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., Alberta, 1950 B.Ed., Alberta, 1952 M.Ed., New Brunswick, 19 6 5 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Doctor of Education i n the Faculty of Education We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1969 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l m a k e i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d S t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may b e g r a n t e d b y t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r b y h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s , i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t b e a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t o f E D U C A T I O N The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a D a t e J u l V 1 6 ' 1 9 6 9 ABSTRACT A review of the l i t e r a t u r e on work environments suggests that workers i n s p e c i f i c settings w i l l have s p e c i f i c and unique job s a t i s f a c t i o n s . Porter and Lawler, however, suggest that these unique environmental perceptions may a l l be described 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 job attitudes and performance. The present study examines the job s a t i s f a c t i o n s , personal h i s t o r i e s and performance ratings of workers i n the specific'environment of i s o l a t e d work set-tings i n the Canadian A r c t i c , and tests a number of hypotheses based on the Porter-Lawler model. Job s a t i s f a c t i o n s are measured by an eighteen item adaptation of the Porter managerial questionnaire. Numerical measures are obtained of 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 perceived to e x i s t for s p e c i f i c job factors related to the P h y s i o l o g i c a l , Security, S o c i a l , Esteem, Autonomy and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n needs described by Maslow. Personal his t o r y information i s contained i n a coded data sheet s i m i l a r to that used i n the Antarctic studies of Gunderson. Performance ratings of each worker are taken from the r e s u l t s of a rating scale and a rank order process carried out by each worker's manager and supervisor. The sample consisted of 228 workers interviewed by the writer i n f i v e small, i s o l a t e d mining camps i n the Yukon and Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s of Canada i n the early winter of 1968. Results from each camp are analysed separately so as to provide answers to the following three problems: 1. The determination of o v e r a l l differences 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 categories across a l l workers. 2. The determination of differences between the need perceptions of successful and unsuccessful workers. 3. The determination of differences between the personal and occupational h i s t o r i e s of successful and unsuccessful workers. Analyses regarding problem 1 shoved, that, i n general, Esteem and Autonomy needs are the le a s t f u l f i l l e d , that Esteem and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n needs provide the most d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and that Autonomy needs are considered to be the le a s t impor-tant. Analyses regarding problem 2 showed that, i n the two camps where v a l i d performance ratings were obtained, the d i f -ferences 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 scores of successful and unsuccessful workers were s i g n i f i c a n t and i n the predicted d i r e c t i o n . Analyses regarding problem 3 showed there to be no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the personal h i s t o r i e s of successful and unsuccessful workers. Conclusions are drawn as to the usefulness of the Porter-Lawler model and the Maslow theory for Manpower coun-s e l l e r s and for management. Comparisons are made between the present re s u l t s and those obtained, i n the Porter and Lawler management studies. Suggestions for future needed research include r e p l i -cations i n other s p e c i f i c i s o l a t e d and non-isolated job settings, and a f i e l d experiment i n an i s o l a t e d setting where rewards i n the form of need f u l f i l l m e n t can be controlled 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. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION . 1 Review of Lite r a t u r e 3 I I . THEORY 7 The Porter-Lawler Model 6 The Maslow Theory -^2 I I I . PROBLEMS AND HYPOTHESES . . . 15 Development of Problems 15 Hypotheses 24 IV. DEVELOPMENT OF INSTRUMENTS AND CRITERIA MEASURES ' 27 The Need 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 Questionnaire 27 The Successful-Unsuccessful Ratings 33 The Biographical Information Form 35 VI. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 37 The Sample 3 7 Procedures 40 VII. RESULTS OF ANALYSES 45 Results Relevant to Hypothesis 1 45 Results Relevant to Hypothesis 2 50 Results Relevant to Hypothesis 3 58 XV TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER . PAGE V I I . (Continued) R e s u l t s R e l e v a n t t o H y p o t h e s i s 4 65 R e s u l t s R e l e v a n t t o H y p o t h e s i s 5 69 R e s u l t s R e l e v a n t t o H y p o t h e s i s 6 . 72 R e s u l t s R e l e v a n t t o H y p o t h e s i s 7 75 V I I I . CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 85 C o n c l u s i o n s . . . . . 85 I m p l i c a t i o n s 99 BIBLIOGRAPHY f . 105 APPENDIX 110 V LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Camp by Camp D i s t r i b u t i o n of Subjects Compared to Total Work Force 3 8 I I . Demographic Details of the Sample 39 II I . A Description of Rater Used i n Each Camp . . . . 44 IV. Mean F u l f i l l m e n t Scores for Each Need Category 46 V. 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 46 VI. Mean D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Scores for Each Need Category 51 VII. Differences Between Mean Esteem D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Scores and Means of Other Categories 52 VIII. Comparison of Esteem and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n Average Means with P h y s i o l o g i c a l , Security, S o c i a l and Autonomy Averages 53 IX. Comparison of Esteem and Autonomy D i s s a t i s -f a c t i o n Means 55 X. Mean Importance Scores for Each Need Category . . 60 XI. Differences Between Mean So c i a l Importance Scores and Means of Other Categories 61 XII. Differences Between Mean S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n Importance Scores and Means of Other Categories 61 XIII. Differences Between Mean Autonomy Importance Scores and Means for Other Categories 62 XIV . Comparison of Mean Total F u l f i l l m e n t Scores for Successful and Unsuccessful Workers 67 v i LIST OF TABLES (Continued) TABLE PAGE XV. Comparison of Mean Total D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Scores for Successful and Unsuccessful Workers 70 ;;XVI. Comparison of Mean Total Importance Scores for Successful and Unsuccessful Workers . . . . 73 XVII. Personal Data Differences Between Successful and Unsuccessful Workers 76 XVIII. Frequency of Occurrence of Successful and Unsuccessful Workers i n Personal Data Categories 83 v i i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 The Porter-Lawler Model 7 2 Comparison of Overall Mean F u l f i l l m e n t Needs . . . 85 3 Comparison of Overall Mean D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Needs 86 4 Comparison of Overall Mean Importance Needs. . . . 87 5 Comparison of F u l f i l l m e n t Means for Successful and Unsuccessful Workers 93 6 Comparison of D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n Means for Successful and Unsuccessful Workers 94 7 Comparison of Importance Means for Successful and Unsuccessful Workers 95 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The present study was made possible by a scholarship from le Ministere de 1 'Education de l a Province du Quebec and by a t r a v e l and o u t f i t t i n g grant from the A r c t i c and Alpine Research Committee of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Dr. J.K. Stager, chairman. I wish to acknowledge the help received throughout the project from my advisory committee i n the Faculty of Education, Dr. J.D. Friesen, chairman, Dr. S.S. Lee, s t a t i s t i c a l consul-tant, and Dr. M.B. Nevison, department chairman. Special appreciation i s expressed to the two committee members from outside the Faculty, Professor E.S.W. Belyea and Dr. V.F. M i t c h e l l . The generous assistance received from Mr. V.A. Haw, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, Ottawa, during the planning stages i s also acknowledged. The assistance and cooperation of both management and workers i n the following mining operations i s g r a t e f u l l y recognized: Canada Tungsten Mining Corporation, Cantung, Y.T.; Cassiar Asbestos Corporation Limited, Clinton Creek, Y.T.; Discovery Mines Limited,. Discovery, N.W.T.; Echo Bay Mines Limited, Port Radium, N.W.T.; Mount Nansen Mines Limited, Carmacks, Y.T. Pa r t i c u l a r thanks i s due to Mr. W.J. Butler of Butler's Hiring Agency, Vancouver, B.C., without whose p r a c t i c a l , c r i -t i c a l assistance the questionnaire i n i t s present form would not e x i s t and the p i l o t study would not have been possible. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Manpower and vocational counsellors are at present being trained by the Federal and some p r o v i n c i a l governments to work i n a network of Manpower Centres across Canada. One of the problems faced by these counsellors i s i n helping each worker decide whether or not he w i l l be s a t i s f i e d with the phy s i c a l , s o c i a l and psychological environment of his job. There would appear to be a need to supply counsellors and counsellor educators with a pr e d i c t i v e theory r e l a t i n g workers' attitudes and in t e r e s t s to 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 received l i t t l e attention from investigators i s that of the remote and i s o l a t e d section of Canada north of 60° north l a t i t u d e comprising the a r c t i c and sub-arctic regions. Transportation and communication i n these areas are l i m i t e d , catering, recreation and welfare costs are high and s o c i a l l i f e i s r e s t r i c t e d . A Survey of Manpower Requirements of the Canadian Mineral Industry (Canadian I n s t i t u t e of Mining and Metallurgy, 1967) points out the d i f f i c u l t y of fin d i n g , s a t i s f y i n g and keeping workers i n the north. I t shows that while there was an o v e r a l l shortage of manpower i n Canadian mining of 7.2 percent i n 1967, the shortage i n the remote areas of the Yukon and Northwest Ter-r i t o r i e s was 14 percent. 2 Mining companies, which are by far the largest employers of workers i n i s o l a t e d areas, suggest a number of reasons for the shortage. These reasons include 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 north, low pay inadequate for the cost of l i v i n g and high pay, which, "while i t may.well aid i n r e c r u i t i n g , almost c e r t a i n l y increases turnover and early job termination (Canadian I n s t i -tute of Mining, 1967, p. 81)". The work of manpower counsellors dealing with personnel for the a r c t i c regions centres around two problems: f i r s t to locate suitably q u a l i f i e d workers to f i l l the e x i s t i n g shortage of labour, and second, 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 solve the f i r s t of these problems and ignore the second would mean that counsellors would be providing a steady stream of workers who accept a job, accept transportation to the job s i t e , remain on the job for a few days or weeks, break contract and return "outside." This pattern of behavior i s only too common in i s o l a t e d areas at present. The present study has been undertaken i n an attempt to gather information regarding the environment of i s o l a t e d work settings and to develop and test a theory of job s a t i s f a c t i o n . 3 Review of Li t e r a t u r e Investigators using standardized tests and c l i n i c a l techniques have met with less than s a t i s f a c t o r y results i n predicting the job success of i s o l a t e d workers. Wright, C h y l i n s k i , S i s l e r and Quarrington (196 7) used the M.M.P.I., the Edwards Personal Preference Test, and the Brainard Occu-pational Preference Test i n attempting to predict success as rated by supervisors among 614 Canadian meteorologists i n northern weather stations. They concluded that "the p a r t i c u -l a r combination of three psychological tests employed i n th i s study would be of l i m i t e d value i n the screening of po t e n t i a l candidates for northern posting (p. 31)','. Gunderson (1966) reports doubtful results from the use of Rorschach tests and c l i n i c a l interviews as predictors of s o c i a l and work success as rated by supervisors and peers i n Antar c t i c a . He found that both prediction and i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y increased when the p s y c h i a t r i s t s .were taken to Antarctica and exposed to the working conditions of the sub-jects of the study. Gunderson (1964) states that "much remains to be done to e s t a b l i s h a sound basis for c l i n i c a l evaluation as a pr e d i c t i v e instrument for A n t a r c t i c perfor-mance (p. 15) " . Gunderson 1s concern i s also expressed by Palmai (1963) in a thorough review of the psychological aspects and c y c l i c a l 4 psychological changes experienced by members of Australian Antarctic expeditions. The Australians were measured with inter-personal r e l a t i o n s t e s t s , sociometric techniques, objective and projective tests and by p s y c h i a t r i s t s ' evalu-ations. Palmai's p r i n c i p l e conclusion i s " i t may well be that c e r t a i n u n i d e n t i f i a b l e factors play a major part i n this cycle (p. 156)". Smith and Cranny (1968) i n a lengthy review of indus-t r i a l studies produced up to the' summer of 1967, warn against the assumed v a l i d i t y of research which does not take into consideration i n d i v i d u a l or s i t u a t i o n a l variables, and suggest the f u t i l i t y of attempting to formulate s i m p l i f i e d laws which apply to a l l people, on a l l jobs. Dunnette (1963) decries the search for a si n g l e , universal c r i t e r i o n with which to measure job performance, and urges acceptance,of a multi-dimensional model based on s p e c i f i c enquiry into i n d i v i d u a l environments and occupations i n search for s p e c i f i c r e l a t i o n -ships. In support of Dunnette's concept, Lefkowitz (1966) found no re 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 l e v e l , age, s e n i o r i t y or attitudes of i n d u s t r i a l workers and th e i r self-esteem as measured by the B i l l s Index of Adjustment Values which was previously standardized on. college students. Friedlander (1966) found frequent differences i n the per-ceptions 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 questionnaire designed to sample attitudes regarding environment, i n t r i n s i c rewards and recognition. The general trend running through the l i t e r a t u r e on job environments appears to be that as yet there i s no o v e r a l l predictor of performance i n varied environments and that each environment must be treated as a unique r e f e r -ence group. 6 CHAPTER II THEORY The t h e o r e t i c a l model upon which the design of t h i s study i s based i s that of Porter and Lawler (1968, Chapter 2) . This model re la tes job a t t i tudes to job performance and s a t i s f a c t i o n i n such a way as to make poss ib le the d e r i v a t i o n of tes tab le hypotheses app l icab le to s p e c i f i c work environments (Figure 1) . The instruments and measures of a t t i tude used are based, p r i m a r i l y , on the wr i t ings of Maslow (1943, 1954, 1965, 1968), regarding the h ierarchy of prepotent human needs. The Porter -Lawler Mod_ejL Fundamentally, the Porter -Lawler concept i s an "Expec-tancy Theory" as opposed to the "Drive Theory" of Thorndike or H u l l . The beginnings of expectancy theory may be traced back to Tolman (193 2) and Lev/in (1938) . Behavior i s explained as ac t ion r e s u l t i n g from expectat ions or a n t i c i p a t i o n s about the outcome of future events. This a n t i c i p a t i o n i s a s u b j e c t i v e , cogn i t ive expectat ion not n e c e s s a r i l y re la ted to the actual s t a t i s t i c a l p r o b a b i l i t y of an outcome, and i s usua l ly termed "subject ive p r o b a b i l i t y " . Mot ivat ion towards a pre fer red goal i s a funct ion of t h i s subject ive p r o b a b i l i t y . Porter and Lawler (1968) suggest that the emphasis on r a t i o n a l i t y and conscious expectat ion best descr ibe the apparent motivat ions of i n d i v i d u a l s at work. They suggest TH VALUE O F REWARD i 2 PERCEIVED EFFORT- * REWARD PROBABILITY i TH EFFORT 0 ABILITIES AND TRAITS 4 PERCEIVED EQUITABLE REWARDS H PERFORMANCE WW** (ACCOMPLISHMENT) ROLE PERCEPTIONS Tl REWARDS H»-(FULFILLMENT) SATISFACTION A R E A S OC- I N T E R E S T F O R T H E P R E S E N T S T U D Y F I G U R E 1 8 that job expectancies, "although based on previous experience, are forward oriented i n a way that does not seem to be e a s i l y handled by the concept of habit strength (p. 12)". The Porter-Lawler 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 expectancies of people on the job. The model has been tested empirically (Lawler and Porter, 1967, M i t c h e l l , 1967, Porter and Lawler, 1968). These tests have been made almost e n t i r e l y using managers or supervisors as subjects. In d i s -cussing further research i n connection with t h e i r model, Porter and Lawler (1968) state, "one other obvious need i n connection with samples of respondents would involve comparing re s u l t s for managers with those for non-management rank-and-file personnel (p. 172)". The major behavioral dimensions of the model (Figure 1) include: E f f o r t , Performance, Rewards and S a t i s f a c t i o n . The major perceptions related to these behaviors include: Value of Reward, Perceived Effort/Reward P r o b a b i l i t y , Role Percep-t i o n , Reward F u l f i l l m e n t and Perceived Equitable Rewards. In the model, E f f o r t (3) i s the f i r s t behavior consid-ered i n the pattern. I t i s theorized that the amount of e f f o r t expended w i l l depend on two subjective concepts: Value of Reward (1), that i s the d e s i r a b i l i t y for 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 Perceived E f f o r t / Reward P r o b a b i l i t y (2), that i s the perceived chance that increased e f f o r t w i l l lead to increased reward. This perception does not depend, necessarily, on external f a c t , but on sub-j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y . E f f o r t (3) produces Performance (6) but only when the i n d i v i d u a l has the necessary A b i l i t i e s and T r a i t s (4) to accomplish the task, and when his Role Perceptions (5) are such that he defines his job i n a way such that the type of e f f o r t he makes w i l l increase his performance i n the d i r e c t i o n of company goals. Performance (6) then, i s the net output of a person's E f f o r t (3) and leads to Rewards (7). The connection between Performance (6) and Rewards (7), i s , however, extremely i n d i r -ect and subjective. The wavy l i n e i n the model between these variables suggests that perceived rewards w i l l only be linked to performance differences when the i n d i v i d u a l believes that increased performance w i l l produce increased rewards. Reward systems, however, are not always arranged so that t h i s r e l a -tionship i s cl e a r to workers. Rewards are only t r u l y rewarding when they are perceived as such by the person receiving them. Lawler and Porter (1967) have suggested that rewards are of two types, e x t r i n s i c and i n t r i n s i c . E x t r i n s i c rewards are those which are "organiza-t i o n a l l y c o n t r o l l e d , such as pay, promotion and s e c u r i t y - - i . e . , those rewards commonly referred to 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 himself gains for himself, such as f e e l -ings of accomplishment he might have about his performance even 10 before 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 higher order Maslow needs such as s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n . The "feedback" l i n e from the Performance-Reward l i n k to Perceived Effort/Reward P r o b a b i l i t y (2) indicates that learned Performance-Reward expectations w i l l e f f e c t changes i n future perceptions and thus a f f e c t future e f f o r t . Rewards (7) w i l l lead to S a t i s f a c t i o n (9) provided that the rewards the i n d i v i d u a l receives measure up to his expectancies or his perceptions of what i s a f a i r rev/ard for the performance he has car r i e d out. Thus even i f an i n d i v i d u a l performs well by company standards and i s rewarded highly by company standards, his own perceptions of equitable rewards for performance completed may make him d i s s a t i s f i e d . This l a s t concept has implications for organizations which set up reward systems without taking into consideration the perceptions of employees. I t has even broader implications for counsellors, personnel workers and placement o f f i c e r s who must seek to understand reasons for 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 planning a career. S a t i s f a c t i o n (9) having been achieved or not achieved w i l l be fed back to the in d i v i d u a l ' s perceptions of Value of Reward (1) and w i l l , i n turn, a f f e c t future e f f o r t . The Porter-Lawler model, to date, has been used exclu-s i v e l y to examine the attitudes, s a t i s f a c t i o n s and performance 11 of managers and supervisors. Its structure i s such, however, that i t can be used to study data from workers at any l e v e l , and i n any environment. The model's great advantage over others for the present study i s that i t i s completely job re-lated, based on the assumption that "work has always been and continues to be the major non-family a c t i v i t y that i s under-taken by most human beings (Porter and Lawler, 1968, p. 1)". This assumption i s even more important amongst i s o l a t e d northern workers than among the general population. T y p i c a l l y , the i s o l a t e d worker i s employed i n a small camp where a l l a c t i v i t i e s center around the job. Work, food, l e i s u r e , re-creation and transportation are a l l company controlled so the worker i s " l i v i n g his job" throughout the whole of his con-t r a c t or u n t i l he leaves. Perceptions of his job can, there-fore, be assumed to be the i s o l a t e d worker's prime day to day motivator. S p e c i f i c a l l y the present study i s centered on sections 6 (Performance), 7 (Rewards) and 9 (Satisfaction) of the model as indicated i n Figure 1. An attempt i s made to examine the re l a t i o n s h i p s between Performance and Rewards while at the same time gaining i n s i g h t into the perceived Satisf a c t i o n s of a sample of northern, i s o l a t e d workers. 12 The Maslow Theory Measures of perceived reward and s a t i s f a c t i o n used i n the present study are rooted i n Maslow's theory that human motivation i s provided by u n s a t i s f i e d needs. If there were no needs, there would be no action. Five basic needs are postulated: P h y s i o l o g i c a l , Security, Love or S o c i a l , Esteem and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n . These needs are arranged i n a h i e r -archy of prepotency such that, i f a l l needs are u n s a t i s f i e d , the lower order needs w i l l dominate and the i n d i v i d u a l w i l l seek to f u l f i l l them f i r s t . Once the lower order needs have been s a t i s f i e d , they no longer motivate. Higher needs w i l l emerge to dominate motivation. I f these needs are f i l l e d , other, s t i l l higher needs emerge u n t i l a l e v e l of S e l f -A c t u a l i z a t i o n i s reached. At the bottom of the needs hierarchy are the Physio-l o g i c a l needs, the needs f o r food, water and physical well-being. These are the most prepotent of a l l needs and w i l l dominate a l l others i f not s a t i s f i e d . If the Ph y s i o l o g i c a l needs are s a t i s f i e d , there w i l l emerge the safety or Security needs. If chr o n i c a l l y u n f i l -f i l l e d , these needs may dominate a l l motivation, producing a person obsessed with safety. Although i n our society i t s members are r e l a t i v e l y safe from assault, murder and wild animals, safety needs can s t i l l be strongly expressed i n terms of property, job security, savings or insurance. 13 If both Physiological and Security needs are g r a t i f i e d , there w i l l emerge the So c i a l needs for love, a f f e c t i o n and belongingness. The pattern of f e l t need, motivation, action, and g r a t i f i c a t i o n w i l l be repeated on the So c i a l l e v e l . The 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 f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s and to f i n d a place i n a group, be i t family, 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 So c i a l needs. Maslow divides Esteem needs into two types: the desire for reputation or prestige, and the desire for independent achievement i n the face of the world. This l a t t e r desire i s also c l a s s i f i e d as the need for 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 f e e l i n g of restlessness: the i n d i v i d u a l i s -not doing that for which he i s best suited. This need i s des-cribed as the need for S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n , and, i f s a t i s f i e d , i s characterized by a conscious awareness that the i n d i v i d u a l i s l i v i n g to his capacity, using a l l his s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s to respond to situations which challenge his unique combination of t a l e n t s . Maslow (1968) has broken S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n into a number of components which he c a l l s Metaneeds. These needs are the p h i l o s o p h i c a l , r e l i g i o u s , beauty and value needs which " i n any given i n d i v i d u a l may be, and often are h i e r a r c h i c a l l y 14 a r r a n g e d a c c o r d i n g t o i d o s y n c r a t i c t a l e n t s a n d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s ( p . 5 9 ) " . L o w e r o r d e r n e e d s s u c h as P h y s i o l o g i c a l , S e c u r i t y a n d S o c i a l a r e p r o b a b l y a l w a y s f e l t i n t h a t o r d e r , a c c o r d i n g t o M a s l o w , b u t t h e h i g h e r o r d e r n e e d s o f E s t e e m , A u t o n o m y , S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n a n d e s p e c i a l l y t h e M e t a n e e d s m i g h t w e l l v a r y w i t h d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r e s , s u b - c u l t u r e s a n d e n v i r o n m e n t s . A t any g i v e n t i m e , t h e r e f o r e , t h e p r e d o m i n a n t n e e d s f e l t i n a g i v e n s e t t i n g a r e l i k e l y t o r e f l e c t , i n p a r t , t h e e x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t i n g i n t h a t s e t t i n g . CHAPTER III PROBLEMS AND HYPOTHESES Development of Problems An axiom of the Porter-Lawler model (Figure 1) i s that reward i s synonymous with f u l f i l l m e n t and that f u l -f i l l m e n t may 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 quantity and can be stated as an amount of the perceived f u l f i l l m e n t that an i n d i v i d u a l reports regarding his P h y s i o l o g i c a l , Security, S o c i a l , Esteem, Autonomy, and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n needs. S a t i s f a c t i o n , i n the model, i s also expressed i n terms of needs. S a t i s f a c t i o n i s f e l t when Rewards, or F u l f i l l m e n t (7), correspond to what the i n d i v i d u a l feels i s equitable for the amount of performance he has given. A wide discrepancy between F u l f i l l m e n t (7) and Perceived Equitable Rewards (8) w i l l be a measure 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 can be expressed i n numerical terms for each needs category, D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n can also be so expressed. I f , as stated above, i t i s possible to express F u l f i l l -ment and D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n measurable quantities, i t w i l l be possible to measure which needs i n the hierarchy are being f u l f i l l e d and which not. From th i s information predictions could be made as to the order of importance i n which needs w i l l 16 be perceived i n a given environment. In th i s way a hierarchy of the r e l a t i v e importance of needs to in d i v i d u a l s i n s p e c i f i c jobs could be obtained. The p o s s i b i l i t y of obtaining measurable scores for 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 category, therefore, makes i t possible to develop empirical problems regarding the relationships expressed i n the model. The problems which follow are based on the assumptions of the Porter-Lawler model, on what i s known of the conditions to be found i n i s o l a t e d work places, 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. The problems are of three types: 1. Problems having to do with 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 categories i n an i s o l a t e d environment. 2. Problems having to do with the differences be-tween need perceptions of successful workers and unsuccessful workers i n an i s o l a t e d environment. 3. Problems having to do with differences i n the personal and occupational h i s t o r i e s of successful and un-successful workers i n an i s o l a t e d environment. 17 Problem 1. OVERALL DIFFERENCES IN THE PERCEPTION OF NEEDS a. F u l f i l l m e n t One of the basic assumptions of the model i s that 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 his reward perceptions. If the rewards given meet the worker's expec-tations on each needs l e v e l , he w i l l describe his needs as f u l f i l l e d . If the rewards given do not meet the worker's expectations, he w i l l describe his 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 that the basic P h y s i o l o g i c a l and Security needs are generally well cared for i n i s o l a t e d northern camps. Good, well prepared food i s the r u l e , shelter i s as good as the t e r r a i n w i l l allow, and clean, healthy conditions p r e v a i l . I t i s true that the work per-formed i s often more dangerous than that done i n c i v i l i z e d areas, but s t r i c t safety precautions keep i t from being un-safe. The p i l o t study uncovered a clear d i s t i n c t i o n between "dangerous" and "unsafe" i n the perceptions of mine workers. Underground b l a s t i n g operations, for example, are rated as dangerous, but because of r i g i d precautions and regulations are considered safe. On the other hand, work i n a badly run kitchen where u t e n s i l s are d u l l and conditions are d i r t y and slippery i s seen as unsafe, but not dangerous. Care taken 18 by government regulations and by companies to assure safe conditions i s recognized and appreciated by workers. The p i l o t study also revealed that s o c i a l needs appear to be f i l l e d i n i s o l a t e d camps. This may seem to be a- con-t r a d i c t i o n of f a c t , but when looked at i n the l i g h t of the Porter-Lawler model, seems l o g i c a l . One of the assumptions of the model i s that need f u l f i l l m e n t i s based on expectancy or the subjective p r o b a b i l i t y that a worker brings with him to the job. I t might be expected that a worker volunteering for work i n i s o l a t e d conditions would f e e l i t probable that s o c i a l a c t i v i t y would be severely l i m i t e d . If these expected condi-tions proved to be true, then his s o c i a l expectations would be f u l f i l l e d . I t i s at the needs le v e l s of autonomy and esteem where both the model and the environment suggest a possible lack of f u l f i l l m e n t . A f u l l y autonomous worker i s a man who i s allowed to work where, when and with whom he chooses and who sets his own goals. 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 only to the few, expert miners and technical men who are employed to complete c e r t a i n exacting developmental tasks. They choose t h e i r own helpers and set t h e i r own goals and w i l l not accept work under any other conditions. For the ordinary employee, however, autonomy may be exercised i n choosing to work in i s o -l a t i o n or i n leaving the job. Otherwise his l i f e i s controlled. Esteem needs, such as the need for 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 net i n the i s o l a t e d work place. Work i n such an envir-onment i s job centered. High pay i s given i n return for hard work but l i t t l e attention i s paid to i n t r i n s i c forms of reward. A young man interviewed i n the p i l o t study had worked 90 eight hour s h i f t s i n 54 days. He scoffed at the idea that the manager might give him praise for t h i s feat, but said he would have l i k e d to receive i t . His sole reward was $75.00 per day for his work, and he had no intention of returning to that p a r t i c u l a r job even though he had no money at the time of the interview. The empirical problem related to the above discussion i s : Problem l a . TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF FULFILLMENT OF NEEDS OF WORKERS IN ISOLATED ENVIRONMENTS. b. S a t i s f a c t i o n I t i s suggested i n the discussion related to Problem 1 a. that Autonomy needs w i l l not be f u l f i l l e d because of reasonable and explainable circumstances related to the s p e c i f i c work conditions of i s o l a t e d environments. Thus, while the worker w i l l perceive his Autonomy needs as unful-f i l l e d , he w i l l be s a t i s f i e d with t h i s condition i f his other needs are being met. Esteem needs, however, w i l l be u n f u l f i l l e d , and the worker w i l l see no reason for this to be so. If he receives l i t t l e feedback from superiors as to his value as a person or 20 as to the r e s p e c t a b i l i t y of his job, \->e i s l i k e l y to f e e l and to express a perceived deficiency at the Esteem l e v e l . The related empirical problem i s : Problem l b . TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF SATISFACTION OF NEEDS OF WORKERS IN ISOLATED ENVIRONMENTS. c. Importance A previous study of perceived need importance (Porter, 1961) showed that the importance of needs "does not necessarily follow an increase from lower order to higher order needs (p. 8)". There would, then, appear to be some s i t u a t i o n a l factor i n a s p e c i f i c job environment which might cause d i f -ferences i n perceived need importance. Two factors, one i n the model, and one i n the environment, might account for perceived differences i n need importance across needs levels i n i s o l a t e d work places. F i r s t , the Maslow prepotency theory would suggest that the preoccupation of a worker with his u n f u l f i l l e d Esteem and Autonomy needs would overshadow any feelings he might have regarding S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n . S e l f -A c t u a l i z a t i o n would, then, be considered of l i t t l e importance. Second, the p i l o t study indicated that the f u l f i l l i n g of s o c i a l needs appeared to be of l i t t l e concern to workers on the job i n i s o l a t i o n . 21 The related empirical 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 UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS Successful and unsuccessful workers for purposes of Problems 2 and 3 of t h i s study have been i d e n t i f i e d through the use of a Work Performance/Social Adjustment scale and a Rank Order procedure described i n d e t a i l i n Chapter 4. Thus, these problems are concerned only with those portions of the sample l a b e l l e d successful and unsuccessful. a. F u l f i l l m e n t Differences In the model (Figure 1) Performance i s linked to S a t i s f a c t i o n through the Perception of Rewards, which, for purposes of t h i s study, i s defined as f u l f i l l m e n t , and through Perception of Equitable Rewards. Thus a worker's s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n may be described as a function of his f u l -f i l l m e n t and the perceived e q u i t a b i l i t y of the rewards he receives. A testable l i n k i s thus formed between performance and s a t i s f a c t i o n . Previous studies (Porter, 1967; Porter and Lawler, 1967) have shown a p o s i t i v e but 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 reasons for the slightness of the r e l a t i o n s h i p was that many of the subjects sampled f u l f i l l e d needs and received rewards o f f the job. Because of the i s o l a t e d environment of the present study, with i t s pervading "work centredness," i t might be expected that the l i n k between performance, f u l f i l l m e n t and s a t i s f a c t i o n would be both p o s i t i v e and strong. The worker i n i s o l a t i o n who does not get his needs s a t i s f i e d on the job, i s u n l i k e l y to get them s a t i s f i e d at a l l . The related empirical problem i s : Problem 2 a . TO DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCES IN TOTAL PERCEIVED NEED FULFILLMENT ACROSS ALL LEVELS OF NEEDS BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS. b. S a t i s f a c t i o n Differences S a t i s f a c t i o n r e s u l t s when the rewards received on each needs l e v e l equal the expectancies of the worker. In the present study, the same people who rate the workers as successful and unsuccessful are almost wholly responsible for administering rewards. I t would seem reasonable to suggest that the successful worker w i l l be one whose expectancies and therefore, perceived equitable rewards match those of the people c o n t r o l l i n g such rewards. Unsuccessful workers are l i k e l y to have reward perceptions d i f f e r i n g from those of the 23 people i n charge of rewards. The related empirical 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 of a need may be taken to mean the i n t e n s i t of the f e e l i n g towards that need that a worker experiences. Because volunteering to work i n an i s o l a t e d environment re-quires a deliberate decision to work i n a r e s t r i c t e d m i l i e u , or to escape from c i v i l i z a t i o n , i t might be expected that the in t e n s i t y of f e e l i n g would be high. Each man has, at some time, found the expectancy of the need f u l f i l l m e n t to be obtained i n i s o l a t i o n strong enough so that he has accepted t h i s kind of job. Whether he i s successful or not, the impor tance of the rewards he wishes to receive w i l l remain strong. The related empirical 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 varied r e s u l t s obtained i n past studies of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between personal history 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 Orv ick , 1964; Nelson and O r v i c , 1964) cast doubts on the usefulness of th is procedure for p r e d i c t i n g performance. Personal Data studies are based on the assumption that i n d i v i d u a l s with s i m i l a r backgrounds w i l l perform s i m i -l a r l y i n s i m i l a r environments. The Porter -Lawler model, however, i s based on the assumption that each person has a unique set of percept ions and expectancies. These percept ions might be qui te d i f f e r e n t for i n d i v i d u a l s from s i m i l a r back-grounds. Thus, workers from the same home town, or of the same r e l i g i o n , or with the same mar i t a l status or years of school ing might perceive a job environment qui te d i f f e r e n t l y . I f i t could be shown that success in i s o l a t e d environments depends not on background, but rather on percept ions , the assumptions of the Porter -Lawler model would be strengthened. The re la ted empi r ica l problem i s : Problem 3. TO DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PERSONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL HISTORIES OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS. The Hypotheses Hypotheses re la ted to Problems 1 a . , 1 b . , and 1 c . Hypothesis 1: Workers i n i s o l a t e d environments w i l l perceive the needs of Autonomy and Esteem to be the l eas t f u l f i l l e d . 25 Hypothesis' 2: Workers i n i s o l a t e d environments w i l l express greater d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n at the Esteem needs l e v e l than at any other l e v e l . Hypothesis 3: Workers i n i s o l a t e d environments w i l l perceive 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 eas t important needs. Hypotheses re la ted to Problems 2 a . , 2 b. , and 2 c . Hypothesis 4: Successfu l workers, as measured by work performance, w i l l express higher l e v e l s of need f u l f i l l m e n t across a l l needs l eve ls than w i l l unsuccessfu l workers. Hypothesis 5: Unsuccessful workers, as measured by work performance, w i l l express a higher l e v e l of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n across a l l 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 fe rence i n the importance attached to needs at var ious l e v e l s between success fu l and unsuccessfu l workers. 26 Hypothesis re la ted to Problem 3. Hypothesis 7: There w i l l be no d i f fe rence i n the personal h i s t o r i e s between success-f u l and unsuccessfu l workers i n i s o l a t e d camps. CHAPTER IV DEVELOPMENT OF INSTRUMENTS AND CRITERIA MEASURES Instruments and methods were developed to obtain measures in each of the fo l lowing areas for each subject of the study: 1. Perceived need 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 re levant to each of the postulated need l e v e l s . 2. Success or lack of success as a worker i n an i s o l a t e d work p l a c e . 3. B iograph ica l background and occupat ional h i s t o r y . The complete interview p r o t o c o l , as used, i s included as Appendix I': of th is study. 1. The Need 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 Questionnaire The part of the instrument used to measure 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 i s an 18 item adaptation of a quest ionnaire developed and used by Porter (1961, 1962), Porter and Lawler (1967) and Porter and M i t c h e l l (1967) i n studies of managers and m i l i t a r y o f f i c e r s . The Porter quest ionnaire randomly presented 13 items each of which had been p r e - s e l e c t e d 28 to measure percept ions in one of f i v e types of Maslow needs: Secur i ty 1 Item S o c i a l 1 Item Esteem 3 Items Autonomy 4 Items S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n 4 Items Each item had 3 p a r t s , one re la ted to f u l f i l l m e n t , one to perceived equi table reward and one to importance. Each part was answered on a seven point scale by the subjects themselves (Porter and Lawler, 196 8, Appendix I I ) . The adapted quest ionnaire used for th is study was developed during a ser ies of t r i a l s with unemployed northern miners i n a Vancouver h i r i n g o f f i c e . The r e s u l t i n g question^ nai re d i f f e r s from the Porter design i n the fo l lowing ways: 1. Items have been included re levant to each of s ix Maslow type needs rather than the f i v e used by Por te r . Three items have been inc luded fo r each need: P h y s i o l o g i c a l 3 Items Secur i ty 3 Items S o c i a l 3 Items Esteem 3 Items Autonomy 3 Items S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n 3 Items 2. The 7 point answering sca le of the Porter quest ion-nai re has been changed to a 5 point sca le at the suggestion of a number of subjects of the p i l o t study who f e l t the larger sca le had "too many numbers to sor t out . " 3. The wording of the questions has been s i m p l i f i e d and lengthened i n an attempt to reach the l i t e r a c y l e v e l of the sub jec ts . 4. The quest ionnaire 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 se l f - comple t ion form. The bas ic ra t iona le and item construct ion of the Porter (1962) quest ionnaire have been r e t a i n e d , however. Each item attempts to tap the sub jec ts ' percept ions regarding a s p e c i f i c need fac tor re la ted to h is present job. Each subject was asked to answer on the 5 point sca le h is ra t ing as to : a . How much (of the need factor) i s there on your present job? b. How much (of the need factor) should there be on the job? c . How important i s (the need fac tor )? The answers to (a) par t of each item were taken as a measure of perceived need f u l f i l l m e n t . The answers to part (b) were taken as measures of perceived equi table reward. 30 The d i f fe rence between the (b) score and the (a) score of an item was taken as an operat ional measure of s a t i s f a c t i o n . That i s , the greater (b) was than (a), the greater the d i s -s a t i s f a c t i o n . As i n the Porter-Lawler studies (1968, pp. 131-32) i n the few cases where the (b) responses were less than the (a) responses, the d i f fe rences were t reated as i n d i c a t i n g even less 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 that minus d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s were included i n s a t i s f a c t i o n t o t a l s fo r purposes of a n a l y s i s . A completed sample item from the quest ionnaire i s inc luded below with an explanat ion as to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i t s content: ITEM 5 (Need Fac tor : Esteem) a . How much c r e d i t do you get for what you do on t h i s job? _) 2 3 4 5 b. How much c r e d i t should you get for what you do on t h i s job? 1 2 3 4 (5) c . How important i s ge t t ing c r e d i t for what you do, to you? 1 2 3 4 (_) O p e r a t i o n a l l y , i n terms of the study, what has th is subject said? a. He has sa id that he gets very l i t t l e c r e d i t on the job , i . e 1 b. He has sa id that he should get a l o t of c r e d i t , i . e . 5 31 c . He has sa id tha t , to him, get t ing c r e d i t i s important, i . e . 5 His F u l f i l l m e n t score on t h i s item i s , thus , 1 His D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n score i s (5-1=4) 4 His Importance score i s 5 The sums of the scores of part (a) for the three items of any s ing le need a re , there fore , the t o t a l F u l f i l l m e n t score for the subject on that need. The sums of the scores of parts (b) minus (a) for any three 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 for the sub jec t . ' -The sums of the part (c) scores for the three items of a need are the t o t a l Importance score for that need. S p e c i f i c fac tors sampled i n the quest ionna i re , and the re levant need l e v e l of each are l i s t e d below. The item number to the r i g h t of each fac tor ind ica tes i t s randomly assigned p o s i t i o n i n the f i n a l quest ionnaire i n Appendix I. 32 NEED FACTOR SAMPLE ITEM NO, I. P h y s i o l o g i c a l 1. He a l t h 2 2. Food 11 3. L i v i n g Quarters 15 I I . S e c u r i t y 1. Job s a f e t y 4 2. Permanent employment 9 3. Company w e l f a r e program 17 I I I . S o c i a l 1. G e t t i n g along w i t h o t h e r s 6 2. Making f r i e n d s 3 3. F e e l i n g of "belonging" 16 IV. Esteem 1. C r e d i t f o r work done 5 2. Value of job to company 8 3. R e s p e c t a b i l i t y of job t o o t h e r s 21 V. Autonomy 1. D e c i s i o n as t o what to work on 10 2. D e c i s i o n as t o how t o work 13 3. D e c i s i o n as to time o f f 7 VI. S e l f - 1. S e l f improvement on the job 12 A c t u a l i z a t i o n 2. F e e l i n g t h a t job i s worthwhile 14 3. Using a l l s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s 18 33 Three "non-Maslow" items were included i n the quest ion-naire regard ing: Pay (Item 1 ) Locat ion of job (Item 20) Management (Item 19) Item 1 (Pay) was used as a demonstration item in in t roducing the quest ionnaire to sub jec ts . The other two items are not re levant to the hypotheses formulated i n Chapter 4 and have not been analysed for t h i s study. 2. The Successfu l - Unsuccessful Ratings The r a t i n g scheme used as the Successfu l -Unsuccessfu l c r i t e r i o n for Hypotheses 4, 5 , 6 and 7 was developed as a composite of those used i n previous studies of i s o l a t e d environments. Gunderson (1966, pp.5-7) descr ibes the use i n the A n t a r c t i c of supervisor evaluat ions using a ser ies of t r a i t sca les g iv ing scores on: emotional cont ro l /acceptance , industr iousness/achievement 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 with a process invo lv ing the ranking of men i n the order i n which the supervisor would choose them to serve with him again i n the A n t a r c t i c . In a d d i t i o n , each man was asked to rank h is peers in order of preference for a return t r i p to A n t a r c t i c a . 34 A composite c r i t e r i o n using thf t r a i t scores , the superv isors ' "return with" rankings and the "return with" rankings of peers was constructed and cor re la ted over seven 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 c o r r e l a t i o n descr ibed by Gunderson as "reasonably good" was obtained. "The sub-s t a n t i a l agreement between methods of est imat ing o v e r - a l l performance was encouraging i n view of the fac t that the ra ters were untrained and often inexper ienced, and groups var ied i n s i z e , composition and p h y s i c a l environment (Gunderson, 1966, p. 6)" . Wright, S i s l e r and C h y l i n s k i (1963, p. 25) express s a t i s f a c t i o n with a method 'adapted from that of E i l b e r t , Glaser and Hanes (1957) for ra t ing U . S . A . F . personnel for a r c t i c p o s t i n g s . In the Wright et a l . p r o j e c t , supervisors at northern Ear ly Warning radar s ta t ions rated technic ians on a two sca le c r i t e r i o n based on a f i v e score sca le for work and a three score sca le fo r s o c i a l adjustment. In developing ra t ing scales from the above examples, i t was recognized that the r e s u l t i n g ra t ings would be sub-j e c t i v e . The scores would depend on the perceptions of the ra ters and on how wel l the subjects being rated were known. Obvious ly , an ob ject ive product ion or performance record would have been b e t t e r . However, the sample of subjects chosen (see Chapter VI) consis ted of men i n such d iverse occupations as s h a f t - s i n k e r s and cooks, d r i f t miners and mechanics, diamond d r i l l e r s and truck d r i ve rs to name only a few. There i s at present no way i n which the actual produc-t i o n of such occupations can be compared. The ra t ing sca le f i n a l l y adopted consis ted of a ra t ing of each subject by h is manager and h is supervisor on two dimensions: 1. "Performance," that i s " o v e r a l l performance and a b i l i t y on the job . " 2. " S o c i a l , " that i s " a b i l i t y to get along with h i s co-workers and o t h e r s . " The ra t ings were made on a seven point sca le on cards included i n the format of the in terv iew/quest ionnai re form (Appendix I) Cards marked "M" i n the form were used by managers. Cards marked "S" were used by superv isors . A rank order ing of subjects by managers and superv isors was a lso obta ined, using the cards from the interview form as a ranking a i d . De ta i l s of the procedures used are descr ibed i n d e t a i l i n Chapter VI . Unfor tunate ly , there was no opportunity to p r e - t e s t the ra t ing sca les and procedures before gathering the actual data for the study. As a r e s u l t , c e r t a i n problems arose which w i l l be d iscussed i n l a t e r chapters . 3. The B iograph ica l Information Form The b iograph ica l and occupat ional h i s t o r y items c o l -lec ted for the tes t of Hypothesis 7 (Chapter IV) have been adapted from those used by Gunderson, Nelson and Orvick (1964) i n t h e i r comparative studies of personal h i s t o r y cor re la tes of m i l i t a r y , meteorologica l and s c i e n t i f i c personnel at small A n t a r c t i c s t a t i o n s . The form which makes up the f i r s t sec t ion of the in terv iew/quest ionna i re (Appendix I) uses a coding or scor ing system for each of e ight of the eleven items inc luded . Ac tua l or coded information i s included regarding age, educa-t i o n , job h i s t o r y , mar i ta l s t a t u s , worship, a c t i v i t y , reading, hometown, parents , and del inquency. Except for the delinquency item which was discarded because of the anxiety i t caused during the gathering of data from the f i r s t ten sub jec ts , a l l items were administered as descr ibed i n Chapter VI . CHAPTER VI METHODS AND PROCEDURES 1. The Sample The subjects chosen for the study were workers i n f i v e i s o l a t e d mining camps i n the Yukon and Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s of Canada. To q u a l i f y for purposes of the study, a mining camp was required to meet as many as poss ib le of the fo l lowing c o n d i t i o n s : 1. Be i n a remote area . 2. Have no regular or scheduled t ranspor ta t ion system. 3. Contain few, i f any, family groups. 4. Employ 25 to 100 f u l l time v/orkers. 5. Be s e l f - c o n t a i n e d i n that one mine or operat ion cont ro ls a l l employment, d i s c i p l i n e , suppl ies and r e c r e a t i o n . A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of each camp chosen and i t s loca t ion i s given i n Appendix II. Completed interview protocols were obtained from 228 out of 234 workers approached by the wr i te r i n these camps during November and December of 1968. Table I shows the number of subjects for which complete information was obtained i n each camp compared with the number of workers on the p a y r o l l at the time of data gather ing . 38 TABLE I t CAMP BY CAMP DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS COMPARED TO TOTAL WORK FORCE Subjects Total Work Force Interviewed (includes those on holiday) Camp 1 34 42 Camp 2 50 65 . Camp 3 51 137 Camp 4 41 54 Camp 5 52 85 228 383 Table II contains summarized demographic information for the complete sample. f 39 TABLE II DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS OF THE SAMPLE Total Workers Approached 234 Unus^able or Incomplete 2 Refusals 4 Total N 228 Mean Age: 33 .82: S .D. : , 12. 64'. Range: 16- 64 Mean Years of Education: 10 .76 S .D. : 2. 93 Range: 0- 18 Mean Number of Jobs i n 5 Years: 4 .00 S .D. : 3. 04 Range: 1-20 Mean Home Family Size: 5 .13 S .D. : 2. 48 Range: 1-16 Held When Interviewed: Number Percent Mining 49 21.50 Surface (includes m i l l i n g and processing) 105 46.05 Staff 30 13.15 Service (includes cooks and waiters) 22 9.65 Transport 22 9.65 228 100 .00 40 2. Procedures Ind iv idua l Interviews A l l interviews were obtained by the w r i t e r , i n person. Each subject was approached i n d i v i d u a l l y and i t was explained that a survey was being conducted to "try 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 j o b s . " If the subject agreed to the interview he was given a copy of the interview pro toco l i n which a l l the items were pr in ted in l a r g e , easy to read type. The wr i te r then read each item aloud to the subject and the s u b j e c t ' s answers were recorded i n a p rev ious ly numbered pro toco l by the w r i t e r . Questions were answered as they arose regarding i n d i v i d u a l items and no overt attempt was made to hurry the in terv iew. Interviews were standardized i n that b iograph ica l items were always gathered f i r s t , fol lowed by r e p l i e s to the Needs Quest ionnai re , fol lowed by a s h o r t , tape recorded story sequence not used for the present study. Most interviews were conducted i n bunkhouse rooms e i t h e r alone or with a room mate i n attendance. Pressures of t ranspor ta t ion and t ime, however, made i t necessary to i n t e r -view some workers i n such se t t ings as the cookhouse, the assay o f f i c e , the m i l l , the crusher house, the bar-room and under-ground . 41 Ind iv idua l interview times var ied from one hour or more when t r a n s l a t i o n of each item to another language was necessary, to twelve minutes. Average interview time was approximately twenty minutes. The maximum number of i n t e r -views conducted i n a twenty-four hour per iod was t h i r t y - o n e . The minimum number was ten . Manager and Supervisor Ratings When as many workers had been interviewed i n a camp as t ime, t ranspor ta t ion or a v a i l a b i l i t y of workers would a l low, the manager (or act ing manager) and a senior supervisor were asked to act as r a t e r s . The name and present job of each subject were entered on the ra t ing cards of h i s p r o t o c o l . Rating cards when then cut from the protocols and sorted in to 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 shu f f l ed and presented to the appropriate 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 ins t ruc ted as fo l lows: 1. "On the PERFORMANCE card of each worker c i r c l e the number on the seven point sca le corresponding to that worker's performance and a b i l i t y on the job . " 42 2. "On the SOCIAL card of each worker, c i r c l e the number on the seven point sca le corresponding to that worker's a b i l i t y to get along with co-workers and o thers . " 3. The PERFORMANCE cards were spread out on a f l a t surface so that a l l were v i s i b l e . The ra ter was given the fo l lowing i n s t r u c t i o n s i n order to obtain a rank order of workers based on a g loba l score : "Pretend that you have been t ransfer red to another mining camp even more i s o l a t e d than t h i s . You have an Otter a i r c r a f t that w i l l hold a p i l o t , yourse l f and ten men. Pick out the cards of the ten men you would take with you. Arrange these cards i n order with your f i r s t choice on top and the l a s t choice on the bottom, and give me the c a r d s . " When the ra ter had completed t h i s process he was t o l d : "Now pick up the cards of the ten men i n t h i s camp that you would replace immediately i f replacements equal ly q u a l i f i e d , were a v a i l a b l e . Place your f i r s t replaceable man on the bottom, and arrange the others i n order of your cho ice , on top. 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 process i n v o l v i n g the Otter a i r c r a f t was repeated with the remaining cards i n groups of ten u n t i l the number of ava i l ab le cards • had been exhausted. The cards were then l a i d out i n the r e -s u i t i n g rank order and the ra ter was asked i f he v/ould l i k e to make any changes. When these changes had been made, the 43 e cards were picked up i n order and securely bound. As mentioned in Chapter V, some problems arose with the ra t ing scheme. In genera l , the seven point PERFORMANCE/ SOCIAL ra t ing scales were d i s l i k e d by the ra ters and caused confus ion . The Rank Order process , however, was entered in to with great enthusiasm In every case , and was descr ibed as something that "makes sense." Table III contains a l i s t of the ra ters used in each camp with a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of each. Although a l l ra ters co-operated to the l i m i t of t h e i r knowledge, i t was the opinion of the wr i te r that only i n Camp 1 and 4 d id the ra ters have genuine, int imate knowledge of the workers. The confusion caused by the ra t ing s c a l e , and the d i f f i c u l t i e s of the second ra ter i n each camp made i t necessary to s e l e c t , a r b i t r a r i l y , the f i r s t r a t e r ' s Rank Order of workers as the only c r i t e r i o n on which to base Successfu l and Unsuccessful r a t i n g s . 44 TABLE III A DESCRIPTION OF RATERS USED IN EACH CAMP Camp Rater Po s i t i o n Description 1 1 Manager 6 years with company. Intimate knowledge of a l l employees. 1 2 Mine Captain 2 years with company. Knew miners well, l i t t l e knowledge of m i l l and surface. 2 1 Manager 2 years on job. Admitted high turnover made accurate r a t i n g very d i f f i c u l t . 2 2 S h i f t Boss 1 year on job. Very involved underground. Admitted l i t t l e knowledge of surface work. 3 1 Personnel Manager Delegated by manager. Deeply involved i n Union/Management struggle. 3 2 No data. Cards l e f t i n camp to be forwarded Have not been received. 4 1 Mine Supervisor 15 years i n same camp. Thorough knowledge of a l l workers. Highly respected. 4 2 Chief Accountant 10 years with company. Knew a l l men. Had some influence i n h i r i n g p o l i c y . 5 1 Camp Administrator 1 year on job. Main concern with supplies and camp a c t i v i t i e s . 5 2 Mine Captain 2 years on job. Knew a l l miners but l i t t l e knowledge of surface crew. CHAPTER VII RESULTS OF ANALYSES Because of the d i f fe rences between camps noted in Chapter VI and i n Appendix II, a l l analyses and r e s u l t s are presented camp by camp. Results Relevant to Hypothesis 1 HYPOTHESIS 1: "Both s u c c e s s f u l and unsuccessfu l workers i n i s o l a t e d environments w i l l perceive the needs of Autonomy and Esteem to be the l eas t f u l f i l l e d . " F u l f i l l m e n t scores are obtained by t o t a l l i n g part (a) of items re levant to a p a r t i c u l a r need category. (Subject by subject f u l f i l l m e n t scores w i l l be found i n columns 28 through 39 i n the data sheets of Appendix III.) Hypothesis 1 was tested by comparing the average of the Autonomy and Esteem f u l f i l l m e n t mean scores with the average of the mean scores for P h y s i o l o g i c a l , S e c u r i t y , S o c i a l , and S e l f - A c t u a l ! z a t i o n f u l f i l l m e n t , i n each camp. Table IV shows the f u l f i l l m e n t mean scores for each need category i n each camp. Table V compares the d i f fe rences between the averages of the means of Autonomy and Esteem with those of Physio-l o g i c a l , S e c u r i t y , 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 camp. S i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s as determined by the s t a t i s t i c a l 46 TABLE IV t MEAN FULFILLMENT SCORES FOR EACH NEED CATEGORY _ . Phy Sec Soc Est Aut S .A . Category 2 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 TABLE V COMPARISON OF ESTEEM AND AUTONOMY AVERAGE FULFILLMENT WITH PHYSIOLOGICAL, SECURITY, SOCIAL AND SELF-ACTUALIZATION Average Es t + Aut Phy + Sec + Sec + S .A . Di f ference 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* * s i g n i f i c a n t «C = .05 47 procedures descr ibed below are so i n d i c a t e d . A l l d i f fe rences were tested at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The average of the f u l f i l l m e n t means of Esteem and Autonomy was less than the average means of P h y s i o l o g i c a l , S e c u r i t y , 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 that perceived Esteem and Autonomy f u l f i l l m e n t were lower than the average f u l f i l l m e n t of the other four needs, as hypothe-s i z e d . Hypothesis 1 was supported i n each camp. S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures Relevant to Hypothesis 1 1. Means and var iances of need category f u l f i l l m e n t scores were ca lcu la ted for each camp. 2. The Cochran tes t for homogeneity of var iance was appl ied (Myers, 1966, p. 73). A number of groups of var iances were found to be non-homogeneous. Below are l i s t e d the values of Cochran's "C" obtained by comparing the var iances of the f u l f i l l m e n t means for each need category. Included a lso i s the c r i t i c a l value of "C" (Myers, 1966, Table A-7) corresponding to the N for each camp, and an i n d i c a t i o n of the homogeneity of the group of va r iances . "N.H." ind ica tes non-homogeneity. Camp 1 (N-3.4) Ca lcu la ted "C" = .3132 C r i t i c a l value = .2616 (N.H.) Camp 2 (N=50) Ca lcu la ted "C" = .2192 C r i t i c a l value = .2542 Camp 3 (N=51) Ca lcu la ted "C" = .2426 C r i t i c a l value = . 2542 Camp 4 (N=41) Ca lcu la ted "C" = .2774 C r i t i c a l value = .2609 (N.H.) Camp 5 (N=52) Ca lcu la ted "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 lack of o v e r a l l homogeneity amongst the va r iances , i t was decided to tes t the d i f fe rences between need category means using an ana lys is of var iance (ANOVA), fol lowed by the Box co r rec t io n (Winer, 1962, p. 123), thus making the F tests more conservat ive than the usual F t e s t . Fol lowing i s a summary of the ANOVA for each camp, showing the obtained F, the tabled F (Hays, 1963, Table IV) , and the F obtained using the Box method. A l l d i f fe rences are tested at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Ana lys is of Variance Summary Tables Design: Two-way repeated measure (Computer program BMD08V UCLA) I = Subjects t reated as a f a c t o r . Populat ion: I n f i n i t e . Number of l e v e l s ( i . e . N) = Number of subjects per camp. J = Need category scores . Number of l e v e l s = 6 R = Rep l ica t ions (1 i n each case) Popula t ion: I n f i n i t e (Note: only the var iance due to J i s of i n t e r e s t i n t e s t i n g Hypotheses 1) Cairo Source SS df MS F(obtained) F(tabled) F (Box) I (N=34) J (6) I J (Error) 402.08 33 557.92 5 729.74 165 12.18 111.58 4.42 25.23* 2.27 (df 5,165) 4.17 (df 1,34) I (N=50) J (6) 710.36 49 354.90 5 I J (Error) 1284.93 245 I.(N=51) J (6) 736.75 5.0 546.57 5 I J (Error) 1399.75 250 I (N=41) J (6) I J (Error) I (N=52) J (6) 1140.29 40 334.18 5 802.48 200 1018.80 52 701.95 5 14.50 70.98 13.53* 5.24 14 .'73 109.31 5.60 I J (Error) 1269.21 255 19.98 140.39 4.97 19.52* 28.51 66.83 16.66* 4.01 28.21* 2.25 (df 5,245) 2.25 (df 5,250) 2.26 (df 5,200) 2.25 (df 5,255) 4.03 (df 1,49) 4.03 (df 1,50) 4.08 (df 1,40) 4.03 (df 1,52) * s i g n i f i c a n t «C = .05 50 4. Di f ferences 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 o c i a l and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n were tested for s i g n i f i c a n c e using Sche f fe ' s post hoc comparison fo l lowing ana lys is of var iance (Hays, 1963., p. 485). A l l d i f fe rences were tested at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The confidence i n t e r v a l s re levant to the d i f fe rences obtained 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 4. 3.76* * s i g n i f i c a n t cC = .05 Results Relevant to Hypothesis 2 HYPOTHESIS 2: "Both s u c c e s s f u l and unsuccessful workers in i s o l a t e d environments w i l l express greater d i s -s a t i s f a c t i o n at the Esteem l e v e l than at any other l e v e l . " (Subject by subject raw d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n scores w i l l be found i n columns 40 through 57 of the data sheets i n Appendix III.) 51 D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s c o r e s , as explained i n Chapter V, are the t o t a l s of part (b) minus part (a) of each item re levant to a p a r t i c u l a r need category. Hypothesis 2 was tested by comparing the mean of the Esteem score with the means of each of the other need category s c o r e s , camp by camp. Table VI shows the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n means for each need category 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 fe rences between the means of Esteem and each of the other categor ies i n each camp. S i g n i -f i c a n t d i f fe rences at the .05 l e v e l of confidence are so i n d i c a t e d . 52 TABLE VII 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 * s i g n i f i c a n t °C = .05 Twenty-five comparisons were made between the means of Esteem and the means of each of the other categories. The mean of Esteem was s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater i n 17 cases. The mean of Esteem was numerically but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater i n 7 further comparisons. In no case, however, was the mean of Esteem s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the mean of Se l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n . Hypothesis 2 was p a r t i a l l y supported. 53 Supplementary Results Re1evant to Hypothesis 2 a . Average of Esteem and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n Because there proved to be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e rence 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 S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n , these two means were averaged, and t h e i r averages compared to the averages of the means of the other categor ies i n each camp. Table VIII shows the averages of Esteem and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n compared to the averages of the other c a t e g o r i e s . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe rences as determined by the s t a t i s t i c a l procedures descr ibed below are so i n d i c a t e d . TABLE VIII COMPARISON OF ESTEEM AND SELF-ACTUALIZATION AVERAGE MEANS WITH PHYSIOLOGICAL, SECURITY, SOCIAL AND AUTONOMY AVERAGES Average E s t . + S . A . Average Phy + Sec + Soc + Aut Di f ference 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* * s i g n i f i c a n t <C = .0.5 5 4 The average of the Esteem and Self-Actualization dis-satisfaction 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 signifi-cantly 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 Di f ference 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* * s i g n i f i c a n t «C = .05 S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures Relevant to Hypothesis 2 1. Means and var iances of need category d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n scores were ca lcu la ted for each camp. 2. The Cochran tes t for homogeneity of var iance was appl ied (Myers, 1966, p. 73). A number of groups of var iances were found to be non-homogeneous. Below are l i s t e d the values of Cochran's "C" obtained by comparing the variances of the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n means for each need category. Included a lso i s the c r i t i c a l value of "C" (Myers, 1966, Table A-7) c o r r e s -ponding to the N for each camp. "N.H." ind ica tes non-homogeneity . 56 Camp 1 (N= 34) Ca lcu la ted "C" =.2616 C r i t i c a l value =.2616 Camp 2 (N= 50) Ca lcu la ted "C° =.2523 C r i t i c a l value =.2542 Camp 3 (N= 51) Ca lcu la ted "C" =.2431 C r i t i c a l value =.2542 Camp 4 (N= 41) Ca lcu la ted "C" =.2431 C r i t i c a l value =.2609 Camp 5 (N= 52) Ca lcu la ted "C" =.2638 C r i t i c a l value =.2542(N.H.) 3. As a r e s u l t of the lack of o v e r a l l homogeneity amongst the va r iances , i t was decided to tes t the d i f fe rences between the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n means using an ana lys is of var iance fol lowed by the Box cor rec t ion (Winer, 1962, p. 123), thus making the F tests more conservat ive than the usual F t e s t . Fol lowing i s a summary of the ANOVA for each camp, showing obta ined, tabled and corrected F using the Box method. A l l d i f f e rences are tested at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . ANOVA SUMMARY TABLES Design: I den t i ca l v;ith that of Hypothesis 1 (see p. 48). Camp Source SS df MS F(obtained) F(tabled) F(Box) 1 I (N=34) 225.26 33 6 . 82 - J (6) 138.55 5 27.71 8.95* 2.27 (df 5,165) • 4.17 (df 1,33) p < .05 IJ (Error) 510.94 165 3.10 2 I (N=50)' 461.34 49 9.41 J IJ (6) (Error) 286 .54 800.96 5 245 57.31 3.27 17.53* 2.25 (df 5,245) 4.03 (df 1,49) P < .05 3 I (N=51) 710.42 50 14.21 J (6) 444.18 5 88. 84 17.02* 2.25 (df 5,250) 4.03 (df 1,50) P < .05 IJ (Error) 1304.48 250 5.22 • 4 I (N=41) 609.04 40 15.23 J IJ (6) (Error 254.04 524.13 5 200 50.81 2.62 19.39* 2.26 (df 5,200) 4.08 (df 1,40) P < .05 5 I (N=52) 747.42 51 14.65 • J IJ (6) (Error) 426.26 1152.90 5 255 85.25 4.52 18.86* 2.25 (df 5,255) 4.03 (df 1,51) P < .05 * s i g n i f i c a n t «C = .05 s a PAIR-WISE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALL MEAN DISSATISFACTION SCORES Need Category Phy Sec Soc Est Aut S .A . Camp.l : PHY -0.6 8 -0.21 SEC +0.47 SOC EST AUT S .A . ( C r i t i c a l va lue , Camp 1=1.43) •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 2 Camp 3 PHY +0.96 +1.70* SEC +0.74 SOC EST AUT S .A . ( C r i t i c a l va lue , Camp 2=1.32) -0.55 +1.74* +2.29* PHY SEC SOC EST AUT S . A . ( C r i t i c a l va lue , Camp 3=1.41) -0.54 +2.20* +0.12 -1 .50* +1.26 -0.84 -2 .24* +0.52 -1 .58* — +2.76* +0.66 -2 .10* -0.47 +1.63* -1 .61* +0.08 +2.18* -1.06 -2 .21* -0.12 -3 .35* +2.10* -1.13 -3 .23* Camp 4: Camp 5 PHY — - -0.07 -0.05 -1 .85* SEC +0.02 -1 .78* SOC -1 .80* EST AUT S .A . ( C r i t i c a l va lue , Camp 4=1.20) PHY -0.29 +0.42 -2 .02* SEC — - +0.71 -1 .73* SOC -2.44* EST AUT S .A . ( C r i t i c a l va lue , Camp 5=1.40) +0.54 -2 .15* +0.61 -2 .07* +0.58 -2 .10* +2.39* -0.29 -2 .68* +1.29 -1 .77* +1.58* -1 .48* + 0. 86 +3.30* -2 .19* -0.25 -3 .06* * s i g n i f i c a n t «C = .05 5 9 4. Comparisons were tested between a l l pairwise means using Scheffe's post hoc comparison method (Hays, 1963, p. 483). The tables above show a l l pair-wise differences between d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n means for each camp. The c r i t i c a l figure above which i s a pair-wise comparison i s s i g n i f i c a n t according to Scheffe's method i s shown for each camp (Hays, 1963, p. 457). A l l differences were tested at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Results Relevant to Hypothesis 3 HYPOTHESIS 3: "Both successful and unsuccessful workers i n i s o l a t i o n w i l l perceive 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 subject importance scores w i l l be found i n columns 58 through 69 i n the data sheets i n Appendix III.) Importance scores as explained i n Chapter V are the to t a l s of part (c) of each item relevant to a p a r t i c u l a r need category. Hypothesis 3 was tested by comparing the importance mean of the So c i a l need scores and the importance mean of the S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n need scores with each of the other need category means, i n each camp. Table X shows the importance mean scores for each category, 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 Table XI shows the d i f fe rences between the means of S o c i a l importance scores and the means of each other need category i n each camp. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe rences as determined by the s t a t i s t i c a l methods descr ibed below are so i n d i c a t e d . Table XII shows the d i f fe rences between the importance means of S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n and each of the other need cate -gor ies i n each camp. In no case were e i ther S o c i a l or S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n importance means the lowest among the ca tegor ies . Hypothesis 3 was not supported in any camp. 61 TABLE XI « DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN SOCIAL IMPORTANCE SCORES AND MEANS OF OTHER CATEGORIES Need Category- Phy Sec Est Aut S .A . 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 * s i g n i f i c a n t oC = .05 TABLE XII DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN SELF-ACTUALIZATION IMPORTANCE SCORES AND MEANS OF OTHER CATEGORIES Need Category Phy Sec Soc Aut Est 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 * s i g n i f i c a n t «C = .05 62 Supplementary Results Relevant to H y p o t h e sis 3 a. Autonomy The f a i l u r e to support Hypothesis 3 led to fur ther ana lys is to determine i f any other need category fol lowed a d i s c e r n i b l e pat tern with regard to i t s perceived importance. When the importance mean scores for Autonomy were compared with 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 but two of the 25 comparisons made. These two instances were i n Camps 3 and 4 where the Autonomy means were numerical ly but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than Esteem. Table XIII shows the d i f fe rence between the importance mean scores fo r Autonomy and those of the other categor ies i n each camp. TABLE XIII DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN AUTONOMY IMPORTANCE SCORES AND MEANS FOR OTHER CATEGORIES JJefd Phy Sec Soc Est S .A . Category J  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* * s i g n i f i c a n t «C = .05 S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures Relevant to Hypothesis 3 1. Means and variances of need category importance scores were ca lcu la ted for each camp. 2. The Cochran tes t for homogeneity of variance was appl ied i d e n t i c a l l y as descr ibed i n connection with Hypothesis 1 (p. 47). Below are l i s t e d the obtained values of Cochran's " C " . "N.H." ind ica tes non-homogeneity. Camp 1 (N=34) Ca lcu la ted "C" =.3742 C r i t i c a l value =.2616(N.H.) Camp 2 (N=50) Ca lcu la ted "C" =.3309 C r i t i c a l value =.2542(N.H.) Camp 3 (N=51) Ca lcu la ted "C" =.2625 C r i t i c a l value =.2542 (N.H.) Camp 4 (N=41) Ca lcu la ted "C" =.4102 C r i t i c a l value =.2609(N.H.) Camp 5 (N=52) Calcula ted "C" = .2764 C r i t i c a l value=.2542(N.H.) 3. As a r e s u l t of the lack of homogeneity of var iance , i t was decided to tes t the d i f fe rences between need category means using an ana lys is of variance fol lowed by the Box c o r -r e c t i o n (Winer, 1962, p. 123). Fol lowing i s a summary of the ANOVA for each camp showing the obtained F, the tabled F (Hays, 196 3, Table IV) and the F obtained fo l lowing the Box c o r r e c t i o n . A l l d i f fe rences were tested at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . ANOVA SUMMARY TABLES Design: Ident ica l v;ith that of Hypothesis 1 (see page 48) Camp Source SS df MS F(obtained) F(tabled) F(Box) I J I J I J I J I J I J I J I J I J I J N=34) 6) Error) N=50) 6) Error) N=51) 6) Error) N=41) 6) Error) N=52) 6) Error) 358.24 306.61 431.55 468.67 534.30 817.87 570.83 529.94 1148.23 318.41 254.75 686.08 386 .96 719.67 1052.83 33 5 165 49 5 245 250 40 5 200 51 5. 255 10.85 61.32 2.61 9.56 106.86 3.39 50 11.42 5 105.98 4.59 7.96 50.95 3.43 7.59 143.93 4.13 23.44* 32.01* 23.08* 14.85* 34.86* 2.27 4.14 (df 5,165) (df 1,33) 2.25 4.03 (df 5,245) (df 1,49) 2.25 4.03 (df 5,250) (df 1,50) 2.26 4.08 (df 5,200) (df 1,40) 2.25 4.03 (df 5,255) (df 1,51) (Tl * s i g n i f i c a n t oC = .05 6 5 PAIR-WISE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ALL MEAN IMPORTANCE SCORES Need Category Phy Sec Soc Est Aut S .A . Camp 1: PHY +1.06 SEC SOC EST AUT S .A . ( C r i t i c a l value =1.32) + 1.20 + 0 .15 +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* SEC SOC EST AUT S .A . ( C r i t i c a l value =1.22) + 0.80 -0.4 8 +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* SEC SOC EST AUT S .A . ( C r i t i c a l value =1.42) Camp 4: PHY +1.10 SEC SOC EST AUT S .A . ( C r i t i c a l value =1.37) + 1.10 -0.76 + 0.39 -0.71 +2.88* + 0.98 +1.78* +2.10* + 1.00 +1.71* +3.51* +1.61* +2.41* + 0.63 +2.92* +1.83* +2.54* + 0.83 + 0.12 -1 .78* -0.98 -2 .76* -3 .39* + 0.63 -0.46 + 0 .24 -1 .46* -2 .29* Camp 5: PHY +1.59* SEC SOC EST AUT S .A . ( C r i t i c a l value =1.33) + 0 .94 -0.65 +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* * s i g n i f i c a n t £ = .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 pair-wise differences between importance means for each camp. The critical figure above which a pair-wise comparison is sig-nificant 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 un-successful 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 To ta l f u l f i l l m e n t scores , that*I.s the t o t a l of part (a) for each item across a l l needs categories were ca lcu la ted for a l l sub jec ts . Hypothesis 4 was tested by comparing the means of the t o t a l f u l f i l l m e n t scores of the success fu l group and the unsuccessfu l group i n each camp. Table XIV shows the mean t o t a l f u l f i l l m e n t scores for success fu l and unsuc-c e s s f u l workers, and the d i f fe rences between these means for each camp. Di f ferences 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 procedures descr ibed below are so i n d i c a t e d . A l l d i f fe rences were tested at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . TABLE X'lV COMPARISON OF MEAN TOTAL FULFILLMENT SCORES FOR SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS Mean Successfu l Mean Unsuccessful Di f ference Camp 1 79.90 68.90 6.00* Camp 2 66 .60 68.99 -2.39-Camp 3 67. 80 61.60 6.20* Camp 4 77.50 62.20 15.30* Camp 5 64.49 61.60 2.89 " * s i g n i f i c a n t °C = .05 68 Mean t o t a l f u l f i l l m e n t scores for success fu l workers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than those for unsuccessful workers i n Camps 1, 3 and 4, and numerical ly higher i n Camp 5. Hypothesis 4 was thus supported i n three camps. S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures Relevant to Hypothesis 4 1. Means and var iances of the t o t a l f u l f i l l m e n t scores for success fu l and unsuccessfu l workers were c a l c u l a t e d , camp by camp. Examination of the scores wi th in each group showed them to be non-normally d i s t r i b u t e d . Di f ferences between the var iances of the success fu l and unsuccessful groups proved to be l a r g e . Two important assumptions necessary for the use of ana lys is of var iance to compare the means of success fu l and unsuccessfu l groups were thus v i o l a t e d so that the ANOVA and Scheffe procedures used for the f i r s t three hypotheses were prec luded. 2. D i f ferences between f u l f i l l m e n t means were tested using the Mann-Whitney U t e s t , " for n = between 9 and 20 (S iege l , 1956, p. 119)". To ta l f u l f i l l m e n t scores for s u c c e s s f u l and unsuccessful groups 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 fe rence had been pred ic ted i n the hypothes is , the one t a i l e d tes t was a p p l i e d , at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e (S iege l , 1956, p. 120). camp: 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 n^ = 10 (Successful group for each camp) n£ = 10 (Unsuccessful group for each camp) = 155 (for each camp) n, (n, + 1) n n + 1 1 1 2 2 C r i t i c a l va lue , .05, one t a i l = 27 (for each camp) (S iege l , 1956, p. 277). Camp-1 Camp 2 Camp 3 Camp 4 Camp 5 U U U U U 26* 43.5 18.5* 13.5* 47.5 * s i g n i f i c a n t «G = .05 Results Relevant to Hypothesis 5 HYPOTHESIS 5: "Unsuccessful workers w i l l express a higher l e v e l of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n across a l l needs leve ls than w i l l s u c c e s s f u l workers." (Subject by subject t o t a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n scores are the two d i g i t numbers found in columns 7 4 and 7 5 of the data sheets i n Appendix III.) 70 To ta l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n scores , that i s , the t o t a l of part (a) minus part (b) of each item across a l l needs cate -g o r i e s , were ca lcu la ted for a l l sub jec ts . Hypothesis 5 was tested by comparing the mean of the t o t a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n scores of the unsuccessful group with the mean of the s u c c e s s f u l group, in each camp. 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 scores for success fu l and unsuccessful workers, and the d i f fe rences between these means. Di f ferences 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 procedures descr ibed below are so i n d i c a t e d . A l l d i f fe rences were tested at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . TABLE XV.'-. COMPARISON OF MEAN TOTAL DISSATISFACTION SCORES FOR SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS Mean Unsuccessful Mean Successfu l D i f ference Camp 1 12.00 7.40 ' 4.60* Camp 2 12.80 12.10 0.70 Camp 3 14.80 12.40 2.40 Camp 4 18.70 7.90 10. 80* Camp 5 ' 17 .60 10.70 6 .90 * s i g n i f i c a n t °C = .05 71 Mean t o t a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n scores for unsuccessful workers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than those for successful workers i n Camps 1 and 4, and numerically higher i n a l l other camps. The numerical difference was higher i n Camp 5 than i n Camp 1, but not significant.. Hypothesis 5 was supported i n two camps. S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures Relevant to Hypothesis 5 1. Means and variances of the t o t a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n scores for successful and unsuccessful workers were calculated, camp by camp. As with the re s u l t s relevant to Hypothesis 4, the scores were non-normally d i s t r i b u t e d and the differences between the variances of the successful and unsuccessful groups were large, thus v i o l a t i n g important assumptions necessary for analysis of variance. ANOVA and Scheffe pro-cedures as used i n the f i r s t three hypotheses were, therefore, precluded. 2. Differences between d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n means were tested using the Mann-Whitney U test "for n between 9 and 20" (Siegel, 1956, p. 119). Total d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n scores for successful and unsuccessful workers were combined and rank ordered, camp by camp. U was calculated. Since the d i r e c t i o n of the differences had been predicted by the hypothesis, the one t a i l e d t e s t was applied, at the .05 l e v e l of si g n i f i c a n c e (Siegel, 1956 , p. 120) . 72 Summary of Calculations ni_ = 10 (Unsuccessful workers i n each camp) = 10 (Successful workers i n each camp) n, (n, + 1) i c e / - -u \ n^n 2 + 1. 1 = 155 (in each camp) 2 C r i t i c a l value, .05, one t a i l = 27 (for each camp) (Siegel, 1956, p. 277). Camp 1: U = 20.5* Camp 2: U = 48.5 Camp 3: U = 38.5 Camp 4: U = 14 * Camp 5 : U = 29 * s i g n i f i c a n t = .05 Results Relevant to Hypothesis 6 HYPOTHESIS 6: "There w i l l be no difference attached to the importance of needs at various lev e l s between success-f u l and unsuccessful workers." (Subject by subject importance scores are the two d i g i t numbers found i n columns 77 and 7 8 of the data sheets i n Appendix III.) 73 T o t a l i m p o r t a n c e s c o r e s , t h a t «s the t o t a l o f p a r t (c) o f each i t e m a c r o s s 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 f o r each s u b j e c t . H y p o t h e s i s 6 was t e s t e d by comparing the mean o f t h e t o t a l i m p o r t a n c e s c o r e s f o r t h e s u c c e s s f u l and u n s u c c e s s f u l groups i n each camp. T a b l e X V I I shows t h e mean t o t a l i m p o r t a n c e 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 w o r k e r s , and the d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s e means. A l l d i f f e r -ences were t e s t e d a t the .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . TABLE XVI..: ' COMPARISON OF MEAN TOTAL IMPORTANCE SCORES FOR * SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS Mean Success f u l Mean U n s u c c e s s f u l D i f f e r e n c e 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 * s i g n i f i c a n t & = .05 74 There proved to be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe rences between the importance mean scores of success fu l and unsuccessfu l workers i n any camp. Hypothesis 6 was supported i n a l l camps. S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures Relevant to Hypothesis 6 1. Means and var iances of the t o t a l importance scores for s u c c e s s f u l and unsuccessfu l workers were c a l c u l a t e d , camp by camp. As with r e s u l t s re levant to Hypotheses 4 and 5, assumptions of normalcy and homogeneity of var iances were v i o l a t e d among the s u c c e s s f u l and unsuccessfu l groups. ANOVA and Sch'effe procedures used i n the f i r s t three hypotheses were, the re fo re , prec luded. 2. D i f ferences between importance means were tested using the Mann-Whitney U tes t " for n between 9 and 20 (S iege l , 1956, p. 119)". To ta l importance scores for success fu l and unsuccessfu l workers were combined and rank ordered, 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 d i f f e r -ence had not been pred ic ted by the hypothes is , the two t a i l e d tes t was a p p l i e d , at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e (S iege l , 1956, p. 120). Summary of Ca lcu la t ions n^ = 10 (Unsuccessful workers i n each camp) = 10 (Successful workers i n each camp) , n, (n. + 1) i r r / . , . nj_n2 1 1 = 155 (in each camp) 2 75 C r i t i c a l va lue , .05, two t a i l = 23 (for each camp) (S iege l , 1956 , p. 276). Camp 1: U = 33.5 Camp 2: U = 41 Camp 3 : u = 37 .5 Camp 4: u =. 25 Camp 5 : u = 25 Results Relevant to Hypothesis 7 HYPOTHESIS 7: "There w i l l be no d i f fe rence i n the b i o g r a p h i c a l d e t a i l s and personal h i s t o r i e s between success fu l and unsuccessfu l workers." (Subject by subject Personal Data information i s found as l a b e l l e d , i n columns 6 through 19 i n the data sheets in Appendix III.) A camp by camp comparison of the personal data d e t a i l s reported by s u c c e s s f u l and unsuccessfu l workers was c a r r i e d out using the s t a t i s t i c a l procedures descr ibed below. No d i s c e r n i b l e pat tern of d i f fe rences between the success fu l and unsuccessfu l groups was found across camps. Table XVII contains the personal data items regarding which information was c o l l e c t e d . Opposite each item i s a d e s c r i p t i o n of any 76 d i f fe rences found between success fu l and unsuccessfu l workers TABLE .XVII PERSONAL DATA DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS Personal Data Item Descr ip t ion of Di f ferences Age V Years of Schooling Jobs i n f i v e years Family s i ze M a r i t a l Status Worship Frequency A c t i v i t y Leve l Reading Level Hometown Size Parents ' Education (A l l d i f fe rences No d i f fe rences i n any camp No d i f fe rences i n any camp No d i f fe rences i n any camp No d i f fe rences i n any camp More married rated s u c c e s s f u l : Camp 2 only No d i f fe rences i n any camp No d i f fe rences i n any camp More heavy readers rated success fu l Camp 5 only More from small c i t i e s s u c c e s s f u l : Camp 3 only No d i f fe rences i n any camp. tested at .05 l e v e l of s ign i f i cance ) Hypothesis 7 was genera l ly supported i n each camp. S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures Relevant to Hypothesis 7 The Personal Data information was gathered on two l e v e l s of measurement: 77 1. Continuous Measures: Age, Years of Schoo l , Number of Jobs Held i n Five Years , and Family Size were each recorded in measurable scores . Assumptions of normalcy of d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores wi th in groups, and homogeneity of var iance between groups were tenable for each of the measures. Di f ferences between s u c c e s s f u l and unsuccessfu l groups on these measures were, there fore , analysed using ana lys is of va r iance . 2. Frequency Measures: M a r i t a l 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 Size and Parents ' Educat ional Level were coded in to categor ies in to which each subject could f i t only once for each measure (see quest ionna i re , Appendix I ) . D i f ferences i n the frequencies with which success fu l and unsuccessfu l workers f e l l in to d i f f e r e n t categor ies were tested using the Pearson Chi Square ( G u i l f o r d , 1965, Chapter . 11) . Deta i led descr ip t ions of methods and r e s u l t s fo l low. 1. The Continuous Measure Data Age : D i f ferences between'the mean ages of the s u c c e s s f u l , the middle and the unsuccessfu l groups in a l l camps, s imul -taneously , were tested using ANOVA, one way des ign . A summary of the ANOVA appears below: 78 GROUP N MEAN AGE Camp 1 Successfu l Middle Unsuccessful 10 14 10 36.10 35.43 38.20 Camp 2 Successfu l Middle Unsuccessful 10 30 10 32.30 34.33 38.50 Camp 3 Successfu l Middle Unsuccessful 10 31 10 30.40 28.32 35.20 Camp 4: Successfu l Middle Unsuccessful 10 21 10 40.60 34.24 43.60 Camp 5 Successfu l Middle Unsuccessful 10 32 10 32.00 31.37 40.70 ANOVA BETWEEN WITHIN SS 2770.15 33518.17 df 14 213 MS 197.87 157.36 1.26 (n.s. ) Years of Educat ion: ANOVA (one way design) was used to tes t d i f fe rences in the number of years of school ing reported by the s u c c e s s f u l , middle and unsuccessfu l groups in a l l camps. A summary of the data fo l lows: 79 GROUP N .^ EAN YEARS SCHOOL Camp 1: Successfu l Middle Unsuccessful 10 14 10 10.50 11.35 9.70 Camp 2: Camp 3 Camp 4: Successfu l Middle Unsuccessful Successfu l Middle Unsuccessful Successfu l Middle Unsuccessful 10 30 10 10 31 10 10 21 10 13.60 10 . 43 9.40 9.90 11.09 11.70 9.50 10.90 10 . 40 Camp 5 Successfu l Middle Unsuccessful 10 32 10 11.90 10. 84 9.70 ANOVA BETWEEN WITHIN SS 81.06 1769.62 df 14 213 MS F 12.93 1.56(n.s. ) 8.31 Number of Jobs Held i n 5 Years: ANOVA (one way design) was used to tes t d i f fe rences in the number of jobs held i n the past 5 years by s u c c e s s f u l , middle and unsuccessfu l groups i n a l l camps. A summary fo l lows: 80 GROUP N MEAN NUMBER OF JOBS Camp 1 Camp 2: Successfu l Middle Unsuccessful Successfu l Middle Unsuccessful . 10 14 10 10 30 10 2. 80 3.57 2.80 3 4 7 10 86 20 Camp 3 Successfu l Middle Unsuccessful 10 31 10 3.00 4.16 4. 40 Camp 4 Successfu l Middle Unsuccessful 10 21 10 1.30 2.47 2.70 Camp 5: Successfu l , Middle Unsuccessful 10 32 10 3.60 4. 87 8.00 ANOVA BETWEEN WITHIN SS 501.03 1852.53 df 14 213 MS 35.79 8.69 4.11 ( s i g . <C =.05) Fol lowing the f ind ing of a s i g n i f i c a n t F, Schef fe 's post hoc comparisons were performed between a l l pa i r -w ise means across a l l camps. The only d i f fe rences i n means which were s i g n i f i c a n t were those which occurred between means in 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 fe rences occurred between any two means i n the same camp. Di f ferences were tested at the .05 l e v e l . ( C r i t i c a l f igure above which d i f fe rences are s i g n i f i c a n t = 5.03.) Family S i z e : ANOVA (one way design) was used to tes t d i f fe rences in the s i ze of family reported by the s u c c e s s f u l , middle and unsuccessfu l groups i n a l l camps. A summary fo l lows: GROUP N MEAN FAMILY SIZE Camp 1: Successfu l 10 Middle 14 Unsuccessful 10 5.30; 4.50 4.30 Camp 2 Successfu l 10 Middle 30 Unsuccessful 10 4 5 5 90 33 70 Camp 3 Successfu l 10 Middle 31 Unsuccessful 10 6. 5 5. 70 22 00 Camp 4 Successfu l 10 Middle 21 Unsuccessful 10 5. 4 4 60 80 80 Camp 5 Successfu l 10 Middle 32 Unsuccessful 10 4, 4, 6 , 40 81 40 BETWEEN WITHIN SS 72.99 1335.80 ANOVA df 14 213 MS 5.21 6.27 0 .83(n.s . ) 82 2 * The Frequency Measure Data Di f ferences between the frequencies with which success-f u l and unsuccessfu l workers appeared i n the var ious Personal Data categor ies were tested with the Pearson Chi square procedure ( G u i l f o r d , 1965, Chapter 11). Fol lowing i s a summary of the obtained 1 Chi squares and degrees of freedom for each Personal Data category i n each camp S i g n i f i cant Chi squares are so ind ica ted . A l l frequency d i f fe rences were tested at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Personal Data Category Camp x2 1 df Camp x2 " 2 df Camp 3 X 2 " df Camp x2 4 df Camp 5 X 2 df M a r i t a l Status 1.48 2 *8.57 2 2.28 2 5.38 2 0.91 2 Worship Frequency 0.97 2 0.34 2 1.28 2 1.37 2 4.73 2 A c t i v i t y Level 3.08 2 2.50 2 5.93 2 2.62 2 0.41 2 Reading Level 2. 40 2 2.28 2 3.11 2 0.00 2 * 13.50 2 Hometown Size 2.25 3 3.77 3 *8.33 3 3.76 3 0.31 3 Parents ' Educ-a t ion * s i g n i f i c a n t <£ = .05 f u l for Table XVIU shows the frequency of occurrence of success-and unsuccessfu l workers in each Personal Data category each camp. Those coding categor ies from the quest ionnaire 83 which have been pooled are so i n d i c a t e d . Pool ing of categor ies became necessary when very low frequencies occurred in ce r ta in areas. TABLE XVMI FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS IN PERSONAL DATA CATEGORIES . Category Pooled Camp 1 Camp 2 Camp 3 Camp 4 Camp .5 Codes S U T S U T S U T S U T S U T 3 S ingle 0 + 3 2 3 5 4 10 14 8 6 14 3 7 10 6 5 11 'u Marr ied 1 8 6 14 4 0 4 2 2 4 7 2 9 2 3 5 Jg £ Divorced 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 2 2 4 £ & Often 2 4 2 6 3 2 5 3 2 5 4 2 6 3 4 7 2 0} Seldom 1 3 4 7 3 4 7 1 3 4 3 5 8 5 1 6 o ii, Never 0 3 4 7 4 4 8 6 5 11 3 3 6 2 5 7 & Low 0 + 1+2 1 4 5 5 5 10 2 4 6 7 5 12 6 7 13 +J > Medium 3+4 4 4 8 3 5 8 8 3 11 2 5 7 2 1 3 £ 2 High 5+6 5 2 7 2 0 2 0 3 3 1 0 1 2 2 4 -SH LOW 0+1+2 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 3 5 1 1 2 1 3 4 SJ Medium 3 3 3 6 3 2 5 3 3 6 2 2 4 1 7 8 OJ cu High 4 7 5 12 7 6 13 5 4 9 7 7 14 8 0 8 K_t-^ _ g Farm 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 4 3 4 7 5 4 9 ° a) V ^ ; l l a 9 e ' 2+3 1 1 2 0 3 3 1 2 3 0 1 1 2 2 4 QJ N T ° w n Small City4+5 5 4 9 4 2 6 6 2 8 6 3 9 1 1 2 a C i t y 6 4 3 7 5 4 9 0 5 5 1 2 3 2 3 5 _ . _ fi • Low 0+1+2 5 4 9 2 2 4 4 4 8 5 6 11 5 4 9 £ 3 Medium 3+4+5 4 6 10 6 7 13 6 5 11 5 4 9 4 6 10 High 6+7 + 8 1 0 1 2 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 Explanatory Notes: Pooled Codes: Shows those items from the quest ionnaire (Appendix III) which have been pOoled as a r e s u l t of low f requencies . Column Headings: S = S u c c e s s f u l ; U = Unsuccessfu l ; T = To ta l (S + U). CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS AND Conclusions Conclusions Regarding Overall Differences Between  Needs Categories The findings related to the o v e r a l l differences 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 categories give support to Maslow's concept of d i f f e r e n t i a l needs. There were strong differences on a l l three measures across most of the needs categories. Figures 2, 3 and 4 show, i n graph form the r e l a t i v e strength of the perceived 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 strength of importance of needs was very consistent across camps, although not i n the hypothe-sized d i r e c t i o n . I t w i l l be seen that 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 that an o v e r a l l need hierarchy based on importance would reads P h y s i o l o g i c a l , S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n , S o c i a l , Security, Esteem and Autonomy. The implications of th i s perceived hierarchy for managers and counsellors w i l l be discussed l a t e r i n the chapter. VIII IMPLICATIONS FIGURE 2 COMPARISON OF MEAN' FULFILLMENT OF NEEDS FIGURE 3 COMPARISON OF MEAN DISSATISFACTION OF .87 Q- CO CO — < CO FIGURE 4 •COMPARISON OF MEAN IMPORTANCE OF NEEDS 88 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 measures across the f i v e camps (Figures 2 and 3) are not as consis tent as those of importance. In genera l , the 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 measures of the lowest order needs, P h y s i o l o g i c a l and S e c u r i t y , tended to r e f l e c t a c t u a l , observed, camp c o n d i t i o n s . Thus, i n Camps 1 and 4, where great care had been taken to provide good l i v i n g quar te rs , food, safe working condi t ions and secure employment, f u l f i l l m e n t was high and d i s s a t i s f a c -t i o n low i n the P h y s i o l o g i c a l and Secur i ty ca tegor ies , r e l a t i v e to the other needs scores . In Camp 2, where l i v i n g quarters were cramped, temporary and d i r t y , and where the k i tchen s t a f f were being rep laced , P h y s i o l o g i c a l f u l f i l l m e n t was low and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n h igh . In Camp 3, where a strong union-management dispute over safety was i n progress , Secur i ty f u l f i l l m e n t 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 tchen was in charge of a "Blue Ribbon" European chef and the bunk-houses were newly renovated so that P h y s i o l o g i c a l f u l f i l l m e n t was h i g h . In the same camp the men were complaining about worn and obsolete and dangerous equipment l e f t behind from another opera t ion . Secur i ty f u l -f i l l m e n t , as a r e s u l t , was low. In terms of the Por te r -Lawler model, i t might be concluded that the lower order 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 measures var ied with the system o f lower order rewards i n operat ion at the time of data gather ing . 8 9 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 scores present a puzz l ing problem. S o c i a l f u l f i l l m e n t was cons is ten t l y 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, r e l a t i v e to the other ca tegor ies , i n every camp. Despite these very c o n s i s -tent S o c i a l scores there were great observed d i f fe rences i n the s o c i a l rewards systems, that i s the opportunity to f u l f i l l s o c i a l needs in each camp. Camp 4 provided a we l l equipped recrea t ion h a l l , a heated swimming p o o l , married l i v i n g quar te rs , a s c h o o l , l i b r a r y , and support for a l l forms of clubs and hobbies. Camp 2, at the other extreme, provided a bare , heated room for r e c r e a t i o n . No fami l i es or women were permitted in the camp, no formal dr ink ing f a c i l i t i e s e x i s t e d , and l i t t l e i n t e r e s t was shown i n a c t i v i t y outside working hours. Camp 1 had an ac t ive community c l u b , a s c h o o l , and was t ry ing to incorporate as a town. Camp 5 provided only a recrea t ion h a l l and a bar . Camp 3 management was i n the process of b u i l d i n g elaborate s o c i a l f a c i l i t i e s , and were encouraging fami l i es to move in to the camp. S t i l l , 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 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 , r e l a t i v e to the other needs, was the same. It can only be concluded from these f i n d i n g s , that , contrary to the hypotheses, workers in i s o l a t e d camps, perceive 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 . It i s i n t e r e s t i n g to speculate as to how much of th is s o c i a l s a t i s f a c t i o n i s due to measurable, e x t r i n s i c s o c i a l rewards, 90 and how much might be due to some element of human gregari-ousness i n reaction to a h o s t i l e environment. The present res u l t s do not provide answers to these speculations. Among the higher order needs of Esteem, Autonomy and Se l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n , a very consistent pattern of 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 occurs across a l l camps. This pattern proves to be quite d i f f e r e n t from that established i n the Porter-Lawler empirical studies with managers (Porter and Lawler, 1968, Chapter 6) . As hypothesized, Esteem and Autonomy among the i s o l a t e d workers are the lea s t f u l f i l l e d , with S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n f u l f i l l m e n t only s l i g h t l y higher (Figure 3) . While th i s finding p a r a l l e l s that of Porter and Lawler (1968, pp. 133, 134, 139, 140), the pattern of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n scores i s quite d i f f e r e n t . Esteem and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n , equally, prove to be the 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 pattern of Autonomy which provides the most i n t r i g u i n g f i n d i n g . Autonomy, for 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 d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . I t w i l l be remembered that Autonomy was also perceived to be the leas t important need category (Figure 4) . This lack of care about and i n t e r e s t i n Autonomy appears to be an almost uni-v e r s a l phenomenon among i s o l a t e d workers. 91 When these results are compared with those obtained from the managers of Porter and Lawler's samples (Porter and Lawler, 1968, pp. 134, 136, 138), i t i s seen that the d i s s a t i s -f a c t i o n patterns of Esteem and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n are s i m i l a r for managers and i s o l a t e d workers. The Autonomy d i s s a t i s -f a c t i o n scores of the managers, however, i s un i v e r s a l l y high r e l a t i v e to the others needs, and i s numerically second only to S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n , while for 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 low. It can be concluded, then, that Esteem and S e l f -A c t u a l i z a t i o n are as potent needs for i s o l a t e d workers as for managers, but that d i f f e r e n t perceptions of Autonomy might well provide a v a l i d clue as to the differences between managers and rank and f i l e workers. In summary, four general conclusions can'be drawn from the re s u l t s of the o v e r a l l analysis of the d i f f e r e n t i a l l y perceived 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. A d i s t i n c t , consistent hierarchy of need importance appears 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 given 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 and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s r e s u l t . 92 3 . High So c i a l f u l f i l l m e n t and low S o c i a l d i s s a t i s -f a c t i o n appear to be a universal phenomenon i n i s o l a t e d camps, and do not appear to depend upon externally observable conditions. 4 . The higher order needs of Esteem, Autonomy and S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n are eit h e r being consistently unrewarded .from camp to camp, or are being rewarded i n the same manner i n each camp. This conclusion i s based on the consistent pattern 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. Differences i n the perception of and the need for Autonomy may be a s i g n i f i c a n t discriminator between managers and rank and f i l e workers. Conclusions Regarding the Relationship Between  Success and S a t i s f a c t i o n As was described i n Chapter V I , the greatest single factor a f f e c t i n g the obtained r e s u l t s with regard to success and s a t i s f a c t i o n was the weakness of the Successful-Unsuccess-f u l r a ting system. Graphic comparisons of successful and unsuccessful scores are found i n Figures 5, 6, and 7. In general there was 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 rated performance and s a t i s f a c t i o n only i n those camps where managers had a genuine, intimate knowledge of workers (Table I I I ) . Thus i n Camp 4 , where the rater had been i n a super-CAMP 10-9-LOW T — i — i — i — i — r >- O CJ t— t— J i _ i o w - . o. «></> ui < tn HIGHI5 14 13 _ «o-_ 9-u. 8 < LOW ~i 1 1 r >- O O r-I Ul O W o. <n tn ui ,3 I2-| II :] 8 < LOW rV CAMP 3 x Cv o Ul (/> T" U o tn ui 3 < M l —r < in HIGH 15-. HIGH 15-i 14 J 13 z 12-1 10 ! 9 8 < LOW CAMP O Ul to —R O o in —r r— CAMP 5 I4J FIGURE 5 COMPARISON OF FULFILLMENT MEANS FOR SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS 94 HIGH t— o < CO I -< co </> CAMP I 2 LOW I i — i — r >- o X UJ o. co CJ o m ~ i — i — r H H <* Ui 3 • H i < CO HIGH z o r-O < u. CO r-< CO <o 4 _ 3 _ 2 -LOW CAMP 2 x 0. i — r CJ CJ r— UJ O Vi CO (o UJ i — T - r-< CO F I G U R E 6 C O M P A R I S O N O F D I S S A T I S F A C T I O N M E A N S F O R S U C C E S S F U L A N D U N S U C C E S S F U L W O R K E R S C A M P 5 X -I O V> Z3 • Q. (/>(/) U ^ (/> FIGURE 7 COMPARISON OF IMPORTANCE MEANS FOR SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL WORKERS visory p o s i t i o n i n the camp for f i f t e e n years, a l l differences i n 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 successful and unsuccessful workers were s i g n i f i c a n t i n the hypothesized d i r e c t i o n . In Camp 1, where, again, an experienced manager did the r a t i n g , differences between successful and unsuccess-f u l workers were s i g n i f i c a n t i n the hypothesized d i r e c t i o n . These findings suggest that i n these camps, the managers did i d e n t i f y the unsuccessful and successful workers and that these workers did have differences between t h e i r perceived 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, differences between the f u l f i l l m e n t anol_^---d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n of successful and unsuccessful workers were i n the hypothesized d i r e c t i o n , but were not s i g n i f i c a n t . I t w i l l be remembered from Table III that the rater i n Camp 5 was not deeply concerned with personnel so may not have picked the genuinely successful and unsuccessful workers i n terms of t h e i r value to the camp. Camp 2 produced the most confusing differences between the scores of successful and unsuccessful workers. Tables V and VI show a mixture of scores, some s i g n i f i c a n t , some non-s i g n i f i c a n t , some as hypothesized and some not. As pointed out i n Table I I I , the high turnover and chaotic conditions of the camp made accurate rating very d i f f i c u l t . The rater was deeply involved i n serious problems of engineering, 97 development and construct ion and had « i t t l e time for workers. In f a c t , numbers of workers had been working in the camp for as long as a month and had yet to be formal ly interviewed or put on the p a y r o l l . Camp 3, at the time of data gathering was engaged in prolonged union-management d i s c u s s i o n s . When the names and pos i t ions held by the unsuccessfu l group were examined, i t was found that those rank ordered 7, 8, 9 and 10 i n the unsuccessfu l ra t ings held pos i t ions 1, 2, 3 and 4 i n the l o c a l union. Pos i t ions 2 and 3 i n the unsuccessful group were held by two res idents of the nearest town who had been h i red before an unwritten company p o l i c y of not h i r i n g l o c a l workers had been put in to e f f e c t . Unsuccessful worker number 4 was an o f f i c e c l e r k , descr ibed by the ra ter as "a semi h i p p i e - ~ r e l a t e d to a company d i r e c t o r . " In no other success-f u l or unsuccessfu l group i n any camp was such a bias e v i -dent. It seems c lear that at l eas t some of the workers in Camp 3 were c l a s s i f i e d unsuccessfu l fo r reasons other than t h e i r job performance. If Camps 1 and 4 are considered as the only camps in which v a l i d performance ra t ing took p l a c e , what do the r e -s u l t s from these two camps reveal with regard to the r e l a -t ionsh ips pred ic ted in the model (Figure 1)? 98 1. The t o t a l f u l f i l l m e n t scores of the success fu l groups are s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than those of the unsuccess-f u l groups i n each camp, thus c l e a r l y supporting the pred ic ted 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 higher than those of the s u c c e s s f u l groups thus support ing the pred ic ted r e l a t i o n -ship between Performance, Rewards, Perceived Equi table Rewards and S a t i s f a c t i o n . 3. Porter and Lawler (1968) i n dev is ing a l t e r a t i o n s to the i r o r i g i n a l model suggest that the Reward va r iab le should be considered as two v a r i a b l e s , " e x t r i n s i c rewards (administered by the organizat ion) and i n t r i n s i c rewards (administered by the i n d i v i d u a l h i m s e l f ) . I t now appears that 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 by i n t r i n s i c rewards, i . e . the higher order needs such as autonomy and s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n are more l i k e l y to produce a t t i tudes that are s i g n i f i c a n t l y re la ted to p e r f o r -mance than are needs - such as secur i ty 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) 1 1 . The graphs for Camps 1 and 4 in f igures 5 and 6 show that d istances between s u c c e s s f u l and unsuccessful scores on 9 9 higher order needs are perceptibly greater than those between lower order needs thus i n d i c a t i n g some support for the Porter and Lawler suggestion. Conclusions Regarding the Relationship Between  Personal Data and Success The r e s u l t s related to Hypothesis 7 'suggest that there i s l i t t l e difference between the personal backgrounds of success-f u l and unsuccessful workers. I t should be remembered, however, that t h i s f inding i s based on the performance ra t i n g which was proven weak or i n v a l i d i n three camps, and upon ten items of personal data. Judgement on these r e s u l t s should, perhaps, be reserved u n t i l a r e p l i c a t i o n with more refined measures of performance and personal hi s t o r y can be ca r r i e d out. Implications Implications for both Manpower counsellors and management can be extracted from the present findings. Management I f , as suggested, perceived lower order needs are sen-s i t i v e to camp conditions, managers must continue to provide maximum Phy s i o l o g i c a l and Security rewards i n the form of good l i v i n g and safe working conditions. It should not be expected that merely by rewarding on these lower l e v e l s , an 100 increase i n performance w i l l r e s u l t , however. It i s d i f f i c u l t and qui te poss ib ly uneth ica l to reward good work performance with bet ter food, a bet ter room or a safer job. Thus, the lower order needs i n an i s o l a t e d camp have to be rewarded i n d i s c r i m i n a n t l y and equal ly regardless of performance. The fac t 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 constant regardless of managerial p o l i c y and i n t e r -vent ion suggests that management might do wel l to stay c l e a r of s o c i a l organiza t ion i n camps. If management maintains law and order and leaves s o c i a l organizat ion up to worker groups i t w i l l , according to the r e s u l t s , have as great an e f f e c t as i f i t ove r t l y organizes and administers s o c i a l rewards. The r e s u l t s suggest that optimum i n t r i n s i c rewards of the higher order needs of Esteem, Autonomy and S e l f - A c t u a l i -zat ion are not being obtained by wprkers i n i s o l a t e d groups. Yet Porter and Lawler (1968, p. 163) and the r e s u l t s from Camps 1 and 4 suggest that rewards i n these areas are more l i k e l y to increase s a t i s f a c t i o n than rewards on lower l e v e l s . Management must f i r s t accept that higher order rewards cannot be ex te rna l ly manipulated as e a s i l y as can P h y s i o l o g i c a l and Secur i ty rewards. Higher order reward can only be obtained by a worker, h imse l f , working i n a psycho log ica l cl imate where "management attempts to attach appropriate rewards i n higher order needs. . . to d i f fe rences i n performance (Porter and Lawler , 1968, p. 178)". 1 0 1 Vocational and Manpower Counsellors The advantage of the Porter-Lawler model with i t s underpinning i n the Maslow theory i s that i t brings the goals of counsellors and of managers within the same frame-work. The counsellor's concern i s that his c l i e n t , with his s p e c i f i c aptitudes, motivations and a b i l i t i e s w i l l f i n d a job that has a system of rewards providing s a t i s f a c t i o n . The manager's concern i s that he can provide a system of rewards which w i l l lead to increased e f f o r t , hence increased performance. Thus, the counsellor and manager must both concern themselves with the job and reward perceptions of workers e s p e c i a l l y as they are related to the Maslow needs hierarchy. S p e c i f i c a l l y , there are a number of implications i n the present study relevant to counsellors and counsellor t r a i n i n g . The support given to the Maslow theory of d i f f e r e n t i a l needs by the data suggests that t h i s theory might form a major t o o l for the work of manpower.counsellors. A counsellor working from the Maslow p o s i t i o n w i l l concentrate on his client's personal needs and perceptions rather 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 aptitudes and biographical h i s t o r y . Counsellor and c l i e n t would search to-gether for a job environment where the client's s p e c i f i c needs could be met i n exchange for job performance. 102 The support i n the data for the Porter-Lawler model, p a r t i c u l a r l y the concept of reward systems, has implications for counselling practice and for counsellor education. Courses for counsellors designed to give them knowledge of the world of work should include 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 stress must be l a i d so that counsellors understand the rewards related to the higher needs l e v e l s , and the possible connection between these rewards and s a t i s f a c t i o n . The counsellor i n t r a i n i n g should be brought to see the world of work as a dynamic environment i n which varied rewards are continuously being given to f i l l constantly changing needs i n exchange for equitable le v e l s of performance. Further Research The most pressing research needed with regard to the present data i s an attempt to confirm or deny the findings regarding differences between the s a t i s f a c t i o n s of success-f u l and unsuccessful workers. The present findings, based on only two camps, are questionable. Lawler (1968, p. 462) i n an a r t i c l e published since the information for the present study was gathered, has shown that 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 before a rating of performance i s a better predictor of that performance than 103 of performance rated concurrently wi , 4 i the c o l l e c t i n g of the s a t i s f a c t i o n scores. He concludes "there may be a time lag b u i l t into the causal r e l a t i o n s h i p (p. 467)". Lawler 1s findings might be tested and the present findings re-tested i f a revised rating scheme were to be presented to raters i n the camps used i n the present study, one year aft e r the present information was c o l l e c t e d . Other research i s required to test whether the findings of the present 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 generalize to other work settings. A r e p l i c a t i o n of the present study at an urban mine s i t e would be of value. Replications i n other i s o l a t e d industries such as logging and shipping might further t e s t the findings. I f , as suggested above, the model has value i n the t r a i n i n g for and practice of counselling, then formal tests and refinements of i t are v i t a l l y necessary. Research might be designed to test the hypothesis that discrepancies i n perceived higher order s a t i s f a c t i o n s cause greater differences i n performance than do discrepancies i n lower order s a t i s -factions , a finding only hinted at by the present r e s u l t s . F i n a l l y , the i d e a l type of research i n t h i s area would be a f i e l d experiment conducted i n an i s o l a t e d work environ-ment. The design would permit the c a r e f u l control and mani-pulation of rewards on each needs l e v e l over a period of time. Periodic and controlled monitoring of s a t i s f a c t i o n s and per-104 formance using a refinement of the present instruments could be c a r r i e d out to tes t the on-going r e l a t i o n s h i p s between performance, rewards and s a t i s f a c t i o n . An added dimension to such a study might be the p lac ing of a t ra ined counsel lor at the d i s p o s a l of one segment of the sample. Tests could be made to determine i f the in tervent ion of a counsel lor would have any e f f e c t on reward percept ion and hence on performance and s a t i s f a c t i o n . B I B L I O G R A P H Y 106 Berry, N.H., Nelson, P.D., & McNally r i M.S. A note on supervisor ratings. ' Personnel Psychology, 1966, 1_, 423-26. Canadian I n s t i t u t e of Mining and Metallurgy. A survey of manpower requirements of the Canadian mineral industry. Montreal: Canadian I n s t i t u t e of Mining and Metallurgy, 1967. Centers, R., & Bugental, D.E. I n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c job motivations among d i f f e r e n t segments of the working population. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, 193-197. Dunnette, M.D. a note on the c r i t e r i o n . Journal of Applied  Psychology, 1963, 47, 251-254. E i l b e r t , R.R., Glaser, R., & Hanes, R.M. Research on the f e a s i b i l i t y of se l e c t i o n of personnel for duty at i s o l a t e d stations. U.5.A.F. Personnel Training Research Centre, Technical Report, 1957. Friedlander, F. Underlying sources of job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Journal of Applied Psychology, 196 3, 47, 2 46-250. Friedlander, F. Motivations to work and organizational per-formance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, 143-152. Frederiksen, N., Jensen, O., & Beaton, A.E. Organizational  climates and administrative performance. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1968. Gu 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. Adaptation to extreme environments: Prediction of performance. San Diego: United States Navy Medical Neurological Research Unit, 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 ' evaluations for biographical data. Journal 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 psychological differences among occupational groups. Journal of Psychology, 1966, 62, 287-304. 107 Gunderson, E.K., & Nelson, P.D. Adaptation of small groups to extreme environments. Aero Space MedjLci._ne, 1963, 3_4, 1111-1115. Gunderson, E.K., & Nelson, P.D. C r i t e r i o n measures for extremely i s o l a t e d groups. Personnel Psychology, 1966. 19, 67-80. Gunderson, E.K., Nelson, P.D., & Orvick, J.S. Personal hist o r y correlates of m i l i t a r y performance at a large  Antarctic s t a t i o n . San Diego: United States Navy Medical Neurological Research Unit, Report 64-22, 1964 . H a l l , D.T., & Hougaim, K.E. An examination of Maslow's need hierarchy i n an organizational 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. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1963. 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 . Journal of Applied 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 analysis of the r e l a t i o n -ship between expectancy attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 5_2, 462-468. Lawler, E.E., & Porter, 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 Relations, 1967, 1_, 122-42. Lefkowitz, J.M. Self esteem of i n d u s t r i a l workers. Dissertation Abstracts, 1966, 27, 599-600B. Lewin, K. The conceptual representation and measurement of psy- chological forces. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1936 . Ley, R. Labour turnover as a function of worker differences, work environment and authoritarianism of foremen. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966 , 50_, 497-500. Loudermilk, K.M. Prediction of e f f i c i e n c y of lumber and paper m i l l employees. Personnel Psychology, 1966, 1_9_, 301-310. Maslow, A.H. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 1943, 50, 370-396. 108 Maslow, A.H. Eupsychian management. Komewood, 111.: Ir w i n and Dorsey, 1965. Maslow, A.H. A theory of metamotivation: 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 . Psychology 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 of 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 to managerial performance. Unpublished D o c t o r a l 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 keley, 1967. Myers, J.L. Fundamentals of experimental design. Boston; A l l y n and Bacon, 1966. Nelson, 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 small A n t a r c t i c s t a t i o n s : A summary of  c r i t e r i o n s t u d i e s . San Diego: United States Navy Medical N e u r o l o g i c a l Research U n i t , Report 63-8, 1963. Nelson, P.D., & Or v i c k , J.M. Personal h i s t o r y c o r r e l a t e s of  performance among c i v i l i a n personnel i n s m a l l  A n t a r c t i c s t a t i o n s . San Diego: United States Navy Medical N e u r o l o g i c a l Research U n i t , Report 64-4, 1964. Palmai, G. P s y c h o l o g i c a l aspects of t r a n s i e n t populations i n A n t a r c t i c a . In Medicine 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 Health O r g a n i z a t i o n , 1963, 146-158. P o r t e r , L.W. A study of perceived needs s a t i s f a c t i o n s i n bottom and middle management jobs. J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d  Psychology, 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 . Perceived 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 job l e v e l . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1962, 46, 375-384. P o r t e r , L.W., & Lawler, E.E. Managerial a t t i t u d e s and performance. Homewood, 111.: Richard 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 study of 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 business h i e r a r c h i e s . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Psychology, 1967 , 51., 139-144. Seek, Hong-Chee. Performance as a f u n c t i o n of 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 of 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 change measurement i n i s o l a t e d work gro u p s . 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 measurement, 1967, 27, 75-82"."""" " ~ " ~ ~ * S m i t h , P . C , & Cranny, C J . P s y c h o l o g y o f men a t work. A n n u a l Review o f P s y c h o l o g y , 196 8 , 19_, 467-496. T i f f i n , J . , & McCormick, E . J . I n d u s t r i a l p s y c h o l o g y . Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1965. Tolman, E.G. 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. New York: C e n t u r y Co., 1932. Vroom, V.H. Work and m o t i v a t i o n . New York: 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 e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n . 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 f a c t o r s i n t h e s e l e c t i o n o f c i v i l i a n s f o r i s o l a t e d n o r t h e r n s t a t i o n s : 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 . P e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s i n the s e l e c t i o n o f c i v i l i a n s f o r i s o l a t e d n o r t h e r n s t a t i o n 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 , 1963, 47, 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 V QUESTIONAIRE 1. a. How is the pay on this job 1 2 3 4 5 b. How should the pay be on this job? 1 2 3 4 5 c. How important is pay to you? 1 2 3 4 5 2. 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 3. a. How much chance is there to make friends on this job? 1 2 3 4 5 b. How much chance should there be to make friends on this job? 1 2 3 4 5 c. How important is making friends to you? 1 2 3 4 5 4. a. How safe is your present job? 1 2 3 4 5 b. How safe should your job be? 1 2 3 4 5 c. How important is safety to you? 1 2 3 4 5 5. a. How much credit do you get for what you do on this job? 1 2 3 4 5 b. How much credit should you get for what you do on this job? 1 2 3 4 5 c. How important is getting credit for what you do, to you? 1 2 3 4 5 6. 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 7. 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 de-cide 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? 1 2 3 4 5 8. 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 9. 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? c. How important is permanent work to you? 1 2 3 4 5 10. a. How much do you decide what you will work on, on this job? b. How much should you be able to de-cide what you will work on? c. How important is it for you to decide what you will work on? 12. 11. a. How good is the food on this job? b. How good should the food be on this job? c. How important is good food for you on the job? 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? How important is improving yourself, on a job, to you? How much can you do your job your own way? How much should you be able to do your job your own way? How important is doing your job your own way, to you? How much do you feel that you are do-ing something worthwhile, on this job? How much should you be able to feel that you are doing something worth-while on this job? How important is doing something worthwhile, to you? How good are the living quarters on this job? How good should the living quarters be on this job? How important are living quarters to you? How well do you fit in, or feel that you belong in this job? How well should you fit in or feel that you belong? How important is fitting in or feeling that you belong, to you? How well does the company look after your welfare? How well should the company look after your welfare? How important is a company welfare program to you? How much do you use all your skills and abilities on this job? 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? 13. a. b. c. 14. a. b. 15. a. b. c. 16. a. b. c. 17. a. b. c. 18. a. b. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 19. a. How is the management on this job? 1 2 3 4 5 b. How should the management be on this job? 1 2 3 4 5 c. How important is good management on a job, to you? 1 2 3 4 5 20. a. How do you feel about working in an isolated mining camp? 1 2 3 4 5 b. How do you feel about working at a mine near a town or city? 1 2 3 4 5 c. How important is the location of a job to you? 1 2 3 4 5 21. a. How much is your job respected by people not working in the mining industry? 1 2 3 4 5 b. How much should your job be respect-ed by people not working in mining? 1 2 3 4 5 c. How important is the respectability of your job, to you? 1 2 3 4 5 TAPE NO. POSITION ON TAPE. No. ..^>.MM PERFORMANCE NAME: JOB: Please rate the above named on the scale below based on his overall performance and ability on the job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Very poor Poor Fair Average Good Good Excellent No. SOCIAL NAME: JOB: Please rate the above named on the scale below based on his ability to get along with his co-workers and others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Very poor Poor Fair Average Good Good Excellent No. PERFORMANCE NAME: JOB: Please rate the above named on the scale below based on his overall performance and ability on the job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Very poor Poor Fair Average Good Good Excellent No. 1.93 SOCIAL NAME: JOB: Please rate the above named on the scale below based on his ability to get along with his co-workers and others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Very poor Poor Fair Average Good Good Excellent a (d)(2) JOB PERCEPTION in THE MINING INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELLING PSYCHOLOGY FACULTY OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA VANCOUVER, CANADA <3> <8> P PERSONAL DATA SHEET 1. NAME: AGE: 1. 2. EDUCATION: (Last Grade obtained ) Total years school 2. 3. JOB HISTORY: (Last five years) Time Worked Time Unemployed Total Jobs 3-4. MARITAL STATUS: Single 0 Married 1 Divorced or Sep 2 Wife Deceased 3 5. WORSHIP FREQUENCY: Monthly or more 2 Less than monthly.. 1 Never 0 6. ACTIVITY: Clubs Hobbies Sports Two 2 2 2 One 1 1 1 None 0 0 0 Total6. 7. READING L E V E L : Books per month Two 2 One 1 None 0 Magazines per month Four + 2 One to three 1 None 0 Total HOMETOWN: (Name. Population: 100,000 + 6 25,000 + 5 .2,500 + 4 1,000+ 3 1,000- 2 Farm/Isolated.... 0 9. FAMILY: Sisters .... Brothers . Total 9. 10. PARENTS: Occupation: Education: Father Mother College Grad. 4 4 High School Grad. 3 3 High School Attended 2 2 Elem. School 1 1 No Formal School 0 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 II c LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF MINING CAMPS VISITED Camp 1: Camp 1 i s a small open p i t mine located i n the F l a t River v a l l e y near the watershed of the Logan Mountains some 180 miles northeast of Watson Lake, Yukon. The mine i s reached by four wheel drive vehicle over a company road. The camp has a number of houses and a small school but the majority of workers l i v e i n very well appointed, single room bunkhouses. There i s a highly developed community s p i r i t 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 small underground operation some 60 miles due west of Carmacks, Yukon. I t i s reached by a i r or by four wheel drive vehicle when the road i s open. The camp i s i n the development stage and accomodation i s pr i m i t i v e , although a f u l l y modern camp i s i n process of construction. Turnover of workers i s very high and conditions are unsettled. The mine and m i l l ceased operation i n March of 1969 but are expected to re-open before 1970. Camp 3: Camp 3 i s a highly successful open p i t operation some 60 miles northwest of Dawson C i t y , Yukon. I t i s i n process 113 of rapid expansion, with a townsite for some 800 people under construction. I t i s reached by a i r or by road when the Yukon River crossing i s frozen. The camp i s rapidly becoming an i n d u s t r i a l operation, with union problems and related d i f f i -c u l t i e s occupying a great- portion of management time. Camp 4: Camp 4 i s a small underground gold mine which has operated for some twenty years on a small lake some 60 miles north of Yellowknife, N.W.T. The camp i s a highly developed community with a low turnover rate and a very s a t i s f i e d atmosphere. When v i s i t e d , the l a s t ore was being removed from the mine and plans were to cease operation i n June of 1969. Camp 5: Camp 5 i s located at Port Radium on Great Bear Lake, N.W.T. and i s the most remote and i s o l a t e d operating mine i n Canada. I t i s a highly successful s i l v e r producer and i n 1967 was Canada's top producer of thi s metal. The mine i s reached by a i r from Yellowknife and has recently i n s t a l l e d an a i r s t r i p which makes year round landings possible. The mine i s being managed for an American parent company by a professional management concern. There i s a cer t a i n amount of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h i s arrangement expressed by the men, although the manager, himself, i s very popular. The accompanying map shows the location of each camp. L O C A T I O N O F M I N I N G C A M P S V I S I T E D APPENDIX III DATA Appendix III contains complete subject by subject data relevant to a l l analyses c a r r i e d out i n the present study. The locations of numbers, values and scores on the data sheets of the appendix are given i n the column code tables which follows COLUMN NUMBER DATA COLUMN NUMBER DATA } 1 -2 3 4 5 -6 7 8 9 10 -11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 -Camp number -Subject number -Age -Years of Education -Present job 40 42' 43 44 - D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n : Phy, } - D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n : Sec, } -Jobs held i n past 5 years --Marital status --Worship frequency — A c t i v i t y Level —Reading l e v e l --Hometown size --Family size — P a r e n t s ' education --Manager's pe r f . r a t i n g --Manager's s o c i a l rating — S u p e r v i s o r ' s p e r f . r a t i n g --Supervisor's s o c i a l r a t i n g -Manager's rank order -Supervisor's rank order - F u l f i l l m e n t : Phy. -F u l f i l l m e n t : Sec. -F u l f i l l m e n t : Soc. -F u l f i l l m e n t : Aut. -F u l f i l l m e n t : Est. -F u l f i l l m e n t : S.A. 47 } 48 49 -50' 51 52 • 53} 54 55 • 56 } 57 58} 59 60} 61 62} 63 64} 65 66} 67 68} 69 70 • 7 1 ) 72 73 • 74} 75 76 • 77} 78 - D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n : Soc. - D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n : Aut. - D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n : 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: Est. -Importance: S.A. -Total F u l f i l l m e n t -Total D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n -Total Importance A P P t N u I X 1 I I b U u J t ^ T i H K - J I M A L L CAMPS K A I M N O R D E R E D MS To M A N A G C R S R A l l N G ( C u L o f i N C O D I N G I N F O R M A T I O N ON P R E V I O U S P A G E ) S U B J E C T S F R O M C A M P -1 S U C C E S S F U L N = 1 0 C O L U M N N U M B E R ' S J i B H o r i « t | - ! — ; — - •Olio s« uiM\oi*.ol'--0kr>MJj^9M cnlcdo H I - r 1028 49 UV3u312446 :> 2 fo'j-jQ ±0114141 3111012 0 0 1 1 2 2141413131214 74 6 •8? 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 0 1 • 1 1 1151514131515 80 4 87 1003 52 10203 ii3Jo92fa5^t 40 J 13141315 3 1413 1 1 0 1 . 1 1 1 5 1 2 1 D 31514 7 2 5 74 1018 31093 0312544o2o4 5 40 40 21513 9121212 0 -2 2 1 1 1151213 141415 73 3 83 1019 42 143O21254oi7753305251212121511 6 3 3 2 0 4 9 1'5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 68 2 1 - 90 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 -1 2151515141515 84 3 89 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 5 1 4 1 0 1 2 1 4 IS 68 1 ? s n 1029 221 120310544 7 46 6540 80615151512 8 13 ~0 ~~0 -2 -1 5 2151515111115 78 4 82 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 0 -1 3 0 3 4151515151515 77 9 90 1024 28 10202115444466541009151414 71114 0 1 1 0 4 1151515 71315 75 7 80 M I D D L E N=14 1030 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 0 0 0 2 3 u 15 1511 3 912 64 5 65 1027 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 0 1 -2 0 5 31510 9 8 811 61 7 61 1009 3012208014443 3o6431^1211121 111 910 4 3 4 ? 4 3 1 5 1' 5 1 5 1 3 1 4 1 5 64 2 0 87 ? 1013 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 2 0 5 1 5 115 1414101313 68 14 79 \[ 1034 3 7 15302103J.4<±O563215 26 151415111014 0 1 0 1 5 H 5 1 5 1 5 1 2 1 4 1 5 79 8 86 12 1011 3 1 1 6 2 0 3 1 0 6 4 4 2 4 4 5 4 4 1 b 0 8 1 3 1 0 8 81013 1 5 5 0 ? u l 41 4 9 8 91 4 6? 1 3 ft 11 1025 36122031^120^4 5 54^:1723151515 111315 0 0 U 2 2 U151515151515 84 4 90 >,0 1012 4 5 i l 3 0 3 0 0 4 4 b 7 4 5 3 4 2 1 b i 4 1 3 1 4 9 8 8 5 •1 . 0 0 -1. 5 61514 9 7 7 9 57 11 61 9 1002 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 1 1 0 1 3 2151113 91315 62 8 76 8 1020 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 3 6 2 7 3 12151114121115 46 33 7 Xl 102 1 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 0 1 u 2 4 2131515131515 78 9 8 ft 102b 37 0V502iiJt4^2u55j£:2ill5J.ll5 9 1013 0 4 0 1 1 11^1515111213 73 7 83 s 1017 2 5 1 1 ^ 0 3 1 1 3 ^ H J 4 3 3 4 4 2 J 2 0 1 2 912 8 811 2 5 1 2 3 415151311 915 6U 17 7 id 1006 240b2u4Gu4j>o34444:324-2 7 151113 31111 0 4 0 6 4 3151513151515 66 17 90 U N S U C C E S S F U L * " N=lU 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 4 0 '2 4151514121413 71 11 83 1022 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 0 2 1 3 3 4151115131513 60 13 82 1032 21l430100244<:45b43£70414 ti 12 7 710 0 3 2 2 4' 4151114101115 58 15 7 6 1016 3£>10i>U411 <::>o4b<:t<0314 ± 4 1 4 1 3 V l U u u 1 -1 3 3151512111213 74 b 7 1033 37072O3iO443b4b4 3 3 <i 9 29 1 3 i 01 4 7 912 2 1 0 3 6 3151414101315 65 15 81 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 9 913 2 u u •6 • 4 2 1 3 1 3 I 5 1 3 1 u l 5 74 14 79 1014 4707103121006343 32 3 1321 5 131 5 10 1213 u u u 2 1 2151515 91315 8u 5 82 1005 3 2112021142q44b4433231131315 71313 2 2 0 . 4 1 2151515121515 74 11 8.7 1008 '3504202022403342323334151514 3 1012 0 0 1 9 5 3151515131515 69 18 .8 1023 351 12021053b433443341b14 714 9 911 1 7 -2 1 2 315 1012 91111 64 12 68 S U B J E C T S FROM CAMP 2 S U C C E S S F U L N = 1U 3 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 3 3 1 ' 0 4 415 1412151515 63 15 86 2061 52 173031 i 3 4 5 2 3 6 7 6 6 0 2 0 2 9 911141111 6 1 3 0 3 4151115151315 65- 17 84 2'0 3 l 3 0 2 3 3 0 2 1 2 5 4 4 3 8 6 7 6 5 0 3 1 0 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 5 1 3 1 5 3 0 4 0 0 0131314151315 79 7 83 2084 26 113041 123512 7 7660 4071211121 1 715 2 2 0 2 6 0151313121115 68 12 81 .•2081 231220 40023654776 60 51314 611101011 •o 5 0 0 0 211 81010 713 62 7 59 • 2060 5 112103201409277650604101010 9 813 5 4 2 3 6 2151512111215 60 22 80 2077 2 1 1 2 2 0 3 0 1 1 3 4 6 5 7 7 6 5 0 7 0 6 1 2 1 2 1 1 51112 3 2 4 2 3 2 1 5 1 1 1 5 8 914 63 16 72 2 082 24102 0 4 0 2 4 4 6 6 3 / 6 6 6 0 8 4 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 -1 2 1141315 91215 73 6 78 2080' 2 3 1 2 2 0 4 0 0 3 4 6 6 4 7 6 2 6 0 9 2 2 1 3 715 9 5 7 0 2 0 2 6 615 915131414 58 16 80 2 0 79 311720212246267 766100315131512 614 0 2 u -3 3 115151512 915 75 3 81 M I D D L E N = 30 2064 4 2 1 3 1 0 3 1 l 3 2 5 4 5 o / 5 5 i l 2 0 1 2 1 3 1 5 1 5 1 1 9 3 0 0 0 3 615131515 915 75 12 82 2076 16 1 2 2 0 3 0 1 2 4 4 9 4 6 6 5 5 1 2 3 8 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 0 o i l 3 3 1 1 4 3151415111515 65 15 85 2065 2 2 1 2 3 0 6 0 2 4 0 4 4 i b 5 o 3 l 3 1 9 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 4 3 2 1 1 0' 1151414131515 76 8 86 2043 3 3 1 1 4 0 3 0 2 4 4 3 2 3 6 6 6 5 1 4 0 9 1 0 1 1 910 8 6 4 4 4 2 2 5141515151112 54 21 82 2066 5 4 0 9 2 0 4 3 1 3 ^ 4 8 2 6 7 5 3 1 5 4 3 1 3 4 9 4 8 6, 2 10 5 4 6 6151215 61413 4 4 33 75 2056 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 5 3 -2 2 6 1131513 9 713 6 0 15 7 2 2041 49 0811120245546 7 5 51711111214111213 4 3 1 1 3 2151215111312 73 14 7 2 0 42 291330920245^567541635 7. 81013 8 9 7 2 4 0 2 4151013141014 55 19 7 6 2054 4509 1063134J93565J1937 10101312 o12 4 4 2 1 6 3141313131315 65 2 0 83 2065 6 11030302045^6/4o 3 20 <: i 1 2 i 3 1 2 9 .9 8 ") C <i 1 1 2 415151510 913 63 12 77 2068 1 9 0 d 2 0 a 0 0 3 3 4 9 6 6 o b 5 2 l 2 7 91314 61011 6 2 1' 1 5 015 1515 61512 63 15 7 2035 3 2 i < i l U b l 0 3 4 D 3 < i 3 c j 4 4 2 < ^ 3 9 8 9 6 5 5 6 7 4 3 9 1J15 1 5 1 5 1 3 1415 42 39 8 7 2059 21133020064026653523 44121412111110 1 0 1 0 1 410 910 9 915 70 7 62 2036 261010502 44 03 45 54424321010 910 1012 3 2 3 0 2 1151414111113 61 11 7 8 2039 41091050102450454525331410 8 9 4 6 0 3 0 0 4 0141? 3 7 8 7 51 7 5 1 2045 2010204003466556552629111314 81115 3 2 0 1 3 0151514 91415 72 9 82 2049 430810 4022 4 39436452728111515 81213 4 0 0 2 3 2151315111515 74 11 84 2 069 291121201046426635281610 710 714 7 5 7 4 1 0 2141013 71310 55 19 67 2083 3215203003236266452 9 3610111210 512 5 4 3 2 9 3151514121515 60 26 86 2073 2012202012 4 56 46 6563014101314 3 910 5 0 1 0 4 2151315 31213 59 12 71 2058 46 06102021z652o3553101121214 91110 3 3 1 3 4 4151513111515 68 18 84 2071 22124il0044392o66632181<ilil3 7 9 7 3 4 0 0 2 8131515 7 915 61 17 76 2055 43085021002648646433051211 512 710 3 2 4 2 6 5151512111213 57 22 78 2044 62103021034632o^653426 9151011 912 6 0 3 0 4 3151313111115 66 16 7 2038 2110106014308346343540 7121110 9 9 8 2 3 2 3 3151315131313 58 21 82 2067 491020420146475644362511 911 5 7 8 4 6 3 4 6 '5151413131314 51 28 82 2048 201020601240225564 3724141313 6 1111 0 0 0 4 3 2141413101513 68 9 79 2052 1710504005409354533643141514 91111 1 0 1 1 4 4151515101315 74 11 83 2050 5810103121402256563908111414 911 9 4 0 1 0 3 6151415 91515 68 14 83 2047 2710204202343235424042151215 711 5 0 0 3 3 6151515101515 65 13 85 UNSUCCESSFUL N = 10 2057 40041040^24o634444411514141410 611 1 1 1 0 7 3151515 91215 71 13 81 2 07 8 3512205013467466644247 71214 51015 8 3 1 1 4 U151515 7 915 63 17 7 6 2062 45 1241100044o5o4554330131315131415 2 0 0 0 ,1 01513 15151515 8 3 3 8 2053 2306520003229353424439131415151514 2 1 0 -1 0 1151515141515 86 3 89 2063 240840401223103556453412101311 9 4 3 5 2 2 5 11151513131515 59 28 8 2075 351250 40 24305832114 650111315101312 4 1 u 0 2 3151515111515 74 1 U 8 6 2072 3412204000463555564731101014 3 7 6 5 4 1 0 6 6151115 31213 50 22 69 2074- 4810213003443362324849131512 7 712 2 -1 3 3 8 1151315101013 66 16 76 2046 41081040123682463349461115 7 9 712 4 -? 1 0 6 _Jil3J_3_8__9J.J.L3_ 61 9 7 l 2040 60101030144 2 7 334325048 15141411 912 0 1 1 -2 4 3151515 91415 75 7 83 SUBJECTS FROM CAMP 3 SUCCESSFUL N=10 n 2 00 9 3 8 3090 4909502013449075 0 1 1515131115 9 0 0 0 2 0 5151513131515 78 7 86 3092 4506202102405163 02 151515111013 0 0 0 0 4 2151515111515 79 6 86 4 R 3 123 3 110103002447466 03 91111141311 6 3 1 1 0 2151311141413 69 13 80 5 3 137 2710204003357436 04 10 8131110 9 5 7 1 0 2 6151114121115 61 21 78 5 1 3111 2808103004346253 0 3 13111312 911 1 2 0 2 4 3151212141313 69 12 79 •* 3107 2 4 i 0 5 U 4 023^u / 45 4 0 6 111111 5 6 9 3 3 1 u 6 3141411 4i313 35 16 69 3 125 2 8 1 1 1 U 4 0 ^ 4 J U I'44O 0 7 141515 9 912 1 u u u 5 3151513 71515 74 9 82 3098 23 152u3004143433 08 9 6 810 811 6 6 1 2 4 11513 8121415 52 20 77 3093 2212201004038444 09 131115 7 7 9 2 4 0 1 5 5151115 71015 62 17 73 3 136 2706402124420136 10 151312111414 0 1 2 0 0 U 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 4 79 3 83 MIDDLE N = 31 3 109 3511104002462432 ' 1 1 13 914 71012 2 6 1 5 4 3151315151ul5 65 21 83 3 100 35102022022-44354 12 914 9 9 5 3 5 1 6 2 8 12131313151115 49 34 8 4 3113 36072021O2425356 13 15101513 814 0 3 0 0 3 1111313131215 75 7 79 3 09 7 2114 0044633o3 14 101012131011 4 2 -2 -5 3 411 7 710 o l 3 66 6 36 3 130 60001U2012206053 13 131514 6 9 6 2 0 1 0 5 7151515 91515 65 15 84 3 108 3709104010409244 16 141314 71012 1 2 1 2 4 3131514 91215 70 13 80 3 128 300810302220924 3 17 101015 710 9 5 5 0 0 3 5131215 71215 61 18 74 3115 2210203004469544 16 15 911 7 7 5 0 6 1 2 5 10151515111315 54 24 84 3 101 2510204002428143 19 111314 5 8 3 3 u u 6 3 915 1215131415 5 4 21 84 3104 1811304022447443 20 10 81111 811 5 7 4 3 5 3151515151415 59 27 89 3 102 2810506001444132 21 10 815 8 8 7 4 5 0 0 4 4141515 81313 56 17 7 3 116 2512205025465644 22 1310 810 5 4 1 5 5 2 6 1015151515 915 50 29 84 .3122 2012104020204244 23 91115121215 6 3 0 1 3 .0151515151515 74 13 90 3 09 4 2614504020329444 2 4 141215 81114 1 3 0 0 4 1151515 81515 74 9 83 3095 2111503011347344 2 5 1110 9 510 6 4 5 5 1 3 7151^13 91113 51 25 76 3 124 2012204014443344 26 1215 9111013 0 0 3 2 2 1151514131214 70 8 83 3110 251410600233o234 2 7 11 611 9 912 3 4 3 1 3 513111111 813 58 17 69 3096 2 414504010469454 28 5 411 7 7 6 10 11 4 7 8 9151315151515 40 49 88 3 106 251310400444^554 <r.9 10 712111010 3 6 -2 0 1 415 8 613 613 60 12 63 3 117 2617310006246344 30 10131013 810 1 -3 3 1 3 413 31214 515 64 9 64 3 129 2110203013121253 3 1 10 813 7 613 5 7 0 0 8 0151313 81113 57 20 73 3 126 2012204013443443 32 10 814 7 611 5 7 1 0 6 3151515 7 914 56 22 75 3 134 5713203112462343 3 3 11 915 8 9 7 4 2 0 0 3 8151115 81315 59 17 77 3 133 2313203013243453 34 131211121014 0 1 3 1 2 U151212141214 72 7 79 3 131 1911202003208234 35 111214 3 6 3 1 -2 u 0 4 9121U14 31U13 49 12 62 3 132 45 12408202454133 36 1211151010 9 3 2 0 0 -1 3151115121312 67 7 7 3 135 27l£l030l43o^344 37 111112 6 8 5 3 4 1 6 4 1015 710131215 53 28 72 3120 2612204012436333 36 9 510 8 812 4 5 4 0 2 3151214 81215 52 18 76 3127 3209502002464553 39 101013 51110 4 4 0 2 1 3141214.71214 59 14 73 3 118 2311412001463644 40 8-813 410 7 7 7 2 9 5 8151513151215 5U 38 87 3088 2610503004363234 41 13 415 5 713 2 3 -3 0 5 2151115 5 415 57 9 65 UNSUCCESSFUL N = 10 3 114 2212303012428223 42 111013 6 911 1 -1 0 5 3 4141313111214 60 12 77 3121 2 81340 3011:>4"2 322 4 3 10 7111010 5 5 6 1 2 0 8141212131115 53 22 7 7 3091 6108402003022.232 44 15131411 5 8 0 2 1 3 9 7151515141515 66 22 89 3119 23143U2006265742 45 1010 513 6 7 -1 0 5 -3 1 - l l u 61111 911 51 1 5 3 10.3 2 1 1 0 2 0 3 0 2 2 ^ 0 6 2 4 2 46 9 x 4 1 3 7 1 2 1 2 6 1 2 0 3 3 1 5 1 5 1 5 7 1 5 1 5 67 15 82 88 3 0 8 9 6 6 0 b 4 u 3 2 1 2 2 6 9 3 x 2 4 7 1 4 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 u u U 2 3 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 5 1 5 82 6 3 0 8 6 2 3 1 3 2 0 9 0 0 6 3 6 3 3 3 b 4 8 1 3 1 0 1 4 o i l 9 2 4 -1 0 -5 6 1 5 1 1 1 1 6 515 65 6 63 3 112 43 X 7 2 0 4 1 2 6 4 4 9 5 2 6 49 13 7 1411 9 7 2 8 1 -2 4 6 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 1 1 5 61 19 77 3 0 8 7 2 9 1 2 5 0 8 1 0 4 4 6 2 2 5 5 50 9 8 1 5 1 0 9 6 6 7 0' - 2 4 7 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 1 813 57 22 7 7 3 105 3 4 1 0 5 0 5 2 0 3 4 6 4 5 5 6 5 1 13 511 612 7 2 10 1 4 U 6 1 5 1 3 614 715 5 4 ? 3 70 S U B J E C r s FROM CAMP 4 S U C C E S S F U L N = 1 U 4 1 7 1 3 1 1 2 J 0 X 1 0 2 4 4 4 2 7 D 3 2 0 1 3 9 X D 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 O 1 2 0 1 u u 3 2 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 2 1 5 8u 6 87 4 1 6 6 3 9 1 0 3 0 1 1 2 X 4 0 9 2 7 6 b 7 0 2 0 6 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 5 1 2 1 3 0 0 1 0 3 2 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 5 84 6 8 4 1 5 7 3 2 1 3 3 0 1 1 2 2 4 P 5 4 7 5 7 7 0 3 0 1 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 3 0 u u u u 2 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 5 1 5 1 5 88 2 89 4 1 5 4 5 6 1 2 3 0 1 3 1 2 4 4 3 3 7 5 6 6 0 4 1 0 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 1 79 3 B? 4 1 6 8 5 4 1 1 3 0 1 1 2 3 4 6 1 4 6 5 6 7 0 5 1 2 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 5 1 1 1 3 u u 1 u 4 2 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 83 7 9u 4 1 7 6 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 0 3 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 5 1 5 80 8 89 4 1 7 0 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 0 1 2 0 2 2 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 5 8] 7 8 4 4 1 4 9 4 0 0 8 1 0 2 0 1 0 4 0 9 0 6 4 6 2 0 8 1 7 8 1 0 1 2 8 912 6 3 3 1 3 1 1 5 1 5 1 5 9 1 4 1 4 59 17 82 4 1 6 7 2 3 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 3 4 9 2 6 4 6 7 0 9 1 4 1 0 8 8 1 3 1 2 1 1 4 3 6 -2 1 2 1 5 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 6 2 14 78 4 1 7 2 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 1011 2 0 u U 4 3 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 79 9 9W M I D D L E N = 2 1 4 1 5 6 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 3 910 0 - 0 2 0 4 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 1 1 4 1 5 75 11 85 4152. 2 2 1 3 3 0 2 0 1 2 4 2 2 4 o 6 7 7 1 2 0 8 1 2 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 3 77 ' 4 84 4 1 6 1 3 3 0 9 4 0 2 1 0 4 3 2 4 4 5 5 7 7 1 3 0 3 1 5 1 3 813 711 0 2 7 2 6 4 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 5 1 5 6 7 21 89 4 1 6 3 4 0 1 3 3 0 3 1 0 2 4 2 1 3 4 3 5 7 1 4 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 5 9 8 0 0 1 0 6 7 1 5 1 2 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 76 14 87 4 1 5 3 6 3 0 9 2 0 3 3 2 1 3 3 7 6 6 4 7 7 1 5 0 7 1 5 1 3 1 3 1 5 1 4 1 2 u 2 2 u 1 2 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 82 7 9u 4 1 5 5 2 2 1 2 3 0 2 1 1 4 4 0 7 2 6 6 7 7 1 6 0 2 1 4 1 0 1 3 7 1315 _ J L _ 0 0 0 1 - 1 1 5 1 0 1 3 5 13 1 4 7? 1 7 0 T 4 1 5 8 5 4 0 9 2 0 2 1 1 3 ^ 4 6 2 4 4 4 3 1 7 3 o 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 0 u u 0 u u 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 9u U 90 4 1 5 9 2 4 1 2 2 0 x 1 0 2 4 4 6 4 4 4 5 5 1 6 2 0 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 5 76 8 84 1 12 4 1 7 4 2 3 0 8 2 b 3 1 1 1 2 U 7 4 b j D 4 l V 2 l l 4 x 5 1 4 710 8 0 - 2 u 0 4 3 1 5 1 3 1 3 4 1 5 1 3 68 5 73 _. i.L 4 1 5 0 2 6 0 8 2 0 2 0 0 2 4 6 6 2 5 3 3 2 2 0 2 8 9 1 1 1 2 613 9 o 2 1 0 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 5 6 1 4 1 2 6 0 13 75 2 1 0.0 4 1 7 8 2 6 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 7 3 6 6 6 7 2 1 0 9 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 9 0 2 1 0 4 6 1 5 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 5 1 5 70 13 83 9 4 1 7 7 3 6 1 0 2 0 4 1 0 3 4 6 5 3 444 7 2 2 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 5 6 101U U 4 u 4 4. 4 1 5 1 5 1 5 l u l 4 1 4 67 16 83 3 8 4 1 6 9 3 5 1 4 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 o 5 2 4 3 4 4 2 3 3 0 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 0 812 2 4 1 u 5 3 1 4 1 5 1 5 1 u l l l 4 68 15 79 07 4 1 4 5 1 6 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 X 2 2 4 2 3 3 4 5 2 4 3 7 8 712 5 7 6 3 4 - 1 3 3 8 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 615 45 20 72 4 s 4 1 4 8 4 0 1 0 2 0 2 2 0 1 ^ 2 1 0 5 3 6 7 2 5 1 6 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 1 1 0 1 3 78 4 79 5 4 1 4 7 6 6 0 9 4 0 2 1 2 2 4 3 9 3 5 3 5 5 2 6 2 5 13 8 1 0 1 3 1 0 6 2 3 3 0 3 4 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 4 7 60 15 73 5 1 Wi 4 1 4 3 2 0 1 4 3 0 3 0 0 0 4 2 4 2 4 3 3 6 2 7 2 6 1 1 1 1 9 6 8 4 2 2 3 6 1 815 9 1 4 1 4 1 0 1 4 49 22 76 3 4 1 5 1 2 6 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 4 0 3 2 4 3 5 2 2 8 3 4 1 2 913 7 911 1 1 2 0 5 4 1 4 1 0 1 5 7 1 4 1 5 61 13 7 5 4 1 4 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 4 0 1 3 4 6 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 9 4 0 7 3 710 3 8 6 8 2 2 6 2 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 2 911 38 26 71 4 1 3 9 3 2 1 1 1 0 9 2 1 2 2 3 6 2 4 4 4 4 3 0 2 7 1 1 1 3 1 3 6 l O l u 1 u o 1 2 4 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 u l u l 4 65 8 72 4 1 4 6 5 3 1 0 2 6 x 0 2 2 ^ 2 6 2 4 3 3 6 j i l o l 4 1 1 1 5 5 711 1 1 0 0 5 4 1 4 1 5 1 5 5 515 63 11 69 UNSUCCESSFUL N = 10 4 1 6 2 2 4 1 2 4 0 3 0 2 3 3 0 4 4 4 4 6 7 3 2 1 1 1 5 1 0 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 U u 4 215111,5111515 75 7 82 4 1 4 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 3 0 2 4 4 4 6 2 4 3 4 5 3 3 3 5 1 2 1 1 1 3 810 9 2 2 u 1 2 3 1 4 1 1 1 5 9 1 2 1 4 63 l u 7 5 4 1 4 4 2 1 1 0 2 0 6 0 0 3 4 5 3 5 3 3 4 5 3 4 3 6 7 5 8 3 3 3 8 l u —f f l u l u 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 4 1 5 715 29 57 77 4 1 6 4 1 7 0 8 4 0 2 0 1 2 4 6 6 2 3 3 4 7 3 5 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 9 8 0' 2 4 3 6 7 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 5 68 22 88 4 1 6 5 1 6 0 6 4 0 1 0 1 1 3 6 6 2 3 4 4 7 3 6 3 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 7 5 7 0 0 2 2 6 8 1 5 1 3 1 1 9 1 1 1 5 56 18 74 4 1 6 0 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 3 912 4 2 2 0 3 2 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 2 1 2 1 4 71 13 83 4 1 7 5 5 7 1 0 2 0 3 1 1 1 4 0 6 0 4 2 4 4 3 6 3 1 1 3 . 1 2 1 2 8 V 8 1 0 3 2 4 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 5 62 15 84 4 1 7 3 6 8 0 6 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 3 2 3 3 3 9 2 9 1 1 1 5 1 3 1 2 1 0 7 3 0 u 0 4 3 1 4 1 5 1 3 9 81u 68 l u 69 4 1 3 8 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 9 4 0 1 0 2 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 77 12 90 4 1 4 1 2 9 1 8 1 0 4 0 x 4 4 3 2 5 3 4 x 1 4 1 4 1 1 3 8 9 7 o 8 u 2 5 4 5 713 9 1 4 1 u i 2 1 5 53 23 73 SUBJECTS FROM CAMP 5 SUCCESSFUL N=1U 5 2 2 3 2 4 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 8 6 7 5 6 5 0 10112 7 1 3 1 0 9 9 2 4 u u 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 U 912 6u 13 69 5226 5 4 1 2 2 0 3 2 1 2 4 0 4 2 6 7 6 6 0 2 0 4 1 3 6 1 1 1 1 8 9 2 7 1 0 3 6 1 5 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 58 19 75 5221 3 9 1 1 2 0 6 2 2 0 4 3 3 2 6 6 4 5 0 3 3 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 3 8 8 3 0 2 0 1 7 1 5 1 3 1 U 3 1 2 1 5 53 13 6 5 1 9 9 2 6 1 2 1 0 5 0 0 2 4 2 4 2 6 5 3 4 0 4 0 8 1 1 1 3 7 7 1 0 1 3 4 2 6 1 5 2 1 5 1 5 1 5 7 1 4 1 3 61 2u 79 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 2 1 0 0 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 U 1 2 1 1 1 4 63 7 72 5 2 0 7 5 5 1 1 5 0 4 1 2 3 4 0 4 4 5 6 5 6 0 6 1 9 1 5 1 0 1 5 1 0 810 ,°_ 1 u 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 1 68 8 76 5 188 1 9 1 2 2 0 4 0 1 1 3 6 6 5 6 6 7 6 0 7 0 3 1 5 1 1 1 4 1 3 911 0 2 1 -3 2 4 1 1 1 3 1 5 9 1 2 1 5 73 6 75 5 1 7 9 3 5 1 7 2 0 2 1 1 4 4 4 3 5 3 5 6 6 0 8 0 2 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 4 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 5 70 7 84 5 194 2 2 1 5 1 0 5 0 1 5 4 6 4 4 6 6 3 6 0 9 1 8 1 0 1 0 1 4 1 1 7 9 3 2 - 1 1 2 314 8 1 2 1 2 912 61 10 67 5 2 1 7 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 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 3 1151515 7 1 5 1 5 78 4 82 MIDDLE N=32 5 2 1 5 2 6 0 5 2 0 6 0 2 4 2 0 3 0 5 3 3 4 1 1 1 3 1 5 1 5 1 5 7 1 u l u u -1 u u 5 5151515 7 1 5 1 5 72 9 82 5201 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 2 711 910 2 2 5 3 3 5 1 4 1 5 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 5 61 20 85 5 xy 1 3 3 X 0 1 0 3 2 0 2 4 U 6 2 5 3 4 4 1 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 912 0 0 1 -1 6 2 1 5 1 4 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 5 74 6 82 5 2 1 4 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 1 0 0 5 4 1 5 1 5 1 5 7 1 5 1 5 71 10 82 5 203 3 4 1 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 4 3 2 2 5 5 5 5 1 3 4 0 1 2 1 2 1 5 7 6 7 3 3 u 0 3 5 1 3 1 1 1 5 7 312 59 14 61 3 1 8 9 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 7 5 2 l u 1 -2 6 l u l 5 l u l 5 1 3 1 3 1 5 57 27 .81 5 2 1 6 2 3 0 6 2 0 3 0 2 3 4 0 6 0 5 5 5 4 1 7 1 4 1 5 1 5 1 5 7 914 0 0 u u 6 -1151515 7 1 5 1 3 75 5 8U • 5218 2 6 1 5 2 0 4 0 0 2 2 0 6 2 5 4 3 3 1 6 3 7 1 0 512 8 911 2 7 u u 2 112 1 3 l u 5 912 55 12 61 5 190 2 1 1 3 3 0 4 0 0 2 4 4 2 3 5 6 5 5 1 9 3 6 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 9 1 4 4 2 6 61514 4131115 61 2 3 72 5209 490520312244.324444202413 610 81212 2 3 4 2 3 3151514 81515 61 17 82 5219 4411203023469444442 127151315 71111 0 0 0 0 3 3121113 7 914 72 6 66 5211 4 9 1 2 2 0 4 0 0 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 1 1 4 71511 911 1 5 0 0 4 3151513111514 67 13 83 5208 56104150004432 4 4 6 3 2 3 1 0 1 5 1 2 1 3 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 u 1 3 1215 1213111315 63 16 79 5205 4 0 1 0 4 0 4 1 U 2 2 6 3 5 4 3 5 5 2 4 4 2 1 5 1 0 1 3 1 1 8 8 0 1 2 u 3 7 1 5 1 u l 2 l l l l l 5 65 13 74 5192 2 2 1 1 2 0 4 0 2 3 r > 4 7 2 4 4 4 4 2 5 2 i l u 8 9 4 3 3 5. 3 5 7 6 8151413131311 37 34 79 5 185 2 3 1 1 2 0 6 0 1 5 4 3 2 3 4 4 4 4 2 6 4 5 1 3 1 0 1 5 61110 2 1 0 4 1 4131414111215 65 12 79 5222 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 0 6 0 -2 4 8151315111515 66 16 84 5230 2 8 1 0 2 0 4 2 0 2 2 6 6 0 4 3 4 5 2 8 3 8 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 0 4 2151215151415 80 8 86 5229 411120500 34 68344 5 4 2933151415141111 0 -2 0 -3 3 41510151,11215 80 2 78 5227 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 4 0 2 0 3 815 915 71515 53 17 76 5 181 2116204002432644443122 711 8 7 510 8 2 6 2 6 215 912 91113 48 26 69 5 184 1810202023306544443225141215 7 1012 0 2 u 0 3 3151415 71314 70 8 7 5 183 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 3 5 1 0 7 6151115 71515 56 22 7 5180 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 0 1 u 0 1 713 912 7 913 53 9 63 5206 501640430146263565 5 3051515 915 10 9 0 -2 4 0 4 2151212151011 73 8 75 5200 2 3 1 3 1 U 4 1 0 0 1 3 4 2 5 4 5 4 3 6 2 6 1 0 9 810 8 7 2 2 6 5 2 81.1.11.1.2 11 612 5 2 2 5 6^ 5187 2 109104022306544443 7 2 6 6 510 8 9 7 9 4 5 5 6 7151513141515 45 36 87 5204 2 2 1 3 1 0 3 0 1 2 1 0 7 4 5 5 4 5 3 6 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 7 7 7 2 2 2 0 5 3151415 7 9 11 58 14 71 5213 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 u u u 5 1151315 71213 74 • 6 75 5224 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 1 0 1 0 3 4151313111215 71 9 79 5 186 3608204012464554544117 9 711 7 713 6 2 2 3 7 21515 9111115 54 22 76 5228 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 2 0 0 5 70 9 R? UNSUCCESSFUL N = 10 5 191 52 1 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 6 9 2 4463 4 307 1 3 H 1 3 9 1111 2 -1 u -2 3 2 1 5 1 u l 3 1 u l 2 1 1 68 4 71 . 5202 4 4 1 0 1 0 3 1 2 1 4 0 6 4 4 4 4 ^ 4 4 5 2 1 2 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 u U 4 u l 5 1 5 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 1 75 l u 8u 5 193 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 2 1 1 0 5 3151515 71212 66 1 2 7A 5 19 5 4 1 0 7 1 U 9 1 0 2 4 2 1 0 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 4 5 3 9 7 5 8 9 8 6 u 4 7151515 71515 3 7 34 82 5212 5013202125408344 5 44 7 2 9 1 4 1 0 1 3 71210 1 1 0 3 1 41511131U1315 66 l u 77 5 196 4 2 0 9 1 2 0 0 0 2 2 6 5 2 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 6 1 5 1 5 1 5 71115 0 0 0 0 4 0151515 71515 78 4 8? 5210 3609502025239444454947 13 311 7 8 8 2 12 4 4 7 7151515111515 5u 36 86 5198 31141052034oY543543048 6 3 7 5 3 8 7 12 8 6 12 -315 15151115 5 34 42 76 5220 4 5 0 8 2 1 3 0 0 2 4 5 6 5 3 3 4 4 5 1 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 0 1 5 4 2 0 2 5 U151315151515 75 13 8 5225 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 " 3 1 2 0 4 1151214 81415 67 11 7 END OF RAW DA I A 

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