emrick  (1976) h a s s u g g e s t e d  t h a t a m o r a t o r i u m be p l a c e d o n s t u d i e s t h a t do n o t t a k e  into  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 . It  i s only r e l a t i v e l y  recently  t h a t the heterogeneous  o f a l c o h o l i c s h a s begun t o 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 (Barnes,  1979).  With t h e advent  c t i o n between a l c o h o l i c s realignment reliable  o f t h e a r e a h a s become p o s s i b l e .  subgroupings  significant  with a  improvement  attention  o f the primary-secondary  ( S c h u c k i t e t a l . , 1969),  clinical  a  nature  distin-  significant  I t seems o b v i o u s  p o p u l a t i o n can l e a d  that  to a  i n o u r knowledge n o t o n l y o f t h e s u b g r o u p -  8  ings themselves, strategies  hut a l s o the e t i o l o g y and p o s s i b l e  treatment  t o be employed.  The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h i s an e f f o r t  to g a i n a b r o a d e r 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 population.  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 ,  o f a l c o h o l i s m can be  achieved.  and p r o g n o s i s  L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h i s d e s i g n e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e  the  character-  i s t i c s o f p r i m a r y 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 variables,  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  is  not d i r e c t l y concerned w i t h v a l i d a t i n g the p r i m a r y - s e c o n d a r y d i c h o t o m y , but r a t h e r e x t e n d i n g our knowledge o f t h i s dichotomy. The a u t h o r a c c e p t s the dichotomy as v a l i d and u s e f u l , based b o t h on r e s e a r c h (Blume, 1978) and p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e o v e r t h r e e y e a r s as a t h e r a p i s t a t an a l c o h o l t r e a t m e n t  center.  M a t c h i n g 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 such as s o c i o - e c o n o m i c is difficult.  status,  age,  variables  e d u c a t i o n , and p o l y - d r u g abuse  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 : the d i f f e r e n c e s  Ar<  due t o the p r i m a r y - s e c o n d a r y 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 ,  education,  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  therefore  tend to become i n v o l v e d w i t h t r e a t m e n t a t an e a r l y age.  Their  9 obvious a n t i s o c i a l tendencies also r e s t r i c t t h e i r socio-economic development,  t h e i r educational development,  and predispose them  towards poly-drug abuse (Schuckit, 1 9 7 3 ) • I f an attempt i s made to match primary and secondary a l c o h o l i c s on the variables o f age, socio-economic status, educational l e v e l , and poly-drug abuse, the e f f o r t may r e s u l t i n our comparing primary a l c o h o l i c s with very mild secondary alcoholics.  Because of the  nature o f the primary-secondary dichotomy, secondary a l c o h o l i c s are almost o f necessity younger, lower i n socio-economic status and educational l e v e l and c e r t a i n l y tend towards poly-drug abuse compared to primary alcoholics.  Attempting to match on these variables  may e f f e c t i v e l y remove the true secondary alcoholic from the study. Another approach to t h i s l i m i t a t i o n i s to show that each of our v a r i a b l e s , ego development  and locus o f control, are indepen-  dent o f age, socio-economic status, education and poly-drug abuse. Loevinger ( 1 9 7 0 ) has reported very l i t t l e relationship between ego l e v e l and age a f t e r twenty years o f age. There i s no s p e c i f i c research regarding socio-economic l e v e l and ego l e v e l . locus o f control, Caster & Parsons ( 1 9 7 7 )  Regarding  reported no s i g n i f i c a n t  c o r r e l a t i o n between age and locus o f control i n 9 8 a l c o h o l i c s using Levenson'.s ( 1 9 7 3 ) locus o f control scale. Poly-drug abuse i s generally considered symptomatic  o f under-  l y i n g s o c i a l or personality disorders ( V a i l l a n t , 1 9 7 8 ) and o f course underlying social or personality disorders i s the major characterist i c of secondary a l c o h o l i c s .  This e f f e c t i v e l y negates any serious  attempt to match primaries and secondaries on t h i s variable.  In the  o p i n i o n o f the  d r u g abuse i s i m p o s s i b l e and  education  present  while  author,  m a t c h i n g on  t h e s i s as  introduced  Chapter I I contains a review c l u d e d by  stating  the  in this of the  I I I by  The  t h e s i s c o n c l u d e s in C h a p t e r s IV  and  socio-economic  and  poly-  status  Study  chapter  will  proceed  relevant literature  research questions.  ter  results  age  i s possible.  O v e r v i e w of t h e The  m a t c h i n g on  and  This i s followed  a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e m e t h o d o l o g y employed i n t h e  of the  suggestions  study,  and  d i s c u s s i o n of the  f o r future  research.  V with  as  follows  i s coni n Chapstudy.  a p r e s e n t a t i o n of  significance  of those  the  results  CHAPTER I I Review o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e Introduction The  literature  population  on p e r s o n a l i t y  i s extensive (Barnes,  f o c u s on those  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  1979).  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which  The p r e s e n t review  support  typings within the a l c o h o l i c population. ego 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  of  how t h e y may h e l p u s t o b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d  the a l c o h o l i c  Ego  be d i s c u s s e d i n t e r m s the heterogeneity o f  Develo-pment  p l e x and r i c h  concept  o f ego d e v e l o p m e n t p r o v i d e s a com-  paradigm f o r understanding  i n t e g r a t i o n a n d frame o f r e f e r e n c e . enormous a b s t r a c t i o n b a s e d f u n c t i o n i n g human b e i n g . human b e i n g  ego d e v e l o p m e n t .  or  related  Loevinger broad  unique  'integration'  concept  to Loevinger's  functionconception  to delineate a  (Sullivan,  1965; Maslow, 1962}  i s an  o f the f u l l y  towards a f u l l y  have a t t e m p t e d  c o n c e p t i o n o f human b e h a v i o r  Grant  &  similar Grant,  and K o h l b e r g ,  c o n c e i v e s o f ego d e v e l o p m e n t a s u n i d i m e n s i o n a l .  1964). One  c a t e g o r y o f ego d e v e l o p m e n t encompasses what L o e v i n g e r  as "facets o f a single  These  The term  This striving  Others  1957; P e c k & H a v i n g h u r s t ,  an i n d i v i d u a l ' s l e v e l o f  upon L o e v i n g e r ' s  i s n o t o f course  of  to  will  the concept  population.  Jane Loevinger's  ing  heterogeneous sub-  In addition,  of  will  coherent  f o u r f a c e t s a r e (1) i m p u l s e  personal  style  process"  ( L o e v i n g e r , 1976, p. 2 6 )  control/moral style  (3) c o n s c i o u s p r e o c c u p a t i o n s  refers  (2)  inter-  and (4) c o g n i t i v e s t y l  The  impulse  c o n t r o l f a c e t moves from the impulsiveness o f the  c h i l d to the s o p h i s t i c a t e d i n t e g r a t i o n o f i n n e r c o n f l i c t s .  The  f a c e t , i n t e r p e r s o n a l 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 o f the i n f a n t to ' d i f f e r e n t i a t e _ s e l f . from- o t h e r s t o the v  i n d i v i d u a l ' s c h e r i s h i n g o f h i e and o t h e r ' s i n d i v i d u a l i t y . c o n s c i o u s p r e o c c u p a t i o n f a c e t extends  The  from the t o t a l l y e g o c e n t r i c  g r a t i f i c a t i o n o f immediate needs t o the i n d i v i d u a l ' s coming to an a p p r e c i a t i o n o f h i s own i d e n t i t y .  The c o g n i t i v e s t y l e f a c e t d e a l s  with the common sense n o t i o n o f conceptual complexity r a n g i n g  from  conceptual c o n f u s i o n to a s o p h i s t i c a t e d a b i l i t y to d e a l with complex r e l a t i o n s h i p s and a m b i g u i t i e s .  I n essence L o e v i n g e r has  c o n c e p t u a l i z e d the development o f a dimension which she f e e l s i s c e n t r a l to the essence  o f human b e h a v i o r  o f human development.  O b v i o u s l y , not everyone reaches the i n t e g r a t e d l e v e l o f f u n c t i o n ing.  In f a c t L o e v i n g e r suggests t h a t approximately Ifo o f the pop-  l u a t i o n ever a t t a i n t h i s l e v e l o f ego development. L o e v i n g e r attempts i n g through a 36-item o f sentence completed  t o t a p t h e v a r i o u s l e v e l s o f ego f u n c t i o n -  sentence  completion t e s t .  stems which a r e t o be completed  The t e s t  by the c l i e n t .  sentences are then r a t e d a c c o r d i n g to s p e c i f i c  L o e v i n g e r sees the developmental  consists The  criterion.  sequence as i n v a r i a n t and  c o n s i s t i n g o f seven h i e r a r c h i c a l stages with t h r e e t r a n s i lions. Hauser ( 1 9 7 6 ) has c r i t i q u e d the assumption  o f invariant  o r d e r by p o i n t i n g out t h a t the o n l y s a t i s f a c t o r y way o f t e s t i n g t h i s i s through  a l o n g i t u d i n a l , repeated measuring o f the same  i n d i v i d u a l s over a s u b s t a n t i a l time p e r i o d . done to date ( B l a s i , 1 9 7 1 )  The o n l y r e s e a r c h  b e a r i n g on the i n v a r i a n t o r d e r question,  while showing f a v o r a b l e r e s u l t s , was not a l o n g i t u d i n a l study and  thus  inadequate.  However, e v e n i f s u c h  were done, n e g a t i v e against  invariant  a longitudinal  r e s u l t s w o u l d n o t be  o r d e r b e c a u s e one  And  o f course  evidence  c o u l d always argue t h a t  t i m e i n t e r v a l s b e t w e e n t e s t i n g were too ment.  conclusive  study  l o n g to  i n t e r v a l s t h a t are too  c a t c h each  short, thus  the develop-  requiring  many t e s t i n g s , : i n t r o d u c e . ^ c o n s i d e r a b l e e r r o r ' i n t o ' t h e whole e x e r c i s e (Redmore & Waldman, 1 9 7 5 ) . positive  evidence  f o r the  retesting Blasi's  M a r t i n and  Redmore (1978) o b t a i n e d  i n v a r i a n t o r d e r o f ego  (1971) s i x t h  development  g r a d e r s when t h e y were i n t h e  twelfth  grade.  1-2  graders  and  ( c o n f o r m i s t ) f o r the t w e l f t h graders.  of  32  the  1-3  ( i m p u l s i v e ) was  since  study  argues f o r i n v a r i a n t  s i x years sure  tive)  delta/3-were  and  d a t a on  this.  r e s u l t s are clusive  i f the  i n t e r v e n i n g ego passed  Therefore,  i n the  evidence  right  through  'master t r a i t ' ,  direction  concept  rigorous tool  self-system, the  concept.  and  an  sure  Obviously,  l e v e l s of d e l t a or skipped  t h e i r data  o f ego  of t h  we  (self-protec-  since there  i s i n no  way  d e v e l o p m e n t c a n be  Ego  development and  her  i s no  but  development  are  (Hauser,  considered construc-  developed  a l s o because o f  Moralization, integration,  extremely  con-  i s especially useful  c o l l e a g u e s have  for i t s analysis,  c o g n i t i v e complexity  framework o f ego  p r o v i d e us with  c a n n o t be  though  order.  not o n l y because Jane Loevinger  o f the  Even  a frame o f r e f e r e n c e a r o u n d w h i c h t h e  t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y occurs.  breadth  Thirty  e v e n t h o u g h M a r t i n & Redmore's (1978)  for invariant  Jane Loevinger's  a fairly  o r d e r , we  sixth  level.  i n t e r v e n e d between t e s t i n g s .  c a n n o t be  a  the median f o r the  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  above  by  relatability,  c r i t i c a l notions 1976).  the  These  u s e f u l - w i n d o w on a p e r s o n ' s  within  aspects function-  14 ing.  Loevinger  has  redefined the  traditional  concept o f  u s u a l l y v i e w e d w i t h i n a framework o f p s y c h o s e x u a l o r development with breadth  and  a far richer  d e p t h i s p e r h a p s one  vinger's concept. we  are  not  and  a b l e t o g a i n a d e p t h and  e a s i l y matched.  developmental nature w i t h i n the  context  intellectual  broader conceptualization. o f the  T h u s when we  ego  apply  greatest  strengths  of  t h i s p a r a d i g m t o an  breadth  o f understanding  It's Loe-  individual that  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  o f ego,  view a p e r s o n  allows  o f time but  us  to not o n l y  the  is  also within a multifaceted  inherent  conceptual  framework. Much o f t h e with  research  e s t a b l i s h i n g the  Interrater tently  suggestion  by  t e s t e r to  responses should t h o u g h t s and  o f ego  great  ego  t e s t has  be  the  a c l e a r and not  consis1972).  Hoppe,  g e n e r a l l y been  Test-retest,  and  have c o n s i s t e n t l y b e e n  T h e r e i s , however, a  Waldman ( 1 9 7 5 ) t h a t  ensure t h a t  r a t e d ego  strong  "motivational  level.  I t i s encumbent  subjects understand  that  their  serious reflection of their  simply  sets"  responses to the  true  perceived  situation.  deal  o f work h a s  development.  of v a l i d i t y  range.  i n f l u e n c e on  f e e l i n g s and  demands o f t h e A  .91  Redmore and  have i m p o r t a n t the  to  development.  have b e e n 1974;  Cox,  sentence completion  o f ego  .92  and  (Redmore & Waldman, 1 9 7 5 ) .  .79  i n the  validity  .?6  h a l f measurements o f r e l i a b i l i t y  obtained  on  and  been concerned p r i m a r i l y  & W e s s l e r , 1970;  shown ( L o e v i n g e r  consistently high  can  reliability  c o r r e l a t i c n s o f between  R e l i a b i l i t y o f the  split  to date has  b e e n done c o n c e r n i n g  Paramount among t h e  i s , o f course,  approaches to  construct v a l i d i t y .  d e v e l o p m e n t a v i a b l e and  u s e f u l one  the  both  I s the  validity the  question  construct  in i t srelationship  of  to  o t h e r v a r i a b l e s a n d i n t e r m s o f i t s own s t r u c t u r a l  Several 1972)  F r a n k & Q u i n l a n , 1976 ; Hoppe &  s t u d i e s (e.g.,  have b e e n done a t t e m p t i n g  behaviors.  (1976).  to r e l a t e  exception  to real  than  The study  those  found  t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s t h a t were t o b e a t a l o w e r ego d e v e l o p -  t h e 1-2  at  o r above t h e D e l t a / 3  s u b j e c t s came f r o m t h e d e l i n q u e n t  that  level  g r o u p w h i l e o n l y 9 1/2$  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  s u b j e c t s a t D e l t a and l o w e r r e p o r t e d  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  away t h a n t h e a d o l e s c e n t s a t a l l t h e o t h e r Hoppe  I n f a c t 85$  not categorized as delinquent.  of  interesting  delinquent  T h e i r s u b j e c t s were 66 m i n o r i t y  c a t e g o r i z e d a s d e l i n q u e n t s were f o u n d ment l e v e l  life  success.  They i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between  female a d o l e s c e n t s .  Loevinger,  i s t h e r e s e a r c h o f Frank and Q u i n l a n  b e h a v i o r s a n d ego d e v e l o p m e n t .  also  ego l e v e l  T h e s e a t t e m p t s have n o t a l w a y s met w i t h  A notable  integrity.  and L o e v i n g e r ' ( 1 9 7 2 ) , another  signif-  and r u n n i n g  stages.  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 m e a s u r e d i n a v a r i e t y o f ways were maximu" i n t h o s e  subjects, middle  r a t e d by the sentence  completion  (Delta/3,  range Delta)  and p o s t - c o n f o r m i s t s  Others (1976)  I-3» 1-3/4)  found  stage  as f a l l i n g  (1-4,  1-4/5,  showing r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  also  f o r more t h a n  o r who t e r m i n a t e d  (1-2,  De L o a c h  o f ego f u n c t i o n i n g a s m e a s u r e d b y t h e Test  (Loevinger,  t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e b e t w e e n s u b j e c t s who c o n t i n u e d  psychotherapy begin  i n the conformist  1-5)•  Washington U n i v e r s i t y Sentence Completion failed  boys,  a s opposed to p r e - c o n f o r m i s t  have had d i f f i c u l t y that  test  class adolescent  one month from  therapy  1970)  i n individual  s u b j e c t s who f a i l e d t o  within the f i r s t  r e p o r t e d t h a t the degree o f psychopathology  month.  De L o a c h  (MMPI) a n d ego  16  s t r e n g t h were u n r e l a t e d  to ego development  Nemroff (1975) hypothesized  level.  t h a t sympathy towards women's  r i g h t s i s s u e s would be p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to ego development stereotyped . domestic s e x - r o l e b e h a v i o r s to ego development l e v e l .  while  would be n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d  Although there were expected t r e n d s i n  the data, n e i t h e r h y p o t h e s i s  was  Comeau ( 1 9 7 7 ) hypothesized  confirmed. t h a t ego development would be  s t i m u l a t e d by an academic t r a i n i n g program i n v o l v i n g t r a i n i n g i n empathy and c o g n i t i v e complexity.  Ego development was found not  to i n c r e a s e as a f u n c t i o n o f t h i s program. p o i n t out s e v e r a l inadequacies against  increase  The author d i d , however,  o f the program which m i t i g a t e d  i n ego development.  S t u d i e s concerned with the r e 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 o r v e r b a l f l u e n c y have g e n e r a l l y 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 ( 1 9 7 l ) 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 o f .46-.50 and .14 r e s p e c t i v e l y . & Wessler (1970) showed s i m i l a r l y low c o r r e l a t i o n s ( . 2 3  Loevinger to . 5 1 ) One  between number o f words i n a p r o t o c o l and ego i n t e r e s t i n g recent  level.  study by Head and Shayer (1980) showed  t h a t 12-14 year o l d g i r l s scored h i g h e r on ego development than 12-14 year o l d boys. longer present.  However, by age 17 t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was no  A l s o , a t age 14 boys o p t i n g f o r s c i e n c e showed  lower ego l e v e l s than boys o p t i n g f o r the humanities. From the p r e c e d i n g appreciate  l i t e r a t u r e review one can h o p e f u l l y  the p o t e n t i a l o f the concept o f ego development.  However, i t a l s o seems c l e a r t h a t the n o t i o n o f ego development i s  still the  i n i t s infancy.  There i s a continuing  need t o b e t t e r  b o u n d a r i e s o f u s e s t o w h i c h t h e ego d e v e l o p m e n t  define  t o o l may be  applied.  Locus o f Control Rotter  (1966) has c h a r a c t e r i z e d  people's notion  regarding  d e g r e e o f c o n t r o l o v e r what h a p p e n s t o them a s e i t h e r p r i m a r i l y internal  i n orientation o r external.  Internally oriented  appear t o 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 those that external 1971;  influences  ( E p s t e i n & Komorita, 1970; F i t c h ,  Seligman, 1973).  Extreme  adjusted better as  Phares (1976)  w h i l e p e o p l e who s c o r e  adjusted.  over one's l i f e .  Mirels  (1973)  has noted life  multidimensionality.  o f Rotter's  that Rotter's  with  scale control  scale  com-  c o n t r o l over t h e "system"  possibilities.  Research with  the unidimensional  locus  of control.  s u g g e s t s many r e a s o n s f o r t h e c o n f u s i o n of  t o be  come up w i t h a v e r s i o n o f t h e s c a l e  to resolve  discussion regarding  poorly  n a t u r e t o degree o f p e r c e i v e d  (1970)  has i n f a c t  scale has f a i l e d  sional  adjust-  related i n a curvilinear  T h e r e h a s b e e n some c r i t i c i s m  which s e p a r a t e s o u t these v a r i o u s new  that  i n the middle are l i k e l y  c o n t r o l over one's p e r s o n a l  Levenson  has postulated  1970; J o e ,  i n t e r n a l i z e r s or externalizers are probably  assuming an u n i d i m e n s i o n a l  bines  i n comparison to  view t h e i r l i v e s a s p r i m a r i l y under t h e c o n t r o l o f  ment a n d l o c u s o f c o n t r o l were r e a l l y way.  people  besides  this  v s . multidimen-  Rotter  (1975)  the p o s s i b i l i t y  18 Characteristics  o f the Alcoholic  A l t h o u g h many i n v e s t i g a t o r s  s e e no c o n s i s t e n t  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  personality  from non a l c o h o l i c s  ( T r e m p e r , 1 9 7 2 ; Z u c k e r & Van'Horn, 1 9 7 2 ; N a t h a n , 1 9 7 6 , 1 9 7 9 ; L a w l i s & R u b i n , 1 9 7 1 ; T i e b o u t , 1 9 4 6 ; Wexberg, 19^9)» certain traits be  or personality  considered.  abusei  (1)  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s b e i n g most i m p o r t a n t  high l e v e l  a  o f anxiety  (2)  emotional  (4)  low f r u s t r a t i o n tolerance;  esteem; (10)  (3)  immaturity;  i n interpersonal  ambivalence (5)  compulsiveness; (13)  (11)  inability  (8)  alcoholics  i s c e r t a i n l y not taking  above g e n e r a l l y Williams, (1972)  s u b s c a l e s most  maladaptive  into  account  depression typically  i s sensitive  scale,  guilt;  sex-role  adequately.  the c l e a r  Therefore,  specific  t h e above  heterodescri-  o f every which t h e r e a r e  c o m b i n a t i o n s and l e v e l s o f t h e  characteristics.  ( 1 9 6 8 ) MacAndrew, ( 1 9 6 5 ) ; O v e r a l l  sensitive  (9)  (12)  a s o f f e r i n g an overview w i t h i n  and D a h l s t r o m e t a l . (1972)  t h e MMPI  low s e l f  perfectionism;  s h o u l d p r o b a b l y be v i e w e d n o t a s a d e s c r i p t i o n  numerous s u b g r o u p i n g s w i t h  that  (6)  s u g g e s t i n g t h e above d e s c r i p t o r s o f  geneity o f the a l c o h o l i c population.  alcoholic but rather  to alcohol  relations;  to express angry f e e l i n g s  (1967)  ptors  certainly  authority;  angry over-dependency;  Catanzaro  while  toward  grandiosity;  (7) f e e l i n g s o f i s o l a t i o n ;  confusion;  should  suggest  ( 1 9 6 7 , p. 58) h a s p o i n t e d o u t t h e f o l l o w -  Catanzaro  ing personality  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which  others  &  Patrick  among o t h e r s , have  to severity  o f alcohol  were t h e p s y c h o p a t h i c  and t h e p s y c h o s t e n i a  s c o r e s h i g h on each o f t h e s e  scale.  demonstrated  abuse.  deviate  The MMPI  scale, the  The a l c o h o l i c  subscales.  19  Numerous o t h e r subgroupings. naire One  t o o l s have b e e n u s e d t o i d e n t i f y  Among them t h e S i x t e e n P e r s o n a l i t y F a c t o r  (16PF), a n d t h e R o r s c h a c h  consistent result  r e s u l t s while 1979.  Clopton,  alcoholic  still  Question-  ( C l o p t o n , 1978; B a r n e s , 1979).  a c r o s s numerous s t u d i e s i s t h e v a r i e t y o f  maintaining  1978).  some g e n e r a l  similarities  One a p p a r e n t e x p l a n a t i o n  r e s u l t s a p p e a r s t o be i n t h e h e t e r o g e n e i t y  (Barnes,  f o r the diverse  o f the a l c o h o l i c  pop-  ulation.  Subgroupings Within Considerable of the a l c o h o l i c 1979.  Clopton,  theA l c o h o l i c Population  research has supported population  1978).  Work w i t h  scale, the depression 1969;  (Goldstein & Linden, Brown, 1 9 5 0 ) . holic  t h e MMPI h a s shown  specific  p o p u l a t i o n on t h e p s y c h o p a t h i c  Whitelock  e t a l . , 1971;  Rosen,  L a w l i s & R u b i n , 1971t  A v a r i e t y o f c l u s t e r s were f o u n d  v a r i o u s subgroupings. especially reliable  One s u b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  noted  three  and a g g r e s s i v e  response p r o f i l e s  definitely ings.  (Rudie  The r e s e a r c h  regarding  scale I960;  subgroups;  the nature  Even  pointed  In fact  Bertrand  lacking overall  o f the heterogeneity  seemed  maladaptive-frustrated,  & McGaughran, 1961; .-although  Nerviano  scheme t h a t  ( L a w l i s & R u b i n , 1971)•  to date,  alco-  differentiating  u s i n g t h e R o r s c h a c h have commented o n t h e h e t e r o g e n e i t y  1969).  Barnes,  T h e 16PF h a s a l s o b e e n u s e d t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e  1973).  sociopathic,  nature  s c a l e , and t h e p s y c h a s t h e n i a  subgroupings (Walton, I968;  & Gross,  I960;  ( B l u m e , 1978; J e l l i n e k ,  d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n within the a l c o h o l i c deviate  t h e heterogeneous  researcher  o f alcoholic  & Masleng, cohesion  o f a l c o h o l i c s , has  towards t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a l c o h o l i c  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between v a r i o u s  subgroup-  subgroupings o f  alcoholics  i s often  considered greater  than the d i f f e r e n c e s  a l c o h o l i c s and n o r m a l s ( R o s e n , i 9 6 0 ) . tion  that  h a s emerged i s t h e d i f f e r e n c e  alcoholics  (Blume, 1978j  Madsen, 1 9 7 4 ; Blume ( 1 9 7 8 , ductive  Ego  As  & G u n d e r s o n , 1975s  Schuckit p . 13)  states  that,  Fox, 1 9 5 7 ) .  In fact  ... s e c o n d a r y  and p r o alcoholism."  D e v e l o p m e n t and t h e A l c o h o l i c present  concept,  research  i s directed  mentioned  the p e r s o n a l i t y  psychometrics i s probably  some r e s e a r c h e r s  S t a n b u l , 1976)  claim  (e.g.  inadequate  (1970)  i n the etiology o f the a l c o h o l i c .  dependency, i s o l a t i o n , d e p r e s s i o n ,  r e l a t i n g to the " a l c o h o l i c " personality  correlates  i n J a n e L o e v i n g e r ' s c o n c e p t o f ego  Ego D e v e l o p m e n t S c a l e  interpersonal  facets facets  and i m p u l -  Many o f t h e d e s c r i p t i v e  adjectives  i n these  have d i r e c t  development.  i s e s p e c i a l l y appropriate  the scale (impulse  i n view  i s designed to r e v e a l .  control/character  Defi-  development,  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 s and c o g n i t i v e  have a l l been a l l u d e d  &  t o 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 s u c h a s  sivity  ciencies  In s p i t e  J o n e s , 1 9 6 8 ; Armor, P o l i c h  tolerance,  of the p e r s o n a l i t y  has suggested  f o r the task o f  o f the a l c o h o l i c .  stress  The  alcoholism.  o f the " a l c o h o l i c " has not  In f a c t Franks  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 this,  toward the a p p l i c a t i o n o f  ego d e v e l o p m e n t t o t h e c l i n i c a l p r o b l e m o f  previously  traditional  of  distinc-  1973;  Schuckit,  " . . . t h e most i m p o r t a n t  always been e a s i l y a s c e r t a i n e d .  the  a strong  b e t w e e n P r i m a r y and S e c o n d a r y  e t a l . , 1969s  Schuckit  s u b t y p i n g i s ... p r i m a r y v e r s u s  The the  Certainly  between  style)  to as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f subgrouping o f  p e r s o n s who a b u s e a l c o h o l  (Cantanzaro, 1967;  Poley, 1974).  The  present  research  nation,  fixity  s h o u l d be  i s f o c u s i n g on t h e n o t i o n o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l  or  stuntedness  o f the  secondary  d i s c e r n i b l e when a p p l y i n g t h e  ment t o p e r s o n a l i t y g r o w t h . of  secondary  alcoholics  be  u n l i k e l y to pursue the  alcoholic  concept  Because o f the  i t i s reasonable  o f ego  general  however, w o u l d be  Blume, 1978).  h o l i c ' s ego primary  level  expected  the a l c o h o l i c  g e n e r a l l y be  be  been v e r y l i t t l e  and  Although  and  (Fox,  that of  alcothe  development  t o show any  &  1971;  significant  n o n - a l c o h o l i c women.in t h e i r distinguish  the  level  between  Alcoholic  t h e r e have b e e n numerous r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s d i r e c t e d from n o n - a l c o h o l i c s i n terms o f  internal/external locus of control (Butts  Costello  and  alcoholics.  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  M a n d e r s , 197^; Donavan  &  Distefano  because o f the  confused  seems r e a s o n a b l e  &  e t a l . , 1972;  O ' L e a r y , 1975)1 t h e r e h a s  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  it  more s u b s t a n t i a l  t h a t the secondary  Harvey's r e s e a r c h d i d not  secondary  L o c u s o f C o n t r o l and  Sloan,  that  primary  better adjusted  r e s e a r c h on ego  H a r v e y (1976) f a i l e d  development.  primary  their  The  s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than  d i f f e r e n c e s between a l c o h o l i c ego  would  alcoholic.  T h e r e has  of  maladjustment  to experience  I t i s hypothesized  will  develop-  s o l u t i o n t o t h e i r p r o b l e m s i n a way  p e r s o n a l i t y d e v e l o p m e n t and 1957;  which  t o assume t h a t t h e y  would encourage normal p e r s o n a l i t y development. alcoholic,  stag-  nature  t h a t an  o f the  effort  alcoholic  C h o t l o s , 1973? Gozali been  to look  at the  little  subtypes.  r e s u l t s to date  &  However,  (Barnes,  source  of  1979)  hetero-  22  geneity,  i . e . , a l c o h o l i c s u b t y p e s , m i g h t p r o d u c e more fact others  ( O ' L e a r y e t a l . , 1974,  internally oriented  a l c o h o l i c s t e n d t o be  results. that  In  maladjusted coincides  than e x t e r n a l l y  with the  present  oriented research  consistent  1976)  have  less  alcoholics.  found  clinically  This  of  course  hypothesis.  Summary The has  l i t e r a t u r e on  the  personality  t r a d i t i o n a l l y been a confused  for t h i s involves subtypes. are  the  sions  The  the  two  p r i m a r y and  that  can  the  the  differences  t h e s e two  of heterogeneity,  the  alcohol object  personality  of  control  d i m e n s i o n s can  research  Purpose  b e t w e e n p r i m a r y and  personality  dimensions of  locus  of  control.  ego  ego  Knowledge  secondary a l c o h o l i c s o f f e r us  dimenincreased  development regarding along  a more i n d e p t h  know-  alcoholism.  Restated  i s designed to  differences  delineated  therapist  t h e i r e f f e c t s are dimension.  explanation  personality  r e s e a r c h e r and  heterogeneous nature o f  present  Two  alcoholics  i.e., alcoholic  subtypes thus f a r  b e t w e e n p r i m a r y and  The The  A reasonable  secondary a l c o h o l i c .  internal-external  ledge o f the  area.  most i m p r e s s i v e  o f f e r the  knowledge r e g a r d i n g and  notion  characteristics of  attempt to  specify  secondary a l c o h o l i c s along  d e v e l o p m e n t and  the the  internal-external  23  Research Q u e s t i o n s 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 c a n be  stated  i n two  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  parts: level  a s m e a s u r e d b y L o e v i n g e r * s Ego D e v e l o p m e n t S c a l e t h a n 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 l o w e r average  R o t t e r ' s (1966) L o c u s o f C o n t r o l alcoholics.  Scale than  s c o r e on secondary  CHAPTER I I I Methodology Subjects Twenty seven male a l c o h o l i c s ; 13 primary and 14 secondary i n p a t i e n t s a t P a c i f i c a Treatment  Centre, served as s u b j e c t s .  Groups were matched on: mean education, and socio-economic level''. A l l s u b j e c t s were i n r e s i d e n c e a t the time o f completing the ego development  sentence completion t e s t which was a d m i n i s t e r e d d u r i n g  the second week o f treatment.  Each s u b j e c t signed a consent form  ( see Appendix). The treatment a t P a c i f i c a c o n s i s t s o f a four-week, per week, i n t e n s i v e r e s i d e n t i a l program.  The c l i e n t ' s time i s  h e a v i l y s t r u c t u r e d and r e v o l v e s around group therapy. have weekends f r e e .  five-day  Each c l i e n t i s put i n  Clients  a group o f approx-  i m a t e l y 10 where he s t a y s f o r the d u r a t i o n o f treatment.  Two  c o u n s e l l o r s stay with a p a r t i c u l a r group f o r the e n t i r e f o u r week pro gram.  D i f f e r e n t i a t i n g Primary from Secondary One hundred  and t h r e e male  Alcoholics  a l c o h o l i c s were screened over a  p e r i o d o f f o u r months f o r d e s i g n a t i o n as e i t h e r primary o r secondary. Twenty seven o f these were c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e as e i t h e r primary o r secondary  alcoholics.  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 b a s i s o f  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s (see Appendix) handed out i n group, e x p l a i n e d , and 24  25 time given f o r  c o m p l e t i n g them.  and c o l l e c t e d t h e  The p r i m a r y r e s e a r c h e r  questionnaires.  Categorizing a subject  as e i t h e r a primary o r secondary  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 ion.  A n y c a s e s w h i c h were n o t c l e a r A p e r s o n was d e s i g n a t e d  sexual promiscuity, l y i n g , A p e r s o n was d e s i g n a t e d  o f a l c o h o l abuse.  i n evidence  (Schuckit,  traffic  1973)'  before 1)  a secondary  they  police  behavioral r u n n i n g away  aggressive,  hostile  a l c o h o l i c i f there  one f e l o n y  changes;  was a  truancy,  three  to  reported,  or suspension or  five  occasions;  overnight;  3)  expulrepeated  two o r more n o n -  o f any t y p e ,  o r more) o r f r e q u e n t  e.g.,  p r o s t i t u t i o n or pimping;  numerous c a s u a l  or  impulsive  job  or more);  sexual  job or f i x e d  l y i n g o r use o f an a l i a s .  at  by  7) a p e r i o d o f w a n d e r l u s t  s i x m o n t h s 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 and r e p e a t e d  alcoholic  2)  outbursts o f rage or f i g h t i n g (three  sexual promiscuity,  persistent  behaviors  4 ) work h i s t o r y c h a r a c t e r i z e d  being dismissed (three  flagrant  following  as a secondary  f o u r o r more a r r e s t s  conviction;  5) r e p e a t e d  four o f the  l a b e l i n g a subject  repeated  police offenses,  repeatedly  8)  2)  etc.  r u n n i n g away f r o m home f o r a t l e a s t  6)  3) no  frequent  repeated  At least  s i o n from s c h o o l on a t l e a s t  least  i.e.,  was  i n d i c a t i o n o f a n t i s o c i a l or s o c i o p a t h i c behaviors p r i o r to  the onset were  there  antisocial  4) no h i s t o r y o f any  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 ,  clear  e.g.,  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 ,  i n s t a b i l i t i e s p r i o r to a l c o h o l abuse,  acts;  1)  a n t e d a t i n g a l c o h o l i c abuse,  r e c o r d p r i o r to a l c o h o l abuse,  criter-  included.  a primary alcoholic i f :  personality or socio-pathology  alco-  following  c u t were n o t  no h i s t o r y o f a n y m a j o r p s y c h i a t r i c d i s o r d e r ,  had a s t a b l e  distributed  partners with abode;  26 I n 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 other therapists,  f a m i l y , and  examination  occurred before  c a t e g o r i z a t i o n was  was  two  verified  resulted  The  by  i n the  Clinical Ego  T o o l s , A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and  c o n s i s t s o f 37  "Alcohol  The  ."  Item  o g i v e method  (Loevinger  level  psychologist.  facet  o f any  in  the present  procedures ing  and  Each rater  other trained  Rater t r a i n i n g involving  study  the  i s an  ego  was  consistently high  i t e m was  with  independently of  .81  previous  was  rater,  was  r a t e d py over  a doctoral important The  month s e l f  obtained  (90%-95%  raters  scale.  1970,  and  to r e a c h .  in  l e n g t h o f time,  Vol. 1  on p r a c t i c e  An  a l l items  rated.  Trainpro-  The  This  vast majority  ego  level  inter-  1970).  level,  c o n s e n s u s c o u l d be  a mean ego  training  each r a t e r .  discussed.  I f no  raters  agreement).  i n terms o f a s s i g n e d  easy  as  rating  f i n d i n g s (Loevinger & Wessler,  a c o n s e n s u s was a reasonable  et a l ' s . ,  obtained  D i s a g r e e m e n t s were i d e n t i f i e d d i s a g r e e m e n t s were modest  The  especially  2-3  according  protocol  development  completed L o e v i n g e r ' s  Interrater r e l i a b i l i t y  correlation  in line  one  total  done  were u s e d  criterion  et a l . , 1970).  as d i s c u s s e d i n L o e v i n g e r  Manual.  tocols  is  study  was  s c o r i n g f o l l o w e d the  used the  and  test  Comple-  addition,  Male forms o f the t e s t  e t a l . ( 1 9 7 0 ) , and  author  study.  s t e m s , i n c l u d i n g one  by Loevinger  o f the  disagreement  Development Sentence  provided  consisted  major  Scoring  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the  (1976).  Loevinger,  Ego  sentence  seems t o  ( see Appendix). The to  any  records  Each c a t e g o r i z a t i o n  s u b j e c t b e i n g removed f r o m t h e  Development S c a l e .  t i o n Test  of client's  finalized.  o t h e r t h e r a p i s t s and  c o n s u l t a t i o n with  g i v e n by  and  of  usually  reached the  two  27 r a t e r s was using  used, but  the  t h i s was  r a r e l y necessary.  Scoring  d e t a i l e d s c o r i n g manual o f L o e v i n g e r , W e s s l e r  Ego  stages o f the  mentioning  scale.  i n terms o f the  The  first  sentence completion task  in its later  symbiotic  i n f a n t on  mother.  dependence o f the  known a s t h e  1-1  symbiotic.  s t a g e and The  characterized  (impulse  i s characterized  second  by  the  stage  word  control) revolves  good, p u n i s h m e n t exploitative,  and  and  extremely  aggressive.  stereotyping  and  'impulsive*.  reward.  a general  uation.  The  sentence  ^ the  phrase The  word  " I am  next  conceptual  stem, "The  cute"  or  " I am  advantages,  Cognitive  taking  of  and  Con-  excessive  There  is a  lack  i s not  seen  event or  about m y s e l f  word  "nothing"  and  i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  sit-  is or  the  impulses i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d  Conscious preoccupation  control  s t y l e i s moving, o r  o f bad  clean".  i s called Delta  exploitation.  character  i s dependent,  Trouble  like  answered w i t h the  Control  -fThis s t a g e  of  some e x t e r n a l  be  'self protective'.  things,  confusion.  thing I  is  words p r e s o c i a l  notion  s t y l e i s one  as  a  impulses, e s p e c i a l l y  causation.  rather  stage  (interpersonal).  may  stage  m a n i p u l a t i n g and  simplistic  around b o d i l y cognitive  r e s u l t i n g from w i t h i n but  the  One's m o r a l  centered  of understanding of psychological as  This  A person at t h i s l e v e l self  The  by  it is  s t a g e by  i s o f more i n t e r e s t .  around the  scious preoccupations center and  the  worth  since  characterized  sexual  and  stage i s h a r d l y  p r e l a n g u a g e , p r e s o c i a l , and  is  done  (1970).  Redmore  and  was  generally  in transition,  self  by  i s with  protective.  from c o n c e p t u a l  con-  28 f u s i o n to  conceptual  v i o u s l y mentioned  simplicity.  sentence  " m i g h t be is  a general  denying  A D e l t a response to the  stem "The  " a l l o f me"  thing I  or  o f f a u l t s and  " I am  like  pre-  about m y s e l f  so l o v e a b l e " ,  d e f e c t s and  is  There  an e x a g g e r a t i o n  of  virtues. The  next  stage  i s really  a transitional  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  and  conforming to  (impulse  manipulativeness has  occupation and  concern  Cognitive  style  the  with  specific  The  next  'conformist' as  concrete  "my  (stages p r i o r  level.  There  centered happy, but  around  sad,  and  it is still  causation, sex  roles.  sentence  stem  "my  1-3  and  guilt  c e n t e r s around the  word  are o f t e n r e f e r r e d to  under the  control of  external  manifest  themselves at  this  sense o f b e l o n g i n g ,  e s p e c i a l l y to  specific  w e l l d e l i n e a t e d groups. for the  The  pre-  f e a t u r e o f t h e b o d y s u c h as  to t h i s l e v e l  F e e l i n g s o f shame and  concern  Conscious  " i s o f t e n answered  I m p u l s e i s now  i s a great  trite  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  physical  stereotypic.  obediance  almost  traditional  is  phase i s l a b e l l e d  "Pre-conformist").  toward  and  of  This  body".  rules.  and  aspects  about m y s e l f  smile" or  is still  self protection to  r e f e r e n c e t o one  "my  style  a d d i t i o n o f obediance.  i s simplistic  thing I like  or  the  moved from  "The  eyes",  Interpersonal  with  with  T h e r e i s an  s o c i a l norms t h a t i s s i m p l i s t i c ,  control).  the  o f I-J.  Conformist  i s appropriately labelled Delta-3.  stage  stage between  Thus the  group.  Conscious  social  acceptability  glad.  The  relatively  interpersonal style  and  conformist simplistic.  preoccupation such b a n a l  i s developing The  moves  is  now  feelings as an  inner  cognitive style  life, is  29  still The  conceptually  sentence  stem  c e n t e r s around laugh a l o t , " The  simplistic, "The t h i n g  I like  and p r o n e  about  myself  friend",  labelled  stage i s another t r a n s i t i o n  t h e 1-3/4  u n d e r more s o p h i s t i c a t e d style  control  t h e group,  life  of psychological  causation.  from  conceptual s i m p l i c i t y  I like  e.g. " I  stage.  The p e r s o n i s 1-4.  This  control  a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d  Cognitive  style  concern f o r  inner  i s now m o v i n g  t o a more complex a w a r e n e s s o f d i f f e r -  myself i s  The s e n t e n c e  thing  with  such r e s p o n s e s a s " I t r y t o g e t a l o n g w i t h  " i s often  stem  answered  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  be  honest  t r y to  with others".  The  1-4  game.  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  Impulse  c o n t r o l now  s e l f evaluated standards. p o n s i v e and m u t u a l ; people.  coming  and a r e c o g n i t i o n o f an  i n t e r e s t s and a b i l i t i e s .  about  i s now  o f s t a n d a r d s and c o n t i n g e n c i e s .  "The  the  stage  Conscious preoccupation i s with the  s e l f a s s e p a r a t e from  human a t t i t u d e s ,  Impulse  i s .moving, i n t o  r e l a t i o n s h i p s with others.  ing  "  stage and, a c c o r d i n g t o L o e v i n g e r , i s t h e  mode f o r t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n .  Interpersonal  is  "I'm c o n s i d e r a t e " .  moving from t h e c o n f o r m i s t t o t h e c o n s c i e n t i o u s is  to cliche's.  responses concerned with s o c i a b i l i t y , "I'm a t r u e  next  stereotypic  comes f r o m w i t h i n  Interpersonal  a genuine  style  i n t h e form o f  i s intensive,  c o n c e r n f o r communication  Conscious preoccupation i s with a r i c h  inner l i f e .  F e e l i n g s a r e more f i n e l y  self  are central  respect  the rules o f  tuned.  h a s n a t u r a l l y become more complex.  between  and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d  Achievement  t o t h e 1-4's t h o u g h t s .  res-  and  Cognitive  T h i n g s a r e no l o n g e r  style  classed  30 simplistically  as  r i g h t or  wrong, b u t  more i n t e r m s o f  such as  dependent v e r s u s independent.  Thing I  like  about m y s e l f  I have p e r s e v e r e n c e and The  and  c o u r a g e and  i s characterized  cope w i t h  inner  which has  moved f r o m i n t e n s i v e  cherishing  of  conflict  w i t h c o m m u n i c a t i n g and style  is  ability  not  to  1-4/5  The like  only  last  expressing  respond  an  to  about  o c c u r s w i t h any  only  respect  for  social  "The "my my  thing  I like  sensitivity sense o f  and  this level  f o r the  I am  "The  n e e d s and  humor."  I  about  by  by  a cherishing  and  justice (cognitive is  w o r l d a r o u n d me,  of  and  And  a more s w e e p i n g  " may  rela-  full  sophisticated  style).  Inter-  individual in  causation. a  is  duties,  control).  autonomy o f t h e  i s characterized  the  life.  thing  honest  (impulse  psychological  about m y s e l f  to  an  paradoxes o f stem  is  CoCTitive  s i g n i f i c a n t frequency  conflict,  t o l e r a t i o n f o r ambiguity ideas  a  includes  Conscious preoccupation i s a v i v i d  autonomous p e r s o n  style  myself.  g r a t i o n o f p h y s i o l o g i c a l and  complexity,  r e l a t i o n s to  the  "that  characterized  the  to  interpersonal  feelings.  sentence  personal  a relationship.  An  and  see  at  also  is  Conscious preoccupation  becomes more s o p h i s t i c a t e d  t i o n s h i p s but  convictions".  complex, b u t  the  Coping with inner  s t y l e i s not  own  "that  increasing a b i l i t y  ideas  and  "The  t o Autonomous 1-5  control).  " with  stage that  level.  by  conceptually  may  objective  The 1-5  1-4  stem  answered w i t h  f o l l o w my  relations.  tolerate contradiction client  be  interpersonal  about m y s e l f i s  myself,  the  (impulse  interpersonal  sentence  " may  t r a n s i t i o n from c o n s c i e n t i o u s  1-4/5  called  is  The  polarities  of  intecourse  conceptual concern  The  sentence  stem  be  answered  with  to p e o p l e ' s f e e l i n g s ,  and  31 The  final  stage  i s l a b e l l e d the 1-6 stage and i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d  by the c e n t r a l theme running through the conception ment, " i n t e g r a t e d " .  o f ego  develop-  The person a t t h i s l e v e l has come to g r i p s  with i n n e r t u r m o i l , has r e c o n c i l e d i n n e r c o n f l i c t and renounces the unattainable  (impulse  control).  The i n t e r p e r s o n a l s t y l e n o t only  c h e r i s h e s i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s and r e s p e c t s the autonomy w i t h i n . those r e l a t i o n s , b u t now a l s o c h e r i s h e s the concept o f i n d i v i d u a l ity.  Conscious p r e o c c u p a t i o n  as Jane Loevinger  i s with  has p o i n t e d out,  identity.  And, o f course,  the r a r i t y o f 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 d e s c r i b e and a p p r e c i a t e . Locus o f c o n t r o l s c a l e . c o n s i s t s o f a 29-item (Appendix). life  R o t t e r ' s (1966) Locus o f C o n t r o l Scale  f o r c e d choice instrument  with 6 f i l l e r  items  Each item c o n s i s t s o f two statements r e g a r d i n g some  s i t u a t i o n with each statement d e s c r i b i n g e i t h e r an e x t e r n a l  l o c u s o f c o n t r o l o r an i n t e r n a l l o c u s o f c o n t r o l .  One p o i n t i s  given f o r each q u e s t i o n answered with an e x t e r n a l emphasis. p o s s i b l e score i s 2 3 .  Degree o f e x t e r n a l l o c u s o f c o n t r o l i s  p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o the t o t a l Administration.  Total  score.  The Ego Development Scale and the Locus o f  C o n t r o l S c a l e were administered  s e q u e n t i a l l y i n a counter  o r d e r w i t h i n the same p e r i o d o f time.  balanced  A l l clients of a particular  treatment group r e c e i v e d simultaneous i n s t r u c t i o n s and were then g i v e n adequate time to complete the forms with the experimenter present. A n a l y s i s o f Data There were two types o f s t a t i s t i c s used i n the present  research:  32 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 .  were: a ) means a n d s t a n d a r d  The d e s c r i p t i v e  deviations;  statistics  and b ) P e a r s o n r ' s and  point-biserial  correlations.  were t - t e s t s .  Ego D e v e l o p m e n t S c o r e s were t r a n s f o r m e d  numerical  e q u i v a l e n t s where  The i n f e r e n t i a l  appropriate.  s t a t i s t i c s used to ;  CHAPTER IV Results The  essential  data a l o n g with a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t i s t i c a l  are reported i n t h i s locus of control scales  chapter^  B e c a u s e t h e ego d e v e l o p m e n t and  measures can"be«considered a s q u a s i - i n t e r v a l  (Rotter, 1966;  Loevinger,  a n a l y s e s were p e r f o r m e d were c o n s i d e r e d  1976),  on t h e d a t a .  indicated  secondary  parametric  statistical  Probabilities less  than .05  significant.  Sub.ject V a r i a b l e s - A g e . E d u c a t i o n As  analyses  i n Table  2 , t h e mean age o f p r i m a r y  alcoholics differed  d i f f e r e n c e s were f o u n d  mean gross y e a r l y  and Income  significantly.  No  i n mean y e a r s o f f o r m a l  versus  significant  education o r i n  incomes.  Table  2  Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o f 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 ' Age, Y e a r s o f F o r m a l E d u c a t i o n , a n d G r o s s Y e a r l y Income  Age Mean  SD  Education Mean  SD  Income Mean SD * p  <  Primary  Secondary  49.92 7.65  31.14 5.95  7.14*  11.54 2.54  11.07 2.43  .49  22,230 6,920  17,857 8, 090  .05 33  t  value  1.5  34 Ego  .Level, L o c u s o f C o n t r o l , and Neither 1)  Primary/Secondary  research hypothesis  Primary  was  a l c o h o l i c s A V i l l .have a h i g h e r  a s m e a s u r e d .by L o e v i n g e r ' s secondary 2)  confirmed:  Primary  Ego  Development  alcoholics will  level  and  is a  scatter plot  locus of control.  o f each  locus of control,  dichotomy.  Figure  1 and  the  that there  subject's  and  the  statistical  was  no  results the  while  similarly  point-biserial  primary/secondary secondary Table in  scale or Further  i s presented  and  the  in  significant  A Pearson  cor-  r was  per-  c o n t r o l with n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t  level  l o c u s o f c o n t r o l and  further results 3.  No  the  using  and  the  primary/  2.  The  i s presented  . d f i 915)i  as  secondaries. and  as  can  those  either  the  .05t  df  c o m p l e t e l a c k o f any a l c o h o l i c s a l o n g the total  number o f  a percentage of A t test be  presented  d i f f e r e n c e s were  control scale (p.>  secondary  in Figure  level  confirm  s e c o n d a r y a l c o h o l i c s on  locus of  and  to  significant  confirmation of a  primaries versus .05.  ego  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  d i c h o t o m y and  Table  between p r i m a r y  each ego  on  a n a l y s i s presented  c o r r e l a t i o n p e r f o r m e d b e t w e e n ego  4 presents  F i g u r e 1 and  ment  score  intercorrelations  statistically  locus of  alcoholics.  dichotomy.  between primary  P y  l e v e l and  on  primary/secondary  r e l a t i o n s among any o f the three v a r i a b l e s . f o r m e d between ego  than  score  secondary  3 shows t h e  Table  level,  3 confirm  level  Scale  have a l o w e r a v e r a g e  b e t w e e n ego  Table  ego  alcoholics.  Rotter's Locus o f Control Scale than Figure 1  average  was  seen with  found  ego  develop-  25).  differences ego  dimension  items r a t e d  at  t o t a l items r a t e d  done on  the  reference  to  data  .97,  (t=  Figure  for  2,  35  16  rH O  u  12  .s  . s  •P  •p«  .s  -p  c o o  .s  10  •p  o  •p  CO  . s  o o  •Pc  1-3  .s  .s Delta  3  —  1-3  .s _  1-3/4 Ego  1-4  1-4/5  Level  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 c o n t r o l s c o r e s f o r e a c h s u b j e c t ( p r i m a r y - p,  locus of secondary  36  3  Table  I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s o f Ego D e v e l o p m e n t , L o c u s o f C o n t r o l a n d P r i mary/Secondary Designation  Locus o f Control  Ego L e v e l  Primary/Secondary  -.025**  -.24*  .083**  Locus o f Control  * Pearson r **  Point-biserial  •Table  4  Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s , and t V a l u e s f o r C o m p a r i s o n s Between P r i m a r y a n d S e c o n d a r y A l c o h o l i c s on Ego D e v e l o p m e n t and L o c u s o f C o n t r o l  Primary  Ego L e v e l * Mean SD  Secondary  t  value  3.46 1.13  3.43 1.28  .06  7.69 3.25  8.32 4.86  .419  LOC M  e  a  n  SD  * Delta/3=1,  1-3*2,  1-3/4=3,  1-4=4,  1-4/5=5  37 no  differences Table  were o b t a i n e d .  5 shows t h e P e a r s o n r c o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n ego  ment, l o c u s o f c o n t r o l income,  develop-  and e a c h o f t h e s u b j e c t v a r i a b l e s age,  and e d u c a t i o n .  A s c a n be s e e n , none o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s  were l a r g e a n d none were  significant.  Table  5  I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o r . s o f Ego Development a n d L o c u s o f C o n t r o l W i t h Age, Gross Y e a r l y Income, and Years o f Formal E d u c a t i o n  Ego LOC  Level  Age  Income  Education  .13  -.21  -.15  -.22  -.12  -.23  38  0  1-2  Delta  Delta/3 Ego  F i g u r e 2. ego  level  1-3  I-3/4  1-4  1-4/5  Level  Percentage o f t o t a l item frequency collated  f o r each  s e p a r a t e l y f o r a l l primary and  secondary p r o t o c o l s (x secondary).  1-5  x,  primary;  0  0,  all  1-6  CHAPTER V Discussion The holics of  present  research  do n o t d i f f e r  with  shows t h a t p r i m a r y and s e c o n d a r y respect  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  research  2.  P r i m a r y 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) s of C o n t r o l Scale than secondary alcoholics. o  questions  data.  In fact  c  u  have u n e q u i v o c a l l y  questionnaire  similarly  and t h e L O C q u e s t i o n n a i r e  research  significantly  regarding  ego d e v e l o p m e n t and l o c u s o f c o n t r o l .  population  o u r knowledge  but also our notions  w a s u n d e r t a k e n i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e now  a g r e e d upon b u t p o o r l y r e s e a r c h e d  alcoholic  (Emrick,  1976).  heterogeneous nature Not o n l y  o n many c l i n i c a l  measurements a s w e l l  t h e r e f o r e o f some t h e o r e t i c a l  acknowledged h e t e r o g e n e i t y  interest  but they 1979).  (Barnes,  that given  o f the a l c o h o l i c  also  It  the present  population  t h a t two  m e a s u r e s o f p e r s o n a l i t y d i m e n s i o n s o f p r i m a r y and s e c o n d a r y  39  o f the  do a l c o h o l i c s d i f f e r  many r e l e v a n t d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s (Madsen, 1 9 7 4 )  differ is  research  start-  The r e s u l t s  extend not o n l y  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 ,  present  primary  i s t o some e x t e n t  regarding  The  unsupported  t o t h e ego l e v e l  and w o r t h y 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 .  of the present  on  remained  t h e degree t o which both  secondary a l c o h o l i c s responded  well  The  P r i m a r y a l c o h o l i c s w i l l have a h i g h e r a v e r a g e ego l e v e l a s m e a s u r e d b y L o e v i n g e r ' s Ego D e v e l o p m e n t S c a l e t h a n secondary a l c o h o l i c s .  the present  ling  study.  1.  Both research  and  o r degree  hypotheses stated i n Chapter I I w e r e i  L  by  t o e i t h e r ego l e v e l  alco-  alcoho-  40 lies  should Of  for  yield  course  no  the present  Among t h e  results  dramatically lacking in differences.  s i n g l e reason  results,  but  c a n be  o f f e r e d as  are  primary/secondary dichotomy alcoholic population.  the  The the  2.  Ego d e v e l o p m e n t and measures.  3.  The s u b j e c t p o p u l a t i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r some r e a s o n .  As  thoroughly  literature  o f the  1974;  Schuckit,  specifically  explored  i s inappropriate  of c o n t r o l are  present  i n the  study  the  within  inadequate  research  was  i n t r o d u c t i o n and  review  possibility  the  i s inappropriate  1973s Blume, 1978;  remember t h a t  can be  Primary/Secondary Dichotomy  discussed  secondary d i s t i n c t i o n  locus  explanation  following!  1.  o f the  an  several p o s s i b i l i t i e s  more s a l i e n t p o s s i b i l i t i e s  Appropriateness  to  so  although  mention the  Fox,  that  of  primary/  seems u n l i k e l y (Madsen, 1957).  B a r n e s (1979) and  It i s  Clopton  ( 1 9 7 8 ) do  primary/secondary a l c o h o l i c  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  important not  subgroupings,  such a  distinc-  tion. The without  present question  r e s e a r c h used a f a i r l y r e s u l t e d i n two  T h e i r mean a g e s were c o n s i d e r a b l y secondaries, 1973)' age.  In  31tl4)  fact  only  T h i s o f course  daries'  p r o b l e m s and  d e t e c t i o n by  very  rigorous criterion  distinct  different  primary overlapped  conforms to the their  research  with  the  e a r l i e r onset  generally greater  alcoholics.  ( p r i m a r i e s , 49.92  which corresponds to o t h e r one  groups o f  which  vs  (Schuckit,  secondaries  o f the  inability  s o c i e t y compared t o t h e p r i m a r y a l c o h o l i c .  to  seconavoid The  in  41 typical the  secondary  description  alcoholic  of  social  tion of their lives, the r e s e a r c h e r with childhoods  by  abuse a r e r e l a t e d . early  misfit  i f not  especially  a certain  of  f r o m an  i n the p r e s e n t  primary  are l e s s l i k e l y But  certainly  with  a l c o h o l i c s on  of  antisocial  cence can i z e d by of  behaviors  truancy,  As  the  distinction  extending  early  age.  young  enough.  such  strongly that  and  present  depth the nature with  regard  secondary  primarily  and  i n general  primary  i n the d i s p l a y adolescharacter-  other atypical  sorts  primary/secondary  (1973)  any  dichotomy.  locus of control  secondary  suggests prognosis  disorder.  aimed a t i n v e s t i g a t i n g  appears u s e l e s s .  something about p r i m a r y  experiences.  T h i s , o f course,  to t r e a t  d e v e l o p m e n t and  distinction  worst  hand  primaries'  Schuckit  o f the primary/secondary  t o ego  at  other  a l c o h o l i c s have a p o o r e r  f a c t o r when a t t e m p t i n g  r e s e a r c h was  and  However, t h e l a r g e r q u e s t i o n 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 . important  stories  adulthood.  a distinction.  secondary  Typically,  a s o p p o s e d t o one  above d i s c u s s i o n i n d i c a t e s t h e i s real  impress  r e s e a r c h the  The  away, f i g h t i n g ,  into  to  parental attention.  secondaries  d e s c r i b e d as t y p i c a l  running  the u s e f u l n e s s o f very  a t an  fails  alcoholics  o f secure  even approach the  e a s i l y be  behaviors  the r e s u l t  the  general l i f e  r e f e r e n c e to the p r e s e n t  a l c o h o l i c s d i d not  Their descrip-  indifference  (197?) h a s p o i n t e d o u t  t o be  fits  seem e s p e c i a l l y p r o b l e m o r i e n t e d  a p p e a r much more o r d i n a r y i n t h e i r However, a s M c C o r d  sociopath.  sense o f tragedy.  Their l i v e s  The  certainly  their past rarely  c h a r a c t e r i z e d a t b e s t by  age.  study  Whether t h i s  i s an The  i n more Obviously  the  primary/  tells  a l c o h o l i c s o r about  us ego  42 development If, really  and  locus of control  a s t h e d a t a s u g g e s t , t h a t p r i m a r y and  do n o t d i f f e r  on ego  development  e x t e r n a l o r i e n t a t i o n towards esting finding. tion. tion  i s another question.  One  The  of  N e i t h e r c a n one  infer  ego  categorization.  some s p e c i f i c  level  There  inter-  applica-  the primary/secondary  and t h u s  alcoholics  internal/  have an  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  can c e r t a i n l y n o t u s e  primary/secondary  o r degree  t h e w o r l d , t h e n we  to i n f e r l o c u s o f c o n t r o l  strategy.  secondary  distinctreatment  f r o m knowledge o f  i s absolutely nothing in  t h e d a t a t o a l l o w one  any  p r i m a r y and  a l c o h o l i c s along the l o c u s o f c o n t r o l  ego  secondary  i n f e r e n c e s r e g a r d i n g the nature  f o u r groups  o f p e o p l e which  s i x b e l o w t h e mean.  cut across the  and  There  seven below.  o f p e o p l e w i t h such r a d i c a l l y should  show no  significant  locus of control. fundamental control  of  seemed t o  be  primary/secondary  way  were s e v e n  related  in their lives.  I t seems s u r p r i s i n g t h a t different  secondaries, but  behavioral  in this  two  groups  background  mean d i f f e r e n c e on a measure s u c h abuse i s n o t  as  i n any  to t h e i r view r e g a r d i n g the source o f The  range  2 t o 13  among t h e s e c o n d a r i e s .  more c o n s i s t e n t  s e c o n d a r i e s above t h e  Apparently their alcohol  extreme r a n g i n g from  0 t o 16  There  nature  T h e r e were s e v e n p r i m a r i e s above t h e mean o f 7«69  distinction.  mean o f 8 . 5  the heterogeneous  confirmed (Barnes, 1979).  a l c o h o l i c s was  was  or .  dimension. Regarding l o c u s of control  and  of  study  i n the locus o f c o n t r o l  i n t h e p r i m a r i e s and The  p r i m a r i e s were  ( S d = 3 . 2 5 v s Sd=4.85)  i t is difficult  data  from  slightly than  the  t o say what, i f a n y t h i n g ,  this  43 means. It  s h o u l d he  of control at the  and  noted  a d j u s t m e n t may  extremes,  either  poorly adjusted. suggestion  that Phares  the  present  Certainly  research.  The  and  the  r e s u l t s u s u a l l y obtained f o r the  and  with  8.5  be  is a  scores f o r  secondary  t o date  regarding .  a l c o h o l i s m have n o t b e e n r e s o l v e d b y  means o f 7.79  People  may  research, there  inconclusive results  locus  related.  i n t e m a l i z e r s or externalizers,  Regarding  locus of c o n t r o l  8.5  curvllinearally  o f more extreme.JLocus o f c o n t r o l  alcoholics.  the  be  (1976) s p e c u l a t e s t h a t  the  present  are  slightly  higher  than  alcoholics  (Barnes,  1979),  especially  secondaries, but  the  variability  the  overshadows  any  mean d i f f e r e n c e s . The  ego  l e v e l s of primary  and  secondary  equally unresponsive  to q u i t e d i f f e r e n t  that  engaged  s e c o n d a r i e s had  not.  were o b t a i n e d  from both  I f primary terms o f t h e i r Loevinger's style,  and core  As  considered maladjusted  valuable aspects  secondary  alcoholics  level,  o f a person's  mean p r o t o c o l r a t i n g  and  1-4.  impulse and  adoles-  whereas  similar  C e r t a i n l y t h e mean ego l e v e l s as r e p o r t e d  (Loevinger,  1976).  There  do  not  the  results  g r o u p s was  i n the  in  control, interpersonal  cognitive style  level  differ  instructive.  are  i n n e r w o r k i n g s f o r one  f o r both  t i o n o f ego  indeed  i t i s especially  preoccupation,  The  as  in  groups.  (1976) f o u r f a c e t s ,  conscious  behavioral histories  F i g u r e 2 shows, r e m a r k a b l y  ego  seemed  i n numerous o v e r t b e h a v i o r s  c e n t s w h i c h w o u l d g e n e r a l l y be p r i m a r i e s had  alcoholics  and  i s a b s o l u t e l y no  t o be  midway between  the  results  certainly  general  aware. 1-3/4  distribu-  seem q u i t e  typical  b a s i s upon w h i c h t o  say  44 any t h i n g e l s e .  The secondary  a l c o h o l i c s who were h y p o t h e s i z e d  to be i n some way stunted i n core ego development because o f t h e i r e a r l y e x p e r i e n c e s seem t o t a l l y unfounded.  As a group as w e l l as  i n d 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 s o p h i s t i c a t e d i n d i s p l a y i n g the concerns o f . t h e 1-3/4 and 1-4 l e v e l p r o t o c o l as are the p r i m a r i e s .  A c c o r d i n g t o L o e v i n g e r ' s model the m a j o r i t y  o f primary and secondary  a l c o h o l i c s can be c a t e g o r i z e d as being  c l o s e to o r a t the c o n s c i e n t i o u s (1-4) ego l e v e l .  I f one uses  L o e v i n g e r ' s d e s c r i p t o r s o f t h i s l e v e l i t c e r t a i n l y appears t h a t both primary and secondary  a l c o h o l i c s i n the present study are  reasonably s o p h i s t i c a t e d . ' 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 c o n s c i e n t i o u s (1-4) l e v e l .  The c o n f o r m i s t  i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a r a t h e r s i m p l i s t i c person i n terms o f t r a d i t i o n a l n o t i o n s o f shame, g u i l t , b e l o n g i n g , being h e l p f u l , with appearances,  concern  d i s p l a y i n g r a t h e r banal f e e l i n g s and t h i n k i n g  along rather s i m p l i s t i c ,  stereotypic l i n e s .  The c o n s c i e n t i o u s  (1-4) person i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a more i n t e r n a l s e l f  e v a l u a t e d and  c r i t i c a l a t t i t u d e , w i t h more o f a mutual concern f o r communication between people, f e e l i n g s tend t o 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 n o t i o n s and i d e a s are more complex. With r e f e r e n c e t o the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h , the ego l e v e l  results  put a r a t h e r s t r o n g emphasis on viewing both the primary and  second-  a r y a l c o h o l i c s as v e r b a l i z i n g a t l e v e l s which seem to be l i t t l e , impaired by e i t h e r t h e i r a l c o h o l i c h i s t o r y o r t h e i r p e r s o n a l experiences. The p r e s e n t r e s u l t s concerning a l c o h o l i c subtypes a l l o w c e r t a i n  45 broad  conclusions  surrounding radical  the primary/secondary l a b e l l i n g  does t h i s  of alcoholics.  The  h i s t o r i e s o f p r i m a r y and s e c o n d a r y  on an i n t e r n a l  d i f f e r e n c e i n past  ment o f ego.  or external orientation.  h i s t o r y appear to a f f e c t  the  Nor  develop-  And b e c a u s e b o t h t h e 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  relatively  present  possibilities  i n no way a p p e a r s t o . p r e j u d i c e them t o w a r d s any p a r t i c u l a r  view centered  scored  t h e e t i o l o g y and t r e a t m e n t  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the l i f e  alcoholics world  regarding  high  on ego l e v e l ,  group o f s u b j e c t s  one c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e  suffered appreciable  stunting i n this  dimension. Regarding treatment,'it as  f a r as the present  primary/secondary trol  and g e n e r a l  i s perhaps comforting  r e s u l t s a r e c o n c e r n e d one c a n d i s r e g a r d t h e  distinction  when f o c u s i n g on p e r c e p t i o n  s o p h i s t i c a t i o n o f ego l e v e l .  doubt  fact,  the present  be i g n o r e d Certainly  research there  shows q u i t e  are great  a very by  individual  a t h e r a p i s t c a n and s h o u l d  I t seems c l e a r t h a t  whether h i g h  clearly,  especially  d i f f e r e n c e s which  a n d ego l e v e l  i n the present  when p u r s u i n g  research  adaptive  quickly pinpoint  response to t h e i r  the nature  and b e h a v i o r s ,  effectively  should  of a  perspectives,  adopted  Surely  one c a n more  client's  a n d i n t u r n move t h e c l i e n t  towards d i f f e r e n t  have  environments.  and c o m p l e x i t y  treat-  a l l subjects,  k n o w i n g a p e r s o n ' s l o c u s o f c o n t r o l and ego l e v e l  feelings,  locus  make u s e o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s  o r l o w o n l o c u s o f c o n t r o l o r ego l e v e l ,  harmful  with  In  i n treatment.  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 ment.  and ego l e v e l c a n  be h i g h l y u s e f u l when a p p l i e d o n an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s .  of control, that not  o f con-  I t s h o u l d 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 no  t o know t h a t  more  f e e l i n g s and  beliefs, quickly-and behaviors.  46 Epo  D e v e l o p m e n t and  and  This question r e a l l y ments u s e d i n t h e p r e s e n t suggested  concerns  the  research.  rather strongly that the  differentiating measures.  As  designed  to  (Harvey,  1976;  Loevinger  i n the review  out q u i t e c l e a r l y  Ego  certainly  On t h e  the  c l e a r l y not a hint  level  seem t h a t  l e v e l s and  at  scored  conformist  would  the (1-3)  same l e v e l  as p r i m a r y  i s considered  case  i n the present  o n l y core  ego  ego  study.  o f s o c i e t y ' s requirements be  and  composed o f p e o p l e  then i t  This  secondaries.  Thus t h e  completed  the  those  s o c i e t y ' s requirements  course,  a general  concern  and with  i n terms o f t h e i r  expectations. these  awareness  sentence  ego of  It  present  way,.thus g i v i n g a v a l i d window i n t o t h a t answered  types  T h i s problem of tests.  not  to measure  stems i n a p e r s o n a l f u n c t i o n i n g and  was  t h e r e was  a l s o i n some s e n s e an  who  If  pre-conformist  In f a c t  expectations.  val-  secondary  alcoholics.  development s c a l e i s designed  f u n c t i o n i n g but  i n terms  construct  p r i m a r i e s at the post-conformist l e v e l . the  level  the mid-point  s e c o n d a r i e s would s c o r e a t the  that the  r e s u l t s may  and  one  general  seems s u r p r i s i n g t h a t  o f d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n p r i m a r i e s and  c o u l d be not  surface i t  points  i s a complex  however, f a v o r a b l e i n a s s e s s i n g ego  idity.  alcoholics  (1976)  Hauser's  predictive validity  studies  success  Hauser  of discriminant validity,  in  other behavioral  w i t h mixed  Development S c a l e .  (1970)  appropriate  o f l i t e r a t u r e most  1976).  Quinlan,  measure-  and W e s s l e r  t h a t the q u e s t i o n o f v a l i d i t y  regarding Loevinger's c o n c l u s i o n was,  &.  o f both  n o t be  d i f f e r on  show d i f f e r e n c e s h a v e met Frank  validity  t o o l may  groups t h a t c l e a r l y  mentioned  Measures  Locus o f C o n t r o l as Inadequate  their awareness i s , of  However,  in  47 the present  s i t u a t i o n we are d e a l i n g with two groups that  differ  on age, but have s i m i l a r incomes and e d u c a t i o n a l backgrounds. These s i m i l a r i t i e s may o f course l e a d t o s i m i l a r i t i e s i n awareness o f s o c i e t y ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s and requirements.  Because we are d e a l -  i n g with a l c o h o l i c s who are o f t e n known to be q u i t e m a n i p u l a t i v e (Madsen, 1 9 7 4 ) and i n a d d i t i o n we have s p e c i f i e d a designated  subgrouping  s e c o n d a r i e s , we may have stacked the deck a g a i n s t  g a i n i n g easy a c c e s s t o core ego f u n c t i o n i n g .  After a l l ,  secondaries  i n a d d i t i o n to b e i n g a l c o h o l i c a r e a l s o i n many ways s o c i o p a t h i c o r a t l e a s t b e h a v i o r a l l y 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 t o express answers o f a nonp e r s o n a l , perhaps even o f a m a n i p u l a t i v e nature. tence  Many o f the sen-  stems on t h e ego development q u e s t i o n n a i r e have a very s t r o n g  " p u l l " , as L o e v i n g e r  says, and i n f a c t may predispose people to  answer a t more o f an i n t e l l e c t u a l l e v e l i n terms o f t h e i r g e n e r a l awareness o f the r u l e s o f the game r a t h e r than responding l e v e l more c o n s i s t e n t with t h e i r i n n e r thoughts  at a  and f e e l i n g s .  I t should be noted t h a t i f i n f a c t the secondary's  ego l e v e l  i s an accurate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e i r ego development, then t h e r e appears to be some incongruence  between the d e s c r i p t o r o f the post  c o n f o r m i s t l e v e l and the past b e h a v i o r s o f the secondary Of course, the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h d e f i n e d primary  and  alcoholic.  secondary  a l c o h o l i c s l a r g e l y on the b a s i s o f t h e i r past b e h a v i o r s .  This i s  c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the approach o f o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s ( S c h u c k i t , 1973)• However, one c o u l d argue t h a t some independent t o o l t h a t v a l i d a t e s p r e s 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 i n terms o f the p r i m a r y / secondary  d i s t i n c t i o n might prove v a l u a b l e .  48 Another p o t e n t i a l four  f a c e t s o f ego  personal I t may an  style,  primaries.  i s i n Loevinger's  development,  i . e . , impulse  conscious preoccupation,  v e r y w e l l be  e m p h a s i s on  problem  t h a t the  different  secondary's  f a c e t s o f ego  Because L o e v i n g e r  has  locus of control results  criticisms  s i n c e the  items  uous i n terms o f r e l a t i n g injunctions. that  The  i t i s measuring a unidimensional  a l c o h o l i c s h a v e n o t met  B a r n e s , 1979). priate  On  the  f o r the present  the  to  Although with  research purposes.  unlikely And  as  assuming 1973)'  in locus of control ( C a s t e r & Parsons,  externality  research  1977;  seems a p p r o -  Some r e s e a r c h h a s  suggested  (Caster  i n d i c a t e s no  d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n p r i m a r i e s and  to the p r e s e n t  t o be  and  such  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 secondaries.  the  finally, to a  result i f we  extensive  i t seems  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 o f the v a l i d i t y o f the l o c u s o f  are  significant  correct in labelling extent  t h a t o t h e r m e a s u r e s w o u l d be  o f the  expectations  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 ,  sociopathic be  societal  and  above  t h a t i s o f t e n ambig-  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  However, t h e p r e s e n t  show any  regard  an  s u s c e p t i b l e to the  w i t h much s u c c e s s  1977).  failed  the  possibility.  confusion  &  As  reflects  phenomenon ( L e v e n s o n ,  r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i o p a t h y  tendency.  a  i n a way  a positive Parsons,  level  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  However, a t t e m p t s a t t e a s i n g o u t and  cognitive style.  p r o v i s i o n f o r such  such  them to o v e r a l l  the  inter-  development than  seem l e s s  a r e worded  control,  h i g h ego  made no  a n a l y s i s i t i s not p o s s i b l e to pursue The  and  notion of  the  secondary  ( S c h u c k i t , 1973)• t h e n  more a p p r o p r i a t e .  control.  it  as may  Perhaps because  research regarding disorders of affective  respon-  49 sivity tools  i n the  sociopath  ( H a r e , 197Q;  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  Manifest Anxiety  specific  characteristics  treatment  clients. i.e.,  s i t u a t i o n used i n the present o r the  study.  Per-  selection process  clients,  or  at  o r more m o t i v a t e d stability,  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  system.  Loevinger  (1976) h a s s u g g e s t e d  raise one's  ego l e v e l  Since both groups are cumstances  that  even a f t e r  exposed  it  i s d i f f i c u l t to  l e a r n i n g about  the  tempor-  theory.  e q u a l l y t o t h e above m e n t i o n e d  these kinds of explanations  seem u n l i k e l y t o g e t  cirone  far. 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  ities,  outpatient  r a i s e d ego l e v e l s . ences between stant. level  used  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  support  very  washed  o f the p a r t i c u l a r subjects  i n f a v o r o f more s t a b l e  either a recent  arily  Taylor  i n ego l e v e l o r LOC were  h a p s a n e l a t i o n e f f e c t was p r e s e n t , P a c i f i c a biased  (i.e.,  Population  P e r h a p s any r e a l d i f f e r e n c e s out by s p e c i f i c  1964),  Scale).  Inappropriate Subject  the  Schacter & Latane,  Of course,  i f t h i s were t r u e ,  p r i m a r y and s e c o n d a r y  e v e n when g i v i n g s p e c i f i c what r e s e a r c h  alcoholics i s not that  (Loevinger,  And f i n a l l y ,  experiences  the present  differ-  should remain coneasy to r a i s e  h a s b e e n done h a s n o t b e e n a b l e  regarding l i f e  has  any p r i o r  education r e g a r d i n g the  substantial results 1976).  facil-  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 . ,  As p r e v i o u s l y mentioned i t  addition,  i n other  and ego  ego  topic. to  In  show  change  d a t a were l o o k e d  at  50 in and  terms o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r i o r ego  level.  A point b i s e r i a l  treatment  correlation  experiences  coefficient  was done  (treatment/no  treatment  w i t h ego l e v e l ) a n d no r e l a t i o n s h i p was  found.  treatment  was d e f i n e d a s a t l e a s t  Prior  s e v e r a l weeks o f  involvement  i n a f o r m a l t r e a t m e n t program,  including  Anonymous.  The d i s t i n c t i o n was q u i t e  to determine  c l i e n t s without  easy  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  experiences or a substantial  no p r i o r  as c o n t r i b u t i v e  seem t h a t of  t h e second  for the present  Further The and  possibility,  that  The  with respect to the primary/  a l c o h o l i c s along specific Of special  interest  further,  to b e t t e r  explanation  However, b o t h  primary  measures o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l o f Loevinger's  ego d e v e l o p m e n t a n d t h e  t o d e t e c t any d i f f e r e n c e s . 1.  Pursue  the present  2 . Use d i f f e r e n t measurements, o r 3» D i s r e g a r d  primary/secondary  distinction.  present author i s not enthusiastic  present  delineate  was t h e u t i l i z a t i o n  are three options a t t h i s point:  The  would  results.  l o c u s o f c o n t r o l measurements f a i l e d  the  However, i t  i s p e r h a p s t h e more a p p r o p r i a t e  development c o n c e p t s .  research  c a n a l l be  ego d e v e l o p m e n t and l o c u s  p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h was an e f f o r t  secondary  There  treatment  Research  functioning. ego  to the present r e s u l t s .  c o n t r o l measurements a r e i n a d e q u a t e  secondary dichotomy,  since  amount.  In c o n c l u s i o n t h e t h r e e p o s s i b i l i t i e s mentioned viewed  Alcoholics  s t u d y was done w i t h  a great  about  deal of  the  care  first and i t  option. is  51 u n l i k e l y that the obtained r e s u l t s are u n r e l i a b l e . but  possibly  elicit  alcoholics.  i n a follow-up  different  Of course,  responses  i f just  w o u l d no l o n g e r a l l o w t o t a l  protocol time.  r a t i n g s may  a few s e n t e n c e  author  i n judging a c l i e n t ' s  concerned with  i t i s unlikely  respect to primary The  second  and somewhat  that anything  within the alcoholic  r e s e a r c h was d i r e c t e d  primarily  cept because o f i t s depth other tests  The p r e s e n t  further  c a n be  accomplished  alcoholics. There a r e ,  some r e s e a r c h w i t h t h e  (Barnes,  population.  1979)  clearly  and r i c h n e s s .  Although  con-  many o f t h e s e  t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t o be  d o e s n o t somehow seem a s p o t e n t i a l l y u s e f u l  show  However, t h e p r e s e n t  a t u s i n g t h e ego d e v e l o p m e n t  c a n no d o u b t be u s e d ,  suf-  As f a r as the LOC i s  c o u r s e , numerous o t h e r t e s t s a n d i n f a c t  subgroupings  a waste o f  t o g a i n some p e r s p e c t i v e  ego l e v e l .  and o t h e r t e s t s  total  and c e r t a i n l y o f v a l u e  o p t i o n seems t o h a v e more p r o m i s e .  MMPI ( C l o p t o n , 1978)  used,  i t e m s would p r o b a b l y be  and s e c o n d a r y  might  secondary  However,  their levels of psychological functioning.  h a s a s u s p i c i o n t h a t 6 t o 10  ficient  and  stems were  protocol ratings.  i s intriguing  sentence  These items  primary  r e a l l y be u n n e c e s s a r y  Ego d e v e l o p m e n t t h e o r y  regarding  study.  from  when l o o k i n g a t c l i e n t s a n d a t t e m p t i n g  of  careful,  i n f o r m a l , i t e m a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d s i x ego d e v e l o p m e n t  s t e m s t h a t m i g h t be u s e d  it  A  gained  a s d a t a r e g a r d i n g ego  development. The  third  option, o f course,  damental u t i l i t y secondary  l e a d s us to q u e s t i o n the f u n -  o f the primary/secondary  distinction  i s clearly  distinction.  The  primary/  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 in  presently best  terms o f t h e i r  t h e i r l o n g term As reason  probable  initial  r e a c t i o n to therapy  i n the  to view the 1973;  literature  review  primary/secondary  Blume, 1978).  Fox  (1957) t h e r e  t h i s dichotomy.  Not  only  are  Perhaps f u t u r e r e s e a r c h as  o p i n i o n o f the in  relation  more and  looks closely  d i s t i n c t i o n was  seems c l e a r t h a t we  ing a person  to  c a n be  e i t h e r primary author  more t h e  two  or  o f them.  a l c o h o l i c s to  find  By  25%  o f the  As  the  rigorous weighting  on  factor  or at l e a s t t o go  to  develop  devises  alcoholics  That  is  primary/secondary actual  T h i s would r e q u i r e  s c o r i n g s y s t e m p e r h a p s combined w i t h  d e p e n d i n g upon t h e  lOO  studying.  a method o f g i v i n g an  history.  attempt  l e a d to a b e t t e r  criterion.  a  an  seems  through over  are  more  per-  at t h i s time  secondary  our  people.  criterion  small  r e s e a r c h was  and  it  classify-  one's  such a  study  had  in  the  produce anything  p o p u l a t i o n t h a t we  a person's past  standardized  we  study,  kinds of  restricting  present  i t was,  c o u l d be  c o n t i n u u m m o d e l whereby one score based  beginning  However, i n t h e  not  detailed  t h a t c l e a r l y met  alcoholic  Another approach  different  would be  i n t h e i r treatment,  2?  historically  secondary.  u s e f u l measurements o f p r i m a r y  understanding  one  considerable  e v e n more r e s t r i c t i v e  results.  After all,  used  as a v a l i d  made i n t h e p r e s e n t  group t h a t i s l e f t  t h a t m i g h t be  barely  as  i s considerable  i s there  t h i s would p r o b a b l y  to the p r e s e n t  worthwhile.  find  as w e l l  a t t h e b a s i s upon w h i c h  dealing with  centage o f a l c o h o l i c s t h a t t h e i r hardly  clients  seems t o have b e e n a c l e a r r e c o g n i t i o n o f  I f one  primary/secondary  there  distinction  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 with  categorize  prognosis.  discussed  (Schuckit,  a v a i l a b l e ways i n w h i c h t o  sociopathic stature of  a a each  53 behavior course,  s p e c i f i e d i n the r a t i n g system.  T h i s approach i s , o f  a r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t a l l i t s own.  In c o n c l u s i o n the r e s e a r c h a r e a o f secondary/primary a l c o h o l i s m seems a f r u i t f u l pursuing  and worthwhile a r e a o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n . C e r t a i n l y  the d i s t i n c t i o n with o t h e r t o o l s should l e a d us t o a b e t t e r  understanding  o f the e t i o l o g y and proper treatment f o r such a  heterogeneous group.  By e l a b o r a t i n g the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s  amongst 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 we can o n l y g a i n i n our knowledge o f c l i n i c a l d i s o r d e r s .  54  REFERENCE  55  REFERENCES Armor, D.J., Ponch, J.M., & Stambul, H . B . Rand report alcoholism and treatment. Santa Monica, Calif.« The Rand Corporation, 1 9 7 6 . Barnes, G. The alcoholic personality, a reanalysis o f the l i t e r a t u r e . Journal o f Studies on Alcohol, 1979 • 40. 5 7 1 - 6 3 3 * Bertrand, S., & Masling, J . Oral imagery and alcoholism. of Abnormal Psychology. 1 9 6 9 , £ 4 , 5 0 - 5 3 .  Journal  B l a s i , A. A developmental approach to r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t r a i n i n g . Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Washington University, 1971' Blume, S.B. Diagnosis, casefinding, and treatment o f alcohol problems i n women. Alcohol Health and Research 'World, 1 9 7 8 , J,  10-22.  Brown, M.A. A l c o h o l i c p r o f i l e s on the Minnesota Multiphasic. Journal o f C l i n i c a l Psychology. 1 9 5 0 , 6 , 2 6 6 - 2 6 9 . Butts, S., & Chotlos, J . A comparison of a l c o h o l i c s and nonalcoholics on perceived locus o f 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 i n a l c o h o l i c s and treatment outcome. Journal o f Studies on Alcohol, 19771 3 8 , 2087-2095.  Catanzaro, R.J. Psychiatric aspects o f alcoholism. In D.J. Pittman (Ed.), Alcoholism. New York: Harper & Row, 1 9 6 7 . Clopton, J.R. Alcoholism and the MMPI. Alcohol, 1 9 7 8 , 21,  1540-1558.  Journal o f Studies on  Comeau, L.H. The effect of teaching counselling s k i l l s and concepts to women college student advisors. D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts. 1 9 7 7 . Costello, R.M., & Manders, K.R. Locus o f control and alcoholism. B r i t i s h Journal o f Addiction, 1974, 6 £ , 1 1 - 1 ? . Cox, N. P r i o r help, ego development, and helping behavior. Development. 1 9 7 4 , £ 5 , 5 9 4 - 6 0 3 .  Child  Dahlstrom, W.G., 'Welsh, G.S., & Dahlstrom, L.E. MMPI Handbook. Vol. I, Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota Press, 1 9 7 2 . De Coach, S. Level o f ego development, degree of psychopathology, and continuation or termination o f outpatient psychotherapy involvement. D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts, 1 9 7 6 .  56. D i s t e f a n o , M.K. , J r . , P r y e r , M.W., & Garrison, J.L. Internale 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 Psyc h o l o g y , 1972, 2 8 , 36-37. Donovan, D.M., & O ' L e a r y , M.R. C o m p a r i s o n o f p e r c e i v e d and e x p e r i e n c e d c o n t r o l among a l c o h o l i c s a n d n o n a l c o h o l i c s . J o u r n a l o f A b n o r m a l P s y c h o l o g y . 1975t 84, 726-728. E m r i c k , C. R e v i e w o f a f o l l o w - u p s t u d y 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 t r e a t m e n t c e n t e r s b y W.I. R u g g l e s , D . J . Armor, J.M. P o l i c h , A. M o t h e r s h e a d , ' & M. S t e p h e n . Journal o f Studies o f A l c o h o l . I976, 21* 1902-1907. E p s t e i n , R. & K o m o r i t a , S. S e l f - e s t e e m , 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, f  1970,  4, 2-8.  F i t c h , G. E f f e c t s o f s e l f - e s t e e m , p e r c e i v e d p e r f o r m a n c e , and c h o 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 P s y c h o l o g y , 1970, 16, 311-315. Fox, R. Treatment o f a l c o h o l i s m . I n H.E. Himwich, ( E d . ) , 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 t h e Advancement o f S c i e n c e , 1957. F r a n k , S., & Q u i n l a n , D. Ego d e v e l o p m e n t a n d f e m a l e d e l i n q u e n c y : a cognitive-developmental approach. Abnormal P s y c h o l o g y , 1976,  85, 505-510  Franks,CM. Alcoholism. I n C.G. C o s t a l l o ( E d , ) , Symptoms o f Psychopathology. New Y o r k : W i l e y , 197°. G o l d s t e i n , S.G., & L i n d e n , 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 b y means o f t h e MMPI. J o u r n a l o f A b n o r m a l P s y c h o l -  ogy. 1969, 'A* 661-669.  G o z a l i , J . , & Sloan, J . Control 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. Quarterly Journal o f Studies o f A l c o h o l . 1971, 12, 159-161. H a r e , R.D.  Psychopathy theory  and r e s e a r c h .  New Y o r k : W i l e y ,  1970.  H a r v e y , R.C. F i e l d d e p e n d e n c e , l e v e l o f ego d e v e l o p m e n t , a n d f e m a l e s e x 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. H a u s e r , S.  Loevinger's  a critical  review.  model a n d measure o f ego d e v e l o p m e n t ; Psychological Bulletin,  1976, 83_, 928-955.  Head, J . , & S h a y e r , M. L o e v i n g e r ' s ego d e v e l o p m e n t m e a s u r e s 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 R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l ,  I960,  6,  2 1 - 2 7 .  5 7  Holmes, W.D. The development o f an emperical MMPI s c a l e f o r alcoholism. Unpublished master's t h e s i s , San Jose S t a t e C o l l e g e , 1953. Hoppe, C.F. Ego development and conformity b e h a v i o r s . d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Washington U n i v e r s i t y , 1972.  Unpublished  Hoppe, C.F., & Loevinger, J."'Ego development and conformity; a c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y study o f - t h e Washington U n i v e r s i t y Sentence Completion T e s t . .Journal o f P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment. 1977» 41, 497-503. J e l l i n e k , E.M. The d i s e a s e concept o f a l c o h o l i s m . H i l l h o u s e Press, i960.  New Haven:  Joe, V.C. Review o f the i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l c o n s t r u c t as a p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Reports, 1971» 28, 619-640. Jones, M.C. P e r s o n a l i t y c o r r e l a t e s and antecedents o f d r i n k i n g p a t t e r n s i n a d u l t males. J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1938, J 2 , 1-12. Kohlberg, L. Development o f moral c h a r a c t e r and moral i d e o l o g y . In M.L. Hoffman and L . W . Hoffman ( E d s . ) , Review o f C h i l d Development Research. New York: R u s s e l l Sage Foundation, 1 9 6 4 . L a w l i s , G.F., & Rubin, S.E. Sixteen-PF study o f p e r s o n a l i t y p a t t e r n s in,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 on A l c o h o l . 1971. 12, 318-327. Levenson, H. M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l l o c u s o f c o n t r o l i n p s y c h i a t r i c p a t i e n t s . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 1973. 41, 397-404. Loevinger, J . Ego development. San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass :-• . " • P u b l i s h e r s , 1976. y Loevinger, J . , Wessler,.g., & Redmore, C. Measuring ego development I I : s c o r i n g manual f o r women and g i r l s . San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass, 1970. MacAndrew, C. The d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f male a l c o h o l i c o u t p a t i e n t s from n o n a l c o h o l i c p s y c h i a t r i c o u t p a t i e n t s by means o f the MMPI. 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 , 1965, 26, 238-246. Madsen, W. The American a l c o h o l i c . C. Thomas, 1 9 7 4 .  Springfield, I l l i n o i s :  Charles  M a r t i n , J . , & Redmore, C. A l o n g i t u d i n a l study o f ego development. Developmental Psychology, 1 9 7 8 , 1 4 , 1 8 9 - 1 9 0 . Maslow, A.H. 1 9 6 2 .  M o t i v a t i o n and p e r s o n a l i t y .  New York: Von No strand,  58 McCord, 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 and p e r s o n a l characteristics. Quarterly Journal of Studies in Alcohol, 1972,  J j ,  1 0 2 0 - 1 0 2 7 .  Nathan, P . E . Alcoholism. 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 and b e h a v i o r t h e r a p y . Englewood 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 and 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 ^treatment o f a l c o h o l i s m . In U. Mendel son, N. M e l l o , & K. M e l l o ( E d s . ) , D i a g n o s i s and Treatment o f Alcoholism. 1979. Nemroff, M. Ego 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 , d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r i n husbands o f p r o f e s s i o n a l tation Abstracts, 1975.  and the women.  domestic Disser-  Nerviano, V . J . , & Gross, W.F. A multivariate delineation of 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 . Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1973, 39_, 3 7 1 - 3 7 4 . O ' L e a r y , M . R . , Donovan, D . M . , & Hague, W.H. R e l a t i o n s h i p between l o c u s o f c o n t r o l , s e l f - r e p o r t and n o n o b t r u s i v e measures o f anxiety. 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. 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 a r e p l i c a t i o n and e x t e n s i o n . Journal of 1974,  30,  3 1 2 - 3 1 4 .  -Overall, J . E . , & Patrick, J . H . its personality correlates. 1972,  21*  Relationships among a l c o h o l i c s ; Clinical Psychology.  U n i t a r y a l c o h o l i s m f a c t o r and Journal of Applied Psychology,  3 1 3 - 3 1 9 .  Peck, R . F . , & Havinghurst, development. New Y o r k :  R.J. The p s y c h o l o g y W i l e y , i960.  Phares, J . E . Locus of control i n personality. Jersey: Central Learning Press, 1976. Plaut, T.F.A. C o o p e r a t i v e c o m m i s s i o n on the a l c o h o l problems: A report to the n a t i o n . University Press, 196?.  of  character  M o r r i s t o w n , New  study o f a l c o h o l i s m , New Y o r k : O x f o r d  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 , and alcohol consumption; A psychobiological approach. 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 Symposium o f the A l b e r t a A l c o h o l i s m and Drug Abuse Commission. Edmonton: A l b e r t a A l c o h o l i s m and Drug Abuse Commission, 1 9 7 4 .  59 Redmore, C , & Waldman, K. Reliability measure o f ego d e v e l o p m e n t . Journal  1975,  22,  o f a sentence completion o f P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment,  236-243.  R o t t e r , J.B. Generalized expectancies f o r i n t e r n a l versus external control of reinforcement. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 1966,  80,  1-28.  S c h a c t e r , S., & L a t a n e , B. C r i m e , c o g n i t i o n , and t h e a u t o n o m i c nervous system. I n D. L e v i n e ( E d . ) , N e b r a s k a 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 N e b r a s k a P r e s s , 1964. S c h u c k i t , M., P i t t s , F.N., R e i c h , T., K i n g , L . J . , & W i n o k u r , G. A l c o h o l i s m I: two t y p e s o f a l c o h o l i s m i n women. Archives o f General Psychology. 1969, 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 s o C i o p a t h y diagnostic confusion. 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, J 4 , 157-164. S c h u c k i t , M.A., & G u n d e r s o n , E.K. A l c o h o l i s m i n n a v y and m a r i n e c o r p s women: a f i r s t l o o k . M i l i t a r y M e d i c i n e , 1975, 268-270. S e l i g m a n , M.F.P.  2, 43-48.  Fall  into helplessness.  Sullivan, C , G r a n t , M.Q., interpersonal maturity:  1957,  20,  P s y c h o l o g y Today,  1973,  & G r a n t , J.D. The d e v e l o p m e n t o f a p p l i c a t i o n s to d e l i n q u e n c y . Psychiatry,  373-385.  T i e b o u t , H.M. P s y c h o l o g y and t r e a t m e n t o f a l c o h o l i s m . Quarterly J o u r n a l o f t h e 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 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, JJ,  view. 186-190.  V a i l l a n t , G.E. A l c o h o l i s m and d r u g d e p e n d e n c e . I n A.M. Nicholi, J r . ( E d . ) , The H a r v a r d G u i d e t o Modern P s y c h i a t r y . Cambridge, Mass: The B e l k m a p P r e s s o f H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1978. W a l t o n , 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, 76I-766. 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. 1949, 1 0 , 127-157. W h i t e l o c k , P.R., O v e r a l l , J . E . , & P a t r i c k , J.H. Personality 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 A b n o r m a l 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 f o l l o w - u p o f a l c o h o l i c patients. I n R . J . C a t a n z a r o ( E d . ) , 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 .  60  World H e a l t h O r g a n i z a t i o n . Expert committee on drug dependence ( s i x t e e n t h r e p o r t ) , WHO t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t s e r i e s No. 4 0 7 . Geneva: World H e a l t h O r g a n i z a t i o n , 1969. Zucker, R., & Von Horn, H. S i b l i n g s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e and o r a l b e h a v i o r : d r i n k i n g and smoking i n adolescence. Quarterly J o u r n a l o f the S t u d i e s on A l c o h o l . 1972, 23_, 193-197.  APPENDI  62  Consent Form  if  , consent to  p a r t i c i p a t e i n the p r e s e n t  s t u d y 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 h o u r . 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 a r e  s e l e c t i n g p r e a r r a n g e d i t e m s t h a t e i t h e r a p p l y t o me o r 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 o c c u r i f  deemed n e c e s s a r y 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  researcher  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 t o P a c i f i c a  Treat-  ment Center i n my a l c o h o l h i s t o r y form and/or i n t a k e form. The i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be gathered and maintained by the  principal investigator, the s t r i c t e s t  Celesta Wilson.  I understand  that  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 released.  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  i s v o l u n t a r y and may be t e r m i n a t e d a t any time w i t h o u t t o my t r e a t m e n t .  Signed.  project jeopardy  :  Purpose of P r o j e c t  63  As. y o u  know, a l l c l i e n t s  the  umbrella  of a l c o h o l i s m .  but  a l s o d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  following questionnaires ing  those  similarities  1  coming t h r o u g h h e r e a r r i v e We-know .-there a r e  similarities  p e r s o n a l i t i e s of a l c o h o l i c s .  are designed  to gain  arid d i f f e r e n c e s .  under  information  The regard  IN IT IALS  64  Of t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s , check 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 PP5-Y t o y o u : N o t e i f t h e s e h a p p e n e d b e f o r e 16 o r a f t e r a g e 16.  a  (1)  repeated truancy s i o n from s c h o o l  (2)  repeated  (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 o f a n y 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')  (skipping school), (3 t o 5 t i m e s ) .  suspension or expul-  r u n n i n g away f r o m home f o r a t l e a s t  overnight. arrests  work h i s t o r y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by 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)  repeated  outbursts  of rage or f i g h t i n g  (3 o r m o r e ) .  (6)  sexual p r o m i s c u i t y ( l o t s of c a s u a l sex p a r t n e r s ) .  (7)  p r o s t i t u t i o n o r pimping.  (8)  a p e r i o d of d r i f t i n g w i t h 6 months o r more of wandering w i t h 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 imental basis.  a l c o h o l on more than an exper-  (10)  p e r i o d of r e p e a t e d  l y i n g o r use o f an a l i a s  (11)  A l c o h o l i c parent:  a.  (12)  F a m i l y o f o r i g i n - a s y o u grew u p : -  (13)  1  b.  2  c.  (assumed  neither  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 single parent 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  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 : - poor _ O.K. _ good  (14)  name).  Impressions  of m o t h e r :  - warm - indifferent - abusive  Impressions  of f a t h e r :  - warm - indifferent - abusive  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 society affect d i f f e r e n t people. 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 o n e s t a t e m e n t o f e a c h p a i r ( a n d o n l y o n e ) w h i c h y o u more s t r o n g l y B E L I E V E t o be t h e c a s e as f a r a s 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 t h e one y o u a c t u a l l y B£LIEVE t o be more t r u e r a t h e r t h a n t h e one y o u t h i n k y o u s h o u l d c h o o s e o r t h e one y o u w o u l d l i k e t o be t r u e . I n some i n s t a n c e s y o u may d i s c o v e r t h a t y o u b e l i e v e both s t a t e m e n t s o r n e i t h e r one. I n s u c h c a s e s , be s u r e t o s e l e c t t h e ONE y o u more s t r o n g l y b e l i e v e t o be t h e 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 to e a c h i t e m i n d e p e n d e n t l y when m a k i n g y o u r c h o i c e ; do n o t be i n f l u e n c e d by y o u r p r e v i o u s choices. PLEASE C I R C L E THE  APPROPRIATE LETTER'.  1.  a. b.*  C h i l d r e n g e t 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 t o o much. 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 t o o e a s y w i t h them.  2.  a. b.  Many o f t h e u n h a p p y 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 P e o p l e ' s m i s f o r t u n e s r e s u l t f r o m t h e m i s t a k e s t h e y make.  3.  a.  One o f t h e m a j o r r e a s o n s why we h a v e w a r s i s b e c a u s e p e o p l e d o n ' t t a k e enough i n t e r e s t i n p o l i t i c s , T h e r e 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.  b. ^.  5.  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 . 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 h a r d he t r i e s .  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 , Many t i m e s exam q u e s t i o n s t e n d t o be s o u n r e l a t e d t o c o u r s e w o r k t h a t s t u d y i n g is r e a l l y u s e l e s s .  a. b.  7.  8.  9.  luck,  a. b.  b. 6.  t o bad  Becoming a s u c c e s s i s a m a t t e r o f hard work, l u c k has l i t t l e o r n o t h i n g t o wi t h i t . 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.  a. b.  The a v e r a g e c i t i z e n c a n have an i n f l u e n c e i n government d e c i s i o n s . T h i s w o r l d i s r u n by t h e few p e o p l e i n p o w e r , a n d t h e r e i s n o t much t h e guy c a n do a b o u t i t .  a.  The  b.  Most s t u d e n t s don't r e a l i z e by a c c i d e n t a l happenings.  a.  Without  the right  Capable  p e o p l e who  b.  how  idea that teachers are unfair  opportunities.  PLEASE TURN OVER!  b r e a k s one fail  to students  cannot  little  i s nonsense.  the extent to which  t h e i r grades  be an e f f e c t i v e  t o become l e a d e r s h a v e n o t  are  influenced  leader. taken advantage of  do  their  65a 10.  a. b.  11.  a. b. a. b. a. b.  12. 13.  1**. 15. 16.  a. b. a. b. a. b.  17-  a. b.  18.  19. 20. 21.  a. b. a. b. a. b. a. b.  22.  a. b.  23.  a. b. a. b. a.  2k. 25.  b. 26.  a. b.  27. 28.  a. b. a. b.  29.  a. b.  No m a t t e r how h a r d y o u t r y some p e o p l e j u s t d o n ' t l i k e y o u . P e o p l e who c a n ' t g e t o t h e r s t o l i k e t h e m d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d how t o g e t a l o n g wi t h o t h e r s . H e r e d i t y p l a y s t h e 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 . 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 . 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, T r u s t i n g t o f a t e has never turned o u t . 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 c a n make them w o r k . I t i s n o t a l w a y s w i s e t o p l a n t o o f a r a h e a d b e c a u s e 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 g o o d o r b a d f o r t u n e anyhow. T h e r e 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 g o o d , T h e r e i s some g o o d i n e v e r y b o d y . I n my c a s e g e t t i n g w h a t I w a n t h a s 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 , Many t i m e s we m i g h t j u s t a s w e l l d e c i d e w h a t t o do by f l i p p i n g a c o i n . Who g e t s t o be t h e b o s s o f t e n d e p e n d s o n who was l u c k y e n o u g h t o be i n t h e right place f i rst. G e t t i n g p e o p l e t o do t h e r i g h t t h i n g d e p e n d s upon a b i l i t y , l u c k h a s l i t t l e o r n o t h i n g t o do w i t h i t . As f a r a s 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 u s 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 , n o r c o n t r o l , By t a k i n g a n a c t i v e p a r t i n p o l i t i c a l a n d s o c i a l a f f a i r s t h e p e o p l e c a n c o n t r o l world events. M o s t p e o p l e d o n ' 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 accidental happenings, T h e r e r e a l l y i s no s u c h t h i n g a s " l u c k " . One s h o u l d a l w a y s be w i l l i n g t o a d m i t m i s t a k e s , I t i s u s u a l l y b e s t t o c o v e r up o n e ' s m i s t a k e s . I t i s h a r d t o know w h e t h e r o r n o t a p e r s o n r e a l l y l i k e s y o u . How many f r i e n d s y o u h a v e d e p e n d s upon how n i c e a p e r s o n y o u a r e . I n t h e l o n g r u n t h e b a d t h i n g s t h a t h a p p e n t o us a r e b a l a n c e d by t h e g o o d o n e s , 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 al1 t h r e e . W i t h e n o u g h e f f o r t we c a n w i p e o u t p o l i t i c a l c o r r u p t i o n . I t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r p e o p l e t o h a v e much c o n t r o l o v e r t h e 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 . S o m e t i m e s 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 g r a d e s t h e y g i v e , T h e r e i s a d i r e c t c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n how h a r d I s t u d y a n d t h e g r a d e s I g e t . A good l e a d e r e x p e c t s p e o p l e t o d e c i d e f o r t h e m s e l v e s what t h e y s h o u l d d o . A g o o d l e a d e r makes i t c l e a r t o e v e r y b o d y w h a t t h e i r j o b s a r e . Many t i m e s I f e e l t h a t I h a v e l i t t l e i n f l u e n c e o v e r t h e t h i n g s t h a t h a p p e n t o me. 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 c h a n c e o r l u c k p l a y s a n i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n my I i f e . P e o p l e a r e l o n e l y b e c a u s e t h e y d o n ' t t r y t o be f r i e n d l y . T h e r e ' s n o t much u s e i n t r y i n g t o o h a r d t o p l e a s e p e o p l e , they 1i ke y o u . T h e r e i s t o o much e m p h a s i s o n a t h l e t i c s i n h i g h s c h o o l , Team s p o r t s a r e a n 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 . What h a p p e n s t o me i s my own d o i n g .  i f they  like you,  S o m e t i m e s I f e e l t h a t I d o n ' t h a v e e n o u g h 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 is taking. Most o f t h e t i m e 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 b e h a v e t h e way t h e y d o . 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 level.  66 SENTENCE  COMPLETION  FOR  Name  Age  Education  Gross  Instructions:  Complete  1 .  Raising  2.  When  a child  3.  When  they  4.  A man's j o b  5.  Being  6.  The t h i n g  7.  I f my  the following  MALES  Income  sentences.  a family  with  will  avoided  other  I like  mother  not join  i n group  me  people  about  myself i s  activities  1980  SENTENCE 8..  If I can't  g e t what  9.  When  younger  10.  I was  I  COMPLETION  FOR  MALES  67  want  Education  11.  When  12.  Women  people  are  are lucky  helpless  because  i.  •3.  What  gets  14.  A good  15.  I f I were  me  into  father  a  king  trouble  is  SENTENCE COMPLETION FOR 16.  A wife  should  17.  I feel  sorry  18.  A man s h o u l d  19.  Rules are  20.  He f e l t  21.  Men a r e l u c k y  22.  My f a t h e r  23.  A man  always  proud  that  he  because  and I  feels  good when  MALES  68  SENTENCE COMPLETION FOR MALES 24. When I g e t mad  25. A t t i m e s he w o r r i e d  about  26. When h i s w i f e a s k e d  him t o h e l p w i t h  27.  My main p r o b l e m i s  28. When I am  criticized  29.  Sometimes he w i s h e d  30.  A husband has a r i g h t t o  31. When he t h o u g h t  that  o f h i s m o t h e r , he  t h e housework  69  SENTENCE COMPLETION 3 2 . The w o r s t  t h i n g about b e i n g  33.  I f I had more  34.  I just  35.  My c o n s c i e n c e  can't  a man  money  stand people  bothers  3 6 . C r i m e and d e l i n q u e n c y  37.  POR  A l c o h o l seems t o  who  me i f  c o u l d be h a l t e d i f  MALES  70  

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}]}"
                            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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054322/manifest

Comment

Related Items