Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A personality study of successful male and female athletes and professionals 1982

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1983_A7_5 Z47.pdf [ 4.89MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0077392.json
JSON-LD: 1.0077392+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0077392.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0077392+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0077392+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0077392+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0077392.ris

Full Text

A PERSONALITY STUDY OF SUCCESSFUL MALE AND FEMALE: ATHLETES AND PROFESSIONALS by LOUISA W. ZERBE B.PE., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 19 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Education, Physical Education, U.B.C.) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AUGUST 1982 (c)Louisa W. Zerbe, 1982 I n 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 o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t 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 agree t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by t h e head o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 DE-6 (3/81) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The investigator extends her sincere gratitude to her advisor Dr., Sharon Whittaker-Bleuler, for her unending patience, without whose assistance t h i s work would never have been completed. The thanks of the experimenter also goes to my close friends whose support was a continual source of strength. But most important, thanks goes to my parents for t h e i r continued support, (investment i n an e l e c t r i c typewriter for incentive to finish) and gentle prodding. With t h e i r love they were a constant source of encouragement. ABSTRACT The hypotheses that there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between successful male and female individuals i n law, medicine and a t h l e t i c s on six selected personality t r a i t s and f i v e s o c i o - c u l t u r a l factors were tested by administering C a t t e l l ' s 16 PF Form C. and a s o c i o - c u l t u r a l questionnaire. C a t t e l l ' s 16 PF data obtained from: twenty-eight male athletes, twenty-nine female athletes, twenty male professionals and twelve female professionals (professionals being lawyers and doctors), was analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance. Results indicated that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences among the four groups on the six personality t r a i t s examined: emotional s t a b i l i t y , assertiveness, conscientiousness, tough-mindedness, self-assuredness and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y . A Chi Square s t a t i s t i c was used to analyze the data from the s o c i o - c u l t u r a l questionnaire. The r e s u l t s indicated that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences among the four groups on b i r t h order, family size and culture. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r - ences were observed for a t h l e t i c experience (p^. 000.01) and educational experience (p^.008). These differences, however, were anticipated as the c r i t e r i a for selection of subjects was based on t h e i r achievement i n a t h l e t i c s and education. VITA May 1977 Bachelor of Physical Education, University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1979-82 Instructor and Coach, The University of Lethbridge i v TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . ........ ..... . . ..... . . . . . .'. . . . i i ABSTRACT i i i VITA i v LIST OF TABLES v i LIST OF FIGURES v i i CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . 1 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 10 I I I . PROCEDURE AND ANALYSIS... 29 IV. RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . .".". . . . . . . . . .... 35 V. DISCUSSION. . . .49 VI. SUMMARY 59 APPENDIX A 64 B 72 C. . . . . .88 BIBLIOGRAPHY. 98 v LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I Tested Six Personality T r a i t s from the 16PF Form C 33 II Means, Standard Deviations, Sten Scores and 36 F Ratios for Factors C,E,G,I,0 and Q 2 III Frequency Count and Percentages of Groups on 42 B i r t h Order IV Frequency Count and Percentages of Groups on 43 A t h l e t i c Experience V Frequency Count and Percentages of Groups on 44 Culture VI Frequency Count and Percentages of Groups on 45 Family Size VII Frequency Count and Percentages of Groups on 46 Educational Experience VIII Subjects i n Each of Groups at Various Levels of 47 A t h l e t i c Experience IX Subjects i n Each of the Groups at Various Levels 48 of Educational Experience A Anova Table for Emotional S t a b i l i t y 89 B Anova Table for Assertiveness 90 C Anova Table for Conscientiousness 91 D Anova Table for Tough-mindedness 92 E Anova Table for Assurance 93 F Anova Table for S e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y 94 G Chi-Square Table for B i r t h Order 9 5 H Chi-Square Table for Family Size 9 6 I Chi-Square Table for Culture 97 v i LIST OF FIGURE 1 Personality P r o f i l e for Group 2 Personality P r o f i l e for Group 3 Personality P r o f i l e for as a Group 4 Personality P r o f i l e for as a Group FIGURES PAGE Female Athletes as a 38 Male Athletes as a 39 Male Professionals 4 0 Female Professionals 41 v i i 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Presently, within the f i e l d of personality psychology, there i s no consistent agreement as to the d e f i n i t i o n of personality. D e f i n i t i o n s usually emphasize that an individual's personality i s what makes one unique. The majority of d e f i n i t i o n s also depict personality as a hypothetical i n t e r n a l process or structure. According to Lazarus (1971:1) "the psychologist thinks of personality as a study of psychological processes that organize human experience and shape a person's actions and reactions to his environment." There are b a s i c a l l y two r i v a l schools of thought i n personality psychology: the "Social Theories" and the "Individual Theories" (Bavelas, 1978). The s o c i a l theorists emphasize the environment as having the most influence on personality. These theorists assume that the study of personality must include the s o c i a l influences and processes that surround the i n d i v i d u a l . Individual theories, a r i v a l paradigm of the s o c i a l theories, are based on the assumption that personality i s influenced mainly by the t r a i t s , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or d i s p o s i - tions that are within an i n d i v i d u a l . There are a wide var i e t y of i n d i v i d u a l theories. One such theory i s the " T r a i t Approach" which i s perhaps the most enduring approach to the study of personality (Mischel, 1976). 2 The t r a i t approach- conceptualizes t r a i t s as relatively- stable q u a l i t i e s , properties, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or factors that ex i s t within an i n d i v i d u a l . Lazarus (1971:28) defines t r a i t s as " . . . d i s p o s i t i o n a l concepts that i s , they refer to tendencies to react or act i n certain ways. Psychological dispositions are presumably carried around by the person from s i t u a t i o n to s i t u a t i o n , they imply a c e r t a i n l i k e l i h o o d of his behaving i n some given way." Not only has the t r a i t approach been a dominant approach within personality psychology, but also within the f i e l d s of sport psychology as related to personality and a t h l e t i c performance. Henry (1941) , one of the e a r l i e s t workers within the area of personality and a t h l e t i c s , r e l i e d on the t r a i t approach. This approach to the study of personality and a t h l e t i c s persisted through the 1950's (Johnson, Hutton and Johnson 1954) and represented the dominant approach i n the 1960's (Cooper, 1969). Within the sport l i t e r a t u r e , researchers have attempted to describe an a t h l e t i c personality i n terms of various personality t r a i t s . For example, i n review a r t i c l e s by COoper (1969) and O g i l v i e (1970) the "successful" athlete was described as possessing high l e v e l s of aggression, mental toughness, emotional s t a b i l i t y , assertiveness and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y . The personality t r a i t s which "successful" athletes possess may. also be predictive of "success" i n other walks of l i f e . Bachtold and Werner (1970), for example, found . "successful" female psychologists to be independent, secure, as well as emotionally stable, mentally tough, assertive and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t . Up u n t i l the 1970's personality psychologists r e l i e d mainly on the t r a i t approach i n t h e i r study of personality. In the early 1970's however, there emerged a general awareness of the l i m i t a t i o n s of the t r a i t approach. While the t r a i t approach i s important i n the prediction of behavior, i t i s , however, far from perfect (Hogen et a l 1977). The awareness that the t r a i t approach does not f u l l y predict behavior, but that the behavior i s a function of the person and the environment i s known as the " I n t e r a c t i o n i s t Approach". Kane (1970), Smith (1970) and Morgan (1972, 1980) consider the i n t e r a c t i o n i s t approach a more powerful predictor of behavior than person or environment considered alone. Interactionism i s not a new mode of thinking. In 1935 Lewin suggested that behavior was a function of both the dispositions of the person and the variable aspects of the environment. Moreover, C a t t e l l (1957) who i s one of the leading t r a i t t heorists (Mischel 1976) has suggested that personality i s a function of both the i n d i v i d u a l and the environment (Bavelas 1978). The importance of considering both the "Individual" and the "Social" approach to the study of personality i s examined i n Bern and Funder's 1978 a r t i c l e i n which they emphasize that behavior i s a function of both the person and the environment. 4 For the future, experiments w i l l have to consider the contributions of both i n d i v i d u a l differences and the environment (Hjelle and Ziegler 1976). In fact, Sarason, Smith and Diener (1975) found that the proportion of studies i n which both d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l variables are incorporated into the experimental design appears to be increasing. Statement of the Problem The purpose of t h i s study was to determine i f "successful" male and female athletes and "successful" male and female professionals possessed certain personality t r a i t s to the same degree. The t r a i t s investigated were: assertive- ness, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , emotional s t a b i l i t y , mental toughness, conscientiousness and self-assurance. "Successful" professionals and "successful" athletes were also examined to see i f they possessed s i m i l a r background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as: b i r t h order, family si z e , c u l t u r a l , educational and a t h l e t i c experience. The following hypotheses were advanced: 1. That there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences within and between groups of successful male and female athletes and successful male and female professionals on the following personality t r a i t s : assertiveness, tough mindedness, conscien- tiousness, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , self-assurance and emotional s t a b i l i t y . 2. That there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences within and between groups of successful male: and female athletes and 5 successful male and female professionals i n the following f i v e areas of concern: b i r t h order, family si z e , culture, education and a t h l e t i c experience. Delimitations The sample was delimited by the athletes being Canadian and by the "successful" professionals being selected by a panel of "judges" consisting of either four male lawyers or four male doctors. Limitations I t was also necessary to consider that certain l i m i t a - tions are i n e v i t a b l e when questionnaires are used. Whitla (1958) has found that subjects may respond to a questionnaire i n a manner that i s s o c i a l l y accepted. C a t t e l l , Eber and Tatsuoka (1970) believe that the r e s u l t s may be affected by the l e v e l of co-operation, education and honesty of the subjects. Another variable which could not be controlled for was the wide age range of the subjects. This age range may have affected the r e s u l t s . There i s evidence however, as suggested by Stagner 1977, that t r a i t s show high consistency over periods of ten, twenty and t h i r t y years. Significance of the Study Support for the hypotheses may help to e s t a b l i s h a new 6 trend i n the study of personality and a t h l e t i c performance. I t would seem that i n our highly competitive society which places so much emphasis on the pursuit of and reinforcement of "success", individuals "successful" i n other walks of l i f e as well as "successful" athletes might be described as: assertive, tough minded, conscientious, self-assured, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t and emotionally stable. I t would therefore seem appropriate to compare "successful" athletes with those "successful" i n other walks of l i f e as well as athletes of one sport with athletes of another sport. As previously mentioned, (Hjelle and Ziegler (1976) and Sarason, Smith and Diener (1975)) research within the f i e l d of personality psychology has begun to emphasize the importance of the i n t e r a c t i o n between the i n d i v i d u a l and the environment. An approach to personality must therefore consider both i n d i v i d u a l and environmental variables. The present study has taken t h i s approach by adminis- te r i n g C a t t e l l ' s 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (See Appendix B) and a Socio-Cultural Questionnaire (See Appendix B) designed by the researcher to examine f i v e areas of concern: b i r t h order, family s i z e , culture, education and a t h l e t i c experience. D e f i n i t i o n of Terms Personality - " i s a stable set of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and tendencies that determine those commonalities and differences i n the 7 psychological behavior (thought, f e e l i n g and actions) of people that have continuity i n time and that may or may not be e a s i l y understood i n terms of the s o c i a l and b i o l o g i c a l pressures of the immediate s i t u a t i o n alone." (Maddi, 1968:10) C a t t e l l Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) - i s an a n a l y t i c a l questionnaire designed t o measure sixteen independent dimensions of human personality. (See Appendix B for Form C) An Athlete - i s any i n d i v i d u a l a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n competitive sports, where sport i s considered an i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d game. Successful Athlete - a Canadian athlete currently competing at the international l e v e l of competition. Professional - a doctor or lawyer currently p r a c t i s i n g within the boundaries of B r i t i s h Columbia. Successful Professional - a professional who i s selected by three of four panel "judges". Judges for the lawyers w i l l be four lawyers and judges for the doctors w i l l be four doctors. Assertiveness - defined as a desire to influence or control others. I t i s measured by the Factor E scale on C a t t e l l ' s 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire. This dimension of personality ranges from submissive behavior, humble and 8 conforming to dominant behavior, aggressive and competitive. ( C a t t e l l et a l 1970) Tough-mindedness - t h i s t r a i t represents a tough, p r a c t i c a l mature and r e a l i s t i c behavior. I t i s measured by Factor I on C a t t e l l ' s 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire. This dimension ranges from tender-minded behavior, which i s dependent and sensitive to toughs-minded behavior, which i s r e a l i s t i c and s e l f - r e l i a n t . ( C a t t e l l et a l 1970) Self-assuredness - i s defined as behavior that i s r e s i l i e n t , tough, expedient and vigorous. This t r a i t i s Factor 0 on the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. ( C a t t e l l et a l 1-970) Conscientiousness - defined as being persistent, being able to continue even i n the face of opposition. This i s Factor G on the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, a dimension dealing with behavior which ranges from expedient to persistent and rule bound behavior. ( C a t t e l l et a l 1970) S e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y - defined as being resourceful, preferring one's own decisions rather than being a joiner. I t i s measured on the Factor scale of C a t t e l l ' s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. This dimension deals with behavior ranging from, following the group to resourceful and preferring one's own decisions. ( C a t t e l l et a l 1970) 9 Emotional s t a b i l i t y - t h i s t r a i t represents a r e a l i s t i c , stable, calm, thoughtful behavior. I t i s measured by Factor C on C a t t e l l ' s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. This dimension ranges from r e s t l e s s , changeable and neurotic behavior to emotionally mature and persevering behavior. ( C a t t e l l et a l 1970) 10 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The major research thrust, within the area of personality and a t h l e t i c s has been aimed at the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of personality t r a i t s . Research within t h i s f i e l d has dealt with the comparison of: (1) athletes and non-athletes, (2) athletes of d i f f e r i n g a b i l i t y l e v e l s and (3) athletes from d i f f e r e n t sport groups. The following review i s limited to only those studies administering C a t t e l l ' s 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire. This personality inventory i s the most frequently used questionnaire by those researchers interested i n studying the a t h l e t i c personality (Morgan 1980). I t i s also f e l t that an accurate examination of the present study could be made only by comparing i t with other studies administering the 16 PF. Examination of the studies not included i n t h i s review revealed re s u l t s that are similar to those found i n the 16 PF studies. Athletes compared to Non-athletes In a review of l i t e r a t u r e Cooper (1969) suggested that the male athlete compared to the male non-athlete could be described as: (1) more outgoing and s o c i a l l y confident, (2) more outgoing and s o c i a l l y aggressive, (3) more dominant and leading, (4) higher i n s o c i a l adjustment, (5) higher i n self-confidence, (6) more competitive, (7) more emotionally 11 stable, (8) having greater pain tolerance, (9) less anxious and (10) less compulsive. This description of a male athlete was found among the research studies p r i o r to 1969. In fact, Cooper (1969:19) states "...the most s t r i k i n g aspect of the research i s the coherence of the picture of the athlete which emerges." An example of a study concerned with the personality of male athletes i s that of K r o l l (1967) . In t h i s study the 16 PF was administered to nin e t y - f o u r (94) male amateur and c o l l e g i a t e wrestlers. When compared to the norm, the wrestlers were described as being s i g n i f i c a n t l y more tough-minded and s e l f - r e l i a n t . Omizo (1979) also found s i g n i f i c a n t differences between athletes and non-athletes. The athletes were American male World Class Olympic contenders who were more reserved, . i n t e l l e c t u a l , c r i t i c a l , aloof, conservative and t r a d i t i o n a l when compared to non-athletes. In a more recent study s i g n i f i c a n t differences between athletes and non-athletes were also observed i n a study by T r i p a t h i (1980) . The athletes were male college participants i n hockey, c r i c k e t and f o o t b a l l . Athletes were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more outgoing, emotionally stable,: assertive, sober, expedient, shy, tough-minded, p r a c t i c a l , conservative, group dependent, undisciplined and relaxed when compared with 30 non-athletes. In the 1950's and 1960's the Jmajority of studies pertaining to personality and sport performance, were concerned with the male athlete (Cooper 1969). During the 1970's 12 researchers also became interested i n studying female a t h l e t i c personality p r o f i l e s . For example, Marks (1971) administered the 16 PF to forty female v a r s i t y college athletes involved i n basketball, bowling, f i e l d hockey, golf, gymnastics, lacrosse, s o f t b a l l , swimming, tennis and v o l l e y b a l l . Results of the 16 PF indicated that the female athletes compared to the norm were more assertive, suspicious, experimenting, controlled, stubborn, competitive, l i b e r a l , s o c i a l l y precise and independent. In 1974, Brasher administered the 16 PF to women pa r t i c i p a t i n g i n extramural a t h l e t i c s at Brigham Young University. The athletes were involved i n basketball, f i e l d hockey, s o f t b a l l , v o l l e y b a l l , track and f i e l d , archery, badminton, gymnastics, sk i i n g , swimming and tennis. Results indicated that the a t h l e t i c group i n t h i s study could be described as emotionally stable, s e l f - c o n t r o l l e d , reserved, f o r t h r i g h t , conservative, i n t e l l i g e n t and happy-go-lucky. While there appears to be a degree of consistency i n the personality research of athlete compared to non-athlete, there are also some discrepancies evident. For example, i n a longitudinal study Werner (1966) found no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n personality t r a i t s of athletes and non-athletes. This four year study on a group of three hundred: and forty U.S. male cadets also found no evidence that college a t h l e t i c p a r t i c i p a - t i o n (over a four year period) s i g n i f i c a n t l y influences personality structure as measured by the 16 PF. Darden (1972) also found the athlete i n his. study to be 13 within normal or average range on t h e i r personality factors as measured by the 16 PF Questionnaire. The 16 PF was given to twenty-two competitive male body builders and t h i r t y competitive male weight l i f t e r s . The results showed no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the subjects and the normal population. Seventy-one male karate participants i n K r o l l ' s (1967) study were also administered the 16 PF. K r o l l concluded that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between his subjects and the normal population. In summary i t becomes apparent that there are discrepancies within the findings of research dealing with the personality of athletes as compared to non-athletes. Perhaps one of the major reasons for the discrepancies i s the way i n which researchers have defined "athlete". The term "athlete" has been defined so that i t encompasses individuals of a wide range of s k i l l , and competitive l e v e l . For example, i n Darden's study, one might wonder i f body builders are c l a s s i f i e d as athletes. While i n K r o l l ' s (1967). study, amateur and c o l l e g i a t e wrestlers may vary i n s k i l l l e v e l , i n competitive l e v e l , as well as i n experience p r i o r to college or university competition. Athletes of d i f f e r i n g a b i l i t y levels The concept that high l e v e l , champion or successful performers i n a t h l e t i c s are characterized by psychological 14 p r o f i l e s which d i s t i n g u i s h them from lower l e v e l performers, i s a view which has created a great deal of controversy. A researcher who has found s i g n i f i c a n t differences between high and low l e v e l competitors i s Bushan (1978). In th i s study the 16 PF was administered to f i v e males and f i v e females who represented India at international events i n badminton and table tennis, as well as f i v e male and f i v e female athletes who had never achieved any d i s t i n c t i o n i n badminton and table tennis. Bushan found that the successful players when compared with the remaining subjects scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on dominance, extroversion and surgency. Williams et a l (197.0) also found s i g n i f i c a n t differences between high and low l e v e l competitors. In t h i s study the 16 PF, Form B of Jackson*s Personality Research Form and Edward's Personal Preference Schedule were administered to t h i r t y female amateur fencers to determine i f there was any c o r r e l a t i o n between personality t r a i t s : and lev e l s of achievement i n the 196 8 National American Fencing Championships. Williams et a l found that the national l e v e l competitive fencer was ambitious, i n t e l l i g e n t , a n a l y t i c a l , assertive, aggressive, independent, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t and reserved. The authors however, found only one personality trait—dominance, which discriminated between high: and low l e v e l competitors at the championships. A more recent study by Dowd and Innes (1981) of ninety- three male and female players i n v o l l e y b a l l and squash who had achieved a high l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n (training at the State level) were d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from lower l e v e l players by 15 a combination of factors. The high achievers were more i n t e l l i g e n t , experimenting and conscientious when compared with low achievers. The previously mentioned studies are examples of studies which have found s i g n i f i c a n t differences between athletes of d i f f e r i n g s k i l l a b i l i t y . K r o l l (1967) however, found that athletes of various achievements had few i f any differences i n personality variables. K r o l l administered the 16 PF to twenty-eight c o l l e g i a t e male wrestlers of superior a b i l i t y , t h i r t y - t h r e e c o l l e g i a t e wrestlers of average to below average a b i l i t y . Results of t h i s study showed no personality differences between groups. In another study by K r o l l (1967), seventy-one male amateur karate participants were divided into advanced, intermediate and novice. Using the 16 PF, K r o l l found that the sample studied showed no personality differences between the three groups of p a r t i c i p a n t s . Results of a study by Rushall (196 7) also showed no personality differences between successful and unsuccessful male athletes. Rushall administered the 16 PF to the 1966, 1967 and 1968 Indiana University f o o t b a l l teams. Results indicated that personality was not related to success, and there was no difference i n p e r s o n a l i t i e s when comparing those on a winning f o o t b a l l team and those on a losing f o o t b a l l team. In another study by Rushall (1970) three l e v e l s of swimmers: NCAA and MD national q u a l i f i e r s , college swimmers and age group swimmers were given the 16 PF to investigate the 16 personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which enhance superior performance in swimming. Rushall, however, concluded that success i n swimming i s not dependent upon personality t r a i t s alone. In summary, i t i s apparent that there are discrepancies within the findings of research studies dealing with the comparison of athletes of d i f f e r i n g a b i l i t y l e v e l s . One major reason for such discrepancies i s that d i f f e r e n t levels of competition may not be i n d i c a t i v e of s k i l l a b i l i t y . For example, i n studies where athletes are subdivided into v a r s i t y , intramural and non-participants, the d i v i s i o n i s often based on p a r t i c i p a t i o n rather than s k i l l l e v e l . Athletes from d i f f e r e n t sports groups Two hypotheses that have created a great deal of controversy are: (1) that s p e c i f i c sport groups can be distinguished on the basis of p e r s o n a l i t i e s , and (2) that differences e x i s t i n the personality t r a i t s of athletes involved i n i n d i v i d u a l and team sports. In a study dealing with a comparison of i n d i v i d u a l and team sport athletes, Peterson (1967) gave the 16 PF to t h i r t y - eight female U.S. Olympic 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 and f i f t y - n i n e female U.S. Olympic and AAU athletes p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n team sports. Results showed that women engaged i n i n d i v i d u a l sports when compared with those i n team sports were more dominant, aggressive, adventurous, 17 se n s i t i v e , imaginative, radical,, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t and resourceful. Another study comparing pers o n a l i t i e s of i n d i v i d u a l and team sports athletes was done by Malumphy (1968) . Using the 16 PF Malumphy compared the personalities of seventy-seven i n t e r c o l l e g i a t e female athletes i n : i n d i v i d u a l sports (tennis, golf, competitive swimming, archery), subjectively judged sports (synchronized swimming and gymnastics), team sports (baksetball, s o f t b a l l and f i e l d hockey) and team-individual sports (active i n team and i n d i v i d u a l sports) as well as forty-eight non- p a r t i c i p a n t s . Results of the 16 PF indicated that the i n d i v i d u a l participants were less anxious, more venturesome, more extroverted and had more leadership q u a l i t i e s than the other sport groups. Participants i n subjectively judged sports were less anxious than team pa r t i c i p a n t s , and were also more conscientious than the team-individual group and more extro- verted than the team and team-individual p a r t i c i p a n t s . S i g n i f i c a n t differences between male athletes of s p e c i f i c sport groups were found i n a study by K r o l l and Crenshaw (1970). The 16 PF was administered to eighty-one male c o l l e g i a t e f o o t b a l l players, ninety-four wrestlers, seventy-one karate participants and one hundred and forty-one gymnasts. Results indicated that the f o o t b a l l players and wrestlers exhibited p r o f i l e s which were homogeneous but s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from those who were gymnasts: and karate p a r t i c i p a n t s . The gymnasts: and karate participants were more s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t , more reserved and detached than wrestlers or f o o t b a l l players. The p r o f i l e s of the gymnasts and karate 18 participants i n t h i s study were also s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from each other. Karate participants were more tense, conscientious, rule bound and independent when compared with gymnasts while the gymnasts were more relaxed than the three other groups. Another study dealing with the comparison of athletes of various sport groups was done by O'Connor (1976). O'Connor administered the 16 PF to four groups of i n t e r c o l l e g i a t e female athletes and one control group consisting of non- competitors. The subjects were: thirteen basketball players, six gymnasts, nine tennis players, thirteen swimmers and fourteen non-competitors. Analysis of the data found s i g n i - f i c a n t differences on four of the sixteen personality t r a i t s : i n t e l l i g e n c e , radicalism, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y and s e l f - c o n t r o l . A more recent study by Dolphin et a l (1980) also found personality differences between the various a t h l e t i c groups i n t h e i r study. Cross country runners were described as very sober, while Judo participants were very happy-go-lucky. Rowers and cross country runners were very controlled while Judo participants were found undisciplined. Judo players also tended to be more reserved i n contrast to the other group of cross country runners and rowers. Despite many studies which have found s i g n i f i c a n t differences among s p e c i f i c sport groups, Alderman (1974) suggests that the data does not support the two hypotheses previously mentioned: (1) that s p e c i f i c sport groups can be distinguished on the basis of p e r s o n a l i t i e s , and (2) that 19 differences e x i s t i n the personality t r a i t s of athletes involved i n i n d i v i d u a l and team sports. This view has been supported by several studies. For example, the 16 PF was administered to two hundred and seventy-eight male athletes representing twenty d i f f e r e n t sport groups (four team sports and sixteen i n d i v i d u a l sports) and eighty female athletes representing eight d i f f e r e n t sport groups (two team sports and six i n d i v i d u a l sports) a l l of whom were members of Czechoslovakian national teams and participants i n the f i n a l t r i a l s for the Olympics (K r o l l et a l 1973). The purpose of the study was to make comparisons of the personality p r o f i l e s of the three hundred and eight athletes. Results of the sample studied did not support the premise that participants i n a s p e c i f i c sport have si m i l a r personality p r o f i l e s . Results of a study by Marks (1971) also indicated no evidence of a difference i n personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as measured by the 16 PF between i n d i v i d u a l and team sport p a r t i c i p a n t s . The 16 PF was given to forty female c o l l e g i a t e athletes selected from the sports: basketball, bowling, f i e l d hockey, golf, gymnastics, lacrosse, s o f t b a l l , swimming, tennis and v o l l e y b a l l . The 16 PF was also administered by Foster (1971) to f i f t y - s i x female basketball players as well as for t y female s o f t b a l l players. Results indicated no s i g n i f i c a n t difference or no p a r t i c u l a r set of personality factors that d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between the two groups studied. A recent study by T r i p a t h i (1980): also found no 20 s i g n i f i c a n t differences associated with p a r t i c u l a r sport groups. In t h i s study college male athletes p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n f o o t b a l l , c r i c k e t and hockey were examined. Upon reviewing the research studies comparing the personality of athletes i n d i f f e r e n t sport groups, i t i s obvious that they have been unable to come to any consistent agreement. One of the reasons for the inconsistency i s i n the experimental design of many of the research studies. In Mark's (1971) study, for example, fo r t y athletes were spread over ten groups. This meant that there was an average of four subjects per group, making the experiment less sen s i t i v e to detecting experimental e f f e c t s . I t i s also important that the a t h l e t i c groups being studied are as homogenous as possible. When comparing athletes of d i f f e r e n t sport groups, consideration must be made as to whether the athletes are a l l within the same s k i l l l e v e l and competitive l e v e l . The successful non-athletic personality Despite the importance our society places on "success" few personality studies have examined successful individuals i n order to determine whether a general description of high achieving individuals could be ascertained. An exception to t h i s i s an investigation by Bachtold and Werner (1970). In t h i s study successful female psycholo- g i s t s were given the 16 PF and found to be independent, 21 assertive, emotionally stable, tough-minded, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t and secure. In a more recent study by Bachtold (1976) eight hundred and sixty-three women of d i s t i n c t i o n were administered the 16 PF. These women were s c i e n t i s t s , a r t i s t s , writers, psychologists and p o l i t i c i a n s . When compared with the norms the four groups were a l l more i n t e l l i g e n t , assertive, adventur- ous and less conservative. Also there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the four groups on any personality t r a i t s as measured by the 16 PF. Henney (1975) also investigated success using the 16 PF. The sample i n t h i s study was limited to t h i r t y - s i x male managers d i r e c t l y responsible for production at the Longbridge factory of B r i t i s h Leyland. Each manager was d i r e c t l y respon- s i b l e for roughly: 400 people and each manager had experience i n engineering and 3 to 5 years experience at the managerial l e v e l . Results of the study indicate that the subjects could be described as being: assertive, emotionally stable, outgoing, mentally tough and extroverted. Morgan (1973) compared successful female athletes, attorneys and physicians. The 16 PF was administered to eleven professional female golfers and tennis players, eleven female attorneys and twelve female physicians. Results of t h i s study indicated that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the three groups i n personality structure. S i g n i f i c a n t differences however, were observed when the three groups combined were compared to the population norms. As a combined 22 group of subjects compared to the norms the athletes, attorneys and physicians were described as being more: i n t e l l i g e n t , assertive, tough-minded, independent, relaxed, reserved, emotionally stable, imaginative, experimenting and controlled. In summary the few studies presented here have examined the p e r s o n a l i t i e s of successful i n d i v i d u a l s . Each study found differences between the subject group and the population norm. An important aspect to consider when making these comparisons i s how the term "success" has been defined. De f i n i t i o n s of "success" range from success i n terms of monetary achievement to success i n terms of popularity to success i n terms of employment position or success i n terms of s e n i o r i t y . Factors influencing success A review of the l i t e r a t u r e on environmental variables such as b i r t h order and family size has produced a lack of consistent findings. For example, Adams (1972) suggests that generalizations can be made about b i r t h order while Schooler (1972) disputes t h i s finding and suggests that there i s no r e l i a b l e evidence supporting b i r t h order e f f e c t s . M i t c h e l l and Schroers (1973) also conclude, that while some general b i r t h order e f f e c t s have been found, the l i t e r a t u r e tends to display a picture of confusion. Much of the research i n the area of b i r t h order has 23 dealt with the comparison of f i r s t born to later-born children. For example, Sampson et a l (1967) studied the differences between f i r s t and l a t e r born children on need achievement. They c o l l e c t e d data from two hundred and f i f t y - o n e high school students of two s i b l i n g families representing a l l possible combinations of ord i n a l p o s i t i o n , subject sex and s i b l i n g sex. Results of the modified version of the Winterbottom scale indicated that the f i r s t borns had higher need achievement than l a t e r born children. Karabenich (1971) also found no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between selected b i r t h order groups on need achievement. In t h i s study one hundred and seventy male introductory psychology college students were divided into sixty-two f i r s t borns, s i x t y - one second borns and forty-seven l a t e r borns. Results of t h i s study were obtained from two te s t s : the TAT and the te s t anxiety TAQ scale. Another study that found no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between b i r t h order groups on need: achievement was Strumpfer (1973). The Holmes-Tyler self-peer r a t i n g t e s t and the Mehrabiam Resultant measures of achievement motivation were given to one hundred f i f t y - e i g h t female university students and one hundred and s i x t y male univer s i t y students. The subjects were grouped i n terms of sex, ordinal p o s i t i o n and family s i z e . The evidence for b i r t h order differences on i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y i s somewhat, stronger than that for differences i n need achievement. Lunneborg (1968) for example, studied 2,878 males and 2,52 3 females who were high school seniors. The subjects 24 took a pre-college battery of tests and analysis of the data revealed that among the f i r s t borns, the mean grades i n English, foreign language, mathematics, s o c i a l studies, natural sciences and el e c t i v e s were always higher when compared with the l a t e r born subjects. Similar r e s u l t s have been found by others (Adams and P h i l l i p s 1972; Burton 1968; Bradley and Sanbon 1969; Lessing and Oberlander 1967). Family size as well as b i r t h order has been a heavily researched topic. Masterton (1971) for example, administered the Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale to one hundred and f i f t y - f i v e introductory psychology students consisting of thirteen only children, thirty-seven with one s i b l i n g , f o r t y - eight with two s i b l i n g s , f i f t y - s e v e n with three or more. S i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s for family size and sex indicated that subjects with smaller families showed lower need approval and that females i n general showed higher need approval. Migliorino (1974) also studied family size as well as socio-economic l e v e l and i n t e l l i g e n c e . A p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n was found between socio-economic l e v e l and the mental develop- ment of the subject. In general, the higher the socio-economic l e v e l , the greater the mental development. There was however, a negative c o r r e l a t i o n between mental development and family size. For example, children from smaller families tend to have higher lev e l s of i n t e l l i g e n c e while children from larger families tend to display lower l e v e l s of i n t e l l i g e n c e . In summary, disagreement among investigators i s quite evident i n the l i t e r a t u r e concerning the eff e c t s of b i r t h order 25 and family size on i n t e l l i g e n c e , need achievement and need approval. I t might be expected that an individual's personality development would be affected by in t e r a c t i o n with other family members. This i n t e r a c t i o n would be determined by ordi n a l p o s i t i o n and size of family. However, the evidence for such ef f e c t s i n general i s weak. Warren (1968:48) describes the findings of studies r e l a t i n g to b i r t h order as a "confused but i n t r i g u i n g concept". Perhaps a major reason for t h i s confusion l i e s i n the various modifications of the basic d e f i n i t i o n of b i r t h order. Simply defined b i r t h order i s "the sequential p o s i t i o n of a person among his or her s i b l i n g s with respect to order of b i r t h " (Warren 1968:48). Some investigators compare f i r s t born with a l l l a t e r born children. Others compare eldest with youngest children. Some investigators consider only children to be f i r s t borns, while other investigators eliminate only children from t h e i r study. Another reason for the confusion among b i r t h order studies i s presented by Masterton (1971) who suggests that many authors have f a i l e d to control for ef f e c t s of subject's sex. In addition subjects from larger families who are fourth and f i f t h born are often eliminated from studies. Chapter Summary Upon review of the l i t e r a t u r e presented i n t h i s 26 chapter, i t becomes apparent that there i s no consistent agreement among the research findings of studies dealing with the comparisons of: (1) athlete and non-athlete, (2) athletes of d i f f e r i n g a b i l i t y levels and (3) athletes from d i f f e r e n t sport groups. Perhaps one of the major reasons for the discrepancies within the research findings i s the manner i n which the term "athlete" has been defined. Researchers have defined the term "athlete" i n such a way that i t includes a var i e t y of individuals i n a wide range of s k i l l l e v e l , p a r t i c i p a t i o n l e v e l , competitive l e v e l and l e v e l of experience. Another reason for the inconsistent findings i s that d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of competition may not be i n d i c a t i v e of s k i l l a b i l i t y . For example, an athlete p a r t i c i p a t i n g at the c o l l e g i a t e l e v e l i s not necessarily more s k i l l e d than an athlete competing at the amateur l e v e l . Researchers rather than considering only l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n should also consider l e v e l s of achievement: accomplished by the athlete. Another aspect i s the experimental design which may be a reason for the inconsistent r e s u l t s of research studies dealing with the a t h l e t i c personality. For example the greater number of subjects i n a research study, the more sensitive that study i s to detecting experimental e f f e c t s . Researchers should also concern themselves with making t h e i r subject population as homogenous as possible. Consideration should be given as to whether the athletes are a l l within the same s k i l l l e v e l , p a r t i c i p a t i o n l e v e l , competitive l e v e l and l e v e l of 27 achievements. Unlike the studies dealing with the a t h l e t i c personality, few discrepancies were presented i n the review of l i t e r a t u r e for the successful non-athletic personality. This i s an area i n personality where l i t t l e research has occurred despite our society's continued emphasis on success. Studies by Bachtold and Werner (1970), Bachtold (1976), Henney (1975) and Morgan (1973) were a l l presented and showed that consistently s i g n i f i c a n t differences have been found within successful male and female individuals when compared to the population norm. An important aspect to consider when studying successful indi v i d u a l s i s how the term "success" has been defined. D e f i n i t i o n s of success have a wide range of p o s s i b i l i t i e s and researchers should make an attempt to c l e a r l y state t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n . While few discrepancies were found within the research studies dealing with the successful non-athletic personality, the l i t e r a t u r e on the factors influencing success produced a lack of consistent findings. I t i s suggested that the main reason for t h i s confusion l i e s i n how researchers have defined b i r t h order. Another reason for the confusion i s that children from large families have often been eliminated from many research studies. I t i s important that the experimental design be c a r e f u l l y examined when studying factors influencing success, as well as studies concerned with per s o n a l i t i e s of successful 28 non-athletes and studies dealing with the a t h l e t i c personality. The d e f i n i t i o n of terms must be c l e a r l y stated, the number of subjects c a r e f u l l y considered as well as the s t a t i s t i c a l procedure used to analyze the data. 29 CHAPTER III PROCEDURE AND ANALYSIS Subject Population The selection of successful professional subjects for t h i s study was performed by four male lawyers and four male physicians who volunteered as "judges". These individuals were a r b i t r a r i l y selected by the experimenter and asked i f they would l i s t male and female colleagues whom they considered successful. The "judges" were not provided with any c r i t e r i a for i d e n t i f y i n g "success". If an individual's name appeared on three of the four "judges" l i s t s , t h i s person was included i n the sample population. From the judges' l i s t s twelve (12) female and twenty- seven (27) male doctors, eight (8) female lawyers and twenty (20) male lawyers were selected. Mailing addresses for these po t e n t i a l subjects were obtained from the "Medical Directory: College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C." and from the " B r i t i s h Columbia P r o v i n c i a l Directory of Attorneys". The successful subjects i n the a t h l e t i c group were contacted through the National V o l l e y b a l l Sport Governing Body and through mailing l i s t s of basketball, gymnastics, f i e l d hockey and w e i g h t l i f t i n g national team members. From these l i s t s the following number of athletes were included i n the sample population: twelve (12) female and twelve (12) male v o l l e y b a l l athletes, f i f t e e n (15) female, and thirteen (13) 30 male basketball athletes, sixteen (16) female and eighteen (18) male gymnasts, sixteen (16) male f i e l d hockey athletes and twelve (12) male w e i g h t - l i f t e r s . Once the mailing l i s t s for the a t h l e t i c group and the professional group were complete, each candidate was mailed a l e t t e r of introduction (See Appendix A) along with C a t t e l l ' s 16 PF Form C and a Socio-cultural questionnaire designed by the experimenter (See Appendix B). A stamped self-addressed envelope was also enclosed for the convenience of the subject. The subjects for t h i s study were given one month to respond to the i n i t i a l test package. After the one month period, a l l those who had not yet responded were sent a second tes t package consisting of a reminder l e t t e r (See Appendix A), 16 PF Form C and the Socio-cultural questionnaire along with a stamped, self-addressed envelope. A f i n a l l e t t e r of reminder was sent to those subjects who had s t i l l not responded aft e r a two month period. At the end of t h i s two month period, the subject population for t h i s study consisted of eighty-nine successful male and female subjects from a possible one hundred and eighty- one subjects. The subjects were: 1) Twenty-eight (28) successful male athletes from the sports of basketball (4), v o l l e y b a l l (5), gymnastics (9), f i e l d hockey (7) and weight l i f t i n g (3); 2) Twenty-nine (29) successful female athletes from the sports basketball (6), v o l l e y b a l l (11) and gymnastics (12); 3) Twenty (20) successful male professionals currently 31 p r a c t i s i n g law (8) or medicine (12) i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia; 4) Twelve (12) successful female professionals currently- p r a c t i s i n g law (5) and medicine (7) i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Instruments In t h i s investigation the instruments which were used included a personality inventory ( C a t t e l l ' s 16 PF Form C) and a S o c i o - c u l t u r a l questionnaire (See Appendix B). C a t t e l l ' s 16 PF Form C. This personality inventory was selected for use i n t h i s study because i t met the following requirements: 1) The 16 PF i s , according to Cratty (1973), the inventory most used by psychologists interested i n studying the personality of athletes. 2) C a t t e l l ' s 16 PF has a well established set of norms for a l l four 16 PF forms. 3) Scores obtained from the 16 PF can be corrected for age differences. 4) The l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study required the use of an o b j e c t i v e l y scored personality instrument which would give a p r o f i l e of the subjects i n the short length of time available for t e s t i n g . 5) The 16 PF i s a multidimensional set of sixteen questionnaire scales. R e l i a b i l i t y of the various factors 32 ranges from .50 to .85. These r e l i a b i l i t i e s correspond roughly to the i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t i e s ( C a t t e l l 1953). 6) I t has been experimentally demonstrated by Spielberger (1970) that subjects may tend to answer inventories not honestly but i n a manner which w i l l best r e f l e c t them. This type of response i s known as "Response D i s t o r t i o n " . Form C as well as Form D of C a t t e l l ' s 16 PF are the only forms which contain a scale referred to as the "Motivational D i s t o r t i o n " scale or the "MD" scale. This scale measures the l e v e l of the subject's response d i s t o r t i o n . Presented i n Table I are the six personality factors being tested for using the 16 PF Form C. These six factors: emotional s t a b i l i t y , assertiveness, conscientiousness, toughmindedness, self-assurance and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y have been frequently used i n describing "successful" i n d i v i d u a l s . The Socio-cultUral Questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed to obtain information on f i v e areas of concern: b i r t h order, family si z e , culture, educational and a t h l e t i c experience. The questionnaire i s composed of twenty-three tes t items, f i f t e e n related to the subject's own background and the remaining eight items related to parental background information. 33 TABLE I TESTED SIX PERSONALITY TRAITS FROM THE 16 PF FORM C FACTOR DESCRIPTION OF THE BEHAVIOR C Affected by feelings versus emotionally stable E Humble versus assertive G Expedient versus conscientious I . . Tough-minded versus tender-minded 0 Self-assured versus apprehensive Q~ Group-dependent versus s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t Analysis Of the Data As the completed questionnaires were returned by the subjects, each set was coded so that a l l information on s p e c i f i c i ndividuals could be kept together. The 16 PF was scored by hand using scoring s t e n c i l s and following the procedure described i n the Manual ( C a t t e l l 1972). The raw scores were then corrected for any age differences using the age correction tables found i n the manual. A t a l l y sheet was devised for the s o c i o - c u l t u r a l questionnaire (See Appendix B) and responses recorded for each subject's return. A l l subjects were then mailed an expression of appreciation (See Appendix A) for t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n plus a 16 PF personality p r o f i l e of t h e i r answers to C a t t e l l 1 s 16 PF Form C. 34 The hypothesis that there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences among means for male and female successful athletes and professionals on six dimensions of the 16 PF (Factor C, E, G, I, 0 and Q^) was analyzed using a one way analysis of variance on each factor. To avoid the p r o b a b i l i t y of one or more Type II errors the .05 l e v e l of significance was established for re j e c t i o n of the f i r s t hypothesis. This l e v e l of significance (p=0.05) i s considered to be the conventional l e v e l used (Robson 1974). The .05 l e v e l of significance was also established for rej e c t i o n of the second hypothesis which states that: there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences among male and female successful athletes and professionals on f i v e areas of concern: b i r t h order, family s i z e , culture, educational and a t h l e t i c experience. A Chi Square s t a t i s t i c was used on the data obtained from the s o c i o - c u l t u r a l questionnaire. 35 CHAPTER IV RESULTS This study was designed to investigate the s i m i l a r i t i e s and/or differences among four groups of successful i n d i v i d u a l s with regard to personality and s o c i o - c u l t u r a l information. Data and results w i l l be presented according to the type of information obtained. Personality information i s followed by the so c i o - c u l t u r a l information. Personality Assessment C a t t e l l ' s 16 PF was used to test the f i r s t hypothesis that there would be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences among means for male and female successful athletes and professionals on s i x factors, C, E, G, I, 0 and Q2- Table II contains the means,- standard deviations, F ra t i o s and sten scores for each of the six personality factors tested. 36 TABLE II MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, STEN SCORES AND F RATIOS FOR FACTORS C, E, G, I, 0 AND Q 0 FACTOR GROUP X s STEN F RATIO Male Athletes 8 .39 2. 12 6 1 .128 Emotional (r) Female Athletes 8 .59 2. 08 7 11 S t a b i l i t y i * - ) Male Professionals 7 .60 2. 07 6 II Female Professionals 7 . 66 2. 70 6 II Male Athletes 5 .86 1. 65 6 2 .240 A s s e r t i - (v\ Female Athletes 4 .90 2. 74 6 II veness iw Male Professionals 5 .95 2. 65 6 II Female Professionals 6 . 92 2. 50 7 11 Male Athletes 7 .07 2. 45 6 .684 Conscien- (a\ Female Athletes 6 .80 1. 93 5 II tiousness Male Professionals 7 .65 1. 90 6 II Female Professionals 6 .67 3. 21 5 II Male Athletes 5 .39 2. 51 5 2 .297 Tough- IT) Female Athletes 6 . 00 1. 83 4 II mindedness \ J-) Male Professionals 5 .03 1. 98 5 II Female Professionals .6 .85 1. 77 5 II Male Athletes 4 .83 2. 39 5 2 .550 Se l f - (n\ Female Athletes 6 .62 3. 17 5 II assurance Male Professionals 6 .03 1. 60 6 II Female Professionals 6 .15 0. 63 5 II Male Athletes 4. .43 3. 01 5 2 .375 Se l f - In \ Female Athletes 4 .37 1. 93 6 II s u f f i c i e n t Male Professionals 6 .10 2. 61 7 II Female Professionals 5 .19 2. 14 7 II 37 On Factor C, the sten score for the female athletes was above the normal range of 4.5 to 6.5. On Factors E, G, 0 and Q 2, the sten scores f e l l within the normal range and for Factor I the sten score f e l l below the norm as shown i n Figure 1. The sten score for the male athletes on a l l six personality Factors C, E, G, I, 0 and Q 2 were a l l within the normal range of 4.5 to 6.5 as shown i n Figure 2. Male professionals' sten scores were above the average on Factor Q 2 while they were a l l average for Factors C, E, G, I and 0 as shown i n Figure 3. Figure 4 shows the sten scores for the female professionals. On Factors E and Q 2 the sten scores were above the normal range. The sten scores were average for Factors C, G, I and 0. Analysis of the personality data indicated no s i g n i f i - cant difference at the .05 l e v e l between the four groups on the six personality t r a i t s examined. Hypothesis one, was therefore supported. Summary tables of the one-way analysis of variance for a l l Variables C, E, G, I, 0 and Q 0 are presented i n Appendix C. FACTOR 1 2 3 4 STANDARD TE 5 6 ]N SCORE 7 8 9 10 (STEN) C E G I 0 Q2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • If * / , T / 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • RANGE OF NORMAL SCORES FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION Figure 1 . — P e r s o n a l i t y P r o f i l e for Female Athletes as a Group FACTOR 1 2 3 4 STANDARD TI 5 6 :N SCORE 7 8 9 10 (STEN) C E G I 0 Q2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' • • • '-v. .. " ' *• . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • RANGE OF NORMAL SCORES FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION Figure 2 . — P e r s o n a l i t y P r o f i l e for Male Athletes as a Group FACTOR 1 2 3 4 STANDARD Tl 5 6 :N SCORE 7 8 9 10 (STEN) C E G I 0 Q 2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * • • ' ".I.'*; . ' ' " • . • t \ • \ ̂ *. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • \ . . . RANGE OF NORMAL SCORES FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION Figure 3 . — P e r s o n a l i t y P r o f i l e for Male Professionals as a Group RANGE OF NORMAL SCORES FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION Figure 4 . — P e r s o n a l i t y P r o f i l e for Female Professionals as a Group 42 Socio-cultural Assessment B i r t h Order. Table III shows that the female professional group had the highest percentage of f i r s t borns compared with the other three groups. Six of the twelve female professionals, exactly 50%, were f i r s t born children, while 30% of the male professionals, 21.4% of the male athletes and 10.3% of the female athletes were f i r s t borns. TABLE III FREQUENCY COUNT AND PERCENTAGES OF GROUPS ON BIRTH ORDER 1 2 3 4 BIRTH 5 ORDER 6 7 8 GROUP 1 6 21.4% 6 21.4% 7 25.0% 3 10.7% 2 7.1% 2 7.1% 0 0.0% 2 7.1% GROUP 2 3 10.3% 8 27.6% 11 37. 9% 1 3.4% 2 6.9% 2 6.9% 1 3.4% 1 3.4% GROUP 3 6 30. 0% 6 30. 0% 0 0.0% 5 25.0% 3 15.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% GROUP 4 6 50.0% 4 3 3 • 3 % 1 8.3% 1 8. 3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% GROUP 1 = MALE ATHLETES GROUP 2 = FEMALE ATHLETES GROUP 3 = MALE PROFESSIONALS GROUP 4 = FEMALE PROFESSIONALS 43 A t h l e t i c Experience. At the time the data was taken one hundred percent of the male and female athletes, only 8.3% of the female professionals and 15% of the male professionals had been or were involved i n international a t h l e t i c competition. However, 80% of the male professionals and 58% of the female professionals had been competitive i n a t h l e t i c s at either the university, national or international l e v e l . Of the male professionals 100% had been or were s t i l l active i n a t h l e t i c s , while 16.7% of the female professionals had never participated i n a t h l e t i c s as shown i n Table IV. TABLE IV FREQUENCY COUNT AND PERCENTAGES OF GROUPS ON ATHLETIC EXPERIENCE GROUP 1 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 28 100.0% GROUP 2 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 29 100.0% GROUP 3 0 0. 0% 2 10.0% 2 10.0% 7 35.0% 6 30.0% 3 15.0% GROUP 4 2 16.7% 3 25. 0% 2 16. 7% 2 16.7% 2 16.7% 1 8.3% GROUP 1 = MALE ATHLETES GROUP 2 = FEMALE ATHLETES GROUP 3 = MALE PROFESSIONALS GROUP 4 = FEMALE PROFESSIONALS 44 Culture. Table V shows that 92.9% of the male athletes were born i n Canada, while 93.1% of the female athletes, 70% of the male professionals and 75% of the female professionals were also born i n Canada. The male professionals compared with the other three groups had the largest percentage (30%) of those born outside of North America. Only 6.9% of the female athletes, 7.1% of the male athletes and 25% of the female professionals were also born outside of North America. TABLE V FREQUENCY COUNT AND PERCENTAGES OF GROUPS ON CULTURE CANADA AMERICA OTHER (Place of Birth) MALE ATHLETE 26 0 2 92.9% 0.0% 7.1% FEMALE ATHLETE 27 0 2 93.1% 0.0% 6.9% MALE PROFESSIONALS 14 1 6 70.0% 5.0% 30.0% FEMALE PROFESSIONALS 9 0 3 75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 45 Family s i z e . Table VI shows that none of the male or female athletes was an only c h i l d . Of the male athletes 42.9% came from three c h i l d families, as did 44.8% of the female athletes. The female professionals were also well represented i n the three c h i l d family (58.3%). Only 15% of the male professionals came from three c h i l d f a m i l i e s . Ten percent of the male professionals were the only c h i l d as were 16.7% of the female professionals. TABLE VI FREQUENCY COUNT AND PERCENTAGES OF GROUPS ON FAMILY SIZE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Number of Children i n Family) 8 9 GROUP 1 0 0. 0% 4 14.3% 12 42. 9% 7 25.0% 1 3.6% 2 7.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 7.1% GROUP 2 0 0.0% 6 20.7% 13 44.8% 7 24.1% 2 6.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 3.4% 0 0.0% GROUP 3 2 10.0% 4 20.0% 3 15.0% 4 20.0% 2 10.0% 3 15.0% 0 0.0% 1 5.0% 1 5.0% GROUP 4 2 16.7% 2 16.7%. 7 58. 3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 8.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% GROUP 1 = MALE ATHLETES GROUP 2 = FEMALE ATHLETES GROUP 3 = MALE PROFESSIONALS GROUP 4 = FEMALE PROFESSIONALS 46 Educational experience. A l l of the male and female professionals had attended university. While 85.7% of the male athletes and 62.1% of the female athletes had or were s t i l l attending university. Of the female athletes 37% were s t i l l i n high school with 10.3% of these enrolled i n a private school. None of the 14.3% of male athletes s t i l l i n high school were enrolled i n a private school as shown i n Table VII. TABLE VII FREQUENCY COUNT AND PERCENTAGES OF GROUPS FOR EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PUBLIC PRIVATE (Educational Experience) MALE ATHLETE 4 0 24 14.3% 0.0% 85.7% FEMALE ATHLETE 8 3 18 27.6% 10.3% 62.1% MALE PROFESSIONALS 0 0 20 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% FEMALE PROFESSIONALS 0 0 12 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% i 47 The Chi Square analysis used to compare the f i v e areas of concern on the so c i o - c u l t u r a l questionnaire showed a s i g n i f i c a n t difference (x^= 89.81, p^.00001) when comparing a t h l e t i c and educational experience (x 2g= 17.48, p<.008). Hypothesis two was, therefore, not supported. Table VIII i s a frequency table comparing the four groups for a t h l e t i c experience, while Table IX i s a frequency table for educational experience. A l l other frequency tables are found i n Appendix C. TABLE VIII SUBJECTS IN THE GROUPS AT VARIOUS LEVELS OF ATHLETIC EXPERIENCE 0 0 0 0 0 28 28 MALE ATHLETES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 31. 5 0.0 i 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.5 FEMALE ATHLETES 0 0 0 0 0 29 29 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 32. 6 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.6 MALE PROFESSIONALS 0 2 2 7 6 3 20 0.0 10.2 10.2 35.0 30.0 15.0 22. 5 0.0 40.0 50.0 77.8 75.0 4.9 0.0 2.2 2.2 7.9 6.7 3.4 FEMALE PROFESSIONALS 2 3 2 2 2 1 12 16.7 25.0 16.7 16.7 16.7 8.3 13. 5 100.0 60.0 50.0 22.2 25.0 1.6 2.2 3.4 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.1 COLUMN 2 5 4 9 8 61 89 TOTAL 2.2 5,6 4.5 10.1 9.0 68.5 100. 0 X 2 1 5 = 89.81, p <. .00001 48 TABLE IX SUBJECTS IN THE GROUPS AT VARIOUS LEVELS OF EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE MALE ATHLETES FEMALE ATHLETES MALE PROFESSIONALS FEMALE PROFESSIONALS HIGH SCHOOL PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL PRIVATE UNIVERSITY (Levels of Education) 4 0 24 14.3 0.0 85.7 33.3 0.0 32.4 4.5 0.0 27.0 8 3 18 27.6 10.3 62.1 66. 7 100.0 24.3 9.0 3.4 20.4 0 0 20 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 22.5 0 0 12 0.0 0.0 100. 0 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 13.5 12 3 74 13.5 3.4 83.1 COLUMN TOTAL 89 100.0 = 17.48, p < .008 49 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION I t i s important when studying behavior that personality v a r i a b l e s be considered along with environmental variables. This approach to behavior i s known as the i n t e r a c t i o n i s t approach and i s a much more powerful predictor of behavior than considering t r a i t s or environmental variables * alone. This study has taken the i n t e r a c t i o n i s t approach and an examination of the res u l t s reveal that the representative personality p r o f i l e of the four groups, as well as t h e i r socio- c u l t u r a l background appear quite s i m i l a r . For a l l four groups, two of the personality t r a i t s — Factor G (conscientiousness) and Factor 0 (self-assurance) were consistently within the population norm. For Factor C (emotional s t a b i l i t y ) , the female athletes could be described as more emotionally stable when compared with the remaining three groups. Emotional s t a b i l i t y also referred to by C a t t e l l as higher ego strength i s frequently found among those who are leaders ( C a t t e l l et a l 1970). This above average emotional s t a b i l i t y i s found i n those who must adjust to d i f f i c u l t i e s or emergencies presented to them, from the outside. I t would be anticipated that those individuals c l a s s i f i e d as successful or superior i n law or medicine as well as a t h l e t i c s would a l l require t h i s higher than average emotional s t a b i l i t y . The 50 results of the present study as well: as the results of Morgan1 s (1973) study are i n disagreement with t h i s argument. In the present study the female athletes were the only group which could be described as emotionally stable. The only group i n the Morgan study which could be described as emotionally stable were the female physicians. In Morgan's study the female attorneys and female athletes were within the normal or average range for t h i s t r a i t . Closer examination of Morgan's study reveals that the age range for the female athletes was twenty-three (23) years of age to forty (40) years. During the time at which the data for Morgan's experiment was gathered a female tennis player, B i l l i e Jean King, was the oldest female professional athlete i n terms of prominence. The question must be asked as to the a t h l e t i c a b i l i t y , prominence and earnings of the athletes i n Morgan's study who were over t h i r t y years old. This may explain why the female athletes i n Morgan's study were not described as emotionally stable. Also during the late 60's and early 1970's the professional c i r c u i t for the female tennis and golf player was very small as were the f i n a n c i a l earnings. The time involvement and commitment could not possibly compare to the commitment of female athletes of the 198.0." s or to the commitment of female physicians of the 1960's and 70's. It would be expected that the female physician i n Morgan's study could be described: as emotionally stable, as only 7% of the physicians at the time the data was c o l l e c t e d were women (Morgan 1973:35). Subjects within the female 51 physicians group were obtained from Who's Who of American Women. These women had obtained prominence i n the United States, and therefore i t would be expected that they had high levels of dedication and s t a b i l i t y to achieve such prominence in a male dominated profession. While the female physicians were the only group i n Morgan's study which could be described as emotionally stable, i t was the female a t h l e t i c group i n the present study which could be described as being above average on t h i s t r a i t . Perhaps a reason for t h i s i s because of the female athletes' o v e r a l l youth. Many of the female athletes i n the present study hadn't l i v e d long enough to experience a wide var i e t y of f a i l u r e s or disappointments. Also the young female athlete must d e f i n i t e l y have a support system of family, coaches, teammates and friends. The t r a i t of assertiveness was: also examained and resul t s indicate that the female professionals were more assertive than a l l remaining groups. Dominance, as t h i s personality t r a i t i s often referred to, i s characterized by higher than average aggressiveness and competitive behavior. C a t t e l l et a l (1970) describes dominance: as a t r a i t which distinguishes the sexes: suggesting that dominant and achieving behavior i s a basis on which society defines masculinity and femininity. Women i n the f i e l d of a t h l e t i c s while they often compete with men for equal recognition are not i n d i r e c t competition with men i n a t h l e t i c events and may as a r e s u l t not exhibit assertive behavior. Female professionals 52 however are i n d i r e c t competition with men. In t h e i r s election of law or medicine as a career, the female attorney and physician showed some degree of courage and aggressiveness. These careers have i n the past been dominated by men whom the female attorney and physician w i l l continue to compete against. This to some extent may be the reason for the female professionals exhibiting a higher degree of assertiveness. Mental toughness was another t r a i t examined and i t was found that the female athletes were more mentally tough than the remaining three groups. C a t t e l l (1969:488) describes an i n d i v i d u a l possessing t h i s t r a i t as a "hard-boiled, mature, independent, unemotional, poised i n d i v i d u a l with some smugness, over-precision and blinkered l o g i c . " The female a t h l e t i c group i n the present study has an average age of 19 years. This average age was lower than the male athletes whose average age was 24, the male professionals whose average age was 41 and the female professionals who had an average age of 40 years. Because of the necessary dedication to t r a i n i n g that an athlete must pursue i n order to compete in t e r n a t i o n a l l y and because of the o v e r a l l youth of the female athletes i t might be expected that the female athletes could be described as mentally tough. Another t r a i t which was also examined was s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y . In the present study, subjects i n the male and female professional groups were found to be more s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t than the male and female a t h l e t i c groups who were within the population norm for t h i s t r a i t . 53 S e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y may be defined as preferring one's own decisions rather than being a follower or a joiner. Certainly within the f i e l d of law and medicine, male and female attorneys and physicians are required to make t h e i r own decisions about legal or medical cases. In a t h l e t i c s however, often the athlete i s t o l d what to do by other individuals such as coaches. This may explain to some extent why the professionals i n t h i s study could be described as more s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t than the a t h l e t i c subjects. The r e s u l t s of the present study contrast with the r e s u l t s of a study by Morgan (1973). In Morgan's study none of the subjects i n law, medicine as well as a t h l e t i c s could be described as s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t . In summary i t was hypothesized that the personality of the four groups studied would be s i m i l a r but i t was also anticipated that the personality p r o f i l e s would d i f f e r from the population norm. The subject population i n the present study however, did not d i f f e r from the average range on two of the six personality t r a i t s examined—Factor G (conscientiousness) and Factor 0 (self-assurance). Not one of the six personality t r a i t s examined was found to be consistently above or below the population norm or average range for a l l four groups. The female professionals could be described as more assertive (Factor E) compared with the other three groups who were within the normal range. Of the four groups the female athletes were the only group which could be described as more mentally tough (Factor I) and more emotionally, stable (Factor C), the remaining three groups were within the population norm for 54 these two t r a i t s . The male and female professionals could be described as having a higher degree of s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y (Factor C^) while the athletes i n t h i s study were within the average range. While no s i g n i f i c a n t differences (p<.05) between the groups were observed for the personality t r a i t s , two socio- c u l t u r a l f a c t o r s — a t h l e t i c experience (p<.00001) and educational experience (p<.008) were s i g n i f i c a n t . A s i g n i f i c a n t difference between groups on the factor of a t h l e t i c experience was anticipated. After a l l , the c r i t e r i a for selection of the a t h l e t i c subjects was t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n at the international l e v e l . One hundred precent of the male and female athletes had international a t h l e t i c experience, while only 15% of the male professionals and 8.3% of the female professionals had ever competed at the international l e v e l . Despite the s i g n i f i c a n t difference between groups on the factor: a t h l e t i c experience, 15% and 8.3% p a r t i c i p a t i o n at the international l e v e l for the male and female professionals respectively, seems quite high for the professional groups. It appears that the a t h l e t i c and professional groups i n t h i s study are very sports minded as only two of the 89 subjects had never been involved i n a t h l e t i c s . Of the 89 subjects, 87% had a t h l e t i c experience at the university, national or international l e v e l . The male and female professionals who responded to the questionnaires were those interested or involved i n 55 a t h l e t i c s . I t may be that the remaining professionals who were mailed the questionnaires might not have been a t h l e t i c a l l y i n c l i n e d . This might explain the o v e r a l l a t h l e t i c experience of the subjects i n t h i s study. A s i g n i f i c a n t difference was also observed for the factor of educational experience. While one hundred percent of the male and female professionals had attended univ e r s i t y (which i s a foregone conclusion), only 62.1% of the female athletes and 85.7% of the male athletes had attended u n i v e r s i t y . The remaining 37.9% of the female athletes and the remaining 14.3% of the male athletes were s t i l l enrolled i n high school. Despite the s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the pro- fessi o n a l and: a t h l e t i c groups on the factor of educational experience, the subjects as a whole appear to be well educated. Eighty-three percent of the subjects have had a univer s i t y education, but because of their: age, the remaining 17% are s t i l l involved in: a high school program. I t i s conceivable that upon graduation these 17% w i l l attend university, as u n i v e r s i t i e s i n Canada o f f e r a high l e v e l of competition for the e l i t e athlete. B i r t h order, family size and culture were three other s o c i o - c u l t u r a l factors examined with no s i g n i f i c a n t differences evident. There was however a prevalence of f i r s t borns (50%) among the female professionals. T h i r t y percent of male professionals were also f i r s t , born, while 21.4% of the male athletes and only 10.3% of the female athletes were f i r s t born. 56 Occurrence of the f i r s t born, e s p e c i a l l y among the professional groups, may be p a r t i a l l y , accounted for by the way they were brought up. Called upon to take more responsi- b i l i t i e s around the house, the f i r s t born may have had to s t r i v e to l i v e up to the expectations of parents. Parents' expectations tend to be greater for the f i r s t born, and once that c h i l d has reached an acceptable l e v e l of achievement, there appears to be less pressure put on younger children to a t t a i n those same expectations. The high occurrence of f i r s t borns i n the professional groups and the low occurrence of f i r s t borns i n the a t h l e t i c groups may also be due to parents pressuring t h e i r f i r s t borns into professions leading to high status and prominence i n t h e i r community. A member of the law or medical profession achieves greater d i s t i n c t i o n , prominence and earns more money than the majority of amateur athletes. For many parents r a i s i n g the f i r s t c h i l d is: a learning experience. This may be another reason for the low incidence of f i r s t borns i n the a t h l e t i c groups. Many parents do not become aware of the a t h l e t i c opportunities ( l i t t l e leagues, dance classes, etc.) for t h e i r young f i r s t born c h i l d . The l a t e r born children benefit from the parents' learning experience, as the parents w i l l probably be more aware of the a t h l e t i c opportunities available i n the community for t h e i r l a t e r born children. The lower incidence o f " f i r s t borns among the a t h l e t i c groups may also have something to do with the sport involvement 57 of the athletes. According to a 1980: a r t i c l e by H a l l , Church and Stone, the sport setting investigations show that l a t e r borns seek group a c t i v i t i e s and team sports more re a d i l y than f i r s t borns. Within the female a t h l e t i c group of t h i s study two of the three sports are team sports while three of the f i v e sports i n the male a t h l e t i c group are also team sports. Family si z e , another factor studied, showed, a high incidence of male and female athletes from families of three or more children. This may have something to do with having a guaranteed supply of playmates and more opportunities for competitive experience. While there was a high incidence of male and female athletes from families of three or more children, there was also: a high incidence of male and female professionals from families of four or l e s s . M i g liorino (1974) found a negative c o r r e l a t i o n between mental development of the subject and family s i z e . In Migliorino's study i t was found that children from smaller families tend to have higher levels of i n t e l l i g e n c e while children from larger families tend to display lower leve l s of i n t e l l i g e n c e . I t i s expected that those who have graduated from a univ e r s i t y through a medical or law program must have a high l e v e l of i n t e l l i g e n c e . As i t i s assumed anyone attending un i v e r s i t y has some degree of i n t e l l i g e n c e at l e a s t above the average or population norm. Since children tend to surpass the l e v e l of achievement attained by t h e i r parents, i t i s also important to consider the educational, occupational and a t h l e t i c l e v e l s reached by the 58 parents. Upon examination of the parental background information, i t would appear that subjects i n t h i s study did not use the parent of the same gender as a role model i n choice of career or sport. For example, within the female professionals only 33% of the mothers were employed i n professional careers such as teaching, law or medicine. The female athletes also did not use t h e i r mothers as role models as only 48% of the mothers were involved i n a t h l e t i c s and then mostly at the high school l e v e l . The parents' encouragement of t h e i r children to achieve greater heights than they attained for themselves may be a reason for the subjects of t h i s study not selecting t h e i r parents as role models. Just as the female subjects i n the present study did not select the parent of the same gender as a role model, neither did the male subjects. Only 40% of the fathers of the male professionals were employed i n professional careers, and 60% of the male athletes' fathers had been involved i n a t h l e t i c s but mostly at the high school and recreational l e v e l . In summary, the res u l t s indicate that the information obtained from the so c i o - c u l t u r a l questionnaire i s quite similar for a l l subject groups i n the present study. Subjects as a whole can be described as well educated and sports minded in d i v i d u a l s . 59 CHAPTER VI SUMMARY The purpose of t h i s study was to determine i f there were any s i g n i f i c a n t differences between male and female successful individuals i n law, medicine and a t h l e t i c s on six personality t r a i t s : and f i v e s o c i o - c u l t u r a l factors. C a t t e l l ' s 16 PF Form C was administered by mail along with a socio- c u l t u r a l questionnaire (designed by the experimenter) to twenty-eight male athletes, twenty-nine female athletes, twenty male professionals and twelve female professionals. Summary of the Personality Assessment A one way: analysis of variance performed on the data obtained from the 16 PF showed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences at the .05 l e v e l , among the four groups on the six personality t r a i t s : self-assurance, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y , emotional s t a b i l i t y , mental toughness, conscientiousness and assertiveness. Hypothesis one was therefore supported. When the four groups were compared i t was found that the female athletes were more emotionally stable and mentally tough when compared with the other three groups. The female professionals could be described as having higher le v e l s of s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y and assertiveness when compared with the other three groups. S e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y was the only t r a i t exhibited by the male professionals, while the male athletes could be 60 described as within the average or normal range on a l l six personality t r a i t s . The subject population i n the present study did not d i f f e r from the average range on two of the six personality t r a i t s — F a c t o r G (conscientiousness) and Factor 0 (self-assurance). Summary of the S o c i o - c u l t u r a l Assessment No s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found among the four groups on the s o c i o - c u l t u r a l factors b i r t h order, family size and culture. While s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found among the groups on the factor of a t h l e t i c (p^.00001) and educational experience (p^. 008), these differences were anticipated: as c r i t e r i a f or selection of the subjects was based on t h e i r l e v e l of a t h l e t i c and educational achievement. Despite t h i s s i g n i f i c a n t difference the subject group of t h i s study could be described as: a sports minded and well educated group. Only two of the 89 subjects i n the present study had never been involved i n a t h l e t i c s . While only 17% of the subjects, because of t h e i r age, were s t i l l enrolled i n a high school program, the remaining 83% of the subjects at the time the data was coll e c t e d had attended or were s t i l l attending a university. Results of the Chi Squared s t a t i s t i c performed on the so c i o - c u l t u r a l data also indicated that there was: an occurrence of f i r s t born children, e s p e c i a l l y among the professional groups. There was also a high incidence of athletes from 61 families of three or more children, while there was a high incidence of professionals from families of four or l e s s . LEAF 62 OMITTED IN PAGE NUMBERING. 63 Recommendations for Further Study- As a r e s u l t of t h i s study, the investigator recommends consideration of the following concerns for further research: 1) That the "judges" consist of an equal number of men and women when compiling a l i s t of successful male and female i n d i v i d u a l s . 2) That each "judge" be given the c r i t e r i a for selecting a successful colleague and i f no c r i t e r i a i s given each "judge" must state the c r i t e r i a they used for t h e i r s e l e c t i o n . 3) The s o c i o - c u l t u r a l questionnaire designed by the experimenter was not validated. 4) That the investigation of the personality and socio- c u l t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of successful males and females i n areas other than law or medicine be undertaken to determine i f there i s a consistent p r o f i l e for the successful i n d i v i d u a l . APPENDIX A Correspondence Letter of Introduction to Doctors Letter of Introduction to Lawyers Letter of Introduction to Athlete Reminder Letter to Doctors Reminder Letter to Lawyers Reminder Letter to Athletes Letter of Appreciation to Subject 65 August 1980 Dear Doctor, I am currently on fac u l t y at The University of Lethbridge, but am s t i l l i n the process of completing my master's thesis from The University of B r i t i s h Columbia. My thesis i s a personality study of successful: doctors, lawyers and athletes. Because your time i s valuable, I am mailing the questionnaire to you. The two questionnaires require approximately t h i r t y minutes of your time. For your convenience please return the questionnaires as soon as possible i n the stamped return envelope provided. The r e s u l t s are s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l and a code i s used merely for mailing purposes. If you are interested i n your own personal personality p r o f i l e please indicate below and return t h i s l e t t e r along with the questionnaires to me. Your assistance i n helping me complete my thesis i s greatly appreciated. Thank you very much, Louisa W. Zerbe Instructor, The University of Lethbridge PLEASE SEND ME MY PERSONAL PROFILE TO: 66 August 1980 Dear Lawyer, I am currently on faculty at The University of Lethbridge, but am s t i l l i n the process of completing my master's thesis from The University of B r i t i s h Columbia. My thesis i s a personality study of successful: doctors, lawyers and athletes. Because your time i s valuable, I am mailing the questionnaire to.you. The two questionnaires require approximately t h i r t y minutes of your time. For your convenience please return the questionnaires as soon as possible i n the stamped return envelope provided. The r e s u l t s are s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l and a code i s used merely for mailing purposes. I f you are interested i n your own personal personality p r o f i l e please indicate below and return t h i s l e t t e r along with the questionnaires to me. Your assistance i n helping me complete my thesis i s greatly appreciated. Thank you very much, Louisa W. Zerbe Instructor, The University of Lethbridge PLEASE SEND ME MY PERSONAL PROFILE TO: 67 August 1980 Dear Athlete, I am currently on faculty at The University of Lethbridge, but am s t i l l i n the process of completing my master's thesis from The University of B r i t i s h Columbia. My thesis i s a personality study of successful: doctors, lawyers and athletes. Because your time i s valuable, I am mailing the questionnaire to you. The two questionnaires require approximately t h i r t y minutes of your time. For your convenience please return the questionnaires as soon as possible i n the stamped return envelope provided. The r e s u l t s are s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l and a code i s used merely for mailing purposes. I f you are interested in your own personal personality p r o f i l e please indicate below and return t h i s l e t t e r along with the questionnaires to me. Your assistance i n helping me complete my thesis i s greatly appreciated. Thank you very much, Louisa W. Z.erbe Instructor, The University of Lethbridge PLEASE SEND ME MY PERSONAL PROFILE TO: 68 September 198 0 Dear Doctor, During the summer, you received a package containing two (2) questionnaires ( C a t t e l l ' s 16 PF Form C and a Socio-cultural Questionnaire). Success of my master's thesis i s dependent upon the completion of these questionnaires. Along with t h i s l e t t e r I have included a second test package, at your e a r l i e s t convenience could you please return the questionnaires to me. I r e a l i z e that your time i s precious and I appreciate your assistance i n helping me. Thank you very much, Louisa W. Zerbe, Instructor The University of Lethbridge 69 September 1980 Dear Lawyer, During the summer, you received a package containing two (2) questionnaires ( C a t t e l l 1 s 16 PF Form C and a Socio-cultural Questionnaire). Success of my master's thesis i s dependent upon the completion of these questionnaires. Along with t h i s l e t t e r I have included a second test package,.at your e a r l i e s t convenience could you please return the questionnaires to me. I r e a l i z e that your time i s precious and I appreciate your assistance i n helping me. Thank you very much, Louisa W. Zerbe, Instructor The University of Lethbridge 70 September 1980 Dear Athlete, During the summer, you received a package containing two (2) questionnaires (C a t t e l l ' s 16 PF Form C and a Socio-cultural Questionnaire). Success of my master's thesis i s dependent upon the completion of these questionnaires. Along with t h i s l e t t e r I have included a second test package, at your e a r l i e s t convenience could you please return the questionnaires to me. I r e a l i z e that your time i s precious and I appreciate your assistance i n helping me. Thank you very much, Louisa W. Zerbe, Instructor The University of Lethbridge 71 F a l l 1980 Dear Subject, Here are your re s u l t s of the 16 PF ( C a t t e l l ' s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire) that you completed during the summer. For your convenience, the results have been put on a "personality p r o f i l e graph". I appreciate your assistance i n helping me complete my thesis and I would l i k e to re-assure you that your te s t r e s u l t s w i l l remain c o n f i d e n t i a l . Again, thank you for your speedy response. Sincerely, Louisa W. Zerbe Instructor, The University of Lethbridge APPENDIX B Personality and Socio-Cultural Information 1. C a t t e l l ' s 16 PF Form C 2. Socio-Cultural Questionnaire 3. Socio-Cultural T a l l y Sheet 4. 16 PF Personality P r o f i l e "13. DO NOT COPY PAGES -73-87 Form C 1969 EDITION R WHAT TO DO: Inside this booklet are some questions to see what interests you have and how you feel about things. On most items there are no "right" or "wrong" answers because people have the right to their own views. All you have to do is answer what is true for you. If a separate answer sheet has not been given to you, turn this booklet over and tear off the answer sheet on the back page. Write your name and other informa- tion asked for on the answer sheet. First, read the four EXAMPLES below and mark your answers on (Ae answer sheet where it says EXAMPLES. Fill in the box completely: EXAMPLES: 1. I like to watch team games, a. yes, b. occasionally, c. no. 2. I prefer people who: a. are reserved, b. (are) in between, c. make friends quickly. 3. Money cannot bring happiness. a. yes (true), b. in between, c. no (false). 4. Adult is to child as cat is to: a. kitten, b. dog, c. baby. In the last example there is a right answer—kitten. But there are very few such reasoning items. Ask now if something isn't clear. When the examiner tells you, start with number 1 and answer the questions. Keep these four things in mind: 1. Give only answers that are true for you. It is best to say what you really think. 2. Don't spend too much time thinking over each question. Give the Hrst, natural answer as it comes to you. Of course, the questions are too short to give you all the information you might like, but give the best answer you can under the circumstances. 3. Answer every question one way or the other. Don't skip any. 4. You should mark the a or c answer most of the time. Mark the middle b answer only when you feel you have to, because neither a nor c seems to be right for you. S-^r^ „ L,S.A. Not wb. without pr»r ptrmiMion in . n u n , from the publish.,-. ' *"» Photocopying, mechanic.!. , | w t „ „ i { . rwordinj. or oth«rwi«, C t t i l o j No. SC 051 1. I think my memory is better than it ever was. a. yes b. in between, c. no. 2. I could happily live alone, far from anyone, like a hermit. a. yes, b. occasionally, c. no. 3. If I say the sky is "down" and winter is "hot," I would call a criminal: a. a gangster, b. a saint, c. a cloud. 4. When going to bed, I: a. drop off to sleep quickly, b. in between, c. have difficulty falling asleep. 5. When driving a car in a line of traffic, I feel satisfied: a. to remain behind most of the other cars, b. in between, c. only after I've reached the front of the line. 6. At a party I let others keep the jokes and stories going. a. yes, b. sometimes, c. no. 7. It's important to me not to live in messy sur- roundings. a. true, b. uncertain, c. false. 8. Most people I meet at a party are undoubtedly glad to see me. a. yes, b. sometimes, c. no. 9. I would rather exercise by: a. fencing and dancing, b. in between, c. wrestling and baseball. 10. I smile to myself at the big difference between what people do and what they say they do. a. yes, b. occasionally, c. no. 11. In reading about an accident I like to find out exactly how it happened. a. always, b. sometimes, c. seldom. 2 12. When friends play a joke on me, I usually enjoy it as much as the others, without feeling at ail upset. a. true, b. in between, c. false. 13. When someone speaks angrily to me, I can for- get the matter quickly. a. true, b. uncertain, c. false. 14. I like to "dream up" new ways of doing things rather than to be a practical follower of well- tried ways. a. true, b. uncertain, c. false. 15. When I plan something, I like to do so quite alone without any outside help. a. yes, b. occasionally, c. no. 16. I consider myself less "high strung" than most people. a. true, b. in between, c. false. 17. I get impatient easily with people who don't decide quickly. a. true, b. in between, c. false, (r.nd, column 1 on answer Mheet.) 18. I have sometimes, even if briefly, had hateful feelings towards my parents. a. yes, b. in between, c. no. 19. I would rather tell my innermost thoughts to: a. my good friends, b. uncertain, c. a diary. 20. I think the opposite of the opposite of "inexact" is: a. casual, b. accurate, c. rough. 21. I always have lots of energy at timoit when 1 need it. a. yes, b. in between, c. no. 22. I am more annoyed by a person who: a. tells off-color jokes and embarrasses people, b. uncertain, c. is late for an appointment and inconve- niences me. 23. I greatly enjoy inviting guests and amusing them. a. true, b. uncertain, c. false. 24. I feel that: a. some jobs just don't have to be done so care- fully as others, b. in between, c. any job should be done thoroughly if you do it at all. 25. I have always had to fight against being too shy. a. yes, b. in between, c. no. It would be more interesting to be: a. a bishop, b. uncertain, c. a colonel. 11. If people cheat me in small things, I'd rather humor them than show them up. a. yes, b. occasionally, c. no. 8. I like friends who: a. are efficient and practical in their interests, b. in between, c. seriously think out their feelings about life. 9. It bothers me if I hear others expressing ideas that are contrary to those that I firmly believe. a. true, b. in between, c. false. 0. I'm over-conscientious and worry over my past acts or mistakes. a. yes, b. in between, c. no. 1. If I were good at both, I'd rather: a. play chess, b. in between, c. go bowling. 32. I like to join with people who show lively group enthusiasm. a. yes, b. in between, c. no. 33. I put my faith more in: a. insurance, b. in between, c. good fortune. 34. I can forget my worries and responsibilities whenever I need to. a. yes, b. sometimes, c. no. (End , column 2 on answer sheet.) 35. It's hard for me to admit it when I'm wrong, a. yes, b. sometimes, c. no. 36. In a factory it would be more interesting to be in charge of: a. machinery or keeping records, b. in between, c. talking to and hiring new people. 37. Which word does not belong with the other two? a. cat, b. near, c. sun. 38. Minor distractions seem: a. to irritate me, b. in between, c. not to bother me at all. 39. I am quite happy to be waited on, at appro- priate times, by personal servants. a. often, b. sometimes, c. never. 40. I would rather live in a town: a. artistically laid out, but relatively poor, b. uncertain, c. that is rough, prosperous, and booming. 41. People should insist more than they now do that moral laws be followed. a. yes, b. sometimes, c. no. 42. I have been told that, as a child, I was rather: a. quiet and kept to myself, b. in between, c. lively and always active. 3 1L 43. I enjoy routine, constructive work, using a good piece of machinery or apparatus. a. yes, b. in between, c. no. 44. I think most witnesses tell the truth even if it becomes embarrassing. a. yes, b. in between, c. no. 45. When I meet new people, I'd rather: a. discuss politics and social views, b. in between, c. have them tell me some good, new jokes. 46. I try to make my laughter at jokes quieter than most people's. a. yes, b. in between, c. no. 47. I never feel so wretched that I want to cry. a. true, b. uncertain, c. false. 48. In music I enjoy: a. military band marches, b. uncertain, c. violin solos. 49. I would rather spend two weeks in the summer: a. bird-watching and walking in the country with a friend or two, / b. uncertain, c. being a leader of a group in a camp. 50. The effort taken in planning ahead: a. is never wasted, b. in between, c. is not worth it. 51. Inconsiderate acts or remarks by my neighbors do not make me touchy and unhappy. a. true, b. uncertain, c. false. (End. column 3 on answer sheet.) 52. When I know I'm doing the right thing, I find my task easy. a. always, b. sometimes, c. seldom. 4 53. I would rather be: a. in a business office, organizing and seeing people, b. in between, c. an architect, drawing plans in a quiet room. 54. "House" is to "room" as "tree" is to: a. forest, b. plant, c. leaf. 55. Things go wrong for me: a. rarely, b. occasionally, c. frequently. 56. In most things in life, I believe in: a. taking a gamble, b. in between, c. playing it safe. 57. Some people may think I talk too much, a. likely, b. uncertain, c. unlikely. 58. I admire more people who are: a. clever, but undependable, b. in between, c. average, but strong to resist tempta- tions. 59. I make decisions: a. faster than many people, b. uncertain, c. slower than most people. 60. I am more impressed by: a. acts of skill and grace, b. in between, c. acts of strength and power. 61. I am considered a cooperative person, a. yes, b. in between, c. no. 62. I enjoy talking more with polished, sophis- ticated people than with outspoken, down-to- earth individuals. a. yes, b. in between, c. no. 63. I prefer to: a. keep my problems to myself, b. in between, . e. talk about them to my friends. 64. If a person doesn't answer when I make a sug- gestion, I feel I've said something silly. a. true, b. in between, c. false. 65. I learned more in my school days by: a. going to class, b. in between, c. reading books. 66. I avoid getting involved in social responsibili- ties and organizations. a. true, b. sometimes, c. false. 67. When a problem gets hard and there is a lot to do, I try: a. a different problem, b. in between, c. a different attack on the same problem. 68. I get strong emotional moods—anxiety, anger, laughter, etc.—that seem to arise without much actual cause. a. yes, b. occasionally, c. no. (End, column 4 on answer sheet.) 69. My mind doesn't work so clearly at some times as it does at others. a. true, b. in between, c. false. 70. I am happy to oblige people by making appoint- ments at times they prefer, even if it is a bit inconvenient to me. a. yes, b. sometimes, c. no. 71. I think the proper number to continue the series 1, 2, 3, 6, 5, is: a. 10, b. 5, c. 7. 72. I have occasionally had a brief touch of faint- ness, dizziness, or light-headedness for no ap- parent reason. a. yes, b. uncertain, c. no. 73. I would rather do without something than put a waiter or waitress to a lot of extra trouble. a. yes, b. occasionally, c. no. 74. I live for the "here and now" more than most people do. a. true, b. uncertain, c. false. 75. At a party, I like: a. to get into worthwhile conversation, b. in between, c. to see people relax and completely let go. 76. I speak my mind no matter how many people are around. a. yes, b. sometimes, c. no. 77. If I could go back in time, I'd rather meet: a. Columbus, b. uncertain, c. Shakespeare. 78. I have to stop myself from getting too in- volved in trying to straighten out other peo- ple's problems. a. yes, b. sometimes, c. no. 79. In a store or market, I would prefer to: a. design and do window displays, b. uncertain, c. be a cashier. 80. If people think poorly of me, I can still go on calmly in my own mind. a. yes, b. in between, c. no. 81. If people seem cold and reserved to me, I usually: a. just think they're in a bad mood, b. uncertain, c. worry about what 1 may have done wrong. 82. More trouble arises from people: a. changing and meddling with ways that are already satisfactory, b. uncertain, c. turning down new, promising methods. 83. I greatly enjoy talking to people about local problems. a. yes, b. sometimes, c. no. 84. Prim, strict people don't seem to get along well with me. a. true, b. sometimes, c. false. 5 IS. 85. I guess I'm less irritable than most people, a. true, b. uncertain, c. false. (End, column 5 on answer sheet.) 86. I may be less considerate of other people than they are of me. a. true, b. sometimes, c. false. 87. I would just as soon let someone else have all the worry of being in charge of an organiza- tion of which I am a member. a. true, b. uncertain, c. false. 88. If the two hands on a watch come together exactly every 65 minutes (according to an ac- curate watch), the watch is running: a. slow, b. on time, c. fast. 89. I am bored: a. often, b. occasionally, c. seldom. 90. People say that I like to have things done my own way. a. true, b. occasionally, c. false. 91. I find it wise to avoid too much excitement because it tends to wear me out. a. yes, b. occasionally, c. no. 92. At home, with a bit of spare time, I: a. use it chatting and relaxing, b. in between, c. arrange to fill it with special jobs. 93. I am shy, and careful, about making friend- ships with new people. a. yes, b. occasionally, c. no. 94. I think that what people say in poetry could be put just as exactly in plain prose. a. yes, b. sometimes, c. no. 95. I suspect that people who act friendly to me can be disloyal behind my back. a. yes, generally, b. occasionally, c. no, rarely. 6 96. I think that even the most dramatic experi- ences during the year leave my personality much the same as it was. a. yes, b. sometimes, c. no. 97. It would seem more interesting to be a: a. naturalist and work with plants, b. uncertain, c. public accountant or insurance salesperson. 98. I get unreasonable fears or distastes for some things, for example, particular animals, places, and so on. a. yes, b. sometimes, c. no. 99. I like to think out ways in which our world could be changed to improve it. a. yes, b. in between, c. no. 100. I prefer games where: a. you're on a team or have a partner, b. uncertain, c. people are on their own. 101. At night I have rather fantastic or ridiculous dreams. a. yes, b. occasionally, c. no. 102. If left in a lonely house I tend, after a time, to feel a bit anxious or fearful. a. yes, b. sometimes, c. no. (End, column 6 on answer sheet.) 103. I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them. a. yes, b. sometimes, c. no. 104. Which word does not belong with the other two? a. think, b. see, c. hear. 105. If Mary's mother is Fred's father's sister, what relation is Fred to Mary's father? a. cousin, b. nephew, c. uncle. (End of test.) EXAMPLES: '.-'-J. I like to watch team gsmes. V ' . a. yen, b. occasionally, c. ,. & X prefer people who: 1 . ... a. are reserved, '^"Q , b. (are) In between, c. make frlenda quickly. ^ 8,. Money cannot bring happiness. a. yea (true), b. In between, •j?4. AdulttetocUldascattstoi •.Mttan, b . iof , (.baby. .. • b c • • to*) o c c u r t n o i i CM *a m u s u c • • • ( • • m i a CMS r . e. no(falM), • b e • • b e • • a b 1 • • 2 • • . • b 3 • • a b 4 • • • • b • a b 7 • • a • • b • a b 1 0 • • • c • c • c • c • c • c • e • " • A .„ • •> 1 2 • • a b 13 • • • a b 18 • • • c • e • c • c • c • e • c • c • 18 Q 19 r j 20 Q 21 r j 22 f ] 23 r j 24 r j 25 r j 26 r j 27 r j b • b • b • b • b • b • b • b • b • b • not write here a b • • b • a b 3 0 • • b • a b 3 2 • • 29 D SI n 3 3 • • a b 34 • • • c • c • c • c • c • e • e • c • c • c • c • c • c • C • c • c • 35 • 36 (f| 37 r j 38 r j 38 r j 40 r j 42 Q 43 r j 44 Q 45 r j 4 9 • 47 Q 48 • 49 r j 60 • 51 rj b c • • b c • • b c • • b c • • b c • • • • b c • • b c • • b c • • b c • • b c • • • b • b • • b c • • b c • • b c • • b c • • 5 2 • • b • b • b • b • 63 D 54 9 55 Q 66 Q • c • c • c • c • 67 • 68 Q 59 • 60 r j 61 Q 62 Q 63 r j 4 4 • 65 • 66 Q b • b • • • b • b • b • • • c • 69 Q 70 r j 71 9 72 (f] 73 r j 74 rj 75 r j 76 Q a 77 ? 78 Q b • b • b • b • b • • c • c • c • c • b • b • • • b  b • b • • • c • b • b • b • b • b • 67 b • a b 8 8 • • • • c • c • c • c • c • c • 79 • • a b 8 0 • • 81 r j 82 r j 83 r j b • b • b • • c • c • c • c • • • • a b c • • • ((/«« only lor 1969 edition of the se tests.) 86 Q 87 Q 88 • 89 90 r j b • b • b • b • b • 91 b • « • • a b 93 • • a b 94 • • a b 95 • • • • c • c • c • c • c • c • c • c • c • 103 • 104 (f) 105 • b • b • b • 98  • a b c 97 • • • a b c 98 • • • a b c 99 • • • a b c 100 • • • a b c ,0' • • • . . . * b c 102 • • • • c • c • l°,Z'l?o\ IL'Ti™' ' " V r " " ' ° ' L P V " " , Q l i , > ' °"d A b i M ' ' T ' " i n » - , 9 6 ' - l " ' - " ' i o n o l c o p y r i j h . i D,W. C h a m j l l ^ nl'ol.C°.7:'»h'£«"'-"'io?.. A l l p r o p . , , , , i 8 h . , , . , . „ . d by T h . I n . t i ' u . . (o U r l v e , ( .hampolf ln, I l l i n o i s , U . S . A . P r i n u d in U . S . A . A a c E F a M I L M N O Qi Qi Q«_ oi l c o o n l r i a i under the B e r n e U n i o n , B u e n o i A i r e i , 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 , 1602-04 C o r o n o d o 16 PF-CDo«-9AA SOCIO-CULTURAL QUESTIONNAIRE DATE: 1980 SEX: MALE FEMALE PROFESSION: Lawyer Doctor Athlete AGE: PLEASE INDICATE YOUR ANSWER WITH A CHECK MARK ( y/) . IF THE QUESTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO YOU PLEASE INDICATE WITH N.A. 1. In what country were you born: CANADA UNITED STATES_ EUROPE (specify country) OTHER (specify) 2. How many brothers and/or s i s t e r s do you have: BROTHERS SISTERS 3. Indicate the b i r t h order of YOURSELF, your BROTHERS and your SISTERS: f i r s t born: second born: t h i r d born: fourth born; f i f t h born: others (specify): 4. What type of school did you attend: A. Public School NAME: GRADES ATTENDED: B. Private School NAME: GRADES ATTENDED: 81 A. Have you or are you attending University: YES NO B. I f yes, where was or i s th i s University located: CANADA (specify province) UNITED STATES (specify state) ' OTHER (specify country) C. Where did you take your professional t r a i n i n g or your a t h l e t i c t r a i n i n g : CANADA (specify province) UNITED STATES (specify state) OTHER (specify country) ' Who interested you i n i t i a l l y i n your profession or your sports: MOTHER_ FATHER BROTHER SISTER_ GRANDMOTHER GRANDFATHER _OTHER (specify) A. Did you pa r t i c i p a t e i n a sports program within your elementary school: YES NO B. I f yes, i d e n t i f y these a c t i v i t i e s : C. Did you p a r t i c i p a t e i n an organized sports club or program outside the school program ( i . e . minor league baseball, private clubs, etc.) YES_ N0_ D. I f yes, i d e n t i f y these a c t i v i t i e s : A. Did you pa r t i c i p a t e i n a sports program within your high school: YES NO B. I f yes, i d e n t i f y these a c t i v i t i e s : C. Did you pa r t i c i p a t e i n an organized sports club or program outside of the high school program ( i . e . minor league hockey, private tennis, etc.) YES_ NO D. I f yes, i d e n t i f y these a c t i v i t i e s : A. Did you pa r t i c i p a t e i n a sports program at your University: YES_ N0_ B. I f yes, i d e n t i f y these a c t i v i t i e s : 82 C. Did you pa r t i c i p a t e i n an organized sports club or program outside of the university program ( i . e . private tennis club, v o l l e y b a l l , etc.) YES NO D. I f yes, i d e n t i f y these a c t i v i t i e s : 10. What i s the highest l e v e l of sport competition that you have participated at: INTERNATIONAL NATIONAL__ PROVINCIAL (STATE) UNI VERS ITY__ HIGH SCHOOL_ ELEMENTARY CLUB RECREATIONAL_ OTHER (specify) ' 11. Are you s t i l l active i n any a t h l e t i c or sport a c t i v i t y : ( i . e . c u r l i n g , tennis, swimming, jogging, v o l l e y b a l l , etc.) YES NO If yes, i d e n t i f y these a c t i v i t i e s : 13. A. Do you work past your regular business hours or practise your sport past regular practice hours: YES NO B. Number of hours per week you work past your regular business hours or practice hours: 1-4 4-7 7-10 10-13 13-16 16-20 more than 20 14. A. Do you f e e l that you are i n competition with others i n your profession or with others i n your sport: YES NO_ B. I f yes, i n what way do you f e e l that you are i n compe- t i t i o n with others i n your profession or your sport ( i . e . status, playing p o s i t i o n , playing time) 15. How would you describe your o v e r a l l health: EXCELLENT_ GOOD AVERAGE_ BELOW AVERAGE POOR 16. In what country was your mother born: CANADA UNITED STATES_ EUROPE (specify country) OTHER (specify country) 17. In what country was your father born: CANADA UNITED STATES_ EUROPE (specify country) OTHER (specify country) 83 18. Did either of your parents attend u n i v e r s i t y : MOTHER: Yes No_ FATHER: Yes_ No 19. What was/is your mother's occupation: LAWYER DOCTOR TEACHER SALES PERSON ENGINEER HOUSEWIFE OTHER (specify) 20. What was/is your father's occupation: LAWYER DOCTOR_ TEACHER SALES PERSON ENGINEER ACCOUNTANT OTHER (specify) 21. A. Did your mother ever p a r t i c i p a t e i n an a t h l e t i c or sport a c t i v i t y : YES_NO_ B. I f yes, i d e n t i f y these a c t i v i t i e s ; C. At what level s did your mother p a r t i c i p a t e : INTERNATIONAL^ NATIONAL_ PROVINCIAL_ UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL ELEMENTARY CLUB RECREATIONAL OTHER(specify) 22. A. Did your father ever p a r t i c i p a t e i n an a t h l e t i c or sport a c t i v i t y : YES NO B. I f yes, i d e n t i f y these a c t i v i t i e s : C. At what level s did your father p a r t i c i p a t e : INTERNATIONAL_ NATIONAL_ PROVINCIAL UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL ELEMENTARY CLUB RECREATIONAL OTHER (specify) 23. A. Do either of your parents s t i l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n an a t h l e t i c or sport a c t i v i t y : MOTHER: Yes_ No FATHER: Yes_ No B. I f yes, i d e n t i f y these a c t i v i t i e s : MOTHER: : FATHER: 84 TALLY SHEET SUBJECT: ATHLETE F M / LAWYER F M / DOCTOR F M SUBJECT NUMBER: SPORT: AGE: FACTOR: C E G I 0 Q„ ~2- CULTURE: (QUESTIONS 1,16,17) SUBJECT: CANADIAN/AMERICAN/OTHER_ CANADIAN/AMERICAN/OTHER_ CANADIAN/AMERICAN/OTHER MOTHER FATHER FAMILY SIZE (QUESTION 2) (NUMBER OF CHILDREN) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BIRTH ORDER: (QUESTION 3) 1st born_ 2nd 3rd 4th_ 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th EDUCATION: (QUESTIONS 4,5,6,18) JUNIOR: PUBLIC_ PRIVATE SENIOR: PUBLIC PRIVATE UNIVERSITY: ATTENDING: Yes No ATTENDED: Yes No_ PROFESSIONAL OR ATHLETIC TRAINING: PROV._ COUNTRY INITIAL INTEREST ATHLETIC EXPERIENCE: (QUESTION 7,8,9,10,11) ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: YES NO ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE CLUB: YES_ NO_ ACTIVITIES: HIGH SCHOOL: YES_ NO_ ACTIVITIES: OUTSIDE CLUB: YES__ NO_ ACTIVITIES: 85 UNIVERSITY: YES N0_ ACTIVITIES : OUTSIDE CLUB: YES_ NO_ ACTIVITIES: HIGHEST LEVEL OF COMPETITION: INTERNATIONAL NATIONAL PROVINCIAL_ UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL ELEMENTARY CLUB_ OTHER STILL ACTIVE: YES_ NO_ ACTIVITIES : ' ' • PARENT'S ATHLETIC EXPERIENCE: (QUESTIONS 21, 22, 23) MOTHER: YES_ NO_ ACTIVITIES: LEVEL: INTERNATIONAL_ NATIONAL_ PROVINCIAL_ UNIVERSITY_ HIGH SCHOOL_ ELEMENTARY_ CLUB_ REC REATIONAL_ OTHER FATHER: YES_ NO_ ACTIVITIES : • : LEVEL: INTERNAT IONAL_ NATIONAL_ PROVINCIAL UNIVERSITY_ HIGH SCHOOL_ ELEMENTARY_ CLUB_ RECREATIONAL_ OTHER DO THEY STILL PARTICIPATE OR COMPETE: FATHER YES_ NO ACTIVITIES MOTHER YES NO ACTIVITIES_ INDIVIDUAL DATA (QUESTIONS 12, 13, 14, 15) OVERALL HEALTH : EXCELLENT_ GOOD_ AVERAGE_ BELOW POOR COMPETITION: SUBJECT FEELS IN COMPETITION: YES_ NO H O W : : WORK OR PRACTISE PAST REGULAR HOURS: YES_ NO_ NO. OF HOURS: 1-4 4-7 7-10 10-13 13-16 16-20 20 HOLD ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION: YES_ NO_ IF YES, IDENTIFY PARENT'S DATA: OCCUPATION (QUESTIONS 19, 20) MOTHER'S: HOUSEWIFE_ SALES PERSON_ ENGINEER_ LAWYER DOCTOR_ TEACHER_ OTHER FATHER'S: LAWYER DOCTOR MECHANIC TEACHER_ SALES PERSON_ ENGINEER_ ACCOUNTANT; OTHER DID YOUR PARENTS ATTEND UNIVERSITY MOTHER: YES NO FATHER: YES NO 16 Hr TtiT PROFILE F B F Q F o n I A / C / E I B / D R a w S c a r * T o t a l Stan* d a r d S c o r a L O W S C O R E D E S C R I P T I O N S T A N D A R D T E N S C O R E ( S T E N ) ^h»Averag 1 1 1 4 8 » • t • i 4 - 4 - 4 10 H I G H S C O R E D E S C R I P T I O N 3 o A B C E F G H I L M N 0 Qi Q. 0. Q. R E S E R V E D , OETACHED, CRITICAL. ALOOF. STIFF (Sliothym.o) L E S S I N T E L L I G E N T . CONCRETE- THINKING (Lower scholostlc rrtentol capacity) A F F E C T E D B Y F E E L I N G S , EMOTIONAL- LY LESS STABLE, EASILY UPSET CHANGEABLE(Lower ego strength) H U M B L E , MILD, EASILY L E D . DOCILE. ACCOMMODATING (Submissivertess) S O B E R . TACI1URN, SERIOUS (Desurgency) E X P E D I E N T . DISREGARDS RULES (Weaker superego strength) S H Y . TIMID, THREAT-SENSITIVE (Threctiu) T O U G H - M I N D E D , SELF-RELIANT, REALISTIC (Homo) T R U S T I N G , ACCEPTING C O N D I T I O N S (Alaxia) P R A C T I C A L . "DOWN-TO-EARTH" CONCERNS (Pro-em.a) F O R T H R I G H T , UNPRETENTIOUS, GENUINE BUT S O C I A L L Y C L U M S Y (Aniessness) S E L F - A S S U R E D , PLACID, SECURE. COMPLACENT, SERENt (Untroubled adequacy) C O N S E R V A T I V E , RESPECTING TRADI TIONAL IDEAS (Conservatism of temperament) G R O U P - D E P E N D E N T . A "JOINER" AND SOUND FOLLOWER (Group adherence) U N D I S C I P L I N E D S E L F C O N P L I C T , LAX, FOLLOWS O W N URGES, CARELESS O F SOCIAL RULES (Lo.v integration) R E L A X E D . TRANQUIL. UNFRUSTRA1 ED, COMPOSf.D (Low ergic tension) O U T G O I N G . WARMHEARTED. EASY- GOING. PARTICIPATING [Atte.' tothymia) M O R E I N T E L L I G E N T . ABSTRACT IHINKING. BRIGHT (Higher scholastic mental capacity) E M O T I O N A L L Y S T A B L E . MATURE, FACES REALITY, CALM (Higher ego strength) A S S E R T I V E , AGGRESSIVE, STUBBORN, COMPETITIVE (Dominance) H A P P Y - G O - L U C K Y , ENTHUSIASTIC (S_tgency) C O N S C I E N T I O U S . PERSISTENT, MORALISTIC, STAID [Stronger superego strength) V E N T U R E S O M E , UNINHIBITED. SOCIALLY BOLD T E N D E R - M I N D E D , SENSITIVE, CLINGING, OVERPROTECTED (Prems.al S U S P I C I O U S , HARD TO FOOL (Pretension) I M A G I N A T I V E , BOHEMIAN, ABSENT-MINDED (Aulia) A S T U T E . POLISHED, SOCIALLY AWARE (Shrewdness) A P P R E H E N S I V E , SELF-REPROACHING. INSECURE, WORRYING, TROUBLED (Guilt proneness) E X P E R I M E N T I N G , LIBERAL, FREE- THINKING (Radicalism) S E L F - S U F F I C I E N T , RESOURCEFUL, PREFERS OWN DECISIONS (Self-sufficiency) C O N T R O L L E D , EXACTING WILL POWER, SOCIALLY PRECISE, COMPULSIVE (High strength of self-sentiment) T E N S E , FRUSTRATED, DRIVEN, OVERWROUGHT (High ergic tension) £ 5 Copyright © 1956, 1973 by the Institute tor Personality and Ability Testing, Inc., 1602 Coronado Drive. Champaign. Illinois. U.S.A. 61820. All rights reserved. Primed In U.S.A. A «•» o f 1 1 1 4 S i 7 I f by a b o r t 1 J % 4.4% t.1% 15 0% 11.1% I t 1% 15 0% 9.1% 4.4% 10 1 J % U ob ta 'aoa* a f a d a l r i APPENDIX C Non-Significant Anova Tables and Chi Square Tables 1. Anova Table for Emotional S t a b i l i t y 2. Anova Table for Assertiveness 3. Anova Table for Conscientiousness 4. Anova Table for Tough Mindedness 5. Anova Table for Assurance 6. Anova Table for S e l f - S u f f i c i e n c e 7. Chi-Square Table for B i r t h Order 8. Chi-Square Table for Family Size 9. Chi-Square Table for Culture 89 TABLE A ANOVA TABLE FOR 16 PF Variable C Variable: C EMOTIONAL STABILITY Analysis of Variance Source F - r a t i o F-prob, Between Groups 1.928 0.1312 Within Groups Total D.f. Sum of Squares Mean Squares 85 88 395.3715 5811.2812 6206.6526 131.7905 68.368.0 TABLE B ANOVA TABLE FOR 16 PF VARIABLE E V a r i a b l e : E Source F - r a t i o F-prob. Between Groups 2.240 0.0895 W i t h i n Groups T o t a l ASSERTIVENESS A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e D.f. Sum o f Squares Mean Squares 3 38.4196 12.8065 85 485.9849 5.7175 88 524.4045 91 TABLE C ANOVA TABLE FOR 16 PF VARIABLE G Variable: G Source F- r a t i o F-Prob. Between Groups 0.684 0.5643 Within Groups Total CONSCIENTIOUSNESS Analysis of Variance D.f. Sum of Squares Mean Squares 85 88 10.8375 448.9627 459.8002 3.6125 5.2819 9 2 TABLE D ANOVA TABLE FOR 16 PF VARIABLE I Variable: I TOUGH-MINDED Analysis of Variance Source D.f. Sum of Squares Mean Squares F-rat i o F-Prob. Between Groups 3 30.2990 10.0997 2.297 0.0834 Within Groups 85 373.6617 4.3960 Total 88 403.9606 93. TABLE E ANOVA TABLE FOR 16 PF VARIABLE 0 Variable: O Source F - r a t i o F-prob, Between Groups 2.550 0.0611 Within Groups Total ASSURANCE Analysis of Variance D.f. Sura of Squares Mean Squares 85 88 48.2199 535.8485 584.0684 16.0733 6.3041 94 TABLE F ANOVA TABLE FOR 16 PF VARIABLE Q Variable: Q 2 Source F- r a t i o F-prob. Between Groups 2.375 0.0758 Within Groups Total SELF-SUFFICIENCY Analysis of Variance D.f. Sum of Squares Mean Squares 85 88 44.3347 528.9655 573.3002 14.7782 6.2231 95 TABLE G A CHI SQUARE STATISTIC FOR THE SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTOR BIRTH ORDER Count : Row% : Row : Col% : Total Total % : 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th (Birth Order) 6 6 7 3 2 2 0 2 28 MALE 21.4 21.4 25.0 10.7 7.1 7.1 0.0 7.1 31.5 ATHLETES 28.6 25.0 36.8 30.0 28.6 50.0 0.0 66.7 6.7 6.7 7.9 3.4 2.2 2.2 0.0 2.2 3 8 11 1 2 2 1 1 29 FEMALE 10.3 27.6 37.9 3.4 6.9 6.9 3.4 3.4 32.6 ATHLETES 14.3 33.3 57.9 10.0 28.6 50.0 100.0 33.3 3.4 9.0 12. 4 1.1 2.2 2.2 1.1 1.1 6 6 0 5 3 0 0 0 20 MALE 30.0 30.0 0.0 25.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.5 PROFESSIONALS 28,6 25.0 0.0 50.0 42. 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 6.7 0.0 5.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 12 FEMALE 50.0 33.3 8.3 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 PROFESSIONALS 28.6 16.7 5.3 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 4.5 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Column 21 24 19 10 7 4 1 3 89 Total 23.6 27.0 21.3 11.2 7.9 4.5 1.1 3.4 100.0 X* = 29.71381, p< 0.0979 96 TABLE H A CHI SQUARE STATISTIC FOR THE SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTOR FAMILY SIZE Count : Row% : Row : Col% : Total Total % : 1 2 3 4 (Family 5 Size) 6 7 8 9 0 4 12 7 1 2 0 0 2 28 MALE 0.0 14.3 42. 9 25.0 3.6 7.1 0.0 0.0 7.1 31.5 ATHLETES 0.0 25.0 34.3 38.9 20.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 4.5 13.5 7.9 1.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.2 0 6 13 7 2 0 0 1 0 29 FEMALE 0.0 20.7 44.8 24.1 6.9 0. 0 0.0 3.4 0.0 32.6 ATHLETES 0.0 37.5 37.1 38.9 40.0 0.0 o.o. 50.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 14.6 7.9 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 2 4 3 4 2 3 0 1 1 20 MALE PROFESSIONALS 10.0 20.0 15.0 20.0 10.0 15.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 22.5 50.0 2.2 25.0 4.5 8.6 3.4 22.2 4.5 40.0 2.2 50. 0 3.4 0.0 0.0 50.0 1.1 33.3 1.1 2 2 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 16.7 16.7 58.3 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 FEMALE PROFESSIONALS 50. 0 2.2 12.5 2.2 20.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Column 4 16 35 18 5 6 0 2 3 89 Total 4.5 18.0 39.3 20.2 5.6 6.7 0.0 2.2 3.4 100.0 X2 = 2 5 . 8 0 3 1 6 , p<0.2141 97 TABLE 1 A CHI SQUARE STATISTIC FOR THE SOCIO-CULTURAL FACTOR CULTURE Count : Row% : Col% : Canadian American Other Total : 26 0 2 28 92. 9 0.0 7.1 31.5 MALE ATHLETES 34.7 0.0 15.4 29.2 0.0 2.2 27 0 2 29 93.1 0.0 6.9 32.6 FEMALE ATHLETES 36.0 0.0 15.4 30.3 0.0 2.2 13 1 6 20 65.0 5.0 30.0 22.5 MALE PROFESSIONALS 17.3 100.0 46.2 14.6 1.1 6.7 9 0 3 12 75.0 0.0 25.0 13.5 FEMALE PROFESSIONALS 12.0 0.0 23.1 10.1 0.0 3.4 Column 75 1 13 89 Total 84. 3 1.1 14.6 100.0 X26 .=. .11. 34721, p<0.0782 98 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, B.N. B i r t h Order: A C r i t i c a l Review. SOciometry, 1972, 35, 411-439. Adams, R.L., and B.N. P h i l l i p s . Motivational and Achievement Differences among Children of Various Ordinal B i r t h Positions. C h i l d Development, 1972, 43, 155-164. Alderman, R.B. Psychological Behavior i n Sport. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974. Bachtold, L.M. Personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . o f Women of Di s t i n c t i o n . Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1976, 1, 1, 70-78. Bavelas, J.B. Personality: Current Theory and Research. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth Publishing, 1978. Bern, D.J., and D.C. Funder. Predicting more of the people more of the time: Assessing the Personality of Situations. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 6, 485. Bradley, R.W., and M.P. Sanbon. Ordinal position of High School students i d e n t i f i e d by-their Teachers as Superior. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 1969, 60, 41-45. Brasher, C L . Personality T r a i t s of Women Athletes at Brigham Young University. Master's Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1974. Burton, D. B i r t h Order and Intelligence. Journal of So c i a l Psychology, 1968, 76, 199-206. Bushan, S., and V. Agarwal. Personality C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of High and Low Achieving Indian Sports Persons. int e r n a t i o n a l Journal Of Sport Psychology, 1978, 9, 3, 191. C a t t e l l , R.B. A Guide to Mental Testing. London: University of London Press, 1953. Personality and Motivation Structure and . Measurement. New York: World Book Co., 1957. . Manual for the 16 PF. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e for Personality and A b i l i t y Testing, 1972. _________ . H..W..Eber. and M.M. Tatsuoka. Handbook for the 16PF Questionnaire. Champaign I l l i n o i s : I n s t i t u t e for Personality and A b i l i t y Testing, 1970. 99 Cooper, L. A t h l e t i c s , A c t i v i t y and Personality: A Review of the Lit e r a t u r e . Research Quarterly,. 196 9, 40, 1, 17-22. Darden, E. Sixteen Personality F a c t o r . P r o f i l e s of Competitive Bodybuilders and Weight l i f t e r s . Research Quarterly,. 1972, 43, 2, 142. Dolphin, C , M. O'Brien, J. Cullen and Noel. Personality Factors and some physiological.correlates i n athletes. Journal Of Psychosomatic Research, 1980, 24, 5_, 281-285. Dowd, R. and J . M. Innes. Sport and Personality: E f f e c t s of Type of Sport and Level of Competition. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1981, 53, 79-89. Foster, E.G. Personality T r a i t s of Highly S k i l l e d Basketball and S o f t b a l l Women Athletes. D.P.E., Indiana University, 1971. H a l l , E.G., G.E. Church and M. Stone. Relationship of B i r t h Order to selected Personality C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Nationally Ranked Olympic Weight L i f t e r s . Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s . 1980, 51, 971-976. Hardman, K. The Personality Differences between Top Class Games Players and Players of Lesser A b i l i t y . M.Ed., University of Manchester, 1968. Henney, A.S. Personality Characteristics of a Group of In d u s t r i a l Managers. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1975, 48, 1, 65-67. Henry, F.M. Personality Differences i n Athletes,.Physical Educators and Aviation Students. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1941, 38, 745. Hj e l l e , L.A., and Ziegler, D.J.. Personality Theories: Basic Assumptions Research and Applications. New York: McGraw- H i l l Book Co. ,. 1976. Johnson, W.R., D.C. Hutton and G.B. Johnson. Personality T r a i t s of Some Champion Athletes as Measured by Two Projective Tests: Rorschach and H-T-P. Research Quarterly, 1954, 25, 4, 484. Kane, J.E. Personality and Physical A b i l i t i e s . Contemporary Psychology of SpOrt. Chicago: The A t h l e t i c I n s t i t u t e , 1970. Karabenich, S.A. On the Relation of Personality and B i r t h Order. Psychological Reports, 1971, 28, 258. K r o l l , W. Discriminant Function and Hiera r c h i c a l Grouping Analysis of Karate Participants' Personality P r o f i l e s . Research Quarterly, 1967, 38, 3, 405. 100 . 16 Personality Factor P r o f i l e s of Collegiate Wrestlers. Research Quarterly, 1967, 38,: 44-57. and W. Crenshaw. Report: Multivariate Personality P r o f i l e Analysis of Four A t h l e t i c Groups. Contemporary Psychology of Sport. Chicago: The A t h l e t i c I n s t i t u t e , 1970. __________ J . Loy, V. Hosek, and M. Vanek. Multivariate Analysis of the Personality P r o f i l e s of Championship Czechoslovakian Athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 1973, 4, 3, 131. Lazarus, R.S. Personality. New Jersey: Prentice H a l l , 1971. Lessing, E.E.,. and M. Oberlander. Developmental Study of Ordinal Position and Personality Adjustment of the Child as Evaluated.by the C a l i f o r n i a Test of Personality. Journal Of Personality, 1967, 35,487-497. Lewin, K. A Dynamic Theory Of Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill,. 1935. Lunnenborg, P.W. B i r t h Order, Aptitude.and Achievement. Journal Of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1968, 32, TolT Maddi, S. Personality Theories: A Comparative Analysis. Homewood, 111.: Dorsey Press,. 1968. Malumphy, T. Personality of Women Athletes i n Int e r c o l l e g i a t e Competition. Research Quarterly, 1968, 39, 3_, 610. Marks, R.E. A Study of Personality Factors of College Women Athletes. M.S., Ithaca College, 1971. Masterton, M.L. Family Structure variables and need approval. Journal of consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1971, 36, 12-13. ~ ~ Mischel, W. Introduction to Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976. Mi t c h e l l , G. and L. Schroers. B i r t h Order and Parental Experience i n Monkeys and Man. Advances i n C h i l d Development and Behavior, 1973, 8, 159-184. Morgan, W.P. Sport Psychology. In R.N. Singer (Ed.). The Psychomotor Domain: Movement Behavior. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1972. 101 The T r a i t Psychology Controversy. Research Quarterly. 1980, 51, 1,. 50-76, Morgan, M.R. A Comparison of Selected Personality, Biographical and Motivational T r a i t s Among Women Athletes, Physicians and Attorneys. Ph.D., Ohio State University, 1973. 0'Conner, K.A., and J.L. Webb. Investigation of Personality T r a i t s of College Female Athletes and Non-athletes. Research Quarterly, 1976, 47, 2, 203. Ogi l v i e , B. Psychological Consistencies within the Personality of High Level Competitors. In William P. Morgan (ed.) Contemporary Readings i n Sport Psychology, 1970, 307. Omizo, M., J.R. Morrow, R. Lord, J. Disch and W. Michael. The V a l i d i t y of a composite of 19 personality variables i n d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between American World Class Contenders and Undergraduate Education Majors. Educational Psychological Measurement, 1979, 39, 977-983. Peterson, S., J.C. Weber, and W.W. Trousdale. Personality T r a i t s of Women i n Team Sports versus Women i n Individual Sports. Research Quarterly, 1967, 38,'_4, 686. Pestonjee, D.M., R.S. Singh, A.P. Singh and V.B. Singh. Personality and P h y s i c a l . A b i l i t i e s : An Empirical Investigation. International Journal Of Sport Psychology. 1981, 12, 39-51. Robson, C. Experiment, Design and S t a t i s t i c s i n Psychology. Great B r i t a i n : Richard Clay, 1974. Rushall, B.S. An Investigation of the Relationship between Personality Variables and Performance Categories i n Swimmers. International Journal Of Sport Psychology. 1970, 1, 93.. Three Studies r e l a t i n g Personality Variables to Football Performance. In A.C. Fischer (Ed.) Psychology of Sport. C a l i f o r n i a : Mayfield Publishing, 1976, 391. Sampson E.E., and F.T. Hancock. An Examination of the Relationship between Ordinal Position, Personality and Conformity: An Extension, Replication and P a r t i a l V e r i f i c a t i o n . Journal Of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology, 1967, 5, 398-407. Sarason, I.G., and R.E. Diener. Personality Research: Components of Variance Attributable to the Person and the Situation. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology, 1975, 32, 199. 102 Schooler, C. B i r t h Order E f f e c t s : Not Here, Not Now! Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1972, 78,. 161-175. Smith, L. Personality and Performance Research—New Theories and Directions Required. Quest, 1970, 13, 74. Spielberger, C D . , R.L. . Borsuch and.R.E. Lushene. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety inventory. Palo A l t o : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1970. Stagner, R. On the Reality and Relevance of T r a i t s . Journal of General Psychology, 1977, 96, 185-207. Strumpfer, D.J. Failure, to f i n d Relationships.between Family Constellation and Achievement Motivation. Journal of Psychology, 1973, 85, 29-36. T r i p a t h i , V.M. A Study.of.Personality Patterns of Players and non-Players. Psycho-Lingua, 1980, 10, 2, 61-66. Warren,.J.R. B i r t h Order and S o c i a l Behavior. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1966, 65, 38-49. Werner, A.C., and E. Gottheile. 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 . Research Quarterly, 1966, 37, 1, 126. Williams, J.M. , B.J. Hoepner, D.'L. Moody and B.C. O g i l v i e . Personality T r a i t s of Champion.Level Female Fencers. Research Quarterly, 1970, 41, 3, 446. Whitla, D.K. Handbookof Measurement and Assessment i n Behavioral Sciences. Reading Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1958.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Germany 23 0
India 13 0
United States 11 0
Canada 10 0
United Kingdom 8 0
China 3 2
Japan 3 0
Nigeria 2 0
France 2 0
Russia 2 0
Sweden 1 0
Ethiopia 1 2
Australia 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 49 2
Langley 6 0
London 4 0
Lisburn 3 0
Tokyo 3 0
Beijing 3 0
Lagos 2 0
Washington 2 0
Thousand Oaks 2 0
Paddington 1 0
Toronto 1 0
Maple Ridge 1 0
Hill 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items