UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Perceived need satisfactions of workers in isolated environments Cram, John Murray 1969

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1969_A2 C83.pdf [ 6.75MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104237.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104237-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104237-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104237-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104237-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104237-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104237-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104237-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104237.ris

Full Text

PERCEIVED NEED SATISFACTIONS OF WORKERS . IN ISOLATED  ENVIRONMENTS  by. John Murray Cram B.A., A l b e r t a , 1950 B.Ed., A l b e r t a , 1952 M.Ed., New Brunswick, 19 6 5  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Doctor of E d u c a t i o n i n the F a c u l t y of Education  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming r e q u i r e d standard  t o the  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1969  In  presenting  an  advanced  the I  Library  further  for  this  degree shall  agree  scholarly  by  his  of  this  written  thesis  in  at  University  the  make  that  it  freely  permission  purposes  may  representatives. thes,is  for  be  It  of  for  J  u  l  V  1  6  '  gain  9  6  9  for  extensive by  shall  Columbia.  1  British  the  understood  EDUCATION  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada  of  granted  is  financial  f u l f i l m e n t of  available  permission.  Department  Date  partial  reference  Head  be  requirements  Columbia,  copying  that  not  the  of  and  of my  copying  I agree  this  that  Study. thesis  Department or  for  or  publication  allowed without  my  ABSTRACT A review of the  l i t e r a t u r e on work environments  suggests t h a t workers i n s p e c i f i c s e t t i n g s and  unique job  satisfactions.  P o r t e r and  w i l l have s p e c i f i c Lawler, however,  suggest t h a t these unique environmental p e r c e p t i o n s may be  d e s c r i b e d i n terms of t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l model l i n k i n g  attitudes job  all  and  performance.  satisfactions,  of workers i n the tings  i n the  based on  the  Job  p r e s e n t study examines  personal h i s t o r i e s  and  s p e c i f i c ' e n v i r o n m e n t of  Canadian A r c t i c , and  tests  performance  a d a p t a t i o n of the  ratings  i s o l a t e d work  a number of  are measured by  set-  hypotheses  an e i g h t e e n item  Porter managerial questionnaire.  o b t a i n e d of the  Physiological,  Self-Actualization  factors  and  related  S e c u r i t y , S o c i a l , Esteem, Autonomy  needs d e s c r i b e d by  Personal history data sheet s i m i l a r  Numerical  fulfillment, dissatisfaction  importance p e r c e i v e d to e x i s t f o r s p e c i f i c job to the  the  P o r t e r - L a w l e r model.  satisfactions  measures are  The  job  and  Maslow.  i n f o r m a t i o n i s c o n t a i n e d i n a coded  to t h a t used i n the  Antarctic  studies  of  Gunderson. Performance r a t i n g s results by  of  a rating  scale  of each worker are and  each worker's manager and The  taken from  the  a rank order p r o c e s s c a r r i e d  out  supervisor.  sample c o n s i s t e d of  228  workers i n t e r v i e w e d by  w r i t e r i n f i v e s m a l l , i s o l a t e d mining camps i n the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s of Canada i n the  early  Yukon  w i n t e r of  the and  1968.  R e s u l t s from each camp are analysed to p r o v i d e answers 1.  s e p a r a t e l y so as  t o the f o l l o w i n g three problems:  The d e t e r m i n a t i o n  of o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e s between  the f u l f i l l m e n t , d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and importance of Maslow needs c a t e g o r i e s across a l l workers. 2.  The d e t e r m i n a t i o n  of d i f f e r e n c e s between the need  p e r c e p t i o n s of s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers. 3.  The d e t e r m i n a t i o n  o f d i f f e r e n c e s between the  p e r s o n a l and o c c u p a t i o n a l h i s t o r i e s of s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers. A n a l y s e s r e g a r d i n g problem 1 shoved, t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , Esteem and Autonomy needs are the l e a s t f u l f i l l e d ,  t h a t Esteem  and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n needs p r o v i d e the most d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and t h a t Autonomy needs are c o n s i d e r e d  t o be the l e a s t  impor-  tant. A n a l y s e s r e g a r d i n g problem 2 showed t h a t , i n the two camps where v a l i d performance r a t i n g s were obtained,  the d i f -  f e r e n c e s between the o v e r a l l f u l f i l l m e n t and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s c o r e s of s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers were s i g n i f i c a n t and i n the p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n . A n a l y s e s r e g a r d i n g problem 3 showed there to be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the p e r s o n a l h i s t o r i e s of s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers. Conclusions  are drawn as t o the u s e f u l n e s s of the  P o r t e r - L a w l e r model and the Maslow theory f o r Manpower coun-  s e l l e r s and f o r management. present r e s u l t s  Comparisons are made between the  and those obtained, i n the P o r t e r and Lawler  management s t u d i e s . Suggestions f o r f u t u r e needed r e s e a r c h i n c l u d e  repli-  c a t i o n s i n other s p e c i f i c i s o l a t e d and n o n - i s o l a t e d job settings,  and a f i e l d experiment  i n an i s o l a t e d s e t t i n g where  rewards i n the form o f need f u l f i l l m e n t can be c o n t r o l l e d and the r e s u l t i n g  s a t i s f a c t i o n s monitored over time.  iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I.  PAGE INTRODUCTION  .  Review o f L i t e r a t u r e II.  3  THEORY  7  The P o r t e r - L a w l e r Model  6  The Maslow Theory III.  IV.  -^2  PROBLEMS AND HYPOTHESES . . .  15  Development o f Problems  15  Hypotheses  24  DEVELOPMENT OF INSTRUMENTS AND CRITERIA MEASURES The Need F u l f i l l m e n t ,  '  27  S a t i s f a c t i o n and  Importance Q u e s t i o n n a i r e  VI.  VII.  1  27  The S u c c e s s f u l - U n s u c c e s s f u l Ratings  33  The B i o g r a p h i c a l I n f o r m a t i o n Form  35  METHODS AND PROCEDURES  37  The Sample  37  Procedures  40  RESULTS OF ANALYSES  45  R e s u l t s Relevant t o Hypothesis  1  45  R e s u l t s Relevant t o Hypothesis  2  50  R e s u l t s Relevant t o Hypothesis  3  58  XV  TABLE OF CONTENTS  (Continued)  CHAPTER VII.  .  PAGE  (Continued) Results Relevant t o Hypothesis 4  65  Results Relevant t o Hypothesis 5  69  Results Relevant t o Hypothesis 6  .  Results Relevant t o Hypothesis 7 VIII.  75  CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Conclusions  85  . . . . .  85  Implications BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX  72  99  f  .  105 110  V  LIST OF TABLES TABLE I.  PAGE Camp by Camp D i s t r i b u t i o n of S u b j e c t s Compared t o T o t a l Work Force  II. III. IV. V.  VI. VII. VIII.  IX. X. XI. XII.  XIII. XIV .  Demographic  Details  A Description  of the Sample  of Rater Used i n Each Camp . . . .  Mean F u l f i l l m e n t Scores f o r Each Need Category Comparison of Esteem and Autonomy Average F u l f i l l m e n t with P h y s i o l o g i c a l , Security, S o c i a l and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n  38 39 44 46 46  Mean D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Scores f o r Each Need Category  51  D i f f e r e n c e s Between Mean Esteem D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Scores and Means o f Other C a t e g o r i e s  52  Comparison of Esteem and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n Average Means w i t h P h y s i o l o g i c a l , Security, S o c i a l and Autonomy Averages  53  Comparison o f Esteem and Autonomy D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Means  55  Mean Importance Scores f o r Each Need Category . .  60  D i f f e r e n c e s Between Mean S o c i a l Importance Scores and Means o f Other C a t e g o r i e s  61  D i f f e r e n c e s Between Mean S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n Importance Scores and Means o f Other Categories  61  D i f f e r e n c e s Between Mean Autonomy Importance Scores and Means f o r Other C a t e g o r i e s  62  Comparison o f Mean T o t a l F u l f i l l m e n t Scores f o r S u c c e s s f u l and U n s u c c e s s f u l Workers  67  vi  LIST OF TABLES  (Continued)  TABLE XV.  ;;XVI. XVII. XVIII.  PAGE Comparison o f Mean T o t a l D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Scores f o r S u c c e s s f u l and U n s u c c e s s f u l Workers  70  Comparison o f Mean T o t a l Importance Scores f o r S u c c e s s f u l and U n s u c c e s s f u l Workers . . . .  73  P e r s o n a l Data D i f f e r e n c e s Between S u c c e s s f u l and U n s u c c e s s f u l Workers  76  Frequency o f Occurrence of S u c c e s s f u l and U n s u c c e s s f u l Workers i n P e r s o n a l Data Categories  83  vii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE  PAGE  1  The P o r t e r - L a w l e r Model  7  2  Comparison of O v e r a l l Mean F u l f i l l m e n t Needs . . . 85  3  Comparison of O v e r a l l Mean D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Needs  86  4  Comparison of O v e r a l l Mean Importance Needs.  5  Comparison of F u l f i l l m e n t Means f o r S u c c e s s f u l and U n s u c c e s s f u l Workers Comparison o f D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Means f o r S u c c e s s f u l and U n s u c c e s s f u l Workers  6 7  Comparison o f Importance Means f o r S u c c e s s f u l and U n s u c c e s s f u l Workers  . . . 87  93 94 95  viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The  present  study was made p o s s i b l e by a s c h o l a r s h i p  from l e M i n i s t e r e de 1 ' E d u c a t i o n de l a P r o v i n c e and by a t r a v e l and o u t f i t t i n g grant  du Quebec  from the A r c t i c and  A l p i n e Research Committee o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Dr. J.K. Stager,  chairman.  I wish t o acknowledge the help r e c e i v e d throughout the p r o j e c t from my a d v i s o r y  committee i n the F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n ,  Dr. J.D. F r i e s e n , chairman, Dr. S.S. Lee, s t a t i s t i c a l t a n t , and Dr. M.B. Nevison, department chairman.  consul-  Special  a p p r e c i a t i o n i s expressed t o the two committee members from outside  the F a c u l t y , P r o f e s s o r E.S.W. Belyea  Mitchell.  and Dr. V.F.  The generous a s s i s t a n c e r e c e i v e d from Mr. V.A. Haw,  Department o f Mines and T e c h n i c a l Surveys, Ottawa, d u r i n g the planning  stages  The  i s a l s o acknowledged.  a s s i s t a n c e and c o o p e r a t i o n  o f both management and  workers i n the f o l l o w i n g mining o p e r a t i o n s recognized:  Canada Tungsten M i n i n g C o r p o r a t i o n ,  C a s s i a r Asbestos C o r p o r a t i o n Discovery  i s gratefully Cantung, Y.T.;  L i m i t e d , C l i n t o n Creek, Y.T.;  Mines Limited,. D i s c o v e r y ,  N.W.T.; Echo Bay Mines  L i m i t e d , P o r t Radium, N.W.T.; Mount Nansen Mines L i m i t e d , Carmacks, Y.T. P a r t i c u l a r thanks i s due t o Mr. W.J. B u t l e r o f B u t l e r ' s H i r i n g Agency, Vancouver, B.C., w i t h o u t whose p r a c t i c a l , tical  a s s i s t a n c e the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  i n i t s present  cri-  form would  not e x i s t and the p i l o t study would not have been p o s s i b l e .  CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Manpower and v o c a t i o n a l c o u n s e l l o r s are a t p r e s e n t being t r a i n e d by the F e d e r a l and some p r o v i n c i a l governments to  work i n a network o f Manpower Centres  a c r o s s Canada.  One  of  the problems f a c e d by these c o u n s e l l o r s i s i n h e l p i n g each  worker decide whether o r not he w i l l be s a t i s f i e d w i t h the p h y s i c a l , s o c i a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l environment o f h i s j o b . There would appear t o be a need t o supply c o u n s e l l o r s and c o u n s e l l o r educators w i t h a p r e d i c t i v e theory r e l a t i n g workers' a t t i t u d e s and i n t e r e s t s t o s a t i s f a c t i o n i n s p e c i f i c Canadian job  environments. One such environment which has r e c e i v e d l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n  from i n v e s t i g a t o r s i s t h a t o f the remote and i s o l a t e d s e c t i o n of and  Canada n o r t h o f 60° north l a t i t u d e comprising sub-arctic regions.  the a r c t i c  T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and communication i n  these areas are l i m i t e d , c a t e r i n g , r e c r e a t i o n and w e l f a r e c o s t s are h i g h and s o c i a l l i f e  i s restricted.  A Survey o f  Manpower Requirements o f the Canadian M i n e r a l I n d u s t r y (Canadian  I n s t i t u t e o f Mining  and M e t a l l u r g y , 1967) p o i n t s out  the d i f f i c u l t y o f f i n d i n g , s a t i s f y i n g and keeping workers i n the n o r t h . of  I t shows t h a t w h i l e there was an o v e r a l l  manpower i n Canadian mining  shortage  shortage  o f 7.2 p e r c e n t i n 1967, the  i n the remote areas o f the Yukon and Northwest Ter-  r i t o r i e s was 14 p e r c e n t .  2 Mining companies, which are by f a r the l a r g e s t employers of  workers i n i s o l a t e d areas, suggest a number of reasons f o r  the s h o r t a g e .  These reasons i n c l u d e i s o l a t i o n and  seasonal  work, the bad image of mining, the bad image of work i n the n o r t h , low pay  inadequate  f o r the c o s t of l i v i n g and h i g h  which, "while i t may.well a i d i n r e c r u i t i n g , almost  certainly  i n c r e a s e s t u r n o v e r and e a r l y job t e r m i n a t i o n (Canadian t u t e of M i n i n g , 1967,  p.  pay,  Insti-  81)".  The work of manpower c o u n s e l l o r s d e a l i n g w i t h p e r s o n n e l for  the a r c t i c r e g i o n s c e n t r e s around  two problems:  l o c a t e s u i t a b l y q u a l i f i e d workers to f i l l of  l a b o u r , and second,  first  the e x i s t i n g  to  shortage  to determine which of these workers w i l l  f i n d s a t i s f a c t i o n i n an i s o l a t e d work environment.  To s o l v e  the f i r s t of these problems and i g n o r e the second would mean t h a t c o u n s e l l o r s would be p r o v i d i n g a steady stream of workers who  accept a j o b , accept t r a n s p o r t a t i o n to the job s i t e ,  remain on the job f o r a few days or weeks, break return in  "outside."  c o n t r a c t and  T h i s p a t t e r n of b e h a v i o r i s o n l y too common  i s o l a t e d areas a t p r e s e n t . The p r e s e n t study has been undertaken  gather i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the environment  i n an attempt  to  of i s o l a t e d work  s e t t i n g s and to develop and t e s t a theory of job s a t i s f a c t i o n .  3 Review o f L i t e r a t u r e Investigators using standardized techniques  have met with  l e s s than s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s i n  p r e d i c t i n g the job success  o f i s o l a t e d workers.  C h y l i n s k i , S i s l e r and Quarrington the Edwards P e r s o n a l P r e f e r e n c e p a t i o n a l Preference  t e s t s and c l i n i c a l  Wright,  (196 7) used the M.M.P.I.,  T e s t , and the B r a i n a r d Occu-  T e s t i n attempting  t o p r e d i c t success as  r a t e d by s u p e r v i s o r s among 614 Canadian m e t e o r o l o g i s t s i n n o r t h e r n weather s t a t i o n s . lar  They concluded  t h a t "the p a r t i c u -  combination o f three p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s employed i n  t h i s study would be o f l i m i t e d value i n the s c r e e n i n g o f p o t e n t i a l candidates Gunderson  f o r northern  posting  (p. 31)','.  (1966) r e p o r t s d o u b t f u l r e s u l t s from the use  of Rorschach t e s t s and c l i n i c a l s o c i a l and work success  i n t e r v i e w s as p r e d i c t o r s o f  as r a t e d by s u p e r v i s o r s and peers i n  Antarctica.  He found t h a t both p r e d i c t i o n and i n t e r - r a t e r  reliability  i n c r e a s e d when the p s y c h i a t r i s t s .were taken t o  A n t a r c t i c a and exposed t o the working c o n d i t i o n s o f the subj e c t s o f the study.  Gunderson  (1964) s t a t e s t h a t "much  remains t o be done t o e s t a b l i s h a sound b a s i s f o r c l i n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n as a p r e d i c t i v e instrument  for Antarctic perfor-  mance (p. 15) " . Gunderson s concern i s a l s o expressed 1  by Palmai  i n a thorough review o f the p s y c h o l o g i c a l aspects  (1963)  and c y c l i c a l  4 p s y c h o l o g i c a l changes e x p e r i e n c e d by members o f A u s t r a l i a n Antarctic expeditions.  The A u s t r a l i a n s were measured with  i n t e r - p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s t e s t s , sociometric techniques, o b j e c t i v e and p r o j e c t i v e t e s t s and by p s y c h i a t r i s t s ' e v a l u ations.  Palmai's  p r i n c i p l e c o n c l u s i o n i s " i t may w e l l be  t h a t c e r t a i n u n i d e n t i f i a b l e f a c t o r s p l a y a major p a r t i n this cycle  (p. 156)".  Smith and Cranny trial  s t u d i e s produced  (1968) i n a lengthy review o f i n d u s up t o the' summer o f 1967, warn a g a i n s t  the assumed v a l i d i t y o f r e s e a r c h which does not take  into  c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n d i v i d u a l or s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s , and suggest the f u t i l i t y  o f attempting t o formulate s i m p l i f i e d  apply t o a l l people, on a l l j o b s .  Dunnette  laws which  (1963) d e c r i e s  the search f o r a s i n g l e , u n i v e r s a l c r i t e r i o n w i t h which t o measure job performance, and urges d i m e n s i o n a l model based  on s p e c i f i c enquiry i n t o  environments and occupations ships.  acceptance,of  a multiindividual  i n search f o r s p e c i f i c  In support o f Dunnette's concept, L e f k o w i t z  relation(1966)  found no r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s a t i s f a c t i o n , s k i l l age,  level,  s e n i o r i t y o r a t t i t u d e s o f i n d u s t r i a l workers and t h e i r  s e l f - e s t e e m as measured by the B i l l s  Index o f Adjustment  Values which was p r e v i o u s l y s t a n d a r d i z e d on. c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . Friedlander  (1966) found  f r e q u e n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the per-  c e p t i o n s of blue and white  c o l l a r workers both on and o f f  the job when measured by a L i k e r t  type q u e s t i o n n a i r e designed  to sample a t t i t u d e s r e g a r d i n g  environment, i n t r i n s i c  and r e c o g n i t i o n .  trend  The g e n e r a l  rewards  running through the  l i t e r a t u r e on job environments appears to be t h a t as y e t i s no o v e r a l l p r e d i c t o r of performance i n v a r i e d  environments  and t h a t each environment must be t r e a t e d as a unique ence  group.  there  refer-  6 CHAPTER  II  THEORY The t h e o r e t i c a l model upon which the d e s i g n of t h i s i s based i s t h a t of P o r t e r and Lawler model r e l a t e s  (1968, Chapter 2 ) .  study This  job a t t i t u d e s to job performance and s a t i s f a c t i o n  i n such a way as to make p o s s i b l e the d e r i v a t i o n of  testable  hypotheses a p p l i c a b l e to s p e c i f i c work environments  (Figure  The instruments primarily,  1).  and measures of a t t i t u d e used are b a s e d ,  on the w r i t i n g s  of Maslow  (1943, 1954,  1965,  1968),  r e g a r d i n g the h i e r a r c h y of p r e p o t e n t human needs.  The P o r t e r - L a w l e r Mod_ejL Fundamentally,  the P o r t e r - L a w l e r  tancy Theory" as opposed to the Hull.  concept i s an "Expec-  "Drive Theory" of Thorndike or  The b e g i n n i n g s of expectancy theory may be t r a c e d back  t o Tolman (193 2)  and Lev/in (1938) .  Behavior i s e x p l a i n e d as  a c t i o n r e s u l t i n g from e x p e c t a t i o n s or a n t i c i p a t i o n s outcome of f u t u r e e v e n t s .  This anticipation  c o g n i t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n not n e c e s s a r i l y r e l a t e d statistical  probability  Motivation  i s a f u n c t i o n of t h i s s u b j e c t i v e  rationality  and Lawler  to the  actual termed  towards a p r e f e r r e d  goal  probability.  (1968) suggest t h a t the emphasis on  and conscious e x p e c t a t i o n b e s t d e s c r i b e  apparent m o t i v a t i o n s  the  is a subjective,  of an outcome, and i s u s u a l l y  "subjective p r o b a b i l i t y " .  Porter  about  of i n d i v i d u a l s at work.  the  They suggest  0  TH  PERCEIVED EQUITABLE REWARDS  ABILITIES AND TRAITS  VALUE O F REWARD  TH EFFORT  i  H PERFORMANCE (ACCOMPLISHMENT)  4  Tl  REWARDS H»(FULFILLMENT)  AREAS  2 PERCEIVED E F F O R T - * REWARD PROBABILITY  WW**  ROLE PERCEPTIONS  FOR  SATISFACTION  OC- I N T E R E S T  THE  PRESENT  STUDY  i  FIGURE 1  8 t h a t job e x p e c t a n c i e s , "although based are forward o r i e n t e d i n a way handled  on p r e v i o u s  experience,  t h a t does not seem t o be  easily  by the concept of h a b i t s t r e n g t h (p. 12)". The  P o r t e r - L a w l e r model  (Figure 1) i s a formal theore-  t i c a l model r e l a t i n g e f f o r t , performance and s a t i s f a c t i o n to the e x p e c t a n c i e s of people on the job.  The model has been  tested empirically  (Lawler and P o r t e r , 1967,  P o r t e r and Lawler,  1968).  Mitchell,  1967,  These t e s t s have been made almost  e n t i r e l y u s i n g managers or s u p e r v i s o r s as s u b j e c t s .  In d i s -  c u s s i n g f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e i r model, P o r t e r and Lawler  (1968) s t a t e ,  "one  w i t h samples of respondents  other obvious need i n c o n n e c t i o n  would i n v o l v e comparing  results  f o r managers w i t h those f o r non-management r a n k - a n d - f i l e personnel  (p.  172)".  The major b e h a v i o r a l dimensions include:  of the model  (Figure 1)  E f f o r t , Performance, Rewards and S a t i s f a c t i o n .  major p e r c e p t i o n s r e l a t e d t o these b e h a v i o r s i n c l u d e : of  Reward, P e r c e i v e d Effort/Reward  P r o b a b i l i t y , Role  The  Value Percep-  t i o n , Reward F u l f i l l m e n t and P e r c e i v e d E q u i t a b l e Rewards. In  the model, E f f o r t  ered i n the p a t t e r n . expended w i l l Reward  (3) i s the f i r s t b e h a v i o r c o n s i d -  I t i s t h e o r i z e d t h a t the amount of e f f o r t  depend on two  s u b j e c t i v e concepts:  (1), t h a t i s the d e s i r a b i l i t y  Value  of  f o r the i n d i v i d u a l of a  reward which might be earned by e f f o r t , and P e r c e i v e d E f f o r t / Reward P r o b a b i l i t y  (2), t h a t i s the p e r c e i v e d chance t h a t  increased e f f o r t w i l l  l e a d t o i n c r e a s e d reward.  This perception  does not depend, n e c e s s a r i l y , on e x t e r n a l f a c t , but on subjective  probability. Effort  (3) produces Performance  i n d i v i d u a l has the necessary A b i l i t i e s  (6) but only when the and T r a i t s  accomplish the t a s k , and when h i s Role P e r c e p t i o n s such t h a t he d e f i n e s h i s job i n a way  (4) t o (5) are  such t h a t the type of  e f f o r t he makes w i l l i n c r e a s e h i s performance i n the d i r e c t i o n of company g o a l s . Performance Effort  (6) then, i s the net output of a person's  (3) and leads t o Rewards  Performance  (6) and Rewards  e c t and s u b j e c t i v e .  (7).  The c o n n e c t i o n between  (7), i s , however, extremely i n d i r -  The wavy l i n e i n the model between these  v a r i a b l e s suggests t h a t p e r c e i v e d rewards w i l l only be  linked  to performance d i f f e r e n c e s when the i n d i v i d u a l b e l i e v e s  that  i n c r e a s e d performance w i l l produce i n c r e a s e d rewards.  Reward  systems, however, are not always arranged so t h a t t h i s  rela-  t i o n s h i p i s c l e a r t o workers. Rewards are only t r u l y rewarding when they are p e r c e i v e d as such by the person r e c e i v i n g them.  Lawler and P o r t e r  have suggested t h a t rewards are of two types, e x t r i n s i c intrinsic.  (1967) and  E x t r i n s i c rewards are those which are " o r g a n i z a -  t i o n a l l y c o n t r o l l e d , such as pay, promotion and  security--i.e.,  those rewards commonly r e f e r r e d t o as s a t i s f y i n g the lower order  [Maslow]  needs  (pp. 23-24)".  I n t r i n s i c rewards are those  which the i n d i v i d u a l h i m s e l f gains f o r h i m s e l f , such as  feel-  ings of accomplishment he might have about h i s performance even  10 b e f o r e the e x t r i n s i c rewards have been d i s t r i b u t e d .  These  i n t r i n s i c rewards are seen as s a t i s f y i n g the h i g h e r order Maslow needs such as s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n . from the Performance-Reward Probability  The "feedback" l i n e  l i n k to P e r c e i v e d Effort/Reward  (2) i n d i c a t e s t h a t l e a r n e d  Performance-Reward  e x p e c t a t i o n s w i l l e f f e c t changes i n f u t u r e p e r c e p t i o n s and thus a f f e c t f u t u r e Rewards  effort.  (7) w i l l  l e a d to S a t i s f a c t i o n  (9) p r o v i d e d  t h a t the rewards the i n d i v i d u a l r e c e i v e s measure up to h i s e x p e c t a n c i e s or h i s p e r c e p t i o n s of what i s a f a i r rev/ard f o r the performance he has c a r r i e d out. Thus even i f an i n d i v i d u a l performs w e l l by company standards and i s rewarded h i g h l y by company standards, h i s own p e r c e p t i o n s of e q u i t a b l e rewards f o r performance completed may make him d i s s a t i s f i e d .  T h i s l a s t concept has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r  o r g a n i z a t i o n s which s e t up reward systems without t a k i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n the p e r c e p t i o n s of employees.  into  I t has even  broader i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r c o u n s e l l o r s , p e r s o n n e l workers and placement o f f i c e r s who must seek to understand reasons f o r s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i f they are to be of a s s i s tance to the i n d i v i d u a l seeking work or p l a n n i n g a c a r e e r . Satisfaction  (9) having been achieved or not achieved  w i l l be f e d back to the i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n s of Value of Reward  (1) and w i l l ,  i n turn, a f f e c t future  effort.  The P o r t e r - L a w l e r model, to date, has been used e x c l u s i v e l y t o examine  the a t t i t u d e s , s a t i s f a c t i o n s and performance  11 of managers and  supervisors.  I t s s t r u c t u r e i s such, however,  t h a t i t can be used to study data from workers at any and  i n any environment.  The model's g r e a t advantage  o t h e r s f o r the p r e s e n t study  over  i s t h a t i t i s completely  l a t e d , based on the assumption t h a t "work has continues to be the major non-family taken by most human beings  level,  job r e -  always been and  a c t i v i t y t h a t i s under-  (Porter and Lawler,  T h i s assumption i s even more important  1968,  p. 1 ) " .  amongst i s o l a t e d  n o r t h e r n workers than among the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n .  Typically,  the i s o l a t e d worker i s employed i n a s m a l l camp where a l l a c t i v i t i e s c e n t e r around the j o b .  Work, food, l e i s u r e , r e -  c r e a t i o n and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n are a l l company c o n t r o l l e d so the worker i s " l i v i n g h i s j o b " throughout t r a c t or u n t i l he  leaves.  the whole of h i s con-  P e r c e p t i o n s of h i s job can,  f o r e , be assumed to be the i s o l a t e d worker's prime day  thereto  day  motivator. Specifically 6  (Performance),  7  the p r e s e n t study i s c e n t e r e d on s e c t i o n s (Rewards) and  as i n d i c a t e d i n F i g u r e 1.  9 ( S a t i s f a c t i o n ) of the model  An attempt i s made to examine the  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between Performance and Rewards w h i l e at the same time g a i n i n g i n s i g h t i n t o the p e r c e i v e d S a t i s f a c t i o n s of a sample of n o r t h e r n , i s o l a t e d workers.  12  The Maslow Theory Measures o f p e r c e i v e d reward and s a t i s f a c t i o n used i n the p r e s e n t study are r o o t e d i n Maslow's theory t h a t human m o t i v a t i o n i s p r o v i d e d by u n s a t i s f i e d needs. no needs, t h e r e would be no a c t i o n . postulated: and  I f there were  F i v e b a s i c needs are  P h y s i o l o g i c a l , S e c u r i t y , Love or S o c i a l , Esteem  Self-Actualization.  archy o f prepotency  These needs are arranged  i n a hier-  such t h a t , i f a l l needs are u n s a t i s f i e d ,  the lower o r d e r needs w i l l dominate and the i n d i v i d u a l seek t o f u l f i l l  them f i r s t .  Once the lower  been s a t i s f i e d , they no longer m o t i v a t e . emerge t o dominate m o t i v a t i o n . other, s t i l l  will  order needs have  Higher needs w i l l  I f these needs are f i l l e d ,  h i g h e r needs emerge u n t i l a l e v e l o f S e l f -  A c t u a l i z a t i o n i s reached. At the bottom o f the needs h i e r a r c h y are the P h y s i o l o g i c a l needs, the needs f o r food, water and p h y s i c a l w e l l being.  These are the most p r e p o t e n t o f a l l needs and w i l l  dominate a l l o t h e r s i f not s a t i s f i e d . If  the P h y s i o l o g i c a l needs are s a t i s f i e d , t h e r e w i l l  emerge the s a f e t y o r S e c u r i t y needs. filled, person  unfil-  these needs may dominate a l l m o t i v a t i o n , producing a obsessed  with s a f e t y .  members a r e r e l a t i v e l y animals, of  If chronically  Although  i n our s o c i e t y i t s  s a f e from a s s a u l t , murder and w i l d  s a f e t y needs can s t i l l  be s t r o n g l y expressed  p r o p e r t y , job s e c u r i t y , savings o r i n s u r a n c e .  i n terms  13 I f both P h y s i o l o g i c a l  and S e c u r i t y  needs are g r a t i f i e d ,  there w i l l emerge the S o c i a l needs f o r l o v e , belongingness.  a f f e c t i o n and  The p a t t e r n of f e l t need, m o t i v a t i o n ,  action,  and g r a t i f i c a t i o n w i l l be repeated on the S o c i a l l e v e l . i n d i v i d u a l w i l l s t r i v e to e s t a b l i s h  The  f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s and t o  f i n d a p l a c e i n a group, be i t f a m i l y ,  acquaintances or co-  workers . Esteem needs are the next to dominate the i n d i v i d u a l a f t e r the g r a t i f i c a t i o n of S o c i a l needs. Esteem needs i n t o two t y p e s : prestige,  and the d e s i r e  f a c e o f the w o r l d . the  the d e s i r e  Maslow  divides  f o r reputation  or  f o r independent achievement i n the  This l a t t e r desire  i s a l s o c l a s s i f i e d as  need f o r Autonomy. Should a l l of these needs be s a t i s f i e d , there w i l l  develop a new doing t h a t cribed  f e e l i n g of r e s t l e s s n e s s :  f o r which he i s b e s t s u i t e d .  T h i s need i s des-  as the need f o r S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n ,  i s characterized is  the i n d i v i d u a l i s -not  and, i f s a t i s f i e d ,  by a conscious awareness t h a t  l i v i n g to h i s capacity,  the i n d i v i d u a l  u s i n g a l l h i s s k i l l s and  abilities  to respond to s i t u a t i o n s which c h a l l e n g e h i s unique combination of  talents. Maslow  (1968) has broken S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n  number of components are  which he c a l l s Metaneeds.  the p h i l o s o p h i c a l ,  into a  These needs  r e l i g i o u s , beauty and value needs which  " i n any g i v e n i n d i v i d u a l may  be, and o f t e n  are h i e r a r c h i c a l l y  14  arranged  according  differences  Maslow,  order  are probably  At  with  different  any g i v e n  a given  needs  time,  setting  conditions  such  and  constitutional  order  i n that  needs  and e s p e c i a l l y cultures, therefore,  are l i k e l y  existing  as P h y s i o l o g i c a l ,  always f e l t  but the higher  Self-Actualization vary  talents  (p. 5 9 ) " .  Lower Social  to idosyncratic  i n that  order,  of Esteem,  Security according  s u b - c u l t u r e s and  i n part,  well  environments.  the predominant needs  setting.  to  Autonomy,  the Metaneeds might  to reflect,  and  the  felt  i n  external  CHAPTER I I I PROBLEMS AND  HYPOTHESES  Development of Problems An axiom o f the P o r t e r - L a w l e r model that  (Figure 1) i s  reward i s synonymous w i t h f u l f i l l m e n t and t h a t  f i l l m e n t may  ful-  be expressed i n terms of one or more of the  Maslow type needs.  Thus the reward system of any  enterprise  or environment i s a measurable q u a n t i t y and can be s t a t e d an amount of the p e r c e i v e d f u l f i l l m e n t t h a t reports regarding h i s Physiological, Autonomy, and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n Satisfaction, of needs. (7), the  individual  Security,  Social,  Esteem,  needs.  i n the model, i s a l s o expressed i n terms  Satisfaction  i s f e l t when Rewards,  or F u l f i l l m e n t  correspond t o what the i n d i v i d u a l  feels i s equitable f o r  amount of performance he has g i v e n .  A wide d i s c r e p a n c y  between F u l f i l l m e n t w i l l be a measure can  an  as  (7)  and P e r c e i v e d E q u i t a b l e Rewards (8)  of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n .  Thus, i f F u l f i l l m e n t  be expressed i n n u m e r i c a l terms f o r each needs c a t e g o r y ,  Dissatisfaction If,  can a l s o be so expressed.  as s t a t e d  above, i t i s p o s s i b l e  ment and D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n possible fulfilled  t o express  i n measurable q u a n t i t i e s ,  Fulfill-  i t will  be  to measure which needs i n the h i e r a r c h y are being and which not.  From t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n  predictions  c o u l d be made as t o the order of importance i n which needs  will  16 be p e r c e i v e d i n a g i v e n environment.  In t h i s way  a hierarchy  of the r e l a t i v e importance of needs t o i n d i v i d u a l s i n s p e c i f i c jobs c o u l d be o b t a i n e d . The p o s s i b i l i t y of o b t a i n i n g measurable scores f o r f u l f i l l m e n t , d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and importance on each Maslow needs c a t e g o r y , t h e r e f o r e , makes i t p o s s i b l e to develop e m p i r i c a l problems r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p s expressed i n the model. The problems which f o l l o w are based on the assumptions of the P o r t e r - L a w l e r model, on what i s known of the c o n d i t i o n s t o be found i n i s o l a t e d work p l a c e s , and on the r e s u l t s of a p i l o t study c a r r i e d out among unemployed  hard rock miners i n  Vancouver and a group of mine and m i l l workers at the Annaconda Copper Mine, B r i t t a n i a Beach, B.C. are of t h r e e 1.  The problems  types: Problems having t o do w i t h o v e r a l l  differences  between the f u l f i l l m e n t , s a t i s f a c t i o n and importance of need c a t e g o r i e s i n an i s o l a t e d environment. 2.  Problems having to do w i t h the d i f f e r e n c e s  be-  tween need p e r c e p t i o n s of s u c c e s s f u l workers and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers i n an i s o l a t e d environment. 3.  Problems having to do w i t h d i f f e r e n c e s i n the  p e r s o n a l and o c c u p a t i o n a l h i s t o r i e s of s u c c e s s f u l and uns u c c e s s f u l workers i n an i s o l a t e d environment.  17 Problem 1. a.  OVERALL DIFFERENCES IN THE PERCEPTION OF NEEDS Fulfillment  One of the b a s i c assumptions of the model i s t h a t a worker's need f u l f i l l m e n t i s a d i r e c t r e s u l t of h i s reward perceptions.  I f the rewards g i v e n meet the worker's  t a t i o n s on each needs l e v e l , he w i l l d e s c r i b e fulfilled.  expec-  h i s needs as  I f the rewards g i v e n do not meet the worker's  expectations,  he w i l l d e s c r i b e h i s needs as u n f u l f i l l e d .  Which needs might be f u l f i l l e d  and u n f u l f i l l e d  i n an i s o l a t e d  work environment? There i s l i t t l e  doubt t h a t the b a s i c P h y s i o l o g i c a l and  S e c u r i t y needs are g e n e r a l l y w e l l cared northern  camps.  for in isolated  Good, w e l l prepared food  i s the r u l e ,  s h e l t e r i s as good as the t e r r a i n w i l l a l l o w , healthy  conditions p r e v a i l .  and  clean,  I t i s t r u e t h a t the work per-  formed i s o f t e n more dangerous than t h a t done i n c i v i l i z e d areas,  but s t r i c t s a f e t y p r e c a u t i o n s  keep i t from being  safe.  The p i l o t study uncovered a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n between  "dangerous" and "unsafe" i n the p e r c e p t i o n s Underground b l a s t i n g o p e r a t i o n s ,  are c o n s i d e r e d  safe.  of mine workers.  f o r example,  dangerous, but because of r i g i d p r e c a u t i o n s  un-  are r a t e d as  and  regulations  On the other hand, work i n a badly  k i t c h e n where u t e n s i l s are d u l l and c o n d i t i o n s s l i p p e r y i s seen as unsafe, but not dangerous.  are d i r t y  run and  Care taken  18 by government r e g u l a t i o n s and conditions i s recognized The to  be  p i l o t study  filled  and  by companies to assure a p p r e c i a t e d by workers.  a l s o r e v e a l e d t h a t s o c i a l needs appear  i n i s o l a t e d camps.  T h i s may  t r a d i c t i o n of f a c t , but when looked Porter-Lawler  safe  model, seems l o g i c a l .  seem to be a- con-  at i n the l i g h t of One  of the  the  assumptions  of the model i s t h a t need f u l f i l l m e n t i s based on expectancy or the s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a worker b r i n g s with him the j o b .  to  I t might be expected t h a t a worker v o l u n t e e r i n g f o r  work i n i s o l a t e d c o n d i t i o n s would f e e l i t probable a c t i v i t y would be  severely limited.  that  I f these expected  t i o n s proved t o be t r u e , then h i s s o c i a l e x p e c t a t i o n s  social condi-  would  be  fulfilled. It  is  at the needs l e v e l s of autonomy and esteem where  both the model and fulfillment. to  the environment suggest a p o s s i b l e l a c k of  A f u l l y autonomous worker i s a man  who  work where, when and w i t h whom he chooses and who  own  goals.  to  the few,  sets h i s  In an i s o l a t e d camp t h i s p r i v i l e g e i s granted e x p e r t miners and  t e c h n i c a l men  who  complete c e r t a i n e x a c t i n g developmental t a s k s . t h e i r own  i s allowed  h e l p e r s and  work under any  s e t t h e i r own  other c o n d i t i o n s .  however, autonomy may  are employed to They choose  goals and w i l l not  accept  For the o r d i n a r y employee,  be e x e r c i s e d i n choosing  l a t i o n or i n l e a v i n g the j o b .  only  to work i n i s o -  Otherwise h i s l i f e  is controlled.  Esteem needs, such as the need f o r encouragement or to f e e l the importance and  r e s p e c t a b i l i t y of a job are u n l i k e l y  19 to be n e t i n the i s o l a t e d work p l a c e . onment i s job c e n t e r e d . work but l i t t l e reward.  Work i n such an e n v i r -  High pay i s g i v e n  i n r e t u r n f o r hard  a t t e n t i o n i s p a i d t o i n t r i n s i c forms o f  A young man i n t e r v i e w e d  90 e i g h t hour s h i f t s i n 54 days.  i n the p i l o t study had worked He s c o f f e d a t the i d e a  that  the manager might g i v e him p r a i s e f o r t h i s f e a t , b u t s a i d he would have l i k e d t o r e c e i v e i t . H i s s o l e reward was $75.00 per day f o r h i s work, and he had no i n t e n t i o n of r e t u r n i n g to t h a t p a r t i c u l a r job even though he had no money a t the time of the i n t e r v i e w . The  e m p i r i c a l problem r e l a t e d t o the above d i s c u s s i o n  is: Problem l a .  TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF FULFILLMENT OF NEEDS OF WORKERS IN ISOLATED ENVIRONMENTS.  b. It  Satisfaction i s suggested i n the d i s c u s s i o n r e l a t e d t o Problem  1 a. t h a t Autonomy needs w i l l not be f u l f i l l e d because o f reasonable and e x p l a i n a b l e s p e c i f i c work c o n d i t i o n s  circumstances r e l a t e d t o the  o f i s o l a t e d environments.  w h i l e the worker w i l l p e r c e i v e filled, other  h i s Autonomy needs as u n f u l -  he w i l l be s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h i s c o n d i t i o n i f h i s  needs are being met. Esteem needs, however, w i l l be u n f u l f i l l e d ,  worker w i l l see no reason f o r t h i s t o be s o . little  Thus,  feedback from s u p e r i o r s  as t o h i s value  and the  I f he r e c e i v e s as a person or  20  as  t o the r e s p e c t a b i l i t y o f h i s j o b , \->e i s l i k e l y  to  express a p e r c e i v e d d e f i c i e n c y a t the Esteem  to f e e l and  level.  The r e l a t e d e m p i r i c a l problem i s : Problem l b .  TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION OF NEEDS OF WORKERS IN ISOLATED ENVIRONMENTS.  c.  Importance  A p r e v i o u s study o f p e r c e i v e d need importance 1961)  (Porter,  showed t h a t the importance of needs "does not n e c e s s a r i l y  f o l l o w an i n c r e a s e from lower order t o h i g h e r order needs (p.  8 ) " . There would, then, appear t o be some s i t u a t i o n a l  f a c t o r i n a s p e c i f i c job environment which might cause d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r c e i v e d need importance. the  Two f a c t o r s , one i n  model, and one i n the environment, might account f o r  p e r c e i v e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n need importance a c r o s s needs in  i s o l a t e d work p l a c e s .  levels  F i r s t , the Maslow prepotency theory  would suggest t h a t the p r e o c c u p a t i o n of a worker w i t h h i s u n f u l f i l l e d Esteem and Autonomy needs would overshadow any f e e l i n g s he might have r e g a r d i n g S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n .  Self-  A c t u a l i z a t i o n would, then, be c o n s i d e r e d o f l i t t l e importance. Second, the p i l o t study i n d i c a t e d t h a t the f u l f i l l i n g of  s o c i a l needs appeared t o be of l i t t l e  on the job i n i s o l a t i o n .  concern t o workers  21 The  r e l a t e d e m p i r i c a l problem i s :  Problem 1 c.  TO DETERMINE THE  LEVEL OF  IMPORTANCE OF NEEDS  OF WORKERS IN ISOLATED ENVIRONMENTS.  Problem 2.  DIFFERENCES IN NEEDS PERCEPTIONS BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL AND  S u c c e s s f u l and Problems 2 and the use  UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS  u n s u c c e s s f u l workers f o r purposes of  3 of t h i s study have been i d e n t i f i e d  of a Work P e r f o r m a n c e / S o c i a l  Rank Order procedure d e s c r i b e d  Adjustment s c a l e and  i n d e t a i l i n Chapter 4.  these problems are concerned only with sample l a b e l l e d s u c c e s s f u l and a.  through  those p o r t i o n s of  (Figure 1) Performance i s l i n k e d to of Rewards, which, f o r  purposes of t h i s study, i s d e f i n e d as f u l f i l l m e n t , and of E q u i t a b l e Rewards.  or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n may f i l l m e n t and  and  Thus a worker's  be d e s c r i b e d  the p e r c e i v e d  through  satisfaction  as a f u n c t i o n of h i s  ful-  e q u i t a b i l i t y of the rewards he  A t e s t a b l e l i n k i s thus formed between performance  satisfaction. Previous  1967)  the  unsuccessful.  S a t i s f a c t i o n through the P e r c e p t i o n  receives.  Thus,  F u l f i l l m e n t Differences  In the model  Perception  a  studies  ( P o r t e r , 1967;  have shown a p o s i t i v e but  P o r t e r and  Lawler,  s l i g h t r e l a t i o n s h i p between  performance and s a t i s f a c t i o n .  One  of the suggested  f o r the s l i g h t n e s s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p was s u b j e c t s sampled f u l f i l l e d job.  reasons  t h a t many of the  needs and r e c e i v e d rewards o f f the  Because of the i s o l a t e d environment of the p r e s e n t  study, w i t h i t s p e r v a d i n g expected  "work centredness,"  i t might be  t h a t the l i n k between performance, f u l f i l l m e n t  s a t i s f a c t i o n would be both p o s i t i v e and s t r o n g . i n i s o l a t i o n who  worker  does not get h i s needs s a t i s f i e d on the j o b ,  i s u n l i k e l y to get them s a t i s f i e d a t The  The  and  all.  r e l a t e d e m p i r i c a l problem i s :  Problem 2 a .  TO DETERMINE THE  DIFFERENCES IN TOTAL PERCEIVED  NEED FULFILLMENT ACROSS ALL LEVELS OF NEEDS BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL AND b.  UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS.  Satisfaction Differences  S a t i s f a c t i o n r e s u l t s when the rewards r e c e i v e d on each needs l e v e l equal the e x p e c t a n c i e s of the worker. the p r e s e n t study, the same people who  In  r a t e the workers as  s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l are almost wholly r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g rewards.  I t would seem reasonable  to  suggest  t h a t the s u c c e s s f u l worker w i l l be one whose e x p e c t a n c i e s  and  t h e r e f o r e , p e r c e i v e d e q u i t a b l e rewards match those of the people  controlling  such rewards.  U n s u c c e s s f u l workers are  likely  to have reward p e r c e p t i o n s d i f f e r i n g  from those of the  23 people i n charge of rewards. The r e l a t e d e m p i r i c a l problem i s : Problem 2 b .  TO DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCES IN TOTAL PERCEIVED SATISFACTION ACROSS ALL LEVELS OF NEEDS BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS.  c.  Differences i n Perceived  Importance  Importance o f a need may be taken t o mean the i n t e n s i t of the f e e l i n g towards t h a t need t h a t a worker  experiences.  Because v o l u n t e e r i n g t o work i n an i s o l a t e d environment r e q u i r e s a d e l i b e r a t e d e c i s i o n t o work i n a r e s t r i c t e d or t o escape from c i v i l i z a t i o n ,  milieu,  i t might be expected t h a t the  i n t e n s i t y o f f e e l i n g would be h i g h .  Each man has, at some  time, found the expectancy o f the need f u l f i l l m e n t t o be o b t a i n e d i n i s o l a t i o n s t r o n g enough so t h a t he has accepted t h i s k i n d o f j o b . Whether he i s s u c c e s s f u l or not, the impor tance o f the rewards he wishes t o r e c e i v e w i l l remain s t r o n g . The r e l a t e d e m p i r i c a l problem i s : Problem 2 c .  TO DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCES IN IMPORTANCE ATTACHED TO NEEDS BY SUCCESSFUL AND  UNSUCCESSFU  WORKERS. Problem 3.  DIFFERENCES IN BACKGROUNDS  The extremely v a r i e d r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d i n p a s t  studies  of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y data and success i n i s o l a t e d environments  (Wright, S i s l e r , C h y l i n s k i , 1963;  24 Gunderson, Nelson and O r v i c k ,  1964;  Nelson and O r v i c ,  c a s t doubts on the u s e f u l n e s s of t h i s procedure f o r performance.  1964)  predicting  P e r s o n a l Data s t u d i e s are based on the  assumption  t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h s i m i l a r backgrounds w i l l perform s i m i larly  i n s i m i l a r environments.  however,  The P o r t e r - L a w l e r  i s based on the assumption t h a t each person has a  unique s e t of p e r c e p t i o n s and e x p e c t a n c i e s . might be q u i t e grounds.  different  T h u s , workers  same r e l i g i o n ,  for individuals  These p e r c e p t i o n s  from s i m i l a r  it  the  or w i t h the same m a r i t a l s t a t u s or years  c o u l d be shown t h a t success i n i s o l a t e d  depends not on background, but r a t h e r assumptions of the P o r t e r - L a w l e r The r e l a t e d Problem 3.  back-  from the same home town, or of  s c h o o l i n g might p e r c e i v e a job environment q u i t e If  model,  of  differently.  environments  on p e r c e p t i o n s ,  model would be  the  strengthened.  e m p i r i c a l problem i s :  TO DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PERSONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL HISTORIES OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS.  The Hypotheses Hypotheses r e l a t e d Hypothesis 1:  t o Problems 1 a . ,  1 b.,  and 1 c .  Workers i n i s o l a t e d environments  will  p e r c e i v e the needs of Autonomy and Esteem to be the  least  fulfilled.  25 Hypothesis' 2:  Workers i n i s o l a t e d  environments  w i l l express g r e a t e r  dissatisfaction  at the Esteem needs l e v e l than any other Hypothesis 3:  at  level.  Workers i n i s o l a t e d  environments  w i l l p e r c e i v e S o c i a l and S e l f A c t u a l i z a t i o n needs to be least Hypotheses r e l a t e d Hypothesis 4:  important  their  needs.  to Problems 2 a . ,  2 b. , and 2 c .  Successful workers,  as measured by  work performance, w i l l express h i g h e r l e v e l s of need f u l f i l l m e n t needs l e v e l s  across  all  than w i l l u n s u c c e s s f u l  workers. Hypothesis 5:  Unsuccessful workers,  as measured by  work performance, w i l l express a higher  l e v e l of  across a l l  dissatisfaction  needs than w i l l s u c c e s s f u l  workers. Hypothesis 6:  There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e importance  attached to needs  in  the  at  v a r i o u s l e v e l s between s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers.  26 Hypothesis r e l a t e d to Problem 3. Hypothesis 7:  There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e personal h i s t o r i e s ful  the  between s u c c e s s -  and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers  i s o l a t e d camps.  in  in  CHAPTER IV DEVELOPMENT OF INSTRUMENTS AND CRITERIA MEASURES Instruments and methods were developed to measures i n each of the f o l l o w i n g the  obtain  areas f o r each s u b j e c t  of  study: 1.  P e r c e i v e d need f u l f i l l m e n t , importance r e l e v a n t  satisfaction  to each of the  and  postulated  need l e v e l s . 2.  Success or l a c k of success as a worker  i n an  i s o l a t e d work p l a c e . 3.  B i o g r a p h i c a l background and o c c u p a t i o n a l history.  The complete i n t e r v i e w Appendix I': of t h i s 1.  p r o t o c o l , as u s e d , i s i n c l u d e d as  study.  The Need F u l f i l l m e n t , and Importance  Questionnaire  The p a r t of the instrument satisfaction questionnaire and Lawler  and importance  Satisfaction  used to measure  i s an 18 item a d a p t a t i o n  developed and used by P o r t e r  (1967) and P o r t e r  fulfillment,  and M i t c h e l l  managers and m i l i t a r y o f f i c e r s .  of a  (1961, 1962),  Porter  (1967) i n s t u d i e s  The P o r t e r  of  questionnaire  randomly presented 13 items each of which had been p r e - s e l e c t e d  28 to measure p e r c e p t i o n s i n one of f i v e  types of Maslow needs:  Security  1 Item  Social  1 Item  Esteem  3 Items  Autonomy  4 Items  Self-Actualization  4 Items  Each item had 3 p a r t s , to perceived equitable  one r e l a t e d  to f u l f i l l m e n t ,  reward and one to importance.  one  Each  p a r t was answered on a seven p o i n t s c a l e by the s u b j e c t s themselves  (Porter and L a w l e r ,  196 8, Appendix  The adapted q u e s t i o n n a i r e  used f o r t h i s  developed d u r i n g a s e r i e s of t r i a l s  1.  study was  w i t h unemployed  miners i n a Vancouver h i r i n g o f f i c e . naire d i f f e r s  II).  northern  The r e s u l t i n g q u e s t i o n ^  from the P o r t e r d e s i g n i n the f o l l o w i n g  Items have been i n c l u d e d r e l e v a n t  Maslow type needs r a t h e r  than the f i v e  to each of s i x  used by P o r t e r .  items have been i n c l u d e d f o r each need: Physiological  3 Items  Security  3 Items  Social  3 Items  Esteem  3 Items  Autonomy  3 Items  Self-Actualization  3 Items  ways:  Three  2.  The 7 p o i n t answering s c a l e of the P o r t e r q u e s t i o n -  n a i r e has been changed to a 5 p o i n t s c a l e at the s u g g e s t i o n of a number of s u b j e c t s of the p i l o t  study who f e l t the  s c a l e had "too many numbers to s o r t 3.  out."  The wording of the q u e s t i o n s has been s i m p l i f i e d  and lengthened i n an attempt t o reach the l i t e r a c y the  larger  level  of  subjects. 4.  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e has been designed so as to be  presented during a one-to-one interview  rather  than as a  s u b j e c t ' s s e l f - c o m p l e t i o n form. The b a s i c r a t i o n a l e  and item c o n s t r u c t i o n of the  (1962) q u e s t i o n n a i r e have been r e t a i n e d , attempts  however.  Porter  Each item  to tap the s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s r e g a r d i n g a s p e c i f i c  need f a c t o r r e l a t e d  to h i s p r e s e n t j o b .  Each s u b j e c t was  asked to answer on the 5 p o i n t s c a l e h i s r a t i n g as t o : a.  How much (of  the need f a c t o r )  i s there  on your  p r e s e n t job? b.  How much (of the need f a c t o r ) the  c.  should there be on  job?  How important  The answers to  is  (a)  factor)?  p a r t of each item were taken as a  measure of p e r c e i v e d need The answers to p a r t perceived equitable  (the need  reward.  fulfillment. (b)  were taken as measures of  30 The d i f f e r e n c e between the  (b)  score and the  (a)  score  of an item was taken as an o p e r a t i o n a l measure of s a t i s f a c t i o n . That i s , the g r e a t e r satisfaction. pp.  131-32)  (b)  was than  (a),  As i n the P o r t e r - L a w l e r  i n the few cases where the  l e s s than the  (a)  the g r e a t e r studies (b)  the d i s -  (1968,  responses were  r e s p o n s e s , the d i f f e r e n c e s were t r e a t e d  as  i n d i c a t i n g even l e s s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n than a zero d i f f e r e n c e , so t h a t minus d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s were i n c l u d e d i n s a t i s f a c t i o n totals  f o r purposes of a n a l y s i s . A completed sample item from the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  i n c l u d e d below of i t s  w i t h an e x p l a n a t i o n as to the  is  interpretation  content: ITEM 5 (Need F a c t o r : a.  How much c r e d i t do you get f o r what you do on t h i s  b.  Esteem)  job?  How much c r e d i t should you get what you do on t h i s  c.  How important  2  3  4  1  2  3  4 (5)  1  2  3  4  for  what you d o , to you?  O p e r a t i o n a l l y , i n terms of the s t u d y , what has t h i s subject said? a.  He has s a i d t h a t he gets very l i t t l e on the j o b , i . e  b.  credit 1  He has s a i d t h a t he should get a l o t of c r e d i t ,  i.e.  5  for  job?  is getting credit  _)  5  (_)  31 c.  He has s a i d t h a t , i s important,  His F u l f i l l m e n t  to him, g e t t i n g  i.e.  5  s c o r e on t h i s  His D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n score i s His Importance  credit  item i s , t h u s , (5-1=4)  4  score i s  5  The sums of the scores of p a r t of any s i n g l e need a r e ,  1  therefore,  (a)  f o r the three  items  the t o t a l F u l f i l l m e n t  score  f o r the s u b j e c t on t h a t need. The sums of the s c o r e s of p a r t s three  (b)  minus  (a)  f o r any  items of any need are the t o t a l D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n score  f o r the s u b j e c t . The sums of the p a r t  ' (c)  scores f o r the three  a need are the t o t a l Importance  score f o r t h a t need.  items of  S p e c i f i c f a c t o r s sampled i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and the relevant  need l e v e l of each are l i s t e d below.  to the r i g h t  of each f a c t o r i n d i c a t e s i t s  The item number  randomly a s s i g n e d  p o s i t i o n i n the f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n Appendix  I.  32  NEED I.  II.  III.  IV.  V.  Physiological  Security  Social  Esteem  Autonomy  FACTOR  SAMPLE  ITEM NO,  1.  Health  2.  Food  11  3.  L i v i n g Quarters  15  1.  Job s a f e t y  4  2.  P e r m a n e n t employment  9  3.  Company  w e l f a r e program  1.  Getting  along with others  2.  Making  3.  Feeling  1.  Credit  2.  V a l u e o f j o b t o company  3.  Respectability to others  1.  2  friends  f o r work done  SelfActualization  16  5 8  of job 21  as t o what t o  work on  VI.  6 3  of "belonging"  Decision  17  10  2.  Decision  3. 1.  D e c i s i o n as t o t i m e o f f S e l f i m p r o v e m e n t on t h e j o b  7 12  2.  Feeling that worthwhile  14  3.  as t o how  t o work  13  job i s  Using a l l s k i l l s abilities  and 18  33 Three naire  "non-Maslow" items were i n c l u d e d i n the q u e s t i o n -  regarding: Pay  (Item 1 )  L o c a t i o n of job  (Item 20)  Management  (Item 19)  Item 1 (Pay) was used as a demonstration item i n i n t r o d u c i n g the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  to s u b j e c t s .  The other  r e l e v a n t to the hypotheses formulated not been analysed f o r t h i s  2.  two items are not  i n Chapter 4 and have  study.  The S u c c e s s f u l - U n s u c c e s s f u l Ratings  The r a t i n g scheme used as the S u c c e s s f u l - U n s u c c e s s f u l criterion  f o r Hypotheses 4, 5 , 6  and 7 was developed as a  composite o f those used i n p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s of i s o l a t e d environments.  Gunderson (1966, pp.5-7)  the A n t a r c t i c of s u p e r v i s o r e v a l u a t i o n s t r a i t scales g i v i n g scores on:  d e s c r i b e s the use i n u s i n g a s e r i e s of  emotional  control/acceptance,  i n d u s t r i o u s n e s s / a c h i e v e m e n t and f r i e n d s h i p / c o m p a t a b i l i t y .  He  compares t h i s method w i t h a p r o c e s s i n v o l v i n g the r a n k i n g of men i n the order i n which the s u p e r v i s o r would choose them to serve w i t h him again i n the A n t a r c t i c .  In a d d i t i o n ,  was asked to rank h i s peers i n order o f p r e f e r e n c e return t r i p to A n t a r c t i c a .  each man  for a  34 A composite c r i t e r i o n supervisors'  " r e t u r n with"  using thf  t r a i t s c o r e s , the  rankings and the  "return  rankings of peers was c o n s t r u c t e d and c o r r e l a t e d small A n t a r c t i c s t a t i o n s .  An o v e r a l l  with"  over seven  correlation  described  by Gunderson as "reasonably good" was o b t a i n e d .  "The s u b -  stantial  over-all  agreement between methods of e s t i m a t i n g  performance was encouraging i n view of the f a c t raters  were u n t r a i n e d  and o f t e n i n e x p e r i e n c e d ,  v a r i e d i n s i z e , composition and p h y s i c a l (Gunderson, 1966, Wright,  p.  and groups  environment  (1963, p.  25)  s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h a method 'adapted from t h a t of  arctic postings.  (1957) f o r r a t i n g  on a two s c a l e c r i t e r i o n  stations rated  and a t h r e e score s c a l e f o r s o c i a l  raters  for  supervisors technicians  score s c a l e f o r work  scales  from the above examples, r a t i n g s would be s u b -  The scores would depend on the p e r c e p t i o n s of  the  and on how w e l l the s u b j e c t s being r a t e d were known.  O b v i o u s l y , an o b j e c t i v e would have been b e t t e r . chosen  Eilbert,  adjustment.  was r e c o g n i z e d t h a t the r e s u l t i n g  jective.  project,  based on a f i v e  In d e v e l o p i n g r a t i n g  express  U . S . A . F . personnel  In the Wright e t a l .  at n o r t h e r n E a r l y Warning radar  it  the  6)".  S i s l e r and C h y l i n s k i  G l a s e r and Hanes  that  (see Chapter VI)  p r o d u c t i o n or performance However,  the sample of  record  subjects  c o n s i s t e d of men i n such d i v e r s e  o c c u p a t i o n s as s h a f t - s i n k e r s  and c o o k s , d r i f t miners and  mechanics, diamond d r i l l e r s few.  and t r u c k d r i v e r s to name only a  There i s at p r e s e n t no way i n which the a c t u a l p r o d u c -  t i o n of such o c c u p a t i o n s can be compared. The r a t i n g s c a l e f i n a l l y  adopted c o n s i s t e d of a r a t i n g  of each s u b j e c t by h i s manager and h i s s u p e r v i s o r on two dimensions: 1.  "Performance," t h a t i s ability  2.  on the  "Social,"  " o v e r a l l performance and  job."  that i s  "ability  to get along w i t h h i s  co-workers and o t h e r s . " The r a t i n g s were made on a seven p o i n t s c a l e on cards i n c l u d e d i n the format o f the i n t e r v i e w / q u e s t i o n n a i r e  form  (Appendix  Cards marked "M" i n the form were used by managers.  I)  Cards  marked "S" were used by s u p e r v i s o r s . A rank o r d e r i n g of s u b j e c t s by managers and s u p e r v i s o r s was a l s o o b t a i n e d , u s i n g the cards from the i n t e r v i e w a ranking a i d . in detail  D e t a i l s of the procedures used are d e s c r i b e d  i n Chapter  Unfortunately,  VI. there was no o p p o r t u n i t y to  pre-test  the r a t i n g s c a l e s and procedures b e f o r e g a t h e r i n g the d a t a f o r the s t u d y .  As a r e s u l t ,  w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n l a t e r 3.  form as  actual  c e r t a i n problems arose which  chapters.  The B i o g r a p h i c a l I n f o r m a t i o n Form  The b i o g r a p h i c a l and o c c u p a t i o n a l h i s t o r y items l e c t e d f o r the t e s t of Hypothesis 7 (Chapter IV)  col-  have been  adapted from those used by Gunderson, Nelson and O r v i c k in their military,  comparative  s t u d i e s of p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y  meteorological  Antarctic stations.  (Appendix I)  A c t u a l or coded i n f o r m a t i o n  section  uses a coding or  of the e l e v e n items  included.  i s i n c l u d e d r e g a r d i n g age, educa-  job h i s t o r y , m a r i t a l s t a t u s , w o r s h i p , a c t i v i t y ,  hometown, p a r e n t s ,  of  small  The form which makes up the f i r s t  s c o r i n g system f o r each of e i g h t  tion,  correlates  and s c i e n t i f i c p e r s o n n e l at  of the i n t e r v i e w / q u e s t i o n n a i r e  (1964)  and d e l i n q u e n c y .  Except f o r the  item which was d i s c a r d e d because of the a n x i e t y d u r i n g the g a t h e r i n g of data from the  first  it  reading, delinquency  caused  ten s u b j e c t s ,  items were a d m i n i s t e r e d as d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter  VI.  all  CHAPTER VI METHODS AND PROCEDURES  1.  The Sample  The s u b j e c t s chosen f o r the study were workers i s o l a t e d mining camps i n the Yukon and Northwest of Canada.  To q u a l i f y  in  five  Territories  f o r purposes of the s t u d y , a mining  camp was r e q u i r e d to meet as many as p o s s i b l e of the  following  conditions: 1.  Be i n a remote  2.  Have no r e g u l a r or scheduled t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  3.  C o n t a i n few,  4.  Employ 25 to 100 f u l l  5.  Be s e l f - c o n t a i n e d i n t h a t one mine or controls a l l and  A brief  area.  if  time v/orkers.  employment,  operation  d i s c i p l i n e , supplies  d e s c r i p t i o n of each camp chosen and i t s  location  II.  Completed i n t e r v i e w 234 workers  groups.  recreation.  i s g i v e n i n Appendix  of  any, f a m i l y  system.  p r o t o c o l s were o b t a i n e d from 228  out  approached by the w r i t e r i n these camps d u r i n g  November and December of 1968.  Table I  shows the number of  s u b j e c t s f o r which complete i n f o r m a t i o n was obtained i n each camp compared w i t h the number of workers on the p a y r o l l the time of data  gathering.  at  38 TABLE I  t  CAMP BY CAMP DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS COMPARED TO TOTAL WORK FORCE  Subjects Interviewed  T o t a l Work Force ( i n c l u d e s those on h o l i d a y )  Camp 1  34  42  Camp 2  50  65  Camp 3  51  137  Camp 4  41  54  Camp 5  52  85  228  383  Table I I c o n t a i n s summarized f o r the complete sample.  .  demographic i n f o r m a t i o n  f  39  TABLE I I DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS OF THE SAMPLE  T o t a l Workers Approached  234  Unus^able or Incomplete  2  Refusals  4  Total N  Mean Age:  228  33 .82:  S .D. :, 12.64'. Range: 16- 64  10 .76  S .D. : 2.93  Range:  0- 18  Mean Number o f Jobs i n 5 Years:  4 .00  S .D. : 3. 04  Range:  1-20  Mean Home Family  5 .13  S .D. : 2. 48  Range:  1-16  Mean Years  of Education:  Size:  Held When I n t e r v i e w e d : Mining Surface  ( i n c l u d e s m i l l i n g and p r o c e s s i n g )  Staff Service  ( i n c l u d e s cooks and w a i t e r s )  Transport  Number  Percent  49  21.50  105  46.05  30  13.15  22  9.65  22  9.65  228  100 .00  40 2. Individual  Procedures  Interviews  A l l i n t e r v i e w s were o b t a i n e d by the w r i t e r , Each s u b j e c t was approached i n d i v i d u a l l y and i t  i n person.  was e x p l a i n e d  t h a t a survey was b e i n g conducted to " t r y  to f i n d out how  people i n i s o l a t e d camps f e e l about t h e i r  jobs."  If  the  s u b j e c t agreed to the i n t e r v i e w  he was g i v e n a copy of  the  interview  the items were p r i n t e d  in  p r o t o c o l i n which a l l  l a r g e , easy t o read t y p e .  The w r i t e r then read each item  aloud to the s u b j e c t and the s u b j e c t ' s answers were r e c o r d e d i n a p r e v i o u s l y numbered p r o t o c o l by the w r i t e r .  Questions  were answered as they arose r e g a r d i n g i n d i v i d u a l items and no o v e r t attempt was made to hurry the  interview.  I n t e r v i e w s were s t a n d a r d i z e d i n t h a t b i o g r a p h i c a l items were always gathered f i r s t ,  f o l l o w e d by r e p l i e s to  the  Needs Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , f o l l o w e d by a s h o r t , tape r e c o r d e d s t o r y sequence not used f o r the p r e s e n t s t u d y . Most i n t e r v i e w s were conducted i n bunkhouse rooms either  alone or w i t h a room mate i n a t t e n d a n c e .  transportation  and t i m e , however, made i t  P r e s s u r e s of  necessary to  inter-  view some workers i n such s e t t i n g s as the cookhouse, the assay office, ground .  the m i l l ,  the c r u s h e r house, the bar-room and under-  41 Individual  interview  times v a r i e d from one hour or  more when t r a n s l a t i o n of each item to another language was n e c e s s a r y , to twelve m i n u t e s .  Average i n t e r v i e w  approximately twenty m i n u t e s .  The maximum number of  views conducted i n a t w e n t y - f o u r  hour p e r i o d was  time was inter-  thirty-one.  The minimum number was t e n . Manager and S u p e r v i s o r Ratings When as many workers had been i n t e r v i e w e d time,  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n or a v a i l a b i l i t y  the manager  (or a c t i n g manager)  asked t o a c t as r a t e r s .  i n a camp as  of workers would a l l o w ,  and a s e n i o r s u p e r v i s o r were  The name and p r e s e n t job of each  s u b j e c t were e n t e r e d on the r a t i n g cards of h i s p r o t o c o l . R a t i n g cards when then cut from the p r o t o c o l s and s o r t e d i n t o four p i l e s : 1.  MANAGER/Performance  2.  MANAGER/Social  3.  SUPERVISOR/Performance  4.  SUPERVISOR/Social  Each p i l e was then randomly s h u f f l e d and p r e s e n t e d to the a p p r o p r i a t e r a t e r .  The r a t e r s , who were separate at  the  time of r a t i n g , were then i n s t r u c t e d as f o l l o w s : 1.  "On the PERFORMANCE c a r d of each worker c i r c l e  the  number on the seven p o i n t s c a l e c o r r e s p o n d i n g to t h a t w o r k e r ' s performance and a b i l i t y  on the  job."  42 2.  "On the SOCIAL c a r d of each worker,  circle  number on the seven p o i n t s c a l e c o r r e s p o n d i n g to worker's 3.  ability  the  that  to get along with co-workers and o t h e r s . "  The PERFORMANCE cards were spread out on a f l a t  s u r f a c e so t h a t a l l were v i s i b l e .  The r a t e r  was g i v e n the  f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s i n o r d e r to o b t a i n a rank o r d e r of workers based on a g l o b a l s c o r e : "Pretend t h a t you have been t r a n s f e r r e d to mining camp even more i s o l a t e d than t h i s . aircraft  that w i l l hold a p i l o t ,  another  You have an O t t e r  y o u r s e l f and ten men.  out the cards of the ten men you would take w i t h y o u . these cards i n order w i t h your f i r s t  Pick Arrange  c h o i c e on top and the  l a s t c h o i c e on the bottom, and g i v e me the c a r d s . " When the r a t e r  had completed t h i s p r o c e s s he was t o l d :  "Now p i c k up the cards of the ten men i n t h i s camp t h a t you would r e p l a c e immediately q u a l i f i e d , were a v a i l a b l e .  if  replacements e q u a l l y  P l a c e your f i r s t  r e p l a c e a b l e man  on the bottom, and arrange the o t h e r s i n o r d e r of your c h o i c e , on t o p .  Hand the p i l e  to me when you have f i n i s h e d . "  When these twenty men had been s e l e c t e d , the p r o c e s s i n v o l v i n g the O t t e r  aircraft  cards i n groups of ten u n t i l had been e x h a u s t e d .  was repeated w i t h the  the number of a v a i l a b l e cards •  The cards were then l a i d out i n the  s u i t i n g rank o r d e r and the r a t e r was asked i f to make any changes.  remaining  re-  he v/ould l i k e  When these changes had been made,  the  43 e  cards were p i c k e d up i n order and s e c u r e l y bound. As mentioned i n Chapter the r a t i n g  scheme.  SOCIAL r a t i n g confusion.  In g e n e r a l ,  V , some problems arose with the seven p o i n t PERFORMANCE/  s c a l e s were d i s l i k e d by the r a t e r s  and caused  The Rank Order p r o c e s s , however, was entered  into  w i t h g r e a t enthusiasm In every c a s e , and was d e s c r i b e d as something t h a t "makes s e n s e . " T a b l e III camp w i t h a b r i e f  contains a l i s t  it  raters  have g e n u i n e ,  their  i n t i m a t e knowledge of  The c o n f u s i o n caused by the r a t i n g  difficulties  arbitrarily,  as the only c r i t e r i o n  and U n s u c c e s s f u l r a t i n g s .  the f i r s t  the  s c a l e , and the  of the second r a t e r i n each camp made  necessary to s e l e c t , of workers  c o - o p e r a t e d to the l i m i t of  was the o p i n i o n of the w r i t e r t h a t only i n Camp  1 and 4 d i d the r a t e r s workers.  used i n each  d e s c r i p t i o n of e a c h .  Although a l l knowledge,  of the r a t e r s  rater's  it Rank Order  on which to base S u c c e s s f u l  44 TABLE I I I A DESCRIPTION OF RATERS USED IN EACH CAMP  Camp  Rater  Position  Description  1  1  Manager  6 years w i t h company. Intimate knowledge of a l l employees.  1  2  Mine C a p t a i n  2 years w i t h company. Knew miners w e l l , l i t t l e knowledge of m i l l and surface.  2  1  Manager  2 years on j o b . Admitted h i g h turnover made a c c u r a t e r a t i n g very difficult.  2  2  S h i f t Boss  1 year on j o b . Very i n v o l v e d underground. Admitted l i t t l e knowledge of s u r f a c e work.  3  1  Personnel Manager  Delegated by manager. Deeply i n v o l v e d i n Union/Management struggle.  3  2  No d a t a .  Cards l e f t i n camp t o be Have not been r e c e i v e d .  4  1  Mine Supervisor  15 years i n same camp. Thorough knowledge of a l l workers. H i g h l y respected.  4  2  Chief Accountant  10 years w i t h company. Knew a l l men. Had some i n f l u e n c e i n h i r i n g policy.  5  1  Camp Administrator  1 year on j o b . Main concern w i t h s u p p l i e s and camp a c t i v i t i e s .  5  2  Mine C a p t a i n  2 years on j o b . Knew a l l miners but l i t t l e knowledge of s u r f a c e crew.  forwarded  CHAPTER  VII  RESULTS OF ANALYSES Because of the d i f f e r e n c e s Chapter VI  and i n Appendix II,  between camps noted  all  in  analyses and r e s u l t s  are  presented camp by camp.  R e s u l t s Relevant HYPOTHESIS 1: workers  to Hypothesis 1  "Both s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l  i n i s o l a t e d environments w i l l p e r c e i v e the needs of  Autonomy and Esteem to be the l e a s t Fulfillment of items r e l e v a n t by s u b j e c t  fulfilled."  s c o r e s are obtained by t o t a l l i n g to a p a r t i c u l a r  fulfillment  need c a t e g o r y .  part  (a)  (Subject  s c o r e s w i l l be found i n columns 28  through 39 i n the data sheets of Appendix  III.)  Hypothesis 1 was t e s t e d by comparing the average the Autonomy and Esteem f u l f i l l m e n t  mean s c o r e s w i t h  of  the  average of the mean s c o r e s f o r P h y s i o l o g i c a l , S e c u r i t y , Social,  and S e l f - A c t u a l ! z a t i o n  Table IV shows the f u l f i l l m e n t  fulfillment,  i n each camp.  mean s c o r e s f o r each need  category i n each camp. Table V compares the d i f f e r e n c e s  between the  averages  of the means of Autonomy and Esteem w i t h those of P h y s i o logical, camp.  Security,  Significant  S o c i a l and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n  i n each  results  statistical  as determined by the  46 TABLE IV  t  MEAN FULFILLMENT SCORES FOR EACH NEED CATEGORY  _ . Category  Phy  Sec  Soc  Est  Camp 1  14.00  12.29  12.70  10.15  9.00  11.32  Camp 2  11.48  11.48  12.28  9.44  9.36  10.54  Camp 3  11.45  10.19  12.55  9.12  8.82  9.43  Camp 4  12.92  12.00  12.58  9.95  10.78  10.15  Camp 5  12.58  10.27  12.44  8.83  9.00  9.94  2  Aut  S.A.  TABLE V COMPARISON OF ESTEEM AND AUTONOMY AVERAGE FULFILLMENT WITH PHYSIOLOGICAL, SECURITY, SOCIAL AND SELFACTUALIZATION  Average  E s t + Aut  Phy + Sec + Sec + S . A .  Camp 1  9.57  • 12.58  3.01*  Camp 2  9.40  11.44  2.04*  Camp 3  8.97  10 .90  1.93*  Camp 4  10.36  11.91  1.54*  Camp 5  8.91  11.31  2.39*  * significant  «C = .05  Difference  47 procedures d e s c r i b e d below are so i n d i c a t e d . were t e s t e d at the  .05  l e v e l of  The average of the  All  differences  significance.  fulfillment  means of Esteem and  Autonomy was l e s s than the average means of P h y s i o l o g i c a l , Security,  S o c i a l and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n  i n every camp, meaning  t h a t p e r c e i v e d Esteem and Autonomy f u l f i l l m e n t the average sized.  fulfillment  of the other  were lower  than  f o u r needs, as hypothe-  Hypothesis 1 was supported i n each camp.  Statistical 1.  Procedures Relevant  to Hypothesis  1  Means and v a r i a n c e s of need category  fulfillment  s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each camp. 2. applied  The Cochran t e s t f o r homogeneity of v a r i a n c e was  (Myers,  1966,  p.  73).  A number of groups of  were found t o be non-homogeneous.  variances  Below are l i s t e d the  of C o c h r a n ' s "C" o b t a i n e d by comparing the v a r i a n c e s of fulfillment the c r i t i c a l  means f o r each need c a t e g o r y . v a l u e of  "C" (Myers,  1966,  Included  Table A-7)  to the N f o r each camp, and an i n d i c a t i o n of the of the group of v a r i a n c e s .  "N.H." indicates  Camp 1 (N-3.4) C a l c u l a t e d "C" = .3132 Camp 2 (N=50) C a l c u l a t e d Camp 3 (N=51) C a l c u l a t e d Camp 4 (N=41) C a l c u l a t e d Camp 5 (N=52) C a l c u l a t e d  values the  also i s corresponding  homogeneity  non-homogeneity.  C r i t i c a l value = .2616 (N.H.) "C" = .2192 C r i t i c a l value = .2542 "C" = .2426 C r i t i c a l v a l u e = . 2542 "C" = .2774 C r i t i c a l value = .2609 (N.H.) "C" = .2623 C r i t i c a l value = .2542 (N.H.)  48  3.  As a r e s u l t of the  amongst the v a r i a n c e s , i t  lack of o v e r a l l  homogeneity  was decided to t e s t the  between need category means u s i n g an a n a l y s i s of (ANOVA), f o l l o w e d by the Box c o r r e c t i o n  differences variance  (Winer, 1962,  p.  123),  thus making the F t e s t s more c o n s e r v a t i v e than the u s u a l F test. F o l l o w i n g i s a summary of the ANOVA f o r each camp, showing the o b t a i n e d F , the t a b l e d F (Hays, 1963, and the F o b t a i n e d u s i n g the Box method. t e s t e d at the  .05  Table  IV),  A l l differences  are  l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e .  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e Summary Tables Design:  Two-way repeated measure I  (Computer program BMD08V UCLA)  = S u b j e c t s t r e a t e d as a f a c t o r . Infinite.  Number of l e v e l s  Population:  (i.e.  N) = Number  of s u b j e c t s per camp. J = Need category s c o r e s . R = Replications (Note:  Number of l e v e l s = 6  (1 i n each case)  Population:  Infinite  only the v a r i a n c e due to J i s of i n t e r e s t  t e s t i n g Hypotheses 1)  in  Cairo  Source  SS  df  I  402.08  33  12.18  557.92  5  111.58  729.74 165  4.42  (N=34) (6)  J  IJ  (Error) (N=50)  710.36  49  14.50  (6)  354.90  5  70.98  1284.93 245  5.24  I J  MS  IJ  (Error)  I.(N=51)  736.75  5.0  14 .'73  (6)  546.57  5  109.31  1399.75 250  5.60  J  IJ  (Error)  I  (N=41) (6)  J  IJ I J  IJ  (Error)  1140.29  40  28.51  334.18  5  66.83  802.48 200  4.01  1018.80  52  19.98  701.95  5  140.39  (Error) 1269.21 255  4.97  (N=52) (6)  F(obtained) F ( t a b l e d )  25.23*  2.27  F (Box)  4.17  (df 5,165)  (df  13.53*  2.25 (df 5,245)  4.03 (df 1,49)  19.52*  2.25 (df 5,250)  4.03 (df 1,50)  16.66*  2.26 (df 5,200)  4.08 (df 1,40)  28.21*  2.25 (df 5,255)  4.03 (df 1,52)  * significant  «C = .05  1,34)  50 4.  Differences  between the averages of Esteem and  Autonomy and those of P h y s i o l o g i c a l , S e c u r i t y , S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n were t e s t e d  for s i g n i f i c a n c e using  S c h e f f e ' s p o s t hoc comparison f o l l o w i n g (Hays, .05  1963., p.  l e v e l of  485).  S o c i a l and  a n a l y s i s of  variance  A l l d i f f e r e n c e s were t e s t e d at  the  significance.  The c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l s  relevant  to the  differences  o b t a i n e d i n each camp are shown below.  Camp 1:  1.42  4&  g  4.60*  Camp 2:  .62  *£  g  3.47*  Camp 3:  . 48  g  3.39*  Camp 4 :  .19  g  2.91*  Camp 5:  1.0 3  g  * significant  cC =  R e s u l t s Relevant HYPOTHESIS 2: workers  3.76*  .05  to Hypothesis 2  "Both s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l  i n i s o l a t e d environments w i l l express g r e a t e r  s a t i s f a c t i o n at the Esteem l e v e l (Subject  4.  than at any other  dis-  level."  by s u b j e c t raw d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s c o r e s w i l l be found  i n columns 40 through 57 of the data sheets i n Appendix  III.)  51 Dissatisfaction scores, the t o t a l s of p a r t to a p a r t i c u l a r  (b)  as e x p l a i n e d i n Chapter V ,  minus p a r t  need c a t e g o r y .  (a)  are  of each item r e l e v a n t  Hypothesis 2 was t e s t e d by  comparing the mean of the Esteem score w i t h the means of each of the o t h e r need category s c o r e s ,  camp by camp.  Table  shows the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n means f o r each need category  VI in  each camp. TABLE VI MEAN DISSATISFACTION SCORES FOR EACH NEED CATEGORY  Need Category  Phy  Sec  Soc  Est  Aut  S.A.  Camp 1  0.79  1,47  1.00  3.00  1.79  2.73  Camp 2  3.22  2.26  1.52  3.76  1.00  3.10  Camp 3  2.86  3.41  1.11  3.33  1.23  4. 47  Camp 4  1. 49  1.56  1.54  3.34  .95  3.63  Camp 5  2.03  2.33  1.61  4.06  .75  3.81  Table  VII shows the  d i f f e r e n c e s between the means of  Esteem and each of  the other  ficant  at the  differences  indicated.  categories  .05 l e v e l  i n each camp.  of c o n f i d e n c e  Signi-  are so  52 TABLE V I I DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN ESTEEM  DISSATISFACTION  SCORES AND MEANS OF OTHER CATEGORIES  Need Category  Phy  Sec  Soc  Aut  S .A.  Camp 1  + 2. 20*  +1.53*  + 2. 00*  + 1. 20  + 0.26  Camp 2  + 0 .54  +1.50*  + 2. 24*  + 2. 76*  +0.66  Camp 3  + 0. 47  -0.O8  + 2. 21*  + 2. 10*  ^1.14  Camp 4  + 1. 85*  +1.78*  + 1. 80*  + 2. 39*  -0.29  Camp 5  + 2. 02*  +1.73*  + 2. 44*  + 3. 30*  + 0.25  * significant  °C = .05  Twenty-five comparisons were made between the means of Esteem and the means o f each o f the o t h e r c a t e g o r i e s . The mean of Esteem was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r i n 17 c a s e s . The mean o f Esteem was n u m e r i c a l l y but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r i n 7 f u r t h e r comparisons. the  mean o f Esteem s i g n i f i c a n t l y  In no case, however, was different  from the mean o f  Self-Actualization. Hypothesis 2 was p a r t i a l l y  supported.  53 Supplementary a.  R e s u l t s Re1evant t o Hypothesis 2  Average of Esteem and  Self-Actualization  Because there proved t o be no s i g n i f i c a n t  difference  i n any camp between the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n means of Esteem and Self-Actualization,  these two means were averaged,  and t h e i r  averages compared t o the averages o f the means o f the other categories  i n each camp.  Table V I I I shows the averages of  Esteem and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n other  categories.  the s t a t i s t i c a l  compared t o the averages o f the  Significant differences  as determined by  procedures d e s c r i b e d below are so i n d i c a t e d . TABLE V I I I  COMPARISON OF ESTEEM AND SELF-ACTUALIZATION AVERAGE MEANS WITH PHYSIOLOGICAL, SECURITY, SOCIAL AND AUTONOMY AVERAGES  Average Est. + S.A.  Average Phy + Sec + Soc + Aut  Difference  Camp 1  2.86  1.26  1.60*  Camp 2  3.43  2.00  1.43*  Camp 3  3.90  2.15  1.74*  Camp 4  3.35  1.38  1.96*  Camp 5  3.93  1.68  2.25*  * significant  <C = .0.5  5 4  The average of the Esteem and Self-Actualization dissatisfaction means proved to be significantly larger than the average of the means of the other categories in each camp. b. Autonomy Implicit in Hypothesis 2 when it is compared to Hypothesis 1 is that mean Autonomy scores for dissatisfaction will be lower than Esteem dissatisfaction scores. It will be recalled that Hypothesis 1 predicted that Esteem and Autonomy scores for fulfillment would be higher than those of the other categories. Hypothesis 2 predicted that Esteem alone would be the highest dissatisfaction score. Differences between Esteem and Autonomy scores for dissatisfaction were, therefore, tested in each camp. Table IX shows a comparison of the mean scores for Esteem and Autonomy for each camp. Differences were tested for significance using the statistical procedures described below. Autonomy dissatisfaction means proved to be significantly lower than the means of Esteem in all but one camp.  55 TABLE IX  «  COMPARISON OF ESTEEM AND AUTONOMY DISSATISFACTION MEANS  Mean Esteem  Mean Autonomy  Difference  Camp 1  3.00  1.79  1. 20  Camp 2  3.76  1.00  2.76*  Camp 3  3.33  1.23  2.10*  Camp 4  3.34  0.95  2.39*  Camp 5  4.06  0.75  . 3.31*  * significant  Statistical 1.  «C =  .05  Procedures Relevant t o Hypothesis 2 Means and v a r i a n c e s of need category  dissatisfaction  s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each camp. 2. applied  The Cochran t e s t f o r homogeneity of v a r i a n c e was  (Myers,  1966,  p.  73).  A number of groups of  were found to be non-homogeneous.  Below are l i s t e d  variances the  of C o c h r a n ' s "C" o b t a i n e d by comparing the v a r i a n c e s of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n means f o r each need c a t e g o r y . is  the c r i t i c a l  v a l u e of  "C" (Myers,  ponding to the N f o r each camp. homogeneity .  1966,  values the  Included a l s o  Table A-7)  " N . H . " i n d i c a t e s non-  corres-  56 Camp 1 (N= 34)  Calculated  Camp 2 (N= 50)  C a l c u l a t e d "C° =.2523 C r i t i c a l value =.2542  Camp 3 (N= 51)  C a l c u l a t e d "C" =.2431 C r i t i c a l value =.2542  Camp 4 (N= 41)  C a l c u l a t e d "C" =.2431 C r i t i c a l v a l u e =.2609  Camp 5 (N= 52)  C a l c u l a t e d "C" =.2638 C r i t i c a l v a l u e =.2542(N.H.)  3.  As a r e s u l t  "C" =.2616 C r i t i c a l value =.2616  of the l a c k of o v e r a l l  homogeneity  amongst the v a r i a n c e s , i t was d e c i d e d t o t e s t the d i f f e r e n c e s between the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n means u s i n g an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e f o l l o w e d by the Box c o r r e c t i o n  (Winer, 1962, p . 1 2 3 ) , thus  making the F t e s t s more c o n s e r v a t i v e  than the u s u a l F t e s t .  F o l l o w i n g i s a summary of the ANOVA f o r each camp, showing obtained,  t a b l e d and c o r r e c t e d F u s i n g the Box method.  differences  All  are t e s t e d a t the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e .  ANOVA SUMMARY TABLES Design: Camp 1  2  3  4  5  I d e n t i c a l v;ith t h a t o f Hypothesis 1 (see p. 48). Source I  SS  df  MS  (N=34)  225.26  33  6 . 82  -J  (6)  138.55  5  27.71  IJ  (Error)  510.94  165  3.10  I  (N=50)'  461.34  49  9.41  J  (6)  286 .54  5  57.31  IJ  (Error)  800.96  245  3.27  I  (N=51)  710.42  50  14.21  J  (6)  444.18  5  88. 84  1304.48  250  5.22  IJ  (Error)  I  (N=41)  609.04  40  15.23  J  (6)  254.04  5  50.81  IJ  (Error  524.13  200  2.62  I  (N=52)  747.42  51  14.65  J  (6)  426.26  5  85.25  1152.90  255  4.52  IJ  (Error)  F(tabled)  F(obtained)  F(Box)  • 4.17 2.27 (df 5,165) (df 1,33)  p < .05  17.53*  2.25 (df 5,245)  4.03 (df 1,49)  P < .05  17.02*  2.25 (df 5,250)  4.03 (df 1,50)  P<  8.95*  .05 •  19.39*  2.26 (df 5,200)  4.08 (df 1,40)  P<  .05  •  18.86*  * significant  2.25 (df 5,255)  «C = .05  4.03 (df 1,51)  P < .05  sa  PAIR-WISE  DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALL MEAN DISSATISFACTION SCORES  Need Category Camp.l:  Camp 2  Camp 3  Camp 4:  Camp 5  Phy  PHY SEC SOC EST AUT S.A. ( C r i t i c a l value,  Sec  Soc  -0.6 8  -0.21 +0.47  +0.96  PHY SEC SOC EST AUT S.A. ( C r i t i c a l value,  -0.55  PHY SEC SOC EST AUT S.A. ( C r i t i c a l value,  Aut  S.A.  •2.21* •1.53* •2.00*  -1.00 -0.32 -0.79 + 1.20  -1.94* -1.26 -1.73* -0.26 + 0.94  Camp 1=1.43)  PHY SEC SOC EST AUT S.A. ( C r i t i c a l value,  PHY —SEC SOC EST AUT S.A. ( C r i t i c a l value,  Est  +1.70* +0.74  -0.54 -1.50* -2.24* —  +2.20* +0.12 +1.26 - 0 . 8 4 +0.52 -1.58* +2.76* +0.66 -2.10*  -0.47 +0.08 -2.21*  +1.63* - 1 . 6 1 * +2.18* - 1 . 0 6 -0.12 -3.35* +2.10* - 1 . 1 3 -3.23*  -1.85* -1.78* -1.80*  +0.54 -2.15* +0.61 -2.07* +0.58 -2.10* +2.39* - 0 . 2 9 -2.68*  -2.02* -1.73* -2.44*  +1.29 -1.77* +1.58* - 1 . 4 8 * + 0. 86 - 2 . 1 9 * +3.30* - 0 . 2 5 -3.06*  Camp 2=1.32) +1.74* +2.29*  Camp 3=1.41) -0.07  -0.05 +0.02  Camp 4=1.20) -0.29 —-  +0.42 +0.71  Camp 5=1.40) * significant  «C = .05  59  4.  Comparisons  were t e s t e d between a l l p a i r w i s e means  u s i n g S c h e f f e ' s p o s t hoc comparison method p. 483). The t a b l e s above  (Hays, 1963,  show a l l p a i r - w i s e  between d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n means f o r each camp.  differences The c r i t i c a l  f i g u r e above which i s a p a i r - w i s e comparison i s s i g n i f i c a n t a c c o r d i n g t o S c h e f f e ' s method i s shown f o r each camp  (Hays,  1963, p. 457). A l l d i f f e r e n c e s were t e s t e d a t the .05 l e v e l of  significance.  R e s u l t s Relevant t o Hypothesis 3 HYPOTHESIS 3:  "Both s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers  i n i s o l a t i o n w i l l p e r c e i v e S o c i a l and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n  needs  to be t h e i r l e a s t important needs." (Subject by s u b j e c t importance scores w i l l be found i n columns  58 through 69 i n the data sheets i n Appendix I I I . ) Importance  t o t a l s of part category.  scores as e x p l a i n e d i n Chapter V are the  (c) of each item r e l e v a n t t o a p a r t i c u l a r  Hypothesis 3 was t e s t e d by comparing  need  the importance  mean o f the S o c i a l need scores and the importance mean o f the S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n need scores w i t h each o f the o t h e r need category means, i n each camp.  T a b l e X shows the importance  mean scores f o r each c a t e g o r y , i n each camp.  60 TABLE X MEAN IMPORTANCE SCORES FOR EACH NEED CATEGORY  Need Category  Phy  Sec  Soc  Est  Aut  S.A.  Camp 1  14. 88  13.82  13.68  12.70  11.06  14.18  Camp 2  14.66  13.38  13.86  12.36  10.60  14.00  Camp 3  14.47  12.57  13.37  11.59  10 .96  14.35  Camp 4  14.66  13.56  14. 27  12.56  11.73  14.02  Camp 5  14.48  12.88  13.54  12.44  9.71  13.69  T a b l e XI  shows the d i f f e r e n c e s between the means of  S o c i a l importance  s c o r e s and the means of each other  category i n each camp. by the s t a t i s t i c a l Table XII  Significant differences  as  need  determined  methods d e s c r i b e d below are so i n d i c a t e d .  shows the d i f f e r e n c e s  means of S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n  between the  importance  and each of the other need c a t e -  g o r i e s i n each camp. In no case were e i t h e r S o c i a l or  Self-Actualization  importance means the lowest among the c a t e g o r i e s . 3 was not supported i n any camp.  Hypothesis  61 TABLE XI «  DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN SOCIAL IMPORTANCE SCORES AND MEANS OF OTHER CATEGORIES  Need Category-  Phy  Sec  Est  Camp 1  -1.20  -0.15  + 0.97  +2.61*  -0.50  Camp 2  -0.80  + 0.48  +1.50*  +3.26*  -0.14  Camp 3  -1.10  + 0.76  +1.78*  +2.41*  -0.98.  Camp 4  -0.39  +0.71  +1.71*  +2.54*  + 0.24  Camp 5  -0.94  + 0.65  + 1.10  +3.83*  -0.15  Aut  * significant  TABLE  S.A.  oC = .05  XII  DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN SELF-ACTUALIZATION IMPORTANCE SCORES AND MEANS OF OTHER CATEGORIES Need Category  Phy  Sec  Camp 1  -0 .70  + 0.35  + 0 . 50  + 3 .12*  +1.48*  Camp 2  -0.66  + 0.62  + 0.14  +3.40*  +1.64*  Camp 3  -0.12  +1.78*  + 0.98  +3.39*  +2.76*  Camp 4  -0.6 3  + 0.46  -0.24  +2.29*  +1.46*  Camp 5  -0.79  + 0.81  + 0 .15  +3.98*  + 1.25  * significant  «C = .05  Soc  Aut  Est  62 Supplementary a.  R e s u l t s Relevant  to H y p o t h e s i s 3  Autonomy  The f a i l u r e  t o support Hypothesis 3 l e d t o f u r t h e r  a n a l y s i s t o determine  i f any other need category  d i s c e r n i b l e p a t t e r n w i t h regard t o i t s p e r c e i v e d  followed a importance.  When the importance mean scores f o r Autonomy were compared w i t h other means, the Autonomy means proved s i g n i f i c a n t l y  lower  than a l l other means i n a l l b u t two o f the 25 comparisons made. These two i n s t a n c e s were i n Camps 3 and 4 where the Autonomy means were n u m e r i c a l l y b u t n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y T a b l e X I I I shows the d i f f e r e n c e  lower than Esteem.  between the importance  mean s c o r e s f o r Autonomy and those o f the other  categories i n  each camp. TABLE X I I I DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN AUTONOMY IMPORTANCE SCORES AND MEANS FOR OTHER CATEGORIES  JJf Category e d  Phy Sec Soc E s t J  S.A.  Camp 1  -3.82*  -2.77*  -2.61*  -1.65*  -3.12*  Camp 2  -4.06*  -2.78*  -3.26  -1.76*  -3.40*  Camp 3  -3.51*  -1.61*  -2.41*  -0.63  -3.39*  Camp 4  -2.92*  -1.83*  -2.54*  -0.81  -2.29*  Camp 5  -4.77*  .-3.17*  -3.82*  -2.73*  -3.98*  * significant  «C = .05  Statistical 1.  Procedures Relevant  to Hypothesis 3  Means and v a r i a n c e s of need category  importance  scores were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each camp. 2.  The Cochran t e s t f o r homogeneity of v a r i a n c e was  applied i d e n t i c a l l y 1 (p. 47). "C".  as d e s c r i b e d i n c o n n e c t i o n with Hypothesis  Below are l i s t e d the o b t a i n e d v a l u e s of C o c h r a n ' s  "N.H." indicates  non-homogeneity.  Camp 1 (N=34) C a l c u l a t e d " C " =.3742 C r i t i c a l value =.2616(N.H.) Camp 2 (N=50) C a l c u l a t e d " C " =.3309 C r i t i c a l value =.2542(N.H.) Camp 3 (N=51) C a l c u l a t e d "C" =.2625 C r i t i c a l value =.2542 (N.H.) Camp 4 (N=41) C a l c u l a t e d "C" =.4102 C r i t i c a l value =.2609(N.H.) Camp 5 (N=52) C a l c u l a t e d " C " = .2764 C r i t i c a l 3. it  As a r e s u l t  of the lack of homogeneity of v a r i a n c e ,  was d e c i d e d t o t e s t the d i f f e r e n c e s  means u s i n g an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e rection  value=.2542(N.H.)  between need category  f o l l o w e d by the Box c o r -  (Winer, 1962, p. 123). F o l l o w i n g i s a summary of the ANOVA f o r each camp showing  the o b t a i n e d F , the t a b l e d F (Hays, obtained f o l l o w i n g  196 3, Table IV)  the Box c o r r e c t i o n .  t e s t e d at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e .  and the F  A l l d i f f e r e n c e s were  ANOVA SUMMARY TABLES Design: Camp  I d e n t i c a l v;ith t h a t of Hypothesis 1 (see page 48) Source  SS  df  MS  I  N=34)  358.24  33  10.85  J  6)  306.61  5  61.32  Error)  431.55  165  2.61  I  N=50)  468.67  49  9.56  J  6)  534.30  5  106.86  Error)  817.87  245  3.39  I  N=51)  570.83  50  11.42  J  6)  529.94  5  105.98  1148.23  250  4.59  IJ  IJ  IJ  Error)  I  N=41)  318.41  40  7.96  J  6)  254.75  5  50.95  Error)  686.08  200  3.43  I  N=52)  386 .96  51  7.59  J  6)  719.67  5.  143.93  1052.83  255  4.13  IJ  IJ  Error)  * significant  F(obtained)  F ( t a b l e d ) F(Box)  23.44*  2.27 (df 5,165)  4.14 (df 1,33)  32.01*  2.25 (df 5,245)  4.03 (df 1,49)  23.08*  2.25 (df 5,250)  4.03 (df 1,50)  14.85*  2.26 (df 5,200)  4.08 (df 1,40)  34.86*  2.25 (df 5,255)  4.03 (df 1,51)  oC = .05  (Tl  65  PAIR-WISE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALL MEAN IMPORTANCE SCORES  Need Category  Phy  Sec  Soc  Est  Aut  S.A.  Camp 1:  PHY +1.06 + 1.20 SEC + 0 .15 SOC EST AUT S.A. ( C r i t i c a l v a l u e =1.32)  +2.18* + 1.12 + 0.97  + 3 . 82* +2.77* +2.62* +1.65*  + 0.70 -0.35 -0.50 -1.47* -3.12*  Camp 2:  PHY +1.28* + 0.80 -0.4 8 SEC SOC EST AUT S.A. ( C r i t i c a l v a l u e =1.22)  +2.30* + 1.02 +1.50*  +4.06* +2.78* +3.26* +1.76*  + 0.66 -0.62 -0.14 -1.64* -3.40*  Camp 3:  PHY +1.90* + 1.10 SEC -0.76 SOC EST AUT S.A. ( C r i t i c a l v a l u e =1.42)  +2.88* + 0.98 +1.78*  +3.51* +1.61* +2.41* + 0.63  + 0.12 -1.78* -0.98 -2.76* -3.39*  Camp 4:  PHY +1.10 + 0.39 -0.71 SEC SOC EST AUT S.A. ( C r i t i c a l v a l u e =1.37)  +2.10* + 1.00 +1.71*  +2.92* +1.83* +2.54* + 0.83  + 0.63 -0.46 + 0 .24 -1.46* -2.29*  Camp 5:  PHY +1.59* + 0 .94 SEC -0.65 SOC EST AUT S .A. ( C r i t i c a l v a l u e =1.33)  +2.04* + 0 . 44 + 1.09  + 4 .77* +3.17* +3.8 3* +2.73*  + 0.79 -0.81 -0.15 - 1 . 25 -3.98*  * significant  £ = .05  66  4. Following ANOVA, comparisons were tested between all pair-wise means using Scheffe's post hoc comparison method (Hays, 1963, p. 483). The tables above show all pairwise differences between importance means for each camp. The critical figure above which a pair-wise comparison is significant according to Scheffe's method is given for each camp (Hays, 1963, p. 457). All differences were tested at the .05 level of significance. Results Relevant to Hypotheses 4, 5, 6 and 7 As explained in Chapter VI, it is only the scores of the ten successful and ten unsuccessful workers in each camp as determined by the Managers' Rank Order Ratings which are of interest for Hypotheses 4, 5, 6 and 7. The data in Appendix III has been arranged so that the scores of the ten successful workers are followed by the scores of the middle group which are, in turn, followed by the data for the unsuccessful group in each camp. Results Relevant to Hypothesis 4 HYPOTHESIS 4: "Successful workers will express higher levels of need fulfillment across all needs levels than will unsuccessful workers." (Subject by subject total fulfillment scores are the two digit numbers found in Columns 71 and 72 of the data sheets in Appendix III.)  67 Total (a)  fulfillment  s c o r e s , that*I.s the t o t a l of  f o r each item a c r o s s a l l  for a l l  subjects.  needs c a t e g o r i e s were  the mean t o t a l f u l f i l l m e n t  the  s c o r e s of the s u c c e s s f u l group  and the u n s u c c e s s f u l group i n each camp.  each camp.  calculated  Hypothesis 4 was t e s t e d by comparing  means of the t o t a l f u l f i l l m e n t  c e s s f u l workers,  part  Table XIV shows  s c o r e s f o r s u c c e s s f u l and unsuc-  and the d i f f e r e n c e s between these means  Differences  proved s i g n i f i c a n t by the  procedures d e s c r i b e d below are so i n d i c a t e d . were t e s t e d at the  .05 l e v e l of  All  for  statistical differences  significance.  TABLE X'lV COMPARISON OF MEAN TOTAL FULFILLMENT SCORES FOR SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS  Mean Successful  Mean Unsuccessful  Difference 6.00*  Camp 1  79.90  68.90  Camp 2  66 .60  68.99  Camp 3  67. 80  61.60  Camp 4  77.50  62.20  15.30*  Camp 5  64.49  61.60  2.89  * significant  °C =  -2.396.20*  .05  "  68 Mean t o t a l f u l f i l l m e n t s c o r e s f o r were s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n Camps 1,  higher  3 and 4,  s u c c e s s f u l workers  than those f o r u n s u c c e s s f u l workers  and n u m e r i c a l l y  higher  i n Camp 5.  Hypothesis 4 was thus supported i n three camps. Statistical 1. for  Procedures Relevant  to Hypothesis 4  Means and v a r i a n c e s of the t o t a l f u l f i l l m e n t s c o r e s  s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers were c a l c u l a t e d ,  by camp.  camp  Examination of the s c o r e s w i t h i n each group showed  them to be non-normally variances  of the  be l a r g e .  distributed.  Differences  between the  s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l groups proved  Two important assumptions necessary f o r  a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e  to  the use of  to compare the means of s u c c e s s f u l and  u n s u c c e s s f u l groups were thus v i o l a t e d S c h e f f e procedures used f o r  the  so t h a t the ANOVA and  f i r s t three hypotheses were  precluded. 2.  Differences  u s i n g the Mann-Whitney (Siegel,  1956,  Total  p.  between f u l f i l l m e n t means were U test,  " f o r n = between 9 and 20  119)".  f u l f i l l m e n t scores for  s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l  groups were combined and rank o r d e r e d , calculated. predicted at the  .05  Since the d i r e c t i o n  camp by camp.  of the d i f f e r e n c e  U was  had been  i n the h y p o t h e s i s , the one t a i l e d t e s t was level  tested  of s i g n i f i c a n c e  (Siegel,  1956,  p.  applied,  120).  69 L i s t e d below i s a summary of the c a l c u l a t i o n s  for  each  camp: n^  =  10  ( S u c c e s s f u l group f o r each camp)  n£  =  10  ( U n s u c c e s s f u l group f o r each camp)  n n + 1 2  n, (n, + 1) 1 1  = 155  (for  each camp)  2 C r i t i c a l value, 1956,  p.  .05,  one t a i l = 27  each camp)  (Siegel,  277).  Camp-1  U  26*  Camp 2  U  43.5  Camp 3  U  18.5*  Camp 4  U  13.5*  Camp 5  U  47.5  * s i g n i f i c a n t «G =  R e s u l t s Relevant HYPOTHESIS 5: higher  (for  .05  to Hypothesis 5  " U n s u c c e s s f u l workers w i l l express a  l e v e l of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n a c r o s s a l l  needs l e v e l s  than  w i l l s u c c e s s f u l workers." (Subject the two d i g i t  by s u b j e c t t o t a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n scores are  numbers found i n columns 7 4 and 7 5 of the  sheets i n Appendix  III.)  data  70 T o t a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s c o r e s , that i s , the t o t a l of part  (a)  minus p a r t  (b)  of each item a c r o s s a l l  g o r i e s , were c a l c u l a t e d f o r a l l  subjects.  t e s t e d by comparing the mean of the t o t a l  needs  Hypothesis 5 was dissatisfaction  scores of the u n s u c c e s s f u l group w i t h the mean of s u c c e s s f u l g r o u p , i n each camp.  cate-  the  Table XV'l shows the mean  t o t a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s c o r e s f o r s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers,  and the d i f f e r e n c e s  between these means.  proved s i g n i f i c a n t by the s t a t i s t i c a l below are so i n d i c a t e d . .05  l e v e l of  Differences  procedures d e s c r i b e d  A l l d i f f e r e n c e s were t e s t e d at  the  significance. TABLE XV.'-.  COMPARISON OF MEAN TOTAL DISSATISFACTION SCORES FOR SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS  Mean Unsuccessful  Mean Successful  Difference  Camp 1  12.00  7.40  Camp 2  12.80  12.10  0.70  Camp 3  14.80  12.40  2.40  Camp 4  18.70  7.90  Camp 5 '  17 .60 * significant  10.70 °C =  .05  '  4.60*  10. 80* 6 .90  71 Mean t o t a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n scores f o r u n s u c c e s s f u l workers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than those  for successful  workers i n Camps 1 and 4, and n u m e r i c a l l y h i g h e r i n a l l other camps.  The numerical  d i f f e r e n c e was h i g h e r i n Camp 5 than  i n Camp 1, but not s i g n i f i c a n t . .  Hypothesis  5 was  supported  i n two camps. S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures Relevant 1.  t o Hypothesis  Means and v a r i a n c e s o f the t o t a l  5 dissatisfaction  scores f o r s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers were c a l c u l a t e d , camp by camp.  As with the r e s u l t s r e l e v a n t t o Hypothesis  4,  the s c o r e s were non-normally d i s t r i b u t e d and the d i f f e r e n c e s between the v a r i a n c e s o f the s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l groups were l a r g e , thus v i o l a t i n g important necessary  f o r a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e .  cedures as used i n the f i r s t  assumptions  ANOVA and S c h e f f e  pro-  three hypotheses were, t h e r e f o r e ,  precluded. 2.  D i f f e r e n c e s between d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n means were  t e s t e d u s i n g the Mann-Whitney U t e s t ( S i e g e l , 1956, p. 119).  " f o r n between 9 and 20"  T o t a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n scores f o r  s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers were combined and rank ordered,  camp by camp.  U was c a l c u l a t e d .  Since the d i r e c t i o n  of the d i f f e r e n c e s had been p r e d i c t e d by the h y p o t h e s i s , the one  tailed  t e s t was a p p l i e d , a t the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e  ( S i e g e l , 1956 , p. 120) .  72 Summary o f C a l c u l a t i o n s ni_  = 10 (Unsuccessful workers  i n each camp)  = 10 ( S u c c e s s f u l workers i n each camp) n^n C r i t i c a l value, 1956, p.  2  +  n,1.(n,1+ 1) 2  i c e / \ = 155 ( i n each-u camp)  .05, one t a i l = 27 ( f o r each camp)  (Siegel,  277).  Camp 1:  U  =  20.5*  Camp 2:  U  =  48.5  Camp 3:  U  =  38.5  Camp 4:  U  =  14 *  Camp 5 :  U  =  29  * significant  = .05  R e s u l t s Relevant t o Hypothesis 6 HYPOTHESIS 6:  "There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e  attached  to the importance o f needs a t v a r i o u s l e v e l s between s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers." (Subject by s u b j e c t importance scores are the two d i g i t numbers found i n columns i n Appendix I I I . )  77 and 7 8 o f the data sheets  73 T o t a l importance scores, (c) o f e a c h i t e m for  across  each s u b j e c t .  mean o f t h e t o t a l unsuccessful total  t h a t «s t h e t o t a l  of part  a l l needs c a t e g o r i e s were c a l c u l a t e d  H y p o t h e s i s 6 was t e s t e d by c o m p a r i n g t h e importance scores  g r o u p s i n e a c h camp.  importance scores  f o r t h e s u c c e s s f u l and T a b l e X V I I shows t h e mean  f o r s u c c e s s f u l and  unsuccessful  w o r k e r s , a n d t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e s e means. e n c e s w e r e t e s t e d a t t h e .05 l e v e l  A l l differ-  of significance.  TABLE XVI..: ' COMPARISON OF MEAN TOTAL IMPORTANCE SCORES FOR *  SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS  Mean Success f u l  Mean Unsuccessful  Difference  Camp 1  83.70  80.40  3.30  Camp 2  78. 40  80.70  -2.30  Camp 3  79.30  75.80  3.50  Camp 4  85.90  79.50  6.40  Camp 5  74.70  79 .60  -4.90  * significant  & = .05  74 There proved to be no s i g n i f i c a n t  differences  between  the importance mean s c o r e s of s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers  i n any camp.  Statistical 1.  Hypothesis 6 was supported i n a l l  Procedures Relevant  camps.  to Hypothesis 6  Means and v a r i a n c e s of the  t o t a l importance s c o r e s  f o r s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers were c a l c u l a t e d , by camp.  As w i t h r e s u l t s  relevant  camp  to Hypotheses 4 and 5,  assumptions of normalcy and homogeneity of v a r i a n c e s were violated  among the s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l g r o u p s .  and Sch'effe procedures used i n the f i r s t were,  therefore, 2.  p.  three hypotheses  precluded.  D i f f e r e n c e s between importance means were  u s i n g the Mann-Whitney 1956,  ANOVA  119)".  U test  " f o r n between  T o t a l importance  tested  9 and 20  (Siegel,  s c o r e s f o r s u c c e s s f u l and  u n s u c c e s s f u l workers were combined and rank o r d e r e d , camp by camp.  U v/as c a l c u l a t e d .  Since the d i r e c t i o n of the  differ-  ence had not been p r e d i c t e d by the h y p o t h e s i s , the two t e s t was a p p l i e d , 1956,  p.  Summary of  at the  .05  l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e  tailed  (Siegel,  120). Calculations n^  n  j_ 2 n  = 10  ( U n s u c c e s s f u l workers  = 10  ( S u c c e s s f u l workers  , n, (n. + 1) 1 1 2  = 155 i  r  r  /  i n each camp)  i n each camp)  . , . (in each camp)  75 C r i t i c a l value,  . 0 5 , two t a i l = 23 (for  each camp)  (Siegel,  1 9 5 6 , p. 2 7 6 ) .  Camp 1:  U  =  33.5  Camp 2:  U  =  41  Camp 3 :  u  =  37 .5  Camp 4:  u  =. 25  Camp 5 :  u  =  R e s u l t s Relevant HYPOTHESIS 7: biographical details  25  to Hypothesis 7  "There w i l l be no d i f f e r e n c e  in  the  and p e r s o n a l h i s t o r i e s between s u c c e s s f u l  and u n s u c c e s s f u l w o r k e r s . " (Subject by s u b j e c t P e r s o n a l Data i n f o r m a t i o n as l a b e l l e d , Appendix  is  found  i n columns 6 through 19 i n the data sheets  in  III.)  A camp by camp comparison of the p e r s o n a l data r e p o r t e d by s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers was out u s i n g the s t a t i s t i c a l  details  carried  procedures d e s c r i b e d below.  No  d i s c e r n i b l e p a t t e r n of d i f f e r e n c e s between the s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l groups was found across camps.  Table  c o n t a i n s the p e r s o n a l data items r e g a r d i n g which was c o l l e c t e d .  XVII  information  Opposite each item i s a d e s c r i p t i o n of  any  76 differences  found between s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers  TABLE .XVII PERSONAL DATA DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS  D e s c r i p t i o n of  P e r s o n a l Data Item  Differences  No d i f f e r e n c e s  i n any camp  Years of S c h o o l i n g  No d i f f e r e n c e s  i n any camp  Jobs i n f i v e  No d i f f e r e n c e s  i n any camp  No d i f f e r e n c e s  i n any camp  Age  V  Family  years  size  Marital  Status  More married r a t e d Camp 2 only  successful:  Worship Frequency  No d i f f e r e n c e s  i n any camp  Activity  No d i f f e r e n c e s  i n any camp  Level  Reading L e v e l  More heavy readers r a t e d s u c c e s s f u l Camp 5 only  Hometown S i z e  More from s m a l l c i t i e s Camp 3 o n l y  Parents'  No d i f f e r e n c e s  Education  d i f f e r e n c e s t e s t e d at  (All  .05  Hypothesis 7 was g e n e r a l l y Statistical  Procedures Relevant  successful:  i n any camp.  l e v e l of  significance)  supported i n each camp.  to Hypothesis 7  The P e r s o n a l Data i n f o r m a t i o n was gathered on two l e v e l s of  measurement:  77  1.  Continuous Measures:  Age, Years of S c h o o l , Number of Jobs Held i n F i v e Y e a r s , and Family S i z e were each recorded i n measurable  scores.  Assumptions of normalcy of d i s t r i b u t i o n of s c o r e s w i t h i n g r o u p s , and homogeneity of v a r i a n c e between groups were tenable each of the measures.  D i f f e r e n c e s between s u c c e s s f u l and  u n s u c c e s s f u l groups on these measures were, u s i n g a n a l y s i s of 2.  for  therefore,  analysed  variance.  Frequency Measures:  Marital  s t a t u s , Worship Frequency, A c t i v i t y L e v e l ,  Reading L e v e l , Hometown S i z e and P a r e n t s '  Educational Level  were coded i n t o c a t e g o r i e s i n t o which each s u b j e c t c o u l d o n l y once f o r each measure Differences  (see q u e s t i o n n a i r e , Appendix  fit I).  i n the f r e q u e n c i e s w i t h which s u c c e s s f u l and  u n s u c c e s s f u l workers  fell  into different  t e s t e d u s i n g the Pearson C h i Square  c a t e g o r i e s were  (Guilford,  1965,  Chapter .  11) . D e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n s of methods and r e s u l t s 1.  follow.  The Continuous Measure Data  Age : D i f f e r e n c e s between'the  mean ages of the  the middle and the u n s u c c e s s f u l groups i n a l l  successful,  camps, s i m u l -  t a n e o u s l y , were t e s t e d u s i n g ANOVA, one way d e s i g n . of the ANOVA appears below:  A summary  78 GROUP  N  MEAN AGE  Camp 1  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 14 10  36.10 35.43 38.20  Camp 2  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 30 10  32.30 34.33 38.50  Camp 3  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 31 10  30.40 28.32 35.20  Camp 4:  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 21 10  40.60 34.24 43.60  Camp 5  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 32 10  32.00 31.37 40.70  ANOVA df  SS 2770.15  14  197.87  33518.17  213  157.36  BETWEEN WITHIN  Years  MS  of  1.26  (n.s.)  Education:  ANOVA (one way design) was used to t e s t d i f f e r e n c e s the  number of years  of s c h o o l i n g r e p o r t e d by the s u c c e s s f u l ,  middle and u n s u c c e s s f u l groups the data  follows:  in  i n a l l camps.  A summary of  79 GROUP  .^EAN YEARS SCHOOL  N  Camp 1:  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 14 10  10.50 11.35 9.70  Camp 2:  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 30 10  13.60 10 . 43 9.40  Camp 3  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 31 10  9.90 11.09 11.70  Camp 4:  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 21 10  9.50 10.90 10 . 40  Camp 5  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 32 10  11.90 10. 84 9.70  ANOVA  BETWEEN  SS  df  MS  81.06  14  12.93  213  8.31  1769.62  WITHIN  F 1.56(n.s.)  Number of Jobs Held i n 5 Y e a r s : ANOVA (one way design)  was used to t e s t  differences  i n the number of jobs h e l d i n the p a s t 5 years by s u c c e s s f u l , middle and u n s u c c e s s f u l groups i n a l l camps. follows:  A summary  80 GROUP  N  MEAN NUMBER OF JOBS  Camp 1  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 14 10  2. 80 3.57 2.80  Camp 2:  Successful Middle Unsuccessful.  10 30 10  3 10 4 86 7 20  Camp 3  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 31 10  3.00 4.16 4. 40  Camp 4  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 21 10  1.30 2.47 2.70  Camp 5:  Successful , Middle Unsuccessful  10 32 10  3.60 4. 87 8.00  ANOVA df  SS BETWEEN WITHIN  MS  501.03  14  35.79  1852.53  213  8.69  4.11  F o l l o w i n g the f i n d i n g of a s i g n i f i c a n t F , p o s t hoc comparisons were performed between a l l means a c r o s s a l l  camps.  The only d i f f e r e n c e s  ( s i g . <C =.05)  Scheffe's pair-wise  i n means which  were s i g n i f i c a n t were those which o c c u r r e d between means i n d i f f e r e n t camps.  No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s o c c u r r e d between  any two means i n the same camp.  D i f f e r e n c e s were t e s t e d  at  the  above which d i f f e r e n c e s  are  .05  level.  (Critical  figure  s i g n i f i c a n t = 5.03.) Family S i z e : ANOVA (one way design) the s i z e of f a m i l y  was used to t e s t d i f f e r e n c e s  r e p o r t e d by the s u c c e s s f u l , middle and  u n s u c c e s s f u l groups i n a l l  camps.  GROUP  N  A summary f o l l o w s : MEAN FAMILY SIZE  Camp 1:  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 14 10  5.30; 4.50 4.30  Camp 2  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 30 10  4 90 5 33 5 70  Camp 3  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 31 10  6. 70 5 22 5. 00  Camp 4  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 21 10  5. 60 4 80 4 80  Camp 5  Successful Middle Unsuccessful  10 32 10  4, 40 4, 81 6 , 40  ANOVA df  MS  72.99  14  5.21  1335.80  213  6.27  SS BETWEEN WITHIN  0.83(n.s.)  in  82 2  *  The Frequency Measure  Differences ful  Data  between the f r e q u e n c i e s with which  and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers  success-  appeared i n the v a r i o u s P e r s o n a l  Data c a t e g o r i e s were t e s t e d with the Pearson C h i square procedure  (Guilford,  1965, Chapter 11).  F o l l o w i n g i s a summary  of the o b t a i n e d Chi squares and degrees of  freedom f o r each  1  P e r s o n a l Data  category i n each camp  are so i n d i c a t e d . the  .05  level  P e r s o n a l Data Category  S i g n i f i c a n t Chi squares  A l l frequency d i f f e r e n c e s were t e s t e d  of s i g n i f i c a n c e .  Camp 1 df  x  1.48  Worship Frequency Activity  Camp 2 df  Camp 3 X " df  2  x "  *8.57  2  2.28  0.97  2  0.34  2  3.08  2  2.50  Reading L e v e l  2. 40  2  Hometown S i z e  2.25  3  2  Marital  Status  Parents' ation  Level  Camp 4 df  Camp 5 X df  2  x  5.38  2  0.91  2  1.28  2  1.37  2  4.73  2  2  5.93  2  2.62  2  0.41  2  2.28  2  3.11  2  0.00  2 * 13.50  2  3.77  3 *8.33  3  3.76  3  3  2  2  2  2  0.31  Educ* significant  <£ =  .05  Table XVIU shows the frequency of occurrence of ful  at  and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers  f o r each camp.  i n each P e r s o n a l Data  Those coding c a t e g o r i e s  from the  success-  category  questionnaire  83 which have been pooled are so i n d i c a t e d .  P o o l i n g of c a t e g o r i e s  became necessary when very low f r e q u e n c i e s o c c u r r e d i n c e r t a i n areas. TABLE XVMI  FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS IN PERSONAL DATA CATEGORIES . Category  Pooled Codes  Camp 1 S U  3 Single 'u M a r r i e d Jg £ D i v o r c e d  0+3 1 2  2 3 5 4 10 14 8 6 14 8 6 14 4 0 4 2 2 4 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 2  3 7 0  £ & Often 2 0} Seldom o ii, Never &  2 1 0  4 2 6 3 3 4 7 3 3 4 7 4 4  2 4 8  4 3  Low +J > Medium £ 2 High  0 + 1+2 3+4 5+6  1 4 5 5 5 4 4 8 3 5 5 2 7 2  10 2 4 6 7 5 12 6 7 13 8 8 3 11 2 5 7 2 1 3 0 2 0 3 3 1 0 1 2 2 4  -SH LOW SJ Medium OJ cu High  0+1+2 3 4  0 3 7 5  g  0  T  Camp 2 Camp 3 Camp 4 S U T S U T S U T  5 7 6  3 1 5  2 3  5 4 11  Camp .5 S U T  7 10 6 5 11 2 9 2 3 5 1 1 2 2 4 2 6 3 4 5 8 5 1 3 3 6 2 5  7 6 7  2 2 0 2 2 2 3 5 1 1 2 3 6 3 2 5 3 3 6 2 2 4 12 7 6 13 5 4 9 7 7 14  1 3 4 1 7 8 8 0 8  0  2  2  1  1  2  3  1  4  3  4  7  5  4  9  1  1  2  0  3  3  1  2  3  0  1  1  2  2  4  2 5  6 4  6 9  2 0  5  8 5  1  K_t-^_  Farm  ° a) ^ ; 9 ' 2+3 QJ N °wn Small City4+5 a City 6 V  l l a  e  T  _  fi • Low £ 3 Medium High  5  4 9 4 4 3 7  6  3 9 1 1 2 3 2 3  .  0+1+2 3+4+5 6+7 + 8  5 4 9 2 2 4 6 10 6 7 1 0 1 2  2 5 _  4 4 4 8 5 6 11 5 4 9 13 6 5 11 5 4 9 4 6 10 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1  Explanatory Notes: Pooled Codes: Shows those items from the q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Appendix III) which have been pOoled as a r e s u l t of low frequencies. Column Headings: S = Successful; U = Unsuccessful; T = T o t a l (S + U ) .  CHAPTER V I I I CONCLUSIONS  AND IMPLICATIONS  Conclusions Conclusions Needs  Regarding O v e r a l l D i f f e r e n c e s Between  Categories The f i n d i n g s r e l a t e d t o the o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e s i n  f u l f i l l m e n t , d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and importance between the d i f f e r e n t needs  c a t e g o r i e s g i v e support  of d i f f e r e n t i a l needs. all  to Maslow's concept  There were s t r o n g d i f f e r e n c e s on  three measures across most of the needs  Figures  categories.  2, 3 and 4 show, i n graph form the r e l a t i v e  of the p e r c e i v e d  strength  f u l f i l l m e n t , d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and importance  of needs i n each camp. The r e l a t i v e s t r e n g t h of importance of needs very c o n s i s t e n t across sized direction.  was  camps, although not i n the hypothe-  I t w i l l be seen t h a t the r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n  of each need category  i n Figure  4 i s i d e n t i c a l i n each camp,  so t h a t an o v e r a l l need h i e r a r c h y based on importance would reads  Physiological, Self-Actualization, Social, Security,  Esteem  and Autonomy. The i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s p e r c e i v e d h i e r a r c h y f o r  managers and c o u n s e l l o r s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d chapter.  l a t e r i n the  FIGURE 2 COMPARISON OF MEAN' FULFILLMENT OF NEEDS  FIGURE 3 COMPARISON OF MEAN DISSATISFACTION OF  .87  Q-  CO  CO  FIGURE 4 •COMPARISON OF MEAN IMPORTANCE OF NEEDS  —  <  CO  88 Fulfillment five  and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n measures across  camps (Figures  of importance.  In g e n e r a l ,  t i o n measures of the Security,  2 and 3)  the  are not as c o n s i s t e n t as those the f u l f i l l m e n t  and d i s s a t i s f a c -  lowest order needs, P h y s i o l o g i c a l and  tended to r e f l e c t  actual,  o b s e r v e d , camp c o n d i t i o n s .  Thus, i n Camps 1 and 4, where g r e a t care had been taken to p r o v i d e good l i v i n g q u a r t e r s , and secure employment, tion  f o o d , safe working  fulfillment  was high and d i s s a t i s f a c -  low i n the P h y s i o l o g i c a l and S e c u r i t y  r e l a t i v e to the other needs s c o r e s . q u a r t e r s were cramped, temporary kitchen staff  conditions  categories,  In Camp 2, where  and d i r t y ,  and where the  were being r e p l a c e d , P h y s i o l o g i c a l  was low and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n h i g h . union-management  living  fulfillment  In Camp 3, where a s t r o n g  d i s p u t e over s a f e t y was i n p r o g r e s s ,  Security fulfillment  was low and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n h i g h .  In  Camp 5 the k i t c h e n was i n charge of a "Blue Ribbon" European chef and the bunk-houses were newly renovated Physiological fulfillment  was h i g h .  In  so t h a t  the same camp the  men were complaining about worn and o b s o l e t e and dangerous equipment  l e f t behind from another o p e r a t i o n .  fillment,  as a r e s u l t ,  Lawler model, i t fulfillment  was low.  terms of the  might be concluded t h a t the  gathering.  ful-  Porter-  lower  order  and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n measures v a r i e d w i t h  system o f lower o r d e r rewards data  In  Security  the  i n o p e r a t i o n at the time of  89  Social fulfillment a p u z z l i n g problem.  and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s c o r e s p r e s e n t  Social fulfillment  was  high and S o c i a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n was low, other  categories,  i n every camp.  consistently  r e l a t i v e to  the  Despite these very  consis-  t e n t S o c i a l s c o r e s there were g r e a t observed d i f f e r e n c e s the s o c i a l rewards fulfill  systems, t h a t i s the o p p o r t u n i t y  living quarters,  a heated swimming p o o l ,  a school,  to  Camp 4 p r o v i d e d a w e l l  s o c i a l needs i n each camp.  equipped r e c r e a t i o n h a l l ,  in  library,  married  and support f o r  all  forms of c l u b s and h o b b i e s . Camp 2,  at the other extreme,  room f o r r e c r e a t i o n .  No f a m i l i e s  provided a bare,  or women were  i n the camp, no formal d r i n k i n g f a c i l i t i e s interest  was shown i n a c t i v i t y  1 had an a c t i v e incorporate hall  as a town.  and a b a r .  fulfillment  and  to  recreation  the camp.  i n every camp, the r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n of S o c i a l  and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , r e l a t i v e to the other It  that,  to the h y p o t h e s e s , workers  contrary  can only be concluded from these  i n i s o l a t e d camps,  to s p e c u l a t e as to how much of t h i s i s due to measurable,  needs,  findings,  p e r c e i v e them to be very s o c i a l l y s a t i s f y i n g p l a c e s .  satisfaction  Camp  and were encouraging  was the same.  interesting  little  and was t r y i n g  Camp 5 p r o v i d e d o n l y a  social f a c i l i t i e s ,  to move i n t o  Still,  existed,  Camp 3 management was i n the process of  b u i l d i n g elaborate families  permitted  o u t s i d e working h o u r s .  community c l u b , a s c h o o l ,  heated  extrinsic  It  is  social  social  rewards,  90 and  how much might be due t o some element of human  ousness i n r e a c t i o n results  t o a h o s t i l e environment.  gregari-  The p r e s e n t  do not p r o v i d e answers t o these s p e c u l a t i o n s . Among the h i g h e r order needs o f Esteem, Autonomy and  Self-Actualization, and  a very c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n o f f u l f i l l m e n t  d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n occurs across a l l camps.  proves t o be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t  This pattern  from t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d i n the  P o r t e r - L a w l e r e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s w i t h managers (Porter and Lawler, 1968, Chapter 6 ) .  As h y p o t h e s i z e d , Esteem and  Autonomy among the i s o l a t e d workers are the l e a s t  fulfilled,  with S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n  higher  (Figure 3 ) . and  f u l f i l l m e n t only s l i g h t l y  While t h i s f i n d i n g  p a r a l l e l s t h a t of P o r t e r  (1968, pp. 133, 134, 139, 140),  Lawler  d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n scores i s quite  different.  Esteem and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n , the  the p a t t e r n o f  e q u a l l y , prove t o be  source of most d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , but i t i s the d i s s a t i s -  f a c t i o n p a t t e r n o f Autonomy which p r o v i d e s the most finding.  intriguing  Autonomy, f o r which the f u l f i l l m e n t score was  consistently  low, causes very l i t t l e  dissatisfaction.  It  w i l l be remembered t h a t Autonomy was a l s o p e r c e i v e d t o be the l e a s t important need category about and i n t e r e s t versal  (Figure 4 ) .  T h i s l a c k of care  i n Autonomy appears to be an almost  phenomenon among i s o l a t e d  workers.  uni-  91 When these r e s u l t s  are compared with those o b t a i n e d  from the managers of P o r t e r and Lawler's Lawler,  1968,  pp.  134,  136,  samples  (Porter and  138), i t i s seen t h a t the d i s s a t i s -  f a c t i o n p a t t e r n s of Esteem and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n f o r managers and i s o l a t e d workers.  are  similar  The Autonomy d i s s a t i s -  f a c t i o n scores of the managers, however, i s u n i v e r s a l l y  high  r e l a t i v e t o the o t h e r s needs, and i s n u m e r i c a l l y second  only  to S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n ,  w h i l e f o r i s o l a t e d workers d i s s a t i s -  f a c t i o n with Autonomy i s extremely I t can be concluded, Actualization  low.  then, t h a t Esteem and  Self-  are as potent needs f o r i s o l a t e d workers as  f o r managers, but t h a t d i f f e r e n t p e r c e p t i o n s of Autonomy might w e l l p r o v i d e a v a l i d c l u e as to the d i f f e r e n c e s managers and rank and  file  between  workers.  In summary, f o u r g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s can'be drawn from the r e s u l t s of the o v e r a l l a n a l y s i s  of the d i f f e r e n t i a l l y  p e r c e i v e d f u l f i l l m e n t , d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and importance  of  needs items. 1. appears  A d i s t i n c t , c o n s i s t e n t h i e r a r c h y of need  importance  to e x i s t among i s o l a t e d workers. 2.  Where d i f f e r e n t i a l , lower order rewards are g i v e n  by the company or management, d i f f e r e n t f u l f i l l m e n t s dissatisfactions  result.  and  92 3.  High S o c i a l f u l f i l l m e n t and  low S o c i a l  dissatis-  f a c t i o n appear to be a u n i v e r s a l phenomenon i n i s o l a t e d camps, and do not appear to depend upon e x t e r n a l l y  observable  conditions. 4.  The  h i g h e r order needs of Esteem, Autonomy  and  S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n are e i t h e r being c o n s i s t e n t l y unrewarded .from camp to camp, or are being rewarded i n the same manner i n each camp.  T h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s based on the c o n s i s t e n t  p a t t e r n of low Autonomy and Esteem f u l f i l l m e n t , and  high  Esteem and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n across camps. 5.  D i f f e r e n c e s i n the p e r c e p t i o n of and  the need f o r  Autonomy may  be a s i g n i f i c a n t d i s c r i m i n a t o r between managers  and rank and  file  workers.  Conclusions  Regarding  Success  Satisfaction  and  As was  the R e l a t i o n s h i p Between  d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter  VI,  the g r e a t e s t s i n g l e  f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g the o b t a i n e d r e s u l t s with r e g a r d to and s a t i s f a c t i o n was f u l r a t i n g system.  the weakness of the Graphic  r a t e d performance and managers had III).  Successful-Unsuccess-  comparisons of s u c c e s s f u l and  u n s u c c e s s f u l s c o r e s are found In g e n e r a l there was  success  i n F i g u r e s 5, 6, and  7.  a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between  s a t i s f a c t i o n only i n those camps where  a genuine, i n t i m a t e knowledge of workers  Thus i n Camp 4 , where the r a t e r had been i n a  (Table super-  HIGHI5  CAMP  14 13  _ «o-  10-  _  9LOW  9-  u.  8 <  >i  O CJ _ io  o. «></>  t— w  ~i  LOW  T — i — i — i — i — r  >I  t— J .  o.  ui < tn  CAMP 3  HIGH 15-i  14  J  1  1  O O Ul O  <n  tn  r  rW  ui  CAMP  13  ,3  12-1  z  I2-| II  10  :]  ! M l  8  9  8 <  r<V LOW  x Cv  o Ul  ( / >  T" U  o  tn  ui  3 <  LOW  —r < in  HIGH 15-.  O Ul  to CAMP 5  I4J  FIGURE 5 COMPARISON OF F U L F I L L M E N T MEANS FOR S U C C E S S F U L AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS  —R O o in  —r r—  94 HIGH  CAMP I  HIGH  CAMP  z  2  o r-  t—  o <  CO  I<  co </>  4_  O <  2 LOW  CO  u.  3_  r<  2-  CO <o I  i — i — r  >- o X  UJ  o. co  CJ  o m  LOW  ~i—i—r <* H  H  Ui  3  •  Hi  <  CO  x  0.  FIGURE  COMPARISON  OF  SUCCESSFUL  i — r  6  DISSATISFACTION  AND  CJ UJ CO  UNSUCCESSFUL  MEANS  FOR  WORKERS  i — T  CJ r— O Vi(o UJ  r-  <  CO  CAMP  5  X  Z3 • Q. -I (/>(O /) V> U ^ (/>  FIGURE 7 COMPARISON  OF IMPORTANCE MEANS FOR  SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS  v i s o r y p o s i t i o n i n the camp f o r f i f t e e n y e a r s , a l l d i f f e r e n c e s in  f u l f i l l m e n t and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n  scores between s u c c e s s f u l  and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers were s i g n i f i c a n t direction. did  In Camp 1, where, a g a i n , an experienced  the r a t i n g ,  f i n d i n g s suggest  identify  manager  d i f f e r e n c e s between s u c c e s s f u l and unsuccess-  f u l workers were s i g n i f i c a n t These  i n the h y p o t h e s i z e d  i n the h y p o t h e s i z e d  direction.  t h a t i n these camps, the managers d i d  the u n s u c c e s s f u l and s u c c e s s f u l workers and t h a t  these workers d i d have d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e i r p e r c e i v e d f u l f i l l m e n t and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . In Camp 5, d i f f e r e n c e s between the f u l f i l l m e n t anol_^--dissatisfaction  o f s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers were  i n the h y p o t h e s i z e d d i r e c t i o n , I t w i l l be remembered  but were not s i g n i f i c a n t .  from Table I I I t h a t the r a t e r i n Camp  5 was not deeply concerned w i t h p e r s o n n e l so may not have p i c k e d the g e n u i n e l y s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers i n terms o f t h e i r value t o the camp. Camp 2 produced the most c o n f u s i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between the s c o r e s of s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers. and VI show a mixture significant,  of s c o r e s , some s i g n i f i c a n t ,  Tables V some non-  some as h y p o t h e s i z e d and some not. As p o i n t e d  out i n Table I I I , the high turnover and c h a o t i c c o n d i t i o n s of the camp made a c c u r a t e r a t i n g  very d i f f i c u l t .  The r a t e r  was deeply i n v o l v e d i n s e r i o u s problems o f e n g i n e e r i n g ,  97 development and c o n s t r u c t i o n and had « i t t l e time f o r In  fact,  workers.  numbers of workers had been working i n the camp f o r  as long as a month and had y e t to be f o r m a l l y put on the  interviewed  or  payroll.  Camp 3,  at the time of data g a t h e r i n g was engaged i n  prolonged union-management d i s c u s s i o n s .  When the names and  p o s i t i o n s h e l d by the u n s u c c e s s f u l group were examined, was found t h a t those rank ordered 7,  8,  u n s u c c e s s f u l r a t i n g s h e l d p o s i t i o n s 1, l o c a l union.  9 and 10 i n 2,  it  the  3 and 4 i n  the  P o s i t i o n s 2 and 3 i n the u n s u c c e s s f u l group  were h e l d by two r e s i d e n t s of the n e a r e s t town who had been h i r e d b e f o r e an u n w r i t t e n company p o l i c y of not h i r i n g  local  workers had been put i n t o e f f e c t .  number  U n s u c c e s s f u l worker  4 was an o f f i c e  clerk,  d e s c r i b e d by the r a t e r as "a semi  hippie-~related  to a company d i r e c t o r . "  In no other  success-  f u l or u n s u c c e s s f u l group i n any camp was such a b i a s e v i dent.  It  seems c l e a r t h a t at l e a s t some of the workers  Camp 3 were c l a s s i f i e d u n s u c c e s s f u l f o r reasons other their  in  than  job performance. If  Camps 1 and 4 are c o n s i d e r e d as the only camps i n  which v a l i d performance r a t i n g took p l a c e , what do the s u l t s from these two camps r e v e a l w i t h regard to the t i o n s h i p s p r e d i c t e d i n the model  (Figure  1)?  re-  rela-  98  1.  The t o t a l f u l f i l l m e n t  s c o r e s of the  successful  groups are s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than those of the f u l groups i n each camp, thus c l e a r l y  unsuccess-  s u p p o r t i n g the  p r e d i c t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p i n the model between Performance, Rewards and S a t i s f a c t i o n . 2.  The o v e r a l l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n scores of the  unsuccess-  f u l groups i n each camp are s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than those of the s u c c e s s f u l groups thus s u p p o r t i n g the p r e d i c t e d  relation-  s h i p between Performance, Rewards, P e r c e i v e d E q u i t a b l e Rewards and S a t i s f a c t i o n . 3. to t h e i r  P o r t e r and Lawler  (1968) i n d e v i s i n g  o r i g i n a l model suggest t h a t the Reward  alterations variable  should be c o n s i d e r e d as two v a r i a b l e s , " e x t r i n s i c rewards  (administered by the  and i n t r i n s i c rewards himself).  It  (administered by the  individual  now appears t h a t those types of needs  which can be s a t i s f i e d p r i m a r i l y i.e.  organization)  by i n t r i n s i c  rewards,  the h i g h e r o r d e r needs such as autonomy and  self-actualization  are more l i k e l y  to produce  a t t i t u d e s t h a t are s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d mance than are needs -  to  perfor-  such as s e c u r i t y and s o c i a l  needs - which can be s a t i s f i e d by e x t r i n s i c rewards  (p.  47)  11  .  The graphs f o r Camps 1 and 4 i n f i g u r e s 5 and 6 show t h a t d i s t a n c e s between s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l scores on  99  h i g h e r order needs are p e r c e p t i b l y g r e a t e r than those between lower order needs thus i n d i c a t i n g some support and Lawler  suggestion.  Conclusions  Regarding  P e r s o n a l Data and The is  little  f o r the P o r t e r  the R e l a t i o n s h i p Between  Success  r e s u l t s r e l a t e d to Hypothesis  7 'suggest  t h a t there  d i f f e r e n c e between the p e r s o n a l backgrounds of  f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers.  success-  I t should be remembered, however,  t h a t t h i s f i n d i n g i s based on the performance r a t i n g which proven weak or i n v a l i d i n t h r e e camps, and upon ten items personal data.  was of  Judgement on these r e s u l t s should, perhaps, be  r e s e r v e d u n t i l a r e p l i c a t i o n w i t h more r e f i n e d measures of performance and p e r s o n a l h i s t o r y can be c a r r i e d  out.  Implications I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r both Manpower c o u n s e l l o r s and management can be e x t r a c t e d from the p r e s e n t  findings.  Management I f , as suggested,  p e r c e i v e d lower order needs are  sen-  s i t i v e to camp c o n d i t i o n s , managers must continue to p r o v i d e maximum P h y s i o l o g i c a l and S e c u r i t y rewards i n the form of good l i v i n g and expected  s a f e working c o n d i t i o n s .  t h a t merely by rewarding  on these  I t should not lower  levels,  be an  100 i n c r e a s e i n performance w i l l r e s u l t ,  however.  It  is  difficult  and q u i t e p o s s i b l y u n e t h i c a l to reward good work performance with b e t t e r  f o o d , a b e t t e r room or a s a f e r j o b .  Thus,  the  lower order needs i n an i s o l a t e d camp have to be rewarded indiscriminantly The f a c t  and e q u a l l y r e g a r d l e s s of performance. that S o c i a l f u l f i l l m e n t  and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n  seem to be c o n s t a n t r e g a r d l e s s of managerial p o l i c y and v e n t i o n suggests t h a t management might do w e l l to stay of s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n i n camps.  If  interclear  management maintains  law  and order and leaves s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n up to worker groups it  will,  as i f  it  a c c o r d i n g to the r e s u l t s , have as g r e a t overtly  an  effect  o r g a n i z e s and a d m i n i s t e r s s o c i a l rewards.  The r e s u l t s  suggest t h a t optimum i n t r i n s i c rewards  of  the h i g h e r o r d e r needs of Esteem, Autonomy and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n are not b e i n g o b t a i n e d by wprkers Yet P o r t e r  and Lawler  (1968, p.  163)  i n i s o l a t e d groups.  and the r e s u l t s  from  Camps 1 and 4 suggest t h a t rewards i n these areas are more likely  to i n c r e a s e s a t i s f a c t i o n than rewards on lower  levels.  Management must f i r s t  rewards  cannot be e x t e r n a l l y  manipulated as e a s i l y as can P h y s i o l o g i c a l  and S e c u r i t y rewards. by a worker, where  himself,  Higher order reward can only be o b t a i n e d working i n a p s y c h o l o g i c a l c l i m a t e  "management attempts  h i g h e r order needs. and L a w l e r ,  1968,  p.  accept t h a t h i g h e r o r d e r  .  to a t t a c h  appropriate  . to d i f f e r e n c e s 178)".  rewards  i n performance  in  (Porter  101  V o c a t i o n a l and Manpower The  Counsellors  advantage of the P o r t e r - L a w l e r  underpinning  i n the Maslow theory  goals of c o u n s e l l o r s and work.  The  i s that i t brings  the  of managers w i t h i n the same frame-  counsellor's concern i s t h a t h i s c l i e n t , with  s p e c i f i c aptitudes, motivations job t h a t has The  model with i t s  and  abilities w i l l find  a system of rewards p r o v i d i n g  performance.  a  satisfaction.  manager's concern i s t h a t he can p r o v i d e  rewards which w i l l  his  a system of  l e a d to i n c r e a s e d e f f o r t , hence  increased  Thus, the c o u n s e l l o r and manager must both  concern themselves w i t h  the  job and  reward p e r c e p t i o n s  of  workers e s p e c i a l l y as they are r e l a t e d to the Maslow needs hierarchy. S p e c i f i c a l l y , there are a number of i m p l i c a t i o n s i n the p r e s e n t  study r e l e v a n t to c o u n s e l l o r s and  counsellor  training. The needs by  support  g i v e n to the Maslow theory  of  differential  the data suggests t h a t t h i s theory might form a  major t o o l f o r the work of manpower.counsellors.  A counsellor  working from the Maslow p o s i t i o n w i l l c o n c e n t r a t e  on h i s  client's p e r s o n a l  needs and  perceptions  r a t h e r than r e l y i n g  e n t i r e l y on the c l i e n t ' s t r a i n i n g , measured a p t i t u d e s biographical history.  Counsellor  and  and  c l i e n t would search  to-  gether f o r a job environment where the client's s p e c i f i c needs c o u l d be met  i n exchange f o r job performance.  102 The  support  particularly  i n the data f o r the P o r t e r - L a w l e r model,  the concept  of reward systems, has i m p l i c a t i o n s  f o r c o u n s e l l i n g p r a c t i c e and  f o r counsellor education.  Courses f o r c o u n s e l l o r s designed  to g i v e them knowledge of  the world of work should i n c l u d e the examination  of work  environments from the viewpoint of rewards systems on a l l of the needs l e v e l s .  P a r t i c u l a r s t r e s s must be l a i d  t h a t c o u n s e l l o r s understand  so  the rewards r e l a t e d to the  h i g h e r needs l e v e l s , and the p o s s i b l e c o n n e c t i o n between these rewards and  satisfaction.  The  counsellor i n training  should be brought to see the world of work as a dynamic environment i n which v a r i e d rewards are c o n t i n u o u s l y being g i v e n to f i l l  c o n s t a n t l y changing  needs i n exchange f o r  e q u i t a b l e l e v e l s of performance. F u r t h e r Research The most p r e s s i n g r e s e a r c h needed w i t h r e g a r d to the p r e s e n t data i s an attempt to c o n f i r m or deny the f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between the s a t i s f a c t i o n s of f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l workers. only two  success-  The p r e s e n t f i n d i n g s , based on  camps, are q u e s t i o n a b l e .  Lawler  (1968, p. 462)  i n an a r t i c l e p u b l i s h e d s i n c e the  i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the p r e s e n t study was  gathered,  has  shown  t h a t job s a t i s f a c t i o n data c o l l e c t e d a year b e f o r e a r a t i n g of performance i s a b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r of t h a t performance  than  103 of performance r a t e d c o n c u r r e n t l y s a t i s f a c t i o n scores.  He  concludes  b u i l t i n t o the c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p  wi, i 4  the c o l l e c t i n g of the  "there may  be a time l a g  (p. 467)".  Lawler s 1  f i n d i n g s might be t e s t e d and the p r e s e n t f i n d i n g s r e - t e s t e d if  a r e v i s e d r a t i n g scheme were to be presented  to r a t e r s i n  the camps used i n the p r e s e n t study, one year a f t e r p r e s e n t i n f o r m a t i o n was  the  collected.  Other r e s e a r c h i s r e q u i r e d to t e s t whether the f i n d i n g s of the p r e s e n t study  are s p e c i f i c only to i s o l a t e d  environ-  ments or whether- they w i l l g e n e r a l i z e to other work s e t t i n g s . A r e p l i c a t i o n of the p r e s e n t study a t an urban mine would be of v a l u e .  R e p l i c a t i o n s i n other i s o l a t e d  industries  such as l o g g i n g and s h i p p i n g might f u r t h e r t e s t the I f , as suggested  site  findings.  above, the model has v a l u e i n the  t r a i n i n g f o r and p r a c t i c e of c o u n s e l l i n g , then formal and refinements be designed  of i t are v i t a l l y necessary.  to t e s t the h y p o t h e s i s  tests  Research might  that discrepancies i n  p e r c e i v e d h i g h e r order s a t i s f a c t i o n s cause g r e a t e r d i f f e r e n c e s i n performance than do d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n lower order f a c t i o n s , a f i n d i n g only h i n t e d a t by the p r e s e n t  satis-  results.  F i n a l l y , the i d e a l type of r e s e a r c h i n t h i s area would be a f i e l d experiment conducted ment.  The  d e s i g n would permit  i n an i s o l a t e d work e n v i r o n the c a r e f u l c o n t r o l and mani-  p u l a t i o n of rewards on each needs l e v e l over a p e r i o d of P e r i o d i c and  c o n t r o l l e d monitoring  of s a t i s f a c t i o n s and  time. per-  104 formance u s i n g a refinement  of the p r e s e n t instruments  be c a r r i e d out to t e s t the o n - g o i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s performance,  rewards  and s a t i s f a c t i o n .  the d i s p o s a l of one segment of the sample.  any e f f e c t  if  the i n t e r v e n t i o n  between  An added dimension to  such a study might be the p l a c i n g of a t r a i n e d  to determine  could  counsellor  T e s t s c o u l d be made  of a c o u n s e l l o r would have  on reward p e r c e p t i o n and hence on performance  satisfaction.  at  and  B I B L I O G R A P H Y  106  B e r r y , N.H., Nelson, P.D., & McNally M.S. A note on s u p e r v i s o r r a t i n g s . ' Personnel Psychology, 1966, 1_, 423-26. ri  Canadian I n s t i t u t e of Mining and M e t a l l u r g y . A survey of manpower requirements of the Canadian m i n e r a l i n d u s t r y . Montreal: Canadian I n s t i t u t e of Mining and M e t a l l u r g y , 1967. C e n t e r s , R., & Bugental, D.E. I n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c job m o t i v a t i o n s among d i f f e r e n t segments of the working population. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1966, 50, 193-197. Dunnette, M.D. a note on the c r i t e r i o n . Psychology, 1963, 47, 251-254.  J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d  E i l b e r t , R.R., G l a s e r , R., & Hanes, R.M. Research on the f e a s i b i l i t y of s e l e c t i o n of p e r s o n n e l f o r duty a t isolated stations. U.5.A.F. Personnel T r a i n i n g Research Centre, T e c h n i c a l Report, 1957. F r i e d l a n d e r , F. U n d e r l y i n g sources of job s a t i s f a c t i o n . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 196 3, 47, 2 46-250. F r i e d l a n d e r , F. M o t i v a t i o n s t o work and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l performance. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1966, 50, 143-152. F r e d e r i k s e n , N., Jensen, O., & Beaton, A.E. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e s and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e performance. Princeton, N.J.: E d u c a t i o n a l T e s t i n g S e r v i c e , 1968. G u i l f o r d , J.P. Fundamental s t a t i s t i c s i n psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Gunderson, E.K. A d a p t a t i o n t o extreme environments: P r e d i c t i o n of performance. San Diego: U n i t e d S t a t e s Navy M e d i c a l N e u r o l o g i c a l Research U n i t , Report 66-17, 1966. Gunderson, E.K., & Kapfer, E.L. The p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of c l i n i c i a n s ' e v a l u a t i o n s f o r b i o g r a p h i c a l data. J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1966 , 2_2, 144-150. Gunderson, E.K., & Mohan, J . L . C u l t u r a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s among o c c u p a t i o n a l groups. J o u r n a l of Psychology, 1966, 62, 287-304.  107 Gunderson, E.K., & Nelson, P.D. to extreme environments. 3_4, 1111-1115.  A d a p t a t i o n of s m a l l groups Aero Space MedjLci._ne, 1963,  Gunderson, E.K., & Nelson, P.D. C r i t e r i o n measures f o r extremely i s o l a t e d groups. P e r s o n n e l Psychology, 19, 67-80.  1966.  Gunderson, E.K., Nelson, P.D., & O r v i c k , J.S. P e r s o n a l h i s t o r y c o r r e l a t e s of m i l i t a r y performance a t a l a r g e Antarctic station. San Diego: U n i t e d S t a t e s Navy M e d i c a l N e u r o l o g i c a l Research U n i t , Report 64-22, 1964 . H a l l , D.T., & Hougaim, K.E. An examination of Maslow's need h i e r a r c h y i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g . Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, 3, 12-35. Hays, W.L. S t a t i s t i c s for psychologists. R i n e h a r t , Winston, 1963.  New  York:  Holt,  Hulin, C L . E f f e c t s of community c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on measures of job s a t i s f a c t i o n . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1966, 50, 185-192. Lawler, E.E. A c o r r e l a t i o n a l - c a u s a l a n a l y s i s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between expectancy a t t i t u d e s and job performance. J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d Psychology, 1968, 5_2, 462-468. Lawler, E.E., & P o r t e r , L.W. Performance as a determinant of job s a t i s f a c t i o n . I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s , 1967, 1_, 122-42. L e f k o w i t z , J.M. S e l f esteem of i n d u s t r i a l workers. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 1966, 27, 599-600B. Lewin, K. The c o n c e p t u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and measurement o f psychological forces. Durham, N.C.: Duke U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1936 . Ley, R.  Labour t u r n o v e r as a f u n c t i o n of worker d i f f e r e n c e s , work environment and a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m of foremen. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1966 , 50_, 497-500.  Loudermilk, K.M. P r e d i c t i o n of e f f i c i e n c y of lumber and paper m i l l employees. P e r s o n n e l Psychology, 1966, 1_9_, 301-310. Maslow, A.H. A theory of human m o t i v a t i o n . Review, 1943, 50, 370-396.  Psychological  108 Maslow, A.H. E u p s y c h i a n management. I r w i n and Dorsey, 1965.  Komewood, 111.:  Maslow, A.H. A t h e o r y o f m e t a m o t i v a t i o n : The b i o l o g i c a l r o o t i n g of the value l i f e . P s y c h o l o g y Today, 196 8, J u l y , pp. 3 8-40. M i t c h e l l , V.F. The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f e f f o r t , a b i l i t i e s and r o l e p e r c e p t i o n t o m a n a g e r i a l performance. Unpublished Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y , 1967. Myers, J . L . Fundamentals o f e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n . A l l y n and Bacon, 1966.  Boston;  N e l s o n , P.D., & Gunderson, E.K. E f f e c t i v e i n d i v i d u a l p e r f o r mance i n s m a l l A n t a r c t i c s t a t i o n s : A summary o f c r i t e r i o n studies. San Diego: U n i t e d S t a t e s Navy M e d i c a l N e u r o l o g i c a l Research U n i t , Report 63-8, 1963. N e l s o n , P.D., & O r v i c k , J.M. P e r s o n a l h i s t o r y c o r r e l a t e s o f performance among c i v i l i a n p e r s o n n e l i n s m a l l Antarctic stations. San Diego: U n i t e d S t a t e s Navy M e d i c a l N e u r o l o g i c a l Research U n i t , Report 64-4, 1964. P a l m a i , G. P s y c h o l o g i c a l a s p e c t s o f t r a n s i e n t p o p u l a t i o n s in Antarctica. I n M e d i c i n e and p u b l i c h e a l t h i n A r c t i c and A n t a r c t i c . Geneva: World H e a l t h O r g a n i z a t i o n , 1963, 146-158. P o r t e r , L.W. A s t u d y o f p e r c e i v e d needs s a t i s f a c t i o n s i n bottom and m i d d l e management j o b s . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1961, 4_5, 1-10. P o r t e r , L.W. Job a t t i t u d e s i n management: I . P e r c e i v e d d e f i c i e n c i e s i n need f u l f i l l m e n t as a f u n c t i o n .of j o b l e v e l . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1962, 46, 375-384. P o r t e r , L.W., & L a w l e r , E.E. M a n a g e r i a l a t t i t u d e s and performance. Homewood, 111.: R i c h a r d D. I r w i n , 1968. P o r t e r , L.W., & M i t c h e l l , V.F. Comparative s t u d y o f need s a t i s f a c t i o n s i n m i l i t a r y and b u s i n e s s h i e r a r c h i e s . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y , 1967 , 51., 139-144. Seek, Hong-Chee. Performance as a f u n c t i o n o f a b i l i t y , m o t i v a t i o n and emotion. Unpublished Master's d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968.  109 S h e a r s , M. A t t i t u d e c h a n g e m e a s u r e m e n t i n i s o l a t e d work groups. E d u c a t i o n a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l m e a s u r e m e n t , 1967, 2 7 , 75-82"."""" " ~ " ~ ~ * Smith, P.C, & Cranny, C J . P s y c h o l o g y o f men a t w o r k . A n n u a l R e v i e w o f P s y c h o l o g y , 196 8 , 19_, 467-496. Tiffin,  J . , & McCormick, E . J . I n d u s t r i a l psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1965.  T o l m a n , E.G. York: V r o o m , V.H.  P u r p o s i v e b e h a v i o r i n a n i m a l s and men. C e n t u r y Co., 1932. Work a n d m o t i v a t i o n .  New  York:  New  W i l e y , 196 4.  Winer, B.J. S t a t i s t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s i n experimental design. New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 196 2. W r i g h t , M.W., C h y l i n s k i , J . , S i s l e r , G.C., & Q u a r r i n g t o n , 3. P e r s o n a l i t y factors i n the s e l e c t i o n of c i v i l i a n s f o r isolated northern stations: A f o l l o w up s t u d y . C a n a d i a n P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1967, j 8 , 23-31. W r i g h t , M.W. , S i s l e r , G . C , & C h y l i n s k i , J . Personality f a c t o r s i n the s e l e c t i o n of c i v i l i a n s f o r i s o l a t e d northern stations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 9 6 3 , 4 7 , 24-29.  A P P E N D I X  APPENDIX  I  JOB PERCEPTION in THE MINING INDUSTRY  DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELLING PSYCHOLOGY FACULTY OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA VANCOUVER, CANADA  10. a. How much do you decide what you will work on, on this job? 1 2 3 4 5 b. How much should you be able to decide what you will work on? 1 2 3 4 5 c. How important is it for you to decide what you will work on? 1 2 3 4 5  QUESTIONAIRE 1. V 2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  7.  a. How is the pay on this job b. How should the pay be on this job? c. How important is pay to you?  a. How is your health on this job? 1 2 3 4 5 b. How should your health be on this job? 1 2 3 4-5 c. How important is health to you? 1 2 3 4 5 a. How much chance is there to make friends on this job? b. How much chance should there be to make friends on this job? c. How important is making friends to you?  9.  12  3 4 5  1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5  c. How important is safety to you?  1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5  a. How easy is it to get along with other people on this job? 1 2 3 4 5 b. How easy should it be to get along with others? 1 2 3 4 5 c. How important is getting along with others to you? 1 2 3 4 5  1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5  c. How important is good food for you on the job? 1 2 3 4 5  20. a. How do you feel about working in an isolated mining camp? b. How do you feel about working at a mine near a town or city? c. How important is the location of a job to you?  How much do you feel that this is a job where you can improve yourself? How much should this be a job where you can improve yourself?  1 2 3 4 5  21. a. How much is your job respected by people not working in the mining industry? b. How much should your job be respected by people not working in mining?  How important is improving yourself, on a job, to you?  1 2 3 4 5  c. How important is the respectability of your job, to you?  13. a. How much can you do your job your own way?  1 2 3 4 5  12.  1 2 3 4 5  b. How safe should your job be? a. How much credit do you get for what you do on this job? b. How much credit should you get for what you do on this job? c. How important is getting credit for what you do, to you?  11. a. How good is the food on this job? b. How good should the food be on this job?  1 2 3 4 5  a. How safe is your present job?  b. How much should you be able to do your job your own way? c. How important is doing your job your own way, to you?  1 2 3 4 5  15. a. How good are the living quarters on this job?  No. ..^>.MM  PERFORMANCE  1 2 3 4 5  NAME:  1 2 3 4 5  JOB:  1 2 3 4 5  Please rate the above named on the scale below based on his overall performance and ability on the job.  1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5  1 Very poor  2 Poor  3 Fair  4  5  Average  Good  6 Very Good  7 Excellent  1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5  No.  1 2 3 4 5  NAME:  SOCIAL  JOB:  1 2 3 4 5  TAPE NO.  1 2 3 4 5  POSITION ON TAPE.  14. a. How much do you feel that you are doing something worthwhile, on this job? 1 2 3 4 5 b. How much should you be able to feel that you are doing something worthwhile on this job? 1 2 3 4 5 How important is doing something worthwhile, to you? 1 2 3 4 5  1 2 3 4 5  Please rate the above named on the scale below based on his ability to get along with his co-workers and others. 1 Very poor  2 Poor  3 Fair  No.  4  5  Average  Good  6 7 Very Good Excellent  PERFORMANCE  1 2 3 4 5  How good should the living quarters be on this job?  NAME:  1 2 3 4 5  JOB:  c. How important are living quarters to you?  1 2 3 4 5  Please rate the above named on the scale below based on his overall performance and ability on the job.  16. a. How well do you fit in, or feel that you belong in this job?  1 2 3 4 5  b. How well should you fit in or feel that you belong?  1 2 3 4 5  c. How important is fitting in or feeling that you belong, to you?  1 2 3 4 5  a. How valuable does the company think your job is? 1 2 3 4 5 b. How valuable should the company think your job is? 1 2 3 4 5 c. How important is the company's value of your job, to you? 1 2 3 4 5  17. a. How well does the company look after your welfare?  1 2 3 4 5  How well should the company look after your welfare?  1 2 3 4 5  c. How important is a company welfare program to you?  1 2 3 4 5  a. What is the chance of your working here permanently? 1 2 3 4 5 b. What should be your chance of working 1 2 3 4 5 here permanently?  18. a. How much do you use all your skills and abilities on this job? b. How much should you be able to use all your skills and abilities? How important is using all your skills and abilities on a job, to you?  a. How much can you decide when you will work or have time off on this job? 1 2 3 4 5 b. Bow much should you be able to decide when you will work or have time off? 1 2 3 4 5 c. How important is deciding when you will have time off, to you?  8.  1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5  19. a. How is the management on this job? b. How should the management be on this job? c. How important is good management on a job, to you?  c. How important is permanent work to you?  1 2 3 4 5  1 2 3 4 5  b.  b.  1 Very poor  2 Poor  3 Fair  No. 1.93  4  5  Average  Good  6 Very Good  7 Excellent  SOCIAL  NAME:  JOB: 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5  Please rate the above named on the scale below based on his ability to get along with his co-workers and others. 1 Very poor  2 Poor  3 Fair  4 Average  5 Good  6 Very Good  7 Excellent  <3> <8> P  a (d)(2)  PERSONAL DATA SHEET  4. MARITAL STATUS:  1. NAME: AGE: 2. EDUCATION: (Last Grade obtained Total years school  JOB PERCEPTION in  1.  Single Married Divorced or Sep Wife Deceased  0 1 2 3  ) 2.  3. JOB HISTORY: (Last five years) Time Worked Time Unemployed Total Jobs 3-  5. WORSHIP FREQUENCY: Monthly or more 2 Less than monthly.. 1 Never 0  6. ACTIVITY: Clubs Two 2 One None 0  Hobbies 2 1 1 0  Sports 2 1 0 Total6.  THE MINING INDUSTRY 7. READING L E V E L : Books per month Magazines per month 2 Two 2 Four + 1 One 1 One to three 0 None 0 None Total  HOMETOWN: (Name. Population: 1,000+ 3 100,000 + 6 1,0002 25,000 + 5 Farm/Isolated.... 0 .2,500 + 4  9. FAMILY: Sisters ....  Brothers . Total 9.  Father 10. PARENTS: Occupation: Education: 4 College Grad. High School Grad. 3 High School Attended 2 Elem. School 1 0 No Formal School  DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELLING PSYCHOLOGY FACULTY OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA VANCOUVER, CANADA  Mother 4 3 2 1 0 Total 10.  11. DELINQUENCY: Two arrests or more 4 One arrest and frequent school truancy.. 3 Frequent truancy or school expulsion .... 2 None of these 0  11.  112 • APPENDIX I I c  LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF MINING CAMPS VISITED  Camp 1: Camp 1 i s a s m a l l open p i t mine l o c a t e d i n the F l a t R i v e r v a l l e y near the watershed o f the Logan Mountains some 180 m i l e s n o r t h e a s t o f Watson Lake, Yukon.  The mine i s  reached by f o u r wheel d r i v e v e h i c l e over a company road. The  camp has a number o f houses and a s m a l l s c h o o l but the  m a j o r i t y of workers l i v e i n very w e l l appointed, room bunkhouses. spirit  There i s a h i g h l y developed  single  community  i n the camp and i t has a l l the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a  community. Camp 2: Camp 2 i s a s m a l l underground o p e r a t i o n some 60 m i l e s due west of Carmacks, Yukon.  I t i s reached by a i r o r by  four wheel d r i v e v e h i c l e when the road i s open.  The camp  i s i n the development stage and accomodation i s p r i m i t i v e , although a f u l l y modern camp i s i n process of c o n s t r u c t i o n . Turnover  o f workers i s very h i g h and c o n d i t i o n s are u n s e t t l e d .  The mine and m i l l ceased o p e r a t i o n i n March of 1969 but are expected  t o re-open  b e f o r e 1970.  Camp 3: Camp 3 i s a h i g h l y s u c c e s s f u l open p i t o p e r a t i o n some 60 m i l e s northwest  of Dawson C i t y , Yukon.  I t i s i n process  113  of r a p i d expansion, with a townsite f o r some 800 people construction.  under  I t i s reached by a i r o r by road when the Yukon  River crossing i s frozen.  The camp i s r a p i d l y becoming an  i n d u s t r i a l o p e r a t i o n , w i t h union problems and r e l a t e d c u l t i e s occupying  diffi-  a great- p o r t i o n o f management time.  Camp 4: Camp 4 i s a s m a l l underground g o l d mine which has operated  f o r some twenty years on a s m a l l l a k e some 60 m i l e s  n o r t h o f Y e l l o w k n i f e , N.W.T.  The camp i s a h i g h l y developed  community w i t h a low t u r n o v e r r a t e and a very atmosphere.  When v i s i t e d ,  satisfied  the l a s t ore was being removed  from the mine and plans were t o cease o p e r a t i o n i n June o f 1969. Camp 5: Camp 5 i s l o c a t e d a t P o r t Radium on Great Bear Lake, N.W.T.  and i s the most remote and i s o l a t e d o p e r a t i n g mine  i n Canada. i n 1967  I t i s a h i g h l y s u c c e s s f u l s i l v e r producer and  was Canada's top producer  o f t h i s metal.  The mine  i s reached by a i r from Y e l l o w k n i f e and has r e c e n t l y an a i r s t r i p which makes year round  installed  landings p o s s i b l e .  The  mine i s being managed f o r an American p a r e n t company by a p r o f e s s i o n a l management concern.  There i s a c e r t a i n amount  of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h i s arrangement expressed by the men,  although The  the manager, h i m s e l f , i s very p o p u l a r .  accompanying map shows the l o c a t i o n o f each camp.  LOCATION  OF MINING  CAMPS  VISITED  APPENDIX I I I DATA Appendix I I I c o n t a i n s complete s u b j e c t by s u b j e c t data r e l e v a n t t o a l l analyses  c a r r i e d o u t i n the p r e s e n t  l o c a t i o n s o f numbers, values  study. The  and scores on the data sheets o f  the appendix are g i v e n i n the column code t a b l e s which f o l l o w s COLUMN NUMBER  DATA  COLUMN NUMBER  1 - -Camp number 2 3 } - S u b j e c t number 4 5 6 7 -Age 8 9 -Years o f E d u c a t i o n 10 - -Present j o b 11 } -Jobs h e l d i n p a s t 5 years 12 13 - - M a r i t a l s t a t u s 14 --Worship frequency 15 — A c t i v i t y L e v e l 16 — R e a d i n g l e v e l 17 --Hometown s i z e 18 --Family s i z e 19 — P a r e n t s ' e d u c a t i o n 20 --Manager's p e r f . r a t i n g 21 --Manager's s o c i a l r a t i n g 22 — S u p e r v i s o r ' s p e r f . r a t i n g 23 - - S u p e r v i s o r ' s s o c i a l r a t i n g 24 25 -Manager's rank order 26 - S u p e r v i s o r ' s rank order 27 28 29 - F u l f i l l m e n t : Phy. 30 31 - F u l f i l l m e n t : Sec. 32 33 - F u l f i l l m e n t : Soc. 34 35 - F u l f i l l m e n t : A u t . 36 37 - F u l f i l l m e n t : E s t . 38 39 - F u l f i l l m e n t : S.A.  DATA  40 - D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n : Phy, 42' 43 44 } - D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n : Sec, 47 48  - D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n : Soc.  }  49 50' 51 52 • 53} 54 55 • 56 57 58} 59 60} 61 62} 63 64} 65 66} 67 68} 69 70 • }  - D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n : Aut.  -Dissatisfaction: Est. - D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n : S.A,. -Importance:  Phy.  -Importance:  Sec.  -Importance:  Soc.  -Importance: Aut. -Importance: E s t . -Importance:  ) -Total 72 73 • 74} -Total 75 76 • 77} - T o t a l 78 7  1  S.A.  Fulfillment Dissatisfaction Importance  APPtNuIX bUuJt^Ti  HK-JIM  (CuLofiN  A L L CAMPS C O D I N G  KAIMN  ORDERED  INFORMATION  S U B J E C T S  F R O M  S U C C E S S F U L COLUMN  J  1I I  ON  MS  To  PREVIOUS  C A M P  NUMBER'S  ;  s« uiM\oi*.ol'-- kr>MJj^9M 0  •Olio  1 1  1 1 1• 1  ~~0 1  ?  \[  12 11 >,0 9 8 Xl  ft s id  4 I 1 2 2 0 3 0 2 3 2 U 9 2 6 6 4 3 1 1 2 6 1 4 1 1 1 2 3 1014 3 4 0 8 2 0 6 1 0 1 4 2 x 1 6 6 4 4 1 2 1 6 1 5 81210 8 8 3 0 1 2 2 0 8 0 1 4 4 4 3 3 o 6 4 3 1 ^ 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 111 9 1 0 5 5 0 6 2 0 2 1 2 1 2 4 9 0 6 3 4 2 1 4 3 0 1 3 1 4 1 0 9 814 3 7 1 5 3 0 2 1 0 3 J . 4 < ± O 5 6 3 2 1 5 26 1 5 1 4 1 5 1 1 1 0 1 4 3116203106442445441b081310 8 81013 3 6 1 2 2 0 3 1 ^ 1 2 0 ^ 4 5 54^:1723151515 1 1 1 3 1 5 45il3030044b7453421bi41314 9 8 8 5 2 4 1 5 2 0 4 0 0 5 4 4 5 3 b ^ 4 o l 9 2 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 5 911 4 8 0 9 3 0 2 1 0 5 4 2 4 2 6 6 4 3 2 0 2 1 1 2 811 5 7 3 2 9 1 5 2 0 3 1 1 ^ 4 ^ ^ 4 ^ 6 4 J 2 , i i 7 15x41 5 1 H 0 1 3 37 0V502iiJt4^2u55j£:2ill5J.ll5 9 1 0 1 3 2 5 1 1 ^ 0 3 1 1 3 ^ H J 4 3 3 4 4 2 J 2 0 1 2 912 8 8 1 1 240b2u4Gu4j>o34444:324-2 7 151113 3 1 1 1 1  P A G E )  -1  1 0 2 8 49 U V 3 u 3 1 2 4 4 6 :> 2 fo'j-jQ ±0114141 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 1015 2 7 1 2 2 0 6 1 1 4 3 5 4 4 7 6 3 4 0 2 1 0 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 52 1 0 2 0 3 i i 3 J o 9 2 f a 5 ^ t 40 J 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 5 3 1 4 1 3 1 . 1 2 1 0 1 8 3 1 0 9 3 0 3 1 2 5 4 4 o 2 o 4 5 40 40 2 1 5 1 3 9 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 -2 1 1 1 0 1 9 42 1 4 3 O 2 1 2 5 4 o i 7 7 5 3 3 0 5 2 5 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 5 1 1 6 2 3 0 4 3 1010 2 2 1 2 ^ 0 2 0 2 6 3 4 i 2 o 6 4 4 0 o 0 5 i 5 1 5 1 4 1 3 l 5 l 2 0 0 1 -1 1001 3 4 0 8 5 0 2 1 0 3 4 2 5 2 6 6 5 3 0 7 0 7 1 4 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 ? ? 1 0 2 9 2 2 1 1 2 0 3 1 0 5 4 4 7 46 6 5 4 0 8 0 6 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 2 8 13 ~ 0 -2 -1 5 1007 5 4 1 0 4 0 2 0 0 2 4 b 9 4 6 4 4 2 0 9 3 3 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 3 0 -1 3 0 1 0 2 4 28 1 0 2 0 2 1 1 5 4 4 4 4 6 6 5 4 1 0 0 9 1 5 1 4 1 4 7 1 1 1 4 0 1 4 0  1030 1027 1009 1013 1034 1011 1025 1012 1002 1020 102 1 102b 1017 1006  RAllNG  N = 1 0  iBHori«t|-!— —-  M I D D L E  M A N A G C R S  cnlcdo  HI-  r  •8? 87 72 74 73 83 9 1'5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 68 2 1 - 90 3 89 2 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 5 1 5 84 1 ? sn 68 ? 1 51 1 0 1 2 1 4 IS 4 82 2 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 78 9 90 4 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 77 1 1 5 1 5 1 5 7 1 3 1 5 75 7 80  2141413131214 1151514131515 1 1 5 1 2 1 D 31514 1 1 5 1 2 1 3 141415  74  80  6 4 5 3  4  N=14  0 0 0 2 -2 0 0 1 4 4 3 ? 0 5 2 1 0 1 0 1 5 1 5 0 U 0 0 2 •1 . 0 0 - 1 . 0 1 1 1 2 6 7 3 u 0 1 2 0 0 4 1 1 5 2 2 0 0 4 6  3 5 4 5 5  ?  2 5 3 3 4 1 3 4  5 65 u 15 1 5 1 1 3 9 1 2 64 7 61 3 1 5 1 0 9 8 8 1 1 61 3 1 5 1' 5 1 5 1 3 1 4 1 564 2 0 87 115 1 4 1 4 1 0 1 3 1 3 68 14 79 8 86 H 5 1 5 1 5 1 2 1 4 1 5 79 u l 41 4 9 8 91 4 6? 1 3 ft 4 90 U 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 84 6 1 5 1 4 9 7 7 9 57 11 61 8 76 2 1 5 1 1 1 3 9 1 3 1 5 62 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 5 46 33 7 9 8 2 1 3 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 5 1 5 78 7 83 1 1 ^ 1 5 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 3 73 4 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 1 9 1 5 6U 17 7 3 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 5 1 5 1 5 66 17 90  N=lU  UNSUCCESSFUL*"  1031 b 0 1 2 4 0 i 2 1 3 4 4 3 2 5 3 4 2 2 3 i 3 1 ' 4 1 5 9 1 2 1 d 9 1 0 2 2 2 8 1 1 2 0 3 1 0 3 3 0 2 2 5 3 4 3 2 6 1 9 1 5 B12 8 9 8 1 0 3 2 21l430100244<:45b43£70414 ti 12 7 7 1 0 1 0 1 6 3£>10i>U411 <::>o4b<:t<0314 ± 4 1 4 1 3 V l U 1 0 3 3 3 7 0 7 2 O 3 i O 4 4 3 b 4 b 4 3 3 <i 9 29 1 3 i 01 4 7 9 1 2 1004 5 2 1 0 2 0 7 0 i 0 3 ^ 6 2 5 3 4 j j 0 2 4 1 3 1 5 1 5 9 9 1 3 1 0 1 4 4 7 0 7 1 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 6 3 4 3 32 3 1321 5 131 5 10 1 2 1 3 1005 3 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 4 2 q 4 4 b 4 4 3 3 2 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 5 7 1 3 1 3 1 0 0 8 ' 3 5 0 4 2 0 2 0 2 2 4 0 3 3 4 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 1 5 1 5 1 4 3 1012 1 0 2 3 351 1 2 0 2 1 0 5 3 b 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 1 b 1 4 7 1 4 9 9 1 1  SUBJECTS  1 0 0 u 2 2 u 2 0 1  FROM  SUCCESS FUL  2070 4 2 1 0 4 0 2 2 0 6 4 4 9 4 7 6 6 6 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 9 1111 2 0 6 1 52 1 7 3 0 3 1 i 3 4 5 2 3 6 7 6 6 0 2 0 2 9 9 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3023302125443867650310121311151315 3l 2084 26 1 1 3 0 4 1 1 2 3 5 1 2 7 7 6 6 0 4 0 7 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 7 1 5 . • 2 0 8 1 2 3 1 2 2 0 4 0 0 2 3 6 5 4 7 7 6 60 5 1 3 1 4 6 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 2060 5 112103201409277650604101010 9 813 2077 2112203011346577650706121211 5 1 1 1 2 24102 040244663/6660841131313101113 082 2 3 1 2 2 0 4 0 0 3 4 6 6 4 7 6 2 6 0 9 2 2 1 3 7 1 5 9 5 7 2080' 311720212246267 766100315131512 614 79  2'0  2 20  MIDDLE  2064 2076 2065 2043 2066 2056 2041  2 0 2054  3  2065 2068 2035  42131031l32545o/55il201213151511 9 161220301244946655123812111310 o i l 2212306024044ib5o3l319121112121314 33114030244323666514091011 910 8 6 5409204313^4826753154313 4 9 4 8 6, 2 9 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 2 4 0 9 2 6 6 5 3 1 6 1 7 1 0 915 9 611 49 0 8 1 1 1 2 0 2 4 5 5 4 6 7 5 5 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 9 1 3 3 0 9 2 0 2 4 5 ^ 5 6 7 5 4 1 6 3 5 7. 8 1 0 1 3 8 9 42 4 5 0 9 1 0 6 3 1 3 4 J 9 3 5 6 5 J 1 9 3 7 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 2 o12 6 1 1 0 3 0 3 0 2 0 4 5 ^ 6 / 4 o 3 20 <: i 1 2 i 3 1 2 9 .9 8 190d20a00334966ob52l27 91314 61011 32i<ilUbl03 4D3 i3cj442<^3 9 8 9 6 5 5 <  3 6 3  2  •o 5 3  1  0 0  0 4 0 '2 1 2 3 3 2 2 4' 3 u 1 -1 3 0 3 1 6 u •6 • 4 u u u 2 1 0 . 4 1 2 0 1 9 5 -2 7 2 1  CAMP  4151514121413 4151115131513 4151114101115 3151512111213 3151414101315 21313I5131ul5 2151515 91315 2151515121515 3151515131515 315 1 0 1 2 9 1 1 1 1  71 60 58 74 65 74 8u 74 69 64  11 13 15 b 15 14 5 11 18 12  415 1 4 1 2 1 5 1 5 1 5 63 4 1 5 1 1 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 5 650 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 3 1 5 79 0 1 5 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 5 68 211 8 1 0 1 0 7 1 362 2 1 5 1 5 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 5 60 2 1 5 1 1 1 5 8 9 1 4 63 1 1 4 1 3 1 5 9 1 2 1 5 73 615 9 1 5 1 3 1 4 1 4 58 1 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 2 9 1 5 75  15 17 7 12 7 22 16 6 16 3  86 84 83 81 59 • 80 72 78 80 81  12 15 8 21 33 15 14 19 20 12 15 39  82 85 86 82 75 72 7 76 83 77 7 87  83 82 76 7 81 79 82 8.7 .8 68  2  N = 1U  3  1  0 2 5 4 2 1 2 2  1 ' 0 3 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 4 2 2 -1 0 2 u -3  4 3 0 6 0 6 3 2 6 3  N = 30  3 0 0 1 3 3 1 3 2 4 4 4 5 2 10 5 3 -2 1 4 3 7 2 4 4 4 ") C <i 1 6 2 1' 6 7 4  2  0 1 1 2 4 2 1 0 1 1 1 3  615131515 915 3 4 3151415111515 0' 1 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 5 1 5 2 5141515151112 6 6151215 61413 6 1131513 9 713 2151215111312 3 2 4151013141014 6 3141313131315 2 415151510 913 015 1 5 1 5 6 1 5 1 2 5 9 1 J 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 3 1415  75 65 76 54 44 60 73 55 65 63 63 42  2059 2036 2039 2045 2049 2 069 2083 2073 2058 2071 2055 2044 2038 2067 2048 2052 2050 2047  21133020064026653523 44121412111110 261010502 44 03 45 54424321010 910 1012 41091050102450454525331410 8 9 4 6 2 0 1 0 2 0 4 0 0 3 4 6 6 5 5 6 5 5 2 6 2 9 1 1 1 3 1 4 81115 430810 4022 4 39436452728111515 81213 2 9 1 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 4 6 4 2 6 6 3 5 2 8 1 6 1 0 710 714 7 3215203003236266452 9 3610111210 512 2012202012 4 56 46 6563014101314 3 910 46 0 6 1 0 2 0 2 1 z 6 5 2 o 3 5 5 3 1 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 4 91110 22124il0044392o66632181<ilil3 7 9 7 4 3 0 8 5 0 2 1 0 0 2 6 4 8 6 4 6 4 3 3 0 5 1 2 1 1 512 710 62103021034632o^653426 9151011 912 2110106014308346343540 7121110 9 9 4 9 1 0 2 0 4 2 0 1 4 6 4 7 5 6 4 4 3 6 2 5 1 1 911 5 7 8 201020601240225564 3724141313 6 1111 1710504005409354533643141514 91111 5810103121402256563908111414 911 9 2 7 1 0 2 0 4 2 0 2 3 4 3 2 3 5 4 2 4 0 4 2 1 5 1 2 1 5 711 5  1 3 0 3 4 5 5 5 3 3 3 6 8 4 0 1 4 0  UNSUCCESSFUL 2057 2 07 8 2062 2053 2063 2075 2072 20742046 2040  0 2 3 2 0 7 4 0 3 4 2 0 2 6 0 0 0  1 3 0 0 0 4 3 1 1 0 4 3 3 3 0 1 1 0  0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 3 0 2 0 2 4 4 1 0 3  1 410 910 9 915 70 7 62 2 1151414111113 61 11 7 8 7 51 4 0141? 3 7 8 7 51 3 0151514 91415 72 9 82 3 2151315111515 74 11 84 0 2141013 71310 55 19 67 9 3151514121515 60 26 86 4 2151315 31213 59 12 71 4 4151513111515 68 18 84 2 8131515 7 915 61 17 76 6 5151512111213 57 22 78 4 3151313111115 66 16 7 3 3151315131313 58 21 82 6 '5151413131314 51 28 82 3 2141413101513 68 9 79 4 4151515101315 74 11 83 3 6151415 91515 68 14 83 3 6151515101515 65 13 85  N = 10  4 0 0 4 1 0 4 0 ^ 2 4 o 6 3 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 0 611 1 1 3512205013467466644247 71214 51015 8 3 45 1241100044o5o4554330131315131415 2 0 2306520003229353424439131415151514 2 1 240840401223103556453412101311 9 4 3 5 351250 40 24305832114 650111315101312 4 1 3412204000463555564731101014 3 7 6 5 4 4810213003443362324849131512 7 712 2 -1 4 1 0 8 1 0 4 0 1 2 3 6 8 2 4 6 3 3 4 9 4 6 1 1 1 5 7 9 712 4 -? 60101030144 2 7 334325048 15141411 912 0 1  1 0 1 1 0 0 0 -1 2 2 u 0 1 0 3 3 1 0 1 -2  7 3151515 91215 4 U151515 7 915 ,1 01513 15151515 0 1151515141515 5 11151513131515 2 3151515111515 6 6151115 31213 8 1151315101013 6 _Jil3J_3_8__9J.J.L3_ 4 3151515 91415  71 63 83 86 59 74 50 66 61 75  13 17 3 3 28 1U 22 16 9 7  81 76 8 89 8 86 69 76 7l 83  0 4 0 2 4 6  78 79 69 61 69 35  7 6 13 21 12 16  86 86 80 78 79 69  SUBJECTS FROM CAMP 3 SUCCESSFUL  N=10  n  00  2  9  3 4  8 R  5 5  1  •*  3090 3092 3 123 3 137 3111 3107  4909502013449075 4506202102405163 3 110103002447466 2710204003357436 2808103004346253 24i05U4 023^u/45 4  01 02 03 04 03 06  1515131115 9 151515111013 91111141311 10 8131110 9 13111312 911 111111 5 6 9  0 0 6 5 1 3  0 0 3 7 2 3  0 0 1 1 0 1  2 0 1 0 2 u  5151513131515 2151515111515 2151311141413 6151114121115 3151212141313 3141411 4i313  3 125 3098 3093 3 136  2 8 1 1 1 U 4 0 ^ 4 J U I'44O  23 152u3004143433 2212201004038444 2706402124420136  07 08 09 10  141515 9 912 9 6 810 811 131115 7 7 9 151312111414  1 6 2 0  MIDDLE 3 109 3 100 3113 3 09 7 3 130 3 108 3 128 3115 3 101 3104 3 102 3 116 .3122 3 09 4 3095 3 124 3110 3096 3 106 3 117 3 129 3 126 3 134 3 133 3 131 3 132 3 135 3120 3127 3 118 3088  3511104002462432 35102022022-44354 36072021O2425356 2114 0044633o3 60001U2012206053 3709104010409244 300810302220924 3 2210203004469544 2510204002428143 1811304022447443 2810506001444132 2512205025465644 2012104020204244 2614504020329444 2111503011347344 2012204014443344 251410600233o234 2 414504010469454 251310400444^554 2617310006246344 2110203013121253 2012204013443443 5713203112462343 2313203013243453 1911202003208234 45 12408202454133 27l£l030l43o^344 2612204012436333 3209502002464553 2311412001463644 2610503004363234  '11 12 13 14 13 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 <r.9 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 36 39 40 41  u 6 4 1  2212303012428223 2 81340 3011:>4"2 322 6108402003022.232 23143U2006265742  42 43 44 45  u 2 1 0  5 4 5 0  3151513 71515 74 9 82 11513 8121415 52 20 77 5151115 71015 62 17 73 U 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 4 79 3 83  N = 31  13 914 71012 2 6 1 5 4 3 1 5 1 3 1 5 1 5 1 u l 5 914 9 9 5 3 5 1 6 2 8 12131313151115 15101513 814 0 3 0 0 3 1111313131215 101012131011 4 2 - 2 -5 3 411 7 710 o l 3 131514 6 9 6 2 0 1 0 5 7151515 91515 141314 71012 1 2 1 2 4 3131514 91215 101015 710 9 5 5 0 0 3 5131215 71215 15 911 7 7 5 0 6 1 2 5 10151515111315 111314 5 8 3 3 u u 6 3 915 1215131415 10 81111 811 5 7 4 3 5 3151515151415 10 815 8 8 7 4 5 0 0 4 4141515 81313 1310 810 5 4 1 5 5 2 6 1015151515 915 91115121215 6 3 0 1 3 .0151515151515 141215 81114 1 3 0 0 4 1151515 81515 1110 9 510 6 4 5 5 1 3 7151^13 91113 1215 9111013 0 0 3 2 2 1151514131214 11 611 9 912 3 4 3 1 3 513111111 813 5 411 7 7 6 10 11 4 7 8 9151315151515 10 712111010 3 6 -2 0 1 415 8 613 613 10131013 810 1 -3 3 1 3 413 31214 515 10 813 7 613 5 7 0 0 8 0151313 81113 10 814 7 611 5 7 1 0 6 3151515 7 914 11 915 8 9 7 4 2 0 0 3 8151115 81315 131211121014 0 1 3 1 2 U151212141214 111214 3 6 3 1 -2 u 0 4 9121U14 31U13 1211151010 9 3 2 0 0 -1 3151115121312 111112 6 8 5 3 4 1 6 4 1015 710131215 9 510 8 812 4 5 4 0 2 3151214 81215 101013 51110 4 4 0 2 1 3141214.71214 8-813 410 7 7 7 2 9 5 8151513151215 13 415 5 713 2 3 - 3 0 5 2151115 5 415 UNSUCCESSFUL  3 114 3121 3091 3119  u 1 0 2  111013 6 911 1 -1 10 7111010 5 5 6 15131411 5 8 0 2 1010 513 6 7 -1 0  65 49 75 66 65 70 61 54 54 59 56 50 74 74 51 70 58 40 60 64 57 56 59 72 49 67 53 52 59 5U 57  21 34 7 6 15 13 18 24 21 27 17 29 13 9 25 8 17 49 12 9 20 22 17 7 12 7 28 18 14 38 9  83 84 79 36 84 80 74 84 84 89 7 84 90 83 76 83 69 88 63 64 73 75 77 79 62 7 72 76 73 87 65  N =10 0 5 1 2 1 3 5 -3  3 4141313111214 0 8141212131115 9 7151515141515 1 - l l u 61111 911  60 12 77 53 22 7 7 66 22 89 51 1 5  3 10.3 3089  2 110203022 ^06242 660b4u32122693x2  46 47  9x413 71212 141515131312  6 1  1 u  2 u  0 U  3 2  3086  231320900636333b  48  131014  2  4  -1  43 X 7 2 0 4 1 2 6 4 4 9 5 2 6  49  13  71411  9  7  2  8  1  0 -2  -5  3 112 3087  2912508104462255  50  9  81510  9  6  6  7  3 105  3410505203464556  51  13  612  7  2  10  511  o i l9  SUBJEC rs  FROM  SUCCESSFUL  4171  65  4  6111113141115  61  6 19  0' - 2  4  715151511  813  57  22  1  U  61513  715  54  ?3  3  2151515151215 2151515151315  8u 84  6 6  87 8  2151514151515  88  2  89  B?  2151515151515  79 83  3 7  9u  3  151515141515  80  8  2  2151513151115  8] 59  7 17  89 84 82  4  CAMP  614  82 88 63 77 77 70  4  3112J0X1024442 7D320 139XD1414151O12 391030112X4092 76b70206151514151213  0 0  1 0  u 1  u 0  4157  32133011224P5475770301151515151513  0  4154 4168  56123013124433 75 660410151513151110  0  u  u  u  0  0  0  5411301123461465670512151514151113  u  u  1  2 8 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 3 3 4 5 3 46 5 7 0 6 0 5 1 5 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4  0  2  2  u 0  4176 4170 4149  3 9 0 9 1 0 1 1 0 5 4 4 2 3 5 4 3 6 0 7 2 4 1 5 1 4 1 3 1 5.1113 4008102010409064620817 81012 8 912  0  1  2  6  3  3  0 1  3  1151515  4167  231020210034926467091410  8131211  4  3  6  -2  1  2151413121113  62  14  78  4172  6 4 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 9.16366 1 0 1 3 1 3 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 0 1 1  2  0  u  U  4  3151515151515  79  9  9W  85  8  3 u 2 4  1151513151311  91414  N=21  4156  3 8 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 5 4 4:5246 7 7 1 x 0 4 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 3  0  - 0  2  0  4  5151515111415  75  11  4152. 4161  22133020124224o6771208121414131212  0  1  0  0  1  77  33094021043244557713031513  7  2  6  67  1  0  6  7151215151515  76  4153  401330310242134357141515151415 9 8 6309203321337664771507151313151412  2 0  ' 4 84 21 8 9  4163  0 0  2141415141413 4151515141515  u  2  2  u  1  2151515151515  82  14 7  4155 4158  2 212302114407266771602141013 7 1315 5409202113^46 2444317 3o151515151515  0 u  0 u  0 0  4159  241220x102446444551620  1 U 8  90 84  4 1 7 4  4150  4bjD4lV2ll4x514 2608202002466253322028 91112  4 1 7 8  2612201 1 1 2 2 2 7 3 6 6 6 7 2 1 0 9 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 1  4 1 7 7  813  910 711  9u  0  0  0  0  3  8 9  0  -2  u  4  3151313 4 1 5 1 3  68  5  73  o  2  1  0 0  3151315  60  9  0  2  1  0  U 2  4  u  4  4.  4169  3 6 1 0 2 0 4 1 0 3 4 6 5 3 444 72 2 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 5 6 101U 35141020022o524344233013111410 812  1  u  5  4151515lul414 31415151ulll4  70 67 68  13 13  75  11  1 4  16 15  83 79  07  4145  1 6 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 X 2 2 4 2 3 3 4 5 2 4 3 7  6  3  4  3  3  813121212  615  45  20  72  s  4148  4010202201^210 53672516131415111213  2  1  0  1  4  79  5  6 6 0 9 4 0 2 1 2 2 4 3 9 3 5 3 5 5 2 6 2 5  6  2  3  3  3  0151515111013 41511131314 7  78  4 1 4 7  0 0  60  15  73  4143 4151  20143030004242433627261111  4  2  2  3  6  1  815  49  22  76  911  1  1  2  0  5  4141015  61  13  75  12 _. i.L  2 0.0 9 3 8  5 Wi 3  151515101110  2 3 0 8 2 b 3 1 1 1 2 U 7  8  13  2 6 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 4 0 3 2 4 3 5 2 2 8 3 4 1 2  712  5  7  8101310  9  913  6 7  8  _JL_  0  4  -1  1 u  - 1 1 51 01 3  87  710 613  1  1  15 6  5 13 174? u 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 9u 5151515111315 76  T  4  67 82  N=1U  4166  MIDDLE  1  3151515 71515 3151515131515 6151111 6 515  61412  6151215111515  914141014 71415  70  83  4142 4139  2212104013462244442940 7 3 710 3 8 3211109212236244443027111313 6 lOlu  4146  531026x022^2624336jilol41115  5  6  1 1  711  8  2  1  0  UNSUCCESSFUL 4162  2412403023304444673211151015111113  0  4140  2012203024446243453335121113  4144 4164  2110206003453533453436 7 5 8 3 3 3 170840201246623347353313131112 9 8  4165  1606401011366234473632151111  2 8 0' 0  4160 4175  2 5 1 2 2 0 3 0 1 3 4 0 3 2 4 4 5 5 3 7 19 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 571020311140604244363113.1212 8  4173  6806201201203032333 9291115131210  7  4138 4141  6 9 0 6 4 0 1 1 0 2 4 2 7 43 3 4 7 4 0 2 2 1 1 1 5 1 4 1 5 1 3 29181040x4432534x1414113 8 9 7 o  9 8  810  7  9  5  7  912 V 8  2 1 0  6  2  214131212 911 41213131ulul4  38 65  26  8  71 72  5  4141515  63  11  69  U  u  4  215111,5111515  75  7  82  u  1  2  3141115  91214  63  lu  lu 3  lu 6  715  57  7151515151315  29 68  22  75 77 88  2 0 2  6  8151311  91115  56  18  74  3  4  2151515121214 5151515111315  71 62  13 15  83 84  o  u  N= 1 2 lu  5  515  10  —f  f  1215111415  2 0 2  4 2 2  0  3  3  0  u  0  4  3141513  81u  68  lu  69  4 u  0  1  0  4  77  5  5  5151515151515 713 9141ui215  12 23  90  2  2  4  31211151U  3  6151312111113  4  1  9  53  73  S U B J E C T S FROM CAMP 5 SUCCESSFUL  5223  4  u  u  7  1  0  8  2 2 3  0  2  0  1  715131U  31215  71013  4  2  6  1  5  2151515  71413  2  1  0  0  3  1 1 3 1 2 1 U 1 2 1 1 1 4  1  u  1  5  1151115111311  1  -3  2  4111315  0  1  4151515131115 314 81212 912  5226  2 4 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 8 6 7 5 6 5 0 10112 541220321240426766020413  71310 61111  5221  3911206220433266450330121210  3  5199  26121050024242653404081113  5 182  2 2 1 2 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 2 5 5 4 50 5 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1  911  5207  551150 412340445656061915 101510  810  5 188 5179  191220401136656676070315111413 911 3517202114443535660802131312121010  5 194  221510501546446636091810101411  5217  24 0 6 2 0 3 0 2 6 4 0 7 1 5 5 5 4 1 0 1 6 1 5 1 5 1 5  7  N=1U  9 8  9 9  8  ,°_ 0 2  2  0  0  9  3  2 -1  1  71214  0  0  0  0  2 3  u  u  5  3  3  7  u 2  -1  33X01032024U625344133213131314 912 2 1 0 2 2 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 7 0 5 4 3 4 1 4 1 2 1 5 1 4 1 5 7 1010  0  0  5 1  0  1  0  0  6 7 7 5 914  3 3 2 lu  u 1  0  5216  3410220012432255551340121215 7 2 3 1 4 3 0 4 0 0 4 4 o 6 2 3 3 c o l 6 0 9 1 3 41414 2306203023406055541714151515 7  0  0  u  5218  261520400220625433163710  911  2  7  u  260520602 4 20 3 0 5 3 3 4 1 1 1 3 1 5 1 5 1 5  5201 5 xy 1  3 4 1 9 l U 2 1 1 l 3 6 x 4 3 3 4 5 x 2 5 0 1 2 1 2  5214 5203 3189  71ulu  711  512  8  910  91215  70  7  84  61 1 1 5 1 5 1 5 7 1 5 1 5 78  10  67  4  82  5 1 5 1 5 1 5 7 1 5 1 5 72 5141513141415 61  9 20  82  74  6  85 82  10  82  N=32  MIDDLE 5215  13 6 9 58 19 7 5 53 13 6 61 2u 7 9 7 72 63 68 8 76 73 6 75  9 1 2 6u  2  -1  -2 u u  6  2151413111415 4151515 71515  71 3 5 1 3 1 1 1 5 7 3 1 2 59 6 l u l 5 l u l 5 1 3 1 3 1 5 57 6 - 1 1 5 1 5 1 5 7 1 5 1 3 75 2 112 1 3 l u 5 9 1 2 5 5 5  14 6 1 2 7 .81 5 8U 12  61  •  5 190 5209 5219 5211 5208 5205 5192 5 185 5222 5230 5229 5227 5 181 5 184 5 183 5180 5206 5200 5187 5204 5213 5224 5 186 5228  211330400244235655193614111111 5 9 4 9 0 5 2 0 3 1 2 2 4 4 . 3 2 4 4 4 4 2 0 2 4 1 3 610 81212 4411203023469444442 127151315 71111 4 9 1 2 2 0 4 0 0 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 1 1 4 7 1 5 1 1 911 56104150004432 446323101512131010 3 40104041U226354355244215101311  8  2211204023r>4724444252ilu  3 3  8 9 4  23112060154323 44442645131015  8  61110  3 1 0 8 2 0 6 1 0 0 4 6 9 2 4 4 4 4 2 7 3 4 1 5 71513 9 7 2810204202266043452838141314151113 4 1 1 1 2 0 5 0 0 34 6 8 3 4 4 5 4 2 9 3 3 1 5 1 4 1 5 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 8 1 3 2 0 2 2 1 6 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 0 3 1 1 1 912 7 8 6 2 1 1 6 2 0 4 0 0 2 4 3 2 6 4 4 4 4 3 1 2 2 7 1 1 8 7 510 1 8 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 3 3 0 6 5 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 5 1 4 1 2 1 5 7 1012 4 4 1 2 2 0 3 0 0 2 3 6 3 2 4 4 5 5 3 3 3 5 1 2 614 7 8 9 2 6 1 2 5 0 5 0 0 2 4 6 5 0 5 5 5 5 3 4 1 1 1 3 . 811 7 9 5 5 0 1 6 4 0 4 3 0 1 4 6 2 6 3 5 6 5 5 3 0 5 1 5 1 5 9 1 5 10 9 23131U410013425454362610  9  810  8  7  2 1 0 9 1 0 4 0 2 2 3 0 6 5 4 4 4 4 3 7 2 6 6 510 8 9 7 2213103012107455453613131113 7 7 7 2 1 0 6 2 0 2 0 1 3 2 0 3 0 5 4 4 4 3 9 2 8 1 5 1 4 1 5 7 914 45 1 6 1 1 0 0 0 3 4 5 3 4 5 3 5 5 4 0 0 6 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 6 0 8 2 0 4 0 1 2 4 6 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 1 1 7 9 711 7 7 1 3 2 3 1 0 2 0 3 0 2 1 1 0 3 2 4 4 4 5 4 2 3 9 1 4 1 1 1 5 7 914  1 4 2 3 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 5. 3 1 2 0 6 1 0 0 -2 4 0 8 2 0 2 3 5 0 1 0 -2 2 2 9 4 2 2 u u 0 1 6 2 1 2  UNSUCCESSFUL 5 191 . 5202 5 193 5 19 5 5212 5 196 5210 5198 5220 5225  52 1 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 6 9 2 4 4 6 3 4 307 1 3 H 1 3 9 1 1 1 1 44101031214064444^4452121215111114 4 T 0 5 1 u 3 0 i l 4 0 4 2 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 9 1 3 1 3 1 4 710 9 41071U9102421044444644  5  3  9  7  5  8  5 0 1 3 2 0 2 1 2 5 4 0 8 3 4 4 5 44 7 2 9 1 4 1 0 1 3 7 1 2 1 0 4209120002265244444646151515 71115 3 6 0 9 5 0 2 0 2 5 2 3 9 4 4 4 4 5 4 9 4 7 13 311 7 8 8 31141052034oY543543048 6 3 7 5 3 8 4508213002456533445151111313131015 2 5 1 2 2 0 3 0 2 2 4 0 y 3 3 3 4 3 5 2 4 3 1 2 l l l 2 8 1014 END  OF  6 6 1 5 1 4 4 1 3 1 1 1 5 61 3 3 1 5 1 5 1 4 8 1 5 1 5 61 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 7 9 1 4 72 4 3 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 5 1 4 67 3 1 2 1 5 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 5 63 3 7 1 5 1 u l 2 l l l l l 5 65 8 1 5 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 37 6 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 5 65 4 8 1 5 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 5 1 5 66 4 2 1 5 1 2 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 5 80 3 4 1 5 1 0 1 5 1 , 1 1 2 1 5 80 815 9 1 5 7 1 5 1 5 53 3 2 1 5 9 1 2 9 1 1 1 3 48 6 3 1 5 1 4 1 5 7 1 3 1 4 70 3 7 6 1 5 1 1 1 5 7 1 5 1 5 56 1 713 9 1 2 7 9 1 3 53 4 2 1 5 1 2 1 2 1 5 1 0 1 1 73 81.1.11.1.2 11 612 5 2 2 6 7 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 5 45 3 1 5 1 4 1 5 7 9 11 58 5 1151315 71213 74 5 3 4 1 5 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 5 71 7 2 1 5 1 5 9 1 1 1 1 1 5 54 5 70  23 17 6 13 16 13 34 12 16 8 2 17 26 8 22 9 8 36 14 •6 9 22 9  72 82 66 83 79 74 79 79 84 86 78 76 69 7 7 63 75 6^ 87 71 75 79 76 R?  4 lu 12 34 lu 4 36 42 13 11  71 8u 7A 82 77 8? 86 76 8 7  2 5  N = 10  2 -1 3 3 2 1 9 8 1 1 0 0 2 12 7 12 4 2 1 "3  RAW  4 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 u 1 2 u 5 7 0 4 0 -2 1 0 0 -3 2 0 6 2 u 0 1 0 u 0 4 0 6 5 5 5 2 0 u 1 0 2 3 0 0  u -2 u U 1 0 6 u 0 3 0 0 4 4 8 6 0 2 2 0  DA I A  2151ul31ul211 3 4 ul51515111311 3151515 71212 5 7151515 71515 4 1 41511131U1315 4 0151515 71515 7 7151515111515 12 - 3 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 1 1 5 5 5 U151315151515 4 1151214 81415  68 75 66 37 66 78 5u 34 75 67  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104237/manifest

Comment

Related Items