UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Authoritarianism and the closure phenomenon Duncan, Frances Mary 1963

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1963_A8 D85 A9.pdf [ 2.22MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0105429.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0105429-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0105429-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0105429-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0105429-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0105429-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0105429-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0105429-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0105429.ris

Full Text

I' AUTHORITARIANISM AND THE CLOSURE PHENOMENON by FRANCES MARY DUNCAN B.A. , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1962 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the department of Psychology We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the re q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1963 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i rements f o r an advanced degree at- the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y shall-'make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study.. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r -m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . , I t i s understood t h a t copying, or p u b l i -c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l . n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Departme nt o f PS^(iJLo^O<JLj . The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia,. Vancouver 8, Canada. ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s study was to note the e f f e c t of c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s on perceptual c l o s u r e . Closure has been defined by Mooney (1951) as, "the f a c i l i t y w i t h which i n d i v i d u a l s can apprehend the s t r u c t u r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of a confused or incomplete v i s u a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n . " Since research i n t o the e f f e c t of v a r i a b l e s such as age, sex, and i n t e l l i g e n c e have y i e l d e d few r e s u l t s , i t was thought that the f i e l d of p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s might be a l u c r a t i v e one i n which to look f o r f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g c l o s u r e a b i l i t y . A u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m was chosen as a p o s s i b l e s t a r t i n g - p o i n t because i t has been shown that high a u t h o r i t a r i a n s are high i n r i g i d i t y , a f a c t o r having a deterrent e f f e c t on c l o s u r e . (Luchins 1959) The Pensacola Z Scale (Jones 1957) was used as the measure of a u t h o r i t a r i a n p e r s o n a l i t y , since i t c o n s i s t s of four f a c t o r e d , separately scorable, subscales: anxiety; dependency; h o s t i l i t y ; and r i g i d i t y . The c l o s u r e phenomenon was measured by Mooney's Closure Test (1951) because i t can be administered to e i t h e r an i n d i v i d u a l or a group. The sample c o n s i s t e d of f i f t y volunteer students attending the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia summer sessi o n . Subjects were d i v i d e d i n t o two groups f o r t e s t i n g purposes; one group r e c e i v e d the Closure Test f i r s t , and the other r e c e i v e d the Pensacola f i r s t . The purpose of t h i s procedure was to randomize the e f f e c t s of the two t e s t s on each other. A n a l y s i s of the data y i e l d e d a Pearson Product-Moment c o e f f i c i e n t of -.345, s i g n i f i c a n t at the 5% l e v e l , between Closure and the t o t a l Pensacola scores, which supported the o r i g i n a l hypothesis that there would be an i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between scores obtained on a measure of a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m and those obtained on a measure of c l o s u r e . When Closure was c o r r e l a t e d w i t h each of the Pensacola subscales, only two were s i g n i f i c a n t ; c l o s u r e -anxiety (-.32) at 5 7 o l e v e l , and closure-dependency (-.40) at the 1% l e v e l . The other two c o e f f i c i e n t s can only be regarded as chance occurrences. The m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of -.495 c a l c u l a t e d between c l o s u r e , and anxiety and dependency, i n d i c a t e d the b e t t e r p r e d i c t i v e value of the combined scales of dependency and anxiety over the use of them s i n g l y , or over the use of the t o t a l Pensacola s c a l e . From t h i s study i t was concluded that high a u t h o r i t a r i a n s possess q u a l i t i e s which i n t e r f e r e w i t h the a b i l i t y necessary f o r achieving c l o s u r e . A l s o , the r e s u l t s of t h i s study po i n t to the f a c t that one place to look f o r v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g c l o s u r e i s w i t h i n the f i e l d of p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The w r i t e r wishes to extend si n c e r e thanks to her f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s , Dr. E; S i g n o r i , and Dr. D. Sampson, f o r t h e i r p a t i e n t counsel and advice. Without t h e i r support there would be no occasion to make t h i s acknowledgement. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 I I Review of the L i t e r a t u r e 4 I I I Method 15 IV Treatment of the Data 17 V Di s c u s s i o n of Results 19 VI Conclusions 25 Summary 28 References 30 Appendix A Raw Data 33 Appendix B Formula f o r C a l c u l a t i n g S i g n i f i c a n c e of 35 Di f f e r e n c e s Appendix C Pensacola Z Scale 37 1. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION One of the most i n t e r e s t i n g phenomena i n the f i e l d of perceptual psychology i s that of c l o s u r e , the a b i l i t y of a person to glean the i m p l i c a t i o n s of a p i c t u r e , . f i g u r e , or form, when the d e t a i l s are confused or incomplete, so that at f i r s t glance, the contents cannot be r e a d i l y apprehended. Compared to the e x p l o r a t i o n of other aspects of psychology, r e l a t i v e l y . l i t t l e work has been done to discover the v a r i a b l e s which a l l o w one i n d i v i d u a l to achieve a c l o s u r e e a s i l y , w h i le preventing other i n d i v i d u a l s from a s c e r t a i n i n g the i m p l i c a t i o n of a confused p a t t e r n . Studies have i n d i c a t e d f a c t o r s which do not a f f e c t c l o s u r e a b i l i t y , such as age, sex, and i n t e l l i g e n c e , and i t i s p a r t l y by t h i s process of e l i m i n a t i o n that one i s confronted w i t h a p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c l o s u r e and p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I t i s the purpose of the present study to delve f u r t h e r i n t o t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . Armchair s p e c u l a t i o n suggests that p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s may be a l u c r a t i v e s t a r t i n g - p o i n t when wishing to d i s c o v e r f a c t o r s causing d i f f e r e n c e s i n c l o s u r e f a c i l i t y between i n d i v i d u a l s . I f such q u a l i t i e s as age, sex and i n t e l l i g e n c e are not the reason f o r the v a r i a t i o n , l o g i c a l l y then, the v a r i a n c e might emanate from more personal t r a i t s . Moreover, since r i g i d i t y i s the only p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which so f a r has been shown to a f f e c t c l o s u r e a b i l i t y , ( i t seems to have a s l i g h t l y deterrent e f f e c t to a c h i e v i n g c l o s u r e - Rokeach 1948; Frenkel-Brunswik 1949; Luchins 1959), and since r i g i d i t y i s 2. considered a component of high a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m , (Adorno, 1950; M i l l o n , 1957), i t would appear that by examining the l a r g e r f i e l d of the a u t h o r i t a r i a n p e r s o n a l i t y , not only could s u b s t a n t i a t i o n be gleaned f o r the r e s u l t s of the c l o s u r e - r i g i d i t y s t u d i e s , but al s o new v a r i a b l e s might perhaps be found that would have some bearing on t h i s perceptual phenomenon, which might i n d i c a t e a path f o r f u t u r e research. Because, however, there are so many components which have been grouped under the broad, and not too d e f i n i t i v e t i t l e , " A u t h o r i t a r i a n P e r s o n a l i t y " , i t would be attempting too much to t r y , i n one study, to r e l a t e them a l l to c l o s u r e . Consequently, only four were chosen, but four that have been shown to be an i n t e g r a l part of a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m . (Adorno, et a l . 1 9 5 0 ) These are: anxiety; d e p e n d e n c y ; . h o s t i l i t y ; and r i g i d i t y . By us i n g each as a s e p a r a t e l y - s c o r a b l e subscale, Jones (1957) has created a f a i r l y r e l i a b l e measure of a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m , which c o r r e l a t e s h i g h l y w i t h the C a l i f o r n i a F Scale. Since there i s only l i t t l e i n d i c a t i o n from previous research as to the r e l a t i o n s h i p of three of the four core t r a i t s to c l o s u r e , the hypotheses upon which t h i s study i s based are t r u l y h y p o t h e t i c a l . R i g i d i t y has been shown to be detr i m e n t a l to c l o s u r e a b i l i t y . (Rokeach, 1948; M i l l o n , 1957; Luchins, 1959) Therefore, i t i s to be expected that an i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p should be manifest between a measure of t h i s f a c t o r and c l o s u r e . With regard to h o s t i l i t y , there are a few weak suggestions (Frenkel-Brunswik, 1949; Adorno, 1950), that there might a l s o be an i n v e r s e c o v a r i a t i o n between i t and c l o s u r e i n the same manner.as that of r i g i d i t y and c l o s u r e . Anxiety a l s o gains s l i g h t support from previous work ( V e r v i l l e 1946; Smock 1957), since there i s reason to b e l i e v e that high.anxiety i s a deterrent to high c l o s u r e f a c i l i t y . There has been no research, however, concerning the r e l a t i o n s h i p of dependency to c l o s u r e , so that there i s no i n d i c a t i o n whether i t has any e f f e c t at a l l on c l o s u r e a b i l i t y , or whether i t enhances or i n t e r f e r e s w i t h the necessary f a c i l i t y . Because an i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p can be expected f o r r i g i d i t y , a n x i e t y , and h o s t i l i t y , when c o r r e l a t e d w i t h c l o s u r e , i t would seem l o g i c a l to expect an i n v e r s e c o v a r i a t i o n between a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m and c l o s u r e , unless of course, dependency i s working p o s i t i v e l y . That i s , i t i s p o s s i b l e that the e f f e c t of dependency w i l l be to negate the combined e f f e c t s of the other three f a c t o r s , i n which case there would be manifest a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c l o s u r e and the a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m c o n s i s t i n g of these four t r a i t s . But t h i s i s u n l i k e l y i f the i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n between the other three and c l o s u r e i s strong enough. The l a c k of foreknowledge about dependency lends an aura of e q u i v o c a l i t y to the outcome of t h i s study. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Closure Closure: according to G e s t a l t theory, a b a s i c p r i n c i p l e whereby a s i t u a t i o n i s resolved and the c o n f i g u r a t i o n (whether of. behaviour or of mental process) tends to as complete or " c l o s e d " a f i g u r e as the circumstances permit. An i n t e r r u p t e d sneeze or a face i n p r o f i l e without a nose i s an unclosed c o n f i g u r a t i o n which one tends to "complete". (Murphy 1947) The term-"closure" was given p s y c h o l o g i c a l currency.by Wertheimer, K o f f k a , and K o h l e r , . i n t h e i r e a r l y e x p o s i t i o n s of G e s t a l t theory. I t was one of the o r g a n i z i n g forces --s i m i l a r i t y , p r o x i m i t y , c l o s u r e , good c o n t i n u a t i o n -- which determined the d i r e c t i o n of perceptual o r g a n i z a t i o n . The e a r l y " c r u c i a l " i l l u s t r a t i o n s of these f a c t o r s were given i n simple v i s u a l p a t t e r n s . In these, c l o s u r e has a l i t e r a l aptness i n d e s c r i b i n g the c l o s i n g of gaps i n l i n e s , c i r c l e s , t r i a n g l e s , and the l i k e . Closure may be described i n a more general sense as the moment of perceptual r e s o l u t i o n ; as the ter m i n a l phase i n an act of perceptual contemplation; as the t e n s i o n - r e l i e v i n g i n s t a n t when meaning i s as c r i b e d t o , or i s recognized as emerging from, compelling c o n s t e l l a t i o n of obj e c t s or events. I t s common ma n i f e s t a t i o n would be i n the r a p i d , h a b i t u a l r e c o g n i t i o n of common-place objects or events-- i t s measure being, presumably, terms of speed. The present Closure Test of Mooney 1s (1951) used i n t h i s study i s a development of a t e s t f i r s t created and used by 5. R.F. Street i n 1931. Although few studies were conducted w i t h t h i s instrument, s i m i l a r types of t e s t m a t e r i a l have been used experimentally by Leeper (1935), Sheeham (1938), Thurstone (1944), V e r v i l l e and Cameron (1946), and v e r v i l l e (1946). However, the t e s t m a t e r i a l i n these studies was, f o r the most p a r t , presented t a c h i s t o s c o p i c a l l y , and was not r e a d i l y adaptable f o r general t e s t purposes. Mooney"s i n t e n t i o n was to develop a t e s t which was more extensive i n scope, and more r e f i n e d i n items, and which could be administered on e i t h e r an i n d i v i d u a l or a group-testing b a s i s . "The present c l o s u r e t e s t i s regarded as measuring the f a c i l i t y w i t h which i n d i v i d u a l s can apprehend the s t r u c t u r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of a confused or incomplete v i s u a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n " . (Mooney and Ferguson, 1951). Mooney f e e l s that the f a c t o r i s o l a t e d by.Thurstone (1944) and r e f e r r e d to by him as speed and strength of c l o s u r e i s w e l l represented i n t h i s t e s t . (Thurstone hypothesized that t h i s f a c t o r represented the a b i l i t y , to form a c l o s u r e i n a given p r e s e n t a t i o n , and that the f a c t o r was best represented when the subject was re q u i r e d to form a c l o s u r e against some d i s t r a c t i o n . ) Since l i t t l e work has been done us i n g t h i s t e s t , the only a v a i l a b l e data are the o r i g i n a l norms based on a group-testing program w i t h 103 c o l l e g e students (62 men; 41 women) wi t h a mean age of 20.5 years. By the Kuder-Richardson formula the r e l i a b i l i t y c o - e f f i c i e n t was found to be .881. Of a t o t a l p o s s i b l e score of f o r t y , the mean obtained was 17.21 and the standard d e v i a t i o n was 7.32. In the norm t e s t i n g program, sex d i f f e r e n c e s were not found to be s i g n i f i c a n t , a r e s u l t i n keeping w i t h e a r l i e r ones (Street 1931; V e r v i l l e and Cameron 1946). Mooney hi m s e l f s t a t e s that very l i t t l e i s known about the usefulness of t h i s type of m a t e r i a l i n the c l i n i c a l or other a p p l i e d f i e l d s . "While i t i s p o s s i b l e to speculate at length w i t h regard to the fundamental nature and importance of the a b i l i t i e s i n v o l v e d i n t e s t m a t e r i a l of t h i s type, i t i s c l e a r that u n t i l f u r t h e r experimental evidence i s a v a i l a b l e , such s p e c u l a t i o n w i l l be undertaken at considerable r i s k . " (Mooney 1951) R.F. S t r e e t , the o r i g i n a t o r of the f i r s t c l o s u r e t e s t , i n h i s attempt to compare the a b i l i t y to recognize incomplete p i c t u r e s w i t h i n t e l l i g e n c e , found no c o r r e l a t i o n between the t e s t s of i n t e l l i g e n c e (Kuhlman-Anderson; Healy P i c t u r e Completion II ) and scores obtained on the incomplete p i c t u r e s , and no c o n s i s t e n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n scores between the sexes or the age groups. This l a t t e r r e s u l t was not unexpected, because i n s e l e c t i n g h i s t e s t items he had el i m i n a t e d those which showed age and sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n the p r e - t e s t group of subj e c t s . Four years l a t e r , Leeper ( 1 9 3 5 ) u s i n g some of Street's p i c t u r e items p l u s some new f i g u r e s , found that v e r b a l and v i s u a l a s s i s t a n c e helped subjects to see the p i c t u r e s c l e a r l y , and that there was r e t e n t i o n of the perception over a three week p e r i o d , even when the o r i g i n a l exposure time was very short. Thurstone, i n A F a c t o r i a l Study of Percep t i o n , s t a t e s that he has reason to b e l i e v e that S t r e e t ' s o r i g i n a l G e s t a l t 7. Completion Test i n v o l v e d some f a c t o r s maturing at an early, age, which i n d i c a t e some fundamental and p r i m i t i v e mental f u n c t i o n . He based t h i s premise on the f a c t that Street found no c o n s i s t e n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n scores f o r grades three,, s i x , and high school. Thurstone a l s o found that the p r i n c i p a l f a c t o r which appeared i n the G e s t a l t Completion Test from f a c t o r - a n a l y s i s was one which he c a l l e d speed of per c e p t i o n , and then l a t e r , strength and speed of c l o s u r e . In 1946 V e r v i l l e and Cameron designed a study s p e c i f i c a l l y to note age and sex d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h regard to c l o s u r e a b i l i t y . They showed t a c h i s t o s c o p i c a l l y various adaptations of Str e e t ' s f i g u r e s to two groups of su b j e c t s , the younger of which ranged i n age from s i x t e e n to twenty-three and the ol d e r from t h i r t y - f i v e to f i f t y - s i x . Their r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d no c o n s i s t e n t sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n the younger group, but i n the ol d e r group, men had quicker r e a c t i o n time scores f o r the t o t a l set of ten p i c t u r e s . In gene r a l , the younger group c o n s i s t e n t l y reacted more q u i c k l y than the o l d e r group. Since the authors suggest f a c t o r s which would minimize age and sex d i f f e r e n c e s (the a b i l i t y to e l i m i n a t e the set e s t a b l i s h e d by the previous p i c t u r e , and the e f f e c t s of success, f a i l u r e , and apprehension on r e a c t i o n time), they seem to imply that the d i f f e r e n c e s may not be i n t r i n s i c i n cl o s u r e a b i l i t y , but may be accounted f o r by other f a c t o r s . This i s supported by. Mooney (1957), who found no c o n s i s t e n t age d i f f e r e n c e s i n school c h i l d r e n w i t h regard to c l o s u r e a b i l i t y . In the middle f i f t i e s , CM. Mooney conducted some experiments e x p l o r i n g the p h y s i c a l p r o p e r t i e s of the c l o s u r e phenomenon by p i c t u r e s presented t a c h i s t o s c o p i c a l l y . He was i n t e r e s t e d i n the e f f e c t s of: f l i c k e r i n g and steady l i g h t ; long and short exposure time; negative after-images; eye movements; m u l t i p l e v i s u a l f i x a t i o n s ; c l a r i t y ; and consistency. From t h i s set of studies he concluded that f l i c k e r s do not contribute, to achievi n g c l o s u r e , but do f a c i l i t a t e when used during the viewing pe r i o d ; that the pe r c e p t i o n of c l o s u r e p i c t u r e s i s not e s s e n t i a l l y dependent upon, nor f a c i l i t a t e d by, prolonged i n s p e c t i o n or a sequence of scanning eye movements. The r e s u l t s of t h i s extensive research l e d him to b e l i e v e that c l o s u r e occurs f o r t u i t o u s l y and instantaneously at a s i n g l e glance or f i x a t i o n . A u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m The term " A u t h o r i t a r i a n P e r s o n a l i t y " i s too broad, and embraces too many t r a i t s and q u a l i t i e s , some of which are extremely nebulous, to formulate a cohesive d e f i n i t i o n of. the term. No author or researcher has yet created one extensive enough to cover a l l the v a r i a b l e s i n v o l v e d . Many w r i t e r s have not even made an attempt (Adorno 1950; C h r i s t i e 1954). Perhaps they are wise, at t h i s date, not to t r y , f o r the r e s u l t s of research designed to e x p l o i t t h i s area have not been compiled i n such a way as to give an overview of the f a c t o r s inherent i n t h i s type of p e r s o n a l i t y . Compared to other aspects of the f i e l d of Psychology that have been explored, a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m i s r e l a t i v e l y young, the f i r s t , and to date, most comprehensive work haying been published only t h i r t e e n years ago (Adorno 1950). 9. The A u t h o r i t a r i a n Personality, began as a set of s t u d i e s of anti-Semitism, but i n the course of the f i v e years which went i n t o i t s c o m p i l a t i o n , the scope of the undertaking widened i n t o the e x p l o r a t i o n of a more comprehensive problem; the r e l a t i o n between p e r s o n a l i t y , s o c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , and p o l i t i c a l ideology. Although the studies are not e x p l o r i n g a problem p e c u l i a r only to t h i s generation, they are u t i l i z i n g a new. approach, because i t s authors made converge on the age-old subject s e v e r a l recent trends i n s o c i a l theory and research. The e n t i r e work i s permeated w i t h the t h e o r e t i c a l system of psychoanalysis. Not only are the b a s i c questions formulated and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s performed i n terms of p s y c h o - a n a l y t i c theory, but a l s o the methods of data c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s are geared to t h i s o r i e n t a t i o n . The authors' use of p r o j e c t i v e techniques and questions, and of the c l i n i c a l i n t e r v i e w f o r the e x p l o r a t i o n of p o l i t i c a l i d e o l o g i e s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n to p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e i s a r e l a t i v e l y r a r e and new approach. A l s o , The A u t h o r i t a r i a n P e r s o n a l i t y has b e n e f i t e d considerably, by t a k i n g advantage of another trend i n American s o c i a l science; the methodological development of o p i n i o n and a t t i t u d e .'-measurement. and the corresponding techniques of s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . With regard to the scope of t h i s study, the C a l i f o r n i a group sheds considerable l i g h t on some of i t s problems. For i n s t a n c e , i t p o i n t s out that r i g i d i t y i s r e l a t e d to E t h n o c e n t r i c i s m , one of the components of a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m . High scorers on the e t h n o c e n t r i c s c a l e tend to be more r i g i d and i n t o l e r a n t of ambiguity,, whereas low scorers are more ready to t h i n k over matters and come to a s o l u t i o n on t h e i r own. They are a l s o u n w i l l i n g to take over t r a d i t i o n a l and f i x e d concepts without s c r u t i n y . Frenkel-Brunswik (1948), Rokeach (1948), and Block and Block (1950) i n separate s t u d i e s , i n d i c a t e that the e t h n i c a l l y p r e j u d i c e d tend to impose, i n a r i g i d manner, c e r t a i n pre-conceived sets upon ambiguous perceptual data, or upon the s o l v i n g of reasoning problems. The extremely p r e j u d i c e d i n d i v i d u a l , to keep unacceptable tendencies and impulses out of consciousness, has to maintain r i g i d defenses. Thus a l l evidence seems to p o i n t toward a greater o v e r - a l l r i g i d i t y i n high scorers as compared w i t h low s c o r e r s . These r e s u l t s , however, as w i t h many oth e r s , may be v a l i d only f o r the extreme groups. In the medium range, . . . r i g i d i t y may be n e i t h e r pervasive nor r e l a t i v e l y absent throughout the p e r s o n a l i t y as a whole, but may be d i f f e r e n t i a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d over some areas of p e r s o n a l i t y , w h i le other areas r e t a i n t h e i r f l e x i b i l i t y . (Adorno 1950) With regard to a n x i e t y , the C a l i f o r n i a group, s t a t e s that: low scorers show l e s s anxiety w i t h respect to conformity than high s c o r e r s , and are l e s s i n t o l e r a n t toward m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of s o c i a l l y unacceptable behaviour. This does not mean however, that low scorers show no a n x i e t y , but they manifest i t through preoccupation w i t h f e e l i n g s and impulses. Far from escaping emotional ambivalences and f e e l i n g s of anxiety they tend to dwell on them. But even though they do dwell on them, they are not e n t i r e l y f r e e from s e l f - d e c e p t i o n , because t h e i r thoughts are o f t e n morbid and l a c k i n g i n i n s i g h t . However, i t i s pointed out that t h i s conscious c o n s i d e r a t i o n and comparative acceptance of impulses may prevent the development of r i g i d defenses. This i s the d i f f e r e n c e between the anxiety of the low scorers.and that of the high. In p a r t , too, the f a c t that the low scorers are conscious of t h e i r anxiety and consequently do not tend so much to develop defenses, possibly.accounts f o r the d i f f e r e n c e i n r i g i d i t y between high and low sco r e r s . Dependency i n high scorers i s manifest by dodging r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , a general u n d e r l y i n g p a s s i v i t y , h e l p l e s s n e s s , and weakness. The o r i e n t a t i o n i n high scorers towards m a t e r i a l b e n e f i t s promotes dependency, since they tend to regard people as a means of advancement. High s c o r i n g males cannot express t h e i r dependency because i t v i o l a t e s the image of the normal, masculine man-- a c q u i s i t i v e , rugged, independent. Part of t h e i r defense against t h i s i s a r i g i d o v e r - v a l u a t i o n of work. In low sc o r e r s , dependency i s mainly manifest i n a concern w i t h love. They seem to be h i g h l y concerned w i t h emotional exchange i n personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s , c e r t a i n l y i n c o n t r a s t to the high scorers. However, the study of dependency as a f a c t o r of a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m i n The A u t h o r i t a r i a n P e r s o n a l i t y i s based s o l e l y on male s u b j e c t s , f o r i t was thought that i n women dependency i s more s o c i a l l y acceptable, and consequently more l i k e l y to be e q u a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d i n both high and low s c o r e r s . . Adorno 1s high scorers were found to p r o j e c t immoral tendencies onto out-groups and thus express h o s t i l i t y without the f e a r of v i c t i m i z a t i o n which could have r e s u l t e d from p r o j e c t i o n onto t h e i r a s s o c i a t e s . In c o n t r a s t , low scorers seemed upset by f e e l i n g s of h o s t i l i t y i n themselves, and by observing h o s t i l i t y and e x p l o i t a t i o n i n others. Frenkel-Brunswik summarizes the p o s i t i o n of the C a l i f o r n i a group on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m and a m b i g u i t y - i n t o l e r a n c e by s t a t i n g , "There i s more than an e m p i r i c a l a f f i n i t y between the strength of h o s t i l i t y , of power o r i e n t a t i o n , of e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n , and of r i g i d s t e r e o t y p i n g , on the one hand, and the i n t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity on the other." (Frenkel-Brunswik 1949) In 1957 Jones developed the Pensacola Z Scale as the measure of a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m f o r the broader study, the Pensacola Z .Survey. ( i t i s the measure u t i l i z e d i n t h i s study.) I t i s based on the theory that a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m can be loc a t e d through the subject's personal q u a l i t i e s such as h a b i t , temperament, r e a c t i o n s , independent of s o c i o p o l i t i c a l r e f e r e n c e , and i s a r e a c t i o n against the " f a s c i s t " o r i e n t a t i o n of t h e . C a l i f o r n i a F Scale (Adorno 1950), whose items are a t t i t u d i n a l i n form and p o l i t i c a l i n reference. There are four f a c t o r i a l core t r a i t s toward which the items of the Z scal e are oriented: anxiety; dependency; r i g i d i t y ; and h o s t i l i t y , which were i s o l a t e d i n p r i o r studies by the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of four standard p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r i e s i n conjunction, w i t h the F sc a l e . The items are w r i t t e n i n forced-choice form, h o p e f u l l y to minimize f a k a b i l i t y . Norms were e s t a b l i s h e d by, a d m i n i s t e r i n g the Z scal e to 766 naval cadets, 80% of whom had had two years of c o l l e g e , and the r e s t of whom had f i n i s h e d high school. T e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y a f t e r twenty-four hours was .87; a f t e r four weeks, .74. C r o s s - v a l i d a t i o n w i t h the F scal e y i e l d e d a c o e f f i c i e n t of .43. The mean score of a p o s s i b l e h i g h of 66 was 35.51, and the standard d e v i a t i o n was 6.33. The curve has a negative skew s i g n i f i c a n t at the 1% l e v e l and a tendency to p l a t y k u r t o s i s which i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . A n a l y s i s of variance y i e l d e d . a c o e f f i c i e n t of .72 i n the cross-v a l i d a t i o n a l study. Of the 66 items i n the f i n a l v e r s i o n of the s c a l e , 19 are o r i e n t e d toward dependency; 20 toward r i g i d i t y ; 15 toward anxiety; and 12 toward h o s t i l i t y . Even though the i n i t i a l research i n t o a u t h o r i t a r i a n determinants by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, and- Rokeach obtained p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the C a l i f o r n i a F Scale and i n t e l l e c t u a l and perceptual measures of r i g i d i t y and i n t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity, subsequent st u d i e s have f a i l e d , i n p a r t , to s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e i r f i n d i n g s . For i n s t a n c e , Kenny and Ginsberg i n 1957. found no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n between aggression and am b i g u i t y - i n t o l e r a n c e . The view that an atmosphere of ego-involvement i n the ambiguous s i t u a t i o n may be a necessary c o n d i t i o n f o r o b t a i n i n g such r e l a t i o n s h i p s has been advanced by Brown (1953), but experiments designed to t e s t t h i s view have merely c o n t r i b u t e d more c o n f l i c t i n g evidence, (French 1955; Davids 1956). In 1957 M i l l o n designed a study s p e c i f i c a l l y to discover the e f f e c t of ego-involvement on r i g i d i t y , a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m , and am b i g u i t y - i n t o l e r a n c e . He found that whereas ego-involvement d i d have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m and r i g i d i t y , i t d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y increase i n t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity. He a l s o found that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m and ambigui t y - i n t o l e r a n c e achieved s i g n i f i c a n c e beyond the 1% l e v e l of confidence. In con t r a s t to these r e s u l t s , two l a t e r s t u d i e s , (Smock 1957; Fleshbach 1959) i n d i c a t e that anxiety i s an important determinant of the i n t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity when the ambiguous s i t u a t i o n i s dependent upon ego-involvement. I t would appear from these s t u d i e s then, that e i t h e r the e f f e c t of ego-involvement i s not unequivocal, or that i t enhances the p o s i t i o n of anxiety w i t h regard to am b i g u i t y - i n t o l e r a n c e , yet does not a f f e c t r i g i d i t y . As Kenny and Ginsberg (1958) poi n t out when unable to f i n d any s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n between aggression and the i n t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity; " I t cannot be assumed that i n t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity i s n e c e s s a r i l y l i n k e d to a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m . An i n d i v i d u a l can be i n t o l e r a n t i n one s i t u a t i o n , but not i n a l l equivocal s i t u a t i o n s . " In summary, i t has been shown t h a t , through the years, t h e o r i e s concerned w i t h f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e the perc e p t i o n of ambiguous s i t u a t i o n s have moved from supporting such v a r i a b l e s as age, sex, and i n t e l l i g e n c e , to a p o s i t i o n advocating more personal t r a i t s such as those p r e s e n t l y c l a s s e d under the heading " a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m " . There have been studies (Frenkel-Brunswik 1949; M i l l o n 1957; Luchins 1959) which have given supporting evidence to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between perceptual closure.and p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s , and there have been studies which i n d i c a t e no such r e l a t i o n s h i p (Kenny, Ginsberg 1958; Davids 1956). I t i s the purpose of t h i s present study to y i e l d e i t h e r s u b s t a n t i a t i o n or negation to these t h e o r i e s and r e s u l t s by no t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c l o s u r e and four f a c t o r s i n t e g r a l to the a u t h o r i t a r i a n p e r s o n a l i t y . CHAPTER I I I METHOD The design of t h i s study i n v o l v e d the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of both the Pensacola Z Scale and Mooney's Closure Test to f i f t y v o lunteer subjects attending second, t h i r d , and f o u r t h year courses i n Psychology given i n the 1963 summer se s s i o n at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The subjects were d i v i d e d randomly i n t o two groups, one of which rec e i v e d the Pensacola f i r s t , and then the Closure Test, and the other of which recei v e d the Closure Test f i r s t , and then the Pensacola. I t was thought that by not having a l l subjects take the t e s t s i n the same order, any e f f e c t s of the two t e s t s on each other could be n e u t r a l i z e d . The t e s t s were administered i n group sessions; the completion of both took approximately, f i f t y minutes, because of the time consumed by i n s t r u c t i o n s , late-comers, and questions. Subjects were not informed beforehand as to the purpose of the t e s t s , on the theory that naive subjects would not be tempted to t r y to d i s t o r t t h e i r answers, e s p e c i a l l y on the Pensacola where some of the questions are q u i t e personal. They were a l s o requested, a f t e r having been t e s t e d , that they t e l l no one the purpose of the se s s i o n , i n case someone scheduled to take the t e s t l a t e r would be forewarned. . Since the subjects were v o l u n t e e r s , and w i l l i n g to give t h e i r time, and since they had been informed that the r e s u l t s would be anonymous, there i s every reason to b e l i e v e that m o t i v a t i o n was high enough so that the questionnaire and t e s t were answered honestly. . No p a r t i c u l a r care was taken to have an equal number of male and female s u b j e c t s , nor to have a c e r t a i n age range, because n e i t h e r of these have been reported i n the previous l i t e r a t u r e to have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h regard to c l o s u r e . As a r e s u l t , the f i f t y subjects were comprised of twenty-two males and twenty-eight females, w i t h an age spread of 17 to 48, the mean age being ,27.7/. CHAPTER IV TREATMENT OF THE DATA Because t h i s study i n v o l v e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e s u l t s obtained on two t e s t s , a n a l y s i s of the data could be performed by c o r r e l a t i o n s . However, before any c o e f f i c i e n t s could be computed, i t was necessary to discover the d i f f e r e n c e s , i f any, between the two groups: A, which had received.the Closure Test f i r s t , and B, which had re c e i v e d the Pensacola f i r s t . I f no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found to e x i s t between the groups, the r e s u l t s could be combined and tr e a t e d as a s i n g l e sample of f i f t y cases drawn from a common po p u l a t i o n , i n s t e a d of two separate samples of twenty-five cases each. TABLE. I This was accomplished by computing a C r i t i c a l R a t io from the means of the two groups f o r both t e s t s . Neither CR a t t a i n e d the value necessary f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e at even the 5% l e v e l of confidence. From t h i s i t was concluded that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between .the groups, and consequently the data f o r purposes of f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s could be regarded as based on a s i n g l e sample r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of a common po p u l a t i o n . Therefore, a new mean and-, standard d e v i a t i o n were c a l c u l a t e d f o r the t o t a l sample, and were the ones used i n a l l f u r t h e r computations. See Table I. 18. TABLE I I Next, c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were c a l c u l a t e d between the c l o s u r e scores, and each of the four subscale scores of the Pensacola, as w e l l as between the Closure scores and the t o t a l Pensacola scores. The Pearson Product-Moment method was used, since the raw data f u l f i l l e d the necessary requirements; that i s , the data were normally d i s t r i b u t e d , of i n t e r v a l form, and the r e g r e s s i o n equation approximately.!.linear. I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s were a l s o computed between the four Pensacola subscaled to see i f they were each measuring separate f a c t o r s , as t h e i r names imply, or i f each were measuring the same t r a i t . This gives a t o t a l of eleven c o e f f i c i e n t s which are noted i n Table I I , Figures i and i i , Each c o e f f i c i e n t . w a s t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e , as i s al s o noted i n the Table. A m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was c a l c u l a t e d between c l o s u r e and the two Pensacola subscales which a t t a i n e d s i g n i f i c a n c e when c o r r e l a t e d singly, w i t h Closure. The purpose of t h i s was to di s c o v e r whether they would p r e d i c t c l o s u r e a b i l i t y b e t t e r when combined than when used alone. The r e s u l t i n g c o e f f i c i e n t i s a l s o recorded i n Table I I , and the method and computation i n Appendix B. To c a l c u l a t e the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e between the m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t (RQ ^  = -.495) and the c l o s u r e -Pensacola c o e f f i c i e n t (r^p = -.345), the formula: where K = 2, was used. TABLE I TEST CLOSURE PENSACOLA GROUP A B COMBINED A B COMBINED MEAN 19.44 18.88 19.16 27.96 26.84 27.40 STANDARD DEVIATION 7.67 7.84 8.02 6.46 7.02 6.87 STANDARD ERROR 1.59 1.63 1.13 1.36 1.40 0.97 CRITICAL RATIO 0.24 0.57 18.B. TABLE I I CORRELATIONS A: INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE FOUR SUBSCALES OF THE PENSACOLA Z SCALE. Anxiety Dependency Hostility Rigidity A .28 .13 .14 D - .05 .37 H .14 B: CORRELATIONS OF THE FOUR SUBSCALES, THE PENSACOLA SCALE, AND ANXIETY AND DEPENDENCY COMBINED, WITH CLOSURE. Anxiety Dependency H o s t i l i t y R i g i d i t y Pensacola R C.AD r * -.32 ** -.40 -.063 -.02 * -.345 A * -.495 Se .126 .118 .1408 .1413 .124 .106 KEY: * SIGNIFICANT AT 5% LEVEL ** SIGNIFICANT AT 1% LEVEL r CORRELATION COEFFICIENT Se STANDARD ERROR CHAPTER V DISCUSSION OF RESULTS The r e s u l t s of t h i s study are q u i t e v a r i e d ; some su b s t a n t i a t e those obtained from p r i o r research, and some show l i t t l e r e l a t i o n to e i t h e r previous r e s u l t s , or to what would be expected from l o g i c . In the main, the r e s u l t s support the ba s i c hypothesis, that i s , the c o e f f i c i e n t of -.345 between the Closure Test scores and the t o t a l Pensacola scores a t t a i n s s i g n i f i c a n c e at the 5% l e v e l of confidence, but i s not q u i t e l a r g e enough to f u l f i l the requirements f o r the 1% t e s t . That the d i r e c t i o n of the c o r r e l a t i o n i s negative i s i n keeping w i t h the p r e d i c t i o n that higher a u t h o r i t a r i a n s do not achieve so high a score of c l o s u r e as lower a u t h o r i t a r i a n s . Why there i s t h i s s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n i s b e t t e r i l l u s t r a t e d by c o n s i d e r i n g the c o e f f i c i e n t s obtained from the c o r r e l a t i n g of the Closure Test scores w i t h each of the four Pensacola subscale scores. Of the f o u r , only two, when c o r r e l a t e d w i t h c l o s u r e , achieve s i g n i f i c a n c e ; a n x i e t y - c l o s u r e (-.32) at the 5% l e v e l , and dependency-closure (-.40) at the 1% l e v e l . H o s t i l i t y and r i g i d i t y , although being i n the p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n , are too small to be considered anything but chance occurrences. The f a c t that the c o e f f i c i e n t f o r r i g i d i t y does not achieve s i g n i f i c a n c e can perhaps be explained i n terms of the sample. With r e l a t i o n to recent emphasis on the n e c e s s i t y of ego-involvement i n the ambiguous s i t u a t i o n before such r e l a t i o n s h i p s as that between r i g i d i t y and c l o s u r e are s t r o n g l y i n d i c a t e d , i t must be pointed out that the sample upon which t h i s study i s based was v o l u n t e e r , naive, and knew that the r e s u l t s would not d i r e c t l y a f f e c t them. In short, the subjects were n e i t h e r ego-involved, nor under s t r e s s . Had these c o n d i t i o n s been f u l f i l l e d , the r i g i d i t y - c l o s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t might p o s s i b l y have been higher. A l s o , i n the A u t h o r i t a r i a n P e r s o n a l i t y , Adorno and h i s a s s o c i a t e s s t a t e that although they, found that high scorers of t h e i r measure of a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m tended to be more r i g i d than low s c o r e r s , i t must be kept i n mind that they were using extreme groups, and that i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t , regarding subjects who o b t a i n scores i n the middle range, r i g i d i t y might not be so a l l -p ervasive throughout the whole p e r s o n a l i t y , but may a f f e c t only c e r t a i n areas, w h i l e other areas s t i l l r e t a i n an amount of 1. f l e x i b i l i t y . Since few subjects i n t h i s study achieved extreme scores, as may be seen from the raw scores i n Table I I I , and the means and standard d e v i a t i o n s , Table I , Adorno's statement might throw some l i g h t on the reason behind the small c o e f f i c i e n t f o r r i g i d i t y and c l o s u r e . A l s o according to the C a l i f o r n i a group, the high a n x i e t y - c l o s u r e c o e f f i c i e n t may have some r e l a t i o n to the low r i g i d i t y - c l o s u r e one, since they found the main d i f f e r e n c e between the a n x i e t y of high and low scorers to be that low scorers d i d not develop r i g i d defenses. Again, since few subjects i n t h i s study could be regarded as h i g h l y a u t h o r i t a r i a n , perhaps anxiety f a c t o r s can be n o t i c e d , but not r i g i d i t y ones. 1. See Chapter I I , page 10, f o r quotation. These assumptions are t h e o r e t i c a l only, but they may help to e x p l a i n the f a i l u r e of t h i s study to support the f i n d i n g s of previous research w i t h regard to r i g i d i t y and c l o s u r e . The small c o r r e l a t i o n between h o s t i l i t y and c l o s u r e cannot be explained by reference to the group of s u b j e c t s , because there are not strong grounds f o r b e l i e v i n g that t h i s sample i s any more or l e s s h o s t i l e than the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n . Perhaps i f t h i s study, or a s i m i l a r one, were conducted again, the r e s u l t s regarding t h i s c o e f f i c i e n t would be d i f f e r e n t . There i s l i t t l e i n d i c a t i o n from p r i o r research that t h i s r e s u l t i s e i t h e r equivocal or unequivocal. Again, previous studies give l i t t l e help i n e x p l a i n i n g the l a r g e and s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t obtained f o r c l o s u r e -dependency. I t i s r e a l l y because of the high c o r r e l a t i o n between cl o s u r e and t h i s f a c t o r that the o v e r a l l c o r r e l a t i o n between cl o s u r e and the Pensacola achieves s i g n i f i c a n c e . Obviously then, according to t h i s study, i t i s dependency even more so than anxiety that i s de t r i m e n t a l to a high c l o s u r e f a c i l i t y . Why i s t h i s so? I t can be expected that anxiety i s deterrent to cl o s u r e a b i l i t y because of the r e s u l t s of past s t u d i e s ( V e r v i l l e 1946; Smock 1957). But the reason why the dependency c o e f f i c i e n t i s so high i n r e l a t i o n to the others cannot be l o g i c a l l y and i r r e f u t a b l y explained; c e r t a i n l y there are few i n d i c a t i o n s that t h i s i s the r e s u l t to be expected. I t i s p r a c t i c a l l y impossible to formulate an explanation without seeing whether the r e s u l t s of f u r t h e r research s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s f i n d i n g . However, i t could be hypothesized that a high score of t h i s measure of dependency i n d i c a t e s a l a c k of f r e e and o r i g i n a l thought processes necessary f o r seeing the obscured p i c t u r e s i n the Closure Test. But t h i s seems the only p o s s i b l e explanation with-out more research. The m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of -.495, s i g n i f i c a n t . a t the VL l e v e l of confidence, between c l o s u r e , and anxi e t y and dependency, the two subscales of the Pensacola which covaried s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h the Closure Test, i n d i c a t e s the value of the two combined as a p r e d i c t i o n of c l o s u r e success, over the value of each alone. Therefore, to o b t a i n a p r e d i c t i v e i n d i c a t i o n of how w e l l subjects can be expected to perform on a measure of c l o s u r e , i t would be more worthwhile to combine the anxi e t y and dependency subscales, r a t h e r than to use them s i n g l y , or to use the other two, h o s t i l i t y and r i g i d i t y at a l l . A l s o , since the m u l t i p l e c o e f f i c i e n t i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher even than the c o e f f i c i e n t of -.345 obtained by c o r r e l a t i n g the t o t a l a u t h o r i t a r i a n s c a l e and c l o s u r e , use of the two subscales i s i n d i c a t e d as being a b e t t e r p r e d i c t i o n of c l o s u r e a b i l i t y than the t o t a l s c a l e . This i s to be expected from an i n s p e c t i o n of the co-e f f i c i e n t s f o r c l o s u r e - h o s t i l i t y , and c l o s u r e - r i g i d i t y ; because they do not achieve s i g n i f i c a n c e , t h e i r i n c l u s i o n i n the t o t a l s c a l e lowers i t s p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y as f a r as c l o s u r e i s concerned. Of the s i x c o e f f i c i e n t s obtained by c o r r e l a t i n g the four subscales, one w i t h the other, only two, dependency-anxiety, (.28) and dependency-rigidity (.37), achieve s i g n i f i c a n c e . The f a c t that the other four c o e f f i c i e n t s can be regarded as chance occurrences, since they are not l a r g e enough to reach the l e v e l necessary f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e , i m p l i e s that there i s l i t t l e o ver-lap i n what they are measuring. That i s , i t would seem that each scale measures f a c t o r s d i f f e r e n t from those measured by each other s c a l e . For i n s t a n c e , h o s t i l i t y f a c t o r s are not scorable as r i g i d i t y ones, nor dependency f a c t o r s as h o s t i l i t y . This i s a d e s i r a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c to discover i n any t e s t supposedly measuring more than one t r a i t , f o r i t i n d i c a t e s that ho s c a l e i s superfluous. Since the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s between dependency and r i g i d i t y , and dependency and anxiety achieve s i g n i f i c a n c e , there i s ob v i o u s l y some d e f i n i t e r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t would seem that some of the items scorable as dependency are a l s o r e l a t e d to both other v a r i a b l e s , and, t h e r e f o r e , some items are unnecessary. I f the dependency subscale were shortened or changed, that i s , the items i n i t which caused the s i g n i f i c a n t c o v a r i a t i o n were deleted or re-worded, there might not be such large c o e f f i c i e n t s . On the other hand, perhaps the omission or change might lower the r e l i a b i l i t y of e i t h e r the subscale or the t o t a l s c a l e . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note the d i f f e r e n c e s between the mean scores and standard d e v i a t i o n s obtained i n t h i s study, and those obtained from the normative populations of the two t e s t s . The mean score f o r the naval cadets when given the Pensacola Scale was 35.51, and the standard d e v i a t i o n 6.33; f o r t h i s sample the mean was 27.40 and the standard d e v i a t i o n 6.87. This d i f f e r e n c e between the means i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the 1% l e v e l of confidence, but the only p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s that t h i s sample was, on the whole, l e s s a u t h o r i t a r i a n than the normative one. Such a d i f f e r e n c e i n means i s not noted f o r the two populations on the Closure Test, perhaps because the two groups con s i s t e d of Canadian c o l l e g e students, and consequently are more comparable than American naval cadets and Canadian u n i v e r s i t y students. The mean score f o r Mooney's normative p o p u l a t i o n was 17.21 and f o r t h i s sample, 19.16. The standard d e v i a t i o n s were 7.32 and 8.02 r e s p e c t i v e l y . With regard to the age and sex of the s u b j e c t s , n e i t h e r was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t . This f i n d i n g i s i n keeping w i t h those reported e a r l i e r ( S t r e e t 1931; V e r v i l l e and Cameron 1946 ; Mooney 1951), and supports' the theory that the f a c t o r s operating to produce v a r i a t i o n s on a measure of c l o s u r e w i l l be more l i k e l y to be found i n the f i e l d of p e r s o n a l i t y character-i s t i c s r a t h e r than other i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , such as, age, sex, and i n t e l l i g e n c e . CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS The r e s u l t s of t h i s study support the hypothesis. I t has been shown to the f i v e per cent l e v e l of confidence that there i s a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m as measured by the Pensacola Z Scale, and c l o s u r e a b i l i t y , as measured by Mooney 1s Closure Test. Although the c o v a r i a t i o n between c l o s u r e and the r i g i d i t y component i s not so high as the r e s u l t s from previous research leads one to expect, the f a c t that i n t h i s study i t i s no more than a chance occurrence, i s p o s s i b l y a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the sample. There i s a d e f i n i t e d i f f e r e n c e between emotional r i g i d i t y and perceptual r i g i d i t y which has not yet been e x p l o i t e d . This d i f f e r e n c e could p o s s i b l y have a bearing on the low c o e f f i c i e n t manifest here, but i t i s hard to say without more data. Some r e s u l t s of t h i s study s u b s t a n t i a t e those of previous ones. V e r v i l l e ' s experiment i n 1946 w i t h the emotional e f f e c t of a n x i e t y on the p e r c e p t i o n of incomplete p i c t u r e s showed that hi g h a n x i e t y i n t e r f e r e s w i t h c l o s u r e a b i l i t y . This f i n d i n g was supported by Smock (1957). In t h i s study anxiety was one of the two s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s when c o r r e l a t e d w i t h c l o s u r e . Obviously i t has some d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t on the f a c i l i t y necessary to complete a c l o s u r e . The c l o s u r e - h o s t i l i t y co-e f f i c i e n t was not s i g n i f i c a n t , but any i n d i c a t i o n s from past experiments that i t should a f f e c t c l o s u r e one way or the other have only been found i n passing. There has not been a study s p e c i f i c a l l y designed f o r the purpose of e x p l o r i n g t h i s phenomenon, and u n t i l there i s , and u n t i l i t i s proved c o n c l u s i v e l y that a c e r t a i n e f f e c t i s to be expected, no excuses nor explanations can be made f o r t h i s r e s u l t . Age and sex f a c t o r s were not found to be s i g n i f i c a n t ; t h i s i s i n keeping w i t h much experimental evidence from past years. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study i n d i c a t e new pathways to be explored by f u t u r e research. . Were i t not f o r the high c o r r e l a t i o n between c l o s u r e and dependency, the covariance between c l o s u r e and a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m would not achieve s i g n i f i c a n c e . No studies have i n d i c a t e d e i t h e r a s i m i l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p as t h i s one between c l o s u r e and dependency, or a p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the phenomenon. I f another study designed to e x p l o i t t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p found as high a c o r r e l a t i o n , perhaps a new aspect to the c l o s u r e f i e l d would be discovered, and a f a c t o r having a very r e a l negative e f f e c t on c l o s u r e could be i n t e g r a t e d i n t o a new theory regarding t h i s phenomenon. At t h i s p o i n t , before the stated f i n d i n g has been s u b s t a n t i a t e d , i t i s impossible to o f f e r any v a l i d reason t o e x p l a i n t h i s c o e f f i c i e n t . This task must be bequeathed to f u t u r e researchers. Throughout t h i s t h e s i s , the Pensacola Z Scale has been r e f e r r e d to as a measure of a u t h o r i t a r i a n p e r s o n a l i t y i n order to d i s t i n g u i s h the r e s u l t s of the t o t a l scale from those of i t s component subscales. I t must be kept i n mind that the Pensacola i s only measuring four, t r a i t s , even though they be "core" to a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m . I t has been stated that the t o t a l p i c t u r e of 27. the a u t h o r i t a r i a n p e r s o n a l i t y i s too broad and i l l - d e f i n e d to be measured wholly w i t h i n the scope of a study l i k e t h i s . Therefore, before i t i s concluded that high a u t h o r i t a r i a n s are i n t o l e r a n t of perceptual ambiguity, i t must be remembered that t h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s founded on a measure of p a r t i a l a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m . Davids, i n " a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m and i n t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity" (1956) .when he found no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two, summarizes the p o s i t i o n of t h i s paper: ...We would advocate...cautious s k e p t i c i s m u n t i l c o n t r a d i c t o r y evidence has been r e c o n c i l e d . We do not yet know the c o n d i t i o n s or v a r i a b l e s that i n f l u e n c e t h i s r e l a t i o n , and u n t i l we have more unequivocal experimental evidence, i t seems best to place q u a l i f i c a t i o n s on the general statement that a u t h o r i t a r i a n s a r e . . . i n t o l e r a n t of ambiguity. SUMMARY This study was performed to i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n -ship between c l o s u r e and a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m under the hypothesis that there w i l l be an inve r s e c o v a r i a t i o n between the two, because of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of c l o s u r e to each of the four subscales: anxiety; dependency; h o s t i l i t y ; and r i g i d i t y . The measure of c l o s u r e used was Mooney 1s Closure Test; the measure of a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m was the Pensacola Z Scale, c o n s i s t i n g of the four aforementioned subscales. The subjects were f i f t y v o lunteer Psychology students attending the 1963 summer session at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. They were d i v i d e d i n t o two groups, one of which r e c e i v e d the Closure Test f i r s t , and the other of which rece i v e d the 'Pensacola f i r s t . This r e v e r s a l was to h o p e f u l l y n e u t r a l i z e the e f f e c t s of the two t e s t s on each other. A n a l y s i s of the data i n v o l v e d a C r i t i c a l R a t io t e s t . t o d i s c o v e r i f there were any d i f f e r e n c e between the groups. When the CR d i d not achieve s i g n i f i c a n c e , the groups were combined-and considered as a s i n g l e sample drawn from a common pop u l a t i o n . New means and standard d e v i a t i o n s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r both t e s t s , and were the ones used i n a l l f u r t h e r computations. C o r r e l a t i o n s were computed between the c l o s u r e scores and each of the four subscale scores, as w e l l as between the c l o s u r e scores and the t o t a l Pensacola scores. S i x i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were c a l c u l a t e d between each of the sub-scales by c o r r e l a t i n g one wi t h the other, as w e l l as a m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t between c l o s u r e and the two sub-scale scores which were s i g n i f i c a n t when c o r r e l a t e d s i n g l y w i t h c l o s u r e . The r e s u l t s obtained from these c a l c u l a t i o n s i n d i c a t e d two s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s between c l o s u r e and a n x i e t y , and c l o s u r e and dependency. Closure-h o s t i l i t y and c l o s u r e - r i g i d i t y were not s i g n i f i c a n t . The co-e f f i c i e n t of the Closure Test and the t o t a l Pensacola (-.345) was s i g n i f i c a n t at the 5% l e v e l . Only two i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n co-e f f i c i e n t s a t t a i n e d s i g n i f i c a n c e : dependency-rigidity (.37) and dependency-anxiety (.28). The m u l t i p l e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t between c l o s u r e and dependency and anxiety (-.495) was .1 s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r than the c o e f f i c i e n t s obtained when each was c o r r e l a t e d singly, w i t h c l o s u r e and then the c o e f f i c i e n t obtained when c l o s u r e was c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the t o t a l Pensacola. From t h i s i t was concluded: A. There i s an inv e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between Closure and a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m as measured by the Pensacola Z Scale. B. There should be an experiment s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to note the e f f e c t of dependency on c l o s u r e . C. The small r i g i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t i s probably a t t r i b u t a b l e to the f a c t that the sample c o n s i s t e d of u n i v e r s i t y students,. D. . The combination of the dependency and anxiety subscales y i e l d s a b e t t e r p r e d i c t i o n of c l o s u r e a b i l i t y than the use of e i t h e r of them s i n g l y , or than the use of the t o t a l s c a l e . E. Age and sex, as i n d i c a t e d i n previous s t u d i e s , have l i t t l e bearing on c l o s u r e a b i l i t y . REFERENCES 1. Adorno, T.W., et a l , The A u t h o r i t a r i a n P e r s o n a l i t y , Harper & Bros., New York, 1950 2. Arnold, M.B., Theoretical-experimental a n a l y s i s of the concept of the a u t h o r i t a r i a n p e r s o n a l i t y , Three j o i n t symposia: from the APA-ACPA meetings-of 1957, 1958, 1959, Amer. Cath. Psychol. Assoc., Fordham Univ., New York, 1959 3. B a r r a t t , P.E.H., B a r r a t t , C.S., A note on the concept of c l o s u r e , Aust. J . Psychol., 1957, 9, 154-157 4. Basowitz, H., Korchin, S.J., Age d i f f e r e n c e s i n the perc e p t i o n of c l o s u r e , J . ab. soc. psy c h o l . , 1957, 54, 93-97 5. Block, J . , Block, Jeanne, Intolerance of ambiguity and ethno-c e n t r i c i s m , J . p e r s o n a l . , 1950, 19, 303-311 6. Brown, R.W., A determinant of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between r i g i d i t y and a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m , J . ab. soc. ps y c h o l . , 1953, 48, 469-476 7. C h r i s t i e , R., (Ed.) Studies i n the scope and method of the a u t h o r i t a r i a n p e r s o n a l i t y , Free Press, Glencoe Univ., 1954 8. Davids, A., The i n f l u e n c e of ego-involvement on r e l a t i o n s between a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m and i n t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity, J . c o n s u l t , p s y c h o l . , 1956, 20, 179-184 9. D o r r i s , R.J., Levinson, D.J., Hanfmann, E., A u t h o r i t a r i a n p e r s o n a l i t y studied by a new v a r i a t i o n of the sentence completion technique, J . ab. soc. ps y c h o l . , 1954, 49, 108-141 10. French, E.G., I n t e r r e l a t i o n s among some measures of r i g i d i t y under s t r e s s and nonstress c o n d i t i o n s , J . ab. soc. psy c h o l . , 1955, 51, 114-118 11. Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Emotional and perceptual p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s , J . p e r s o n a l . , 1949, 18, 108-149 12. Frenkel-Brunswik, E., A study of p r e j u d i c e i n c h i l d r e n , Human R e l a t i o n s , 1949, 1, 295-306 13. Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Tolerance toward ambiguity as a p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e , ( A b s t r a c t ) , Amer. p s y c h o l o g i s t , 1948;3, 268 14. Himelhoch, J . , Tolerance and p e r s o n a l i t y needs, Amer. S o c i o l . r e v . , 1950, 15, 79-88 15. H o f f s t a e t e r , P.R., A f a c t o r i a l study of p r e j u d i c e , J . personal. 1952, 21, 228-239 31. 16. Jones, JE.E., A u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m and f i r s t impressions, J J . pe r s o n a l . , 1954, 23, 107-126 17. Jones, M.B., The Pensacola Z Survey, Psychol. monog., 1957, 71, (23) 18. Jones, M.B., R e l i g i o u s values and a u t h o r i t a r i a n tendency, J . ab. soc. psy c h o l . , 1958, 57, 83-89 19. Kenny, D.T., Ginsberg, R., A u t h o r i t a r i a n submission a t t i t u d e s , i n t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity, and aggression, Can. J . psychol.., 1958, 12, 121-126 20. Kenny, D.T., Ginsberg, R. , The s p e c i f i c i t y of i n t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity measures, J . ab. soc. p s y c h o l . , 1958, 56, 300-304 21. Leeper, R. , A study of the neglected p o r t i o n of the f i e l d of l e a r n i n g , J . genet, p s y c h o l . , 1935, 46, 41-75 22. Loomis, H.'K. , Moskowitz, S. , Cog n i t i v e s t y l e and stimulus ambiguity, J . p e r s o n a l . , 1958, 26, 349-364 23. Luchins, A. S. , Luchins, E.HI ,• R i g i d i t y of behaviour, Univ. of Oregon Books, 1959 24. Meresko, R., Rubin, M., Shontz, F.C., R i g i d i t y of a t t i t u d e s regarding personal h a b i t s and i t s i d e o l o g i c a l c o r r e l a t e s , J . ab. soc. psy c h o l . , 1954, 49, 89-93 25. M i l l o n , T., A u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m , i n t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity, and r i g i d i t y under ego and task i n v o l v i n g c o n d i t i o n s , J . ab. soc. p s y c h o l . , 1957, 55, 29-33 26. Mooney, CM., Ferguson, G.A., A new clo s u r e t e s t , Can. J . psy c h o l . , 1951, 5, 129-133 27. Mooney, CM. , A f a c t o r i a l study of c l o s u r e , Can. J.. psychol., 1954, 8,. 51-60 28. Mooney, CM., Closure w i t h negative after-images under f l i c k e r i n g l i g h t , Can. J . p s y c h o l . , 1956, 10, 191-199 29. Mooney, CM., Closure as a f f e c t e d by viewing time and m u l t i p l e v i s u a l f i x a t i o n s , Can. J . psy c h o l . , 1957, 11, 21-28 30. Mooney, CM., Closure as a f f e c t e d by c o n f i g u r a l c l a r i t y and contextual consistency, Can. J . p s y c h o l . , 1957, 11, 80-88 31. Mooney, CM., Age i n the development of c l o s u r e a b i l i t y i n c h i l d r e n , Can. J . psychol., 1957, 11, 219-226 32. Mooney, CM., Recognition of novel v i s u a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n w i t h and without eye movements, J . exper. p s y c h o l . , 1958, 56, 133-138 32. 33. Mooney, C.M., Recognition of symmetrical and non-symmetrical i n k b l o t s w i t h and without eye movements, r Can. J . ps y c h o l . , 1959, 13, 11-19 34. Mooney, CM., Recognition of ambiguous and unambiguous v i s u a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n s w i t h short and long exposures, B r i t . J .  psy c h o l . , 1960, 51, 119-125 35. Murphy, G., P e r s o n a l i t y , Harper, New York, 1947 36. O'Neil, W.M., Levinson, D.J., A f a c t o r i a l study of a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m and some of i t s i d e o l o g i c a l concomitants, J . p e r s o n a l . , 1954, 22, 449-463 37. Rokeach, M., Mental r i g i d i t y and ethnocentricism.. J . ab. soc. ps y c h o l . , 1948, 43, 259-277 38. Rokeach, M., Open and closed o r i e n t a t i o n s to a u t h o r i t y , Three j o i n t symposia: from the APA-ACPA meetings of 1957, 1958, 1959, Amer. Cath.. Assoc., Fordham Univ., New York, 1959 39. Singer, R.D., Fleshbach, S. , Some r e l a t i o n s between manifest a n x i e t y , a u t h o r i t a r i a n tendency, and modes of r e a c t i o n to f r u s t r a t i o n , J . ab. soc. ps y c h o l . , 1959, 59, 404-408 40. Smock, CD., R e l a t i o n between " i n t o l e r a n c e of ambiguity" g e n e r a l i z a t i o n and speed of perceptual c l o s u r e , Child-Develpm., 1957, 28, 27-36 41. Thurstone, L.L., A f a c t o r i a l study of p e r c e p t i o n , Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 111., 1944 42. V e r v i l l e ' , E. , Cameron, M. , Age and sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n the perce p t i o n of incomplete p i c t u r e s by a d u l t s , J . genet. p s y c h o l . , 1946, 68, 148-157 43. V e r v i l l e , E., E f f e c t of emotional and m o t i v a t i o n a l sets on the p e r c e p t i o n of incomplete p i c t u r e s , J . genet, p s y c h o l . , 1946, 69, 133-145 33. APPENDIX A RAW SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS (N=50) FOR CLOSURE TEST PENSACOLA Z SCALE AND THE FOUR SUBSCALES. KEY: CLOSURE FIRST C - CLOSURE PENSACOLA SECOND P - TOTAL PENSACOLA SCORE A - ANXIETY SCORE D - DEPENDENCY SCORE H - HOSTILITY SCORE R - RIGIDITY SCORE GROUP A N AGE SEX C P A D H R 1 38 F 20 22 6 5 2 9 2 18 F 22 31 6 10 2 11 3 20 F 20 35 8 11 7 9 4 23 M 4 35 7 11 8 9 5-' 29 F 19 31 11 9 8 6 6 42 M 4 36 10 11 5 10 7 24 M 37 30 5 8 7 10 8 21 F 26 23 5 7 3 8 9 19 F 23 27 3 10 4 8 10 24 F 26 25 4 10 6 5 11 20 F 19 21 9 6 3 3 12 39 F 11 32 7 12 1 12 13 32 M 18 13 3 5 2 3 14 21 F 10 29 4 14 2 9 15 24 M 23 35 9 12 4 10 16 43 F 17 24 8 10 0 6 17 29 M 23 26 7 10 5 4 18 22 F 25 24 4 6 6 8 19 23 M 19 34 10 11 5 7 20 17 F 10 40 10 14 4 12 21 22 F 22 20 6 2 4 8 22 20 F 18 30 11 9 6 4 23 20 F 26 35 10 10 2 13 24 27 M 12 17 6 8 0 3 25 23 F 32 23 5 6 3 9 APPENDIX A RAW SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS (N=50) FOR CLOSURE TEST, PENSACOLA Z SCALE AND THE FOUR SUBSCALES. GROUP B - PENSACOLA FIRST CLOSURE SECOND GROUP B N AGE SEX C P A D H R 1 . 27 M 27 17 4 8 1 4 2 24 M 16 33 6 11 6 10 3 23 M 20 39 11 13 3 12 4 21 M 25 33 5 13 6 9 5 20 M 12 28 8 5 8 7 6 20 M 11 19 4 4 6 5 7 19 F 19 17 4 4 4 5 8 24 M 23 15 4 7 0 4 9 F 6 31 11 10 4 5 10 36 F 9 37 9 11 6 11 11 48 F 11 36. 6 15 3 12 12 23 F 14 21 ' 1 8 4 8 !3 21 F 15 20 4 3 6 8 14 27 M 29 33 7 6 8 12 15 20 M 23 29 5 13 1 10 16 32 M 25 26 3 10 4 9 17 20 M 23 24 7 6 4 7 18 32 F 24 23 7 7 3 6 19 21 M 24 27 6 10 3 9 20 40 F 20 28 8 12 2 6 21 29 M 27 27 9 9 3 6 22 . 19 F 6 21 11 6 1 3 23 38 M 4 41 10 3 5 12 24 25 F 28 24 4 2 1 7 25 17 F 31 22 6 5 3 8 35. APPENDIX B SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A) MULTIPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT (R G.AD = -- 4 9 5) AND CLOSURE-PENSACOLA COEFFICIENT (r'c? = -.345) B) MULTIPLE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT AND BOTH CLOSURE-ANXIETY COEFFICIENT ( r C A = -.32) AND CLOSURE-DEPENDENCY COEFFICIENT ( r C D = -.40) A) 1. Transforming RC.AD t o ZRC.AD R -.495 = Z .549 2. Transforming rgp to Zr^ ,p to Z rQp r -.345 = Z .365 3. C a l c u l a t i n g Standard E r r o r of Di f f e r e n c e f o r + ,, 1 where K = 2 + 1 47 4. C a l c u l a t i n g A c t u a l D i f f e r e n c e of R^ ^ and r^p AD = Z i - Z 2 S E D I F F AD = .549 - 365 .1475 AD = 1.24 5. I t s a c t u a l D i f f e r e n c e i s 2.58 x SE^jpip i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t at the 1% l e v e l of confidence 2.58 x .1475 = .379550 6. RQ.AD i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r than rgp By the same method: rCA = * 3 2 Z rCA = - 3 3 2 RC.AD a n d r C p S E D I F F = 1 Ni -K-3 1 45 2 92 .0217 .1475 A c t u a l D i f f e r e n c e = .217 .1475 = 1.47 2.58 x .1475 = .379550 .*. RC.AD i-s s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r than By the same method: r C D = .40 Z r c D = .424 Actual. D i f f e r e n c e = . 125 .1475 = .820 2.58 x .1475 = .376648 .*. ^C.AD •i-s s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r than 37. APPENDIX C PENSACOLA Z SCALE NAME: AGE: SEX: FACULTY & YEAR: 1. R a. You are too f r i e n d l y f o r your own good. b. Your opinions are o f t e n i n c o r r e c t . 2. a. Taking advantage of a person s e x u a l l y makes you f e e l bad. H b. You have no scruples i n sex. 3. A a. You are anxious. b. You are conceited. 4. A a. To you l i f e i s a j u n g l e . b. To you l i f e i s a bowl of c h e r r i e s . 5. a. You daydream p o l i t i c a l l y . I) b. You don't formulate opinions about is s u e s over which you have no c o n t r o l . 6. D a. In p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s you confine your e f f o r t s to group a c t i o n . b. In p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t i e s you f r e q u e n t l y indulge i n i n d i v i d u a l endeavour. 7. D a. You l i k e a t i g h t l y organized group. b. You l i k e a l o o s e l y organized group. 8. a. You haven't made any mistakes i n your l i f e . A b. You can't get the mistakes you have made out of your mind. 9. H a. There are some people you could never f e e l f o r . b. Sometimes you f e e l a r e a l compassion f o r everyone. 10. D a. You l i k e i n s t r u c t i o n s to be s p e c i f i c . b. You l i k e i n s t r u c t i o n s to be general. 11. a. You are s e x u a l l y appealing. D b. You are f a i t h f u l . 12. a. You are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r most of your t r o u b l e s . A b. You sometimes get confused without any reason. 13. a. You f r e q u e n t l y laugh at y o u r s e l f . R b. You don't l i k e your f a v o u r i t e h a b i t s r i d i c u l e d . 14. a. You f r e q u e n t l y get away w i t h murder. A b. People o f t e n blame you f o r t h i n g s you didn't do. 15. a. You are not a t t r a c t e d to prudish people. R b. You are not a t t r a c t e d to unkempt people. 38. APPENDIX C 16. D a. You want badly to "belong" b. You don't care whether you "belong" or not. 17. R a. You l i k e a c l e a n , neat house. b. You l i k e good food. 18. R a. You can never f o r g e t that love i s more than j u s t sex. b. You can take pleasure i n sex as sex. 19. a. You are always on the lookout f o r new ways of a t t a c k i n g a problem. R b. In ge n e r a l , you f i n d the t r i e d - a n d - t r u e methods work best. 20. a. You are r e b e l l i o u s . I) b. You l i k e d i s c i p l i n e . 21. A a. You don't l i k e to gamble on g e t t i n g a good break. b. You u s u a l l y f i g u r e on g e t t i n g a good break. 22. a. You get more c r e d i t than you deserve. A b. You get l e s s c r e d i t than you deserve. 23. A a. You get i n t o scraps you didn't s t a r t . b. When you get i n t o t r o u b l e i t i s almost always your own f a u l t . 24. a. Most everybody l e t s you know d i r e c t l y what they t h i n k of you. H b. Some people are s e c r e t l y t r y i n g to get the b e t t e r of you. 25. a. You p o s i t i v e l y l i k e to be d i f f e r e n t from your immediate a s s o c i a t e s . D b. Being d i f f e r e n t from your immediate a s s o c i a t e s makes you uncomfortable. 26. R a. People are e i t h e r your f r i e n d s or your enemies. b. People are r a r e l y e i t h e r r e a l f r i e n d s or r e a l enemies. 27. H a. Your hardest b a t t l e s are w i t h other people r a t h e r than w i t h y o u r s e l f . b. You are cocky. 28. a. You could l i k e anyone i f you t r i e d . H b. There are some people you know you could never l i k e . 29. a. You are f o r g e t f u l . R b. You have a meticulous memory. 30. H _ a. b. There are some people you would l i k e to t e l l o f f . You are o c c a s i o n a l l y taken i n . 39. APPENDIX G 31. A a. People c r i t i c i z e you u n j u s t l y . b. People give you more breaks than you deserve. 32. a. You are charming. R b. You are f i r m and r e s o l u t e . 33. a. Disappointments a f f e c t you so l i t t l e that you seldom t h i n k about them twice. A b. Your daydreams are o f t e n about things that can never come t r u e . 34. a. You would l i k e to counsel a f r i e n d on h i s personal problem. D b. You would l i k e to give f i r s t a i d to a f r i e n d . 35. R a. You c o l l e c t thimgs. b. You l o s e t h i n g s . 36. a. You l i k e haphazard l i v i n g . R b. You l i k e r o u t i n e . 37. a. S t u f f e d - s h i r t s amuse you. H b. S t u f f e d - s h i r t s get under your s k i n . 38. a. You keep calm i n an emergency. D b. You can obey orders. 39. a. You are d i f f i c u l t to please. D b. You l i k e to do favours. 40. R a. You are aware of d r i p p i n g water i n the k i t c h e n . b. You are not observant. 41. a. You don't mind a coward. H b. You can't stand a coward. 42. a. You j u s t can't stay mad even when you t h i n k you should. H b. There are some people you would l i k e to take apart. 43. a. You admire spontaneity i n people. R b. You admire e f f i c i e n c y i n people.. 44. a. You don't p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e to march. D b. You l i k e to march w i t h a group you f e e l proud to belong t o . 45. a. You need someone i n whom you can confide completely. D b. You are s e l f i s h . 46. D a. You p l a y f a i r . b. You are an i n d i v i d u a l i s t . 47. D a. There are some magazines to which you p a r t i c u l a r l y t u r n f o r the s u b s t a n t i a t i o n of your p o l i t i c a l ideas. b. Your p o l i t i c a l ideas tend to be p e c u l i a r to y o u r s e l f . 40. APPENDIX C 48. H a. You can't help f e e l i n g a n t a g o n i s t i c to people who hold important opinions r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from yours. b. You l i k e a l o t of people who disagree w i t h you v i o l e n t l y on important i s s u e s . 49. a. Your i n t e s e s t i n general p r i n c i p l e s o c c a s i o n a l l y gets you up i n the clouds. R b. You are a s t i c k l e r f o r p r e c i s i o n . 50. a. You have f e l t so sorry f o r someone, you have c r i e d . H b. You have gotten so mad you have c r i e d . 51. a. Yours i s a quick and ready sympathy. H b. You are s t e r n . 52. a. You are independent. D b. You are l o y a l . 53. a. You are t a l k a t i v e . A b. Often you are sure you have f o r g o t t e n something important. 54. A a. You would be happier i f you f e l t more secure. b. You would be happier i f you were l e s s g u l l i b l e . 55. R a. You never change your b a s i c b e l i e f s . b. A l l your b e l i e f s are open to debate. 56. a. You f o l l o w your conscience. D b. You have e t h i c a l standards which you f o l l o w . 57. D a. You are very proud of your membership i n some groups. b. You don't go f o r groups. 58. a. You are i n d i f f e r e n t to most people. R b. You l i k e or you d i s l i k e people. 59. a. You don't worry about p h y s i c a l d i s o r d e r s . A b. Sometimes you f i g u r e you a sure t h i n g f o r u l c e r s . 60. R a. You are dogmatic. b. You are sloppy. 61. D a. There are some people you admire so much you would not question t h e i r o p i n i o n . b. You don't admire anybody very much. 62. a. Concerning your past a c t i o n s you f i g u r e , " I f I d i d i t , i t can't be too bad". A b. I f you had your l i f e to do d i f f e r e n t l y there would be a l o t of things you would do d i f f e r e n t l y . 41. APPENDIX C 63. R a. b. You You admire c a r e f u l , r i g o r o u s t h i n k i n g , admire b r i l l i a n t , p e n e t r a t i n g t h i n k i n g . 64. R a. b. The You d e t a i l s of l i f e are important to you. are o f t e n thoughtless. 65. R a. b. You You are w e l l coordinated, seek new opi n i o n s . 66. A~" a. b. You You are s e l f - c o n f i d e n t , are a good Joe. 

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.831.1-0105429/manifest

Comment

Related Items