Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Personality characteristics of three groups of weight-trainers Leithwood, Kenneth Arthur 1967

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1967_A7_5 L4.pdf [ 3.6MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077208.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077208-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077208-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077208-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077208-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077208-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077208-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077208-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077208.ris

Full Text

THE PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS OP THREE GROUPS OF WEIGHT-TRAINERS by KENNETH ARTHUR LEITHWOOD B.A., University of Toronto, 1964 B.P.E., McMaster University, 1965 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION In the Department of Physical Education and Recreation We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 196'4 by In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that one L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and s tudy. I f u r t h e r agree that p e r m i s s i o n f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission, , Department of Physical Education and Recreation The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8^  Canada r , a t e A p r i l , 1967 ABSTRACT The personality characteristics of three groups of Weight-Trainers were Investigated i n order to determine: 1. If Weight-Trainers, as a group differed significantly from the general population; 2. i f Weight-Trainers differed from one another when compared on the basis of their motivation for participation; 3. i f one group of Weight-Trainers deviated from the norm more than the other groups. Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire was administered to forty-five subjects. Fifteen of these subjects trained as a conditioning activity for another sport, fif t e e n trained to improve their physique and fifteen trained to increase their strength for Weight L i f t i n g competitions. Results, derived by the methods of an analysis of variance and " t " tests, indicated that: 1. Weight-Trainers, as a group, d i f f e r at the one per cent level from the general population on measures of intelligence, character strength, naivete, extroversion and self-sufficiency; 2. Weight-Trainers are a relatively homogeneous group of athletes. TABLE OP CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose of Study ................................. 1 Justification of the Problem 1 Limitations 2 Definitions 3 Personality 3 Weight-Trainers 3 General Population ............................. 3 II. REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE ........................... 6 A Comparison of the Personalities of the Athlete and Non-Athlete ........................ 6 A Comparison of the Personalities of Different Groups of Athletes ................... 10 The Personality of the Weight-Trainer 13 III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES ............................. 18 Subjects 18 The Test 20 Method of Analysis 22 Personality of Weight-Trainers Compared to the General Population 22 Personality Differences Among the Three Groups of Weight-Trainers 2k V CHAPTER PAGE Personality Differences Between Each Group of Weight-Trainers and the General Population • 27 IV. RESULTS 29 Interpretation of Results 30 Weight-Trainers Compared to the General Population 30 Groups A, B and C Compared 36 Groups A, B and C Compared Independently to the General Population ...................... 38 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................ 47 Summary .......................................... 47 Conclusions ...................•..•*...........••• 48 BIBLIOGRAPHY 52 APPENDIX A. RAW SCORES 55 APPENDIX B. TEST INSTRUCTIONS 58 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Cat/tell*s Interpretation of the Sixteen Personality Factors • 21 I I . Weight-Trainers (Groups A, B and C Combined) Compared to the General Population 31 I I I . Groups A, B and C Compared IV. Group A (Other Athletes) Compared to the General Population 37 V. Group B (Body-Builders) Compared to the General Population ^ 0 VI. Group C (Weight L i f t e r s ) Compared to the General Population ^3 VII. Raw Scores of Subjects i n Group A (Other Athletes) ................................ 55 VIII. Raw Scores of Subjects i n Group B (Body-Builders) 56 IX. Raw Scores of Subjects i n Group C (Weight L i f t e r s ) 57 LIST OP FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 . Weight-Trainers (Groups A, B and C) Compared to the General Population 32 2. Groups A, B and C Compared 35 3. Group A (Other Athletes) Compared to the General Population 38 4 . Group B (Body-Builders) Compared to the General Population 41 5. Group C (Weight L i f t e r s ) Compared to the General Population 44 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study The purpose of this study was to determine the personality characteristics of three groups of weight-trainers. It was hypothesized that there would "be s i g n i f i -cant differences l n personality characteristics among the three groups of weight-trainers when examined by Cattell*s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Form A) ( 1 ) . Justification of the Problem While many studies have examined the personality of various groups of athletes, only three could be found which examined the personality of the Weight-Trainer speoifically ( 2 . 3 , k). While these studies concluded that weight training f u l f i l l e d a "need" for the participant; they did not attempt to differentiate among Weight-Trainers as to their motives for participation. Results indicated significant differences l n personality characteristics between Weight-Trainers and the general population but no evidence was available to indicate whether or not a sub-group of Weight-Trainers was contributing a disporportionate amount of this difference to the results. More precisely then, there were three aspects of 2 this research: 1. to gather evidence which would either support or contradict the position that significant differences existed between the personalities of Weight-Trainers, as an undifferentiated group, and the general population; 2. to determine i f there were significant differences i n personality among three sub-groups of Weight-Trainers differentiated by their motives for participation; 3. to determine which, i f any, of the sub-groups of Weight-Trainers differed most from the general population. Limitations Both the subjects and the design imposed s t r i c t limits on the scope of the study. The subjects, males between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five years, were not representative of a special segment of the population nor were they a random sample. Seventy-three per cent of the subjects when tested were university students while twenty-seven per cent of the subjects were otherwise occupied. For this reason and because of the small size of the sample (45) generalizations from the obtained results were severely restricted. 3 Furthermore, the study was purely descriptive due to i t s design. The subjects were not examined before they began weight training but only after they had been training for some time. Hence, i t was not possible to determine whether weight training influenced the participants* personality characteristics or certain personality characteristics predisposed persons toward weight training a c t i v i t i e s . Definitions The context i n which three terms were used should be c l a r i f i e d . Personality. The terms personality and personality characteristics were used interchangeably. They refered not merely to some narrow concept of neuroticism or "adjustment" or some special kind of a b i l i t y , but to a l l the main,' non-physical, dimensions along which people can di f f e r , according to basic factor analytic research ( 5 ) « These dimensions are, according to Cattell, sixteen i n number and w i l l be described in Chapter 3. Weight-Trainers. This term described a group of persons who sought to increase their strength (for a variety of reasons) by overloading their muscles, during regular exercise, with some form of inanimate weight, most commonly "barbells". General Population. The general population i n this study consisted of 1,12? males, with an average age of thirty five years who were tested by Cattell (6). The results of these tests provided norms for comparison. REFERENCES 1. C a t t e l l , R.B., Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Champaign, I l l i n o i s : Institute for Personality and A b i l i t y Testing (pub.), 1962. 2. Harlow, E.G., "Masculine Inadequacy and Compensatory Development of Physique," The Journal of Personality. 1951. 19«312-323. 3. Henry, P.M., "Personality Differences i n Athletes, Physical Education and Aviation Students," Psychological  Bulletin. 1941, 38:8. 4. Thune, J.B., "Personality of Weight L i f t e r s , " The Research Quarterly of the American Association for  Health. Physical Education and Recreation, October, 1949, 20 (3). 5. C a t t e l l , R.B., and Eber, H.W., Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : Institute for Personality and A b i l i t y Testing (pub.), 1957. 1. 6. C a t t e l l , R.B., and Eber, H.W., Supplement of Norms for Forms A and B of the Sixteen Personality^ Factor  Questionnaire. Champaign. I l l i n o i s : Institute for Personality and A b i l i t y Testing (pub.), 1962, 19. CHAPTER II REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE A knowledge of the results of related research w i l l assist i n the understanding of the present problem. For this purpose the literature reviewed was divided into three main areas. The personalities of the athlete and non-athlete were compared f i r s t . The second area compared the personalities of different groups of athletes, while the third area concerned the personality of the Weight-Trainer, only. A Comparison of the Personalities of the Athlete and Non- Athlete Comparative studies i n this area have concerned themselves with three aspects of personality! 1 . intelligence and related achievement; 2. other specific personality t r a i t s ; 3* general personal and social adjustment. Although H.S. Slusher ( 1 ) , using a standard I n t e l l i -gence Quotient test, found athletes to be less intelligent on this test than non-athletes, a study by H.C. Ray (2) indicated that the athlete used his intelligence more effectively. Employing Terman's Group Test and academic grades, Ray found that the athlete's grades i n one High School were eight per cent better than the grades of non-athletes with a higher 7 Intelligence Quotient. The non-athlete with a comparable Intelligence Quotient had an academic average eleven per cent below the athlete*s and f a i l e d four times more often than the athlete• Weber (3) used physical fitness, as measured by the Iowa Physical Efficiency Profile, rather than athletic participation as a comparative criterion. When the college grade point averages of the f i t and unfit were compared, Weber was unable to support Eay*s findings since the coefficient of correlation between fitness and success i n college was only .41 at the one per cent level of confidence. Specific personality t r a i t s , other than intelligence have been examined through the use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and i t s variations. Booth*s (4) results indicated that the non-athlete scored higher on the "interest" and "anxiety" variables while "varsity" athletes and upper class non-athletes scored higher on the "dominance" variable. Varsity athletes participating i n individual sports scored higher on the "depression" variable than any of the groups studied. Adding to the contrast, Slusher (5) found the athletic group scored higher In "masculinity" and " s t a b i l i t y " than the non-athletic group. "Hypochondriasis" was significantly higher for a l l athletic groups except swimmers. In order to determine any other possible areas of 8 difference in swimmers, Whiting and Stembridge (6) administered the Junior Minnesota Personality Inventory to groups of eleven-and twelve-year-old swimmers and persistent non-swimmers. A comparison of the mean for extroversion indicated significant differences (P <".01), the non-swimmers being more introverted. Non-swimmers also showed more neurotic tendencies on this test. Tillman (7) examined the relationship between physical fitness and selected personality t r a i t s . He used a battery of three personality tests and a physical fitness test. Boys ranking i n the top fifteen per cent l n fitness were compared to boys ranking i n the bottom fifteen per cent as to person-a l i t y t r a i t s . The physically f i t group scored higher i n dominance, extroversion, social orientation and interest i n people and group interaction. Attempts to formulate a more generalized comparison of personal and social adjustment have yielded contradictory results. Biddulph ( 8 ) , i n attempting to determine the relationship between athletic a b i l i t y and social adjustment used the California Test of Personality, the Henmon Nelson Intelligence Test and two subjective rating scales with groups of high school boys. Results indicated that the superior athletic achievement group showed, what Biddulph termed, a higher degree of personal and social adjustment 9 than did the group ranking low i n athletic achievement. The difference between the means was significant at the one per cent level. A study conducted by Sperling ( 9 ) » with a similar purpose, fa i l e d to indicate any significant differences. Pour objective personality tests were used on varsity athletes, intramural athletes and non-athletes. Varsity and intramural groups rated s l i g h t l y more favourably i n personal adjustment, were more extroverted and higher i n p o l i t i c a l interest scores. The c r i t i c a l ratios of the difference between the means ranged from k,00 to 8.10. No significant differences were found between different groups of athletes or between varsity and intramural athletes in other respects. Not only are differences between athletes and non-athletes minor i n the general area of adjustment, but Werner and Gottheil (10) demonstrated the negligible influence of athletics on non-athletes after four years of forced p a r t i c i -pation. Their study was conducted at the U.S. Military Academy using Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire with a group of three hundred and forty athletes and one hundred and sixteen non-athletes. The test was administered before and after the four year residence and no evidence was found to support the view that college athletics significantly Influences personality structure. 10 A Comparison of the Personalities of Different Groups of  Athletes The bases for comparing the personalities of athletes were twofold: 1. the sport i n which the athlete participates; 2. the degree of success the athlete experiences i n that sport. W.L. Lachle (11) used a competitive attitude scale of twenty-two items on two hundred and twenty-eight subjects participating in six different varsity sports. No d i f f e r -ences i n attitude toward winning were found among the participants. Personality differences have been found to exist among athletes, however. Swimmers were found to be highly integrated while track runners were found to be poorly integrated (12). A battery of four different personality inventory tests administered to six groups of athletes by L. Flanagan (13) indicated fencers to be more ascendant and feminine than other groups especially basketball players. Badminton players appeared to be more extroverted than volleyball players who i n turn were more unstable emotionally than basketball players. The differences between the mean scores were significant only for fencers and boxers i n this study. Similar studies have been conducted that were concerned 11 primarily with the t r a i t of "aggression". Husman (14) administered three projective tests to a group of boxers, wrestlers and cross-country runners. Results, significant at the five per cent level of confidence, indicated: 1. boxers had less over-all intensity of aggression than wrestlers, cross-country runners and the control group; 2. boxers were more l i k e l y than the other groups to direct aggression inward; 3. cross-country runners were more outwardly aggressive and had more ego defense than boxers. Johnson and Daniel (15) added to these findings by measuring the effects of wrestling upon personality dynamics using the "House - Tree - Person" projective test. Before a wrestling meet the subjects indicated high anxiety, aggres-sion and increased neurotic tendencies, a l l of which f e l l below normal or disappeared after the meet. The personalities of outstanding athletes have been analyzed on both a team and an Individual basis. The Cattell Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire administered to five collegiate football teams (16) showed that the winning team scored lowest on social factors (love of people, kindness, sympathy, unselfishness). Athletes on scholarships scored lowest of a l l on these factors which were considered by the authors to be characteristic of sportsmanship. 12 These findings were part i a l l y substantiated by H. Selst's (17) tests on seventy-seven outstanding sports champions. The prevailing types showed high psychological s t a b i l i t y and resistance, a "tough" attitude, a need to achieve and some obsessive-compulsive tendencies. This need to achieve for the champion was supported i n studies by La Place and Johnson. The Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory and a biographical data sheet developed by the author, J . La Place (18), were applied to a group of professional baseball players. The purpose was to determine whether specific personality traits are associated with success l n professional baseball. Results indicated that major league players were better able than minor league players to: 1. apply their strong "drive" towards a definite objective by exercising self-discipline; 2. adjust to occupations requiring social contact and getting along with other people; 3. exercise i n i t i a t i v e . Johnson's (19) findings, using the Rorschach and House - Tree - Person projective tests on twelve national champion athletes, are even more directly associated with the need to achieve. The interpretation of the responses indicated that the group possessed extreme aggression, emotions lacking s t r i c t control, high and generalized anxiety, 13 a high level of intellectual aspiration and exceptional feelings of self-assurance. The evidence suggests that, in these subjects, being a champion was a matter of psychological necessity. The Personality of the Weight-Trainer The results of studies conducted with Weight-Trainers indicate that, as a group, they possess personality characteristics which differentiate them from both the athlete and the non-athlete. J.B. Thune (20) compared Weight-Trainers to other non-weight training athletes. Items from five standard personality inventories along with interviews with f i f t y of the two hundred subjects were administered to Weight-Trainers and participants i n other sports at a Young Men's Christian Association. Findings showed that Weight-Trainers f e l t that their activity significantly improved their health, lacked desire to assume responsibility, lacked self-confidence, were shy, f e l t awkward playing most games, f e l t more manly and individualistic than other men and limited their friendship mostly to members of their own sex. A study by R.G. Harlow (21) made this same comparison using the Thematic Aperception Test and the Sentence Comple-tion Test. Eighteen variables, deduced by aid of psycho-analytic theory, suggested that the Weight-Trainer had: 1. greater feelings of masculine inadequacy; 14 2. more narcisstic impulses; 3. more concern with establishing his maleness; 4. fewer heterosexual tendencies; 5. h o s t i l i t y towards his environment (his mother i n particular); 6. an i n a b i l i t y to cope with his environment; 7 . consequent feelings of rejection. F.M. Henry (22) administered a personality schedule to student pilots, track athletes. Physical Education majors and Weight-Trainers. Findings indicated that Weight-Trainers were more neurotic, less ascendant, more introverted and hypochondriac than Physical Education majors. Summary A comparison of the athlete and the non-athlete i n this review of research indicated that no measurable difference had been established between these two groups as far as intelligence and general adjustment were concerned. However, certain specific personality differences did appear to exist, the athlete consistently scoring higher on traits of extroversion, dominance and hypochondriasis. Athletes differed in personality from one another, to a limited extent on the basis of the sport they played. Greater differences existed, however, between more successful and less successful athletes. For the champion, winning had become a psychological necessity. 15 The Weight-Trainer differed substantially from both the athlete and the non-athlete. Nevertheless, he approached most closely the champion athlete, i n respeot of the role his acti v i t y played i n his personal makeup. As Harlow (23) concluded, "Weight training may be looked on as answering a definite need and serving a specific function i n the adjustment process of many individuals i n our society." This conclusion suggested that, for the Weight-Trainer, there may be a strong relationship between body concept and s e l f -concept. Should this be true, i t would further differentiate them from the general population since studies by Leela (24) and Hood (25) indicated a coefficient of correlation, for the general population, of only . 2 . REFERENCES 1. Slusher, H.S,, "Personality and Intelligence Character-i s t i c s of Selected High School Athletes and Non-Athletes," The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1964. 2. Ray, H.C., "Inter-relationships of Physical and Mental A b i l i t i e s and Achievements of High School Boys," The  Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 19*f0. 3. Weber, J.R., "Relationships of Physical Fitness to Success i n College and to Personality," The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1953* k. Booth, E.G., Jr. . "Personality Traits of Athletes as Measured by the M.M.P.I.," The Research Quarterly of  the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 5. Slusher, H.S., loo, o l t . 6. Whiting, H.T., and Stembridge, D.E., "Personality and the Persistent Non-Swimmer," The Research Quarterly of  the A.A.H.P.E.R.. October, 7. Tillman, K., "Relationship Between Physical Fitness and Selected Personality Traits," The Research Quarterly  of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1965. 8. Biddulph, L.G., "Athletic Achievement and the Personal and Social Adjustment of High School Boys," The  Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 195^. 9. Sperling, A.P., "The Relationship Between Personality Adjustment and Achievement i n Physical Education Ac t i v i t i e s , " The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 19^2. 10. Werner, A.C. and Gottheil, E., "Personality Development and Participation i n College Athletics," The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 1966. 11. Lackie, W.L., "Expressed Attitudes of Various Groups of Athletes Toward Athletic Competition," The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1964. 12. Vazquez, V.C., "The Personality of Athletes," Pslcoteonla, May, 19^5. 17 13. Flanagan, L., "A Study of Personality Traits of Different Physical Activity Groups," The Research Quarterly of  the A.A.H.P.E.R.. October, 1951. 14. Busman, B.F., "Aggression i n Boxers and Wrestlers as Measured by Projective Techniques," The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.S.R., December, 1955* 15* Johnson, W.R., and Daniel, H.C., "Effects of a Combative Sport Upon Personality Dynamics as Measured by a Projective Test," The Research Quarterly of the  A.A.H.P.E.B.. December, 1965. 16 . Kroll, W., and Petersen, H.H., "Personality Factor Profiles of Collegiate Football Teams," The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.B.. December, 1965. 17* Seist, H., "Die psychische Egenart der Spltzensportler," Z.- Dlagnost. Psychol.. 1954, 1, pp. 1 2 7 - 1 3 7 . 18. La Place, J., "Personality and i t s Relationship to Success i n Professional Baseball," The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. October, 1954. 19. Johnson, W.R., and Daniel, H.C., loo, c i t . 2 0 . Thune, J.B., "Personality of Welghtlifters," The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.B.. October, 1949. 2 1 . Harlow, E.G., "Masculine Inadequacy and Compensatory Development of Physique," Journal of Personality. 1951* 19, PP. 3 1 2 - 3 2 3 . 2 2 . Henry, P.M., "Personality Differences i n Athletes, Physical Education and Aviation Students," Psychological  Bulletin. 3 8 : 8 , 1941, p. 7 4 5 . 2 3 . Harlow, R.G., loc. c i t . 24. Leela, C.Z., "Body Concept as i t Relates to Self Concept," The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.B.. December, 2 5 . Hood, A.B., "A Study of the Helatlonship Between Physique and Personality Variables Measured by the M.M.P.I.," The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., December, 196T CHAPTER II I METHODS AND PROCEDURES The personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of three groups of weight-trainers have been examined i n order to determine: 1. i f Weight-Trainers as a group d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n personality from the general population; 2. i f Weight-Trainers d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n personality from one another on the basis of t h e i r motivation f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n ; 3. i f one group of Weight-Trainers d i f f e r e d from the General Population s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than the other groups. Subjects A l l subjects were male between the ages of eighteen and t h i r t y - f i v e years. They were subdivided into three groups (A, B, and C) on the basis of t h e i r motivation f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , each group containing f i f t e e n subjects. Rather stringent c r i t e r i a were imposed on each group i n order to ensure that the subjects were t r u l y representative of the sub-group of Weight-Trainers they represented. The subjects i n Group A weight-trained as a condi-tio n i n g a c t i v i t y f o r other sports (other Athletes). They 19 must have participated i n another organized sport regularly and have used weight-training methods for at least two months on two separate occasions to train for that sport. Subjects tested included two Olympic rowers attending the University of British Columbia and thirteen intercollegiate football players most of whom were attending Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia at the time of testing. Group B subjects weight-trained i n order to improve their physique (Body-Builders). Improvement of physique referred to an increase i n musculature relative to whatever body proportions the individual deemed "ideal". Acceptable subjects i n this group must have weight-trained two hours each week for thirty of the last fifty-two weeks. This group included subjects from the University of British Columbia, a Vancouver, British Columbia, Young Men's Christian Associa-tion, a Toronto, Ontario, Young Men's Christian Association, and a number of "Health Spas". The subjects i n Group C weight-trained in order to increase their strength for weight l i f t i n g competitions (Weight L i f t e r s ) . Acceptable subjects i n this group must have competed i n at least two organized weight l i f t i n g competitions, the elements of which were the three Olympic " L i f t s " . These " L i f t s " - the "Snatch", the "Clean and Jerk", and the "Press" - are three different ways of l i f t i n g a 20 weighted bar from the floor to a position over the head with arms f u l l y extended. Eight of these subjects were enrolled at the University of British Columbia or the University of Washington when tested during a weight l i f t i n g competition at the University of British Columbia. The remainder, represent-ing private clubs in Vancouver and Seattle, were not and never had been university students. The Test The subjects were placed i n one of the three groups according to their response to the question, "Why do you weight-train?". The personality characteristics of each subject were then determined by administering "Cattell's Sixteen Person-a l i t y Factor Questionnaire (Form A)" which Included measures for the characteristics shown on Table I. The test was administered singly or i n small groups according to Cattell's instructions for the examiner. Simple and clear instructions are printed for the examinee on the cover page of the test booklet. Although the test can be vi r t u a l l y self-administering, an attempt was made to establish rapport with the examinees. Further, the instruc-tions were reinforced by orally reiterating the importance of the examinee being frank and honest i n describing himself. To help ensure this honesty, the subjects were not required to TABLE I 21 CATTELL'S INTERPRETATION OF THE SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTORS Personality Low Score de s c r i p t i o n Factors High Scores description Aloof, cold (Schlzothymia) D u l l , low capacity (Low »g») Emotional, unstable (Low ego strength) Submissive, mild (Submissiveness) Glum, s i l e n t (Desurgency) Casual, undependable (Low super ego strength) Timid, shy (Threctia) Tough, r e a l i s t i c (Harria) T r u s t f u l , adaptable (Inner relaxation) Conventional, p r a c t i c a l (Praxernia) Simple, awkward (Naivete) Confident, unshakeable (Confidence) Conservative, accepting (Conservati sm) Dependent, imitative (Group dependence) Lax, unsure (Low integration) Phlegmatic, composed (Low ergic tension) A B H H N Q l Q 2 Qi.. Warm, sociable (Cyclothymia) Bright, i n t e l l i g e n t (High "g") Mature, calm (High ego strength) Dominant, aggressive (Dominance) Enthusiastic, t a l k a t i v e (Surgency) Conscientious, persistent (High super ego strength) Adventurous, "thlck skinned" (Parmia) Sensitive, effeminate (Premsia) Suspecting, jealous (Protension) Bohemian, unconcerned (Alaxia) Sophisticated, polished (Shrewdness) Insecure, anxious (Timidity) Experimenting, c r i t i c a l (Radicalism) S e l f - s u f f i c i e n t , resourceful ( S e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y ) Controlled, exact (Self sentiment control) Tense, exciteable (High ergic tension) 22 reveal t h e i r names. (For fu r t h e r d e t a i l s on t e s t i n g procedure, see Appendix B.) The tests were hand scored and the raw data prepared f o r s t a t i s t i c a l analysis at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia's Computer Center. Method of Analysis The t e s t r e s u l t s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y arranged so as to make the three comparisons of personality implied i n the statement of the problem. Personality of Weight-Trainers Compared to the  General Population. This comparison was made by considering the three groups of weight-trainers as one. The significance of the difference between the combined means of the weight-tra i n e r s and the mean of the general population, f o r each of the sixteen f a c t o r s , was determined by the use of the " t " t e s t using the following procedures ( 1 ) : 1. The mean score f o r each f a c t o r i n each group was calculated; M =?X -N where Z X = the sum of the scores f o r each f a c t o r N = the number of scores f o r each f a c t o r . 2 . The standard deviation f o r each f a c t o r i n each group was calculated; 23 2~ where = the deviation of each score from the mean N = the number of scores for each factor 3» The combined means of the three groups for each factor were calculated; M comb = Nj M j + N 2 M 2 + H3M3 N i + N 2 + N3 where = the number of scores in group A N£ = the number of scores i n group B N3 = the number of scores i n group C = the mean score of group A M 2 = the mean score of group B =S the mean score of group C 4. The combined standard deviations of the three groups for each factor were calculated; 2 2 2 2 2 2 ' N 1 ( c r 1 + dj ) + N 2(cT2 + d 2 ) + No(cro + d,- ) comb =\j r J — •N where cr ^  = standard deviation of group A CT2 ~ standard deviation of group B crj = standard deviation of group C d 1 = ( M 1 - M comb) d 2 = (M2 " M c°mb) d^ = (M^ - M comb) 24 The standard error of the difference between the means of the Weight-Trainers (M comb) and the means of the general population were determined for each factor? c r D = N i N2 2 whereC7 1 = standard deviation of the weight-trainers 2 C7 2 = standard deviation of the general population N 1 = the number of Weight-Trainers N = the number i n the General Population 2 6. The " t " ratio was then computed for each factor; D - 0 t = °~ D where D = the obtained difference between the mean of the Weight-Trainers and the mean of the General Population (M1 - Mg) c r = the standard error of the difference D between and M^ . Personality Differences Among the Three Groups of  Weight-Trainers. Test results of the three groups of Weight-Trainers were compared for significant personality d i f f e r -ences by using an analysis of variance on each of the sixteen personality factors. Where a variance ratio (P) was found to 25 be significant at the one per cent level of confidence the three groups were re-analyzed individually on that factor using the " t " test to determine which two of the three groups d i f f e r most. The following steps were included in this procedure for each factor (2) . 1 . A correction term (C) was calculated for each factor; . ( z r ) C = N where 2 X = the sum of the scores of the forty-five subjects for one factor N = the total number of subjects. 2. The total sum of squares around the general mean for each factor for the three groups was calculated; s s T = z x 2 - c 2 where = the sum of the squares of the raw scores i n the three groups. 3 . The sum of the squares among the means of the three groups was calculated; UX±)2 ( z x 2 ) 2 (*x 3 ) 2 b t 3 M » s ~ + + C N X N 2 N3 2 where (ZX^) = the square of the sum of the scores in Group A ( £ X 2 ) = the square of the sum of the scores in Group B 26 2 (IXj) = the square of the sum of the scores i n Group C Nj^  = the number of scores in Group A N 2 * the number of scores i n Group B * the number of scores i n Group C. k. The sum of the squares within Groups A, B, and C was calculated; ssw « ssT - ssM,s where SS^ = the sum of squares around the general mean SSM's = s u m o f" s ^ u a r e s ^ong means. 5. The variances from each sum of squares was calculated; (A) Variance among the means of the Groups = ^ f 8 where s s M t s = sum of squares among means of Groups A, B, and C df = (K - 1) degrees of freedom where K i s the number of groups. SS (B) Variance within the Groups = where SS^ = sum of squares within the Groups df ss (H - K) degrees of freedom where N i s the total number of scores. 6. The variance r a t i oil (F) was determined; 27 7 . For factors with significant variance ratios, the t ratios between the three groups was calculated? ( A ) The standard error of each mean was found, SE„= «Jf where SD^ = standard deviation computed from the "within group" variance (B) The standard error of difference between means was found, SE = SDW I/I. + 1-d w 1/ N X N 2 where SD^ = "within group" standard deviation and N 2 = sizes of the groups being compared (C) The " t " ratio was computed, t - mean difference SE D Personality Differences Between Each Group of Weight- Trainers and the General Population. This comparison was made using almost the same method employed i n the comparison of the Weight-Trainers as a unit to the General Population. Each training group this time, however, was compared separately with the general population. The significance of the d i f f e r -ence between the mean for each factor i n each group and the mean for the general population was determined using the " t " test ( 3 ) . REFERENCES 1. Cattell, R.B., and Eber, H.W., Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Institute for Personality and Ab i l i t y Testing, Champaign, I l l i n o i s , 1957. PP. 11-19. 2. Garrett, H.E., Statistics i n Psychology and Education, New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1965* 3. Ibid CHAPTER IV RESULTS Three groups of Weight-Trainers were evaluated on sixteen personality characteristics. Group A included subjects who weight trained as a conditioning activity for another organized sport. Subjects in Group B were motivated to train by a desire to improve their physiques, while Group C subjects were competitive Weight Li f t e r s . The personalities of subjects i n these groups were examined i n three ways. F i r s t , the training groups were compared collectively to the General Population. Second, the relationships among the training groups were examined and, third, the training groups were compared separately to the General Population. The results of these analyses are interpreted below, recorded i n Tables II to VI and illustrated graphically l n Figures 1 to 5» Each of the five tables contains the s t a t i s t i c a l results of one of the investigations and corresponds with one of the five Figures. These Figures, with the exception of Figure 2, represent personality profiles of the groups tested relative to the General Population. The construction of the profiles u t i l i z e d Cattell's Sten Scale (1). This standard score system, based on a ten point scale, was devised in such a way as to show the mean value for each characteristic for the General Population at exactly Sten 5«5« The test constructor reported that scores more diverse than one sten from this band (i.e., scores at and above sten seven and at and below sten four) differed significantly, at the one per cent level, from the General Population on that Factor. I INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS Weight-Trainers Compared to the General Population Table II and Figure 1 indicate that Weight-Trainers, collectively, differed at the one per cent level of confi-dence from the General Population on five personality Factors including B, G, H. N and Q 2 as measured by the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Factor B (2) describes the level of intelligence of the subjects tested, a high score indicating above average intelligence and a low score indicating the opposite. The mean score of the Weight-Trainers on this factor was 8.11 as compared to 5»92 for the General Population. Such a d i f f e r -ence i n favour of the Weight-Trainers i s to be expected, however, since seventy-three per cent of the subjects were university students. Factor "G" (3) i s characterized most by energy and persistence and corresponds to the superego i n psychoanalytic terms. A high score indicates strength of character, 31 TABLE II WEIGHT-TRAINERS (GROUPS A, B AND C COMBINED) COMPARED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION WEIGHT '-TRAINERS* GENERAL POPULATION4" SIGNIFICANCE l e v e l of Factor M (comb) S.D. (comb) Mean S.D. SE D «t" confidence A 9.25 3.03 9.67 3.35 .^5 .01 1* B 8.11 2.23 5.92 2.06 .3^ 6.44 C 15.57 3.28 16.08 3.75 .50 1.02 E 14.21 3.76 13.51 3.90 .57 1.23 F 13.79 3.91 13.38 4.43 .59 .69 1% G 12.21 2.99 13.84 3.60 .46 3.5^ H 11.42 4.87 13.76 5.16 .7^ 3.16 1* I 8.89 3.06 8.39 3.50 .47 1.06 L 9.42 2.74 8.83 3.20 .41 1.32 M 12.73 3.01 12.15 3.^3 .46 1.26 1# N 10.30 2.56 11.70 2.62 .38 3.68 0 9.50 3.46 9.33 3.67 .51 .33 Ql 11.24 2.93 IO.36 2.83 .45 1.96 1% Q2 12.17 2.95 10.12 3.^6 .45 4.71 Q3 10.22 3.^5 11.13 3.11 .51 1.78 Q4 12.19 4.38 10.98 4.86 .67 1.80 * N = 45 + N = 1127 PERSONALITY FACTOR A B C E F G H I L M N O Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q » 4 MEAN GENERAL POPULATION 9.67 5.92 16.08 13.51 13.38 13.84 13.76 8.39 8.83 12.15 11.70 9.33 10.36 10.i2 11.13 10.98 SCORES OF WEIGHT-TRAINERS 9.25 8.11 15.57 14.21 13.79 12.21 11.42 8.89 9.42 12.73 10.30 9.50 11.24 12.17 10.22 12.19 PROFILES 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I . L M N Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 FIGURE 1 WEIGHT-TRAINERS (GROUPS A, B AND C) COMPARED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION ro 33 conscientiousness and persistence while a low score reveals lack of r i g i d internal standards, casualness and undepend-a b i l i t y . A mean score of 12.21 for the Weight-Trainers as compared to 13.84 for the General Population indicates that the Weight-Trainers demonstrated significantly less character strength. Essentially, Factor "H" (4) i s an indicator of extroversion. The Weight-Trainers' mean score of 11.42 was significantly below the General Population mean of 13*76 i l l u s t r a t i n g that, as a group, they were more shy, timid, withdrawn and restrained than i s considered "normal". Similarly the mean score of 10.30 for the Weight-Trainers on Factor "N" (5) was significantly below the 11.70 mean of the General Population. Thus Weight-Trainers showed themselves to be more naive, simple, unpretentious and content as compared with the more shrewd, sophisticated, polished and ambitious norm. The "Q2" (6) Factor complements Factor "H" since i t is one of the major components of Introversion. A significant difference on this Factor shows the Weight-Trainer to be more self-sufficient and resourceful than average and consequently, socially less group dependent. Thus, relative to the General Population, the Weight-Trainers were significantly more intelligent, undependable, withdrawn, unpretentious and self-sufficient. TABLE III GEOUPS A, B, AND C COMPARED 34 Source of Signl-Pactor Variation DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F f icance Groups 2 0.57600E 02 0.28800E 02 3.39 .05 A Error Total 42 44 0 . 3 5 7 2 0 E 0.4148GE 03 03 0.85048E 01 0 . 5 7 3 3 3 E 01 0 . 2 8 6 6 7 E 01 0.69 B 0.17347E 03 0.41302E 01 0.17920E 03 0.14000E 0.28000E 01 01 0.14 C 0.41200E 0.4148OE 03 03 0.98095E 01 0.12578E 02 0.62889E 01 0.42 E 0.62720E 0.63978E 03 03 0.14933E 02 0.44133E 02 0.22067E 02 1.44 F 0.64507E 03 0.15359E 02 0.68920E 03 0.48667E 0.97333E 01 01 0.39 G 0.52947E 03 0.12606E 02 0.53920E 03 0 . 6 8 0.35244E 02 0.17622E 02 H 0.10919E 0.1127IE 04 04 0.25997E 02 0.42178E 02 0.21089E 02 2.32 I 0.38147E 03 0.90825E 01 0.42364E 03 0.29556E 0.59H1E 01 01 0.37 L 0 .33307E 03 O.79302E 01 0.33898E 03 0.26867E 0.53733E 02 02 2.92 M 0.38707E 0.44080E 03 03 0.92159E 01 0.22533E 02 0.11267E 02 1.76 N 0.26827E 0.29080E 03 03 0.63873E 01 0.54444E 02 0.27222E 02 2.15 . . . 0 0.53213E 0.58658E 03 03 0.12670E 02 0.28978E 02 0.14489E 02 1.89 ---Q l 0.32133E 03 O.76508E 01 J L 0.35031E 03 0.30000E 02 O.150OOE 02 1.51 mm mm mm % 0.41680E 03 0.99238E 01 i. 0.44680E 03 0.16445E 01 0.82224E 00 0.06 Q 3 0.53613E 03 0.12765E 02 j 0 .53778E 03 0.29200E 02 0.14600E 02 0 .73 0.84000E 03 0.20000E 02 0.86920E 03 MEAN SCORES t-* oo O ro ON • ' • • • ' • - • • • - • • • • o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Q W O a GO > to o o § ro w o s: o Ct © <<J CD 0? H- Ct t* H U H -p. H CD CD ct 4 ct CD 00 CD 09 03 36 Groups A, B and C Compared Table III Indicates that an analysis of variance of the sixteen factor scores for the three training groups fai l e d to find any differences significant at the one per cent level. However, i t should be noted that an P ratio of 3.39 exists for Factor "A" (?). This i s significant at the five per cent level. Figure 2 shows that the mean score of Group A (10 .86) , designated Other Athletes, differs from the mean scores of Groups B and C which are exactly the same (8 .46) . Thus subjects in Group A tended to be warmer, more sociable, easy going and trustful than subjects i n Groups B and C who were more aloof and s t i f f . For the purposes of this study, however, the difference i s not considered significant but only of interest. Groups A. B and C Compared Independently to the General  Population Group A. Table IV shows that Group A (Other Athletes) differed significantly from the General Population on three personality Factors including Factors B, H and N. Factor "B" i s the evaluation of intelligence already mentioned. The mean score for Group A of 7.73 compared to 5.92 for the General Population indicates a higher level of intelligence for Group A. Once again, this was to be expected since a l l fifteen of the subjects i n this group were 37 TABLE IV GROUP A (OTHER ATHLETES) COMPARED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION GROUP A* GENERAL POPULATION + SIGNIFICANCE - l e v e l of Factor Mean S.D. Mean S.D. SE D confidence A 10.86 2.80 9.67 3.35 • 73 1.63 1* B 7.73 2.32 5.92 2.06 .60 3.02 C 15.33 2.11 16.08 3.75 .56 1.34 E 14.06 3.56 13.51 3.90 .92 .60 F 14.53 3.38 13.38 4.43 .88 1.31 G 12.50 3.98 13.84 3.60 1.03 1.34 H 10.26 4.56 13.76 5.16 1.19 2.94 1# I 10.26 2.79 8.39 3.50 .73 2.56 L 9.13 2.82 8.83 3.20 .73 .41 M 13.66 3.36 12.15 3.43 .87 1.74 1% N 10.40 1.85 11.70 2.62 .45 1.89 0 11.06 3.06 9.33 3.67 .79 2.19 Ql 10.13 3.33 IO.36 2.83 .87 .26 Q2 11.40 3.28 10.12 3.46 .85 1.51 Q3 10.00 1.93 11.13 3 . H .51 2.21 04 13.33 4.31 10.98 4.86 1.11 2.11 * N m 15 + N = 1127 PERSONALITY FACTOR A B C E F G H I L M N 0 Qi . Q2 Q3 04 MEAN GENERAL POPULATION 9.67 5.92 1 6 . 0 8 13.51 13.38 13.84 13.76 8.39 8.83 12.15 11.70 9.33 10.36 10.12 11.13 10.98 SCORES OF OTHER ATHLETES 10.86 7.73 15.33 1 4 . 0 6 1 4 . 5 3 1 2 . 4 6 10.26 1 0 . 2 6 9.13 13.66 1 0 . 4 0 11.06 10.13 1 1 . 4 0 10.00 13*33 PROFILES 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 A B C E F G H I L M N O Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 FIGURE 3 GROUP A (OTHER ATHLETES) COMPARED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION 00 39 university students. The measure of extroversion represented by Factor H shows that Group A with a mean score of 10.26 was more withdrawing and restrained than was the General Population whose mean score was 13.76. Similarly, a mean score of 10.40 as compared to 11.70 on Factor " N " signified that the Other Athletes were simpler and less pretentious than normal. Hence, i n comparison with the General Population, subjects i n Group A demonstrated more Intelligence and restraint but less shrewdness as illustrated i n Figure 3* Group B. This group, designated Body-Builders, differed from the General Population on Factor B, i n t e l l i -gence, i n the same direction as did Group A. Unlike Group A, however, this difference cannot be entirely accounted for by an exclusively university sample. Eight of the fifteen subjects i n this group were not university students. Table V and Figure 4 indicate that Group B also differed on Factors (8) and Q 2« A mean score of 12.00 on Factor for this group compared to a mean score of only IO.36 for the General Population. This difference means that the temperaments of subjects i n Group B tended toward radicalism as opposed to conservatism. In addition, above average self-sufficiency was demonstrated by subjects i n Group A by their higher mean 40 TABLE V GBOUP B (BODY-BUILDERS) COMPARED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION GROUP B* GENERAL POPULATION4 SIGNIFICANCE Factor Mean S.D. Mean S.D. SE D »t" level of confidence A B C 8.46 8.60 15.53 3.01 2.57 3.59 9.67 5.92 16.08 3.35 2.06 3.75 .77 .66 .93 1.57 4.06 .59 1* E F G 13.66 12.40 12.46 4.17 3.96 1.94 13.51 13.38 13.84 3.90 4.43 3.60 1.08 1.02 .51 .14 .96 2.11 H I L 11.66 8.40 9.20 4.90 2.61 2.16 13.76 8.39 8.83 5.16 3.50 3.20 1.27 .67 .56 1.65 .01 .66 M N 0 11.20 11.26 8.06 2.22 2.79 3.24 12.15 11.70 9.33 3.43 2.62 3.67 .57 .72 .84 1.66 .61 1.51 Ql Q 2 Q3 Qlj. 12.00 13.40 10.46 11.53 2.28 2.41 4.47 4.25 IO.36 10.12 11.13 10.98 2.83 3.46 3.11 4.86 .59 .67 1.15 1.10 2.79 4.89 .58 .5© 1% * N = 15 + N = 1127 PERSONALITY FACTOR A B C E F G H I L M N 0 Qj. Q 2 Q3 Q4 MEAN GENERAL POPULATION 9.67 5.92 16.08 13.51 13.38 13.84 13.76 8.39 8.83 12.15 11.70 9.33 10.36 10.12 11.13 10.98 SCORES OF BODY-BUILDERS 8.46 8.60 15.53 13.66 12.40 12.46 11.66 8.40 9.20 11.20 11.26 8.06 12.00 13.40 10.46 11.53 PROFILES A B C E F G H I L M N 0 Ql Q2 Q3 04 FIGURE 4 GROUP B (BODY-BUILDERS) COMPARED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION 42 scores on Factor Qg in comparison with the General Population. Hence Group A, on this test, showed more i n t e l l i -gence, radicalism and self sufficiency than the General Population. Group C. This group, called Weight Lifters, differed significantly from the General Population on Factors B, G and N , a l l of which have "been discussed. While subjects i n Group C, seven of whom were university students, demonstrated an above average i n t e l l i -gence score of 8.00 as compared to 5»92, their means scores of 11.33 as compared to 13.84 and 9*26 as compared to 11.70 shows them to have less character strength (Factor G) and shrewdness (Factor N ) respectively, than the General Population. These results are contained in Table VI and Figure 5. While the limitations of Personality Tests have been recognized (9 )» the results of this study nevertheless indicated the following: 1. Weight-Trainers did not d i f f e r i n personality from one another when grouped on the basis of their motivation for participation. An analysis of variance for the three groups on sixteen personality factors failed to yield any F ratios significant at the one per cent level; 2. Weight-Trainers, collectively, differed in 43 TABLE VI GROUP C (WEIGHT LIFTERS) COMPARED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION GROUP C* GENERAL POPULATION SIGNIFICANCE l e v e l of Factor Mean S.D. Mean S.D. SE D " t " confidence A 8.46 2.63 9.67 3.35 .68 1.77 1* B 8.00 1.61 5.92 2.06 .41 5.07 C 15.86 3.11 16.08 3.75 .81 .00 E 14.93 3.41 13.51 3.90 .88 1.61 F 14.46 3.98 13.38 4.43 1.02 1.05 1% G 11.33 2.53 13.84 3.60 .65 3.86 H 12.35 5.32 13.76 5.16 1.37 1.02 I 8.00 3.29 8.39 3.50 .85 .45 L 9.93 3.09 8.83 3.20 .80 .12 M 13.33 3.09 12.15 3.43 .80 1.47 N 9.26 2.57 11.70 2.62 .66 3.69 0 9.40 3.41 9.33 3.67 .88 .08 Ql 11.60 2.75 IO.36 2.83 .71 1.74 Q2 11.73 3.30 10.12 3.46 .86 1.87 O3 10.20 3.46 11.13 3 . H .90 1.03 04 11.73 4.38 10.98 4.86 1.13 .66 * N = 15 + N = 1127 PERSONALITY FACTOR A B C E F G H I MEAN GENERAL POPULATION 9.67 5.92 16.08 13.51 13.38 13.84 13.76 8.39 SCORES OF WEIGHT LIFTERS 8.46 8.00 15.86 14.93 14.46 11.33 12.35 8.00 L M N 0 Qi Q2 Q3 04 8.83 12.15 11.70 9.33 IO .36 10.12 11.13 10.98 9.93 13.33 9.26 9 . 4 0 11.60 11.73 10.20 11.73 PROFILES 10 9 8 I 5 4 3 2 1 A B C E F G H I L M N 0 Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 FIGURE 5 GROUP C (WEIGHT LIFTERS) COMPARED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION 45 personality from the General Population, " t " tests yielded s i g n i f i c a n t differences on f i v e personality factors Including i n t e l l i g e n c e , character strength, extroversion, s o p h i s t i c a t i o n and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y ; 3. Each t r a i n i n g group d i f f e r e d i n personality from the General Population. Group A d i f f e r e d on factors representing i n t e l l i g e n c e , extroversion and so p h i s t i c a t i o n . Group B d i f f e r e d on i n t e l l i g e n c e also as well as radicalism and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , while Group C d i f f e r e d on i n t e l l i g e n c e , character strength and s o p h i s t i c a t i o n . REFERENCES 1. Cattell, R.B., and Eber, H.W., Supplement of Norms for Forms A and B of the Sixteen Personality Factor  Questionnaire, Champaign, I l l i n o i s : Institute for Personality and Ab i l i t y Testing, 1962, p. 19. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Cattell, R.B., and Eber, H.W., Handbook for the Sixteen  Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : Institute for Personality and Abi l i t y Testing, 1957. p. 11. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. E l l i s P« P« P« P-P. P. 13. 14. 17. 18. 11. 18. A., "The Validity of Personality Questionnaires," Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 43, No. 5, September 1946, pp. 385-440. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary This research was motivated by three studies (1, 2, 3) whose findings indicated that the personality of Weight-Trainers differed noteably from established norms. Further-more, this divergence was i n a direction which would generally be considered socially undesireable. Such findings were part i a l l y supported by related literature which concluded that the personality of athletes differed from the personality of non-athletes and the personalities of athletes themselves differed on the basis of success and a b i l i t y . More pertinent, however, was the fact that Weight-Trainers were shown to d i f f e r i n personality from both the athlete and the non-athlete. This study proceeded on the assumption that the term Weight-Trainers actually included three distinct groups -Other Athletes, Body-Builders and Weight Lif t e r s . The problem was to determine whether or not personality d i f f e r -ences did exist between Weight-Trainers and the General Population and, i f so, to determine whether or not these differences were accounted for predominately by one of the three groups. In order to make this evaluation, Cattell's Sixteen 48 Personality Factor Test was administered to forty-five subjects, including fifteen subjects categorized as Other Athletes, fifteen Body-Builders and fifteen Weight Lifters. Conclusions The results of this investigation led to the following conclusions: 1. Personality differences did exist between Weight-Trainers and the General Population; 2 . These personality differences were not accounted for more or less by one training group than another. The f i r s t conclusion, based on five significant personality differences, lends support to the evidence which states that the personality of the athlete and non-athlete d i f f e r . Once again i t cannot be determined i f persons possessing these characteristics were attracted to athletics or i f athletics nurtured these characteristics. A combina-tion of both i s possibly the answer, with the exception of intelligence. The relative intelligence of athletes has long been a controversial topic. While i t was stated that the superior intelligence of this study's subjects compared to the General Population was probably due to the seventy-three per cent university sample, i t i s noteworthy that these subjects, including the twenty-seven per cent who were not university students, scored one Sten above the norms for the university population (4). It must be concluded that, i n this case, athletic activity attracted participants with superior intelligence. Eesearch with the proportion of university athletes reversed would help c l a r i f y the matter. The four remaining personality characteristics shown to d i f f e r significantly support the concensus of the l i t e r a -ture reviewed. They describe the Weight-Trainer as having less character strength and being more withdrawn, naive and self-sufficient. While this description opposes the findings of Booth (5), Whiting (6) and Tillman (7) concerning the athlete i n general, i t i s similar, i n a number of ways, to conclusions by Thune (8), Harlow (9) and Henry (10) concern-ing the Weight-Trainer specifically. Such findings, subject to the limitations imposed by the use of a dissimilar testing instrument, substantiate the contention that the Weight-Trainer differs in personality not only from the non-athlete but from the athlete, as well. Because of the second conclusion, that none of the three training groups contributed disproportionately to the personality differences between Weight-Trainers and the General Population, i t was deduced that the Weight-Trainers, collectively, had homogeneous personalities when compared on the basis of their motivation for participation. If personality differences do exist within this group of athletes, beyond individual differences, another basis for 50 grouping must be found. One such grouping suggested by-related research would be on the basis of the degree of success experienced within or because of the weight training program. It seems relatively certain that significant differences exist between most athletes and non-athletes. However, there are three related problems for which l i t t l e objective evidence i s available: 1 . Does athletic activity lead to the development of specific personality characteristics? 2. Are these characteristics socially deslreable? 3 . What Physical Education methods are most effective for promoting these characteristics? Research directly concerned with these problems would provide a valuable means of clarifying the objectives of Physical Educators. REFERENCES 1. Thune, J.B., "Personality of Weight L i f t e r s , " The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R., October, 1949. 2. Harlow, R.G., "Masculine Inadequacy and Compensatory Development of Physique," Journal of Personality. 1951» 19, pp. 312-23. 3. Henry, F.M., "Personality Differences i n Athletes, Physical Education and Aviation Students," Psychological  B u l l e t i n . 38:8, 1941, p. 475. 4. C a t t e l l , R.B., and Eber, H.W., Supplement of Norms f o r Forms A and B of the Sixteen Personality Faetor  Questionnaire. Champaign. I l l i n o i s . 1962, p. 15. 5. Booth, E.G., J r . , "Personality T r a i t s of Athletes as Measured by the M.M.P.I.," The Research Quarterly of  the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 195o\ 6. Whiting, H.T., arid Stembridge, D.E., "Personality and the Persistent Non-Swimmer," The Research Quarterly of the  A.A.H.P.E.R.. October, 196*5^  7. Tillman, K., "Relationship Between Physical Fitness and Selected Personality T r a i t s , " The Research Quarterly  of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1965. 8. Thune, J.B., l o c . c i t . 9. Harlow, R.G., l o c . e l t . 10. Henry, P.M., l o c . o l t . BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A l l p o r t , G.W. Personality; A Psychological Interpretation. New York: Holt, Rienhardt and Winston, 1937. Anastasi, A. Psychological Testing. New York: Macmillan Company, 1961. Blddulph, L.G. "A t h l e t i c Achievement and the Personal and S o c i a l Adjustment of High School Boys," The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 1954". Booth, E.G., J r . "Personality T r a i t s of Athletes as Measured by the M.M.P.I.," The Research Quarterly of the  A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 1958. C a t t e l l , R.B., and Eber, H.W. Handbook f o r the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing, 1957. C a t t e l l , R.B. Personality: A Systematic Theoretical and  Factual Study. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing, 1959. C a t t e l l , R.B. Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing, 1962. C a t t e l l , R.B. Supplement of Norms f o r Forms A and B of the  Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing, 1962. Coleman, J.C. Abnormal Psychology and Modern L i f e . Chicago: Foresman and Company, 1965. E l l i s , A. "The V a l i d i t y of Personality Questionnaires," Psychological B u l l e t i n . 4-3:385-440, September, 1946. Ferguson, L.W. Personality Measurement. New York: McGraw H i l l Book Company, 1952. Flanagan, L. "A Study of Personality T r a i t s of Different Physical A c t i v i t y Groups," The Research Quarterly of the  A.A.H.P.E.R.. October, 1951. Garrett, H.E. S t a t i s t i c s i n Psychology and Education. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1965. 53 Gordon, R.G. Personality. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc., 1928. Haggard, H.W., and Clements, F.C. The Anatomy of Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publisher, 1936. Harlow, R.G. "Masculine Inadequacy and Compensatory Development of Physique," The Journal of Personality. 1951, 19:312-323. Henry, F.M. "Personality Differences i n Athletes, Physical Education and Aviation Students," Psychological B u l l e t i n . 1941, 38:8. Hood, A.B. "A Study of the Relationship Between Physique and Personality Variables Measured the M.M.P.I.," The  Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1965. Husman, B.F. "Aggression i n Boxers and Wrestlers as Measured by Projective Techniques," The Research Quarterly of the  A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1955. Johnson, W.R., and Daniel, H.C. "Effects of a Combative Sport Upon Personality Dynamics as Measured by a Projective Test," The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 1955. K r o l l , W., and Petersen, H.H. "Personality Factor P r o f i l e s of Collegiate Football Teams," The Research Quarterly of the  A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1965. Lackie, W.L. "Expressed Attitudes of Various Groups of Athletes Toward A t h l e t i c Competition," The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1964. La Place, J . "Personality and i t s Relationship to Success i n Professional Baseball,•" The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. October, 19541 Leela, C L . "Body Concept as i t Relates to Se l f Concept," The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 196T: Ray, H.C. "Inter-relationships of Physical and Mental A b i l i t i e s and Achievements of High School Boys," The  Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 1940. Sei s t , H. "Die psychische Egenart der Spitzensportler," Z. Dlagnost. Psychol.. 2, 1954. 54 Slusher, H.S. "Personality and Intelligence Characteristics of Selected High School Athletes and Non-Athletes," The  Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1964. Sperling, A.P. "The Relationship Between Personality Adjust-ment and Achievement i n Physical Education A c t i v i t i e s , " The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.B.. December, 1948. Tillman, K. "Relationship Between Physical Fitness and Selected Personality T r a i t s , " The Research Quarterly of  the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 19&1T. Thune, J.B. "Personality of Weight L i f t e r s , " The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. October, 194"9» Vazquez, V.C. "The Personality of Athletes," Pslootecnla. May, 1945. Weber, J.R. "Relationships of Physical Fitness to Success i n College and to Personality," The Research Quarterly of  the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1953. Werner, A.C, and Go t t h e i l , E. "Personality Development and P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n College A t h l e t i c s , " The Research  Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 1966. Whiting, H.T., and Stembrldge, D.E. "Personality and the Persistent Non-Swimmer," The Research Quarterly of the  A.A.H.P.E.R.. October, 195J. ' APPENDIX APPENDIX A TABLE VII RAW SCORES OP SUBJECTS IN GROUP A (OTHER ATHLETES) PERSONALITY FACTORS A B C E F G H I L M N 0 Ql Q2 $3 Q4 1 10 7 19 16 14 17 19 13 2 13 11 5 11 16 11 8 2 6 8 14 9 6 12 1 11 10 13 9 10 8 15 9 12 3 12 6 16 14 16 13 13 8 9 14 12 13 7 6 6 19 4 10 9 16 15 16 8 14 8 7 15 8 8 14 9 11 9 5 7 10 14 16 12 4 4 8 9 17 10 6 12 13 12 7 CTS 6 11 9 16 8 13 13 8 6 9 17 9 13 8 13 13 13 FBJE 7 17 5 15 12 19 9 10 12 11 18 8 14 6 13 7 17 \-> co 8 10 8 20 17 18 11 8 13 11 12 14 13 17 16 10 15 9 11 7 12 19 17 20 16 7 11 5 12 14 8 10 9 10 10 7 9 16 13 14 15 7 12 9 13 12 11 10 9 10 11 11 15 10 13 21 16 12 13 14 10 15 10 15 10 8 12 21 12 11 6 15 12 18 15 11 14 15 17 11 10 9 13 9 18 13 12 6 14 14 17 13 7 7 5 13 9 8 12 13 12 15 14 11 9 17 16 10 17 9 8 9 15 8 14 7 7 8 8 15 13 7 13 19 12 8 14 13 10 8 13 11 13 8 11 17 TABLE VIII RAW SCORES OP SUBJECTS IN GROUP B (BODY-BUILDERS) PERSONALITY FACTORS A B C E P G H I L M N O Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4 1 5 9 9 16 13 9 11 8 12 11 6 9 13 15 4 12 2 7 10 18 20 15 8 11 8 6 12 10 8 15 14 9 8 3 5 13 20 22 7 10 15 2 10 14 9 4 14 16 16 6 4 5 10 15 11 8 14 1 9 10 14 14 9 16 15 9 21 5 11 9 13 8 5 14 13 11 5 13 13 7 10 14 15 4 6 16 8 10 15 20 12 16 12 10 9 9 8 12 8 5 12 7 8 8 19 13 15 15 18 7 9 8 11 4 11 14 13 9 8 10 5 17 8 11 16 19 7 8 10 16 7 8 10 12 10 9 8 8 12 12 17 13 8 8 12 14 11 16 11 13 9 11 10 10 5 21 11 12 18 10 10 11 11 13 9 13 16 11 13 11 5 9 20 9 14 9 10 5 6 13 16 7 10 13 15 15 12 8 13 13 11 11 15 7 7 12 13 13 9 14 14 3 10 13 10 4 14 14 9 9 5 11 10 7 8 7 12 9 7 .9 14 7 7 15 16 12 14 16 12 8 10 11 4 13 14 19 17 15 13 11 17 10 17 11 15 9 9 9 9 15 8 16 10 16 57 TABLE IX RAW SCORES OP SUBJECTS IN GROUP C (WEIGHT LIFTERS) PERSONALITY FACTORS A B C E P G H I L H N 0 Qj Q2 Q3 04 1 11 8 21 16 14 16 12 5 5 9 12 5 12 8 14 1 2 10 11 14 14 12 8 7 9 13 16 6 10 13 15 16 16 3 8 7 18 11 14 9 9 9 3 10 13 7 13 9 11 8 4 7 9 18 19 20 7 20 10 11 18 7 7 16 17 10 14 5 4 6 11 11 18 14 14 10 8 16 11 13 12 11 13 8 co 6 EH 9 6 15 12 10 11 11 2 11 17 10 15 9 14 11 12 i 7 10 11 16 19 17 10 19 9 12 13 7 4 16 9 13 2 5 6 17 10 8 9 4 12 7 16 7 8 11 18 11 18 9 11 9 14 13 11 11 12 9 8 13 10 12 9 16 9 13 10 6 9 12 16 9 11 8 6 10 12 10 11 11 12 10 12 11 4 8 18 15 14 15 15 12 12 14 7 6 15 15 11 11 12 10 8 11 16 19 10 11 9 14 15 14 14 8 14 2 16 13 13 9 19 13 22 15 23 10 11 10 11 10 6 8 6 16 14 9 6 14 16 15 12 5 9 14 14 6 13 12 8 5 14 15 10 8 21 23 14 12 16 0 10 7 12 6 11 12 11 12 APPENDIX B TEST INSTRUCTIONS What to Do Inside t h i s booklet are some questions to see what attitudes and int e r e s t s you have. There are no " r i g h t " and "wrong" answers because everyone has the r i g h t to his own views. To be able to get the best advice from your r e s u l t s , you w i l l want to answer them exactly and t r u l y . I f a separate "Answer Sheet" has not been given to you, turn t h i s booklet over and tear off the Answer Sheet on the back page. Write your name and other p a r t i c u l a r s at the top of the Answer Sheet. F i r s t , you should answer the four sample questions below so that you can see whether you need to ask anything before s t a r t i n g . Although you are to read the questions i n t h i s booklet, you must record your answers on the answer sheet (alongside the same number as i n the booklet). There are three possible answers to each question. Read the following examples and mark your answers at the top of your answer sheet where i t says "Examples". Put a mark, x, i n the left-hand box i f your answer choice i s the "a" answer, i n the middle box i f your answer choice i s the "b" answer, and i n the right-hand box i f you choose the "c" 59 answer. Examples 1. I l i k e to watch team games, (a) yes, (b) occasionally, (c) no. 2. I prefer people who: (a) are reserved, (b) (are) i n between, (c) make friends quickly. 3. Money cannot bring happiness, (a) yes (true), (b) i n between, (c) no ( f a l s e ) . 4. Woman i s to c h i l d as cat i s to: (a) k i t t e n , (b) dog, (c) boy. In the l a s t example there i s a ri g h t answer - k i t t e n . But there are very few such reasoning items among the questions. Ask now i f anything i s not c l e a r . The examiner w i l l t e l l you i n a moment to turn the page and s t a r t . When you answer, keep these four points i n mind: 1. You are asked not to spend time pondering. Give the f i r s t , natural answer as i t comes to you. Of course, the questions are too short to give you a l l the • p a r t i c u l a r s you would sometimes l i k e to have. For instance, the above question asks you about "team games" and you might be fonder of f o o t b a l l than basketball. But you are to reply " f o r the average game", or to s t r i k e an average i n situations of the kind stated. Give the best answer you can at a rate not slower than f i v e or s i x a minute. You should f i n i s h i n a l i t t l e more than half an hour. 2. Try not to f a l l back on the middle, "uncertain" answers except when the answer at e i t h e r end i s r e a l l y impossible f o r you - perhaps once every two or three questions. 3« Be sure not to skip anything, but answer every question, somehow. Some may not apply to you very well, but give your best guess. Some may seem personal; but remember that the answer sheets are kept c o n f i d e n t i a l and cannot be scored without a s p e c i a l s t e n c i l key. Answers to p a r t i c u l a r questions are not inspected. 4 . Answer as honestly as possible what i s true of you. Do not merely mark what seems "the r i g h t thing to say" to Impress the examiner. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077208/manifest

Comment

Related Items