Open Collections will be undergoing maintenance Monday June 8th, 2020 11:00 – 13:00 PT. No downtime is expected, but site performance may be temporarily impacted.

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Motivational orientations and adult education Blakley, Barbara Beryl 1979

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A8 B43.pdf [ 6.45MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055945.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055945-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055945-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055945-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055945-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055945-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055945-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055945-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055945.ris

Full Text

MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATIONS AND ADULT EDUCATION by BARBARA BERYL BLAKLEY B.Sc, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FUTFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Adult Education Department We accept t h i s thesis as corrforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November, 1 9 7 9 @ Barbara Beryl Blakley f 1 9 7 9 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Brit ish Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of Brit ish Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 i . ABSTRACT The e a r l i e s t p a r t i c i p a t i o n research, concentrated on descriptive characteri-zation of the " t y p i c a l " adult education participant. It i s now generally accepted that t h i s i n d i v i d u a l i s from the upper levels of society i n terms of education and socio-economic status, i s under fo r t y years of age, works, f u l l time and usually at a white c o l l a r occupation, i s married and a parent, and l i v e s i n an urban (or suburban) area. This information i s i n t e r e s t i n g and useful, but does not t e l l why people p a r t i c i p a t e i n adult education. This study examines psychological and demographic variables and relates them to motivational orientation as measured by the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale (Boshier, 1976) to determine some of the reasons people participate i n adult education. The purpose of t h i s study was to correlate psychologi-c a l , demographic, and economic variables with motivation to participate i n adult education. A secondary purpose was to test the v a l i d i t y of the Edu-cation P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale as a measure of motivational orientation. The Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale was used to measure motivational orienta-t i o n . The Marlowe-Crowne Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, the Barron-Asch Independence of Judgement Measure, Shostrom's Personal Orientation Inventory, and Wilson and Patterson's Conservatism Scale were used to measure 15 psychological variables. Demographic and economic data were collected from the respondents. Respondents were 140 participants registered i n general interest adult educa-t i o n courses sponsored by f i v e agencies i n the lower mainland of B r i t i s h Co-lumbia. Regression and discriminant function analyses were performed to de-i i . tannine the amount of observed variance i n motivational orientations ex-plained by psychological and demographic variables, and to investigate the v a l i d i t y of the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale. The r e s u l t s indicate that motivational orientation can be predicted by d i f f e r e n t combinations of va-r i a b l e s . • The most important predictors were psychological.variables such as Shostrom's "view of man" and time competence. Neuroticism and l e v e l of family income were the next most important predictors. A l l together, the investigated variables accounted for about 25 percent of the variance i n Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale scores, The r e s u l t s provide a measure of sup-port for the predictive (75%) and the construct (,77) v a l i d i t y of the Scale. S o c i a l Welfare, Cognitive Interest, and S o c i a l Contact best discriirnnated between the c l i e n t e l e of the f i v e agencies, Evidence f o r construct v a l i d i t y was provided by such r e s u l t s as the finding that people motivated by Escape/ Stimulation are more neurotic and have lower s e l f regard than subjects who' were not highly motivated by Escape/Stimulation. I t was concluded that since 25 to 30 percent of the variance i n Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale scores i s explained by the investigated variables and about ten percent by measurement error, about 65 percent i s s t i l l unexplained. Two alternatives could account f o r t h i s f inding. Either other variables account for the greater part of the variance, or the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale measures factors which e x i s t on t h e i r crm, Perhaps Cognitive Interest, f o r example, i s a psychological variable i n i t s e l f . The implications of the findings are that psychological variables are impor-tant predictors of motivational orientation, and should therefore be taken into account when motivation for p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n adult education i s con-sidered. A further implication, however, Is that variables other than those i l l investigated may be equally important, rrrograirming based s o l e l y on popular course content i s not l i k e l y to s a t i s f y a l l motives underlying p a r t i c i p a -t i o n . Because psychological variables are more important than other inves-tigated variables i n prediction of motivational orientation, concentration on the economic and demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the c l i e n t e l e of an agency to determine pol i c y and programming i s inappropriate. The finding that the clie n t e l e , of the f i v e p a r t i c i p a t i n g agencies can be so c l e a r l y distinguished implies that i t may be possible to characterize the c l i e n t e l e of other agen-cies i n a s i m i l a r manner. On the basis of t h i s study, i t was recommended that practitioners assess the motivational orientations of t h e i r c l i e n t e l e to provide more e f f e c t i v e prograrrming f o r them, and to increase the c l i e n t e l e served. I t was recom-mended that i n future research other variables such as i n t e l l i g e n c e , a l i e n a -t i o n , and c u l t u r a l adjustment be explored to determine t h e i r c o r r e l a t i o n with Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales. An exploration of the intercorrelations between the Scales should be made, and changes i n motivational orientation during the course of an educational a c t i v i t y examined. i v . TABLE OF CONTENTS -L i s t of Tables v i L i s t of Figures v i i Acknowledgements . v i i i CHAPTER 1.' MOTIVATION AND PARTICIPATION 1 A. The Nature of the Problem 1 B. Purposes of the Study 6 C. Limitations of the Study 6 CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY 8 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY . . 12 A. Instrument Selection and Development 12 3, Subject Selection 18 C. Study Rationale 20 D. Instrument Administration/Data C o l l e c t i o n 22 E. Analysis of the Data 23 F. Hypotheses ' 24 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS. . . . 27 A. Characteristics of the Respondents 27 B. Correlation of Six Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale Scores and Demographic3 Economic, and Personal Style Variables, Response Bias and C l i n i c a l Measures 29 C. Variance and Prediction i n Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale Scores 34 D. Testing f o r Differences Among Cli e n t e l e i n Five Agencies . . . 56 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS '60 A. Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales 60 3. V a l i d i t y of the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale ,64 CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 71 A. Conclusions 71 B. Implications of the Study for Research and Practice 73 V . C. Recommendations 75 CHAPTER 7. SUTMARY OF THE STUDY . , J 78 A. Purposes 78 B. Design .-78 C. Results 79 D. Discussion 80 E. Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations 81 REFERENCES , 82 Appendix A. Data C o l l e c t i o n Instrument 86 Appendix B. Data Co l l e c t i o n Procedure . . . . 106 Appendix C. Instrument Administration Procedure 107. v i , List of Tables Table Page 1 , Testing Locations", Agencies:.or. Institutions", Numbers of Questionnaires" Distributed and Returned, and Name of Course , , 1 9 2, Characteristics of Respondents" and Published Test Norms , . , , 2b 3 , Correlations of Six Education Participation Scale Scores and Demographic, Economic, and Personal Style Variables, Response Bias and Clinical Measure?" 30 4 , Regression Summary Table: Professional Advancement , 36 5 , Regression Summary Table: Social Welfare- 39 6, Regression Summary Table: Escape/Stimulation ^2 7, . Regression Summary Table: Social Contact , , , , . . ^5 8, Regression Summary Table: Cognitive Interest, v , ,. , , , , , . 48 9 , Regression Summary Table; External Expectations , , , , , , , , 51 1 0 , Percent of Variance in Six Education Participation Scale Scores Explained by Five Categories of Independent Variables , .55 1 1 . Discriminating Variables by Agency: Mean Scores, F Statistics, and Wilksr Lambda . , , , 57 yjLl, L i s t of'Figures; Figure 2, Mas-low* s Haerarcnjr of Needs- . 3 Figure 2, SenrL-Lattlce of Expected Correlations- , , . , 26 v i i i . ACKN0VTEDGEMENT3. I wish to acknowledge the assistance of my committee members i n preparation of t h i s thesis. The credit f o r the o r i g i n a l idea belongs to Dr. R. Boshier. The e d i t o r i a l comments of Dr. Gary Dickinson were appreciated. I would es-p e c i a l l y l i k e to thank Dr. John C o l l i n s f o r the time and energy he devoted to the f i n a l data analysis and preparation of the manuscript. I would also l i k e to thank Stan Kita for patient assistance with-the compu-te r analysis of the data. Pat Marshall typed the text and N e i l Mason typed the tables. I wish to thank them both. 1, CHAPTER 1.  MOTIVATION AND PARTICIPATION What motivates people to participate in adult education? Most people in our society take part in some form of adult education at least at some point during the course of their lives. The quality and quantity of par-ticipation, however, does not remain the same; the patterns change. Different theories and reasons have Been proposed to account for the phenomenon and the differing patterns of participation. A. The Nature of the Problem The earliest research mainly described the "typical" adult participating in some type of formal adult education activity.. Recent studies of this type have broadened to include adults engaged in self-education. These two groups of participants have generally been typified by social, demographic, and economic characteristics, and compared with non-participants or with the general population. This type of study was exemplified by the massive. NORC survey in the United States (Johnstone and Rivera, 1965). It is now generally conceded that "typical" adult participants in "typical" adult education activities are drawn disproportionately from the upper levels of society in terms of education and socio-economic status. They are generally under forty years of age, work f u l l time and usually at white collar occupations, are married and parents, and live in urban (or suburban) areas. 2. While t h i s information i s int e r e s t i n g and to some extent useful, i t does . not indicate why people participate i n adult education. More recently, researchers have attempted to i d e n t i f y the reasons or motives for p a r t i c i p a t i o n . One of the e a r l i e s t perspectives on adult education p a r t i c i p a t i o n suggested i t could be explained by a basic "need g r a t i f i c a t i o n " model. In t h i s model the person would become aware of or perceive needs requiring g r a t i f i c a t i o n . Among alternatives available f o r t h i s purpose would be some form of adult education. The person would choose to pa r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s a c t i v i t y i f s/he perceived that i t would have a l i k e l i h o o d of s a t i s f y i n g the need. P a r t i c i p a t i o n would cease upon s a t i s f a c t i o n of the need. This model, however, was not e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y . I t f a i l e d to account for continued or increased p a r t i c i p a t i o n a f t e r apparent s a t i s f a c t i o n of the need. Maslow (195^j 1962) attempted to reconcile both types of behaviour i n one theory. He suggested that both need g r a t i f i c a t i o n and growth seeking behaviour could be explained by a hierarchy of needs. He postulated a pyramid (Figure 1) of lower and higher order needs. Each order of needs would require some degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n before higher order needs could be activated. The needs are physiological, s u r v i v a l , personal safety, love and belongingness, achievement or recognition, and s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n . Maslow suggested that the lower order needs Csee Figure 1) are primarily associated with deficiency motivation. The higher order needs are primarily associated with growth motivation. Deficiency motivation occurs when a person recognizes, a deficiency within her/himself, and seeks to 3. remedy i t . Success i n t h i s endeavour brings about reduction i n tension and a state of equilibrium or homeostasis. Growth motivation, on the other hand, occurs when a person a c t i v e l y seeks growth by upsetting an e x i s t i n g equilibrium and attempting to r e - e s t a b l i s h a new, higher l e v e l steady state. This behaviour has been l a b e l l e d heterostatic (Boshier, 1 9 7 1 ) . Higher Order Needs Lower Order Need's Figure 1. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs M i l l e r (1967) added another dimension to t h i s concept. He suggested that "personal needs do not operate i n a vaccuum; they, are shaped, conditioned and channeled by the s o c i a l structures and forces" of the socio-economic s i t u a t i o n of each i n d i v i d u a l . The idea he developed suggested that the two major variables contributing to p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n adult education are s o c i a l forces and personal needs. When both variables are strong and p o s i -t i v e , there should be a high l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . When-social forces are strong but personal needs are weak, p a r t i c i p a t i o n should be high i n i t i a l l y , but subsequently low. On the other hand, when s o c i a l forces are weak but personal needs strong, participation should be low generally, but "erratically and spottily" high. If the two contributing variables are opposed or in conflict, participation should depend on the strength of the given social force, but a great deal of tension would be generated within the programme. These forces are deemed to differ from social class to social class. Miller attempted to demonstrate the differing partici-pation patterns of each social class in terms of these variables. Participation in.adult education has been viewed as an attempt to accomplish "developmental tasks" (Havighurst, 1 9 6 4 ) . This model proposes a sequence of l i f e tasks, each of which an adult must accomplish. Attempts to perform these tasks lead some people to participate in adult education. Examples of these tasks are raising a family, learning a trade, and using leisure time enjoyably. In a similar formulation, Buhler ( 1 9 6 8 ) proposed a series of l i f e phases and related goals associated with age and maturity. These phases and goals often encourage adults to participate.in adult education activities. These conceptual formulations have guided participation research and enabled researchers to cast results in theoretical frameworks. Develop-mental tasks, l i f e phases, social forces, etc. are not directly testable as theories. It is necessary to operationalize the concepts and test them empirically to determine their usefulness. A number of workers have suggested that underlying these concepts are psychological factors which should be explored (Knox and Sjogren, 1 9 6 2 ; Knox and Videbeck, 1 9 6 3 ; Litchfield, 1 9 6 5 ; and Boshier, 1 9 7 7 ) , such as self actualization, neuroticism, and self regard. 5 . A competing perspective from which, to view p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s that of motiva-t i o n a l orientation. This concept was o r i g i n a l l y suggested by Houle ( 1961) i n h i s w e l l known work," The Inquiring Mind. I t has been subs t a n t i a l l y de-veloped by subsequent 'writers. I f motivational orientation i s the force which impels p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n adult education,, i t i s important to be able to understand, predict, and control the factors which influence i t . Most of the recent research on motivational orientations has dealt with the establishment and measurement of these motivational orientations ( S h e f f i e l d , 1 9 6 4 ; Burgess, 1 9 7 1 J and Boshier, 1971* 1 9 7 6 ) . These early measures have been refined t o the point where they are r e l a t i v e l y stable and f a i r l y w e l l understood. Boshier ( 1 9 7 6 , 1 9 7 7 ) evaluated motivational orientation r e -search to date and proposed a moratorium on further r e p l i c a t i o n of t h i s type of study. He suggested that measurement of motivational orientation by r e l i a b l e and v a l i d instruments had been accomplished, and that the next useful step would be the study of the factors underlying and perhaps r e -s u l t i n g i n these orientations. These motivational orientations do not ope-rate independently of one another or i n a vaccuum. They are influenced and preceded by other factors which are not c l e a r l y understood, such as soc i o l o g i c a l and psychological variables.- These are the variables with . which constructs such as motivational orientations, can be operationalized and tested. U n t i l the variables which affect motivational orientations (or developmental tasks, etc.) are known, i t w i l l not be possible to develop parsimonious, testable, and s i g n i f i c a n t theories which can be used to understand, predict, and control p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n adult education. 6. This study, therefore, i s directed to the psychological, demographic, and economic correlates of motivation for participation i n adult education. B. Purposes of the Study Motivational orientations are postulated to have underlying psychological, sociological, economic, demographic, and possibly environmental correlates. It i s suggested that these can be used to predict motivational orientation. This study w i l l test some psychological, demographic, and economic correlates of motivational orientation, using the Education Participation Scale (.Boshier, 1971, 1976) to.measure motivational .orientation,, and a number of other instruments to-measure the psychological,- demographic, and economic variables. * The pr:fmary purpose of this study, then, i s to test some of the psychological, demographic, and economic correlates of motivation for participation i n adult education to deterniine whether or not they account for a significant amount of the variance i n -the six Education.Participation Scale Scores, A secondary purpose of the study i s to investigate the. validity of the six Education Participation^Scales as measures of motivational orientation .and to calculate validity' coefficients of the predictive and and construct components of'the Scale's validity. C. Limitations of the Study The results of this study should be interpreted with the following limitations i n mind: 1, The 140 subjects used i n the study were selected from five agencies in the lower mainland area of B r i t i s h Columbia. The results may not be generalizeable beyond that population. 7. 2. The subjects were not chosen on a random basis, but were selected on the basis of availability. They appear to be somewhat older than "typical" adult. education participants.,, hut otherwise representative on the basis of the demographic and economic data collected from them. 3. The number of subjects obtained was l40j more would have lent more confidence to the results of the study. 4. Not a l l psychological variables of potential importance were examined. A complete psychological assessment of the participants was beyond the scope of this study, 5. The relationships revealed were based on measuring instruments whose validities are not perfect. The conclusions can be only as binding as the reported validities allow. 8. CHAPTER 2.  BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY The f i r s t step i n the motivational orientation research occurred when Houle (1961) i n i t ia ted the shi f t from purely descriptive characterization of..adult education participants to assessment of the socio-economic and psychological correlates of motivation. On the basis of in-depth interviews with 22 continuing learners, Houle c lass i f ied participants as goal, ac t i v i t y , or learning-oriented. The goal-oriented are those who engage i n adult education ac t i v i t ies i n order to reach a more or less clearly perceived goal. For them, participation i n adult education i s sporadic. The activity -or iented are those who participate i n adult education for some reason not c lear ly related to the specified course content, usually related to socia l contact and act iv i ty . The learning-oriented are those whose primary interest i s i n knowledge for i t s own sake. Houle suggested that the three types of motivational orientation overlap within individuals, but that the central emphasis of each i s clearly discernible. The next step was to test these orientations empirically. Sheffield (1964) developed the 58 item Continuing Learning Orientation Index (CLOI). Through factor analysis, he ident i f ied f ive motivational orientations which he cal led societal -goal , personal-goal, need fu l f i l lment , soc iab i l i t y , and learning orientations. This instrument was subsequently used by other researchers (Sovie, 1972; Dickinson and Clark, 1975)- Burgess (1971) developed his 70 item Reasons for Educational Part icipation scale (REP). Analysis of the data obtained with this instrument yielded seven factors or orientations d i f fer ing s igni f icant ly from those of Sheffield only with 9 . the factor "to reach a. religious goal." Other researchers have not included religious items in their scales. Boshier ( 1971) developed a 48 Item Education Participation Scale (EPS) which he used to measure motive for participation of adult learners in New Zealand. This instrument has since been modified to 40 items and has been used by other researchers (Morstain and Smart, 1 9 7 4 ; Haag, 1 9 7 6 ; and Riddell, 1 9 7 6 ) . The Education Participation Scale has been shown to be factorially stable over time and place (Boshier, 1 9 7 7 ) . It yields six factors labelled Professional Advancement, Social Wel-fare, Escape/Stimulation, Social Contact, Cognitive Interest, and External Expectations. Norms for English-speakers for this Scale are now available (Collins and Boshier, in press). Other researchers (Grabowski, 1 9 7 2 ; Dickinson.and Clark, 1 9 7 5 ; and Zack,. 1 9 7 6 ) attempted to validate further the concept of motivational orientations with different groups of respon-dents. In addition, Dickinson and Clark ( 1975) tested a hypothesized connec-tion between motivational orientation and participation for both self learners and participants in more formal organized adult education activities. Boshier ( 1976) evaluated previous motivational orientation research and suggested that subsequent research begin to explore the underlying sociolo-gical and psychological variables correlated with these orientations. As he suggests, motivational orientations appear to be surface manifestations of deeper psychological states, and psychological factors also affect con-gruence with the learrdng environments. Several studies to date have attempted to delineate some of the psychological variables underpinning motivational orientations. Douglah ( 1968) attempted to. measure- the relationship between pattern of participation 10. and psychological characteristics measured with the California Test of Per-sonality. His results indicated that of the four factors investigated, self-reliance, withdrawing tendencies, social skills, and occupational rela-tions,, only withdrawing tendencies and social skills showed a significant correlation with participation. He found that social skills are related to increased participation for respondents with greater than a grade twelve edu-cation, and that increased withdrawing tendencies, combined with less than a grade twelve education, are significantly related to lower participation. Haag (1976) used the Education Participation Scale and related some psychological and socio-demographic variables to motivational orientations. He used the Eysenck Personality Inventory to measure neuroticism and extraversion. The lie scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire was used as a screening mechanism to discard those of his questionnaires likely to have been falsified. Haag used the self actualizing value sub-scale of the Shostrom Personal Orientation Inventory to measure growth/ deficiency motivation. His data was analyzed in terms of simple correlation coefficients. The results indicated no significant correlation between Job Competence (Professional Advancement) or Social Contact and either neuroticism or self actualization. Persons highly motivated by Social Welfare and/or Escape/Stimulation were more likely to be neurotic and less likely to be self actualizing, than those who were not so motivated. Those motivated by Cognitive - Interest were more.likely to be- self actualizing than those not motivated by Cognitive Interest. Those motivated by External Expec-tations were more likely to be neurotic than those who were not so motivated. As Haag states, an insufficient number of adults 55 years and older were 11. represented in the study to justify conclusions about their participation and motivational orientations, Riddell (1976) attempted, among other things, to relate motives for participation to "certain psychological characteristics associated with the later years." Her results indicate that older respondents with a high Escape/Stimulation motivational orientation manifested low levels of l i f e satisfaction, adjustment, and social participation. The present thesis has a much broader scope than any of the previous research in this specific area. It will be primarily an inductive study looking at a wide range of psychological, economic, and demographic variables. An inductive "theory" as explained by Marx (1970) Is one which attempts to draw general conclusions from the observed data. Inductive theory summarizes and organizes the observations, rather than suggesting hypotheses and attempting to assess their validity. For this reason, no attempt will be made at this point to classify the variables tested according to any specific criteria. They will, however, be divided into several broad categories: Education Participation Scale scores, demographic variables; economic variables; response bias measures, clinical measures, and "personal style" variables. This will be done to deterTiiine whether the psychological, demographic, and/or economic variables account for the variance on motivational orientation scores, or whether response bias or clinical factors do. 12. CHAPTER 3 .  METHODOLOGY This study was executed in'the following way. The instruments were selected and prepared. A number of institutions and agencies were contacted to solicit participation in the study; five agreed. The contacts then suggested a number of instructors and groups who might be willing to co-operate in the study. These were contacted and requested to participate. The data collection instru-ment was distributed to participating groups and collected. The data were then coded, keypunched, and analyzed. Lastly, the results were interpreted and reported, A. Instrument Selection and Development Motivational orientations can be measured with a variety cf instruments. The best known of these are the Continuing Learning Orientation Index, the Reasons for Educational Participation, and the Education Participation Scale. The Education Participation Scale was chosen for use in this study because i t has been shown to be factorially stable over time and place, to be factorially pure, to contain no passenger items, and to be economical (Boshier. 1977). In addition, i t is reliable (Boshier, 1971; Morstain and Smart, 1974) and valid (Morstain and Smart, 1974; Haag, 1976). Standardization and norm-ative data for English speakers are available (Collins and Boshier, in press). These criteria have not a l l been met by either of the other two instruments. The Education Participation Scales are scored by assigning one to four points to the "No influence" to "Much influence" categories respectively, and summing over the items included in each scale. Many psychological variables could be investigated in connection with moti-vational orientations. Due to the inductive nature of the study, a number of .13. w e l l known p s y c h o l o g i c a l measures were c h o s e n a n d a r e d e s c r i b e d below; 1. Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y S c a l e T h i s s c a l e measures t h e p r o p e n s i t y o f a p e r s o n t o answer i t e m s i n a manner p e r c e i v e d t o be s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e , r a t h e r t h a n i n a manner r e f l e c t i v e o f h i s / h e r r e a l o p i n i o n , These may, i n f a c t , be t h e same. I t p r o v i d e s f o r a measure o f c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e E d u c a t i o n P a r t i c i p a t i o n S c a l e d a t a c o l l e c t e d from e a c h s u b j e c t , and was chosen t o p r o v i d e one measure o f r e s p o n s e b i a s . R e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y d a t a have been r e p o r t e d e l s e w h e r e (Crowne and Marlowe, I 9 6 0 ) . T h i s i s a 33 i t e m t r u e / f a l s e s c a l e . Of t h e i t e m s , 18 a r e k e y e d t r u e and 15 f a l s e ; one p o i n t i s s c o r e d f o r e a c h " c o r r e c t " answer. 2. E y s e n c k P e r s o n a l i t y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( A d u l t ) (EPQ) T h i s i n s t r u m e n t measures f o u r v a r i a b l e s : p s y c h o t i c i s m , n e u r o t i c i s m , e x t r a v e r s i o n , and l i e s c a l e s c o r e , A p e r s o n s c o r i n g h i g h o n t h e p s y c h o t i c i s m s c a l e would be more s o l i t a r y , t r o u b l e s o m e , c r u e l , i n s e n s i t i v e , h o s t i l e , a g g r e s s i v e , ' o i s r e g a r d i n g o f d anger, and have a g r e a t e r p r e f e r e n c e f o r odd and u n u s u a l t h i n g s t h a n t h e a v e r a g e o r low s c o r i n g p e r s o n . A h i g h l y n e u r o t i c r e s p o n d e n t would be a n x i o u s , moody, f r e q u e n t l y d e p r e s s e d , o v e r l y e m o t i o n a l , somewhat i r r a t i o n a l , and w o uld s u f f e r f r o m more p s y c h o s o m a t i c d i s o r d e r s t h a n someone l e s s n e u r o t i c . The e x t r a v e r t e d r e s p o n d e n t s a r e s o c i a b l e , r i s k - t a k i n g , i m p u l s i v e , f o n d o f p r a c t i c a l j o k e s , a g g r e s s i v e , o p t i m i s t i c , somewhat u n r e l i a b l e , and prone t o temper t a n t r u m s . The l i e s c a l e measures d i s s i m u l a t i o n and a l s o a n o t h e r s t a b l e p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e n o t c l e a r l y u n d e r s t o o d , b u t t h o u g h t to be related to a degree of s o c i a l naivete. The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire has been standardized. R e l i a b i l i t y and . v a l i d i t y studies have been done and are presented i n the Manual which accompanies the instrument (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975). These scales provide a measure of c l i n i c a l variables. S p e c i f i c a l l y , they w i l l measure four c l i n i c a l variables to determine whether or not these account f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of the variance on Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale scores. They were also chosen to r e f l e c t growth/deficiency motivation. The items on each of the scales are intermingled i n a 90 item yes/no format. Some items are answered yes, some no; one point i s assigned f o r each "correct" answer. Barron-Asch Independence of Judgment Scale This instrument measures the independence of judgment of a respondent under s o c i a l pressure. I t was o r i g i n a l l y developed as a paper/pencil measure-of the same concept f i r s t investigated by Asch i n an experimental s i t u a t i o n . R e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y studies have been discussed by Barron (1965, 1968). This measure provides another measure of response bias and was chosen i n conjunction with the So c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire to r e f l e c t bias toward conformity and to investigate the psychometric properties of the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale, This scale .is a 22 item true/false series of questions, some of which are keyed true and others f a l s e . One point i s assigned for each "correct" answer. !5-4. Shostrom's Personal Orientation Inventory (POI) This instrument measures time competence, self dlrectedness, valuing, feeling, self perception, synergistic awareness, and interpersonal sensitivity. The time competent person lives primarily in the present with f u l l awareness, contact, and a sensitivity to internal needs and feelings. The time incompetent person lives primarily in the past, with guilts, regrets, and resentments, and/or in the future, with idealized goals, plans, predictions, fears, and expectations. This variable is scored as a ratio of time competence to time incompetence. A f u l l explanation of the scoring procedure is given in the Manual which accompanies the instrument. The self directed person depends primarily on her/his own feelings and thoughts when making major l i f e decisions, and only secondarily on the thoughts and feelings of others. The other directed person depends primarily on the thoughts and feelings of others when making these decisions. This variable is also scored as a ratio of inner directedness to other dlrectedness. A f u l l explanation of the scoring procedure is given in the accompanying Manual (Shostrom, 1 9 6 6 ) . Valuing is,, composed of scores on two complementary scales, self actualizing values and existentiality. Self actualizing values is holding principles or values such as self detennination, kindness and courage, possessed by self actualizing people and existentiality is the ability to apply these values flexibly. In this study, self actualizing values will be called self actualization. Feeling reactivity is composed of the two complementary scales: Intrapersonal sensitivity (sensitivity to one's own needs and feelings] and 16. spontaneity (the a b i l i t y - to., express, .these -feelings). Self perception i s composed of s e l f regard and s e l f acceptance. Viewing the nature of man as e s s e n t i a l l y constructive ( c a l l e d view of man i n t h i s study).and being able to see the opposites of l i f e as meaningfully related (synergy) are the two complementary scales composing synergistic awareness. Interpersonal s e n s i t i v i t y i s composed of the two complementary scales acceptance of aggression and capacity f o r intimate contact. These scales are scored by assignment of one point f o r each "correct" answer given by the respondent. There are 150 items i n the.Inventory, each of which must be answered "a" or "b". The items f o r the scales are intermingled on the instrument. Excessively high scores f o r any of the scales are interpreted as "faking good". The Personal Orientation Inventory scales primarily r e f l e c t personal s t y l e or the degree to which respondents are s e l f a c t u a l i z i n g . This instrument was chosen to measure Maslow's s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n concept, and to provide a measure of depth to the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale motivational orientations. These are considered the heart of the psychological variables of the study. Standardization, r e l i a b i l i t y , and v a l i d i t y data are presented i n the Manual (Shostrom, 1966, 1974) which accompanies the instrument. The Manual also contains a much more detailed explanation of the variables i t purports to measure. 5. Wilson and Patterson's (1968) Conservatism Scale (C-Scale) This instrument measures conservatism. A conservative person would be more l i k e l y than usual to be authoritarian, i n t o l e r a n t , reactionary, conventional, superstitious, r i g h t - w i n g . p o l i t i c a l l y , 17. and a r e l i g i o u s fundamentalist. Standardization, r e l i a b i l i t y , and v a l i d i t y data have been presented by several authors (Bagley, Wilson, and Boshier, 1970; and Boshier, 197°). This a t t i t u d i n a l measure was. chosen to r e f l e c t general s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s . The Conservatism Scale i s based on an assumption that conservatism i n one sphere r e l a t e s to conservatism i n other domains. Economic and Demographic Questionnaire Economic and demographic data were c o l l e c t e d from the respondents on a questionnaire developed by the researcher. The economic data c o l l e c t e d were personal income, family income, and occupation. The l a t t e r was rated on the Blishen scale (Blishen and McRoberts, 1976) of occupations i n Canada. Demographic data included were age, sex, m a r i t a l status, education l e v e l , and spouse's education l e v e l . These data were c o l l e c t e d to determine whether differences i n the motivational o r i e n t a t i o n scores were more strongly predicted by variables such as these, or by psychological variables. A i l instruments were typed, reduced, and printed i n a twenty page booklet i n the following order: cover page, demographic and economic data c o l l e c t i o n instrument, Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale, Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, Independence of Judgment Measure, Shostrom's Personal Orientation Inventory, and the Conservatism Scale. Each o r i g i n a l was typed on Qh by 11 inch paper. These were then reduced and printed two to a page, Loth sides, of 11 by 14 inch paper. These sheets were folded and s t i t c h e d i n the middle, The 18. originals are attached as Appendix A, A group of eight persons, students, faculty, and associates pilot tested the instrument Individually for length of time required for completion and identification of any other problems with the instrument. These subjects were included In the final data analysis to provide a further group for comparison, B. Subject Selection The following agencies were contacted to solicit their participation in the research in return for a short analysis of the findings pertaining to their clientele: the Centre for Continuing Education at the University of British Columbia; the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA); New Westminster School Board; Bumaby School Board; Surrey School Board; Richmond School Board; and Vancouver School Board. Participation was declined by the last two School Boards because they believed the instrument was too long and that some of the items constituted an invasion of the privacy of their clientele, but the others agreed to take part. Arrangements were made with administrators to contact instructors of "general interest" courses who were willing to co-operate with the researcher. The instructors indicated whether or not they felt the group or class would be agreeable to completing the instrument in return for their individual results. The researcher then attended the meeting and distributed the booklets. The subjects were enrolled at a variety of agencies. The institution or agency, sizes of the groups or classes, and course content were diverse. This information and the number of instruments distributed and returned are presented on, the following page (Table 1). 19, Table 1. Testing Locations, Agencies or I n s t i t u t i o n s , Numbers of Question-naires Distributed and Returned, and Name of Course Location Agency- Quest ionnair es Distributed Returned Name of Course 1 Centre f o r Continuing Education 2 Centre f o r Continuing Education 3 Centre f o r Continuing Education 4 New Westminster School Board 10 YWCA 12 YWCA 13 YWCA 14 YWCA 15 YWCA 16 YWCA 18 Burnaby School Board 19 Burnaby School Board 20 Burnaby School Board 21 Burnaby School Board 22 Burnaby School Board 23 Burnaby School Board 24 Vancouver School Board 25 Centre f o r Continuing Education 30 UBC 26 15 16 14 10 10 8 10 31 27 9 10 16 10 8 15 22 5 8 11 Current A f f a i r s 14 Wilderness S k i l l s for. Women 8 How Your Body Works 9 Bridge 1 About Town 7 About Town 5 Creative Drama 10 Creative Writing 8 Support Group 6 Support Group 7 Stained Glass 9 Calligraphy 7 Calligraphy 5 Creative Writing 6 Creative Writing 8 Antiques and Co l l e c t i b l e s 6 Disco Dancing 5 B r i t i s h Columbia History 8 P i l o t Group 20, C. Study Rationale Researchers i n the f i e l d of motivation and. part ic ipation have investigated fragmented and l imited relationships Between .the- s ix Education-Participation Scales and generalized l i f e s t y l e measures. These measures can be.c lassi f ied into about,-fcur categories: economic correlates, demographic correlates, persistence/dropout co r re la tesand psychological correlates. . This study proposes to expand on many of these aspects of motivation and to test which of several possible Education Participation Scale correlates are the most important and powerful correlates of the Scale scores. Several measures and scales have been selected to investigate the predictabi l i ty of each ®f the six Education Participation Scales by the various categories of measures. Five groups of variables w i l l be investigated i n th is study: economic, demographic, response or scale bias, c l i n i c a l measures, and "per-sonal style" variables, 1, 'Economic Variables: Education/and income are known to co-vary, so sepa-rate measures for each must be employed i n order to distinguish between the effects. 2, Demographic Variables: Age, sex, marital status and country of b i r th or ethnic or ig in are routine components of studies involving motivation, and. are often correlated with it..(see Morstain and Smart, 1 9 7 4 ) , Separate mea-sures of each of these variables must be employed to determine their r e l a -t ive importance, 3, Scale or Response Bias? It I s possible that the Education Participation. Scale scores may depend more on the personal.response bias of an individual..rather than on the motivational orientation of the indiv idual . 21, Three recognized measures of response bias, were.therefore included to in~ vestigate th is ..possibility-; ..the jyiarlowB^rowne Social . Des i rab i l i t y Scale to test for ..a propensity. for answering the "proper way", Barron and Asch cs Independence.of Judgement Measure to test for conformity under social pres^-sure, and Wilson and Patterson cs Conservatism Scale to investigate bias toward conventionality, fundamentalism,, and authoritarianism, 4. C l i n i c a l Measures: Another suggestion i s that personality disorders a c -count for the variance i n scale scores, Eysenck has developed an instrument to measure the most commonly disruptive personality disorders: neuroticism, psychoticism, extraversion, and tendency to l i e . In order to be confident that Education Participation Scale scores are not derived from personality disorders, i t i s necessary to demonstrate that these measures do not correlate with the scale scores, 5. Personal Style Variables: Houle and various other writers have! implied :,. that a desire to expand one's horizons, to self actualize, to grow i n com-petence Is the best of a l l reasons to seek education, These, are very general "personal, style" variables, Shostroml's Personal Orientation Inventory-.(de-scribed on p.. 15} i s a broadly based attempt to operationalize these concepts. It measures 12 such growth, r e a l i t y , and actualization orientations. Other personality factors could have been assessed, such as intel l igence, -cultural adjustment, and al ienation. Constraints of class time, individual and inst i tut ional wil l ingness, and study manageability, however, made i t ad-visable to l imit the project to the following scale — demographic variables: age, sex, marital status, country of b i r th , and education level of respondent and spouse; economic variables: personal and family income, and occupational rating (Blishen and McRoberts, 1976); scale or response bias, Social De-s t a b i l i t y , Independence of Judgement, and. conservatism; clinical measures: neuroticism, psychoticism, esctraverslon, and tendency- to lie;, and personal style variables; self dlrectedness, time competence,, self ..actualization, existentlallty, Ihtrapersonal sensitivity,, spontaneity, self regard, self acceptance, view of man, synergy, acceptance of aggression, and capacity for intimate contact < . D. Instrument Adniinistration/Data Collection An attempt was made to administer the instrument in a controlled manner. The original procedure proposed is attached as Appendix B. It became obvious after two attempts that this procedure was not viable as the instrument required 45 minutes to three hours to complete. Very few instructors or respondents were willing to give up this much class time since most of the classes were only two hours in length. A great deal of hostility was expressed to the researcher. Several respondents and two classes said they would take It home and complete i t , but they were not willing to f i l l i t out during class time. In addition, agency administrators had indicated they were concerned about public relations with their clientele. As a result of these problems, i t was considered inappropriate to continue with this procedure. A new procedure was therefore developed. The researcher attended the meeting and distributed the booklets in stamped envelopes addressed to herself at the Adult Education Research Centre at the University of British Columbia. The same orientation to the questionnaire and study as that given'in Appendix B was given orally by the researcher. In addition, the respondents were directed to address the enclosed blank envelope to themselves i f they wished to receive their personal results. 23. They were given 15 minutes to h a l f an hour to begin the booklet depending on the amount of class time the in s t r u c t o r and/or group was w i l l i n g to forego. At the end of that time, the researcher thanked them f o r t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , answered any questions, and urged them to complete the booklets and return them by mail as soon as possible. They then proceeded wit h t h e i r regular class. The following week, the i n s t r u c t o r reminded them to complete and return the questionnaires as soon as possible i f they had not already done so. The researcher was aware that the return rate would diminish, but hoped the psychological "urge to complete" would operate i n her favour once the respondents had begun to complete the instrument. Of the 240 booklets d i s t r i b u t e d , 143 were returned. Of these only three were unuseable, leaving a t o t a l of 140 subjects f o r analysis. E. Analysis of the Data A l l data obtained were prepared i n the following manner: raw data (the item by item responses f o r each returned questionnaire) were coded and transferred to IBM coding sheets. These, data were.then keypunched and v e r i f i e d at the UBC Computer Centre. A l l raw data were then stored'in an MTS f i l e . A l l variables except sex, ma r i t a l status, and country of b i r t h were -scaled ordinal or i n t e r v a l . M a r i t a l status was recoded to a dichotomy: " l i v i n g with another person" or " l i v i n g alone". Country of b i r t h was recoded to a dichotomy: . "born i n an English-speaking country" or "not born i n an English-speaking country". This meant that the three variables which were not ordinal or i n t e r v a l were dichotomous and could then be analysed with the other data. 24, The analyses were a l l performed using the DEC S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r the S o c i a l Sciences. CSPSSl programmes, The SPSS" procedure "condescriptiye 1' was performed on a l l variables to provide Basic s t a t i s t i c a l information such as mean, standard error, standard deviation, range, etc, Regression analysis was then performed using the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale motivational o r i -entations as the dependent variables, F i n a l l y , discriminant analysis was performed w i t h grouping by agency to reveal any s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the c l i e n t e l e served, and to test the predictive power of the Education Par-t i c i p a t i o n Scale motivational orientations, F, Hypotheses Because of the inductive nature of the t h e s i s , there w i l l be no formal state-ment of a l l the hypotheses, A semi-lattice with the expected general cor-relations r e l a t i o n s i s presented below (Figure 2, p.26) following a statement of the general expected d i r e c t i o n of the r e s u l t s . Professional Advancement l i k e l y w i l l be most powerfully predicted by such \ variables as education l e v e l , age, and family income. In general, Profes-si o n a l Advancement variance should be explained by economic and demographic . variables more than by psychological ones Because occupation i s generally-dependent on these variables.. Younger people with less education and lower family incomes are more l i k e l y to be concerned wi t h Professional Advancement. People motivated By S o c i a l Welfare are expected to Be more neurotic, more s e l f directed, more e x i s t e n t i a l , and more l i k e l y to consider man e s s e n t i a l l y good. In general. Both psychological variables and c l i n i c a l measures are l i k e l y to account f o r the greatest proportion of variance i n S o c i a l Welfare scores, 25. Escape/Stimulation w i l l most l ike ly -be related to c l i n i c a l variables such as extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism, - People looking, for escape and stimulation i n adult education classes are l i k e l y unhappy and/br:bored i n their day-to~day l i ves . Social Contact w i l l most l i k e l y be predicted by such variables as age, mari -t a l status, -and extraversion, because younger, single persons who are shy are more l i k e l y to look for socia l contact In adult education a c t i v i t i e s , Demographic variables, c l i n i c a l measures, and personal style variables are therefore expected to account, for more variance In these scores than econo~ mic and response bias measures, Age, education leve l , sel f actual ization, and occupation are. the variables expected to account for the greatest part of the explained variance i n Cog-n i t ive Interest scores. Demographic, economic, and personal style variables should predict better than response bias or c l i n i c a l measures, Older, bet-ter educated and more self actualizing individuals with higher occupational ratings would more l i k e l y have the time to engage i n f u l f i l l i n g cognitive interests. External Expectations scores w i l l probably be most strongly predicted by such variables as socia l des i rab i l i t y , sel f dlrectedness, independence of judgement, and conservatism, These variables are basical ly response bias and c l i n i c a l measures, People highly motivated by External Expectations should exhibit less independence of judgement and self direction and be more conservative and concerned with soc ia l l y desirable behaviour than those not highly motivated by External Expectations. Figure 2 i s a matrix or s a n i - l a t t i c e presenting the general hypotheses and expected correlations graphically. A "+" indicates a correl a t i o n i s ex-pected, a "0" indicates- that no c o r r e l a t i o n i s expected, and a blank i n d i -cates a relationship of no immediate Interest to t h i s study. Figure 2 i s presented below. Professional Advancement Social Welfare Escape/Stimulation Social Contact Cognitive Interest External Expectations Demographic Variables Economic Variables Response or Scale Bias Measures C l i n i c a l Measures Personal Style Variables + = correl a t i o n expected^ 0 = no co r r e l a t i o n expected Figure 2. Semi-Lattice of Expected Correlations 27. CHAPTER 4.  RESULTS This chapter presents the results of the study in four sections: a) Characteristics of the respondents b) Correlations of the six Education Participation Scale scores and demographic, economic, response bias, clinical, and psychological variables c) Variance and prediction in Education Participation Scale scores d) Differences in clientele among agencies A. Characteristics of the Respondents The results of the analysis of respondent characteristics and score norms are presented below (Table 2). A discussion of the most pertinent results follows. Table 2. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Respondents, and Published Test Norms Variable Mean Standard Minimum Maximum V a l i d Published Deviation Observations Test Norms Age 41.4 14.9 19 75 138 29.6 (B.C. Occupation* 49.6 14.0 0 75.3 140 50.0 Personal Income (x $1,000) 13 9 3 43 128 8 (B.C. Family Income (x $1,000) 20 12 3 43 130 20 (B.C. Extraversion 12.4 4.8 1 21 140 13 Neuroticism 11.1 5.5 0 23 140 11 Li e Scale 9.0 4.1 0 18 140 7.5 Psychoticism - 2 - 5 2.2 0 12 140 3 S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y 16.0 5.4 3 28 140 14 Independence of Judgement 12.2 3.5 4 22 140 16 Conservatism 42.7 13.2 15 83 140 50 Self Dlrectedness .53 .36 .16 1.70 140 .5 Time Competence .45 .41 .05 2.29 140 .5 Self A c t u a l i z a t i o n 19.9 3.4 7 25 140 20 E x i s t e n t i a l i t y 20.2 4.4 11 30 140 22 Intrapersonal S e n s i t i v i t y 15.6 3.2 7 25 140 15.5 Spontaneity 11.9 2.9 4 18 140 11.6 Self Regard 11.4 2.7 1 15 140 11.9 Self Acceptance 16.1 3.4 7 25 140 20 View of man 11.6 2.2 5 16 140 12.4 Synergy 6.9 1.5 3 9 140 7.3 Acceptance of Aggression 15.4 3.7 6 23 140 16.5 Capacity f o r Intimate Contact 17.7 3.7 8 26 140 18.7 Pro f e s s i o n a l Advancement 14.2 6.1 9 33 140 18.6 S o c i a l Welfare 15.7 7.1 9 33 140 14.8 Escape/Stimulation 17.1 6.5 9 36 140 16.0 So c i a l Contact 9.6 4.5 5 20 140 8.3 Cognitive Interest 12.5 3.7 4 16 140 10.6 External Expectations 5.8 2.4 4 16 140 6,0 *Blishen and McRoberts, 1976 29. Of the 140 respondents, 79 per cent or 111 were women and 21 per cent or 39 were men. The mean age of the subjects was 41 .4 years (S.D. = 14 . 9 ) ; the oldest was 75 years, and the youngest was 19 years of age. About half of the respondents were married. Only nine per cent of the sample were not born i n an Fnglish-speaking country,* while 91 per cent of the sample were. The t y p i c a l respondent had had s l i g h t l y more than "Post Secondary or Trade Q u a l i f i c a t i o n only; e.g., Vocational School Diploma". The average educa-t i o n a l l e v e l of the spouse was s l i g h t l y lower. On the average, the family income of the respondents was $20,000.00 (S.D.. = $11,635.00). Rated on the Blishen Scale (Blishen and McRoberts, 1976), .the average present or previous occupational r a t i n g of the subjects was 49,6. In terms of economic and demographic variables, these people were f a i r l y representative of Johnstone and Rivera's (1965) " t y p i c a l " adult education participant. They were, however, older, better educated, and with more highly rated occupations than the general population. B. Correlations of the Six Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale Scores and Demo-graphic, Economic, and Personal Style Variables, Response Bias and C l i n i c a l Measures The s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t correlations between the Education P a r t i c i p a -t i o n Scale scores and the other variables are presented below and i n Table 3. 1. Demographic and Economic Variables M a r i t a l status was the only demographic variable s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales. Married persons were s i g n i f i c a n t l y (p^ . 0 1 ) more l i k e l y to be enrolled for Table 3, Correlations of Six Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale Scores and Demographic, Economic, and Personal Style Variables, Response Bias and C l i n i c a l Measures Independent Prof e s s i o n a l S o c i a l Escape/ So c i a l Cognitive External Variable Advancement Welfare Stimulation Contact Interest Expectations Sex -.07 -.10 -.03 -.16 -.01 .04 Age .02 .16 .06 ,17* ,08 .13 M a r i t a l Status _ t22** -.23** -,02 -,23** .03 .04 Country of B i r t h -.09 ,09 -.10 ,11 -.05 -,12 Education Level ,07 -.06 -,10 -.11 .16 -.11 Family Income -.23** -.31** -.12 _t 29** .10 -,06 Occupation .02 -.01 -.14 -!o5 .25** -.03 Extraversion -.12 -.14 -.16 -.11 .00 .03 Neuroticism ,16 .24** .30** ,27** ,07 -.01 Lie Scale -.07 .08 ,09 .13 -.03 .17 (<.174) Psychoticism .08 -.04 ,03 -,07 -,00 -.01 S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y -.07 .00 .03 .06 ,07 .12 Independence of Judgement .11 -.06 -.11 -.11 -.01 -.17(<.174) Conservatism -.18* -.01 -.00 .03 ,09 ,13 Self Directedness ,05 ,20* ,27** .19* ,04 ,06 Time Competence .08 .13 .30** .14 .06 .06 Self A c t u a l i z a t i o n .07 -.06 -.10 -.03 ,10 .10 E x i s t e n t i a l i t y -.02 -.08 -.08 -.04 -.09 -.10 Intrapersonal S e n s i t i v i t y .02 -.09 -.19* -.08 -.02 -.09 Spontaneity -.03 -.13 -. 29** -.10 -.03 -.09 Self Regard -.08 -.21* -.24** -.15 .00 .04 Self Acceptance -,11 -.21* -.27** -.12 -.05 -.09 View of Man .14 -.03 ,04 -.03 -.07 .19* Synergy .00 -.08 -.07 -.00 .02 .10 Acceptance of Aggression -.08 -.16 -.18* -.12 -.03 -.12 Capacity for Intimate Contact ,04 -.06 -.16 -.10 -.09 -.08 *r>.174, df = 125, p<.05 **r;r.228, df = 125, p<.01 3 1 . Professional Advancement ( r = - . 2 2 ) 3 Social Welfare (r= - . 2 3 - ) , and S o c i a l Contact ( r = - . 2 3 ) . Among the economic variablesj family income correlated with Professional Advancement ( r = - . 2 3 , p < . 0 1 ) , Social Welfare ( r = - . 3 1 , p < . 0 1 ) , and Soc i a l Contact ( r = - . 2 9 , p < . 0 1 ) . Occupation correlated with Cognitive Interest only ( r= . 2 5 , p < . 0 1 ) . 2 . C l i n i c a l Measures Among the c l i n i c a l measures, Neuroticism correlated with S o c i a l Welfare (r=.24, rV.Ol), Escape/Stimulation ( r= . 3 0 , p < . 0 1 ) , and So c i a l Contact (r= . 2 ' 7 , p<r . 0 1 ) . 3 . Response Bias Measures Conservatism correlated with Professional Advancement (r=-.l8, p< . 0 5 ) . No other response or scale bias correlations were s i g n i f i c a n t . 4. Personal Style (POI) Measures None of the personal s t y l e measures correlated with Professional Advancement. Self directedness ( r = . 2 0 , p ^ . Q 5 ) , s e l f regard ( r = - , 2 1 , p« £ . 0 5 ) , and s e l f acceptance ( r = - . 2 1 , p<\0 1 ) correlated with Social Welfare. S e l f directedness (r= . 2 7 , p < \ 0 5 ) , time competence ( r = . 3 0 a p < . 0 1 ) , intrapersonal s e n s i t i v i t y ( r = - . 1 9 , p < . 0 5 ) , spontaneity ( r = - . 2 9 , p < \ 0 1 ) , s e l f regard (r=-.24, p< - . 0 1 ) , s e l f acceptance (r=-,27, p <• 0 1 ) , and acceptance of aggression (r=-.l8, p < . 0 5 ) ' correlated with Escape/Stimulation. Only s e l f directedness (r= . 2 7 , p<£ . 0 1 ) correlated with S o c i a l 32. Contact. The more s e l f . d i r e c t e d the respondent, the more l i k e l y s/he to be seeking s o c i a l contact. None of the personal s t y l e measures s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with Cognitive Interest. Only viewing man as e s s e n t i a l l y good (r=.19, p<c .05) correlated with External Expectations. The more constructive the subject thought the essential nature of man, the more l i k e l y s/he was motivated by External Expectations. In summary, marital status was the only demographic variable c o r r e l a t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y with any of the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales. Married people were less l i k e l y enrolled f o r S o c i a l Contact, Professional Advancement or Social Welfare than non-married people. Both economic variables were s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with some Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales. The higher the family income, the less l i k e l y the respondent was enrolled for Professional Advancement, S o c i a l Welfare, or So c i a l Contact. The higher the occupational r a t i n g , the more l i k e l y the person was p a r t i c i p a t i n g f o r Cognitive Interest, Neuroticism was the only c l i n i c a l measure showing s i g n i f i c a n t correlations with the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales. The more neurotic the subjects, the more l i k e l y they were p a r t i c i p a t i n g f o r reasons of So c i a l Welfare, Escape/Stimulation and S o c i a l Contact. The more conservative the subject, the more l i k e l y s/he was p a r t i c i p a t i n g f o r Professional Advancement reasons. No other response or scale bias correlations were s i g n i f i c a n t . None of the personal style measures correlated significantly with Professional Advancement. The more self directed the respondent and the lower her/his self regard and self acceptance, the more likely s/he was enrolled for reasons of Social Welfare. The more self directed and time competent, and the less intrapersonally sensitive, spontaneous, and self accepting, the more likely the person was Escape/Stimulation motivated. In addition, highly Escape/Stimulation motivated persons more likely had lower self regard and were less accepting of their feelings of aggression. Only self directedness correlated with Social Contact. The more self directed the respondents, the more likely they were seeking Social Contact. None of the personal style measures significantly correlated with Cognitive Interest. External Expectations correlated significantly with view of man only. The higher the External Expecta-tions Scale score, the more likely the respondent was to view man as essentially good. Of the 26 variables, marital status, family income, occupation, neuroticism, conservatism, self directedness, self regard, self acceptance, time competence, intrapersonal sensitivity, spontaneity, acceptance of aggression, and view of man correlated significantly with the Education Participation Scales. It appears that more personal style variables (10) correlate with the six scales than demographic (4), scale bias (1), or c l i -nical variables (3). Both economic variables correlated with some of the Education Participation Scales. These are simple correlation coefficients. The regression analysis performed, however, constitutes a much more powerful and accurate analysis of the variables underlying the six motivational orientations. Regression analysis was chosen because, i t has two major advantages over simple corre-34, lational analysis. It first removes the contaminating effects of the other independent variables, entering them sequentially into the regression equa-tion on the basis of individual F ratios. It then accumulates the effects of the most significant variables to give a composite group of the variables accounting for the explained variance in the dependent variable. In more abstract terms, regression analysis is a multivariate method of analysis which reflects the.-.multivariate nature of the psychological reality. C. Variance_ and-Prediction in Education. Participation,Scale scores For each of the six Education. Participation Scales, regression analysis was performed to determine which of the 26 predictor variables were most powerful, and which accounted for the greatest amount of the observed variance. In each regression equation, the Education Participation Scale score was the dependent variable, and the independent variables were: age, sex, marital status, country of birth, and education level (demographic); family income and occupation (economic); Eysenck Personality Questionnaire scores: extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism, and l i e scale (clinical measures)*, Independence of Judgment Measure score, Conservatism Scale score and Social Desirability score, (response bias measures); and the Personal Orientation Inventory scores: self dlrectedness, time competence, self actualization,, existentiality, intrapersonal sen-sitivity, spontaneity,, self regard, self acceptance, view of man, synergy, acceptance of aggression, and capacity for Intimate contact. These last 12 are personal style measures. The names applied to the six Education Participation Scales and to the 26 predictor variables will be taken to be true reflections of the underlying psychological realities. For example, those who rated high on the Professional Advancement scale are regarded as indeed participating 35. i n the activity for reasons of Professional Advancement. It can be shown that those who rank high on this orientation circled "Much influence" for items such as "To get a better job", when answering..the question to what ex-tent the items had influenced them to enrol i n the course. Results derived from the.regression equations are presented below. For each . motivational orientation, the regression summary table w i l l be followed by a discussion of the most salient results. The format of each of the six dis-cussions w i l l be as follows. A review of the hypothesized results w i l l be f o l -lowed by a tabulation of the actual results. The variables accounting for the greatest proportion of the variance i n Education Participation Scale scores w i l l be discussed, then the most powerful predictors of the particular scale. A "typical" respondent scoring high, and one scoring low w i l l then be described.. The variables which did not enter the regression equation w i l l be noted. F i -nally, the variance explained w i l l be summarized by variable group or category; 2 e.g.,. demographic variables or personal style variables. In each table,. R. i s the cumulative variance explained by the variables entered into the regression in a stepwise manner. Simple r i s the simple correlation coefficient for the particular variable, and Beta i s the standardized regression coefficient of each Individual variable. These are the predictive powers of the variables, and can be compared directly. Professional. Advancement' includes such Items as "To get a better job" and "To keep up with the competition." Demographic variables such as age and family income were expected to account for the greatest proportion of variance i n these scores. As Table 4 shows, age and family income are important variables. C l i n i c a l measures, scale bias, and personal style variables are also impor-tant. The Regression Summary Table for Professional Advancement i s presented below (Table 4J. 36. Table 4, Regression Summary Table; P r o f e s s i o n a l Advancement Independent Va r i a b l e Cumulative R Square . Simple r Beta Family Income 0.05 -0.23 -0.13 View of Man 0.08 0.14 0.22 Neuroticism .. 0.11 0.16 0.10 Conservatism 0.13 -0.18 -0.12 Acceptance of 0.14 -0.08 "0.19 . Aggression Psychoticism 0.15 0.08 0.07 Age 0.17 0.02 0.17 Education Level 0.17 0.07 0.01 Self Acceptance 0.18 -0.11 -0.10 Intrapersonal S e n s i t i v i t y 0.19 0.02 0.03 M a r i t a l Status 0.19 -0.22 -0.03 Country of B i r t h 0.20 " ~ 0.09 "0.06 Self A c t u a l i z a t i o n 0.20 0.07 0.17 Self Regard 0.20 -0.08 -0.13 Time Competence 0.21 -0.07 -0.10 E x i s t e n t i a l i t y 0.21 -0.02 -0.16 Capacity for Intimate 0.21 0.Q3 0.17 Contact L i e Scale Score 0.22 -0.07 - 0.16 Self Directedness 0.22 0.05 0.12 Independence of Judgement 0.22 0.11 0.06 Extraversion 0.22 -0.12 -0.07 S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y 0.23 -0.07 0.07 Spontaneity 0.23 -0.03' 0.05 Sex 0.23 -0.07 -0.03 Occupation 0.23 0.02 0.02 37. The level of family income accounted for the greatest amount of the 2 observed variance in Professional Advancement scores (R =.05). The lower the family income, the more likely the respondent had enrolled for reasons of Professional Advancement. If the respondent thought p the essential nature of man was good, s/he was more likely (R =.0d) mo-tivated by Professional.Advancement.. The more neurotic the subject, the more likely s/he was to be participating for reasons of Professional 2 Advancement (R =.11), Conservatism accounted for the next greatest 2 amount of variance in these scores (R =.13). The less conservative the person, the more likely s/he scored high on Prof ess ional Advancement. The most powerful predictors of Professional Advancement were view of man (Beta=.22) and acceptance of aggression (Beta=-.19). The predictive value of level of family income was just over half that of view of man (-.13). The person scoring high on Professional Advancement, then, had a lower than usual family Income, viewed the essential nature of man as constructive, was neurotic, and not likely to be conservative. The person who scored low on Professional Advancement, on the other hand, would more likely have a higher family Income, not view the nature of man as good, be less neurotic and be more conservative. Synergy did not enter into the regression equation. In total 23 per cent.of the observed variance in Professional Advancement scores was explainable. Of this, about five per cent was explained by personal style variables, three per cent by response bias, five per cent by clinical measures, five per cent by economic variables, and five per cent by demographic variables. 38. S o c i a l W e l f a r e was measured b y r e s p o n s e t o such. Items a s "To iraproye jqy a b i l i t y t o p a r t i c i p a t e I n community work1-* and "To improve my a b i l i t y t o s e r v e mankind," The s c a l e was composed o f n i n e Items, P s y c h o l o g i c a l and c l i n i c a l measures were e x p e c t e d t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e g r e a t e s t p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e o b s e r v e d v a r i a n c e I n S o c i a l W e l f a r e s c o r e s , O n l y n e u r o t i c i s m among t h e c l i n i c a l measures was f o u n d t o be i m p o r t a n t . I n a d d i t i o n , l e v e l o f f a m i l y income a n d age e x p l a i n e d L a r g e p r o p o r t i o n s o f t h e v a r i a n c e , The R e g r e s s i o n Summary T a b l e f o r S o c i a l W e l f a r e i s p r e s e n t e d on t h e f o l l o w i n g page ( T a b l e 5 ) . Table 5, Regression Summary Table: Social Welfare Independent Variable Cumulatiye R Square Simple r Beta Family Income 0.09 -0,31 -0.15 Self Directedness 0.13 C.20 0.26 Neuroticism . 0.14 0.24 0.21 Age 0.15 0.16 0.22 View pf Man 0.17 0.G3 0.13 Self Acceptance 0.18 -0.21 -0.26 Existentiality 0.19 0.06 0.14 Occupation 0.20 0.01 0.16 Country of Birth 0.22 0.09 0.14 Capacity for Intimate Contact 0.23 0.06 0.21 Acceptance of Aggression 0.24 -0.16 -0.19 Self Actualization 0.25 -0.06 0.17 Time Competence 0.25 0.13 -0.18 Self Regard 0.26 - 0.21 -0.23 Maritel Status 0.27 - 0.23 -0.13 Spontaneity 0.27 -0.13 0.09 Social Desirability 0.28 0.00 0.11 Extraversion 0.28 - 0.14 0.05 Sex 0.28 -0.10 -0.03 Conservatism 0.28 -0.01 -0.04 Synergy 0.28 -0.08 -0.03 Lie Scale Score 0.28 0.08 -0.05 Education Level 0.28 -0.06 -0.03 Psychoticism 0.28 -0.04 -0.03 Intrapersonal Sensitivity 0.28 -0.09 0.03 Independence of Judgement 0.28 - 0.06 - 0.01 40. The l e v e l of family income again accounted for the greatest amount of the explained variance on t h i s motivational orientation. (R =.09). The lower the family income, the more l i k e l y the i n d i v i d u a l was motivated by So c i a l Welfare considerations. Self dlrectedness accounted for an additional ,04 of the variance; the more s e l f directed the person, the more l i k e l y s/he to have been motivated by S o c i a l Welfare (R =.13). The more neurotic the i n d i v i d u a l , the more l i k e l y s/he to be motivated by S o c i a l Welfare (R 2=.l4). S e l f dlrectedness (Beta=.26), s e l f acceptance (Beta=- ,26) , and.self r e -gard (Beta=-,23) were the most powerful predictors of ;Social Welfare, The predictive value of family income i s considerably less at - . 1 6 . The person highly motivated by Soc i a l Welfare, then, would have a lower than usual family income, be more s e l f directed, and more neurotic than average. The person scoring low on t h i s orientation, on the other hand, would have a higher family income, be less s e l f directed, and less neurotic. A l l the independent variables entered into the regression equation. In t o t a l , 28 per cent of the observed variance i n S o c i a l Welfare scores was explained by the investigated variables. Of t h i s , about ten per cent was explained by economic variables, f i v e per cent by demographic variables, one per cent by response bias measures, one per cent by c l i n i c a l measures, and about 13 per cent by personal s t y l e (POI) variables. 41. Escape/Stimulation was measured by.response to such, items as "To get r e l i e f from boredom" and "To get a break i n the routine of home or work." C l i n i c a l measures were expected to account,for the greatest proportion of the v a r i -ance' i n Escape/Stimulation scores, and indeed neuroticism accounted f o r near-l y one t h i r d of the explained variance, In addition, several personal s t y l e variables were quite important; e.g., spontaneity and view of man, The Regression Summary Table f o r Escape/Stimulation i s presented below as Table 6, Table 6, Regression Summary Table: Escape/Stimulation Independent Cumulative Simple r Beta V a r i a b l e R Square Neuroticism 0.09 0.30 0. 32 Spontaneity 0.14 " -0.29 -0. 30 View of Man 0.17 0.03 0. 14 E x i s t e n t i a l i t y 0.19 -0.Q8 0. 54 Self Acceptance 0.21 -0,27 - o . 23 S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y 0.25 0.03 0. 20 Time Competence 0.27 0.30 0. 15 Psychoticism 0.27 0.03 0. 10 M a r i t a l Status 0.28 -0.02 0. 10 Independence of Judgement 0.28 -0.11 - o . 16 Conservatism 0.29 - 0.00 - 0. 16 Sex 0,29 -0.03 - o . 10 Self A c t u a l i z a t i o n 0.30 -0.10 0. 17 Self Directedness 0.31 0.27 0. 24 Country of B i r t h 0.31 -0.10 - o . 08 Age 0.31 0.06 0. 08 Occupation 0.31 -0.14 - 0. 08 Education Level 0.32 -0.10 0. 08 Synergy 0.32 -0.07 - o . 07 Acceptance of Aggression 0.32 -0.18 0. 04 Lie Scale 0.32 0.09 0. 05 Family Income 0.32 —0.12 0. 04 Intrapersonal S e n s i t i v i t y 0.32- -0.19 0. 06 Self Regard 0.32 -0.24 0. 04 43. Neuroticisrrt accounted f o r the greatest amount of the explained variance 2 on the Escape/Stimulation scores (R =.09). The more neurotic the i n d i v i d u a l , the more l i k e l y s/he to he motivated hy Escape/Stimulation, The less spontaneous the respondent, the more l i k e l y (R =,14} s/he was mo-tivated by Escape/Stimulation reasons, The more constructive the subject thought the ess e n t i a l nature of man, the more l i k e l y s/he was motivated p by Escape/Stimulation (R =,17), and the more f l e x i b l y the i n d i v i d u a l applied s e l f a c t u a l i z i n g values, the more l i k e l y s/he to score high .on the Escape/Stimulation scale,. The respondent highly motivated by Escape/ 2 Stimulation had more d i f f i c u l t y accepting her/himself (R =.21) and was 2 more l i k e l y to be concerned about S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y (R =.25). In addition, persons motivated by Escape/Stimulation were more l i k e l y to l i v e i n the present than either the past or the future (R =.27). The most powerful predictors of t h i s motivational orientation were e x l s t e n t i a l i t y (Beta=.54), neuroticism (Beta=.32), and spontaneity (Beta—.3 0 ) . These are considerably more powerful than the next ( s e l f directedness at .24), The person highly motivated by Escape/Stimulation, then, possessed the following c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . S/he was more neurotic than usual, less spontaneous, viewed the nature of man as es s e n t i a l l y constructive, was f l e x i b l e In her/his application of values, and had d i f f i c u l t y i n accepting her/himself. On the other hand, the person who scored low on Escape/ Stimulation: was less neurotic and more spontaneous, less i n c l i n e d to view man as good, was less f l e x i b l e i n value application, and accepted her/himself more e a s i l y . Two of the variables were not entered i n t h i s regression equation; 44. extraversion and capacity for intimate contact. In total, 32 per cent of the observed variance in Escape/Stimulation scores were explained by the variables tested. Of this, 1 5 per cent was explained by personal style variables, 1 1 per cent by clinical measures, four per cent by scale bias, two per cent by demographic variables, and less than one per cent by economic variables. Social Contact was measured by response to such items as "To f u l f i l l a need for personal associations. and friendships" and "To become acquainted with congenial people," It was composed of five items, Demographic variables, cl i n i c a l measures, and personal style variables were expected to account for more of the variance in Social Contact scores than were economic and scale bias measures. Family income, however, accounted for about one third of the explained variance, Neuroticism, a clinical mea-sure, and demographic, variables did account for the next greatest amounts of the explained variance. The Regression Summary Table for Social Contact is presented on the following page (Table 7). 45. Table 7. Regression Summary Table: S o c i a l Contact Independent Va r i a b l e Cumulative R Square Simple r Beta Family Income 0.09 - 0.29 - 0.11 Neuroticism 0.13 0.27 0.29 Age 0.15 0.17 0.18 Country of B i r t h 0.17 0.11 0.12 M a r i t a l Status 0.18 -0.23 - 0.14 S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y 0.19 0.06 0.18 Synergy 0.20 - 0.00 0.04 Acceptance of Aggression 0.21 - 0.12 - 0.16 Self Directedness 0.22 0.19 0.35 E x i s t e n t i a l i t y 0.23 -0.04 0.30 Self A c t u a l i z a t i o n 0.24 - 0.03 0.15 Sex 0.25 -0.16 -0.10 Intrapersonal S e n s i t i v i t y 0.25 -0.08 0.12 Occupation 0.25 -0.05 0.09 Independence of Judgement 0.26 -0.11 -0.12 Self Acceptance 0.26 -0.12 -0.11 Conservatism 0.26 0.03 -0.08 Extraversion 0.27 -0.11 0.07 Time Competence 0.26 0.14 - 0.09 View of Man 0.27 -0.03 0.05 Self Regard 0.27 -0.15 "0.06 Spontaneity 0.27 -0.09 0.04 46. The lower the l e v e l of family income, the more l i k e l y the person to be 2 motivated by So c i a l Contact (R =.09). The more neurotic the i n d i v i d u a l , 2 the more l i k e l y s/he had t h i s orientation (R =.13). Respondents highly 2 motivated by So c i a l Contact were older (R =.15) and more l i k e l y to have 2 been born In a non-English-speaking country (R =.17). The most powerful predictors of t h i s motivational orientation were s e l f d i -rectedness _(Beta=.35), e x i s t e n t i a l i t y (Beta=-30), and neuroticism (Beta=.29). This i s considerably greater than the predictive value of the next (age, Beta= .18). The person highly motivated toward S o c i a l Contact, then, had a lower than usual family income, v/as more neurotic, older, and less l i k e l y to have been born i n an English-speaking country. Tnose who were less motivated by So c i a l Contact were, on the other hand, l i k e l y to have a higher l e v e l of family income, to be less neurotic, younger, and more l i k e l y bom i n an English-speaking country. A l l independent variables except education l e v e l , l i e scale score, psychoticism, and capacity for intimate contact were entered i n t h i s regression equation. A t o t a l of 27 per cent of the observed variance i n So c i a l Contact scores was accounted f o r by the independent variables. Of t h i s , nine percent was explained by economic variables, f i v e per cent by c l i n i c a l measures, two per cent by scale bias, four per cent by demographic variables, and seven per cent by "personal s t y l e " (POI) measures. 47. The Cognitive Interest scale was composed ..of four Items such as "To seek knowledge for Its own sake" and "To learn just for the sake of learning," Cognitive Interest was expected to motivate olderj self actualizing people with more highly ranked occupations, Occupation, In fact, accounted for more of the variance than any other variable. Demographic., personal style, and response bias measures such as conservatism, self actualization, and education level were also Important. The Regression Summary Table for Cognitive Interest is presented on the following page (Table b). 48. Table 8, Regression Summary Table: Cognitive Interest Independent Cumulative Simple r Beta Variable R Square Occupation 0. 06 0.25 0, .23 Conservatism 0.U8 0.09 0, .19 Self A c t u a l i z a t i o n 0.09 0.10 0. .37 View of Man 0.11 -0.07 - o . ,18 Time Competence 0.13 0.06 0. ,15 Education Level 0.14 0.15 0, ,14 Sex 0.15 - o . o i - o . ,16 Neuroticism 0.16 -0.07 - o . ,13 Self Regard 0.17 . 0.00 - o . 09 Spontaneity 0.17 -0.03 - o . 12 Li e Scale 0.17 -0.03 — 0. 18 S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y 0.18 0.07 0. 20 Independence of Judgement 0.18 -0.01 0. 07 Country of B i r t h 0.18 -0.05 0. 04 Extraversion 0.19 0.00 -0. 04 Self Directedness 0.19 0.04 0. 07 Family Income 0.19 0.10 0. 06 Synergy 0.19 0.02 - o . 07 M a r i t a l Status 0.19 0.03 — 0 . 03 Intrapersonal S e n s i t i v i t y 0.19 -0.02 0. 11 Capacity f o r Intimate Contact 0.19 -0.09 - o . 10 E x i s t e n t i a l i t y 0.19 -0.09 0. 10 Acceptance of Aggression 0.19 -0,03 - o . 05 Psychoticism 0.19 -0.00 0. 03 Self Acceptance 0.19 -0,05 - o . 03 Age 0.19 0.05 0. 01 49,' A l l of the independent variables were entered into the regression equation. Occupation accounted for the greatest amount of Cognitive Interest, variance (R =.06). The higher the Blishen r a t i n g , the more l i k e l y the person was p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the a c t i v i t y f o r Cognitive Interest. The more conservative 2 2 the respondent (R =.08), and the more s e l f a c t u a l i z i n g (R =.09), the higher the l i k e l i h o o d of t h i s motivational orientation. People with t h i s orientation were less l i k e l y to view the essential nature of man 2 2 as constructive (R =.11), and were more time competent (R =.13) than those not so motivated. The most powerful predictors of t h i s motivational orientation were s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n (Beta=.37)j occupation (Beta=.23) and s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y score (Beta=.20). Conservatism (Beta=.19) follows c l o s e l y . The person highly motivated by Cognitive Interest, then, had a higher than average occupation, was more conservative and s e l f a c t u a l i z i n g , less l i k e l y to think of man as good, and l i v e d primarily i n the present. People-scoring low on Cognitive Interest, however, had lower occupational ratings, were less conservative, less s e l f a c t u a l i z i n g and less time competent. In addition, they were more l i k e l y to think of the e s s e n t i a l man as constructive. In t o t a l , the tested variables accounted for 19 per cent of the variance i n Cognitive Interest scores. Six percent was explained by the personal s t y l e variables, s i x per cent by the economic variables, two per cent by the response bias measures, two per cent by c l i n i c a l measures, and three per cent by the demographic variables. 50,. The External Expectations scale was composed of four items such, as "To can**-ply with instructions from someone else* and "To carry out the recoramenda^ tions of some authority," Response bias and clinical measures were expected to account for the greatest proportion of the explained variance on External Expectations scale scores, Lh fact, personal style variables accounted for the greatest proportion, followed by response bias. The Regression Summary Table for External Expectations is presented on the following page (Table 9 ) . Table 9, Regression Summary Table: External Expectations Independent Cumulative Simple r Beta Variable R Square ... View of Man 0.03 0.19 0.22 Independence of Judgement 0.07 - 0.17 -o.io Country of B i r t h 0.09 -0.12 -0.12 Time Competence 0.10 0.10 0.14 L i e Scale 0.12 0.17 0.14 Self A c t u a l i z a t i o n 0.13 0.10 0.02 Psychoticism 0.13 . -0.01 0.09 Acceptance of Aggression 0.14 -0.12 -0.23 Education Level 0.14 — 0.11 -0.08 Synergy 0.15 0.10 0.14 Family Income 0.15 -0.06 — 0.06 Extraversion 0.15 0.02 0.10 Age 0.16 0.13 0.10 Intrapersonal S e n s i t i v i t y 0.16 -0.09 0.13 Sex 0.16 0.04 0.07 S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y 0.17 0.14 -0.08 Self Acceptance 0.17 -0.09 - 0.07 Conservatism 0.17 0.13 0.05 Self Directedness 0.17 0.05 - 0.06 Self Regard 0.17 0.04 0.04 Neuroticism 0.17 - 0.01 0.03 52. A l l of the independent variables except marital status, e x i s t e n t i a l i t y , spontaneity, capacity f o r intimate contact, and occupation entered into the regression equation. Regarding man as ess e n t i a l l y good accounted f o r three percent of the observed variance. Those who thought man good were more l i k e l y to be pa r t i c i p a t i n g f o r reasons of External Expectations than those who did not. The less independence of judgment exhibited by the respondent, the more 2 l i k e l y s/he to have t h i s orientation (R =.07). Those persons born i n an ETiglish-speaking country were more l i k e l y to be f u l f i l l i n g External 2 Expectations than those who were not (R =.09). Those subjects who were highly motivated by External Expectations were more time competent 2 2 (R =.10), and more l i k e l y to have a high l i e scale score (R =.12). The most powerful predictors of t h i s motivational orientation were acceptance of aggression (Beta=-.23), and viewing man as good (Beta=.22). The next three most powerful were time competence, l i e scale, and synergy (Beta= . l 4 ) . The person p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the a c t i v i t y to f u l f i l l External Expectations, then, had an optimistic view of man, less independence of judgment, was more l i k e l y to have been born i n an English-speaking country, was more time competent, and more l i k e l y to have a high l i e scale score than one -who was not enrolled f o r these reasons. The person who was not f u l f i l l i n g Bcternal Expectations, on the other hand, had a less optimistic view of man, more independence of judgment, was less time competent, and l i k e l y to have a lower l i e scale score. In addition, the person scoring low on t h i s motivational orientation was less l i k e l y to have been i n an. English-spealcing country. 53. Of the t o t a l variance on External Expectations, 17 per cent was explained by the independent variables. Of t h i s , three per cent was explained by the demographic variables, four per cent by response bias, two per cent by c l i n i c a l measures, eight per cent.by personal s t y l e (POI) measures, and less than one per cent by the economic variables. In terms of the variables themselves, several Interesting facts emerged. For f i v e of the s i x Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales (except S o c i a l Contact), view of man was an important predictor, and accounted f o r a si g n i f i c a n t proportion of the observed variance on the factor. For Cognitive Interest, the respondents who were high scoring were less l i k e l y to view the es s e n t i a l man as constructive; for the other scales, high scorers were more l i k e l y to view the nature of man as e s s e n t i a l l y good. Neuroticism was also an important variable and accounted for a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of the observed variance on a l l scales except External Expectations. In each case, the more neurotic the respondent, the more l i k e l y s/he was to score high on the scale, except, again, i n the case of Cognitive Interest. The less neurotic the respondent, the more l i k e l y s/he was to have a strong Cognitive Interest motivation. The l e v e l of family income accounted for a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of the variance on three of the orientations: Professional Advancement, So c i a l Welfare, and S o c i a l Contact. In each case, the lower the l e v e l of family income, the more l i k e l y the subject to have the orientation. Time competence accounted f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t amount, of.the variance .in Escape/ Stimulation, Cognitive I n t e r e s t a n d External Expectations .scale scores. In each case, the more time competent the respondent, the higher the. scale - score, 54. Variance i n each Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale i s explained by a different combination of the groups of variables. A summary table of these groups of variables and scales i s presented i n Table 10, Variance i n Professional Advancement scale scores i s explained about equally by four groups of v a r i -ables: demographic, economic, c l i n i c a l and personal s t y l e measures, and s l i g h t l y less by scale bias. Variance i n S o c i a l Welfare Scale scores i s accounted for primarily by personal s t y l e variables, secondarily by economic variables, and then by demographic variables. Scale bias and c l i n i c a l measures are r e l a t i v e l y unimportant. Personal s t y l e variables, then c l i n i c a l measures account for the greatest proportions of explained variance i n Escape/Stimulation scores. Scale bias, demographic and economic variables are considerably less important. Primarily economic variables and secondarily personal s t y l e variables account f o r the largest proportion of explained Social Contact variance. C l i n i c a l measures, de-mographic variables, and f i n a l l y economic variables.account f o r the rest of the variance. Cognitive Interest score variance i s explained equally and primarily by economic and personal s t y l e variables. Demographic variables, c l i n i c a l measures and response bias account f o r the rest of the explained variance. Personal Style measures account f o r nearly h a l f the explained variance i n External Expectations Scale scores. Scale bias, then demographic variables, then c l i n i c a l measures, and l a s t l y economic variables account f o r the other h a l f of the explained variance. In general, personal s t y l e variables are the most important predictors of the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale scores and account f o r the greatest proportion of the explained variance! or about seven percent f o r each scale. . Next important are the economic variables, which account for about f i v e per-Table 10. Percent of Variance i n Six Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales Explained by Five Categories of Independent Variables Professional Advancement Social Welfare Escape/ Stimulation Social Contact Cognitive Interest External Expectations Mean Demographic Variables 5 5 2 4 3 3 3.67 Economic Variables • • 5- 10 1 9 6 1 5.33 Response Bias 3 1 4 2 2 2.67 C l i n i c a l Measures 5 1 11 5 2 2 4.33 Personal Style 5 13 15 7 6 8 7 .33 TOTALS: 23$ 28% 32$ 21% 1956- 17% 24.33% T 56, cent, then c l i n i c a l measures accounting f o r about four percent, demographic variables accounting f o r three percent, and response or scale bias at about two percent. In t o t a l , about 25 percent of the variance on any Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale Is explained by a l l the variables together. D. Testing f o r Differences Among Cl i e n t e l e i n F i v e Agencies In order to determine whether there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences among the c l i e n t e l e of each of the f i v e agencies and to determine the effectiveness of the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale and demographic and psychological v a r i -ables as predictors of agency a f f i l i a t i o n , discriminant analysis was per-formed on the data, with the agencies as the grouping variables. The number of respondents by agency were as follows: Centre f o r Continuing Education, 38; New Westminster School Board, 9; YWCA, 37; Burnaby School Board, 42; Van-couver School Board, 6; and P i l o t Group, 8. The c l i e n t e l e did d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from agency to agency. For example, the c l i e n t e l e of the YWCA were highly motivated by Soc i a l Welfare, had the lowest Cognitive Interest scores, and had the lowest occupational ratings and family income l e v e l . On the other hand, the c l i e n t e l e at the Centre f o r Continuing Education at UBC had the highest occupational ratings, the highest Cognitive Interest scores, and the highest l e v e l of family income (the same, however, as that of Burnaby School Board). This could be expected because of the locations and philosophies of the agencies. The mean scores on the 16 of the 32 t o t a l variables which discriminated s i g n i f i c a n t l y are presented on the following page (Table 11). In t h i s table, the educational scores can be interpreted as follows: 4=completed grade 10 or 11 but not grade 12, 5=grade 12 or equivalent, 6=post secondary or trade q u a l i f i c a t i o n , 7=part of University degree or diploma completed, 8=University degree or diploma completed. Table 11. Discriminating Variables by Agency: Mean Scores, F S t a t i s t i c s , and Wilks' Lambda Variable Name C, C . E . YWCA N.lv.S.B. B.S.B. V.S.B. P i l o t T o t a l Univar-iate" F Univar-i a t e Wilks' A M u l t i -v a r i a t e Wilks 1 A So c i a l Welfare 15.5 20,4 15.0 11.7 14.6 16,0 15,6 6.95 0.78 0.78 Cognitive Interest 14.2 11,1 12,8 12,1 11.2 12,9 12,4 2,69 0.61 0,61 S o c i a l Contact 9,0 11,8 14,5 7,5 11,0 12,9 9.5 6.69 0.78 0.49 Education Level 7.3 6.0 5,8 6,1 5,4 8.6 6.5 6,05 0,80 0.40 Psychoticism 2,2 2,7 2.2 2.1 5.0 4,0 2,5 3,03 0.89 0,35 Neuroticism 10,2 14,9 13.3 9,4 9.2 8,0 11.1 6,15 0.80 0.31 Age 42.1 41,3 57.2 38.1 26.8 32,1 40,1 3,83 0,86 0,27 Prof e s s i o n a l Advancement 13.5 16.9 12.4 11.7 12.4 21,4 14,2 5,88 0,80 0.24 Sex (% Males) 23% 0% 0% 25% 40% 62% 20% 4,13 0,85 0.21 External Expectations 5.4 5,9 6.5 5.4 7,6 5,0 5,7 1,16 0,95 0.20 Spontaneity 12.7 11,4 10,8 11.6 13.8 11,9 11.9 1.45 0.94 0,18 E x i s t e n t i a l i t y 19.8 20,9 18.2 20,1 22.6 21,5 20,3 0,85 0,97 0*17 Extraversion 11.4 11,8 14,0 13,0 15,4 11,0 12.3 1.16 0,95 0,16 Country of B i r t h 15% 9% 0% 5% 20% 13% 9% 0.67 0,97 0.16 Occupation 54,5 45.3 48.9 46,4 48.5 63.2 49.7 3,98 0,86 0,15 Family Income (x $1000) $23 $14 $21 $23 $16 $20 $20 3.62 0,87 0,14 % born i n non-English-speaking countries • V J l Legend: C,C,E,=Centre for Continuing Education; N,W,S,B.=New Westminster School Board; B,S,B,=Burnaby V3 School Board; V,S,B,=Vancouver School Board; P i l o t = p i l o t test group 58. The most effec t i v e discriminating variables (p<\01.) were: S o c i a l Welfare (F=6.95), Cognitive Interest (F=2.69), S o c i a l Contact (F=6.69), education l e v e l (F=6.05), psychoticism (F=3.03), neuroticism CF=6.15), age (F=3.83), Professional Advancement (F=5.o8), sex (F=4.j_3), and External Expectations (F=l . l 6 ) . Of the f i r s t ten most discriminating variables, then, f i v e were Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales. The remaining s i x s i g n i f i c a n t variables (p<.01) were spontaneity (F=1.45), e x i s t e n t i a l i t y (F=0.85), extraversion (F=l . l 6 ) , country of b i r t h (F=0.67), occupation (F=3.S8), and l e v e l of family income (F=3.62). The following variables did not discriminate s i g n i f i c a n t l y among the various agencies, and so were not entered into the discriminant analysis: S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y , Lscape/Stimulation, l i e scale, independence of judgement, s e l f directedness, time competence, s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n , intrapersonal s e n s i t i v i t y , s e l f regard, s e l f acceptance, view of man, synergy, acceptance of aggression, capacity f o r intimate contact, and conservatism. The percentage of cases correctly c l a s s i f i e d by group was 7^.29. Discriminant analysis distinguishes a p r i o r i groups from one another on the basis of t h e i r score p r o f i l e s . In t h i s case, the groups were defined as the c l i e n t e l e of each of the f i v e agencies. The score p r o f i l e s were a l l the variables. Those which discriminated s i g n i f i c a n t l y and those which did not are presented above. This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was performed to determine whether or not the c l i e n t e l e of the various agencies were s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t to be distinguishable on the basis of any of the investigated variables, and i f so, to determine 59. the best d i s c r i m i n a t o r s . I t was a lso performed to Investigate the p r e d i c t t l v e v a l i d i t y of the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale , The r e s u l t s Indicate that I n fact the c l i e n t e l e do d i f f e r from agency t o agency, and can be cha*-r a c t e r l z e d by these v a r i a b l e s w i t h about 75 percent accuracy, Discriminant analys is ca lculates a "centroid" or a point representing the average p r o f i l e of each group, and compares the average p r o f i l e of each r e -spondent i n the group t o t h i s centro id , The " f i t " of the members of the group w i t h the centroid determines the p r e d i c t i v e power of the s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s . Knowing an I n d i v i d u a l ' s scores on the s i g n i f i c a n t predic tor v a r i a b l e s , then, would enable p r e d i c t i o n of the sponsoring agency s/he would choose or would f i n d most "congruent" for adult education a c t i v i t i e s . In t h i s study, the 16 s i g n i f i c a n t predic tor var iables a l l o w p r e d i c t i o n of agency a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h about 75 percent accuracy, For example, the c l i e n t e l e of the Centre for Continuing Education at UBC had the highest Cognitive Interest scores, the highest education l e v e l s (with the exception.of the p i l o t group which was composed of graduate s t u -dents and f a c u l t y at UBC), the highest occupational rat ings (again except for the p i l o t group), and one of the two highest l e v e l s of family income, On the other hand, the c l i e n t e l e of the YWCA had the lowest l e v e l of family income, the lowest occupational r a t i n g s , the highest l e v e l s of Profess ional Advancement scores (except, again, f o r the p i l o t group, some of whom were students), and the lowest Cognitive Interest scores. These r e s u l t s could be expected on the basis of the l o c a t i o n and philosophy of the agencies. 60. CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS The purposes of this study were to determine, whether psychological or demographic/economic variables accounted for the greatest proportion of variance in the Education Participation Scale scores, and to investigate the validity of the Education Participation Scale as a measure of motivational orientation. The psychological variables were divided into three broad categories: response or scale bias measures (social desirability, independence of judgment and conservatism), clinical measures (psychoticism, neuroticism, extraversion, and lie scale), and personal style variables (POI scales). The amount of variance explained by each group and by demographic and economic variables and the predictive power of the variables was determined. The predictive and construct validities of the Education Participation Scale are discussed and compared with other studies attempting some validation .of the Scale. ... .-This section will discuss the findings of the study in two sections, the Education Participation Scale scores and the validity of the Education Participation Scale. A. Education Participation Scales Regression analysis was performed to determine whether demographic/economic or psychological variables accounted for the greatest proportion of variance in Education Participation Scale scores. Each of the six Education Parti-cipation Scales is discussed below. 61. It was expected that Professional Advancement variance would be primarily explained by demographic and economic variables. Family income did, in fact, account for the greatest proportion (nearly 20 per cent) of the explained variance. Respondents with low family Incomes were seeking Professional Advancement through adult education. In addition, view of man, neuroticism and conservatism accounted for a considerable proportion of the.explained variance, one a personal style variable, one a clinical measure, and a scale bias measure. Individuals motivated by Professional Advancement were more neurotic, less conservative, and more likely to believe man essentially good. This general picture suggests a well-meaning, easy-going, not too successful person with a few problems s/he is attempting to address. S/he perhaps sees adult education as a "nice" route to Professional Advancement, Personal style variables. and clinical measures were expected to account for the greatest proportion of the explained variance in Social Welfare Scale scores. Personal style measures did, in fact, account for approx-imately half of the explained variance, but clinical measures, except for neuroticism, were relatively insignificant. Economic variables (family income), however, accounted for about one-third of the explained variance, and demographic variables.for about one-sixth. Response bias was relatively unimportant. 62. People highly motivated by Social Welfare were interested in helping other people. They had lower levels of family income, and were more self directed and neurotic than usual. This general picture is of a "poor", confused, "do-gooder" who wants to help others but is unable to help her/ himself. Escape/Stimulation scale scores were expected to be explained primarily by clinical measures. About one-third of the explained variance was indeed accounted for by clinical measures, mainly neuroticism. About half the expalined variance, however, was due to personal style variables. Response bias and demographic and economic variables were relatively insignificant. People highly Escape/Stimulation motivated were more neurotic, less spon-taneous, more optimistic about man, more flexible in application of their values, and less self accepting than those who were not highly motivated by Escape/Stimulation. The total picture is of a poorly functioning person, aware of her/his problems and seeking improvement or greater self actuali-zation. Demographic variables, clinical measures, and personal style variables were a l l expected to account for most of the variance in Social Contact scale scores. Personal style variables did account for about one-third of the explained variance, and clinical measure for about one-quarter of the explained variance. 63. . Economic variables (family income) however, accounted f o r the greatest proportion of-the explained variance. Demographic variables accounted f o r s l i g h t l y less of the variance than c l i n i c a l measures and response bias was r e l a t i v e l y unimportant. The person highly motivated by Social Contact had a lower family income than usual, was more neurotic, older, and more l i k e l y an immigrant. The people, seeking Social Contact i n adult education a c t i v i t i e s , , then, were older, single Immigrants, probably possessing fewer of the highly rated occupational s k i l l s required for the "better" jobs. Demographic, economic, and personal s t y l e variables were expected to predict Cognitive Interest scale scores better than the other independent variables. Personal s t y l e and economic variables each accounted for about one-third of the explained variance. Demographic variables accounted for only one-s i x t h of the variance, and response bias and c l i n i c a l measures accounted for about one-tenth of the variance each. The person motivated by Cognitive Interest, then, had a better than average occupation, was more conservative, more s e l f a c t u a l i z i n g , less l i k e l y to consider man constructive, and more l i k e l y to l i v e i n the present than those respondents not motivated by Cognitive Interest, This picture suggests b a s i c a l l y well-adjusted, somewhat s k e p t i c a l , highly functioning people with the resources and the Interest to spend time deve-loping t h e i r p o t e n t i a l . They are probably getting out of society what i t has to o f f e r them. This Is the type of person most people view as the " t y p i c a l " 64. adult education participant. Response or scale bias and clinical measures were expected to account for the largest proportion of explained variance in External Expectations scores. The findings.showed that response bias accounted for about one-quarter of the explained variance, but clinical measures for only about one-tenth. Personal style measures, however, accounted for about one-half of the explained variance. Demographic variables accounted for only slightly less of the variance than response bias, while economic variables were insignificant. People highly motivated by External Expectations, were more optimistic about man, had less independence of judgment, were more likely native English-speakers, more likely to live in the present, and likely to have higher l i e scale scores than those not so motivated. These people, then,..are likely quite trusting of others, and somewhat naive. They are probably participating in adult education activities suggested by others for their own good, B. Validity of the Education Participation Scale Assessing the motivational orientations of.adult.education participants could be very useful' as one foundation of programming (in the broadest sense) in adult education, and policy formulation and instructional design. The Education Participation Scale has practical potential as a very useful measure of motivational orientation. Before i t Is used 65. extensively, however, i t i s essential to know that i t i s a v a l i d measure of motivational orientation. One of the purposes of t h i s thesis was to explore the v a l i d i t y of the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale. This was done through analysis of the collected data, corre l a t i o n of the other variables with the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales, and assessment of the predictive v a l i d i t y of the Instrument. V a l i d i t y i s whether or not an instrument does what i t i s intended to do. This assessment of the v a l i d i t y of the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale w i l l be based on the discussion of the concept by Nunnally (1978). As he states (p. 87) " S t r i c t l y speaking, one validates not the measuring instrument but rather some use to which the instrument i s put." Nunnally further states that v a l i d a t i o n i s a matter of degree, rather than a property the instrument either possesses or does not possess, and that v a l i d a t i o n i s an ongoing process, rather than something which i s done once, then subsequently assumed. Nunnally has c l a s s i f i e d v a l i d i t y into three types, each of which w i l l be discussed below i n r e l a t i o n to' the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale, Nunnally states (p, 88) "Predictive v a l i d i t y i s determined by, and only by, the degree of correla t i o n between the two measures involved," i . e . , the instrument and the c r i t e r i a C o n ) , Predictive v a l i d i t y , then, i s estimated by deterrrdjiing the correla t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between the instrument and some external c r i t e r i a ( o n ) which i t purports to predict. In r e l a t i o n to the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale, I t has been suggested 66. that motivational orientations, as measured by the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale, can be used to predict agency a f f i l i a t i o n , or c l i e n t e l e . In addition, i t i s suggested that the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale scores can be used to predict scores on other variables f o r individuals by agency. Prom the resu l t s of the discriininant a nalysis, i t appears that motivational orientations are, i n f a c t , the most powerful discriminators among agencies; t h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true of So c i a l Welfare, Cognitive Interest, and Social Contact. For example, the mean score on Soc i a l Welfare f o r the Bumaby School Board c l i e n t e l e was 11.7, while i t was 20.4 f o r the YWCA (F=34.50, p<.01). In addition, scores on one variable can be used to predict scores on other variables f o r the c l i e n t e l e of an agency. For example, those individuals attending courses at the Centre f o r Continuing Education at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia are l i k e l y to have high Cognitive Interest scores, and also high occupational ratings. Together, the variables entered into discriminant function analysis lead to correct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of 74.29 per cent of the cases. Five of the s i x Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales discriminated s i g n i f i c a n t l y among the c l i e n t e l e of the f i v e agencies. The three most highly discriminatory or best predictor variables were S o c i a l Welfare, Cognitive Interest, and Soc i a l Contact. The Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale, then, lias predictive v a l i d i t y i n terms of agency a f f i l i a t i o n . Content v a l i d i t y i s the adequacy wi t h which a specified domain of content i s sampled. The two standards by which Nunnally (p. 92) suggests assessing content v a l i d i t y are: r l ) a representative c o l l e c t i o n of items, 67. and 2) "sensible" methods of construction. 1 He l a t e r states that (p. 94) "Another type of evidence for content v a l i d i t y i s obtained from correlating scores on different tests purporting to measure much the same thing ..." The most common measure of content v a l i d i t y (Nunnally, p. 193) i s co e f f i c i e n t alpha. Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s are as follows: Professional Advancement,. . 8 5 ; S o c i a l Welfare, .83; Escape/Stimulation, .79; S o c i a l Contact, .75; Cognitive Interest, .82; and External Expectations, .58, y i e l d i n g a mean estimate' of content v a l i d i t y of .77-Some in d i r e c t and tentative c o r r e l a t i o n a l evidence has been supplied by Haag (1976) and R i d d e l l (1976)'. The Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales were lab e l l e d as in d i c a t i v e of growth or deficiency motivation as defined by Maslow, and correlated with such measures as. s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n , l i f e s a t i s f a c t i o n , and neuroticism. This study also provides some i n d i r e c t c o r r e l a t i o n a l support for the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale. For example, s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n (r=.10), and s e l f dlrectedness (r=.04) correlate, with Cognitive Interest, a growth motivation measure. Neither of these • correlations, however, was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Nunnally defines the term "construct" i n the following way (p. 96): "To the extent that a variable i s abstract rather than concrete, we speak of i t as being a construct." A construct i s a variable of Interest that i s abstract to the extent that i t cannot be measured d i r e c t l y , and i s "made up"; i . e . , s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n . Variables or constructs such as self actualization are thought to be evidenced in a variety of forms of measurable and observable behaviours, But not perfectly so in any one of them; these Behaviours are called the domain of oBservaBles. In terms of validation of the construct, Nunnally states (p. 98) "There are three major aspects of construct validation: 1) specifying the domain of observables related to the construct; 2) from empirical research and statistical analyses, determining the extent to which the observables tend to measure the same thing, several different things, or many different things; and 3) subsequently performing studies of individual differences and/or controlled experiments to determine the extent to which supposed measures of the construct produce results which are predictable from highly accepted theoretical hypotheses concerning the construct." Domain specification and determination of the number of things measured were done by Boshier during development of the instrument by defining the terms, choosing the.items, and through factor analysis. In terms of studies of individual differences, there are not really any "highly accepted" hypotheses concerning the constructs, but some tentative ones, have been suggested. For example, a high level of education should correlate with Cognitive Interest. The results indicate a positive correlation (r=.l6), although i t is not statistically significant. Cognitive Interest, is significantly related to occupation (r=.25) however; the higher the occupational rating, the more likely the individual to be motivated by Cognitive Interest, Occupational level is generally directly proportional to ievel of education. This result, then, lends a measure of construct validity to the Education Participation 6 9 . Scale as a measure of Cognitive Interest, I t could be l o g i c a l l y expected that family income and Professional Advancement would be related; that many people with low family incomes would be motivated to increase them through Professional Advancement, The r e s u l t s Indicate that there i s indeed a negative corre l a t i o n (r=-.23) between family income and Professional Advancement scores. This provides a measure of construct v a l i d i t y to Professional Advancement. With respect to Soc i a l Welfare, tentative hypotheses could suggest that people motivated by Soc i a l Welfare would l i k e l y be more neurotic and more s e l f directed than average. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study confirm these hypotheses. S o c i a l Welfare correlates s i g n i f i c a n t l y (r=.20, p<f.Q5) with s e l f dlrectedness and with neuroticism (r=.24, p^.01), Escape/Stimulation would l o g i c a l l y correlate with neuroticism and s e l f regard. The resu l t s indicate that the more neurotic the person (r=.30, p^.Ol) and the lower the s e l f regard (r=.24, p<.01), the higher the Escape/Stimulation score. Social Contact would be expected to correlate with age and marital status, and the r e s u l t s show t h i s to be true. Older ( r = . l 6 , p<;.05), single ( r= , 2 9 , p^.01) people had higher S o c i a l Contact scores. Persons motivated by External Expectations would probably exhibit less Independence of judgement and be less s e l f a c t u a l i z i n g than those not so motivated. The results again support these hypotheses. Independence of judgement (r=.17, p^.05) and s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n (r=.10, not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ) did correlate with External Expectations scores. 70.-While the correlation between education level and the Education Participation Scales were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant, they were i n the expected directions. They therefore lend some support to the construct validity of the Education Participation Scale. The higher the education level, the higher the Professional Advancement (r=.07) and Cognitive Interest (r=.l6) scores. The lower the education level, the higher the Social Welfare ( - .06) , Escape/Stimulation (r=-.10) , Social Contact (r=-.ll), and External Expectations (r=-.ll). Many other examples could be given which have been supported by the results of this research. As Nunnally states (p. 98) " ... by combining the information from a number of particular measures relating to a construct, one can increase the vali d i t y of the s c i e n t i f i c generalization over that which would be obtained from employing only one measure." 71. CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Conclusions From this study, several conclusions can be drawn. For some-of the Education Participation Scale-measured motivational orientations, the demographic, economic, response biasy clinical measures, and "personal style" measures are predictive in different combinations, and to varying degrees. 1. Psychological variables measuring "personal style" factors such as the relative optimism of the respondents' view of the essential nature of man accounted for up to one half of the explainable (12V25#) variance in Professional Advancement, Social Welfare, Escape Stimulation, Cognitive Interest, and External Expectations scores. 2. Response bias accounted for up to one quarter of the explainable (6V25$) variance in the Escape/Stimulation, Social Contact, and External Expectations scores. 3. Clinical measures accounted for 20 to 30 per cent (6V25#) of the ex-plainable variance in Professional Advancement, Escape/Stimulation and Social Contact scores. 4. Demographic and economic variables accounted for about one half of the explainable variance in Professional Advancement, Social Welfare, Social Contact, and Cognitive Interest scores. (12V25$) Only a small proportion of the variance on each Education Participation Scale was explained by these variables in total. For Professional Advancement, a total of 23 per cent of the variance was explained; for Social Welfare, 2ti per cent; for Escape/Stimulation, 32 per cent; for Social Contact, 27 72. percent; for Cognitive Interest, 19 percent j and f o r External Expectations, 17 percent. Less than 32 percent of the variance can Be explained f o r any of the scales, then, By these psychological and demographic/econcmic varlaBles, R e l i a b i l i t y . studies Indicate aBout another ten percent of the variance i s error variance. The other 60 percent and more must Be accounted for by either other variables which were not Investigated, or else these Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales are psychological factors on t h e i r own. Examples of other variables which, might account f o r a larger proportion of the t o t a l variance i n Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale scores might be al i e n a t i o n , anxiety, and Intelligence, I f other variables cannot be found to account f o r more of the variance In Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale scores, then these must, i n f a c t , be motives, needs, or psychological variables on t h e i r own. The high c o e f f i c i e n t alphas lend support to t h i s i n t e r p r e -t a t i o n because they are a direct measure of construct v a l i d i t y . The higher . the c o e f f i c i e n t s alpha, the more l i k e l y the factors are independent. In t h i s case,'a closer examination of inter-scale correlations should be undertaken. Perhaps they can, i n f a c t , be collapsed back into Houle's three o r i g i n a l ca-tegories. A more sophisticated analysis removing the contaminating effects of the other variables would be appropriate. The Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale does appear to be a v a l i d measure of motivational orientation, Support for the predictive v a l i d i t y of the instrument with regard to agency a f f i l i a t i o n was provided through the r e s u l t s of the discriminant analysis. Thirty-two Independent variables were Investigated, Three of the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales (Social welfare, Cognitive Interest, and Social Contact] were the most highly discriminating of the 16 independent' y a r l a B l e s which were entered i n the discriminant analysis. These 167 variables could be used to c l a s s i f y r e -73. spondents By agency a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h 74,22 percent accuracy, The content v a l i d i t y of the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale was discussed and has teen demonstrated By other researchers. This- study- also presents some Indirect c o r r e l a t i o n a l evidence to support the content v a l i d i t y of the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale, as w e l l as d i r e c t Internal consistency evidence ave-«-raging *77. With respect to construct v a l i d i t y , the r e s u l t s provide some support f o r the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale. For example, S o c i a l Contact should l o g i c a l l y correlate w i t h age and m a r i t a l status. The r e s u l t s I n -deed Indicate that younger, single people are more l i k e l y motivated by S o c i a l Contact than older, married people, In addition, i t could be ex-pected that family Income would be correlated with Professional Advancement. The r e s u l t s do show that the lower the l e v e l of family income, the higher the Professional Advancement scores, Level of education should also be r e -lated to Cognitive Interest, and Indeed the re s u l t s show that the higher the l e v e l of education, the greater the l i k e l i h o o d of Cognitive Interest moti-vation, B, Implications of t h i s Study for Research and Practice The findings of t h i s study have implications for both research and practice i n the f i e l d of adult education, Some of these w i l l be discussed below, The re s u l t s of the research indicate that the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale has some v a l i d i t y as a measure of motivational orientations. Only 20 to 30 percent of the t o t a l variance i n Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale scores, however, was explained by the Investigated variables. This implies one of two alternatives. Either other variables account f o r large proportions of the t o t a l variance, or else the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales measure e n t i t i e s of t h e i r own. The fact that the psychological variables do account for one t h i r d to one h a l f of 74. the explained variance In Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale scores, however, Implies that they are to some extent important to motive for p a r t i c i p a t i o n -In adult education, Since 6~0 percent or more of the variance remains unex-plained, however, the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales may he measuring un-derlying psychological f a c t o r s which stand on t h e i r own, The findings of t h i s study have implications for the practice of adult education, A v a r i e t y of motivational orientations toward p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n adult education appear to e x i s t , which are not necessarily related to ostensible course content, A l l courses included i n t h i s study were con-sidered "general i n t e r e s t " courses, yet the participants had enrolled with motives ranging from Professional Advancement to Escape/Stimulation, This implies that programming based s o l e l y on course content i s not e f f e c t i v e l y providing for s a t i s f a c t i o n of the motives underlying p a r t i c i p a t i o n . For a l l motivational orientations measured by the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale except S o c i a l Contact, personal s t y l e variables were equally or more impor-tant than any of the other categories In accounting f o r the explained v a r i -ance. This Implies that concentrating on the demographic - or economic cha-r a c t e r i s t i c s of the c l i e n t e l e to determine p o l i c y and programming may not be an appropriate procedure.. On the basis of the discriminant analysis, p a r t i c i p a t i n g c l i e n t e l e attending programmes at each of the f i v e agencies can be accurately discriminated on the basis of S o c i a l Welfare, Cognitive Interest. and Social Contact scores. Perhaps other agencies can characterize t h e i r c l i e n t e l e In a s i m i l a r manner. This Implies that persons attending programmes sponsored by a given agency are to quite an extent s i m i l a r with, regard to motivational orientation and some psychological variables, Either agencies sponsor programmes a t t r a c t i v e 75. to similar people, or people with like motives are attracted to the same agencies. C. Recommendations On the basis of this research, several tentative recommendations can be made for both the practice of adult education, and for further research. Recommendations with respect to the practice of adult education are made in two areas, "Programming1' includes policy formulation, advertising and planning through evaluation and follow up-. The second area of practice involves the clientele, In addition, several lines of research are sug-gested to follow this study. In terms of programming, practitioners of adult education might attempt some assessment of the motivational orientation of their clientele, and evaluate their programmes according to whether or not they are appropriate to the underlying motives of their clientele, A measure of motivational orienta-tion of the clientele of an agency will provide better understanding of the reasons for participation, and provide a sound basis for further planning, Knowing the clientele and their motivational orientations would enable prac-titioners, from director to instructor, to provide a total learning experi-ence more congruent with the needs and interests of the clientele, Pro-gramming, from advertising and planning through evaluation and follow up, should be modified accordingly, For example, the clientele of the Centre for Continuing Education at UBC are strongly motivated By Cognitive Inte-rest, ;A great deal of emphasis should therefore Be placed on the quality of course content, The clientele of New Westminster School Board are highly motivated By Social Contact, New Westminster might therefore provide for more than usual Interaction among the participants with respect to social 76. a c t i v i t i e s , The c l i e n t e l e of the YWCA i s most highly ..motivated By Profes-sional Advancement, and has the lowest -occupational' r a t i n g . Policy- at t h i s agency might therefore Be directed toward employment opportunities and coun-s e l l i n g , Measuring the motivational orientations of the c l i e n t e l e w i l l also give an in d i c a t i o n of the type of c l i e n t e l e served, and provide f o r comparison with the c l i e n t e l e the agency Intends or wishes to serve. For example, the Centre for Continuing Education at UBC intends to 'serve c l i e n t e l e with high Cogni-t i v e Interest motivation. The r e s u l t s indicate that the c l i e n t e l e i s , i n fa c t , motivated By Cognitive Interest, The YWCA expects and Intends to serve a "community minded" c l i e n t e l e , and the present c l i e n t e l e i s indeed highly motivated By Social Welfare. Knowledge of motivational orientation of the c l i e n t e l e can also Be used to increase p a r t i c i p a t i o n , .For example, BurnaBy School Board c l i e n t e l e are least l i k e l y motivated f o r Social Contact, I f the Board wished to increase p a r t i c i p a t i o n i t could provide add i t i o n a l programming directed toward sa-t i s f a c t i o n of these motives, Several l i n e s of future study are suggested By t h i s research. Other v a r i -aBles such as a l i e n a t i o n , i n t e l l i g e n c e , and anxiety could Be investigated to determine whether or not they account for s i g n i f i c a n t proportions of the variance i n Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale scores. An Investigation into the int e r - c o r r e l a t i o n s Between the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales could Be carrie d out i n an attempt to determine the reasons they do Inter-correlate, and whether or not the orientations are i n fact separate and d i s t i n c t , In . t h i s study, s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were revealed Between every p a i r of 77. scales except Cognitive Interest and External Expectations, Could the s i x Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scales Be collapsed Into Houle f s o r i g i n a l three orientations? An investigation should be made into the relationship Be-tween needs and motivational orientations, U n t i l t h i s I s done to at least some degree, the research on motivational orientations and underlying psy-chological variables must remain i n the category of "Inference," Changes i n the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale scores over the duration of an educa-t i o n a l a c t i v i t y have not yet been explored, . Do the participants enrol f o r the same reasons that they persist In the a c t i v i t y ? Do dropouts enrol with different motivational orientations than persisters? F i n a l l y , do s e l f learners have the same motivational orientations as the persons who engage i n adult education a c t i v i t i e s primarily i n i t i a t e d by others or by educational agencies? 78, ' CHAPTER 7- SUMMARY OF THE STUDY A. Purposes This study had two purposes. The f i r s t was to explore and test psychologi-c a l and demographic variables underlying and correlated with motivation f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n adult education a c t i v i t i e s . This was done to determine whether they account for a large proportion of the variance i n motivational orientation scores and whether they are powerful predictors of motivational orientations. The second purpose was to investigate the v a l i d i t y of the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale as a measure of motivational orientation. B. Design The Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale was used to measure motivational orienta-t i o n . The Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, the Barron-Asch Independence of Judgement Measure, Shostrom's Personal Orientation Inventory, and Wilson and Patterson's Conservatism Scale were used to measure 15 psychological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Demographic data were collected. Data were collected from 140 subjects registered i n a variety of general interest courses at f i v e agencies i n the lower main-land of B r i t i s h Columbia, and from a group of adult education students, faculty and associates of the researcher. The demographic and psychological data were regressed with, the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale motivational orientations to determine t h e i r r e l a t i v e a b i l i t y to predict motivational orientation. Correlations w i t h these factors were investigated to deter-mine the concurrent v a l i d i t y of the Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale. The r e -l a t i v e predictive power of the demographic versus, the psychological variables 79. was Investigated. The pre d i c t i v e power of £he Education P a r t i c i p a t i o n Scale motivational orientations versus that of the psychological and de-mographic variables was explored. C . Results The most important pr e d i c t i v e variables and those accounting f o r the greatest accumulative proportion of the explained variance f o r each moti-vatio n a l o r i e n t a t i o n are as follows: p 1. Professional Advancement (R~=.23,): Family income, viewing the nature of man as e s s e n t i a l l y constructive, neuroticism, conservatism, acceptance of aggression, psychoticism, age, and l e v e l of education. 2 2. S o c i a l Welfare (R =.28): Family income, s e l f dlrectedness, neuroticism, age, viewing the e s s e n t i a l nature of man as constructive, s e l f acceptance, and e x i s t e n t i a l ! t y . ' 2 3. Escape/Stimulation (R= . 3 2 ) : Neuroticism, spontaneity, viewing the e s s e n t i a l nature of man as constructive, e x i s t e n t i a l i t y , s e l f acceptance, s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , time competence, and psychoticism. 2 4. S o c i a l Contact.(R =.27): Family income, neuroticism, age, country of b i r t h , m a r i t a l status, s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , synergy, and acceptance of aggression. ' 2 5. Cognitive Interest (R =.10): Occupation, conservatism, s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n , viewing the e s s e n t i a l man as good and constructive, time competence, l e v e l of education, sex, and neuroticism. 2 6. External Expectation (R =.17): Viewing the e s s e n t i a l nature of man as good, independence of judgment, country of b i r t h , time competence, L i e Scale score, and s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n . -Personal s t y l e psychological variables accounted i'or the greatest amount of explained variance i n S o c i a l Welfare, Escape/Stimulation and External 80. Expectations scale scores. Economic and personal style variables accounted equally for the greatest proportions of explained variances in Cognitive Interest scale scores and demographic, economic and personal style variables and clinical measures accounted equally for most of the explained variance in Professional Advancement scale scores. For Social Contact, economic variables accounted for the greatest proportion of the explained variance. The predictive and construct validity of the Education Participation Scale were supported by the results of the study. The predictive validity was determined with regard to the power of the Education Participation Scales to predict agency affiliation. The construct validity of the instrument was supported by. direct internal consistency evidence averaging .77, obtained with coefficient alpha. D. Discussion The results of the study were discussed with respect to the variance and prediction of the Education Participation Scales and the validity of the Scale as a measure of motivational orientations. Personal style variables accounted for about seven percent of the variance overall in Education Participation Scale scores; economic variables accounted for about five percent, clinical measures for about four percent, demographic variables for about three percent, and response of clinical bias for about two percent. With respect to validity, the Education Participation Scales Social Wel-fare, Cognitive Interest, and Social Contact discriminate better between agency clientele than any of the other investigated variables. Construct validity is supported by internal consistency and correlational evidence. 81. E. Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations Conclusions drawn on the basis of the results were discussed in terms of the psychological variables, the response or scale bias measures,, the clinical measures, and the demographic and economic .variables. It was concluded that psychological variables generally accounted for the greatest proportion of the explained variance in scores on the Education Participation Scales. Evi-dence from the study supported the conclusion that the Education Participa-tion Scale does possess some measure of both predictive and construct vali-dity. The implications of the results were discussed. With respect to the vali-dity of the Education Participation Scale, two alternatives were implied. Either other variables account for a great proportion of the observed vari-ance in the scale scores, or the Scale is measuring factors or variables which stand on their own. Because the personal style psychological vari-ables do correlate with the scales, however, they should be taken into ac-count for policy formulation and programrning. Further research on motivational orientations is needed. Several recommen-dations were made with regard to: other variables which might account for substantial proportions of the scale score variance, intercorrelations be-tween Education Participation Scales, exploration of the interface between needs and motives,, changes in the Education Participation Scale scores over the duration of an educational activity, and comparison of participants and self learners. 82. REFERENCES Bagley, C., Wilson, G., and Boshier, R. 1970. "The Conservatism Scale: A Factor Structure Comparison of English, Dutch, and New Zealand Samples." Journal of Social Psychology, 8 l , 267-268, Barron, F. 1965. "The Psychology of Creativity." In Barron, F., Dement, W., Edwards, W., Llndman, H., Phillips, L., Olds, J., and Olds, M. 1965. New Directions in Psychology II. New York. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1-134. Barron, F. 1968. Creativity and Personal Freedom. Princeton. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. Boshier, R. 1970. "Conservatism and Personality." Comment, 11, 4 l , 22-33. Boshier, R.. 1971. "Motivational Orientations of Adult Education Partici-pants: A Factor Analytic Exploration of Houle's Typology." Adult Edu- cation, 21, 2, 3-26. Boshier, R. 1973. "Educational Participation and Dropout: A Theoretical Model." Adult Education, 23,. 4, 255-282. Boshier, R. 1976. "Factor Analysts at Large: A Critical Review of Moti-vational Orientation Literature." Adult Education, 27, 1 , 24-47. Boshier, R. 1977. "Motivational Orientations Revisited: Life Space Motives and the Education Participation Scale." Adult Education, 27, 2, 89-115-Boshier, R., and Peters, J. M. 1976. "Developing Programmes Congruent with Adult Motives, Needs, and Interests." In Klevlns, C, ed. Materials  and Methods In Adult Education. Canoga Park. Klevlns Publishing. 197-212. Blishen, B. R., and McRoberts,. H. A. 1976. "Revised Socioeconomic Index for Occupations in Canada." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 13, 1, 71-79. 83. Buhler, C. 1968. "The Course of Human Life as a Psychological Problem." Human Development, 11, 184-200. Burgess, P. 1971. "Reasons for Participation in Group Educational Acti-vities." Adult Education, 22, 1 , 3-29-Crowne, D. P., and Marlowe, D. i960. "A Mew Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 4, 349-354. Collins, J., and Boshier, R, in press. Dickinson, G., and Clark, K. 1975. "Learning Orientations and Participa-tion in Self-Education and Continuing Education." Adult Education, 26, 1 , 3-15. , Douglah, M. 1970. "Some Perspectives on the Phenomenon of Participation." Adult Education, 20,. 2, 88-98. Douglah, M., and Moss, G. 1968, "Differential Participation Patterns of Adults of Low and High Educational Attainment." Adult Education, 28, 4, 247-259. Eysenck, H., and Eysenck, S. 1975- EdITS Manual Eysenck Personality Ques-tionnaire (Junior and Adult). San Diego. EdITS/Educational and Indus-t r i a l Testing Service. Grabowskl, S. M. 1972. "Motivational Factors of Adult Learners in a Directed Self-Study Bachelor's Degree Programme." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Syracuse University. Haag, U. F, E. 1976. "Psychological Foundations of Motive for Participation in Adult Education." Unpublished M.A. Thesis.. University of British Columbia. 84. Havighurstj R. J . 1964. "Changing Status and Roles During the Adult L i f e Cycle: Significance for Adult Education." In Burns, H. W., ed. Socio- l o g i c a l Backgrounds of Adult Education. Chicago, Centre f o r the Study, of L i b e r a l Education f o r Adults. 17-38. Houle, C. 0. 196l. The Inquiring Mind, Madison. University of Wisconsin Press. Johnstone, J . W. C , and Rivera, R, J . 1965. Volunteers f o r Learning, Chap-ter Eight, "Why People Take Courses and What They Get From Them." pp. 143-163. Chicago. Aldine Publishing. Knox, A, B., and Sjogren, D, 1962. "Motivation to Partic i p a t e and Learn i n Adult Education." Adult Education, 12, 4, 238-242. Knox, A. B., and Videbeck, R. 1963. "Adult Education and Adult L i f e Cycle." Adult Education, 13, 2, 102-121.' -Kuhlen, R. G. 1963. "Motivational Changes During the Adult Years." In Kuhlen, R. G., ed. Psychological Backgrounds of Adult. Education. Chi-cago, Centre for the Study of L i b e r a l Education f o r Adults. Volume 40. 77-113. L i t c h f i e l d , A. 1965. "The Nature and Pattern of P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Adult Education A c t i v i t i e s . " Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Chicago. Marx, M. 1970.. "Theory Construction and Evaluation." In Marx, M,, ed. Learning: Theories. London. CollierHMacmillan Limited, 3-26. Maslow, A. H. 1962, 1968. Toward a Psychology of Being. New York. Van Nostrand Reinhold. M i l l e r , H. L. 1967. P a r t i c i p a t i o n of Adults In Education: A Force F i e l d  Analysis. Chicago. Centre f o r the Study of L i b e r a l Education f o r Adults. Occasional Papers. Number 14. 85. Morstain, B., and Smart, J , C. 1974, "Reasons f o r P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Adult Education Courses: A Multivariate Analysis of Group Differences." Adult Education, 24, 2, 83-98. Nunnally, J . C. 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd e d i t i o n . New York. McGraw-H i l l Book Company, R i d d e l l , B, G, 1976. "Psycho-social Concomitants of Motivational Orientation i n a Group of Older Adults." Unpublished M.A. Thesis. University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Sh e f f i e l d , S. 1964. "The Orientations of Adult Continuing Learners." In Solomon, D., ed. The Continuing Learner. Chicago, Centre f o r the Study of L i b e r a l Education for Adults. 1-22. Shostrom, E. 1966, 1974. EdITS Manual Personal Orientation Inventory. San Diego, Educational and I n d u s t r i a l Testing Service. Sovie, M. 1972. "The Relationship of Learning Orientations, Nursing A c t i -v i t y and Continuing Education." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Syra-cuse University. Wilson, G., and Patterson, J . 1968. "A New Measure of Conservatism." B r i - t i s h Journal of Social and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 7, 264-269. Zack, I. 1976. "Characteristics of Participants i n a New Inner City Night School." Unpublished M.A. Thesis. University of B r i t i s h Columbia, APPENDIX A Data Collect Ion Instruinent 87, THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 2075 WESBROOK MALL VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA V6T 1W5 FACULTY OF EDUCATION L I F E LONG LEARNING You may have wondered at times why people enrol in adult education courses. Some people p a r t i c i p a t e in some types of courses for quite d i f f e r e n t reasons than others. The following pages contain questions which examine the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of people who p a r t i c i p a t e in such courses. They w i l l measure your a t t i t u d e s , opinions, and some personality factors such as self-a c t u a l i z a t i o n . While it w i l l require a certain commitment of your time to complete the series of questions, you w i l l learn some i n t e r e s t i n g facts about yourself and why you p a r t i c i p a t e . Unlike most social research, however, your "personal" r e s u l t s w i l l be sent to you as soon as they are calculated. You w i l l obtain, at no cost, your scores on some well-known a t t i t u d e scales. You w i l l receive your personal score for each mea-sure, and the average scores to use for comparison. The questions are divided into several d i f f e r e n t sections. You w i l l find i n s t r u c -tions t e l l i n g you how to proceed at the beginning of each section. Your f i r s t impressions are usually most correct, so work through each section as quickly as you can. There are no " r i g h t " or "wrong" answers, or " t r i c k " questions. Just give your own opinion or a t t i t u d e . You w i l l probably find some of these questions i n t e r e s t i n g and thought-provoking. Please turn the page and begin. 88, Demographic Information 1. Are you a woman or a man? (check) •Woman L_"]Man 2 . What is your age? (write) years 3. What is your marital status? (check) • Married • s e p a r a t e d , divorced, or l i v i n g apart Q N e v e r married 4. In which country were you born? (write) 5. What is the highest educational quali f ication you hold? (check only one box) I I No formal qualif ication I I Completed Grade Five or Less I I Completed Grade Nine or Less I I Completed Grade Ten or Eleven (but not Grade Twelve) I I Grade Twelve Graduation or Equivalent • Post Secondary or Trade Qualification only (Vocational School Diploma, Business Diploma, etc.) • Part of University Degree or Diploma Completed I I University Degree or Diploma Completed • University Degree or Diploma plus some other qualif ication (Journeyman's papers, R. N . , etc.) 6. What is the highest educational qualif ication your spouse ( i f any) holds? (check only one box) Please check N/A i f never married. • No formal qualif ication • N / A • completed Grade Five or less • Completed Grade Nine or less [~1 Completed Grade Ten or Eleven (but not Grade Twelve) • Grade Twelve Graduation or Equivalent • Post Secondary or Trade Qualification only (Vocational School Diploma, Business Diploma, etc.) • Part of University Degree or Diploma Completed • University Degree or Diploma Completed • U n i v e r s i t y Degree or Diploma plus some other qualif ication (Journeyman's Papers, R.N., etc.) Please go on to the next page .89. If you are currently working for wages or salary, exactly what kind of work do you do? (Please be very specific; e.g., sales clerk in a small drug store, manager of a logging company employing 500 people, etc.) If you are involved in household duties, retired, or not working, please write N/A here and go on to the next question. If you are not currently working, write below the kind of work you did when you were last working. Please be very specific. In the box below, write the letter which corresponds with your gross (personal) income, before taxes and other deductions. Do not include income earned by your spouse or other members of your family. under $5,000 A $5,001-$10,000 B $10,001-$15,000 C $15,001-$20,000 D $20,001-$25,000 E $25,001-$30,000 F $30,001-$35,000 G $35,001-$40,000 H over $40,000 I In the box below, write the letter which corresponds with your gross family income, before taxes and other deductions; i.e., the income of yourself, your spouse (if any) and members of your family living in the same household. If you are the only person in your household working for wages or salary, the answer to this question w i l l be the same as the answer to the last question. under $5,000 A $5.,001-$10,000 B $10,001-$15,000 C $15,001-$20,000 D $20,001-$25,000 E $25,001-$30,000 F $30,001-$35,000 G $35,001-$40,000 H over $40,000 I Please go on to the next page Scale JA 90. Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and tra i t s . Read each item and decide whether i t is true or false as i t pertains to you. Circle either true or false after the item. 1. Before voting, I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of a l l the candidates. True 2. I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble. True 3. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work i f I am not encouraged. True Fals Fals Fals Fals Fals Fals Fals Fals Fals 4. I have never intensely disliked anyone. True 5. On occasion I have had doubts about my a b i l i t y to succeed in l i f e . True 6. I sometimes feel resentful when I don't get my way. True 7. I am always careful about my manner of dress. True 8. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant. True 9. If I could get into a movie without paying, and be sure I was not seen, I would probably do i t . True 10. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too l i t t l e of my a b i l i t y . True 11. I like to gossip at times. True 12. There have been times when I f e l t like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right. True Fals 13. No matter who I'm talking to, I'm always a good listener. True Fals 14. I can remember "playing sick" to get out of something. True Fals 15. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. True Fals 16. I'm always willing to admit i t when I make a mistake. True Fals 17. I always try to practice what I preach. True Fals 18. I don't find i t hard to get along with loud-mouthed, obnoxious people. True Fals 19. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. True Fals 20. When I don't know something, I don't at a l l mind admitting i t . True Fals 21. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. True Fals 22. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way. True Fals 23. There have been times when I f e l t like smashing things. True Fals 24. I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrongdoings. True Fals 25. I never resent being asked to return a favour. True Fals Please go on to the next page 26. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different 2^ from my own. True ' False 27. I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car. True False 28. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. True False 29. I have almost never f e l t the urge to t e l l someone off. True False 30. I have never f e l t that I was punished without cause. True False 31. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favours of me. True False 32. I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only got what they deserved. True False 33. I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone's feelings. True False Scale FE Think back to when you enrolled for your course this year and indicate the extent to which each of the reasons listed below influenced you to participate. Circle the category which best reflects the extent to which each reason influenced you to enrol. There are forty reasons listed. Circle one category for each reason. Sometimes the "Much influence" cate-gory is on the right side of the page, sometimes i t is on the l e f t . No reason for enrolling is any more or less desirable than any other. Please be frank. There are no right or wrong answers. 1. To eek knowledge for i t s own sake Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 2. To share a common interest with my spouse or friend No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 3. To secure professional advancement Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 4. To become more effective as a citizen No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 5. To get re l i e f from boredom Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 6. To carry out the recommen-dation of some authority No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 7. To satisfy an enquiring mind Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 8. To overcome the frustration of day to day liv i n g No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 9. To be accepted by others Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 10. To give me higher status in my j ob No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 11. To supplement a narrow previous education Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence Please go on to the next page 92. 12. To stop myself becoming a "vegetable" No influence L i t t l e influence Much influence Moderate influence 13. To acquire knowledge to help with other educational courses Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 14. To f u l f i l l a need for personal associations and friendships No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 15. To keep up with competition Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 16. To escape the intellectual narrowness of my occupation No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 17. To participate in group activity Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 18. To increase my job competence No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 19. To gain insight into my personal problems Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 20. To help me earn a degree, certificate, or diploma No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 21. To escape television Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 22. To prepare for community service No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 23. To gain insight into human relations Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 24. To have a few hours away from responsibilities No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 25. To learn just for the joy of learning Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 26. To become acquainted with congenial people No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 27. To provide a contrast to the rest of my l i f e Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 28. To get a break in the routine of home or work No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 29. To improve my a b i l i t y to serve mankind Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 30. To keep up with others No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 31. To improve my relationships Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence Please go on to the next page 93-32. To meet formal requirements No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 33. To maintain or improve my social position Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 34. To escape an unhappy relationship No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 35. To my provide a contrast to previous education Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 36. To of comply with the suggestions someone else No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 37. To of learn just for the sake learning Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 38. To make new friends No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence 39. To improve my a b i l i t y to par-ticipate in community work Much influence Moderate influence L i t t l e influence No influence 40. To comply with instructions from someone else No influence L i t t l e influence Moderate influence Much influence Scale MA2 Please answer each question by c i r c l i n g either yes or no following the question. There are no right or wrong answers, and no trick questions. Please work quickly through each item. 1. Do you have many different hobbies? Yes No 2. Do you stop to think things over before doing anything? Yes No 3. Does your mood often go up and down? Yes No 4. Have you ever taken the praise for something you knew someone else had really done? Yes No 5. Are you a talkative person? Yes No 6. Would being in debt worry you now? Yes No 7. Do you ever feel "just miserable" for no reason? Yes No 8. Were you ever, greedy by helping yourself to more than your share of anything? Yes No 9. Do you lock your house up carefully at night? Yes No 10. Are you rather lively? Yes No 11. Would i t upset you a lot to see a child or animal suffer? Yes No 12. Do you often worry about things you should not have done or said? Yes No 13. If you say you w i l l do something, do you always keep your promise, no matter how inconvenient i t might be? Yes No Please go on to the next page .94. 14. Can you usually let yourself go and enjoy yourself at a li v e l y party? Yes No 15. Are you an i r r i t a b l e person? Yes No 16. Have you ever blamed someone for doing something you knew was really your fault? Yes No 17. Do you e"njoy meeting new people? Yes No 18. Do you believe insurance plans are a good deal? Yes No 19. Are your feelings easily hurt? Yes No 20. Are a l l your habits good and desirable ones? Yes No 21. Do you tend to keep in the background on social occasions? Yes No 22. Would you take drugs which might have strange or dangerous effects? Yes No 23. Do you often feel "fed up"? Yes No 24. Have you ever taken anything (even a pin or button) that belonged to someone else? Yes No 25. Do you like going out a lot? Yes No 26. Do you enjoy hurting people you love? Yes No 27. Are you often troubled by feelings of guilt? Yes No 28. Do you sometimes talk about things you know nothing about? Yes No 29. Do you prefer reading to meeting people? Yes No 30. Do you have enemies who want to harm you? Yes No 31. Would you c a l l yourself a nervous person? Yes No 32. Do you have many friends? Yes No 33. Do you enjoy practical jokes that can sometimes really hurt people? Yes No 34. Are you a worrier? Yes No 35. As a child did you do as you were told immediately and without grumbling? Yes No 36. Would you c a l l yourself happy-go-lucky? Yes No 37. Do good manners and cleanliness matter much to you? Yes No 38. Do you worry about awful things that night happen? Yes No 39. Have you ever lost or broken something belonging to someone else? Yes No 40. Do you usually take the i n i t i a t i v e in making new friends? Yes No 41. Would you c a l l yourself tense or "highly-strung"? Yes No 42. Are you mostly quiet when you are with other people? Yes No Please go on to the next page 9 5 . 43. Do you think marriage is old-fashioned and should be done away with? Yes No 44. Do you sometimes boast a l i t t l e ? Yes No 45. Can you easily get l i f e into a rather dull party? Yes No 46. Do people who drive carefully annoy you? Yes No 47. Do you worry about your health? . Yes No 48. Have you ever said anything bad or nasty about anyone? Yes No 49. Do you like telling jokes and funny stories to your friends? Yes No 50. Do most things taste the same to you? Yes No 51. As a child did you ever talk back to your parents? Yes No 52. Do you like mixing with people? Yes No 53. Does i t worry you i f you know there are mistakes in your work? Yes No 54. Do you suffer from sleeplessness? Yes No 55. Do you always wash before a meal? Yes No 56. Do you nearly always have a "ready answer" when people talk to you? Yes No 57. Do you like to arrive at.appointments in plenty of time? Yes No 58. Have you often f e l t tired and l i s t l e s s for no reason? Yes No 59. Have you ever cheated at a game? Yes No 60. Do you like doing things in which you have to act quickly? Yes No 61. Is (or was) your mother a good woman? Yes No 62. Do you often feel l i f e i s very dull? Yes No 63. Have you ever taken advantage of someone? Yes No 64. Do you often take on more activ i t i e s than you have time for? Yes No 65. Are there several people who keep trying to avoid you? Yes No 66. Do you worry a lot about your looks? Yes No 67. Do you think people spend too much time safeguarding their future with savings and insurance? Yes No 68. Have you ever wished you were dead? Yes No 69. Would you dodge paying taxes i f you were sure you could never be found out? Yes No 70. Can you get a party going? Yes No 71. Do you try not to be rude to people? Yes No 72. Do you worry too long after an embarrassing experience? Yes No Please go on to the next page 73. Have you ever insisted on having your own way? Yes 9b. No 74. When you catch a train, do you often arrive at the last minute? Yes Wo 75. Do you suffer from "nerves"? Yes No 76. Do your friendships break up easily without i t being your fault? Yes No 77. Do you often feel lonely? Yes No 78. Do you always practice what you preach? Yes No 79. Do you sometimes like teasing animals? Yes No 80. Are you easily hurt when people find fault with you or the work you do? Yes No 81. Have you ever been late for an appointment or work? Yes No 82. Do you like to have plenty of bustle and excitement around you? Yes No 83. Would you like other people to be afraid of you? Yes No 84. Are you sometimes bubbling over with energy and sometimes very sluggish? Yes No 85. Do you sometimes put off un t i l tomorrow what you ought to do today? Yes No 86. Do other people think of you as being very lively? Yes No 87. Do people t e l l you a lot of lies? Yes No • 88. Are you touchy about some things? Yes No 89. Are you willing to admit i t when you have made a mistake? Yes No 90. Would you feel very sorry for an animal caught in a trap? Yes No Scale JU2 Read each of the following statements carefully. Decide whether i t is true or false in your opinion. Circle either true or false after each statement. There are no right or wrong an-swers. We are looking for your opinion. 1. What the youth needs most is s t r i c t discipline, rugged determination, and the w i l l to fight for family and country. True False 2. Some of my friends think my ideas are impractical i f not a bit wild. True False 3. Kindness and generosity are the most important qualities for a wife to have. True False 4. I have seen things so sad I almost f e l t like crying. True False 5. I don't understand how men in some European countries can be so demonstrative to one another. True False 6. I must admit that I would find i t hard to have for a close friend a person whose manners or appearance made her/him somewhat repulsive, no matter how b r i l l i a n t or kind s/he might be. True False 7. A person should not probe too deeply into her/his own feelings, but take things as they are. True False Please go on to the next page 8. I prefer team games to games in which one individual competes 97-against another. True False 9. I could cut my moorings-quit my home, family, and my friends-without suffering great regrets. True False 10. What this country needs most, more than laws and p o l i t i c a l pro-grammes, is a few courageous, tireless and devoted leaders in whom the people can put their faith. True False 11. I acquired a strong interest in intellectual and esthetic matters from my mother. True False 12. Human nature being what i t i s , there w i l l always be war and conflict. True False 13. I believe you should ignore other people's faults and make an effort to get along with almost everyone. True False 14. The best theory i s the one with the most practical applications. True False 15. I like to fool around with new ideas, even i f they turn out later to be a total waste of time. True False 16. The unfinished and imperfect often have greater appeal for me than the completed and polished. True False 17. I would rather have a few intense friendships than a great many friendly but casual relationships. True False 18. Perfect balance i s the essence of a l l good composition. True False 19. Science should have as much to say about moral values as religion does. True False 20. The happy person tends always to be poised, courteous, outgoing, and emotionally controlled. True False 21. Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they grow up, they ought to get over them and settle down. True False 22. It is easy for me to take orders and do what I am told. True False Scale OC Please c i r c l e either a or b_ for each item as i t pertains to yourself. There are no right or wrong answers. Please answer each item. 1. a. I am bound by the principle of fairness. b. I am not absolutely bound by the principle of fairness. , 2. a. When a friend does me a favour, I feel that I must return i t . b. When a friend does me a favour, I do not feel that I must return i t . 3. a. I feel I must always t e l l the truth, b. I do not always t e l l the truth. 4. a. No matter how hard I try, my feelings are often hurt. b. If I manage the situation right, I can avoid being hurt. 5. a. I feel that I must strive for perfection in everything I undertake. b. I do not feel that I must strive for perfection in everything I undertake. Please go on to the next page 6. a. I often make my decisions spontaneously, b. I seldom make my decisions spontaneously. 98. 7. a. I am afraid to be by myself. b. I am not afraid to be by myself. 8. a. I feel obligated when a stranger does me a favour. b. I do not feel obligated when a stranger does me a favour. 9. a. I feel that I have a right to expect others to do what I want of them. b. I do not feel that I have a right to expect others to do what I want of them. 10. a. I live by values which are in agreement with others. b. I live by values which are primarily based on my own feelings. 11. a. I am concerned with self-improvement at a l l times. b. I am not concerned with self-improvement at a l l times. 12. a. I feel guilty when I am selfish. b. I do not feel guilt when I am selfish. 13. a. I have no objection to getting angry, b. Anger is something I try to avoid. 14. a. For me, anything i s possible i f I believe in myself. b. I have a lot of natural limitations even though I believe in myself. 15. a. I put others' interests before my own. b. I do not put others' interests before my own. 16. a. I sometimes feel embarrassed by compliments, b. I am not embarrassed by compliments. 17. a. I believe i t i s important to accept others as they are. b. I believe i t i s important to understand why others are as they are. 18. a. I can put off u n t i l tomorrow what I ought to do today, b. I don't put off u n t i l tomorrow what I ought to do today. 19. a. I can give without requiring the other person to appreciate what I give, b. I have a right to expect the other person to appreciate what I give. 20. a. My moral values are dictated by society, b. My moral values are self-determined. 21. a. I do what others expect of me. b. I feel free to not do what others expect of me. 22. a. I accept my weaknesses. b. I don't accept my weaknesses. 23. a. In order to grow emotionally, i t i s necessary to know why I act as I do. b. In order to grow emotionally, i t i s not necessary to know why I act as I do. 24. a. Sometimes I am cross when I am not feeling well, b. I am hardly ever cross. 25. a. It is necessary that others approve of what I do. b. It is not always necessary that others approve of what I do. 26. a. I am afraid.of making mistakes. b. I am not afraid of making mistakes. Please go on to the next page 27. a. I trust the decisions I make spontaneously. b. I do not trust the decisions I make spontaneously. 28. a. My feelings of self-worth depend on how much I accomplish. b. My feelings of self-worth do not depend on how much I accomplish. 29. a. I fear failure. b. I do not fear failure. 30. a. My moral values are determined, for the most part, by the thoughts, feelings, and decisions of others. b. My moral values are not determined, for the most part, by the thoughts, feelings, and decisions of others. 31. a. It is possible to li v e l i f e in terms of what I want to do. b. It i s not possible to live l i f e in terms of what I want to do. 32. a. I can cope with the ups and downs of l i f e . b. I cannot cope with the ups and downs of l i f e . 33. a. I believe in saying what I feel in dealing with others. b. I do not believe in saying what I feel in dealing with others. 34. a. Children should realize that they do not have the same rights and privileges as adults. b. It is not important to make an issue of rights and privileges. 35. a. I can "stick my neck out" in relations with others. b. I avoid "sticking my neck out" in relations with others. 36. a. I believe the pursuit of self-interest is opposed to interest in others. b. I believe the pursuit of self-interest is not opposed to interest in others. 37. a. I find that I have rejected many of the moral values I was taught, b. I have not- rejected any of the moral values I was taught. 38. a. I li v e in terms of my wants, likes, dislikes, and values. b. I do not li v e in terms of my wants, likes, dislikes, and values. 39. a. I trust my a b i l i t y to size up a situation. b. I do not trust my a b i l i t y to size up a situation. 40. a. I believe I have an innate capacity to cope with l i f e . b. I do not believe I have an innate capacity to cope with l i f e . 41. a. I must just i f y my actions in the pursuit of my own interests. b. I need not justi f y my actions in the pursuit of my own interests. 42. a. I am bothered by fears of being inadequate. b. I am not bothered by fears of being inadequate. 43. a. I believe that man i s essentially good and can be trusted. b. I believe that man is essentially e v i l and cannot be trusted. 44. a. I live by the rules and standards of society. b. I do not live by the rules and standards of society. 45. a. I am bound by my duties and obligations to others. b. I am not bound by my duties and obligations to others. 46. a. Reasons are needed to justi f y my feelings. b. Reasons are not needed to justi f y my feelings. ~Plea.se go on to the next page 1 U U • 47. a. There are times when just by being silent is the best way to express my feelings, b. I find i t d i f f i c u l t to express my feelings by just being silent. 48. a. I often feel i t is necessary to defend my past actions. b. I do not often feel i t necessary to defend my past actions. 49. a. I like everyone I know. b. I do not like everyone I know. 50. a. Criticism threatens my self-esteem. b. Criticism does not threaten my self-esteem. 51. a. I believe that knowledge of what is right makes people act right. b. I do not believe that knowledge of what is right makes people act right. 52. a. I am afraid to be angry at those I love, b. I feel free to be angry at those I love. 53. a. My basic responsibility is to be aware of my own needs, b. My basic responsibility is to be aware of others' needs. 54. a. Impressing others is most important, b. Expressing myself is most important. 55. a. To feel right, I must always please others. b. I can feel right without always having to please others. 56. a. I w i l l risk a friendship in order to do or say what I believe is right, b. I w i l l not risk a friendship to say or do what is right. 57. a. I feel bound to keep the promises I make. b. I do not always feel bound to keep the promises I make. 58. a. I must avoid sorrow at a l l costs. b. It i s not necessary for me to avoid sorrow. 59. a. I strive always to predict what w i l l happen in the future. b. I do not feel i t necessary to predict what w i l l happen in the future. 60. a. It is important that others accept my point of view. b. It is not necessary for others to accept my point of view. 61. a. I only feel free to express warm feelings to my friends. b. I feel free to express both warm and hostile feelings to my friends. 62. a. There are many times when i t i s more important to express feelings than to carefully evaluate the situation, b. There are very few times when i t is more important to express feelings than to carefully evaluate the situation. 63. a. I welcome criticism as an opportunity for growth. b. I do not welcome criticism as an opportunity for growth. 64. a. Appearances are all-important. b. Appearances are not terribly important. 65. a. I hardly ever gossip. b. I gossip a l i t t l e at times. 66. a. I feel free to reveal my weaknesses among friends. b. I do not feel free to reveal my weaknesses among friends. Please go on to the next page 67. a. I should always assume responsibility for other peoples' feelings. 101. b. I need not always assume responsibility for other peoples' feelings. 68. a. I feel free to be myself and bear the consequences. b. I do not feel free to be my self and bear the consequences. 69. a. I already know a l l I need to know about my feelings. b. As l i f e goes on, I continue to know more and more about my feelings. 70. a. I hesitate to show my weaknesses among strangers. b. I do not hesitate to show my weaknesses among strangers. 71. a. I w i l l continue to grow only by setting my sights on a high level, socially-approved goal. b. I w i l l continue to grow best being myself. 72. a. I accept inconsistencies within myself. b. I cannot accept inconsistencies within myself. 73. a. Man is naturally cooperative, b. Man is naturally antagonistic. 74. a. I don't mind laughing at a dirty joke, b. I hardly ever laugh at a dirty joke. 75. a. Happiness is a by-product in human relationships, b. Happiness is an end in human relationships. 76. a. I only feel free to show friendly•feelings toward strangers. b. I feel free to show both friendly and unfriendly feelings to strangers. 77. a. I try to be sincere, but sometimes I f a i l , b. I try to be sincere, and I am sincere. 78. a. Self-interest is natural, b. Self-interest is unnatural. 79. a. A neutral party can measure a happy relationship by observation. b. A neutral party cannot measure a happy relationship by observation. 80. a. For me, work and play are the same thing, b. For me, work and play are opposites. 81. a. Two people w i l l get along best i f each concentrates on pleasing the other. b. Two people can get along best i f each person feels free to express her/himself. 82. a. I have feelings of resentment about things that are past. b. I do not have feelings of resentment about things that are past. 83. a. I like only masculine men and feminine women. b. I like men and women who show masculinity as well as femininity. 84. a. I actively attempt to avoid embarrassment whenever I can. b. I do not actively attempt to avoid embarrassment. 85. a. I blame my parents for a lot of my troubles, b. I do not blame my parents for my troubles. 86. a. I feel that a person should be s i l l y only at the right time and place, b. I can be s i l l y when I feel like i t . Please go on to the next page 87. a. People should always repent of their wrong-doings, b. People need not always repent of their wrong-doings. 102. 88. a. I worry about the future. b. I do not worry about the future. 89. a. Kindness and ruthlessness must be opposites. b. Kindness and ruthlessness need not be opposites. 90. a. I prefer to save good things for future use. b. I prefer to use good things now. 91. a. People should always control their anger, b. People should express honestly f e l t anger. 92. a. The truly spiritual man is sometimes sensual, b. The truly spiritual man in never sensual. 93. a. I am able to express my feelings even when they sometimes result in undesirable consequences. b. I am unable to express my feelings i f they are l i k e l y to result in undesirable consequences. 94. a. I am often ashamed of some of the emotions that I feel bubbling up within me. b. I do not feel ashamed of my emotions. 95. a. I have had mysterious or ecstatic experiences. b. I have never had mysterious or ecstatic experiences. 96. a. I am orthodoxly religious. b. I am not orthodoxly religious. 97. a. I am completely free of guilt, b. I am not free of guilt. 98. a. I have a problem in fusing sex and love, b. I have no problem in fusing sex and love. 99. a. I enjoy detachment and privacy. b. I do not enjoy detachment and privacy. 100. a. I feel dedicated to my work. b. I do not feel dedicated to my work. 101. a. I can express affection regardless of whether i t is returned. b. I cannot express affection unless I am sure i t w i l l be returned. 102. a. Living for the future is as important as living for the moment, b. Only living for the moment i s important. 103. a. It is better to be yourself, b. It is better to be popular. 104. a. Wishing and imagining can be bad. b. Wishing and imagining are always good. 105. a. I spend more time preparing to live, b. I spend more time actually l i v i n g . 106. a. I am loved because I give love, b. I am loved because I am lovable. Please go on to the next page 107. a. b. When I really love myself, everybody w i l l love me. 103. When I really love myself, there w i l l s t i l l be those who won't love me. 108. a. I can let other people control me. b. I can let other people control me i f I am sure they w i l l not continue to control me. 109. a. As they are, people sometimes annoy me. b. As they are., people do not annoy me. 110. a. Living for the future gives my l i f e i t s primary meaning. b. Only when living for the future ties into living for the present does my l i f e have meaning. 111. a. I follow diligently the motto "Don't waste your time." b. I do not feel bound by the motto "Don't waste your time. " 112. a. What I have been in the past dictates the kind of person I w i l l be. b. What I have been in the past does not necessarily dictate the kind of person I w i l l be 113. a. It is important to me how I live in the here and now. b. It is of l i t t l e importance to me how I live in the here and now. 114. a. I have had an experince when l i f e seemed just perfect. b. I have never had an experience when l i f e seemed just perfect. 115. a. E v i l i s the result of frustration i n trying to be good. b. E v i l is an intrinsic part of human nature which fights good. 116. a. A person can completely change her/his essential nature, b. A person can never change her/his essential nature. 117. a. I am afraid to be tender. b. I am not afraid to be tender. 118. a. I am assertive and affirming. b. I am not assertive and affirming. 119. a. Women should be trusting and yielding. b. Women should not be trusting and yielding. 120. a. I see myself as others see me. b. I do not see myself as others see me. 121. a. It is a good idea to think about your greatest potential. b. A person who thinks about her/his greatest potential gets conceited . 122. a. Men should be assertive and affirming. b. Men should not be asserive and affirming. 123. a. I am able to risk being myself. b. I am not able to risk being myself. 124. a. I feel the need to be doing something significant a l l of the time. b. I do not feel the need to be doing something significant a l l of the time. 125. a. I suffer from memories. b. I do not suffer from memories. 12,6. a. Men and women must be both yielding and assertive. b. Men and women must not be both yielding and assertive. Please go on to the next page 104. 127. a. I like to participate actively in intense discussions. b. I do not like to participate actively in intense discussions. 128. a. I am self-sufficient. b. I am not self-sufficient. 129. a. I like to withdraw from others for extended periods of time. b. I do not like to withdraw from others for extended periods of time. 130. a. I always play f a i r . b. Sometimes I cheat a l i t t l e . 131. a. Sometimes I feel so angry I want to destroy or hurt others, b. I never feel so angry I want to destroy or hurt others. 132. a. I feel certain and secure in my relationships with others. b. I feel uncertain and insecure in my relationships with others. 133. a. I li k e to withdraw temporarily from others. b. I do not like to withdraw temporarily from others. 134. a. I can accept my mistakes. b. I cannot accept my mistakes. 135. a. I find some people who are stupid and uninteresting. b. I never find any people who' are stupind and uninteresting. 136. a. I regret my past. b. I do not regret my past. 137. a. Being myself is helpful to others. b. Just being myself i s not helpful to others. 138. a. I have had moments of intense happiness when I was experiencing a kind of ecstasy or bliss. b. I have not had moments of intense happiness when I f e l t like I was experiencing a kind of bliss. 139. a. People have an instinct for e v i l . b. People do not have an instinct for e v i l . 140. a. For me, the future usually seems hopeful, b. For me, the future often seems hopeless. 141. a. People are both good and e v i l . b. People are not both good and e v i l . 142. a. My past is a stepping stone for the future, b. My past i s a handicap to my future. 143. a. "Ki l l i n g time" i s a problem for me. b. " K i l l i n g time" is not a problem for me. 144. a. For me, past, present, and future are in meaningful continuity, b. For me, the present is an island, unrelated to past and future. 145. a. My hope for the future depends on having friends. b. My hope for the future does not depend on having friends. 146. a. I can like people without having to approve of them, b. I cannot like people unless I also approve of them. Please go on to the next page 147. a. People are basically good. b. People are not basically good. 105. 143. a. Honesty i s always the best policy. b. There are times when honesty is not the best policy. 149. a. I can feel comfortable with less than a perfect performance. b. I feel uncomfortable with anything less than a perfect performance. 150. a. I can overcome any obstacles as long as I believe in myself, b. I cannot overcome every obstacle even i f I believe in myself. Scale JU WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DO YOU FAVOUR OR BELIEVE IN? Circle "yes" or "no". If absolutely uncertain, c i r c l e "?". There are no right or wrong answers; do not discuss; just give your f i r s t reaction. Answer a l l items. 1 death penalty Yes 7 No 26 computer music Yes 7 No 2 evolution theory Yes ? No 27 chastity Yes ? No 3 school uniforms Yes ? No 28 fluoridation Yes 7 No 4 striptease shows Yes 7 No 29 royalty Yes ? No 5 Sabbath observance Yes 1 No 30 women judges Yes 7 No 6 hippies Yes ? No 31 conventional clothing Yes 7 No 7 patriotism Yes ? No 32 teenage drivers Yes 7 No 8 modern art Yes ? No 33 racial segregation Yes 7 No 9 self-denial Yes 7 No 34 pornography Yes 7 No 10 working mothers Yes 1 No 35 church authority Yes 7 No 11 miracles Yes 1 No 36 disarmament Yes 7 No 12 birth control Yes ? No 37 censorship Yes 7 No 13 military d r i l l Yes 7 No 38 white l i e s Yes 7 No 14 co-education Yes 1 No 39 corporal punishment Yes ? No 15 Divine law Yes 1 No 40 mixed marriage Yes 7 No 16 socialism Yes ? No 41 s t r i c t rules Yes 7 No 17 white superiority Yes ? No . 42 jazz Yes 7 No 18 cousin marriage Yes ? No 43 straitjackets Yes ? No 19 moral training Yes ? No 44 casual living Yes 7 No 20 suicide. Yes 7 No 45 learning Latin Yes 7 No 21 chaperones Yes . 7 No 46 easy divorce Yes 7 No 22 legalised abortion Yes 7 No 47 inborn conscience Yes 7 No 23 empire-building Yes 7 No 48 coloured immigration Yes 7 No 24 student pranks Yes 7 No 49 Bible truth Yes 7 No 25 licensing laws Yes 7 No 50 smoking pot Yes 7 No You're finished.' Thank you again for your cooperation. Please return the questionnaire right away.' 106. APPENDIX B Data Collection. Procedure 1, Identify potential agencies' and/or institutions' where data collection could be done, 2. Contact Director or equivalent to obtain permission to administer the Instrument, 3. Have director request cooperation of ..instructors; compile a l i s t of instructors By agency or institution, course, class time, location, and phone numbers. Assign proctor, 4, Contact instructor and explain more f u l l y the nature of the project and answer any questions s/he might have. Give her/him the following para-graph to read to the.class one week prior to the instrument adminstra-tion: "Ms,/Dr. from the Adult Education Research Centre at the Uni-versity of B r i t i s h Columbia w i l l be coming next week to give you a questionnaire to f i l l out about why you enrolled i n this course, I think you w i l l find some of the questions interesting and thought-pro-voking ." 5. Contact the instructor on day of class to ensure everything i s In order. 6 , Have proctors administer instrument according to "Instrument .Administra-tion Procedure," 7. Telephone a l l students who took the.questionnaire home one week later i f the questionnaire has not been returned. Telephone them again one week after that If i t has s t i l l not been received, 8. Code and analyse the data, 9. Return the results to the students, 10, Prepare analysis of clientele for agency or institution, 107. APPENDIX C Instrument Administration Procedure 1, Instructor introduces- proctor by name, from the Adult Education Research Centre, of the University- of British. Columbia, 2. Proctor says, "Good evening. We are trying to find out more about the characteristics of people who participate in adult education classes, and why. they participate. We hope this will Improve adult education classes In this area. To achieve this, we are asking you to complete this questionnaire. £told It upH "You may. have been asked to answer questionnaires before, and wondered what became of the data. Your answers to this questionnaire are confi-dential. The data will be analysed on the UBC computer. No names will go into the computer. Unlike other projects, however, you will get the results of this one. We have provided an envelope (hold it UJDJ SO we can mail you your personal results and a table on which you can compare yourself to everyone else in the class. Please address the envelope to yourself. We will pay for the stamps. As soon as the results are analysed, we will send you yours. "Mien you begin to f i l l out the questionnaire, you will find it asks about some attitudes, opinions-, behaviours, and reasons for partici-pation, "Some of the questions are well known attitude inventories. Normally you would have to pay a substantial fee for access to these. In return for your cooperation in our project, we will provide you with the results for nothing. "The University requires me to read you the following statement: 'Any person may withdraw from this project at any time; completion of the Questionnaire indicates consent to use of the information obtained.' !.Write this on the board J "This will take some time, lut we have about fifteen minutes/half an hour. If everyone starts now, we may get it finished in time. If we do not get it done, I will wait until after your class so you can com-plete it and return It to me then. Are there any questions?" 3. If there are no questions, :5and out the questionnaires and have them begin. If there are any- questions, answer them as briefly and con-cisely as possible, Then hand out the questionnaires and have them begin. Tell them to write their 'phone numbers on the envelopes they address to themselves, and on the front of their, questionnaire, to en-r sure the right results are sent to the right people, 4, Collect the questionnaires as you see people finishing them in class. Flip through them quickly to ensure they have not skipped any pages, After the time has expired, say, "It seems that our time Is up. Please keep the questionnaires with you until after you class. I will come 108. back and pick them up then..: Thanlcyou for your cooperation." 5, After the class-, just before It Is- oyer,.'go Back to the room, , Say, "It should not take too much longer to complete the quesitonnaires., I will wait here and collect them as- you finisfu" If any of the. students say they have to leave, get their names and telephone numbers, and give them addressed,stamped envelopes to return their questionnaires By mail, 6, Return the questionnaires and "Procedure" sheets to Barbara. Name: Date: School District or Agency: Number of Students: Name of Instructor: Title of Course: Name and Phone Numbers of Students Taking Questionnaires Hone: Comments: 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055945/manifest

Comment

Related Items