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 t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 196'4 by  In presenting  this  f o r an advanced that  thesis  degree at  in partial  I further  freely  s c h o l a r l y purposes  Department  o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n  of  It  this  Head o f my  i s understood  that  t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be  permission,,  Physical Education and Recreation  A p r i l , 1967  agree  f o r r e f e r e n c e and  may be g r a n t e d by the  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8^ Canada r , a t e  available  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f  thesis for  Department  requirements  the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I  one L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t  study.  f u l f i l m e n t o f the  copying allowed  ABSTRACT The personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of three groups of Weight-Trainers 1.  were Investigated i n order to determine:  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 from the general population; 2.  i f Weight-Trainers  d i f f e r e d from one another  when compared on the basis of t h e i r motivation for participation; 3.  i f one group of Weight-Trainers  deviated from  the norm more than the other groups. C a t t e l l ' s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire was administered to f o r t y - f i v e subjects.  F i f t e e n of these  subjects trained as a conditioning a c t i v i t y f o r another sport, f i f t e e n trained to improve t h e i r physique and f i f t e e n trained to increase t h e i r strength f o r Weight L i f t i n g  competitions.  Results, derived by the methods of an analysis of variance and " t " t e s t s , indicated that: 1.  Weight-Trainers,  as a group, d i f f e r at the one  per cent l e v e l from the general population on measures of i n t e l l i g e n c e , character strength, naivete, extroversion and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y ; 2.  Weight-Trainers  are a r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous  group of athletes.  TABLE OP CONTENTS CHAPTER I.  II.  PAGE  INTRODUCTION  1  Purpose of Study .................................  1  J u s t i f i c a t i o n of the Problem  1  Limitations  2  Definitions  3  Personality  3  Weight-Trainers  3  General Population .............................  3  REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE ...........................  6  A Comparison of the Personalities of the Athlete and Non-Athlete ........................  6  A Comparison of the Personalities of D i f f e r e n t Groups of Athletes ................... 10 The Personality of the Weight-Trainer III.  13  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  IV.  • 27 29  RESULTS Interpretation of Results  30  Weight-Trainers Compared to the General Population Groups A, B and C Compared  30 36  Groups A, B and C Compared Independently to the General Population ...................... 38 V.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................ 47 Summary .......................................... 47 Conclusions ...................•..•*...........••• 48 52  BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A.  RAW SCORES  55  APPENDIX B.  TEST INSTRUCTIONS  58  LIST OF TABLES TABLE I.  PAGE C a t / t e l l * s I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the S i x t e e n Personality Factors  II.  Weight-Trainers  (Groups A, B and C Combined)  Compared t o the General P o p u l a t i o n III. IV.  Group A (Other A t h l e t e s ) Compared t o the  ^0  Group C (Weight L i f t e r s ) Compared t o the General Population  VII.  37  Group B (Body-Builders) Compared t o the General Population  VI.  31  Groups A, B and C Compared  General Population V.  • 21  ^3  Raw Scores of S u b j e c t s i n Group A (Other A t h l e t e s ) ................................ 55  VIII.  Raw Scores of S u b j e c t s i n Group B (Body-Builders)  IX.  56  Raw Scores of S u b j e c t s i n Group C (Weight L i f t e r s )  57  LIST OP FIGURES FIGURE 1.  PAGE  Weight-Trainers  (Groups A, B and C) Compared t o  the G e n e r a l P o p u l a t i o n  32  2.  Groups A, B and C Compared  35  3.  Group A (Other A t h l e t e s ) Compared t o the General P o p u l a t i o n  4.  Group B (Body-Builders) Compared t o the General P o p u l a t i o n  5.  38  41  Group C (Weight L i f t e r s ) Compared t o the General P o p u l a t i o n  44  CHAPTER  I  INTRODUCTION Purpose of Study The purpose of t h i s study was to determine the personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of three groups of weighttrainers.  I t was hypothesized that there would "be s i g n i f i -  cant differences l n personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s among the three groups of weight-trainers  when examined by C a t t e l l * s  Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Form A) ( 1 ) . J u s t i f i c a t i o n 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 s p e o i f i c a l l y (2.  3 , k).  While these studies concluded that weight  t r a i n i n g f u l f i l l e d a "need" f o r the participant; they d i d not attempt to d i f f e r e n t i a t e among Weight-Trainers as to t h e i r motives f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  Results indicated s i g n i f i c a n t  differences l n personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between WeightTrainers and the general population  but no evidence was  available to indicate whether or not a sub-group of WeightTrainers was contributing a disporportionate  amount of t h i s  difference to the r e s u l t s . More p r e c i s e l y then, there were three aspects of  2  t h i s research: 1.  to gather evidence which would e i t h e r support or contradict the p o s i t i o n that s i g n i f i c a n t differences existed between the personalities of Weight-Trainers, as an undifferentiated group, and the general population;  2.  to determine i f there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n personality among three subgroups of Weight-Trainers d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by t h e i r motives f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n ;  3.  to determine which, i f any, of the sub-groups of Weight-Trainers d i f f e r e d most from the general population.  Limitations Both the subjects and the design imposed s t r i c t l i m i t s on the scope of the study.  The subjects, males  between the ages of eighteen and t h i r t y - f i v e years, were not representative of a s p e c i a l segment of the population nor were they a random sample.  Seventy-three per cent of the  subjects when tested were u n i v e r s i t y students while twentyseven per cent of the subjects were otherwise occupied. For t h i s 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 t r a i n i n g but only a f t e r they had been t r a i n i n g f o r some time.  Hence, i t was not possible to determine whether  weight t r a i n i n g influenced the participants* personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or c e r t a i n personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s predisposed persons toward weight t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s . Definitions The context i n which three terms were used should be clarified. Personality.  The terms personality and personality  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were used interchangeably.  They refered not  merely to some narrow concept of neuroticism or "adjustment" or some s p e c i a l kind of a b i l i t y , but to a l l the main,' non-physical, dimensions along which people can d i f f e r , according to basic f a c t o r analytic research ( 5 ) «  These  dimensions are, according to C a t t e l l , sixteen i n number and w i l l be described i n Chapter 3. Weight-Trainers.  This term described a group of  persons who sought to increase t h e i r strength ( f o r a v a r i e t y of reasons) by overloading t h e i r muscles, during regular exercise, with some form of inanimate weight, most commonly "barbells". General Population.  The general population i n t h i s  study consisted  of 1,12?  males, with an average age of t h i r t y  f i v e years who were tested by C a t t e l l (6). these tests provided norms f o r comparison.  The r e s u l t s of  REFERENCES 1.  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 (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 B u l l e t i n . 1941, 38:8.  4.  Thune, J.B., "Personality of Weight L i f t e r s , " The Research Quarterly of the American Association f o r Health. Physical Education and Recreation, October,  1949, 20 (3).  5.  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 (pub.),  1957. 1.  6.  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^ 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 (pub.), 1962, 19.  CHAPTER II REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE A knowledge of the results of related research w i l l a s s i s t i n the understanding of the present problem.  For t h i s  purpose the l i t e r a t u r e 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 d i f f e r e n t groups of athletes, while the t h i r d area concerned the personality of the Weight-Trainer, only. A Comparison of the Personalities of the Athlete and  Non-  Athlete Comparative studies i n t h i s area have concerned themselves with three aspects of personality! 1.  i n t e l l i g e n c e and related achievement;  2.  other s p e c i f i c personality t r a i t s ;  3*  general personal and s o c i a l adjustment. Although H.S.  Slusher ( 1 ) , using a standard I n t e l l i -  gence Quotient t e s t , found athletes to be less i n t e l l i g e n t on t h i s test than non-athletes, a study by H.C.  Ray (2)  indicated  that the athlete used his i n t e l l i g e n c e more e f f e c t i v e l y . 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 f i t n e s s , as measured by the  Iowa Physical E f f i c i e n c y P r o f i l e , rather than a t h l e t i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n as a comparative  criterion.  When the college  grade point averages of the f i t and u n f i t were compared, Weber was unable to support Eay*s findings since the c o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n between f i t n e s s and success i n college was only .41 at the one per cent l e v e l of confidence. S p e c i f i c personality t r a i t s , other than i n t e l l i g e n c e have been examined through the use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and i t s v a r i a t i o n s . Booth*s (4) results indicated that the non-athlete scored higher on the " i n t e r e s t " and "anxiety" variables while " v a r s i t y " athletes and upper class non-athletes scored higher on the "dominance" v a r i a b l e .  V a r s i t y athletes p a r t i c i p a t i n g  i n i n d i v i d u a l sports scored higher on the "depression" variable than any of the groups studied. Adding to the contrast, Slusher (5) found the a t h l e t i c group scored higher In "masculinity" and " s t a b i l i t y " than the non-athletic group.  "Hypochondriasis" was  significantly  higher f o r a l l a t h l e t i c groups except swimmers. In order to determine any other possible areas of  8  difference i n swimmers, Whiting and Stembridge (6)  administered  the Junior Minnesota Personality Inventory to groups of and twelve-year-old  eleven-  swimmers and persistent non-swimmers.  A  comparison of the mean f o r extroversion indicated s i g n i f i c a n t differences (P  <".01),  the non-swimmers being more introverted.  Non-swimmers also showed more neurotic tendencies on t h i s test. Tillman (7)  examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p between physical  f i t n e s s and selected personality t r a i t s .  He used a battery  of three personality tests and a physical f i t n e s s t e s t .  Boys  ranking i n the top f i f t e e n per cent l n f i t n e s s were compared to boys ranking i n the bottom f i f t e e n per cent as to personality traits.  The p h y s i c a l l y f i t group scored higher i n  dominance, extroversion, s o c i a l orientation and i n t e r e s t i n people and group i n t e r a c t i o n . Attempts to formulate a more generalized comparison of personal and s o c i a l adjustment have yielded contradictory results. Biddulph ( 8 ) , i n attempting to determine the relationship between a t h l e t i c a b i l i t y and s o c i a l adjustment used the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality, the Henmon Nelson Intelligence Test and two subjective r a t i n g scales with groups of high school boys.  Results indicated that the  superior a t h l e t i c achievement group showed, what Biddulph termed, a higher degree of personal and s o c i a l adjustment  9  than d i d the group ranking low i n a t h l e t i c achievement. difference between the means was  s i g n i f i c a n t at the one  The per  cent l e v e l . A study conducted by Sperling ( 9 ) »  with a s i m i l a r  purpose, f a i l e d to indicate any s i g n i f i c a n t differences. Pour objective personality tests were used on v a r s i t y athletes, intramural athletes and non-athletes.  V a r s i t y 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 r a t i o s of the difference  between the means ranged from k,00  to 8.10.  No s i g n i f i c a n t  differences were found between d i f f e r e n t groups of athletes or between v a r s i t y and intramural athletes i n other respects. Not only are differences between athletes and  non-  athletes minor i n the general area of adjustment, but Werner and G o t t h e i l (10) demonstrated the n e g l i g i b l e influence of a t h l e t i c s on non-athletes a f t e r four years of forced p a r t i c i pation.  Their study was  conducted at the U.S.  M i l i t a r y Academy  using C a t t e l l ' s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire with a group of three hundred and f o r t y athletes and one hundred and sixteen non-athletes.  The t e s t was  administered before  and a f t e r the four year residence and no evidence was  found  to support the view that college a t h l e t i c s s i g n i f i c a n t l y Influences personality structure.  10 A Comparison of the Personalities of Different Groups of Athletes The bases f o r comparing the p e r s o n a l i t i e s of athletes were twofold: 1.  the sport i n which the athlete p a r t i c i p a t e s ;  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 p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n s i x d i f f e r e n t v a r s i t y sports.  No  differ-  ences i n attitude toward winning were found among the participants. Personality differences have been found to e x i s t among athletes, however.  Swimmers were found to be highly  integrated while track runners were found to be integrated  poorly  (12).  A battery of four d i f f e r e n t personality  inventory  tests administered to six groups of athletes by L. Flanagan (13)  indicated fencers to be more ascendant and feminine than  other groups e s p e c i a l l y basketball players.  Badminton  players appeared to be more extroverted than v o l l e y b a l l players who  i n turn were more unstable emotionally  basketball players.  than  The differences between the mean scores  were s i g n i f i c a n t only f o r fencers and boxers i n t h i s study. S i m i l a r studies have been conducted that were concerned  11 p r i m a r i l y 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, s i g n i f i c a n t at  the f i v e per cent l e v e l of confidence, indicated: 1.  boxers had less o v e r - a l l i n t e n s i t y 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 d i r e c t 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 e f f e c t s of wrestling upon personality dynamics using the "House - Tree - Person" projective t e s t .  Before a  wrestling meet the subjects indicated high anxiety, aggression and increased neurotic tendencies, a l l of which f e l l below normal or disappeared a f t e r the meet. The personalities of outstanding athletes have been analyzed on both a team and an Individual basis. The C a t t e l l Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire administered to f i v e c o l l e g i a t e f o o t b a l l teams (16)  showed  that the winning team scored lowest on s o c i a l 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 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of  sportsmanship.  12 These findings were p a r t i a l l y substantiated by H. S e l s t ' s (17) tests on seventy-seven outstanding sports champions.  The p r e v a i l i n g 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 f o r the champion was supported i n studies by La Place and Johnson.  The Minnesota M u l t i -  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 s p e c i f i c personality t r a i t s are associated with success l n professional baseball.  Results indicated  that major league players were better able than minor league players t o : 1.  apply t h e i r strong "drive" towards a d e f i n i t e objective by exercising s e l f - d i s c i p l i n e ;  2.  adjust to occupations requiring s o c i a l contact and getting along with other people;  3.  exercise  initiative.  Johnson's (19) findings, using the Rorschach and House - Tree - Person projective tests on twelve national champion athletes, are even more d i r e c t l y associated with the need to achieve.  The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the responses  indicated that the group possessed extreme  aggression,  emotions lacking s t r i c t c o n t r o l , high and generalized  anxiety,  13 a high l e v e l of i n t e l l e c t u a l aspiration and exceptional feelings of self-assurance.  The evidence suggests that, i n  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 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which d i f f e r e n t i a t e them from both the athlete and the non-athlete. J.B. Thune (20)  compared Weight-Trainers to other  non-weight t r a i n i n g athletes.  Items from f i v e 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 C h r i s t i a n Association.  Findings showed that Weight-Trainers f e l t that  t h e i r a c t i v i t y s i g n i f i c a n t l y improved t h e i r health, lacked desire to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , lacked self-confidence, were shy, f e l t awkward playing most games, f e l t more manly and i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c than other men and l i m i t e d t h e i r friendship mostly to members of t h e i r own  sex.  A study by R.G. Harlow (21)  made t h i s same comparison  using the Thematic Aperception Test and the Sentence Complet i o n Test.  Eighteen variables, deduced by a i d of psycho-  analytic theory, suggested that the Weight-Trainer had: 1.  greater feelings of masculine inadequacy;  14 2.  more n a r c i s s t i c impulses;  3.  more concern with establishing h i s maleness;  4.  fewer heterosexual tendencies;  5.  h o s t i l i t y towards h i s environment (his mother in particular);  6.  an i n a b i l i t y to cope with h i s environment;  7.  consequent feelings of r e j e c t i o n . F.M.  Henry (22) administered a personality schedule  to student p i l o t s , track athletes. Physical Education majors and Weight-Trainers.  Findings indicated that Weight-Trainers  were more neurotic, l e s s ascendant, more introverted and hypochondriac than Physical Education majors. Summary A comparison of the athlete and the non-athlete i n t h i s review of research indicated that no measurable difference had been established between these two groups as f a r as i n t e l l i g e n c e and general adjustment were concerned. However, c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c personality differences d i d appear to e x i s t , the athlete consistently scoring higher on t r a i t s of extroversion, dominance and hypochondriasis. Athletes d i f f e r e d i n personality from one another, to a l i m i t e d 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 d i f f e r e d s u b s t a n t i a l l y from both the athlete and the non-athlete.  Nevertheless, he approached  most c l o s e l y the champion athlete, i n respeot of the role his a c t i v i t y played i n h i s personal makeup.  As Harlow  (23)  concluded, "Weight t r a i n i n g may be looked on as answering a d e f i n i t e need and serving a s p e c i f i c function i n the adjustment process of many individuals i n our society." conclusion suggested that, f o r the Weight-Trainer, there  This may  be a strong relationship between body concept and s e l f concept.  Should t h i s be true, i t would f u r t h e r d i f f e r e n t i a t e  them from the general population since studies by Leela (24) and Hood (25)  indicated a c o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n , f o r the  general population, of only . 2 .  REFERENCES 1.  Slusher, H.S,, "Personality and Intelligence Characteri s t i c s of Selected High School Athletes and NonAthletes," 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 t o Personality," The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1953*  k.  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,  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 T r a i t s , " The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1965.  8.  Biddulph, L.G., "Athletic 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, 195^.  9.  Sperling, A.P., "The Relationship Between Personality Adjustment 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.R.. December, 19^2.  10.  Werner, A.C. and G o 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.  11.  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.  12.  Vazquez, V.C., "The Personality of Athletes," Pslcoteonla, May, 19^5.  17 13.  Flanagan, L., "A Study of Personality T r a i t s of D i f f e r e n t Physical A c t i v i t y 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.  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.B.. December, 1965.  17*  S e i s t , 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.,  20.  Thune, J.B., "Personality of W e l g h t l i f t e r s , " The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.B.. October, 1949.  21.  Harlow, E.G., "Masculine Inadequacy and Compensatory Development of Physique," Journal of Personality. 1951* 19, PP. 3 1 2 - 3 2 3 .  22.  Henry, P.M., "Personality Differences i n Athletes, Physical Education and Aviation Students," Psychological B u l l e t i n . 3 8 : 8 , 1941, p. 7 4 5 .  23.  Harlow, R.G.,  24.  Leela, C.Z., "Body Concept as i t Relates to S e l f Concept," The Research Quarterly of the A.A.H.P.E.B.. December,  25.  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  and Daniel, H.C.,  loo, c i t .  loc. c i t .  CHAPTER I I I METHODS AND  PROCEDURES  The p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  of t h r e e groups of  w e i g h t - t r a i n e r s have been examined i n o r d e r t o 1.  i f Weight-Trainers  as a group  determine:  differed  s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n p e r s o n a l i t y from the g e n e r a l population; 2.  i f Weight-Trainers  differed  significantly in  p e r s o n a l i t y from one another on the b a s i s of t h e i r motivation f o r 3.  participation;  i f one group of Weight-Trainers  differed  from  the General P o p u l a t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than the o t h e r groups. Subjects A l l s u b j e c t s were male between the ages of e i g h t e e n and t h i r t y - f i v e y e a r s .  They were s u b d i v i d e d i n t o  three  groups (A, B, and C) on the b a s i s of t h e i r m o t i v a t i o n f o r participation,  each group c o n t a i n i n g f i f t e e n s u b j e c t s .  Rather s t r i n g e n t c r i t e r i a were imposed on each group i n o r d e r t o ensure t h a t the s u b j e c t s were t r u l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the sub-group of Weight-Trainers The tioning  they  represented.  s u b j e c t s i n Group A w e i g h t - t r a i n e d as a c o n d i -  a c t i v i t y f o r other sports (other A t h l e t e s ) .  They  19 must have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n another organized sport r e g u l a r l y and have used weight-training methods f o r at least two months on two separate occasions to t r a i n f o r that sport.  Subjects  tested included two Olympic rowers attending the University of B r i t i s h Columbia and t h i r t e e n i n t e r c o l l e g i a t e f o o t b a l l players most of whom were attending Simon Fraser University i n Burnaby, B r i t i s h Columbia at the time of t e s t i n g . Group B subjects weight-trained i n order to improve t h e i r physique (Body-Builders).  Improvement of physique  referred to an increase i n musculature r e l a t i v e to whatever body proportions the i n d i v i d u a l deemed " i d e a l " .  Acceptable  subjects i n t h i s group must have weight-trained two hours each week f o r t h i r t y of the l a s t f i f t y - t w o weeks.  This group  included subjects from the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, a Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, Young Men's C h r i s t i a n Associat i o n , a Toronto, Ontario, Young Men's C h r i s t i a n Association, and a number of "Health Spas". The subjects i n Group C weight-trained i n order to increase t h e i r strength f o r weight l i f t i n g (Weight L i f t e r s ) .  competitions  Acceptable subjects i n t h i s 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 "Lifts".  These " L i f t s " - the "Snatch", the "Clean and Jerk",  and the "Press" - are three d i f f e r e n t ways of l i f t i n g a  20  weighted bar from the f l o o r to a p o s i t i o n over the head with arms f u l l y extended.  Eight of these subjects were enrolled  at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia or the U n i v e r s i t y of Washington when tested during a weight l i f t i n g competition at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia.  The remainder, represent-  ing private clubs i n Vancouver and Seattle, were not and never had been u n i v e r s i t y students. The Test The subjects were placed i n one of the three groups according to t h e i r response to the question, "Why  do you  weight-train?". The personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each subject were then determined by administering " C a t t e l l ' s Sixteen Persona l i t y Factor Questionnaire  (Form A)" which Included measures  f o r the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s shown on Table I. The t e s t was administered singly or i n small groups according to C a t t e l l ' s instructions f o r the examiner. Simple and c l e a r instructions are printed f o r the examinee on the cover page of the test booklet.  Although the test can be  v i r t u a l l y self-administering, an attempt was made to e s t a b l i s h rapport with the examinees.  Further, the i n s t r u c -  tions were reinforced by o r a l l y r e i t e r a t i n g the importance of the examinee being frank and honest i n describing himself. help ensure t h i s honesty, the subjects were not required to  To  TABLE I CATTELL'S INTERPRETATION OF THE Low  Score d e s c r i p t i o n  21  SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTORS  Personality Factors  High Scores  description  Aloof, cold (Schlzothymia)  A  Warm, s o c i a b l e (Cyclothymia)  D u l l , low c a p a c i t y (Low »g»)  B  Bright, (High  Emotional, (Low ego  unstable strength)  intelligent "g")  Mature, calm (High ego s t r e n g t h )  Submissive, m i l d (Submissiveness)  Dominant, a g g r e s s i v e (Dominance)  Glum, s i l e n t (Desurgency)  Enthusiastic, (Surgency)  C a s u a l , undependable (Low super ego strength)  Conscientious, p e r s i s t e n t (High super ego strength)  T i m i d , shy (Threctia)  talkative  Adventurous, " t h l c k skinned" (Parmia)  H  Tough, r e a l i s t i c (Harria)  S e n s i t i v e , effeminate (Premsia)  T r u s t f u l , adaptable (Inner r e l a x a t i o n )  Suspecting, jealous (Protension)  Conventional, p r a c t i c a l (Praxernia)  H  Bohemian, unconcerned (Alaxia)  Simple, awkward (Naivete)  N  Sophisticated, polished (Shrewdness)  C o n f i d e n t , unshakeable (Confidence)  Insecure, anxious (Timidity)  Conservative, accepting ( C o n s e r v a t i sm)  Experimenting, (Radicalism)  Dependent, i m i t a t i v e (Group dependence)  Q  l  Q  2  critical  Self-sufficient, resourceful (Self-sufficiency)  Lax, unsure (Low i n t e g r a t i o n )  C o n t r o l l e d , exact ( S e l f sentiment c o n t r o l )  Phlegmatic, composed (Low e r g i c t e n s i o n )  Tense, e x c i t e a b l e (High e r g i c t e n s i o n )  Qi..  22  r e v e a l t h e i r names.  (For f u 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 t e s t s were hand s c o r e d and the raw d a t a prepared for  s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  Columbia's Computer Center. Method of A n a l y s i s 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 t o make the t h r e e comparisons of p e r s o n a l i t y i m p l i e d i n the statement of the problem. P e r s o n a l i t y of W e i g h t - T r a i n e r s Compared t o the General Population. the of  T h i s comparison was made by c o n s i d e r i n g  t h r e e groups o f w e i g h t - t r a i n e r s as one.  The  significance  the d i f f e r e n c e between the combined means o f the weight-  t r a i n e r s and the mean of the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n , f o r each of the  s i x t e e n f a c t o r s , was determined by the use of the " t "  t e s t u s i n g the f o l l o w i n g procedures ( 1 ) : 1.  The mean score f o r each f a c t o r i n each group  was  calculated; M  =?XN  where Z X =  the sum o f the scores f o r each f a c t o r  N = the number of s c o r e s f o r each f a c t o r . 2.  The standard d e v i a t i o n 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 f o r each f a c t o r  3»  The combined means of the three groups f o r each f a c t o r were calculated;  M comb = N j M j + N M + H3M3 N i + N + N3 2  2  2  where  = the number of scores i n 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  = the mean score of group B  2  =S the mean score of group C 4.  The combined standard deviations of the three groups f o r each f a c t o r were calculated;  'N (cr  comb =\j  1  2 1  2  + d j ) + N (cT2  2  2  +d  2 2  ) + No(cro  •N where cr ^ = standard deviation of group A CT2 ~ standard deviation of group B crj d d  = standard deviation of group C 1  2  = ( M - M comb) 1  =  ( 2 " M  M  c  °mb)  d^ = (M^ - M comb)  2  r  2  + d,- ) J —  24 The standard e r r o r of the difference between the means of the Weight-Trainers  (M comb) and the means  of the general population were determined f o r each factor? cr  =  D  N  i  N  2  2 whereC7  = standard deviation of the weight-trainers  1  2 C7 2  = standard deviation of the general population  N = the number of Weight-Trainers N = the number i n the General Population 2 The " t " r a t i o was then computed f o r each factor; 1  6.  t =  D - 0 °~ D  where D = the obtained difference between the mean of the Weight-Trainers General Population (M cr  D  and the mean of the 1  - Mg)  = the standard e r r o r of the difference between  and M^.  Personality Differences Among the Three Groups of Weight-Trainers.  Test results of the three groups of Weight-  Trainers were compared f o r s i g n i f i c a n t personality d i f f e r ences by using an analysis of variance on each of the sixteen personality f a c t o r s .  Where a variance r a t i o (P) was found to  25  be s i g n i f i c a n t at the one per cent l e v e l of confidence the three groups were re-analyzed i n d i v i d u a l l y on that f a c t o r using the " t " t e s t to determine which two of the three groups d i f f e r most.  The following steps were included i n t h i s (2).  procedure f o r each f a c t o r 1.  A correction term (C) was calculated f o r each factor;  (zr)  C = where  .  N  2 X = the sum of the scores of the f o r t y - f i v e subjects f o r one f a c t o r N = the t o t a l number of subjects.  2.  The t o t a l sum of squares around the general mean f o r each f a c t o r f o r the three groups was calculated; ss = z x - c 2  T  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 ) ±  b t 3  M»s  ~  (zx )  2  2  +  N  where (ZX^)  X  2  (*x )  2  3  +  N  2  2  C  N3  = the square of the sum of the scores i n Group A  (£X ) 2  = the square of the sum of the scores i n Group B  26 (IXj)  2 = the square of the sum of the scores i n Group C  Nj^ = the number of scores i n Group A N  * the number of scores i n Group B  2  * the number of scores i n Group C. k.  The sum of the squares within Groups A, B, and C was calculated;  ss « ss - ss , w  T  M  s  where SS^ = the sum of squares around the general mean SS  5.  M's  =  s  u  m  of  " ^ s  u a r e s  ^ o n g means.  The variances from each sum of squares was calculated; (A) Variance among the means of the Groups = where  s s  M  t  s  ^  8 f  = 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 t o t a l number of scores. 6.  The variance r a t i oil (F) was determined;  27  7.  For factors with s i g n i f i c a n t variance r a t i o s , the t ratios between the three groups was calculated? ( A ) The standard error of each mean was found, «Jf  SE„=  where SD^ = standard deviation computed from the "within group" variance (B) The standard error of difference between means was found, SE  = SD  d  w  W  I/I. + 1-  1/ N  N  X  2  where SD^ = "within group" standard deviation and N  2  = sizes of the groups being compared  (C) The " t " r a t i o was computed, t -  mean difference SE D  Personality Differences Between Each Group of WeightTrainers 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 t r a i n i n g group t h i s time, however, was compared separately with the general population.  The significance of the d i f f e r -  ence between the mean f o r each f a c t o r i n each group and the mean f o r the general population was determined using the " t " test ( 3 ) .  REFERENCES 1.  C a t t e l l , R.B., and Eber, H.W., Handbook f o r the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Institute f o r Personality and A b i l i t y Testing, Champaign, I l l i n o i s , 1957.  PP.  11-19.  2.  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*  3.  Ibid  CHAPTER IV RESULTS Three groups of Weight-Trainers were evaluated on sixteen personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  Group A included  subjects who weight trained as a conditioning a c t i v i t y f o r another organized sport.  Subjects i n Group B were motivated  to t r a i n by a desire to improve t h e i r physiques, while Group C subjects were competitive Weight L i 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 t r a i n i n g groups were  compared c o l l e c t i v e l y to the General Population.  Second, the  relationships among the t r a i n i n g groups were examined and, t h i r d , the t r a i n i n g groups were compared separately to the General Population. The results of these analyses are interpreted below, recorded i n Tables II to VI and i l l u s t r a t e d graphically l n Figures 1 to 5»  Each of the f i v e 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 f i v e Figures. with the exception of Figure 2,  These Figures,  represent personality  p r o f i l e s of the groups tested r e l a t i v e to the General Population.  The construction of the p r o f i l e s u t i l i z e d  C a t t e l l ' s Sten Scale ( 1 ) . This standard score system, based on a ten point scale, was devised i n such a way as to show  the mean value f o r each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o r the General Population at exactly Sten 5«5«  The t e s t constructor  reported that scores more diverse than one sten from t h i s band ( i . e . , scores at and above sten seven and at and below sten four) d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y , at the one per cent l e v e l , from the General Population on that Factor. I Weight-Trainers  INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS  Compared to the General  Population  Table II and Figure 1 indicate that  Weight-Trainers,  c o l l e c t i v e l y , d i f f e r e d at the one per cent l e v e l of c o n f i dence from the General Population on f i v e personality Factors including B, G, H. N and Q  2  as measured by the Sixteen  Personality Factor Questionnaire. Factor B (2)  describes the l e v e l of i n t e l l i g e n c e of  the subjects tested, a high score i n d i c a t i n g above average i n t e l l i g e n c e and a low score i n d i c a t i n g the opposite. mean score of the Weight-Trainers  The  on t h i s f a c t o r was 8.11  compared to 5»92 f o r the General Population. ence i n favour of the Weight-Trainers  as  Such a d i f f e r -  i s to be expected,  however, since seventy-three per cent of the subjects were u n i v e r s i t y 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 I I WEIGHT-TRAINERS  (GROUPS A, B AND C COMBINED)  COMPARED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION WEIGHT'-TRAINERS* Factor  M (comb) S.D. (comb)  9.25  A B C  8.11  15.57  3.03 2.23  4  S.D.  SE  9.67  3.35  .01 .^5 .3^ 6.44 .50 1.02  3.28  16.08  2.06  13.51  13.38 13.84  3.90  4.43 3.60  5.16 3.50 3.20  .7^ 3.16 .47 1.06 .41 1.32  3.^3 2.62 3.67  .46 1.26 .38 3.68 .51 .33  1#  2.83 3.^6 3.11 4.86  .45 1.96 .45 4.71 .51 1.78 .67 1.80  1%  12.21  3.76 3.91 2.99  H I L  11.42 8.89 9.42  4.87 3.06 2.74  13.76  M N  12.73  10.30  12.15  9.50  3.01 2.56 3.46  11.24 12.17 10.22 12.19  2.93 2.95 3.^5 4.38  Ql  Q2 Q3 Q4  * N = +  45  N = 1127  D  5.92  14.21  0  l e v e l of «t" confidence  Mean  E F G  13.79  SIGNIFICANCE  GENERAL POPULATION "  8.39  8.83 11.70 9.33  IO.36 10.12  11.13  10.98  3.75  .57 1.23 .59 .69 .46 3.5^  1*  1%  1*  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  PROFILES  10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1  I . L  M  9.50 11.24 12.17 10.22 12.19 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 i n t e r n a l standards, casualness and undependA mean score of 12.21  ability.  compared to 13.84  f o r the Weight-Trainers as  f o r the General Population indicates that  the Weight-Trainers demonstrated  s i g n i f i c a n t l y less character  strength. E s s e n t i a l l y , Factor "H" (4) i s an indicator of The Weight-Trainers' mean score of 11.42  extroversion.  was  s i g n i f i c a n t l y 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". S i m i l a r l y the mean score of 10.30 Factor "N" (5)  f o r the Weight-Trainers on  was s i g n i f i c a n t l y below the 11.70  General Population.  mean of the  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 "Q " 2  (6) Factor complements Factor "H" since i t  i s one of the major components of Introversion.  A significant  difference on t h i s Factor shows the Weight-Trainer to be more s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t and resourceful than average and consequently, s o c i a l l y less group dependent. Thus, r e l a t i v e to the General Population, the WeightTrainers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n t e l l i g e n t , undependable, withdrawn, unpretentious and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t .  TABLE I I I  34  GEOUPS A, B, AND C COMPARED Pactor  Groups Error Total  A B  E F G H I L M N 0 l  JL  %i. Q  2 42 44  Mean Square  0.57600E 02 0.35720E  0.28800E 02 0.85048E 01  3.39  0 . 5 7 3 3 3 E 01  0 . 2 8 6 6 7 E 01  0.69  01  0.14000E 01 0.98095E 01  0.14  0.12578E 02 0.62720E 03 0.63978E 03  0.62889E 01  0.42  02  0.22067E 02 0.15359E 02  1.44  01  0.48667E 01 0.12606E 02  0.39  02 04 0.1127IE 04 0.42178E 02 0.38147E 03 0.42364E 03 0.59H1E 01 0.33307E 03 0.33898E 03 0.53733E 02 0.38707E 03 0.44080E 03 0.22533E 02 0.26827E 03 0.29080E 03 0.54444E 02  0.17622E 02 0.25997E 02  0.68  0.21089E 02 0.90825E 01  2.32  0.29556E 01 O.79302E 01  0.37  0.26867E 02 0.92159E 01  2.92  0.11267E 02 0.63873E 01  1.76  0.27222E 02  2.15  ...  0.28978E 02 0.32133E 03  0.14489E 02 O.76508E 01  1.89  ---  O.150OOE 02 0.99238E 01  1.51  01  0.82224E 00 0.12765E 02  0.06  02  0.14600E 02 0.20000E 02  0.73  03 0.4148GE 03  3 j  0.44133E 0.64507E 0.68920E 0.97333E 0.52947E 0.53920E 0.35244E 0.10919E  03 03 03 03  03 03 03 03  0.53213E 03 0.58658E 03 0.35031E 03 0.30000E 02 0.41680E 03 0.44680E 03 0.16445E 0.53613E 0.53778E 0.29200E 0.84000E 0.86920E  03 03  03 03  0.41302E 01  0.14933E 02  0.12670E 02  F  Signlf icance  Sum of Squares  0.17347E 0.17920E 0.28000E 0.41200E 0.4148OE  C  Q  Source of V a r i a t i o n DF  .05  mm mm mm  MEAN SCORES oo • '  o o  •  o o  O •  o o  t-* • '  o o  ro  •-  o o  • •  o o  •-  o o  • •  o o  ON  • •  o o  Q W O  a GO  > to o o  ro  §  w o s: o Ct © <<J CD 0?  H- Ct  t*  HUH-  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 f a c t o r scores f o r the three t r a i n i n g groups f a i l e d to f i n d any differences s i g n i f i c a n t at the one cent l e v e l . 3.39  per  However, i t should be noted that an P r a t i o of  exists f o r Factor "A" (?). This i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the f i v e per cent l e v e l .  Figure 2 shows that the mean score of Group A ( 1 0 . 8 6 ) , designated Other Athletes, d i f f e r s from the mean scores of Groups B and C which are exactly the same ( 8 . 4 6 ) .  Thus  subjects i n Group A tended to be warmer, more sociable, easy going and t r u s t f u l than subjects i n Groups B and C who were more aloof and s t i f f .  For the purposes of t h i s  study,  however, the difference i s not considered s i g n i f i c a n t but only of i n t e r e s t . Groups A. B and C Compared Independently to the  General  Population Group A.  Table IV shows that Group A  (Other  Athletes) d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the General  Population  on three personality Factors including Factors B, H and Factor "B" i s the evaluation of intelligence mentioned. 5.92  The mean score f o r Group A of 7.73  N.  already  compared to  f o r the General Population indicates a higher l e v e l of  intelligence  f o r Group A.  Once again, t h i s was to be  expected since a l l f i f t e e n of the subjects i n t h i s group were  37  TABLE IV GROUP A (OTHER ATHLETES) COMPARED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION GROUP A*  GENERAL POPULATION  +  SIGNIFICANCE  -  Factor  l e v e l of confidence  Mean  S.D.  Mean  S.D.  SE  A B C  10.86 7.73  2.80  15.33  2.11  9.67 5.92  16.08  3.35 2.06 3.75  • 73 .60 .56  1.63 3.02 1.34  E F G  14.06 14.53  3.56 3.38 3.98  13.51  3.90  .92  .60 1.31  H I L  10.26  M N  4.43 3.60  .88 1.03  10.26  13.76  5.16 3.50 3.20  1.19  9.13  4.56 2.79 2.82  .73 .73  2.94 2.56 .41  13.66  3.36  11.06  1.85  3.06  12.15 11.70  3.43 2.62  .87 .45 .79  1.74 1.89 2.19  10.13  3.33 3.28 1.93  10.12  IO.36  2.83 3.46 3.H 4.86  .87 .85  .26 1.51 2.21 2.11  10.40  Ql  Q2 Q3  11.40 10.00  04  13.33  * N +  13.38 13.84  12.50  0  m  N =  2.32  D  15  1127  4.31  8.39 8.83  9.33  11.13 10.98  3.67  .51  1.11  1*  1.34  1#  1%  PERSONALITY FACTOR A  B  C  E  F  G  H  I  L  M  0  N  Qi . Q2  Q3  04  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 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  FIGURE 3 GROUP A (OTHER ATHLETES) COMPARED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION  00  4  39 u n i v e r s i t y 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. S i m i l a r l y , a mean score of 10.40 as compared to 11.70 on Factor " N " s i g n i f i e d 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 r e s t r a i n t but less shrewdness as i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 3* Group B.  This group, designated  Body-Builders,  d i f f e r e d from the General Population on Factor B, i n t e l l i gence, i n the same d i r e c t i o n as d i d Group A.  Unlike Group A,  however, t h i s difference cannot be e n t i r e l y accounted f o r by an e x c l u s i v e l y u n i v e r s i t y sample.  Eight of the f i f t e e n  subjects i n t h i s group were not u n i v e r s i t y students. Table V and Figure 4 indicate that Group B also d i f f e r e d on Factors Factor  (8) and Q « 2  A mean score of 12.00 on  f o r t h i s group compared to a mean score of only  IO.36 f o r 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 s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y was demonstrated by subjects i n Group A by t h e i r higher mean  40  TABLE V GBOUP B (BODY-BUILDERS) COMPARED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION GROUP B* Factor  Mean 8.46  A B C  8.60 15.53  SIGNIFICANCE  GENERAL POPULATION  4  »t"  S.D.  Mean  S.D.  SE  3.01 2.57 3.59  9.67 5.92  3.35 2.06 3.75  .77 .66 .93  1.57 4.06 .59  4.17 3.96 1.94  13.51 13.38  1.08  1.02 .51  .14  13.84  3.90 4.43 3.60  .96 2.11  16.08  D  E F G  13.66  H I L  11.66  8.40  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  11.20 11.26 8.06  2.22 2.79  12.15 11.70 9.33  3.43 2.62 3.67  .57 .72 .84  1.66 .61 1.51  Ql Q  12.00  2.28 2.41  IO.36  2.83  Qlj.  11.53  .59 .67 1.15 1.10  2.79 4.89 .58 .5©  12.40 12.46  9.20  0  2  Q3  * N = +  13.40 10.46  15  N = 1127  3.24  4.47 4.25  10.12 11.13 10.98  3.46  3.11 4.86  l e v e l of confidence  1*  1%  PERSONALITY FACTOR A  B  C  E  F  G  H  I  L  M  0  N  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  PROFILES  A  B  C  E  F  G  H  I  L  M  N  FIGURE 4 GROUP B (BODY-BUILDERS) COMPARED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION  8.06 12.00 13.40 10.46 11.53 0  Ql  Q2  Q3  04  42 scores on Factor Qg i n comparison with the General Population. Hence Group A, on t h i s t e s t , showed more i n t e l l i gence, radicalism and s e l f s u f f i c i e n c y than the General Population. Group C.  This group, c a l l e d Weight L i f t e r s , d i f f e r e d  s i g n i f i c a n t l y 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  u n i v e r s i t y students, demonstrated an above average i n t e l l i gence score of 8.00 of  11.33  as compared to 5 » 9 2 , t h e i r means scores  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. Figure  These results are contained i n Table VI and  5. While the l i m i t a t i o n s of Personality Tests have been  recognized ( 9 ) »  the results of t h i s study nevertheless  indicated the following: 1.  Weight-Trainers  d i d not d i f f e r i n personality from  one another when grouped 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 .  An analysis of  variance f o r the three groups on sixteen personality factors f a i l e d to y i e l d any F r a t i o s s i g n i f i c a n t at the one per cent l e v e l ; 2.  Weight-Trainers, c o l l e c t i v e l y , d i f f e r e d i n  43 TABLE VI GROUP C (WEIGHT LIFTERS) COMPARED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION GROUP C*  SIGNIFICANCE  GENERAL POPULATION  Mean  S.D.  Mean  S.D.  SE  8.46  8.00 15.86  2.63 1.61 3.11  9.67 5.92  .68  16.08  3.35 2.06 3.75  .41 .81  1.77 5.07 .00  E F G  14.93 14.46  11.33  3.41 3.98  2.53  13.51 13.38 13.84  3.90 4.43 3.60  .88 1.02 .65  1.61 1.05 3.86  H I L  12.35 8.00 9.93  5.32 3.29 3.09  13.76 8.39 8.83  5.16 3.50 3.20  1.37 .85  1.02 .45 .12  M N  13.33 9.26  3.09 2.57  12.15 11.70 9.33  3.43  .80  2.62  .66 .88  1.47 3.69  11.60 11.73 10.20 11.73  2.75 3.30  IO.36  2.83  .71 .86 .90 1.13  Factor A B C  0  9.40  Ql  Q2 O3  04  * N = +  N =  15  1127  3.41  3.46  4.38  10.12 11.13 10.98  3.67 3.46 3.H  4.86  D  .80  "t"  .08  1.74 1.87 1.03 .66  l e v e l of confidence  1*  1%  PERSONALITY FACTOR A  B  C  E  F  G  H  I  L  M  0  N  Qi  Q2  Q3  04  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 IO.36 10.12 11.13 10.98  SCORES OF WEIGHT LIFTERS  8.46 8.00 15.86 14.93 14.46 11.33 12.35 8.00 9.93 13.33 PROFILES  10 9 8  A  B  C  E  F  G  H  I  L  9.26  M  I  5 4 3 2 1 FIGURE 5 GROUP C (WEIGHT LIFTERS) COMPARED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION  9.40  N  11.60 11.73 10.20 11.73  0  Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4  45 personality  from the G e n e r a l P o p u l a t i o n ,  yielded  significant differences  factors  Including i n t e l l i g e n c e , character strength,  extroversion, sophistication 3.  on f i v e  " t " tests personality  and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y ;  Each t r a i n i n g group d i f f e r e d i n p e r s o n a l i t y General Population.  Group A d i f f e r e d on  from the  factors  r e p r e s e n t i n g i n t e l l i g e n c e , e x t r o v e r s i o n and sophistication.  Group B d i f f e r e d on  a l s o as w e l l as r a d i c a l i s m  and  intelligence  self-sufficiency,  w h i l e Group C d i f f e r e d on i n t e l l i g e n c e , s t r e n g t h and  sophistication.  character  REFERENCES 1.  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 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, p. 19.  2.  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. p. 11.  3.  Ibid.  P« 13.  4.  Ibid.  P« 14.  5.  Ibid.  P« 17.  6.  Ibid.  P- 18.  7.  Ibid.  P. 11.  8.  Ibid.  P. 18.  9.  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 . V o l . 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 WeightTrainers d i f f e r e d noteably from established norms.  Further-  more, t h i s divergence was i n a d i r e c t i o n which would generally be considered s o c i a l l y  undesireable.  Such findings were p a r t i a l l y supported by related l i t e r a t u r e which concluded that the personality of athletes d i f f e r e d from the personality of non-athletes  and the  personalities of athletes themselves d i f f e r e d on the basis of success and a b i l i t y .  More pertinent, however, was the f a c t  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 a c t u a l l y included three d i s t i n c t groups Other Athletes, Body-Builders and Weight L i f t e r s .  The  problem was to determine whether or not personality d i f f e r ences d i d e x i s t between Weight-Trainers and the General Population and,  i f so, to determine whether or not these  differences were accounted f o r predominately by one of the three groups. In order to make t h i s evaluation, C a t t e l l ' s Sixteen  48  Personality Factor Test was  administered to f o r t y - f i v e  subjects, including f i f t e e n subjects categorized as Other Athletes, f i f t e e n Body-Builders and f i f t e e n Weight L i f t e r s . Conclusions The following 1.  r e s u l t s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n l e d to the conclusions:  Personality differences did e x i s t between WeightTrainers and the General  2.  Population;  These personality differences were not accounted f o r more or less by one t r a i n i n g group than another. The f i r s t conclusion, based on f i v e s i g n i f i c a n t  personality differences, lends support to the evidence which states that the personality of the athlete and non-athlete differ.  Once again i t cannot be determined i f persons  possessing  these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were attracted to a t h l e t i c s  or i f a t h l e t i c s nurtured these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A combinat i o n of both i s possibly the answer, with the exception  of  intelligence. The r e l a t i v e i n t e l l i g e n c e of athletes has long been a controversial t o p i c .  While i t was  stated that the  superior  i n t e l l i g e n c e of t h i s study's subjects compared to the General Population was  probably due to the seventy-three per cent  u n i v e r s i t y sample, i t i s noteworthy that these subjects, including the twenty-seven per cent who  were not u n i v e r s i t y  students, scored one Sten above the norms f o r the u n i v e r s i t y  population (4).  I t must be concluded that, i n t h i s case,  a t h l e t i c a c t i v i t y attracted participants with superior intelligence.  Eesearch with the proportion of u n i v e r s i t y  athletes reversed would help c l a r i f y the matter. The four remaining personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s shown to d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y 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 self-sufficient.  and  While t h i s description opposes the findings  of Booth (5), Whiting (6) and Tillman (7) concerning  the  athlete i n general, i t i s s i m i l a r , i n a number of ways, to conclusions by Thune (8), Harlow (9) and Henry (10) concerning the Weight-Trainer s p e c i f i c a l l y .  Such findings, subject  to the l i m i t a t i o n s imposed by the use of a d i s s i m i l a r t e s t i n g instrument,  substantiate the contention that the  Weight-Trainer d i f f e r s i n personality not only from the non-athlete  but from the athlete, as well.  Because of the second conclusion, that none of the three t r a i n i n g groups contributed disproportionately to the personality differences between Weight-Trainers and the General Population, i t was deduced that the  Weight-Trainers,  c o l l e c t i v e l y , had homogeneous personalities when compared 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 .  If  personality differences do e x i s t within t h i s group of athletes, beyond i n d i v i d u a l differences, another basis f o r  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 t r a i n i n g program. I t seems r e l a t i v e l y c e r t a i n that s i g n i f i c a n t differences e x i s t between most athletes and non-athletes. However, there are three related problems f o r which l i t t l e objective evidence i s a v a i l a b l e : 1.  Does a t h l e t i c a c t i v i t y lead to the development of s p e c i f i c personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ?  2.  Are these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s o c i a l l y deslreable?  3.  What Physical Education methods are most e f f e c t i v e f o r promoting these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ? Research d i r e c t l y concerned with these problems would  provide a valuable means of c l a r i f y i n g the objectives of Physical Educators.  REFERENCES 1.  Thune, J.B., " P e r s o n a l i t y o f Weight L i f t e r s , " The Research Q u a r t e r l y o f t h e A.A.H.P.E.R., October, 1949.  2.  Harlow, R.G., "Masculine Inadequacy and Compensatory Development o f Physique," J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y . 1951»  19, pp. 312-23.  3.  Henry, F.M., " P e r s o n a l i t y D i f f e r e n c e s i n A t h l e t e s , P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n and A v i a t i o n S t u d e n t s , " P s y c h o l o g i c a l 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 o f Norms f o r Forms A and B o f the S i x t e e n P e r s o n a l i t y F a e t o r Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Champaign. I l l i n o i s . 1962, p. 15.  5.  Booth, E.G., J r . , " P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s o f A t h l e t e s as Measured by t h e M.M.P.I.," The Research Q u a r t e r l y o f the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 195o\  6.  Whiting, H.T., arid Stembridge, D.E., " P e r s o n a l i t y and t h e P e r s i s t e n t Non-Swimmer," The Research Q u a r t e r l y o f t h e A.A.H.P.E.R.. October, 196*5^  7.  T i l l m a n , K., " R e l a t i o n s h i p Between P h y s i c a l F i t n e s s and S e l e c t e d P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s , " The Research Q u a r t e r l y of t h e 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. New York:  Personality; A Psychological Interpretation. H o l t , Rienhardt and Winston, 1937.  A n a s t a s i , A. P s y c h o l o g i c a l T e s t i n g . Company, 1961.  New York:  Macmillan  Blddulph, L.G. " A t h l e t i c Achievement and the P e r s o n a l and S o c i a l Adjustment of High S c h o o l Boys," The Research Q u a r t e r l y o f the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 1954". Booth, E.G., J r . " P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s of A t h l e t e s as Measured by the M.M.P.I.," The Research Q u a r t e r l y o f 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 S i x t e e n P e r s o n a l i t y Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r P e r s o n a l i t y and A b i l i t y T e s t i n g , 1957. C a t t e l l , R.B. P e r s o n a l i t y : A Systematic T h e o r e t i c a l and F a c t u a l Study. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : Institute f o r P e r s o n a l i t y and A b i l i t y T e s t i n g , 1959. C a t t e l l , R.B. S i x t e e n P e r s o n a l i t y F a c t o r Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e f o r P e r s o n a l i t y and A b i l i t y T e s t i n g , 1962. C a t t e l l , R.B. Supplement o f Norms f o r Forms A and B o f the Sixteen P e r s o n a l i t y Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, Illinois: I n s t i t u t e f o r P e r s o n a l i t y and A b i l i t y T e s t i n g , 1962. Coleman, J.C. Abnormal Psychology and Modern L i f e . Foresman and Company, 1965.  Chicago:  E l l i s , A. "The V a l i d i t y of P e r s o n a l i t y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , " Psychological B u l l e t i n . 4-3:385-440, September, 1946. Ferguson, L.W. P e r s o n a l i t y Measurement. H i l l Book Company, 1952.  New York:  McGraw  Flanagan, L. "A Study of P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s of D i f f e r e n t P h y s i c a l A c t i v i t y Groups," The Research Q u a r t e r l y of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. October, 1951. G a r r e t t , H.E. S t a t i s t i c s i n Psychology and E d u c a t i o n . York: D a v i d McKay Company, Inc., 1965.  New  53 Gordon, R.G. P e r s o n a l i t y . Company, Inc., 1928. Haggard, H.W., New York:  New York:  Harcourt, Brace and  and Clements, F.C. The Anatomy o f P e r s o n a l i t y . Harper and B r o t h e r s , P u b l i s h e r , 1936.  Harlow, R.G. "Masculine Inadequacy and Compensatory Development o f Physique," The J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y .  1951, 19:312-323.  Henry, F.M. " P e r s o n a l i t y D i f f e r e n c e s i n A t h l e t e s , P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n and A v i a t i o n Students," P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n .  1941, 38:8.  Hood, A.B. "A Study of the R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Physique and P e r s o n a l i t y V a r i a b l e s Measured the M.M.P.I.," The Research Q u a r t e r l y of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1965. Husman, B.F. "Aggression i n Boxers and W r e s t l e r s as Measured by P r o j e c t i v e Techniques," The Research Q u a r t e r l y o f the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1955. Johnson, W.R., and D a n i e l , H.C. " E f f e c t s o f a Combative Sport Upon P e r s o n a l i t y Dynamics as Measured by a P r o j e c t i v e T e s t , " The Research Q u a r t e r l y o f the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March,  1955.  K r o l l , W., and Petersen, H.H. " P e r s o n a l i t y F a c t o r P r o f i l e s of C o l l e g i a t e F o o t b a l l Teams," The Research Q u a r t e r l y o f the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1965. L a c k i e , W.L. "Expressed A t t i t u d e s o f V a r i o u s Groups o f A t h l e t e s Toward A t h l e t i c Competition," The Research Q u a r t e r l y o f the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1964. L a P l a c e , J . " P e r s o n a l i t y and i t s R e l a t i o n s h i p t o Success i n P r o f e s s i o n a l Baseball,•" The Research Q u a r t e r l y of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. October, 19541 L e e l a , C L . "Body Concept as i t R e l a t e s t o S e l f Concept," The Research Q u a r t e r l y of t h e A.A.H.P.E.R.. December,  196T:  Ray,  H.C. " I n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s of P h y s i c a l and Mental A b i l i t i e s and Achievements o f High S c h o o l Boys," The Research Q u a r t e r l y of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 1940.  S e i s t , H. "Die psychische Egenart d e r S p i t z e n s p o r t l e r , " Z. Dlagnost. P s y c h o l . . 2, 1954.  54 S l u s h e r , H.S. " P e r s o n a l i t y and I n t e l l i g e n c e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of S e l e c t e d High S c h o o l A t h l e t e s and Non-Athletes," The Research Q u a r t e r l y of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1964. S p e r l i n g , A.P. "The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between P e r s o n a l i t y A d j u s t ment and Achievement i n P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n A c t i v i t i e s , " The Research Q u a r t e r l y of the A.A.H.P.E.B.. December, 1948. T i l l m a n , K. " R e l a t i o n s h i p Between P h y s i c a l F i t n e s s and S e l e c t e d P e r s o n a l i t y T r a i t s , " The Research Q u a r t e r l y of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 19&1T. Thune, J.B. " P e r s o n a l i t y of Weight L i f t e r s , " The Research Q u a r t e r l y o f t h e A.A.H.P.E.R.. October, 194"9» Vazquez, V.C. "The P e r s o n a l i t y o f A t h l e t e s , " May, 1945.  Pslootecnla.  Weber, J.R. " R e l a t i o n s h i p s o f P h y s i c a l F i t n e s s t o Success i n C o l l e g e and t o P e r s o n a l i t y , " The Research Q u a r t e r l y o f the A.A.H.P.E.R.. December, 1953. Werner, A . C , and G o t t h e i l , E . " P e r s o n a l i t y Development and P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n C o l l e g e A t h l e t i c s , " The Research Q u a r t e r l y of the A.A.H.P.E.R.. March, 1966. Whiting, H.T., and Stembrldge, D.E. " P e r s o n a l i t y and the P e r s i s t e n t Non-Swimmer," The Research Q u a r t e r l y o f the A.A.H.P.E.R.. October, 195J. '  APPENDIX  APPENDIX A TABLE V I I RAW SCORES OP SUBJECTS IN GROUP A (OTHER ATHLETES) PERSONALITY FACTORS A  B  C  E  F  G  H  I  L  M  0  N  1 10 7 19 16 14 17 19 13 2 13 11 2 6  8 14  9 6 12  Q2 $3 Q4  5 11 16 11  9 14 12 13 7 6 6 19  9 16 15 16 8 14 8 7 15 8 8 14 9 11  9  4  8  9 17 10 6 12 13 12 7  FBJECTS  7 10 14 16 12 4  8  1 11 10 13 9 10 8 15 9 12  3 12 6 16 14 16 13 13 8 4 10  Ql  6 11  9 16 8 13 13 8  6  9 17 9 13 8 13 13 13  7 17  5 15 12 19  co  8 10  8 20 17 18 11  9 11  7 12 19 17 20 16 7 11  5  \->  9 10 12 11 18  8 14  6 13 7 17  8 13 11 12 14 13 17 16 10 15  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 15 8 14 7 7 8  9 17 16 10 17 9  8  8  15 13 7 13 19 12 8 14 13 10 8 13 11 13 8 11 17  TABLE V I I I RAW SCORES OP SUBJECTS IN GROUP B (BODY-BUILDERS) PERSONALITY FACTORS A  1  B  5  C  9  E  P  G  H  9 16 13  I  L  9 11  2 7 10 18 20 15 8 11  M  N  O  Q  8 12 11 8  1  6  Q  2  Q  3  Q  4  9 13 15 4 12  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  5 11  9 13  8  8 14  1  9 10 14 14  5 14 13 11  9 16 15 9 21  5 13 13 7 10 14 15 4  6 16 8 10 15 20 12 16 12 10 9 9 8 11  8 12  8  5 12  4 11 14 13  7 8  8 19 13 15 15 18  7  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 12 14 11 16 11 13  8  9  9  9 11  10 10  5 21 11 12 18 10 10 11 11 13 9 13 16 11 13  11  9 20  5  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  7 .9  14  7  9  5 11 10 7  8  7 15 16 12 14 16 12 8 10 11  15 13 11 17 10 17 11 15 9  9 9  7 12 9  4 13 14 19 17  9 15 8 16 10 16  57  TABLE IX RAW SCORES OP SUBJECTS IN GROUP C (WEIGHT LIFTERS) PERSONALITY FACTORS A B C 1 11  co  P G  H I  8 21 16 14 16 12  0  L H N 5  5  9 12  2 10 11 14 14 12  8  7  9  13  16  3  8  7 18 11 14  9  9  9  3  10  13  4  7  9 18 19 20  7 20 10 11 18  7  5  4  6 11 11 18 14 14 10  6  9  6  EH  i  E  7  15  12 10 11 11  10 11 16 19  17  10  6 17 10  8  9  5 9 11  9 14  13  10  6  9 12 16  11  4  8 18  15  9 11 14  15 15  13 13  9  14  9  6 14  16 15  15  10  8 21  23  22  6 10 7  2 11 17 10  15  13  16 16  9 11  17  12 11  1  8  10 14  13  8  9 14 11 12  13  7  4 16  7 16  7  8 11 18 11 18  9 12  9  8 14  13 15  7 16  13  Q2 Q3 04  8  13  10 12  9  9 16  13  9  2  13  6 10 12 10 11 11 12 10 12 6  15 15  11 11  11  9 14 15 14 14  8 14  2 16  15 23  10 11 10 11 10  6  8  6 16  13  12  8  5 14  19 10  8 11 16  8  5 12  8 16 11  4 12  11 11 12  12 10  19 13  19  Qj  12  5  14 12 16  12 12 14  9 14 14 0 10  7  6  7 12  6 11 12 11 12  APPENDIX B TEST INSTRUCTIONS What t o Do I n s i d e t h i s b o o k l e t are some questions t o see what a t t i t u d e s and i n t e r e s t s  you have.  There are no " r i g h t "  "wrong" answers because everyone has the r i g h t t o h i s views.  and  own  To be a b l e t o get the best advice from your r e s u l t s ,  you w i l l want t o answer them e x a c t l y and I f a separate  truly.  "Answer Sheet" has not been g i v e n t o  you, t u r n t h i s b o o k l e t over and t e a r o f f the Answer Sheet  on  the back page. Write your name and o t h e r p a r t i c u l a r s  a t the top of  the Answer Sheet. F i r s t , you should answer the f o u r sample q u e s t i o n s below so t h a t you can see whether you need t o ask before s t a r t i n g .  Although  anything  you are t o read the q u e s t i o n s i n  t h i s b o o k l e t , you must r e c o r d your answers on the answer sheet  ( a l o n g s i d e the same number as i n the b o o k l e t ) . There are three p o s s i b l e answers t o each q u e s t i o n .  Read the f o l l o w i n g examples and mark your answers a t the top of your answer sheet where i t says x, i n the l e f t - h a n d box answer, i n the middle  "Examples".  Put a mark,  i f your answer c h o i c e i s the  box  "a"  i f your answer c h o i c e i s the  answer, and i n the r i g h t - h a n d box  i f you choose the " c "  "b"  59 answer. Examples 1.  I l i k e t o watch team games,  (a) yes, (b) o c c a s i o n a l l y ,  (c) no. 2.  I p r e f e r people who:  (a) are r e s e r v e d , (b) (are) i n  between, ( c ) make f r i e n d s q u i c k l y . 3.  Money cannot b r i n g happiness,  (a) yes ( t r u e ) ,  (b) i n  between, (c) no ( f a l s e ) . 4.  Woman i s t o c h i l d as c a t i s t o :  (a) k i t t e n ,  (b) dog,  (c) boy. I n the l a s t example t h e r e i s a r i g h t answer - k i t t e n . But t h e r e a r e v e r y few such r e a s o n i n g items among the q u e s t i o n s . 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 t o t u r n the page and s t a r t . When you answer, keep these f o u r p o i n t s i n mind: 1.  You a r e asked n o t t o spend time pondering.  Give the  f i r s t , n a t u r a l answer as i t comes t o you.  Of course,  the q u e s t i o n s a r e too s h o r t t o g i v e you a l l the • p a r t i c u l a r s you would sometimes l i k e t o have.  For  i n s t a n c e , the above q u e s t i o n asks you about "team games" and you might be fonder of f o o t b a l l than b a s k e t b a l l . But you are t o r e p l y " f o r the average game", o r t o s t r i k e an average i n s i t u a t i o n s o f the k i n d s t a t e d . Give the best answer you can a t a r a t e n o t slower than  f i v e o r s i x a minute.  You should f i n i s h i n a  little  more than h a l f an hour. 2.  T r y not t o f a l l back on the middle,  " u n c e r t a i n " answers  except when the answer a t e i t h e r end i s r e a l l y i m p o s s i b l e for 3«  you - perhaps once e v e r y two o r t h r e e q u e s t i o n s .  Be sure not t o s k i p anything, but answer every q u e s t i o n , somehow.  Some may  your b e s t guess.  not a p p l y t o you v e r y w e l l , but g i v e Some may  seem p e r s o n a l ; but remember  t h a t the answer sheets are kept c o n f i d e n t i a l and be s c o r e d without a s p e c i a l s t e n c i l key.  cannot  Answers t o  p a r t i c u l a r q u e s t i o n s are not i n s p e c t e d . 4.  Answer as h o n e s t l y as p o s s i b l e what i s t r u e of you.  Do  not merely mark what seems "the r i g h t t h i n g t o say" t o 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