Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The stability of social desirability judgments in relation to items on Edwards' personal preference schedule. Diers, Carol Jean 1958

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1958_A8 D4 S8.pdf [ 4.23MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106178.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106178-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106178-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106178-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106178-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106178-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106178-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106178-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106178.ris

Full Text

THE STABILITY OP SOCIAL DESIRABILITY JUDGMENTS IN RELATION TO ITEMS ON EDWARDS' PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE by CAROL JEAN DIERS B.A., B.A. i n Ed., Western Washington College,  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Arts i n the Department of Psychology  We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standards by Candidates f o r the degree of Master of Arts  Members of the Department of Psychology  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1958  1956  THE STABILITY OF SOCIAL DESIRABILITY JUDGMENTS IN RELATION TO ITEMS ON EDWARDS' PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE Abstract The purpose of t h i s study was to investigate the stab i l i t y of the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values used by Edwards i n the construction of h i s Personal Preference Schedule (PPS). The s p e c i f i c hypotheses were: (a) The s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values determined f o r University of B r i t i s h Columbia students, Hungarian university students and Canadian female delinquents w i l l correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with Edwards scale values determined on American college students; and 1  (b) The s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values derived f o r these three groups, together with Edwards' scale data and the scale values derived on f i v e other groups w i l l a l l i n t e r c o r r e late s i g n i f i c a n t l y . This hypothesis s p e c i f i e s that a common stereotype of what i s s o c i a l l y desirable and undesirable w i l l p e r s i s t throughout the various groups. Two additional problems were also investigated, namely, the extent to which the item p a i r s on the PPS were matched f o r s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y for the groups tested, and how these three groups, together with Edwards' American sample, d i f f e r e d when the items on the PPS were grouped into the manifest needs that they purport to assess. In order to investigate the hypotheses and problems, s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ratings were obtained from 226 University of B r i t i s h Columbia students, 70 male Hungarian u n i v e r s i t y students and 40 female delinquents. The items rated f o r s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y were those contained i n the PPS. The obtained ratings were scaled by the method of successive i n t e r v a l s . A l l Intercorrelations were s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l . Thus the two hypotheses were supported, suggesting that a common attitude of what Is desirable and undesirable cuts across many d i f f e r e n t groups. The r e s u l t s of the i n t r a c l a s s correlations for matched pairs on the PPS suggested that the PPS would cont r o l f o r the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y variable on a group of UBC students, but not f o r the Hungarians or delinquents.  iv  Analysis of variance techniques employed on the PPS items grouped i n terms of the needs they measured indicated highly r e l i a b l e group differences. The Canadian and American univ e r s i t y students showed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n t h e i r need ratings. Compared with the American and Canadian students, the Hungarians appeared to evaluate p o s i t i v e l y the needs of order and aggression and to underevaluate the need f o r a f f i l i a t i o n , and, comparatively, the delinquent group rated highly the needs of autonomy, change, heterosexuality and aggression and underrated the needs of achievement, order, i n t r o ception and endurance. I t was emphasized that i t could not be assumed that a group possessed to a strong degree those needs to which they give high s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ratings.  In presenting 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 of the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t t h e Universit}* of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y .  I further  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 copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head of my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e .  I t i s under-  stood 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 not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n permission.  Department o f  Psychology  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Vancouver 3 , Canada. Date  September 30, 1958  Columbia,  -  ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author i s indebted to Miss D. Johnstone, Treatment Director, G i r l s Industrial Home f o r permission to test the juvenile delinquent group and to Dean R. G. R o l l e r of the Sopron School of Forestry Hungarian group.  f o r h i s authorization  to test the  Dr. J. Huberman translated the items and ad-  ministered the r a t i n g scale i n Hungarian to that group. A special thanks i s due the University of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Center under the d i r e c t i o n of Dr. T. Hull f o r use of the ALWAC III-E to compute the scale values. The author wishes to sincerely thank her advisor, Dr. D. T. Kenny, f o r h i s assistance course of t h i s study.  and guidance throughout the  CONTENTS Chapter  page Abstract  I II  The Nature of the Problem  1  Review of the Literature  4  D e f i n i t i o n of the S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y Variable Social D e s i r a b i l i t y and the Probability of Endorsement of Personality Statements S t a b i l i t y of the Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Ratings III  Method Selection of Subjects Procedure f o r Obtaining Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Ratings Scaling the Statements by the Method of Successive Intervals  IV V VI  i i i  4 5 8 12 12 14 16  Results  18  Discussion  27  Summary and Conclusions  32  References  35  Appendix A  37  Item Pool Scaled f o r Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale Values f o r UBC, Hungarian and Delinquent Groups Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale Values f o r Six Other Groups Appendix B Instructions for Rating Scale Sample Rating Schedule Hungarian Translation of Rating Schedule Hungarian Translation of Item Pool  38 43 47 51 52 53 54 55  VI  Chapter  page Appendix C Summary of P Tests  60 6l  TABLES Table  page  1  Intercorrelations of the Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale Values Reported by K l e t t and Yaukey  11  2  Intercorrelations of Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale Values  19  3  Differences i n Need Ratings, Comparing Edwards, Hungarian, UBC and Delinquent  23  CHAPTER I THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM The primary purpose of t h i s study i s to investigate the s t a b i l i t y of the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values used by Edwards i n the construction of h i s Personal Preference Schedule (PPS).  I t has been recognized for quite some time that an  Individual who  i s asked to complete a paper and p e n c i l test  of personality Is l i k e l y to describe himself as possessing those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which he considers  s o c i a l l y desirable.  Recent research has conclusively shown that the c o r r e l a t i o n between the p r o b a b i l i t y of endorsement of a personality item and i t s s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y r a t i n g i s extremely high.  As a  r e s u l t of t h i s finding, Edwards attempted to control the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y factor i n the construction of h i s PPS.  The  in the PPS were f i r s t scaled for s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y by method of successive  i n t e r v a l s , and two  items the  items, each repre-  senting a d i f f e r e n t personality variable, were then paired i n terms of s i m i l a r s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values.  In taking  the schedule, the testee i s forced to make a choice between the paired items.  It might be expected, however, that what i s  viewed as s o c i a l l y desirable or undesirable  w i l l be a function  2  of a specified  c u l t u r a l or subcultural group.  I f t h i s were  the case, then the item pairs would no longer be matched i n terms of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y and the PPS would not control for the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y variable i n groups d i f f e r e n t that upon whom the scale values were computed.  from  Nevertheless,  on the basis of previous research i n this area, i t i s hypothesized that items on the PPS w i l l remain reasonably stable when determined f o r three d i f f e r e n t  subcultural groups.  While  this  statement represents the general guiding hypothesis of the study, the s p e c i f i c hypotheses  to be investigated are as  follows: (a)  The s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values determined f o r  University of B r i t i s h Columbia students, Hungarian  university  students and Canadian female delinquents w i l l correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with Edwards' scale values determined on American college students; and (b)  The s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values derived f o r  these three groups, together with Edwards  1  scale data and the  scale values derived on f i v e other groups (21), w i l l a l l Intercorrelate s i g n i f i c a n t l y .  While t h i s hypothesis i s not completely  d i s t i n c t from the preceding one, i t does specify that a common stereotype of what i s s o c i a l l y desirable and undesirable w i l l p e r s i s t throughout the various groups. In addition to testing these hypotheses, t h i s study Is also concerned with two additional problems.  Although the  3  i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the scale values f o r the various groups might be substantial, i t does not necessarily follow that the i n t r a c l a s s correlations between the paired items would be high enough to warrant the assumption that the PPS would control f o r s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y f o r the p a r t i c u l a r groups.  That i s , while  one item i n a p a r t i c u l a r p a i r might be rated equally by Edwards' sample and a d i f f e r e n t group, the second item of the p a i r may receive quite d i f f e r e n t ratings from these two groups.  For pur-  poses of examining t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , the i n t r a c l a s s correlations for the UBC group, the delinquent sample and the Hungarian group w i l l be calculated.  Second, the items on the PPS w i l l be grouped  into t h e i r respective f i f t e e n scales i n order to determine i f the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ratings f o r these scales w i l l s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e between Edwards' group, the UBC group, the delinquent sample and the Hungarian group,  while i t i s expected that the  groups w i l l be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on some of the scales, no attempt w i l l be made to specify i n advance where these differences might be.  CHAPTER I I REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE D e f i n i t i o n of the Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Variable This study should be viewed as an extension of a series of research largely instigated by Edwards (4) on the s o c i a l b i l i t y variable i n personality assessment. study operates within Edwards  1  i t seems worthwhile to indicate term.  desira-  Since the present  twofold d e f i n i t i o n of t h i s term, at the outset how he employs this  On the one hand, he uses the term s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y to  r e f e r to s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values of statements about personality.  While i n p r i n c i p l e any of the t r a d i t i o n a l psycho-  l o g i c a l scaling methods could be used to locate a personality statement on the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y continuum and thereby obtain i t s scale value, Edwards has largely used the method of successive intervals.  On the other hand, Edwards (7, v i ) refers to s o c i a l  d e s i r a b i l i t y as "the tendency of subjects to attribute selves, i n s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n ,  to them-  personality statements with s o c i a l l y  desirable scale values and to reject those with s o c i a l l y undes i r a b l e scale values."  The most frequent c r i t i c i s m of personality  questionnaires, aside from the question of v a l i d i t y , has been t h e i r vulnerability  to the operation of t h i s biasing set on the part of  5  the testee.  I t i s Edwards' contention  statements may  that a l l personality  be represented on the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y con-  tinuum and that the e f f e c t i v e construction of personality  scales  c a l l s f o r the control of t h i s everpresent f a c t o r . Social D e s i r a b i l i t y and the Probability of Endorsement of Personality Statements Edwards' (4) i n i t i a l study i n t h i s area dealt with the relationship between the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y of a personality t r a i t and the p r o b a b i l i t y of i t s endorsement. of 152  Using the ratings  college students as judges and computing scale values by  the method of successive  i n t e r v a l s , he scaled f o r s o c i a l de-  s i r a b i l i t y 10 items for.each of 14 of Murray's manifest needs. An independent sample of 140 college students then responded to the items i n printed inventory  form.  On the basis of t h e i r re-  action to the statements, he computed the proportion who tributed each statement to themselves.  These proportions  as the p r o b a b i l i t y of endorsement values. tween the two variables was  .871,  The  atserved  c o r r e l a t i o n be-  i n d i c a t i n g quite c l e a r l y that  p r o b a b i l i t y of endorsement of a personality statement i s related to i t s d e s i r a b i l i t y . Since t h i s o r i g i n a l study by Edwards, several other i n vestigators have obtained the same r e s u l t s with d i f f e r e n t groups of subjects and d i f f e r e n t sets of statements.  Drawing samples of  statements from the Depression and Schizophrenia scales of the  6  Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Hanley (13)  found  a high relationship between s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values and p r o b a b i l i t y of endorsement. two variables was Depression Scale.  The c o r r e l a t i o n between the  .89 f o r the Schizophrenic Kenny (16)  Scale,  .82 f o r the  found a c o r r e l a t i o n of .82  be-  tween s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values and p r o b a b i l i t y of endorsement of a set of 25 personality t r a i t s . problem i n a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t way,  Approaching the  Rosen (24) had h i s  subjects  f i r s t take a shortened form of the Minnesota Multiphasic under the usual instructions to provide a s e l f - a p p r a i s a l . He then asked them to take the same test under the instructions to give t h e i r i d e a l representation of themselves.  Although Rosen did  not scale the statements on a continuum of d e s i r a b i l i t y , he nevertheless  found a c o r r e l a t i o n of .87 between the number of  subjects saying "True" under the two  sets of i n s t r u c t i o n s .  Such studies indicate that the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y factor should be controlled i n personality inventories. proach to t h i s problem i s that used by Edwards (3)  One new  ap-  i n the con-  struction of h i s Personality Preference Schedule (PPS).  This  schedule measures 15 of Murray's manifest needs, namely, achievement, deference, order, exhibition, autonomy, a f f i l i a t i o n , i n t r a ception, succorance, dominance, abasement, nurturance, change, endurance, heterosexuality, and aggression.  After obtaining  s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values f o r a l l the personality statements that were to appear In the schedule, Edwards then paired  7  items of d i f f e r e n t needs but e s s e n t i a l l y similar scale The testee i s forced to make a choice between the two items.  I t i s thereby assumed that a subject's  values. paired  choice w i l l not  be unduly influenced by the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y factor. the primary purposes of t h i s study i s to determine how  One  of  adequate  Edwards' matching of item pairs w i l l be for three subcultural groups. Several studies have also investigated t h i s general problem. Navran and Stauffacher  (23)  administered the PPS to 25 nurses and  one month l a t e r had them rank order the 15  PPS personality v a r i -  ables for both s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n and s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . the l a t t e r two variables correlated .90, needs based on the PPS  While  the rank order of the  scoring correlated with s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n  and s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y only - . 0 3  and - . 0 1 ,  respectively.  Such  findings indicate that, at least for t h i s s p e c i f i c group, Edwards was  quite successful i n c o n t r o l l i n g the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y factor  In the schedule. between PPS  Silverman (25)  scores and two  found only s l i g h t correlations  independent measures of test  defensive-  ness, namely, the K scale of the MMPI and a forced choice form of the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale.  Kelleher  (15)  obtained point  b i s e r i a l correlations between s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y judgments and choice of one item p a i r over the other f o r a l l 210 PPS.  While there was  items on  the  a s l i g h t l y greater than chance occurrence  of s i g n i f i c a n t correlations, the correlations were s u f f i c i e n t l y low to warrant the conclusion  that s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y only  plays  8  a minor role i n the PPS. However, a recent study by Corah, et a l . ( l ) does not support the b e l i e f that s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y i s controlled i n the PPS. Since t h i s study i s open to question, i t s findings are only suggestive.  The authors set up the  hypothesis that each member of a p a i r should be chosen with equal frequency.  Since the data lead to the r e j e c t i o n of the  hypothesis, the authors suggested that the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y factor does operate i n the PPS. The authors of t h i s study recognize, however, that t h e i r data has other interpretations. They indicate that t h e i r findings might also be due either to the use of a very small sample of item pairs In the PPS (30 item pairs out of a t o t a l of 210) or the use of a non-representative group i n terms of the standardization group.  While the authors  do not mention i t , another genuine p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s .  Since  a l l the paired items were not employed, t h e i r subjects may have been able to maintain a "set" f o r choosing the more desirable item f o r a small group of items, but not f o r a larger set.  That  i s , the study of Corah, et a l . i n no way indicates that each member of a p a i r i s not chosen equally f o r the f u l l PPS. S t a b i l i t y of the Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Ratings Turning now to studies that are e s s e n t i a l l y s i m i l a r to the present one, several investigations have compared Edwards' s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values with those collected on d i f f e r ent groups from the American college group used o r i g i n a l l y by Edwards.  These studies have consistently shown a high p o s i t i v e  9  relationship between Edwards' scale values and those calculated on the d i f f e r e n t samples.  P u j i t a (11) found that 50 male and  50 female native-born Americans of Japanese immigrant parents gave similar s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ratings as Edwards college 1  students.  The correlation between the scale values was . 9 5 .  I t should be noted, however, that F u j i t a ' s subjects were Univ e r s i t y of Washington students, as were Edwards' subjects. Lovass (22) reports, f o r a group of 50 male and 36 female gymnasia students i n Norway, a c o r r e l a t i o n of .78 between the scale values of Norwegians and Edwards' American sample. 18)  K l e t t (19,  obtained scale values f o r 91 male and 115 female high school  students and also 118 male neuropsychiatric patients.  When he  correlated the scale values f o r these groups with Edwards' group, he obtained a correlation of .9^ with the high school sample and .88 f o r the patient sample. Klett (20, p.9) hypothesized:  In l i g h t of the foregoing studies, "In view of the high s t a b i l i t y  of the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values between d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l groups and groups of d i f f e r e n t socio-economic  status, I t  seems reasonable to assume that s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values obtained from other c u l t u r a l sub-groups would not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from those obtained by Edwards." K l e t t and Yaukey (21) have recently tested the v a l i d i t y of such a hypothesis.  Employing a sample of 165 male and 33 f e -  male students at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, they found a correlation of .86 between Edwards' scale values  10  and those of the Beirut students.  Table 1, a reproduction of  the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s reported by K l e t t and Yaukey (21) i n t h e i r unpublished manuscript, summarizes the evidence to date. The r e l a t i v e l y high Intercorrelations suggest a consistent c u l t u r a l judgment concerning the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y of the types of statements contained i n the PPS. I t Is one of the purposes of t h i s paper to explore further the degree to which three add i t i o n a l samples w i l l agree among themselves and with the other groups specified i n Table 1. While the accumulated evidence to date suggests rather strongly that a common stereotype of what i s desirable or undesirable may exist between certain groups, i t would not be appropriate to conclude that Edwards' schedule could by virtue of t h i s fact be used on a variety of groups with the knowledge that the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y variable i s controlled.  The actual  matched Items may not be as adequately paired as the correlations would suggest.  An examination of the i n t r a c l a s s correlations  between the d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values f o r matched items i s required before any such generalization could be made.  Edwards  obtained an Intraclass correlation of .85 f o r the matched items i n h i s schedule, indicating that s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y Is not ent i r e l y controlled.  Klett (19) reported an Intraclass correlation  of only .69 f o r h i s high school sample, and P u j i t a (11) found an i n t r a c l a s s correlation of .76 f o r h i s Japanese-American sample.  college  A further examination of t h i s problem w i l l be made i n  the present study.  11  TABLE 1 Intercorrelations  College Nisei Norway Middle East  of the Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale Values Middle East  High School  (21)  Hospital  Nisei  Norway  .96*  .82**  .86  .93  .88  .77  .83  .93  .88  .80  .79  .74  .81  .83  High School  .87  *WhIle Klett and Yaukey report the correlation between the Nisei and Edwards* American college group to be . 9 6 , F u j i t a (11) indicates that I t i s .95**Lovass (22) reports t h i s correlation to be .78.  CHAPTER I I I METHOD Selection of Subjects Social d e s i r a b i l i t y judgments on the statements i n Edwards Personality Preference 1  samples:  Schedule were obtained on three  (a) University of B r i t i s h Columbia students, males  and females; (b) Hungarian Immigrant University students, male; and  (c) juvenile delinquents,  female.  The Canadian u n i v e r s i t y sample consisted of 123 males and 103 females enrolled i n two sections of introductory psychology at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia.  The age range  for the 226 subjects was 17 to 36, with a mean age of 21.15 and a standard deviation of 3.83 f o r the males and a mean age of 18.78 and a standard deviation of 2.11  f o r the females.  The Hungarians were 70 male students who were part of the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Faculty of Forestry, Sopron Division.  Shortly a f t e r the Soviet occupation  authorities em-  ployed armed force on November 4, 1956 to suppress the October 23,  1956 Hungarian revolution, the Faculty and students of the  School of Forestry, located i n Sopron, l e f t Hungary as a group.  13  After a b r i e f stay i n Austria, t h i s group immigrated to Canada and resumed t h e i r studies at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. The major portion of t h e i r university classes are taught by the o r i g i n a l Sopron faculty, and, except f o r special classes i n English, the classes are taught i n Hungarian.  Since the group  formed a discrete unit, the structure within the group has remained f a i r l y stable.  Retention of the Internal group structure  has no doubt retarded the assimilation of i n d i v i d u a l Hungarian students Into Canadian society.  The group had been i n Canada  14 months at the time the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values were obtained. It i s worth noting that the o f f i c i a l p o l i c y at the Sopron School of Forestry was to admit 70 per cent of the students from the peasant and worker classes and 30 per cent from the i n t e l l e c t u a l and white c o l l a r classes.  The immigrant group consisted  of a s l i g h t l y higher percentage of individuals from the l a t t e r classes than t h i s expressed i d e a l (17).  The age range of the  70 Hungarian students was from 20 to 32 years, with a mean of 22.70 and a standard deviation of 2.57. The delinquent group consisted of 40 i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d females i n the G i r l s Industrial Home, Vancouver, B.C.  The most  frequent charge against t h i s sample i s " i n c o r r i g i b i l i t y , " a l e g a l term covering most types of misdemeanors, other than that of sex offenses, which i s the second most frequent charge.  Ac-  cording to the Treatment Director, Miss D. Johnstone, most of  14  the g i r l s are from the lower socio-economic  s t r a t a and about  one-half are wards of the province or some private children's agency.  The age range of the 40 delinquents was 13 to 18 years,  with a mean of 15-73 and a standard deviation of 1.20. Procedure f o r Obtaining Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Ratings In order to obtain the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ratings f o r the items on the PPS, a l l subjects rated the items on a ninepoint rating scale of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y .  The obtained r e s u l t s  were then scaled by the method of successive i n t e r v a l s .  In  order to obtain comparable r e s u l t s to those of previous i n vestigators, Edwards' procedure was duplicated as c l o s e l y as possible. Each subject was given a copy of the t r a i t rating schedule and Instructed to rate the personality statements on the ninepoint rating scale which ranged from extremely s o c i a l l y undes i r a b l e to extremely s o c i a l l y desirable. A copy of the exact instructions, along with a specimen copy of the r a t i n g sheets, i s contained i n Appendix B.  The Hungarian t r a n s l a t i o n of the  items and the rating sheet i s also contained i n Appendix B. In essence, the administrator of the rating scale read the instructions aloud on the cover page and the subjects were t o l d to follow along s i l e n t l y .  I f there were no questions, the  administrator repeated the i n s t r u c t i o n to judge the t r a i t as to how s o c i a l l y desirable or undesirable the r a t e r would consider  15  that t r a i t i n others.  Each item was read twice, the f i r s t time  to form an opinion, the second to make the r a t i n g . 2,  After Items  3 , 6, and 8 i n the f i r s t block of 14 items, the adminis-  t r a t o r said, "How s o c i a l l y desirable or undesirable would you regard t h i s t r a i t In another person?"  At the beginning of each  block of 14 items, t h i s was again emphasized by stating, "Remember, you are to rate these t r a i t s as to how s o c i a l l y desirable or undesirable you would consider them i n others, not yourself." After a l l items were rated, the administrator offered to r e read any items which may have been missed.* The only deviation from t h i s pattern occurred i n the juvenile delinquent group where, when requested, a synonym was substituted f o r a word which was not understood by the group. The Canadian and Hungarian university students made t h e i r ratings during regular class hour periods.  The juvenile de-  linquents' ratings were obtained i n a special assembly which was c a l l e d f o r that purpose.  Instructions and statements were ad-  ministered i n Magyar to the Hungarian group. The actual pool of personality statements judged consisted of 135 items that appear i n the Edwards' PPS ( 3 ) , 9 representing 15 of the manifest needs.  The Intercorrelations between the  Canadian samples, and these three groups with the group from  •Messrs. Kenny and Huberman administered the items to the Can a d i a n university students and Hungarians, respectively. The investigator administered the rating scale to the delinquents.  16  Norway (22)  are based on the entire 135  items.  However, the  other investigators had not scaled the items from the need abasement scale.  Hence, the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s between scale  values f o r a l l other groups w i l l be based on 126 each of the 14 manifest needs.  items, 9 f o r  A copy of the item pool may  be  found i n Appendix A. Scaling the Statements by the Method of Successive Intervals After the judges have placed the items into the categories on the nine-point r a t i n g scale, a judgment or frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r every item i s tabulated. bution shows the number of raters who  This judgment d i s t r i -  sorted the statement  into  each category. In t h i s case the response categories on the nine-point rating scale are viewed as being adjacent on an underlying continuum of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , separated by the category boundaries.  The scaling problem i s to estimate the quantitative  values of each category along the continuum and from these reference points to obtain a scale value f o r each stimulus. The model assumes that a l l statement  judgments are normally  distributed and that the standard deviations of the are equal.  Edwards and Thurstone  statements  (9) have provided an Internal  check of consistency on the model assumption. In b r i e f , the actual steps used i n obtaining scale values f o r the statements are as follows:  The observed frequencies are  17  converted to proportions  and they i n turn are converted to  normal deviates by the unit normal transformation.  Interval  widths are obtained by subtracting each i n t e r v a l value from the one following and the means of these differences i s the d i f f e r ence between category boundaries.  The scale value f o r each  statement Is taken to be the interpolated median of the several means.*  *A program f o r computing scale values by the method of succ e s s i v e i n t e r v a l s and f o r computation of the i n t e r n a l consistency check i s available at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia computing center. The program i s designed f o r an ALWAC III-E.  CHAPTER IV RESULTS The s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values of the male and f e male UBC  sample were computed separately and then correlated  to see i f i t would be j u s t i f i e d to combine the data f o r the two sexes.  Since t h i s c o r r e l a t i o n was  two sexes were combined and new were determined.  .95* the ratings of the  s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values  Hence, a l l analyses f o r the UBC sample are  based on combined male and female subjects. In order to test the model assumptions involved i n the method of successive i n t e r v a l s , an i n t e r n a l consistency check (9) was performed  separately f o r the UBC,  linquent groups.  The i n t e r n a l consistency check gave values of  .021,  .037 and .045 f o r the UBC,  Hungarian and de-  Hungarian and delinquent groups,  indicating that a l l these values are s u f f i c i e n t l y close to zero to warrant the use of the method of successive i n t e r v a l s In s c a l ing  Edwards' personality  statements.  The f i r s t column of Table 2 presents the necessary data to evaluate the f i r s t hypothesis which s p e c i f i e d that the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values determined f o r UBC students, Hungarian u n i v e r s i t y students and Canadian female delinquents w i l l correl a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y with Edwards• scale values determined  on  TABLE 2 Intercorrelations of Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale Values* Edwards  Hospital  High School  Beirut  Norway  Nisei  Delinquent  Hungarian  UBC  .95  .81  .90  .82  .80  .93  .54  .72  Hungarian  .71  .73  .65  .78  .71  .69  Al  Delinquent  .58  .50  .62  .54  .62  .51  *A11 correlations are s i g n i f i c a n t at a p  < .01.  A7  20  American college students. are s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 is  Since a l l three of the correlations l e v e l of confidence, the hypothesis  confirmed. The other results summarized i n Table 2 substantiate the  second hypothesis of t h i s study which p r e d i c t s that the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values derived f o r the three groups i n the present study, together with Edwards  1  scale data and the scale  values derived on f i v e other groups (21) significantly.  w i l l a l l intereorrelate  That i s , there w i l l be a commonality between the  various groups as to what i s judged desirable or undesirable. The fact that a l l i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s are s i g n i f i c a n t at the  .01  l e v e l of significance lends support to the second hypothesis. Although the preceding two analyses of the data show that there i s a high agreement between the groups i n terms of how they judge the items f o r s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , they do not i n d i cate how well the item pairs i n the PPS are matched f o r desirability.  In order to answer t h i s problem, Intraclass corre-  l a t i o n s between the matched items were calculated f o r the three groups used In t h i s study.  The i n t r a c l a s s c o r r e l a t i o n between  the 210 matched pairs i n the PPS Is .73 f o r the UBC group,  .38  f o r the Hungarian students, and .35 f o r the delinquent group'. While a l l these values are s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l , the results indicate that one would be j u s t i f i e d i n assuming that the item pairs are adequately equated f o r only the UBC group.  21  The r e s u l t s obtained In testing the second hypothesis show a considerable agreement between Edwards' sample, the  UBG,  Hungarian and delinquent groups f o r a l l the items i n terms of rated d e s i r a b i l i t y .  Such an analysis i s , however, only con-  cerned with the items as a whole and not with the question as to whether these groups might d i f f e r amongst themselves when items on the PPS are c l a s s i f i e d Into the manifest needs that they measure.  The answer to t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y was obtained by  grouping the respective scale values according to the 14 needs they assess and employing an analysis of variance f o r each need separately.  In order to eliminate possible r a t i n g scale bias,  the scale values f o r Edwards, the UBC, Hungarian and delinquent groups were transformed into normal deviates with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10.  The four groups were thus  equated f o r means and variances on the entire set of items, but the i n d i v i d u a l Item placement was free to vary.  The analyses  of variance were performed on the transformed scores and would permit one to conclude whether the differences i n item ratings were confined to s p e c i f i c needs or could be accounted f o r i n terms of random v a r i a t i o n .  Appendix C shows the r e s u l t s of the  14 separate analyses of variance.  Inspection of the data con-  tained i n Appendix C shows that there are s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the groups on eleven of the fourteen variables.  Three  of the needs, succorance, nurturance and deference, showed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n terms of group d e s i r a b i l i t y ratings.  22  Duncan's (2)  m u l t i p l e range t e s t was used t o determine  where the group d i f f e r e n c e s l a y on the e l e v e n needs t h a t r e sulted i n s i g n i f i c a n t F-ratios.  Table 3 p r e s e n t s the means  f o r the f o u r groups and summarizes where the s i g n i f i c a n t sources of v a r i a n c e o c c u r r e d . When one compares the groups on need achievement, one f i n d s t h a t the Hungarians, UBC and Edwards samples gave s i m i l a r d e s i r a b i l i t y r a t i n g s on t h i s need, but that the UBC and Edwards groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the d e l i n q u e n t group a t the .01 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .  Thus, on need achievement, the de-  l i n q u e n t group does not view i t as d e s i r a b l e as t o UBC American c o l l e g e  and  students.  The a n a l y s i s o f the data f o r need order shows a l l groups r a t e t h i s need as more s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e than do the d e l i n q u e n t group.  In a d d i t i o n , the Hungarian group r a t e d need order more  h i g h l y than a l l o t h e r three groups. The mean r a t i n g f o r need e x h i b i t i o n i s m i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r i n the d e l i n q u e n t group than i n the UBC and Hungarian group.  However, there are no d i f f e r e n c e s between the Hungarian,  UBC and Edwards groups on t h i s p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t they a l l view i t i n the same manner. Although the mean d i f f e r e n c e s are not s i g n i f i c a n t between the UBC and Edwards samples on need autonomy, the Hungarian group r a t e s t h i s need s i g n i f i c a n t l y more d e s i r a b l e than do the UBC group.  The d e l i n q u e n t group r a t e s t h i s need more d e s i r a b l e than  23  TABLE 3 Differences i n Need Ratings, Comparing Edwards, Hungarian, UBC and Delinquent p values of differences* .05 .01 -  Group  Mean  Delinquent Hungarian UBC Edwards  49.07 52.38 54.97 55.97  > Del. >Del.  order  Delinquent UBC Edwards Hungarian  48.36 53.01 53.81 60.60  >Del. >Del. > Del.,UBC,Edw.  exhibitionism  Hungarian UBC Edwards Delinquent  38.71 40.85 42.09 45.61  UBC Edwards Hungarian Delinquent  43.53 45.35 48.07 51.33  Hungarian Delinquent Edwards UBC  56.36 58.95 59.75 60.85  Delinquent Edwards UBC Hungarian  48.13 51.34 52.16 52.96  Hungarian Delinquent Edwards UBC  37.85 39.02 42.20 46.02  Hungarian UBC Edwards Delinquent  51.70 53.61 54.31 60.44  Need achievement  autonomy  affiliation  intraception  dominance  change  >UBC  >UBC  >Hung.  >Del.  >Del.  >Hung.  >UBC,Edw.  >Hung.  >Del. >Del.  >Hung.  >Hung.,UBC,Edw  24  TABLE 3 (continued)  Need endurance  heterosexual i t y  aggression  Group  Mean  Delinquent Edwards UBC Hungarian  48.78 53.88 56.58 57.97  Hungarian UBC Edwards Delinquent  47.85 48.52 51.42 54.75  Edwards UBC Hungarian Delinquent  30.99 32.19 42.68 48.87  p values of d i f f e r e n c e s * .05 .01 >Del.  >Del, >Del,  > Hung., UBC  >Edw.,UBC  >Edw.,UBC  Read, f o r example, as follows: For the need exhibitionism, the "Delinquent group has a mean of 45.61 which i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater than the Hungarians with a mean of 38.71 and UBC with a mean of 40.85 (p < .05) and greater than the Hungarians (p < .01).  25  do either the UBC or American college groups. On need a f f i l i a t i o n there are no differences between the delinquent, UBC and Edwards' groups.  However, the UBC and  Edwards' groups rated i t as more desirable than d i d the Hungarian university students. The UBC, Hungarian and Edwards' samples rate the need intraception s i g n i f i c a n t l y more desirable than do the delinquent group, and the three former groups show no d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s between t h e i r evaluations of the need. Mean d e s i r a b i l i t y ratings on need dominance do not d i f f e r between the Hungarian, delinquent and Edwards' groups. However, the UBC group appraises t h i s need s i g n i f i c a n t l y more desirable than do either the delinquents or Hungarians. Significant  differences are found between the delinquents  and the other three groups on need change, with the delinquents regarding t h i s need as more desirable than do the other groups. The ratings f o r the other groups do not d i f f e r among themselves. The delinquent groups also d i f f e r from a l l other groups on need endurance, viewing t h i s need as less desirable than do the other three groups who rate t h i s t r a i t s i m i l a r l y i n terms of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . In addition, the delinquents rate the need heterosexuality s i g n i f i c a n t l y more desirable than do the Hungarians and UBC students.  No rating differences occurred between the UBC, Edwards  and Hungarian groups on t h i s need.  26  F i n a l l y , both the Hungarians and delinquents regard the need aggression as more desirable than do American and Canadian college students.  The l a t t e r two groups appear homogenous i n  t h e i r judgment of t h i s need. The foregoing r e s u l t s on group differences may be summarized as follows.  The r e s u l t s show that, f o r a l l manifest  needs, the American and Canadian college students do not d i f f e r i n t h e i r ratings.  In addition, the Hungarian, UBC and American  college students regard the needs of achievement, exhibitionism, intraception, change, endurance and heterosexuality i n a similar manner.  Delinquents view the needs achievement, order, i n t r a -  ception and endurance as less desirable than do UBC and American college students, and, with the exception of achievement, the delinquents view these needs as less desirable than do a l l other three groups.  The needs exhibitionism, autonomy, change, hetero-  sexuality and aggression are rated as more desirable by the delinquents than by the UBC group. the  However, of these f i v e needs,  delinquents view only the needs autonomy, change and ag-  gression as more desirable than do the American college students, and the needs exhibitionism, change and heterosexuality as more desirable than do the Hungarians. the  The Hungarian students regard  need a f f i l i a t i o n as less desirable than do the American and  Canadian college students.  Hungarians also rate the need domi-  nance as less desirable than do UBC students.  On the other hand,  need order Is rated s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher by the Hungarian group than by any other group.  CHAPTER V DISCUSSION The r e s u l t s of t h i s study confirm the two hypotheses tested and,  i n the main, substantiate  the findings of previous  investigations that a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n exists between the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values f o r d i f f e r e n t subcultural groups.  The i n t r a c l a s s correlations f o r the three groups would  seem to indicate that the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y variable would be f a i r l y well controlled on the PPS  for a group of Canadian  college students, but not f o r Hungarian u n i v e r s i t y students, nor f o r Canadian female juvenile delinquents.  I t would also  appear that the delinquent group i s the most deviant group i n t h e i r ratings of the d e s i r a b i l i t y of various manifest needs. To the extent that the UBC,  Hungarian and delinquent  groups gave s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values s i m i l a r to Edwards' American sample, the f i r s t hypothesis i s supported.  Since the  i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the scale values f o r the d i f f e r e n t groups are s i g n i f i c a n t , the second hypothesis Is also  substantiated.  I t i s worth mentioning i n connection with the second hypothesis that the highest UBC  c o r r e l a t i o n between scale values are those of  students with the two American university groups, Edwards  and the N i s e i groups.  This finding i s probably not  too  28  surprising when one keeps i n mind that they are a l l college students of roughly the same age and i n very close geographic proximity.  On the other hand, the UBC group correlates lowest  with the other two groups l i v i n g i n Canada, namely, the delinquents and the Hungarians.  In f a c t , the l a t t e r two groups  provide the lowest correlation of a l l groups reported, including those of Klett and Yaukey.  Of course, a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of de-  linquent groups i s that they deviate from the standard s o c i a l norms, and as such would be expected to express d e s i r a b i l i t y ratings d i f f e r i n g from those expressed by the "normal" groups i n a society.  The highest correlations f o r the delinquent group  are those with American high school students and Norwegian gymnasia students, the only other samples of comparable age range. The three groups used i n t h i s study may be rank ordered on the basis of similar s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ratings with a l l other groups.  Excluding Hungarian and delinquent samples, the  range of UBC correlations i s .80 to .95.  Excluding the de-  linquents, the Hungarian correlations range from .65 to .78, indicating a somewhat lower relationship to other groups than that of UBC.  I t Is not known to what extent possible errors i n  t r a n s l a t i o n of the o r i g i n a l English statements to Hungarian might have lowered the Hungarian correlations.  Undoubtedly,  such a factor might have been operative i n t h i s study. The delinquent group i s the most deviant group studied, with a range  29  of correlations, .47 to  .62.  Considering a l l the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s , i t might be hypothesized that the educational l e v e l of the subjects i s an important groups.  factor determining the degree of agreement between Seven of the nine groups reported on i n t h i s research  were i n school at the time t h e i r ratings were obtained, f i v e i n college and two i n secondary school.  The f i n d i n g that the  delinquents i s the most deviant group suggests that the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y stereotype may  not p e r s i s t i n subcultural groups  that vary markedly i n educational and/or age l e v e l . d i t i o n , a personality variable may delinquent group.  In ad-  be i n operation f o r the  Considerable research w i l l be required before  the exact factors producing the differences i n s o c i a l desirab i l i t y ratings w i l l be determined. The matched p a i r correlations indicate the degree to which the forced choice items would be equated f o r the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y variable i f the PPS were used on these populations. The i n t r a c l a s s correlation of .75  f o r the UBC group suggests  that the PPS could be used on t h i s university group.  However,  the p a i r i n g i s not as adequate as the o r i g i n a l i n t r a c l a s s correl a t i o n s of .85 reported by Edwards (3)  on h i s American sample.  The shrinkage i n the i n t r a c l a s s c o r r e l a t i o n f o r the Canadian students i s probably no greater than i f Edwards were to calculate s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values on another new sample.  American  The i n t r a c l a s s c o r r e l a t i o n of .38 f o r the Hungarian  30  group and .35 f o r the delinquents does not seem adequate to warrant the use of the PPS on these groups with the assumption that the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y factor would be controlled. The f i n a l part of t h i s study consists of a comparison of the UBC, Edwards, Hungarian and delinquent groups on t h e i r d e s i r a b i l i t y ratings of fourteen manifest needs.  There are no  s i g n i f i c a n t differences between American and Canadian students on t h e i r d e s i r a b i l i t y rating f o r any of the 14 needs.  Using  the American and Canadian u n i v e r s i t y students as the referent f o r comparative purposes, the Hungarian group has more p o s i t i v e evaluation of the needs order and aggression.  They also tend  not to evaluate p o s i t i v e l y the need of a f f i l i a t i o n .  I t might  be i n t e r e s t i n g to speculate that the Hungarians also must have strong needs of order and aggression and low need f o r a f f i l i a t i o n because of the way they judge these needs i n terms of s o c i a l desirability.  There i s , nevertheless, no independent evidence  i n t h i s study to test such an inference from the present data. Again talcing American and Canadian samples as convenient centering points, i t would appear that the female delinquents view the needs of exhibitionism, autonomy, change, heterosexuality and aggression as most desirable.  The delinquents underevaluate the  d e s i r a b i l i t y of the needs f o r achievement, order, intraception and endurance.  I t should be noted again, that, l i k e the Hungarian  sample, the present data does not prove that the delinquents do have strong needs f o r aggression and the l i k e or low needs f o r  31  achievement.  The data show only that they view c e r t a i n needs  as being more desirable than other needs.  I t would be an un-  warranted speculation to hypothesize that a given group has strong needs f o r aggression simply because they evaluate i t positively.  Unless one wishes to make the assumption  of an  isomorphic relationship between strength of actual need and ratings of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , the present data cannot be used i n testing such speculations.  CHAPTER VT SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of t h i s study was to investigate two hypotheses about the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y variable i n personality assessment.  The f i r s t hypothesis predicted that Canadian uni-  v e r s i t y students, Hungarian u n i v e r s i t y students and Canadian female juvenile delinquents would give s i m i l a r s o c i a l desirab i l i t y ratings to those obtained by Edwards on a group of American college students.  The second hypothesis predicted  that the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values f o r the Canadian univ e r s i t y , Hungarian and delinquent samples, together with Edwards ' scale value and the scale values derived from f i v e other groups would a l l Intercorrelate s i g n i f i c a n t l y .  Two additional  problems were also investigated, namely, the extent to which the item pairs on the Personal Preference Schedule  (PPS) are  matched f o r s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y f o r the UBC, Hungarian and delinquent samples and how these three groups, together with Edwards' American sample, d i f f e r when the items on the PPS are grouped into the manifest needs that they purport to assess; In order to investigate the hypotheses and problems, s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ratings were obtained from 226 University  33  of B r i t i s h Columbia students, 70 male Hungarians and 40 female delinquents.  The items rated f o r d e s i r a b i l i t y were those con-  tained i n the PPS. The obtained ratings were scaled by the method of successive  Intervals.  The findings strongly support the two hypotheses, suggesting that while the groups are not i n perfect agreement on how they judge personality statements for s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , a common attitude of what i s desirable and undesirable  cuts  across many d i f f e r e n t groups. On the basis of the r e s u l t s dealing with the i n t r a c l a s s correlations for matched pairs on the PPS, i t was suggested that the PPS would control the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y variable quite well on a UBC sample of students.  However, the findings  for the Hungarians and delinquents indicated that a s i m i l a r assumption could not be made f o r these groups. Highly r e l i a b l e group differences occurred when the items on the PPS were grouped i n terms of the needs they measured and analysis of variance  techniques were employed to de-  termine i f the groups d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r ratings on these needs. These r e s u l t s showed that Canadian and American u n i v e r s i t y students judge t h e i r needs on the PPS i n a s i m i l a r fashion.  The  data further indicates then that the Hungarian group regards quite p o s i t i v e l y the needs of order and aggression and underevaluate the d e s i r a b i l i t y of the need f o r a f f i l i a t i o n .  Compara-  t i v e l y , the delinquent group appeared to evaluate p o s i t i v e l y the  34  needs of autonomy, change, heterosexuality and aggression and to underevaluate the needs of achievement, order, intraception and endurance.  While i t might be i n t e r e s t i n g to speculate  that the Hungarians or delinquents possess to a strong degree those needs to which they profess high s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y ratings, i t was emphasized that the data of the present study cannot be used to test such hypotheses.  REFERENCES 1.  Corah, N.L., Feldman, M.J., Cohen, Ira S., Gruen, W., Meadow, A., Ringwall, E.A. Social d e s i r a b i l i t y as a variable i n the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. J. consult, Psychol., 1958, 22, 70-72.  2.  Duncan, D.B. Multiple range and multiple F t e s t s . Biometrics, 1955, 11, 1-42.  3.  Edwards, A.L. Manual f o r the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. New York: Psychol. Corp., 1954.  4.  Edwards, A.L. The relationship between the judged d e s i r a b i l i t y of a t r a i t and the p r o b a b i l i t y that the t r a i t w i l l be endorsed. J. appl. Psychol., 1933, 37,  90-93.  5.  -  Edwards, A.L. The scaling of stimuli by the method of successive i n t e r v a l s . J . appl. Psychol., 1952, 36,  118-122.  6.  Edwards, A.L. Social d e s i r a b i l i t y and Q sorts. Psychol., 1955, 19, 462.  7.  Edwards, A.L. The s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y variable i n personality assessment and research. New York: Dryden, 1957.  8.  Edwards, A.L. Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.  9.  Edwards, A.L., and Thurstone, L.L. An Internal consistency check f o r scale values determined by the method of successive i n t e r v a l s . Psychometrika, 1952, 17, 169-180.  10.  Fordyce, W.E. Social d e s i r a b i l i t y i n the MMPI. J . consult. Psychol., 1956, 20, 171-175. "  11.  F u j i t a , B. An investigation of the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule to a c u l t u r a l subgroup. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Washington, 1956.  12.  Guilford, J.P. Psychometric methods. New York, Toronto, London: McGraw-Hill, 1954, 2nd ed.  J. consult.  36 13.  Hanley, C. Judged s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y and probability of endorsement of items on the MMPI Sc and D scales. Amer. Psychol., 1955, 10, 404-405, (abstract).  14.  Hanley, C. Social d e s i r a b i l i t y and responses to items from three MMPI scales: D, Sc, and K. J. appl. Psychol., 1956, 40, 324-328. " ;  15.  Kelleher, D. The s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y factor i n Edwards' PPS. .J. consult. Psychol., 1958, 22, 100.  16.  Kenny, D.T. The influence of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y on d i s crepancy measures between r e a l s e l f and i d e a l s e l f . J. consult. Psychol., 1956, 2 0 , 315-318.  17.  Kruytbosch, C. F l i g h t and resettlement of the Sopron forestry f a c u l t y : A study of group integration and disintegration. Unpublished master's thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1958.  18.  K l e t t , J.C. The s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y stereotype i n a h o s p i t a l population. J . consult. Psychol., 1957, 21, 419-421.  19.  K l e t t , J.C. The s t a b i l i t y of the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values i n the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. J. consult. Psychol., 1957, 2, 183-185.  20.  K l e t t , J.C. A study of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule i n r e l a t i o n to socio-economic status. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1956.  21.  K l e t t , C.J. and Yaukey, D.L. A cross-cultural comparison of judgments of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . Unpublished manuscript, 1958.  22.  Lovass, 0 . 1 . Social d e s i r a b i l i t y ratings of personality variables by Norwegian and American college students. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1958, 57, 124-125.  23.  Navran, L., and Stauffacher, J.D. Social d e s i r a b i l i t y as a factor i n Edwards Personal Preference Schedule performance. J . consult. Psychol., 1954, 18, 442.  24.  Rosen, E. Self-appraisal, personality d e s i r a b i l i t y , and perceived s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y of personality t r a i t s . J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1956, 52, 151-158.  25.  Silverman, R.E. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . J. consult. Psychol., 1957, 21, 402-404. "  APPENDIX A ITEM POOL SCALED FOR SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE VALUES FOR UBC, HUNGARIAN AND DELINQUENT GROUPS SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE VALUES FOR SIX OTHER GROUPS.  38  Item Pool Scaled for Social D e s i r a b i l i t y 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.  To l i k e to solve puzzles and problems that other people have d i f f i c u l t y with. To l i k e to f i n d out what great men have thought about various problems i n which you are Interested. To l i k e to have any written work that you do be precise, neat, and well-organized. To l i k e to t e l l amusing stories and jokes at p a r t i e s . To l i k e to be able to come and go as you want t o . To l i k e to be l o y a l to your f r i e n d s . To l i k e to observe how another i n d i v i d u a l f e e l s i n a given situation. To l i k e your friends t o encourage you when you meet with failure. To l i k e to be one of the leaders i n the organizations and groups to which you belong. When things go wrong with you, to f e e l that you are more to blame than anyone e l s e . To l i k e to help your friends when they are i n trouble. To l i k e to t r a v e l and to see the country. To l i k e to work hard at any job you undertake. To l i k e to go out with a t t r a c t i v e persons of the opposite sex. To l i k e to read newspaper accounts of murders and other forms of violence. To l i k e to be a recognized authority i n some job, profession, or f i e l d of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . To l i k e to conform to custom and to avoid doing things that people you respect might consider unconventional. To l i k e to plan and organize the d e t a i l s of any work that you have to undertake. To l i k e people to notice and comment upon your appearance when you are out i n p u b l i c . To l i k e to avoid situations where you are expected to do things In a conventional way. To l i k e to do things f o r your f r i e n d s . To l i k e to put yourself i n someone else's place and to imagine how you would f e e l i n the same s i t u a t i o n . To l i k e your friends to be sympathetic and understanding when you have problems. When serving on a committee, to l i k e to be appointed or elected chairman. I f you do something that i s wrong, to f e e l that you should be punished f o r i t . To l i k e to do small favors f o r your.'friends. To l i k e to experience novelty and change i n your d a i l y routine.  39  28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.  To l i k e to stay up late working i n order to get a job done. To l i k e to become sexually excited. To f e e l l i k e getting revenge when someone has Insulted you. To l i k e to be able to do things better than other people can. To l i k e to praise someone you admire. To l i k e to have your l i f e so arranged that i t runs smoothly and without much change i n plans. To l i k e to t e l l other people about adventures and strange things that have happened to you. To l i k e to be independent of others i n deciding what you want to do. To l i k e to share things with your f r i e n d s . To l i k e to understand how your friends f e e l about various problems they have to face. To l i k e your friends to treat you kindly. To l i k e to be regarded by others as a leader. To f e e l that the pain and misery that you have suffered has done you more good than harm. To l i k e to be generous with your f r i e n d s . To l i k e to meet new people. To l i k e to f i n i s h any job or task that you begin. To l i k e to be regarded as p h y s i c a l l y a t t r a c t i v e by those of the opposite sex. To l i k e to t e l l other people what you think of them. To l i k e to accomplish tasks that others recognize as requiring s k i l l and e f f o r t . To l i k e to follow instructions and to do what i s expected of you. To l i k e to keep your l e t t e r s , b i l l s , and other papers neatly arranged and f i l e d according to some system. To l i k e to ask questions which you know n© one w i l l be able to answer. To l i k e to c r i t i c i z e people who are i n a p o s i t i o n of authority. To l i k e to have strong attachments with your f r i e n d s . To l i k e to think about the p e r s o n a l i t i e s of your friends and to t r y to figure out what makes them as they are. To l i k e your friends to make a fuss over you when you are hurt or sick. To l i k e to t e l l other people how to do t h e i r jobs. To f e e l timid i n the presence of other people you regard as your superiors. To l i k e to show a great deal of a f f e c t i o n toward your friends. To l i k e to t r y new and d i f f e r e n t j o b s — r a t h e r than to continue doing the same o l d things. To l i k e to s t i c k at a job or problem even when i t may seem as i f you are not getting anywhere with i t .  40  59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 7980. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89.  To l i k e to read books and plays In which sex plays a major part. To f e e l l i k e blaming others when things go wrong f o r you. To l i k e to be successful i n things undertaken. To l i k e to accept the leadership of people you admire. To l i k e to have your meals organized and a d e f i n i t e time set aside f o r eating. To l i k e to say things that are regarded as witty and clever by other people. To l i k e to f e e l free to do what you want to do. To l i k e to do things with your friends rather than by yourself. To l i k e to study and analyze the behavior of others. To l i k e your friends to f e e l sorry for you when you are sick. To l i k e to supervise and d i r e c t the actions of other people whenever you can. To l i k e to f e e l that you are i n f e r i o r to others i n most respects. To l i k e to sympathize with your friends when they are hurt or sick. To l i k e to eat i n new and strange restaurants. To l i k e to complete a single job or task at a time before starting on others. To l i k e to p a r t i c i p a t e i n discussions about sex and sexual activities. To get so angry that you f e e l l i k e throwing and breaking things. To l i k e to write a great novel or play. When planning something, to l i k e to get suggestions from other.people whose opinions you respect. To l i k e to make a plan before s t a r t i n g i n to do something difficult. To l i k e to be the center of attention i n a group. To l i k e to avoid r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and obligations. To l i k e to form new friendships. To l i k e to analyze your own motives and f e e l i n g s . To l i k e your friends to help you when you are.in trouble. To l i k e to argue f o r your point of view when i t i s attacked by others. To f e e l g u i l t y whenever you have done something you know i s wrong. To l i k e to forgive your friends who may sometimes hurt you. To l i k e to do new and d i f f e r e n t things. When you have an assignment to do, to l i k e to start i n and keep working on i t u n t i l i t i s completed. To l i k e to engage i n s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s with persons of the opposite sex.  41  90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118.  To l i k e to attack points of view that are contrary to yours. To l i k e to do your very best In whatever you undertake. When you are i n a group, to l i k e to accept the leadership of someone else i n deciding what the group i s going to do. To l i k e to have your work organized and planned before beginning i t . To l i k e to use words which other people often do not know the meaning of. To l i k e to say what you think about things. To l i k e to p a r t i c i p a t e i n groups i n which the members have warm and f r i e n d l y f e e l i n g s towards one another. To l i k e to judge people by why they do something—not by what they a c t u a l l y do. To l i k e your friends to do many small favors f o r you cheerfully. When with a group of people, to l i k e to make the decisions about what you are going to do. To f e e l better when you give i n and avoid a f i g h t , than you would i f you t r i e d to have your own way. To l i k e to treat other people with kindness and sympathy. To l i k e to experiment and t r y new things. To l i k e to keep working at a puzzle or problem u n t i l i t i s solved. To l i k e to k i s s a t t r a c t i v e persons of the opposite sex. To f e e l l i k e making fun of people who do things you regard as stupid. To l i k e to be able to say that you have done a d i f f i c u l t job w e l l . To l i k e to read about the l i v e s of great men. I f you have to make a t r i p , to l i k e to have things planned i n advance. To sometimes l i k e to do things, just to see what e f f e c t i t w i l l have on others. To l i k e to do things that other people regard as unconventional . To l i k e to write l e t t e r s to your f r i e n d s . To l i k e to analyze the f e e l i n g s and motives of others. To l i k e your friends to sympathize with you and cheer you up when you are depressed. To l i k e to be c a l l e d upon to s e t t l e arguments and disputes between others. To f e e l that you should confess the things that you have done that you regard as wrong. To l i k e to help other people who are less fortunate than you are. To l i k e to move about the country and to l i v e i n d i f f e r e n t places. To l i k e to avoid being Interrupted while at your work.  42  119. 120.  To l i k e to be i n love with someone of the opposite sex. To f e e l l i k e c r i t i c i z i n g someone p u b l i c l y i f he deserves it. 121. To l i k e to accomplish something of great s i g n i f i c a n c e . 122. To l i k e to t e l l your superiors that they have done a good job on something when you think they have. 123. To l i k e to keep your things neat and orderly on your desk or work space. 124. To l i k e to t a l k about your achievements. 125. To l i k e to do things i n your own way and without regard to what others may think. 126. To l i k e to make as many friends as you can. 127. To l i k e to observe how your friends w i l l act i n various situations. 128. To l i k e your friends to show a great deal of a f f e c t i o n toward you. 129. To l i k e to be able to persuade and influence others to do what you want. 130. To f e e l depressed by your own i n a b i l i t y to handle various situations. 131. To l i k e your friends to confide i n you and to t e l l you t h e i r troubles. 132. To l i k e to p a r t i c i p a t e i n new fads and fashions. 133. To l i k e to put i n long hours of work without being d i s tracted. 134. To l i k e to l i s t e n to or to t e l l jokes i n which sex plays a major part. 135. To f e e l l i k e t e l l i n g other people o f f when you disagree with them. 136. * To l i k e to observe people i n restaurants and other places ~ and t r y to figure out what they are r e a l l y l i k e . 137. To l i k e to be f r i e n d l y with other people. 138. To l i k e to make fun of the mistakes by others. 139. To l i k e to work toward some goal you have set f o r yourself. 140. To l i k e to be strongly motivated to achieve your goals. 141. To l i k e to have someone you can talk to about your misfortunes and d i f f i c u l t i e s . 142. To l i k e to go to new places. 143. To disregard rules and regulations. 144. To l i k e to convince others that your opinions are r i g h t . 145. To l i k e to t a l k to others about yourself. 146. To l i k e to encourage your friends when they meet with f a i l u r e . 147. To l i k e to have clothes arranged neat and orderly i n your closets and chests. 148. To l i k e to perform l i t t l e services f o r people that you admire. 149. To l i k e to make love to members of the opposite sex. *Last 14 items not scaled by UBC, Hungarian and delinquent groups.  43  Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale Values f o r UBC , Hungarian and Delinquent Groups University of B r i t i s h Columbia  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-  40.  Male  Female  Combined  3.35 3.76 4.36 3.56 3.98 4.91 3.35 3.65 3.77  3.86 4.05 4.88 4.06 4.15 5.56 4.02 4.34 4.09 3.41 5.36 4.61 5.16  3.55 3.86 4.57 3.76 4.02 5.20 3.63 3.93 3.88 3.08 4.95 4.22 4.86 4.20 1.98 3.90 2.75 3.96 2.73 2.34 4.76 3.71 3.56 3.17 3.09 4.32 ,4.07 3.65 2.77  2.84  4.63 3-95 4.65 4.29 2.02 3.89 2.50 3.77 2.54 2.30 4.41  3.31 3.27 3.11 2.87 3.96  3.90 3.41  2.87 1.44 3.43 3.35 2.47 2.91 4.09 3.94  3.65 3.69 3.31 2.97  4.14  2.01 4.01 3.05 4.26 2.99 2.33 5.20 4.24 3.97  3.31  3.40 4.84  4.35  3.99 2.84  1.35 3.21 4.22  2.84  3-49 4.31 4.82 4.57 4.29 3.61 3.56  1.42  3.31 3.74 2.63 3.16 4.13 4.29 4.03 3.93 3.43  3-21  Hungarian  2.52 2.39 3.69 2.51 3.19 3.75 2.49 2.40  1.37 1.78 3.61 3.49 3-57 2.81 0.70 1.97 2.32 3.40  1.34 1.59 3.18 2.19 2.72 1.05 2.78 2.75 2.98 3.12 1.53 1.00 2.24  1.92 2.21 1.69 3.11 2.90 2.64  2.35 0.73 2.11  Delinqu*  2.14  1.57 2.60 2.57 3.16 2.93 2.01 2.71 2.06 1.00 2.89 3.02 2.40  3.27 2.76 1.82 2.11 1.91 2.16 1.22 2.78 1.93  1.80 0.54 1.07 2.66 2.89 1.76 1.36 2.13 1.8l 2.02 0.48  2.20 2.20 2.59 2.30 2.55 1.22 1.60  44  University of B r i t i s h Columbia  41. 42.  43. 44. 45.  46.  47.  48. 49.  50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.  64.  65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.  84.  Male  Female  Combined  3.86 4.23 4.29 3.47 2.37 3.63 3.55  4.82 5.16 4.88 3.70 2.22 3.88 4.23 3.91 1.71 1.53 4.28 3.73 2.49  4.23  3.46  1.47 1.78 3-99 3.12 2.07 1.57 1.58 3.12 2.96 3.52 2.47 1.12 4.21 3.49 2.57 2.90 3.85 3.80 2.92 2.08 2.67 0.85 3.34 2.68 '3.69 2.65 1.07 2.66 3.83 5.74 2.32 1.14  4.06 3.39 3.39 3.85  1.42  1.94  3.64  3.31 4.29 2.60 1.42  4.67 4.43 2.99 3.52 3.94 4.42 3.42  2.36 2.43 1.49 4.18 3.51 4.35 2.73 1.26 3.40  4.58 4.24  2.28 1.22 4.89 3.96 3.80 3.90  4.64  4.53 3-55 2.27 3.73 3.83 3.63 1.60 1.66 4.08 3.37 2.25 1.52 1.76 3.34 3.12 3.85 2.52 1.15 4.38 3.90 2.74 3.16 3.88 4.05 3.13 2.18 2.58 1.32 3.69 3.05 3.97 2.66 1.17 2.99 4.12 3.94 2.25 1.06 4.39 3.62 3.55 3.84  Hungarian  Delinquent  2.33 2.73 3.67 2.03 2.99 2.22 2.38 2.81 0.76 1.78 2.95 2.67 1.56 1.11 0.88 2.77 2.35 O.96 1.57 O.69 2.86  2.40  1.41  3.09 1.98 2.75 2.35 2.24  1.99 0.76 0.77 2.87 1.53 3.24  1.87 0.53 1.93 2.48  3.43  0.84  0.74 2.44 2.90 , 2.31 3.04  3.28 2.78 2.14 2.34 2.52 2.30 2.04  1.35 2.15 2.77 2.12 0.69 0.65 1.12 2.59 2.42  1.96 2.15 1.03 2.25 1.82 1.47 1.44  3.24 ^2.74  1.6l O.65 1.05 O.96 1.73 2.44 2.46  1.85 3.20 0.74 2.39 2.36 0.79 1.05 2.51 I.89 2.55 2.52  45  University of B r i t i s h Columbia  85. 86. 87. 88.  89. 90. 91.  92. 93. 94. 95. 96.  97. 98.  99.  100. 101. 102. 103.  104.  105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113.  114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128.  Male  Female  Combined  3.09 3.69 3.81 3.87 3.96 2.93 4.53 2.50 3.68 1.57 3.44 4.17 3.38  3.63 4.67 4.45 4.38 4.33 3.20 5.19 3.32 4.18 1.88 3.52 4.88 4.25 3.47 2.82 3.66 4.99  3.31 4.08 4.07 4.07 4.09 3.03 4.81 2.85 3.88 1.73 3.43  2.79  2.69 2.57 3.97 3.69 3.85  2.84 1.41  3.45 2.80 3.33  2.24  2.39 3.07 3.06 2.88 3.01 2.78 3.98 2.72 3.05 3.78 2.53 3.95 3.09 3.57 2.23 1.96 3.77 2.82 2.71  4.46  4.21 3.31 1.51 3.86 3.06 3.75 2.37  2.48 4.18  3.64 3.39 3.29 3.68 5.23 3.53  3.48 4.06 1.69 4.06 4.05 4.13 2.26 2.07 4.69 3.44 3.29  4.46  3.78 3.07 2.74 3.11 4.39 4.01 3.98  3.04  1.35 3.60 2.85 3.50 2.28 2.47 3.58 3.30 3.10 3.11  3.17  4.54 3.09 3.22 3.86 2.08 3.95 3.51  3.79 2.17 2.01 4.14 3.08 2.96  Hungarian  Delinquent  3.17 2.98 2.56 3.55  1.78 2.51 2.88 2.18 2.44 1.68 2.54 1.65  2.64 2.48 3.77 1.83  3.48  0.90 3.30 3.21 2.54 1.82 0.95 2.16 3.22 3.00 3.02 2.76 1.23 1.91 2.78  3.14 1.33 1.15  2.41  2.28 2.16 1.61 3.01 3.18 1.53 2.90 2.17 2.22 2.95 O.98 3.29 0.76 1.52 2.17 2.32 1.86  .  2.04  1.74 2.83 2.52 1.78  2.04 1.65 1.28 1.99 2.78  1.93 3.24 1.06 2.30 1.28  1.99  2.34 I.65  2.40  1.94 0.99 1.16 0.60 2.62 3.00 1.65 3.30 0.99  2.04  2.01 2.85 1.52 2.00 2.78 2.02 1.60  46  University of B r i t i s h Columbia  129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135.  Male  Female  Combined  2.78 1.50  2.58 1.81 3.74 3.32  2.74  3.14  2.53 3.25  3.64  1.51  1.24  2.40  2.14  1.66  3.39 2.85 3.38 2.33 1.42  Hungarian  Delinquent  0.84  1.35 1.20 2.01 2.19 0.87 1.78 2.85  0.97 2.51  1.69  2.53 1.59 3.25  47  Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale Values For Six Other Groups*  Hospital  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. 36. 37.  2.30 3.15 3.14 2.21 3.59  3.42 2.84  .  3.05 2.27 3.12 3.36 3.27 2.78 1.52 2.79 2.51 3.12 1.92 1.75  3.24  2.08 2.44 1.78 4.53 2.72 2.57 1.91 1.49 2.69 2.74 2.53  2.24  2.85 2.90 2.30  High School  American College  2.46  2.91 3.34 3.56  2.50 3.20 2.19 3.10 3.44 2.23 3.31 2.31  2.84  3-57  4.14  3-22 3.63 2.80  3.33 3.61 3.06 3.27 1.62 2.73 1.90 2.72 2.42 1.75 3.38 1.95 2.60 1.74  3.96 3.66  3.24 2.84  3.47  2.15 2.20** 1.08- 2.27 2.70 1.92 2.49 2.83 3.16 2.74  3.46  3.66 1.81  3.48  2.30 3.30 2.45 1.84  3.90 3.00 3.00 2.30 3.64  2.92 2.50** 1.07-2.79 3.17 1.88 2.57 3.44 3.53 3-11  Beirut  Norway  2.68 3.27 3.35 2.28 3.15 3.44 2.60 3.13 2.60  2.83 3.06 3.76 2.80 2.52 4.00 2.53 3.29 1.97 1.37 3.81 3.60 2.32 3.85 1.43 2.96 2.54 3.09 I.78 1.86 3.76 2.58 3.20 2.07 2.22 3.16  3.33 3.89 3.19 3.07 1.59 3.05 2.06 3.03 1.45 1.65 3.08 2.82 2.76 2.02 2.76 2.83 2.67 2.32** 2.033.18 2.48  1.85 1.88 3.06 2.67 2.43  •Personal communication from C. J . K l e t t , 1958.  3.46  1.98 2.70 1.58 2.70 2.39 1.26 2.73 3.10 3.01 2.39  Nisei  3.25 3.52 4.12 3.08 3.12 4.34 2.76 3.90 2.99 4.28 4.07 4.10 3.92 1.84  3-70 2.89 3.70  2.64  1.70 4.06 3.22 3.06 2.26 3.56 3.81 3.26 2.52 0.90 2.99 3.39 2.54 2.70 3.37 3.75 3.14  48  38. 39. 40. 41. 42.  43. 44. 45.  46.  47.  48. 49.  50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.  64.  65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.  Hospital  High School  American College  2.96 2.53  3.01 2.41  3.54 2.74  2.81 2.90 3.31 2.30 1.56 2.91  3.06 3.37 3.17 2.87 1.45 2.92 3.10 3.12 1.38 1.18 2.45 2.51 1.16 0.83  3.40  3.61 3.19 3.28  2.59 2.58 2.67 1.88** O.78- 3.29 2.72 2.54  2.77 2.74 2.69 2.10** 0.60-3.80 3.09 2.54 3.07  3.14  3-33 1.31 1.38 2.77  2.24  1.61 1.26  2.69 2.36 2.30 1.81 1.32  3.48  2.70 2.61 2.20 3.58 2.58 2.61 2.00 2.05 3.00 2.33 3.17 1.83 0.90 1.87  3.14  3.51 1.60 1.26 3.08 2.89 3.00  2.46  3.10 3-39 2.11  3.68  3.64  3.28 1.42  1.41  1.39 3.25 2.71 1.71 1.05  3.42 3.48  1.40  2.88 I.87 1.87  2.66 2.23 2.95 2.03** 0.74--  3.28 2.79 3.12 2.29**  1.78  1.48  3.02 2.79 1.71 1.45 3.51  2.40  3.19  0.64 -  2.30 3.58 3.56 1.66 0.68 3.80 3.27 3.76  Beirut  Norway  Ifi gel  2.70  3.37 1.78 2.77 2.98 3.50  3.75 3.12  2.40 3.04  2.92 3.21 2.44 2.32 2.93 2.91 3.25 1.25 1.91 3.15 2.56 1.14 1.46  2.50 2.35 1.26 2.03** 0.933.68 2.59 2.32 2.38  ' 3.40 2.30 2.44 1.74 2.41  2.89 1.94 2.77 2.16** 0.97 2.05 2.95 3.14  2.21 1.07 2.89 3.08 2.98  3.41  2.78 1.81 3-10  2.46  2.49 1.55 1.70 2.60 2.08 2.75 1.61 O.69 3.08 2.52 2.29 1.93 0.90 3.48  2.71 2.11 2.82 3.43 3.16 2.07 2.26 1.82 0.90 2.79 2.09  3.14  2.05 1.06 2.17 2.85 3.13 1.90 1.04  3.07  2.84  2.74  3-75 3.75 4.16 3.'42 1.36 4.01 3.83 3.88 1.34 1.22 3.75 2.62 1.55 1.07 2.76 2.55 3-05 2.18  0.64  4.12  3.46  3.38 3.18 3.54  3.46  2.60 1.95 2.61  3.66 2.85 3.65 2.69 0.59 2.19 3.75 4.16 I.63 0.86 4.37 3.19 3.96  49  84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130.  Hospital  High School  American College  Beirut  Norway  Nisei  2.63  2.54  2.97  3.03  2.99  2.81 3.03 3.44 2.72 2.07 3.51 2.55 3.16 1.26 3.23 3.15 2.03 2.55 2.09  2.76 3.46 2.92 3.21 2.10 3.54 1.94 2.94 1.33 3.05 3.42 1.97 2.53 1.70  3.68 3.76 3.80 3.65 2.15 4.07 1.70 3.38 1.47 3.60 3.99 3.08 2.76 1.91  2.71 3.17 3.05 2.74 2.17 3.51 1.37 3.11 1.11 3.41 3.47 2.29 2.40 2.17  3.26 2.84 2.93 2.69 0.90 3.79 2.79 3.15 1.6l 1.52 2.25 2.16 2.56 1.88  2.96 2.99 2.74 2.81 0.61 2.74 2.07 3.30 1.79 1.70 2.58 2.14 2.44 1.89  3.80 3.40 3.24 3-41 0.60 3.38 2.49 3.30 2.03 2.02 . 2.99 2.63 2.72 1.88  3.08 3.03 2.86 3.16 0.95 2.37 2.66 3.06 1.98 1.67 2.41 2.39 2.64 2.14  3.14 2.25 2.74 3.16 1.52 2.87 2.53 3.36 2.09 1.79 2.88 1.97 2.57 1.80  3.40 2.37 2.65 3.02** 1.13 2.98 2.86 3.24 2.07 1.55 3.74 1.86 2.71 1.5-7  3.37 2.40 2.59 3.35 2.90 3.18 2.61 3.52 2.00 2.91 1.64 3.02 3.50 1.87 2.78 1.98 1.52 3.34 3-27 3.06 3.10 1.60 2.07 2.76 2.44 1.89 1.46 2.19 2.22 2.79 2.00 2.04 3.13 3.31 2.59 3.02 1.97 3.04 2.53 3.10 1.78 2.57 2.84 1.97 2.52 '2.19 1.49  3.84 2.66 2.64 3.49** 1.17-3.46 3.15 3.36 1.75 1.77 3.59 2.38 2.77 1.82  3.14 2.82 2.95 3.00** I.87-3.32 2.55 3.32 1.80 2.31 2.89 2.41 2.30 1.94  4.26 3.94 4.19 3.85 2.00 4.39 2.16 3.96 1.31 3.25 4.41 2.71 3.28 2.00 4.21 3.43 3.48 2.89 0.66 3.18 2.56 4.10 I.65 1.92 3.24 2.58 3.02 2.18 4.05 2.56 2.94 4.01 0.86 4.00 3.46 4.07 1.72 1.31 4.01 2.23 2.99 1.76  50  Hospital 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149.  2.19 1.90 2.42 1.70 1.62 2.16 3.41 0.97** 3.412.36 2.43 3.24 0.93 2.27 2.05 3.91 3.20 2.93 2.79  High School 2.57 2.77 2.26 1.76** 1.22 2.08 3.71 0.41 3.33 2.58 2.44 3.38 0.60 1.98 1.22 3.04 2.53 2.78 2.64**  American College 2.61 2.21 2.70 1.96** 1.36 2.59 4.22 0.50 3.91 3.31 2.72 3.42 1.12 1.64 1.60 3.91 3.36 3.13 3.12**  Beirut 2.67 1.92 2.52 1.93** 2.35-1.62 3.55 1.12** 3.60-3.22 2.44 3.39 1.28** 2.35 1.07 3.24 3.17 2.71 2.75**  Norway 2.96 2.28 2.09 1.76 2.45 2.21** 3.42** 1.19** 3.31** 2.82** 2.52** 3.10** 1.41** 2.18** 1.78** 3.22** 2.96** 2.77** 2.78**  Nisei 2.89 2.79 3.12 2.02 0.80 2.13 4.68 0.62 4.42 3.61 2.80 3.54 O.83 1.80 1.42 3.82 3.81 3.04 4.38-  **Scale value estimated by the average regression of s o c i a l - d e s i r a b i l i t y scale values on p r o b a b i l i t y of endorsement.  APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATING SCALE SAMPLE RATING SCHEDULE HUNGARIAN TRANSLATION OF TRAIT RATING SCHEDULE HUNGARIAN TRANSLATION OF ITEM POOL  52  Instructions For Rating Scale 1.  Ask t h e i r co-operation i n a s c i e n t i f i c  study.  2.  Say: "Would you please put Roman numberals from I to X on the blocks so that I can r e f e r to them by numbers?"  3.  Say: "Please read s i l e n t l y to yourselves the eover page. I s h a l l read i t out loud and you should follow me."  4.  After reading i t , ask: "Are there any questions?"  5.  Then say: "You are to rate these t r a i t s as to how s o c i a l l y desirable or undesirable you would consider them i n others, not y o u r s e l f . "  6.  Then say: "I w i l l read each t r a i t twice. The f i r s t time I read i t , you are to l i s t e n and form an opinion. I w i l l then read i t again and t h i s time you are to make your r a t i n g . "  7.  After reading f i r s t item, say: "How s o c i a l l y desirable or undesirable would you regard t h i s t r a i t i n another person."  8.  Repeat the above statement  a f t e r reading items 2, 3 , 6  and 8 i n the f i r s t block. 9.  C a l l attention to Ss about o f f balancing i n second block.  10.  At start of each block a f t e r the f i r s t block say: "Remember, you are to rate these t r a i t s as to how .socially desirable or undesirable you would consider them i n others, not yourself."  11.  After a l l items have been read, say: "Now, are there any items that you want me to read over again? You may have missed an item at some point. I w i l l read over again any items that you wish me to." Ask f o r block number and item number and read over again any item that i s requested.  Allen L. Edwards T h e U n i v e r s i t y of W a s h i n g t o n TRAIT RATING  Examiner: SCHEDULE  Your Name:  Age:  Sex:  B e l o w y o u w i l l f i n d a n e x a m p l e of f o u r t h i n g s that a p e r s o n s a y s that he  likes  o r w o u l d l i k e to do. T h e s e l i k e s a r e c a l l e d t r a i t s . U n d e r n e a t h the l i s t of f o u r t r a i t s and o p p o s i t e the n u m b e r s c o r r e s p o n d i n g to e a c h of the t r a i t s a r e n i n e b o x e s . b o x e s r e p r e s e n t d i f f e r e n t d e g r e e s of d e s i r a b i l i t y  These  o r u n d e s i r a b i l i t y of e a c h t r a i t as  it a p p e a r s i n o t h e r s , as i n d i c a t e d b y the a d j e c t i v e at the top. A j u d g e , s u c h as y o u r s e l f , h a s m a d e an e s t i m a t e of the d e g r e e of d e s i r a b i l i t y  o r u n d e s i r a b i l i t y of t h e s e  t r a i t s i n p e o p l e b y p l a c i n g an X i n the b o x o p p o s i t e e a c h t r a i t . E X A M P L E : 1. 2.  T o l i k e to p u n i s h y o u r  enemies.  T o l i k e to r e a d p s y c h o l o g i c a l n o v e l s .  3. T o l i k e to m a k e e x c u s e s f o r y o u r f r i e n d s . 4. T o l i k e to go out w i t h y o u r f r i e n d s . UNDESIRABLE Trait  Extreme  Strong Moderate  DESIRABLE  Mild N E U T R A L  M i l d Moderate Strong E x t r e m  X X X 1  X T h e p e r s o n who is a definitely  j u d g e d t h e s e t r a i t s b e l i e v e s that "to l i k e to p u n i s h y o u r  enemies"  u n d e s i r a b l e t r a i t i n o t h e r s , "to l i k e to r e a d p s y c h o l o g i c a l n o v e l s " i s  n e i t h e r d e s i r a b l e n o r u n d e s i r a b l e , "to l i k e to m a k e e x c u s e s f o r y o u r f r i e n d s " i s m o d e r a t e l y d e s i r a b l e , and "to l i k e to go out w i t h y o u r f r i e n d s " i s q u i t e a d e s i r a b l e trait in other people. I n d i c a t e y o u r own  judgments  of the d e s i r a b i l i t y  w h i c h w i l l be g i v e n to y o u by the e x a m i n e r  i n the s a m e m a n n e r . R e m e m b e r that  y o u a r e to judge the t r a i t s i n t e r m s of w h e t h e r desirable in others. Be  s u r e to  o r u n d e s i r a b i l i t y of the t r a i t s  y o u c o n s i d e r t h e m d e s i r a b l e o r un-  make a judgment  about e a c h t r a i t .  : 5.4.  Hungarian.Translation;of T r a i t R a t i r ^ Az On neve:''.'.  ' ^ ^ v i * & £ " i r ^ K o r a . - - /^ves/'t-.-^'-' ^•.Nem':'.  Az a l a n t i peldaban negy dolgot fog t a l & l n i , amir61 valaki azt a l l i t jja,hogy szereti,vagy szeretne c s i n d l n i , Ezt a tetszest/vagy nemtetszest/ nevezziik "jellemvonasoknak". A negy jellemvonas a l a t t / 6s szemben e jellemvoriasokra vonatkozd szamokkal/ kilenc negyszbg van. Ezek'a negyszbgek egy-egy jellemvonasnak Idilonbozo foku tarsadalmi kivanatossagat" vagy "nem-kivanatossagat" j e l z i k , amint azt a negyszbg f e l e t t i jelzo mutatja, Egy biro,mint On kbvetkezokepen ertekelt negy jellemvonas "tarsadalmi kivanatossagat" / vagy nem kivanatossagat/ masokban amenynyiben X-et t e t t a inegfelelo. negyszbgbe: Pdlda: 1; Szereti megljuntetni az eliensegeit 2; Szeret pszicliologiai novellakat olvasni 3; Szeret "barataiert " talpra a l l n i " 4. Szeret barataival gyakran egyiitt l e n n i . Nem kivanatos Igen Jellem- ero- Ero- kbzep kisse erosen. vonas sen sen  neutralis  kbzep kisse erosen  Kivanatos erosen  Igen erosen  X 1 X. 2 3 X X 4 A biro"aki ezeket'a jellemvoriasokat b i r Ra7ugy e r z i ,li'6'gy'"meghunTe t n i az elienseget" erosen nem-kivanatos jellemvon&s masokban j pszicliologiai novellakat szeretni neutralise "baratokert talpra a l l n i " kbzepesen tarsadalmilag kivanatos; es szeretni baratokkal gyakran egyiitt l e n n i erosen tarsadalmilag kivanatos masokban, KerjUk jelezze az On b i r d l a t a t hasonldkepen a jellemvonasokrol/ amelyeket v a l a k i most olvasni fog, Ne f e l e j t s e e l , hogy azt. b i r a l j a liogy ezeket a jellemvonasokat masokban kivanatosnak tartja-e vagy sen, es milyen mertekben. Nagyon f ont 03. hogy mind en egyes .jellemvonast  birdljon e l .  HOURS  MAP LIBRARY Monday-Friday 9am-5pn Saturday 12noon-5pn  Sept 5 —  MATH LIBRARY Monday-Thursday 8am-9pnr Friday 8am-5pnr Saturday 12noon-5prr  ASIAN STUDIES LIBRARY Mon-Thurs 8:30am-8pm Friday 8:30am-5pm Saturday ' ' 12noon-5pm CRANE LIBRARY Mon-Thurs Friday  9am-9pm 9am-5pm  CURRICULUM LAB Mon-Thurs 8anvl0pm Friday 8am-6pm Sat, Sun 12noon-5pm DATA LIBRARY Monday-Friday  9am-4pm  MUSIC LIBRARY Mon-Thurs 8am-10prr Friday 8am-5prr Sat, Sun 12noon-5pm SEDGEWICK LIBRARY Monday-Friday 8am-11pm Sat, Sun 10am-11pm SOCIAL WORK LIBRARY Monday-Thursday 9am-8pm Friday 9am-5pm Sat, Sun 12noon-5pm  FILM LIBRARY Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm  SPECIAL COLLECTIONS Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm Saturday 12noon-5pm  FINE ARTS LIBRARY Mon-Thurs 8am-10pm 8am-6pm Friday 12noon-5pm Saturday 12noon-8pm Sunday.  WILSON RECORDINGS Monday-Thursday 9am-9pm Friday 9am-5pm Sat, Sun 12noon-5pm  LAW LIBRARY Mon-Thurs Saturday Sunday  8am-10pm 8am-6pm 9am-5pm 12noon-10pm  MACMILLAN LIBRARY Mon-Thurs 8am-10pm Friday 8am-5pm Sat, Sun> 12noon-5pm MAIN LIBRARY ^/lon-Thurs  8am-10pm 8drT?-6pm  Saturday Sunday  12rioon-5pm 12noon-8pm  WOODWARD LIBRARY Mon-Thurs 8am-10pm Friday 8am-6pm Sat, Sun 12noon-6pm HOSPITAL LIBRARIES* Mon-Thurs 8am-11pm 8am-5pm Friday 12noon-5pm Saturday 12noon-10pm Sunday "HOLIDAY HOURS POSTED A L L C A M P U S LIBRARIES CLOSED OCTOBER 9 N O V E M B E R 13  Hungarian Translation of Item Pool 1. Szeret r e j t v e n y e k e t es proble^na'kat mdsoknak nehezsegei vannak.  megfejteni,amelyekkel  2. S z e r e t i k i t a l d l n i , h o g y nagy / h i r e s / emherek mit kulonhbzo problemdkrol,amelyek 5t e r d e k l i k . 3.  S z e r e t i ha minden i r o t t munkdja p r e c i z , r e n d e s es gensen van megszerkesztve.  gondoltak intelli-  4. S z e r e t adomakat e"s v i c c e k e t l e a d n i tarsasagban. 5. S z e r e t szabadon menni es j o n n i ahogy kedve van. 6. Szeret hu l e n n i b a r a t a i h o z . 7. S z e r e t i m e g f i g y e l n i , hogy mdsok hogy v i s e l k e d n e k adott helyzetekhen. 8. S z e r e t i ha b a r a t a i b d t o r i t j a k ha dolguk nem s i k e r u l n e k . 9. S z e r e t egyike l e n n i a vezereknek portokban amelyeknek t a g j a .  szervezetekben es c s o -  10. Ha, a dolgok r o s s z u l mennekj s z e r e t i ugy erezni,hogy ez inkdbb az On mint mdsoknak a h i b a j a . 11.Szeret s e g i t e n i a b a r a t a i n a k ha bajban vannak. 12.Szeret u t a z n i es vilag-ot  latni.  13.Szeret komolyan d o l g o z n i bdrmilyen raunkdn, amit  atvett.  14.Szeret randevura menni c s i n o s p a r t n e r r e l . 15.Szeret u j s d g r i p o r t o k a t o l v a s n i g y i l k o s s a g o k r o l , v e r e k e d e s e k r o l es hasonld eroszakossagokrdl. 16.Szeret e l i s m e r t t e k i n t e l y l e n n i , v a l a m i l y e n munkdban,hivatasban, vagy s p e c i a l i s t a t e r t i l e t e n . 17.Szeret alkalmazkodni t a r s a d a l m i szokasokhoz 6s e l k e r u l n i olyan dolgokat, amelyeket masok, a k i k e t r e s p e k t d l , e s e t l e g szokatlannak tartandnak. 18.Szeret r e s z l e t e s e n k i t e r v e z n i es megszervezni minden kdt, amelyet e l k e l l v a l l a l n i a .  mun-  1 9 ; S z e r e t i ha masok e s z r e v e s z i k es kellemes megjegyzeseket tesznek a megjeleneserol, amikor tdrsasagban van. 20.Szeret e l k e r u l n i o l y a n helyzeteket,amelyekben jdk, hogy c o n v e n c i o n a l i s a n v i s e l k e d j e k .  masok e l v d r -  21.Szeret dolgokat t e n n i b a r a t a i e r t . 2 2 . S z e r e t i s a j d t magdt mdsnak a helyzeteben e l k e p z e l n i hogy hogy i r e z n e magdt abban a h e l y z e t b e n . 2 3 . S z e r e t i ha bafcdtai s z i m p d t i d j u k a t f e j e z i k k i es megertonek bizonyulnak, ha nehezsegei v a nnak. 24»Szereti ha elnoknek v d l a s z t j d k , vagy k i n e v e z i k , ha bizottsd-gban d o l g o z i k .  egy  25.Szereti tesz.  e r e z n i , h o g y b u n t e t e s t erdemel ha v a l a m i  2 6 . S z e r e t apro s z i v e s s e g e k e t 2 7 . S z e r e t u.jdonsdgokat  tenni  bardtainak.  es v a l t o z e k o n y s a g o t  napi  2 8 . S z e r e t k d s 6 i g f e n n m a r a d n i es d o l g o z n i , h o g y egy m u n k a t . 29.Szeret nemileg  rosszat  rutinjaban.  befejezzen  felizgulni.  30.Szeret " r e v a n s o t "  v e n n i ha v a l a k i m e g s e r t e t t e .  3 1 . S z e r e t k^pesnek l e n n i d o l g o k a t mdsok. 32.Szeret dicserni v a l a k i t akit  jobban c s i n d l n i mint szeret.  3 5 . S z e r e t i ha e l e t e ugy van berendezve,hogy ritkdn kell terveit megvdltoztatni.  s i m a n f o l y i k 6s  3 4 . S z e r e t mdsoknak b e s z d l n i k a l a n d j a i r d l es s z o k a t l a n d o l g o k r d l , amelyek Onnel k a p c s o l a t b a n t b r t e n t e k . 35.Szeret fUggetlen l e n n i mit akar c s i n d l n i .  mdsoktdl, amikor  36.Szeret dolgokat a b a r d t a i v a l  elhatdrozza,hogy  megosztani.  3 7 . S z e r e t i megeVteni,hogy b a r d t a i hogyan rea.gslnak r e , m e l y e k k e l szemben d l l n a k . 38.Szereti,  nehezsegek  h a b a r d t a i k e d v e s e n bdnnak O n n e l .  39.Szereti,ha  mdsok v e z e r n e k  tekintik.  4 0 . S z e r e t i u g y £ r e z n i , h o g y a f a j d a l m a k es a n y o m o r , m e l y e t s z e n v e d e t t , t b b b j 6 t , m i n t b a j t o k o z o t t Onnek.  el  4 1 . S z e r e t bokezii l e n n i b a r d t a i v a l . 42.Szeret uj  eraberekkel t a l d l k o z n i .  43.Szeret befejezni  bdrmilyen munkat,amelyet  elkezdett.  4 4 . S z e r e t i ha a mdsik n e m , f i z i k a i l a g vonz6nak 45.Szereti  tartja.  mdsoknak megmondani, a m i t r d l u k g o n d o l .  46.Szeret dolgokat t e l j e s i t e n i , h o g y u g y e s s e g e t es k i t a r t a s t 47.Szeret utasitasokat  a m i r 6 l mdsok a z t ig^nyel.  k b v e t n i es k b t e l e s s e g e * t  4 8 . S z e r e t i a l e v e l e i t , s z d m l d i t 6s mds p a p i r j a i t mddon t d r o l n i 6s e l r a k n i .  gondoljdk, teljesiteni. rendszeres  49.Szeret kerdeseket f e l t e r m i , a m e l y e k r 6 l tudja,hogy nem l e s z k e p e s m e { ? v n l a s z o l n i . 50.Szeret k r i t i z ^ l n i  senki  feletteseket.  5 1 . S z e r e t b a r d t a i v a l e r o s szeme'lyes  kapcsolatban  lenni.  5 2 . S z e r e t b a r d t a i n a k s z e m d l y i s ^ g e r o l g o n d o l k o d n i , es k i s t i t n i hogy mi a l a k i t o t t a o k e t . 5 3 . S z e r e t i , ha b a r d t a i surbgnek,forognak v a g y megs ebe s t i l t .  kbn'ilotte; ha beteg  57  5 4 - S z e r e t masoknak u t a s i t a s o k a t  a d n i , m u n k a ^ " u k r a vonatkoz6*3.ag.  5 5 . S z e r e t i fe.leriknek e"rezni magat,m£sok feletteseknek tekint.  je]enleteben,akiket  5 6 . S z e r e t sok s z e r e t e t e t n y i l v a n i t a n i , b a r & t a i v a l  szemben.  5 7 . S z e r e t u j munk&kat k i p r 6 b ^ l n i , m i n t s e m r e > i . , i s m e r t m u n k^.ban d o l g o z n i . 5 8 . S z e r e t egy munka v a g y p r o b l e m a m e l l e t t k i t a r t a n i a k k o r h a u g y £ r z i , h o g y semraire sem raegy v e l e .  is  5 9 . S z e r e t k b n y v e k e t o l v a s n i es s z i n d a r a b o k a t l a ^ t n i , a m e l y e k b e n n e m i k e r d e s e k nagyobb s z e r e p e t j^tszanak. 6 0 . S z e r e t m&sokat o k o l n i , h a a d o l g o k r o s s z u l mennek Onnek. 61.Szeret sikeres  dolgokban ,amiket e l v a j L l a l .  62.Szeret vezeto szerepet na- gyra t a r t .  vdllalni  olyan emberekkel,  akiket  j  6 3 . S z e r e t i ^ h o g y d t k e z e s e i jo*l l e g y e n e k megszervezve r o z o t t i d o legyen meghatarozva szamukra.  6s h a t d -  6 4 . S z e r e t d o l g o k a t m o n d a n i a m e l y e t mdsok t i g y e s n e k 6a v i c c e - s nek t a r t a n a k . 65.Szereti  szabadnak e r e z n i magat,  66.Szeret dolgokat egyedul.  raasokkal  masoknak a v i s e l k e d ^ s e t  68.Szereti  ha  t s j i u l n i a n y o z n i es  szimpatiz£lnak,ha  alsobbrendii  lehet.  £rzesei.  7 1 . S z e r e t s z i r a p a t i z & l n i b a r a t a i v a l ha sebesiiltek, 72.Szeret uj  analizdl-  beteg.  6 9 . S z e r e t m a s o k r a f e l i i g y e l n i 6s u t a s i t a n i h a c s a k 70.Vannak-e  epen  egyiitt c s i n a l n i iriMbb mint  67.Szereti ni.  bar£tai  azt c s i n ^ . l n i , amit  6s s z o k a t l a n e t t e r m e k b e n  vagy betegek.  enni.  7 3 . S z e r e t b e f e j e z n i egy d o l g o t , v a gy egy munkat m i e l b t t masikba fog b e l e . 7 4 . S z e r e t n e m i k e r d e s e k r d ' l es u g y e k r c T l v a l d reszt venni.  beszelgetesben  7 5 . A n n y i r a h a r a g u d n i , h o g y kedue v o l n a d o l g o k a t e l t b r n i , hajigalni. 76. Egy nagyszerti r e g e n y t ,  vagy szindarabot  vagy  irni.  77. Amikor v a l a m i t t e r v e z , i d e a k a t k a p n i m£sokt6l, velemenyet nagyra b e c s u l i .  akiknek  7 8 . T e r v e t k e s z i t e n i , m i e l b t t b e l e f o g srgy n e h e z m u n k a b a . 79.Szeret a csoport  egy  figyelmenek kbzeppontjaban  lenni.  58 80.Szereti elkerulni a felelosseget. 81.Szeret uj bardtsagokat kb'tni. 82.Szereti sajat erzeseit es indokait a n a l i z d l n i . 83.Szereti ha bardtai segitik, ha bajban van. 84.Szeret egy nezet erdekdben vitatkozni, ha masok ezt tamadjdk. 85. Bunbsnek erezni magdt, ha tudatosan valami rosszat t e t t . 86. Hegbocsajtani baratainak, akik neha taldn megbdntjdk. 87.Szeret uj vdltozatos tevekenyseget. 88.Ha valamilyen munkat kapjbelekezdeni e*s dolgozni r a j t a amig be van fejezve. 89.Szeret tarsadalmilag drintkezni a mdsik nemmel. 90.Szeret megtgmadni nezeteket,amelyek sajat nezetevel ellehkeznek. 91.Szeret mindent, amibe belekezd, tehetsegdhez ke^pest legjobban elintezni. 92.Ha egy csoportban van: s z e r e t i mdsnak a vezet6s6get elfogadni hogy a csoport mit csindljon. 93.Szereti a sajat munkdjat megszervezni 6s kitervezni mielbtt elkezdi. 94.Szeret szavakat hasznalni, amelyeknek ertelmet mdsok gyakran nem ismerik. 95.Szereti n y i l t a n megmoni ani,hogy mit gondol dolgokrdl.96.Szeret resztvenni csoportokban, amelyeknek t a g j a i , meleg baratsdgos drzelmeket tapldlnak egymds i r a n t . 97.Szeret radsokat aszerint megitelni,hogy miert teszik ezt,^agy azt, nem aszerint, hogy mit tesznek. 98.Szereti ha bardtai b'rommel 6s gyakran tesznek apr6 szivessegeket Onnek. 99. Ha egy csoportban van,szereti maga elhatdrozni,hogy rait c s i ndljon. 100. Jobban e r z i magdt,ha lemondott egy elomyrdl, ha e z d l t a l e l kerult egy komoly ndzetelterdst ,mintha megprdbdlta volna sajdt drdekdt megve"deni. 101.Szeret szeretettel es megdrtdssel bdnni mdsokkal. 102.Szeret uj dolgokat es szeret k i s d r l e t e z n i . 103.Szeret egy rejtvenyen, vagy probldman dolgozni,amig megoldja. 104.Szeret megfes6kolni egy csinos szemelyt. 105.Szereti azt az erzest, hogy j6 volna nevetsegesse tenni embereket, akik /az b'n velemenyeben/ ostoba dolgokat tesznek. 106.Szereti azt mondhatni,hogy egy nehez munkat jo*l vegzett e l .  59 107.Szeret nagy emberek eleterc5l olvasgatni. 108.Ha utaznia kell:szeret dolgokat elore kitervezni. 109.Szeret idonkent dolgokat c s i n a l n i , csak azdrt,hogy lassa hogy milyen hatdsa lesz mdsokra. 110.Szeret olyan dolgokat csinalni,amit masok szokatlannak t a r tanak. 111.Szeret bardtainak levelet i r n i . 112.Szereti masoknak az erzeseit ds motivdcidit a n a l i z d l n i . 113.Szereti ha baratai egyiitt dreznek Qnnel ds f e d e r i t i k ha l e van sujtva. 114.Szereti ha megkerik,hogy mdsok vitd.it elsimitsa, 115.Ugy erezni,hogy helyes volna bevallani,ha valami olyat t e t t amit rossznak t e k i n t e t t . ll6.Szereti,ha segithet masokon, akik kevesbd szerencsesek. 117.Szeret ide-oda kbltbzkbdni az orszagban ds kulbnbbzd helyeken l a k n i . 118.Szereti elkeriilni, hogy fdlbeszakitsak munka kbzben. 119.Szeret szerelmesnek l e n n i . 120.Szeret ugy erezni,hogy jd volna v a l a k i t nyilvdnosan k r i t i z d l n i ha raegdrdemli. 121.Szeret valamit teljesiteni,ami nagyon xbntos. 122.Szereti megemliteni feletteseinek,hogy ok jd munkat vdgeztek,ha ugy erzi,hogy megdrdemeltek. 123»Szereti a dolgait rendben tartani az irdasztaldn, va gy a munkahelyen. 124.Szeret s i k e r e i r o l beszdlni. 125.Szeret dolgokat a sajat mddszere szerint vdgezni,tekintet ndlkiil arra,hogy mdsok mit gondolnak e r r d l . 126.Szeret annyi bardtot szerezni, amennyit csak lehet. 127.Szereti megfigyelni,hogy baratai hogy viselkednek kulonbozd helyzetekben. 128.Szereti ha ba r d t a i sok kedvesseget nyilvdnitanak irdnyaban. 129.Szeret kdpesnek lenni, rdbeszelni es befolydsolni mdsokat hogy azt tegyek amit akar. 130.Lesujtva drezni magat annak kbvetkezteben,hogy keptelen kuIbnbbzo helyzeteket kezelni. 131.Szereti hogy baratai megbiznak Cnben ds eldadjdk Qnnek a nehdzsegeiket. 132.Szeret rdsztvenni uj divatokbaa ds mozgalmakban. 133.Szeret drdk hosszat dolgozni, fdlbeszakitas ndlkul. 134.Szeret trdfdkat h a l l a n i , vagy meselni,amelyekben vonatkozasok jdtszdk a foszerepet,  sexudlis  135.Szeret^ masoknak kereken megmondani a vdlemdnydt ha kiilbnbbzo nezetei vannak.  APPENDIX C SUMMARY OP P TESTS  61  Summary of F Test  Need achievement  deference  order  exhibitionism  autonomy  affiliation  introception  succorance-  dominance  Variance Estimate  Source of Variation  Sum of Squares  df  Groups Statements Interaction Total  256.64 1266.03 359.21 1881.88  3 8 24 35  Groups Statements Interaction Total  141.30 563.91 737.30 1442.51  3 8 24 35  47.10  Groups Statements Interaction Total  687.13 1524.99 296.31 2508.43  229.04  Groups Statements Interaction Total  225.66 1562.25 409.31 2197.22  3 8 24 35 3 8 24 35  Groups Statements Interaction Total  311.81 4429.85 435.81 5177.47  3 8 24 35  103.94  Groups Statements Interaction Total  98.28 510.86 212.86 822.00  3 8 24 35  32.76  Groups Statements Interaction Total  123.16 174.71 167.01 464.88  41.05  Groups Statements Interaction Total  159.61 1858.64 498.90 2517.15  Groups Statements Interaction Total  362.15 1668.18 625.81 2656.14  3 8 24 35 3 8 24 35 3 8 24 35  85.55  F 5.71**  14.97 1.53  30.72 18.55**  12.35 75.22  4.41*  17.05 5.72**  18.16 3.69*  8.87 5.90**  6.96 53.20  2.56  20.79 120.72 26.08  4.63*  Source of Variation  Sum of Squares  df  Groups Statements Interaction Total  73.80 674.91 306.86 1055.57  3 8 24 35  24.60  Groups Statements Interaction Total  385.45 1311.37 282.35 1979.17  3 8 24 35  128.48  Groups Statements Interaction Total  443.04 1215.24 624.83 2283.ll  3 8 24 35  147.68  heterosexuality  Groups Statements Interaction Total  268.20 1895.81 436.38 2600.39  3 8 24 35  89.40  aggression  Groups Statements Interaction Total  1989.71 1401.70 1967.33 5358.74  3 8 24 35  663.24  Need nurturance  change  endurance  *p < .05 **p < .01  Variance Estimate  F 1.92  12.79  11.76  10.93**  --  5.67**  26.03 4.92**  18.18  81.97  8.09**  

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.831.1-0106178/manifest

Comment

Related Items