Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A comparison of the effects of projective and questionnaire instructions upon responses to pictures of… Scott, James Stuart 1951

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1951_A8 S2 C6.pdf [ 3.2MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0107029.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0107029-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0107029-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0107029-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0107029-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0107029-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0107029-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0107029-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0107029.ris

Full Text

A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF PROJECTIVE AND QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS UPON RESPONSES TO PICTURES OF THE ROSENZWEIG PF STUDY TYPE by JAMES STUART SCOTT  A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF • THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n t h e Department of PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOLOGY  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o  the  s t a n d a r d r e q u i r e d from c a n d i d a t e s f o r t h e degree o f  MASTER OF ARTS  Members o f t h e Department o f P h i l o s o p h y and P s y c h o l o g y  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April,  1951  A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF PROJECTIVE AND QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS UPON RESPONSES TO PICTURES OF THE ROSENZWEIG PF STUDY TYPE  Abstract The purpose o f t h i s experiment was t o i n v e s t i g a t e the e f f e c t o f i n s t r u c t i o n s upon responses t o p i c t u r e s o f t h e PF S t u d y t y p e . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t when s u b j e c t s a r e d i r e c t e d t o r e s p o n d f o r , and presumably t o i d e n t i f y w i t h , p i c t u r e d c h a r a c t e r s , t h e y would g i v e more u n f a v o r a b l e r e s p o n s e s t h a n when q u e s t i o n e d d i r e c t l y as t o t h e i r own presumed b e h a v i o r i n t h e d e p i c t e d . s i t u a t i o n s . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d , f u r t h e r , t h a t one t y p e o f r e s p o n s e l i k e l y t o be w i t h h e l d when t h e q u e s t i o n i n g p r o c e d u r e i s employed i s a response i n d i c a t i n g h o s t i l i t y toward f e l l o w men. I n o r d e r t o t e s t t h e h y p o t h e s e s , 58 u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s were g i v e n a s e t o f p i c t u r e s under PF S t u d y i n s t r u c t i o n s , and an a l t e r n a t e s e t a d m i n i s t e r e d i n q u e s t i o n n a i r e f a s h i o n . F o r h a l f t h e s u b j e c t s t h e o r d e r o f p r e s e n t a t i o n o f p i c t u r e s , but n o t o f i n s t r u c t i o n s , was r e v e r s e d . A l l r e s p o n s e s were s c o r e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e same c r i t e r i a , and s u b j e c t e d t o s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i n order that the effects o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n s t r u c t i o n s , p i c t u r e s , and groups o f s u b j e c t s m i g h t be e s t i m a t e d . both hypotheses,  The r e s u l t s o f t h e experiment l e n d s u p p o r t t h e main f i n d i n g s b e i n g as f o l l o w s :  to  1. When t h e p i c t u r e s were a d m i n i s t e r e d under q u e s t i o n n a i r e r a t h e r t h a n PF S t u d y i n s t r u c t i o n s , t h e s u b j e c t s gave fewer responses i n d i c a t i n g t h a t blame f o r f r u s t r a t i o n i s a g g r e s s i v e l y a t t r i b u t e d t o another p e r s o n , and a g r e a t e r number o f r e s p o n s e s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , when f r u s t r a t e d , t h e s u b j e c t t a k e s i t upon h i m s e l f t o t r y t o overcome t h e o b s t a c l e . 2 . The observed d i f f e r e n c e s i n f r e q u e n c y o f t h e s e two t y p e s o f r e s p o n s e , e l i c i t e d under d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n s , were s u f f i c i e n t l y g r e a t t o produce s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean s c o r e s f o r t h r e e o f R o s e n z w e i g ' s major s c o r i n g c a t e g o r i e s : E x t r a p u n i t i v e n e s s , E g o - d e f e n s i v e n e s s and N e e d - p e r s i s t e n c e . These r e s u l t s were i n t e r p r e t e d as r e f l e c t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e e f f e c t s o f p r o j e c t i v e and q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n s t r u c t i o n s . Q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n s t r u c t i o n s , by d i r e c t i n g t h e s u b j e c t t o i n d i c a t e h i s own presumed b e h a v i o r i n h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s , t e n d t o put t h e s u b j e c t on t h e d e f e n s i v e . S i n c e t h e s u b j e c t must c o n s c i o u s l y acknowledge each r e s p o n s e as h i s own, t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f two t y p e s o f r e s p o n s e i s p r e v e n t e d : (a) a r e s p o n s e w h i c h t h e s u b j e c t i s u n w i l l i n g t o acknowledge as h i s own, and (b) a r e s p o n s e  which  makes  enter  the  subject  manifest  s u b j e c t ' s  i s  unable  a  to  of  the  PF  i n  t h a t  type  of  type  may  One  type  of  subject  when  f r u s t r a t i n g  f r u s t r a t e d  h i s  f r e q u e n t l y  by  i n s t r u c t i o n s  own.  not  and  normally-  which  the  i m p l i c a t i o n s  d i r e c t i s  a  *-he  the  problem. 4*  f r u s t r a t i n g  be  for  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  i s  a  of  t h i s  with t e s t  another  r e s u l t s .  subjects  as  t o  t h e i r  response  response  I f  than  i n d i c a t i n g i t  upon  responses more  then  the  men,  that  and  f o r  the  more  i n d i c a t i n g  person  which the  t h a t ,  for  having  i n  e l i c i t e d  of  PF  seek  under  PF of  of  t h i s  l e s s than  Study  to i s  i n  experiment e l i c i t s  f r e q u e n t l y  w i l l i n g  obstacles,  a  behavior  questioning  i s  more  Study  f r u s t r a t i n g to  i n d i c a t o r s  d i r e c t  f r e q u e n t l y  i s  use  himself  findings  subject  overcoming  by  e l i c i t e d  v a l i d  some'subjects,  i n d i c a t i n g  f e l l o w  of  takes  considered  s i t u a t i o n s ,  that,  which  d i r e c t l y  blames  type  response  s o l u t i o n  i n s t r u c t i o n s  a f f e c t  response  questioning  subject  to  used  d e c i s i v e l y  questioned  a g g r e s s i v e l y  the  toward  h i s  does  response  i n s t r u c t i o n s  s i t u a t i o n s ,  s i t u a t i o n s ,  suggest  a  needs. 3.  responses  which  i s ,  conclusions  The  w i t h h o l d ,  behavior the  as  Study 2*  sometimes  main  wish  that  were: 1.  p i c t u r e s  or  acknowledge  The experiment  f e e l i n g  awareness,  h o s t i l e  accept a c t u a l l y  the  case. 5. s t r u c t u r e the  the  r e s u l t s  of  t e s t t h i s  b a s i c . t o  most  that  r e v e l a t o r y  the  i n v e r s e l y  w i t h  Since  Study than  experiment  t h e o r e t i c a l the  PF  s i t u a t i o n  i n s t r u c t i o n s  questionnaire  support  discussions  the of  power  of  a  degree  of  s t r u c t u r i n g  diagnostic  do  l e s s  hypothesis,  p r o j e c t i v e technique of  the  to  i n s t r u c t i o n s ,  t e s t  which  i s  techniques, v a r i e s s i t u a t i o n .  ACKNOWLEDGMENT  The writer i s indebted to his advisor, Mr. D.T. Kenny, for helpful criticism and encouragement, to his colleague, Mr. G.K. Johnson, for time spent i n scoring several hundred responses, and to his fifty-eight assistants, for serving as subjects.  CONTENTS  - CHAPTER I  INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction Specific Purposes of the Experiment  II  REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH  III  EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS, SUBJECTS AND DESIGN Materials Subjects Design  IV  RELIABILITY OF THE SCORING Intra-examiner Reliability Inter-examiner Reliability  V  THE DATA AND THEIR TREATMENT The Data The Problems Treated Resume of the Findings  VI  DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS Interpretation of Instructions Differences Interpretation of Pictures Differences Interpretation of-Order Differences  VII  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  VIII IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH REFERENCES APPENDICES A B C D E  The Sets of Pictures The Instructions Scoring Form Allport AS Study Items Analysis of Variance for Nine Minor Scoring Categories  TABLES  AND  FIGURES  PAGE  TABLE  I  Comparison  of  Experimenter O r i g i n a l I I  I I I  Comparison  of a  by  Scores  U n i v e r s i t y P i c t u r e s IV  V  Weeks  Experimenter's  by-  w i t h  and.Standard  under  Two  of  Responding  Two  Variance  of  Frequencies  of  P i c t u r e s  to of  Scores  to'Two of  Sets  f o r  Two  of  58  of  Administration  for  24  U n i v e r s i t y  58  o f  21  58  Sets  P i c t u r e s  Administration  Responses  26  U n i v e r s i t y  Administered  C l a s s i f i e d  and Responses  400  Deviations  Conditions  Students  Conditions,  f o r  Responding  Conditions  to  Scoring  Examiner  Students  Students  Scoring  Responses  400  19  Second  Analysis Under  of  Three  Scoring  Scoring Mean  Scoring a f t e r  according  under to  Two  Nine  Categories  30  FIGURE  I  Composition  of  the  Two  Sets  of  P i c t u r e s  13  CHAPTER I  INTRODUCTION AND  STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM  Introduction The hypothesis underlying the development of projective techniques i s that a person's behavior w i l l be more revealing of h i s personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s when the t e s t s i t u a t i o n i s ambiguous than when i t i s w e l l defined, or highly "structured". This hypothesis gains t h e o r e t i c a l support from several considerations: (1) a highly structured object, such as a chair, i s , by d e f i n i t i o n , responded to i n a stereotyped manner by most people, whereas l e s s structured materials permit more i n d i v i d u a l modes of behavior; (2)  i n f a m i l i a r situations there are conventional forms of behavior  which, by guiding the i n d i v i d u a l , conceal as much as they reveal his personality; (3)  i f the s i t u a t i o n i s i l l - d e f i n e d , the subject i s less  l i k e l y to discern the exajniner's intention i n requesting a response, and i s therefore l e s s l i k e l y to be guided by a concept of "good response" than i f the s i t u a t i o n were highly structured; and  (4)  to the  extent that the subject's responses are not guided by any concept of socially-approved or "good" response, they are determined by his personal needs, attitudes and fantasies. In accordance with the projective hypothesis, the materials of projective tests are made  1  own  2  ambiguous, that i s , they are so constructed  as to admit of more varied  interpretations than do f a m i l i a r objects. Also i n accordance with the hypothesis, projective test instructions are designed to provide only a minimum of guidance for the  subject.  In the present study, i t was  proposed that the  projective hypothesis be tested experimentally by comparing the effects of projective test instructions and questionnaire  instructions upon  responses to a set of pictures. Since the projective i n s t r u c t i o n s do l e s s to'^structure" the t e s t s i t u a t i o n than do questionnaire i t was  instructions,  predicted that there would be differences between the responses  e l i c i t e d by the two techniques. Insofar as the results of t h i s comparison w i l l be relevant to the projective hypothesis, i t was  felt  that t h i s study would have t h e o r e t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . The p r a c t i c a l importance of t h i s investigation derives from the f a c t that i f responses e l i c i t e d by projective instructions d i f f e r from responses obtained by  questionnaire  instructions, then there must be factors operating to produce the the differences which, i f not taken into account by the using the techniques, may  clinician  lead to i n v a l i d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . One  i n v a l i d a t i n g factor i s the tendency, on the part of subjects,  such to  censor t h e i r responses to personality t e s t s . This i s the tendency to deny expression to certain thoughts, wishes and f e e l i n g s , or to allow t h e i r expression only i n some d i s t o r t e d form. In t h i s sense, not responses to t e s t s i t u a t i o n s , but any behavior may  only  be "censored". The  3 problem which i s encountered by-the psychologist using diagnostic techniques i s that of estimating the extent to which responses elicited during an interview, or testing session, have been censored. If the censorship has not been excessive, then the data obtained may be interpreted, as i s commonly done, by extrapolation from the test situation to everyday situations. If, however, responses have been withheld or distorted to an extent which i s not characteristic of the subject i n his reactions to everyday happenings, then this must be taken into account by the examiner i n his interpretation of test data. The validity of an interpretation of a test record w i l l depend, then, upon the presumed degree of correspondence between censorship in the test situation and censorship in the everyday l i f e of the subject. The issue i s accordingly an important one. Research related to the problem as i t concerns various diagnostic techniques has, however, been scanty. In the present study, the pictures of the Rosenzweig Picture-Frustration Study ( 29 ) were administered under the conditions prescribed by i t s author, and under conditions approximating those of the questionnaire, or inventory, method. The projective procedure involves instructing the subject to respond for, and in some sense identify with, the cartoon-like characters in the pictures. Since the projective instructions are calculated to turn the subject's attention away from himself, they facilitate the production of responses which the subject might not be willing to acknowledge as  Ms  own, were he questioned directly. The questionnaire procedure involves  4 instructing the subject to indicate how he believes he would repond in the hypothetical situations depicted. By so turning the subject's attention upon himself, the questionnaire instructions encourage conscious evaluation of responses, and may prevent certain unacceptable thoughts or wishes from entering consciousness. On the basis of these considerations, i t was predicted that subjects would censor their responses to a greater extent when a questionnaire technique was used than when the projective procedure was employed. Both techniques under investigation purport to reveal the subject's characteristic ways of reacting to frustration in social situations. Insofar as the behavior being investigated i s •social behavior, i t seemed reasonable to suppose that one type of response l i k e l y to be inhibited by subjects would be responses indicating hostility toward fellow-men. It was predicted, accordingly, that censorship would be reflected in a decrease i n the number of responses of this type elicited by the questionnaire procedure. Specific Purposes of this Experiment The specific purpose of this experiment was to compare the effects of projective and questionnaire instructions upon responses to pictures of the PF Study type. The f i r s t question to be investigated was:  I f subjects are questioned about their own behavior,  do they censor their responses to a greater extent than when they are  5 instructed to answer for, and presumably identify with, pictured characters?  The second question was:  When subjects censor their  responses to questions, what sort of response i s withheld, and what sort of response i s offered? Restating these questions i n the form of hypotheses to be tested i n this experiment, they become: 1. I f one set of pictures i s administered to a group of subjects under the projective instructions of the Rosenzweig PF Study, and an alternate set administered i n questionnaire-fashion, then the sets of responses so elicited w i l l differ to an extent not attributable solely to differences between the two sets of pictures. 2. I f subjects are required to respond to a set of pictures under the conditions prescribed by the author of the PF Study, then they w i l l offer more responses reflecting hostility toward fellow-men than when they are instructed to indicate their own presumed behavior in the hypothetical pictured situations.  CHAPTER I I  REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH  Among t h e l a r g e number o f p e r s o n a l i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w h i c h have been p u b l i s h e d , i t i s now q u i t e g e n e r a l l y a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e r e a r e few w h i c h have much p r a c t i c a l value i n individual diagnosis.  The y e a r s , as Hunt ( 1 8 , p 207 )  s a y s , have n o t t r e a t e d t h e s e t e c h n i q u e s i n a k i n d l y manner. One o f t h e i r most i m p o r t a n t f a i l i n g s i s t h e i r s u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o " f a k i n g " " l y i n g " i n one way o r a n o t h e r ,  or  as w e l l as t h e i r s u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o  u n c o n s c i o u s s e l f - d e c e p t i o n on t h e p a r t o f s u b j e c t s who may be c o n s c i o u s l y q u i t e honest and s i n c e r e i n t h e i r r e s p o n s e s .  The  p o s s i b i l i t y o f such f a c t o r s h a v i n g an i n v a l i d a t i n g e f f e c t upon t h e s c o r e s o b t a i n e d has been mentioned by many w r i t e r s , i n c l u d i n g Adams ( 1 ) , A l l p o r t  ( 3 ), Bernreuter  G u i l f o r d ( 15 ) , Humm ( 17  (4  )> E i s e n b e r g ( 6 ),  ) , K e l l y ( 19 ) , L a n d i s ( 20 ),  M c K i n l e y ( 21 ) , M c Q u i t t y ( 22 ) , Meehl ( 2 3  ) ( 24 ) , Olson ( 26 ),  Rosenzweig ( 27 ) ( 28 ) , Ruch ( 36 ) , Vernon ( 38 ) , Washburne ( 39 ), W i l l o u g h b y ( 40 ) and o t h e r s .  One o f t h e assumed advantages o f  p r o j e c t i v e methods i s t h a t t h e y a r e r e l a t i v e l y l e s s i n f l u e n c e d b y such d i s t o r t i n g f a c t o r s ,  a l t h o u g h t h e r e have been v e r y few a t t e m p t s  6  7  to j u s t i f y t h i s assumption  experimentally.  A number of investigators have concluded that subjects can, and do, censor t h e i r responses to personality questionnaires. Hendrickson  ( 16 ), c i t e d by Olson ( 26 ),  reported that a group of teachers earned s i g n i f i c a n t l y more stable, dominant, extraverted and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t scores on the Bernreuter scales when instructed to take the t e s t as though they were applying f o r a position, than when under more n e u t r a l conditions. Bernreuter ( 4 ) found that college students could produce marked s h i f t s i n t h e i r Bernreuter scores i n the " s o c i a l l y approved" d i r e c t i o n , although he interpreted t h i s finding as i n d i c a t i n g the comparative unimportance of the faking tendency. His reasoning was that had the need f o r giving s o c i a l l y approved responses operated i n the f i r s t administration to any appreciable extent, the effect of s p e c i a l instructions to take t h i s a t t i t u d e should not have been great. This reasoning seems rather tenuous, inasmuch as the occurence of a s h i f t merely shows that conscious and permitted faking can produce greater effects than those which may have been operating i n the "naive" o r i g i n a l t e s t i n g . The i n s i g n i f i c a n t correlations between naive and faked scores were also used by Bernreuter to support his view, an argument which seems very questionable i n view of the probably gross skewness of the faked scores. What i s clear from his investigation i s that people are- able to influence t h e i r Bernreuter scores to a considerable extent i f they choose to, and that the average student's  8  n o t i o n o f what i s s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e seems t o be an i n d i v i d u a l who i s dominant, s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t and s t a b l e . M e t f e s s e l ( 25 ) , Olson ( 26 ) and Spencer ( 37 ) have s t u d i e d t h e e f f e c t s o f a n o n y m i t y on responses t o and  questionnaires  shown t h a t the r e q u i r e m e n t o f s i g n i n g o n e ' s name has a d e f i n i t e  e f f e c t on t h e s c o r e s .  K e l l y , M i l e s and Terman ( 19 ) demonstrated  t h e ease w i t h w h i c h s c o r e s on t h e Terman-Miles M a s c u l i n i t y F e m i n i n i t y Test c o u l d be " f a k e d " i n e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n once t h e  subjects  had been l e t i n on t h e s e c r e t o f what t h e t e s t measured. Ellis  ( 7 ) made a r a t h e r comprehensive r e v i e w o f  f o r t y - t w o experiments d e s i g n e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h i s " f a k i n g " o r " o v e r r a t i n g " t e n d e n c y on t h e p a r t o f r e s p o n d e n t s t o p e r s o n a l i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , and c o n c l u d e d t h a t . t h i r t y - s i x i n d i c a t e d t h a t o v e r r a t i n g o r l y i n g d i d t a k e p l a c e , w h i l e o n l y s i x showed t h a t i t d i d n o t . The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e problem o f c e n s o r s h i p o f r e s p o n s e s may be o f l e s s s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r some t y p e s o f p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t t h a n f o r o t h e r s seems l a r g e l y t o have been i g n o r e d b y r e s e a r c h e r s . I n o r d e r t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o compare d a t a o b t a i n e d b y t e s t i n g t h e same group o f s u b j e c t s by d i f f e r e n t t e c h n i q u e s . Thus, E l l i s  ( 8 ) compared t h e u s e o f d i r e c t p h r a s i n g o f  q u e s t i o n s w i t h t h e use o f i n d i r e c t forms o f t h e same q u e s t i o n s . He found t h a t when q u e s t i o n s were changed from t h e d i r e c t form,  " I get  a n g r y VERY OFTEN  "Children  PRETTY OFTEN e t c . " ,  t o the i n d i r e c t form,  9 who often get angry are VERY QUEER PRETTY QUEER  etc.",  his subjects  gave significantly more unfavorable responses, especially psychosomatic ones. Fosberg ( 9 ) gave the Bernreuter test to thirtyseven subjects under standard conditions, under instructions to make good impressions, and under instructions to make bad impressions. He then gave the Rorschach Test to f i f t y subjects under similar consitions, and found that whereas the Bernreuter scores shoiired shifts in the desired directions, the Rorschach protocols were not significantly changed. In a later study, Fosberg ( 10 ) asked f i f t y subjects how they had gone about the task of giving "good" and "bad" personality impressions, when instructed to do so.  A comparison of the l i s t of  explanations revealed that, in general, to make a "good" impression subjects tried to please the examiner, to appear to be extraverted, erudite,.humorous and intelligent, and to avoid mention of sex, destruction and aggression.  To appear to be "bad", subjects tried to  annoy the examiner, to act stubborn, to give sexual and anti-social responses, and to be vague.  Since these factors did not appear to  influence the Rorschach scoring, Fosberg again concluded that subjects who were unfamiliar with the scoring system could not distort the picture of the basic personality structure which the Rorschach Test yielded. Fosberg's study would suggest that one reason  why  subjects are unlikely to produce "distorted" Rorschach protocols i s that the subjects are unaware of the significance which their responses have  10 f o r the examiner.  Other p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s a r e :  ( l ) the  subject  i s l e s s s e l f - c o n s c i o u s t h a n he i s w h i l e r e s p o n d i n g t o i n v e n t o r y t e s t s . As Rosenzweig ( 3 2 ,  p . 63 ) s a y s , i n s t e a d o f t a k i n g h i m s e l f  as t h e o b j e c t o f o b s e r v a t i o n , t h e s u b j e c t , clinician,  i n cooperation with  " ' l o o k s t h e o t h e r way' a t some e g o - n e u t r a l o b j e c t "  (3) t h e R o r s c h a c h t e s t i s so f a r - r e m o v e d from s i t u a t i o n s  the ; and  o f everyday  l i f e t h a t the subject i s guided t o a l e s s e r extent by convention than when he i s t a k i n g a p e r s o n a l i t y  questionnaire.  Whatever t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n , on t h e o r e t i c a l  grounds,  f o r s u p p o s i n g t h a t p r o j e c t i v e methods a r e l e s s s u s c e p t i b l e  to  " d i s t o r t i n g " i n f l u e n c e s , the problem o f censorship i n t e s t  situations  i s one w h i c h deserves much e x p e r i m e n t a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . There i s  reason  t o b e l i e v e , f o r example, t h a t some p r o j e c t i v e t e c h n i q u e s a r e i n f l u e n c e d by s u c h f a c t o r s . A s u b j e c t who, on t h e TAT, i d e n t i f i e s w i t h a hero i n v o l v e d i n some r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a mother f i g u r e might w e l l be guided by convention i n a t t r i b u t i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  t o t h e woman.  Such a p o s s i b i l i t y has been mentioned b y Rosenzweig ( 33 ) • for research i n t h i s area, although urgent,  has been l a r g e l y  u n r e c o g n i z e d o r i g n o r e d , as a s u r v e y o f t h e c u r r e n t reveals.  The need  literature  CHAPTER I I I  EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS, SUBJECTS AND DESIGN  Materials The t w e n t y - f o u r p i c t u r e s o f t h e Rosenzweig P i c t u r e - F r u s t r a t i o n S t u d y ( 29 ) were d i v i d e d a r b i t r a r i l y i n t o two s e t s o f t w e l v e p i c t u r e s e a c h . I n an a t t e m p t t o improve t h e (undetermined) r e l i a b i l i t i e s o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t s b e i n g d e v e l o p e d , e i g h t new p i c t u r e s were added t o each s e t .  These a d d i t i o n a l p i c t u r e s  a r e s i m i l a r t o t h o s e o f t h e PF S t u d y i n s o f a r as t h e y have t h e following  characteristics: 1. each i s a c a r t o o n - l i k e d r a w i n g d e p i c t i n g two o r  more persons who a r e i n v o l v e d i n a m i l d l y f r u s t r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n o f common o c c u r r e n c e ; 2 . t h e f i g u r e a t t h e l e f t o f each p i c t u r e i s shown s a y i n g c e r t a i n words w h i c h e i t h e r f r u s t r a t e  the other i n d i v i d u a l or  h e l p d e s c r i b e what i s f r u s t r a t i n g h i m ; 3. t h e p e r s o n on t h e r i g h t i s shown under a b l a n k c a p t i o n box; 4« f a c i a l f e a t u r e s a r e o m i t t e d , and o t h e r e x p r e s s i o n s o f p e r s o n a l i t y , such as s t a t u r e and p o s t u r e ,  11  a r e shown  12 as i n d e f i n i t e l y as p o s s i b l e . The two s e t s o f p i c t u r e s ,  c o n s i s t i n g o f twenty  drawings each, can be s a i d t o be p a r a l l e l o n l y i n s o f a r as (a) number o f " s u p e r e g o - b l o c k i n g " s i t u a t i o n s  (situations  a c c u s a t i o n s and i n s u l t s ) i s t h e same f o r each s e t , number o f male f i g u r e s shown b e i n g f r u s t r a t e d set,  as i s t h e number o f f r u s t r a t e d  female  the  involving  and (b)  the  i s t h e same f o r each  figures.  The new p i c t u r e s were i n t e r s p e r s e d among p i c t u r e s from t h e PF S t u d y i n t h e manner shown i n F i g u r e I , and bound i n b o o k l e t f o r m , as shown i n Appendix I . Responses t o a l l t h e p i c t u r e s were s c o r e d f o r b o t h D i r e c t i o n o f A g g r e s s i o n and Type o f R e a c t i o n , i n accordance w i t h R o s e n z w e i g ' s ( 31 ) c r i t e r i a : Under d i r e c t i o n o f a g g r e s s i o n i t i s c o n s i d e r e d whether t h e s u b j e c t t u r n s h i s a g g r e s s i o n outward upon t h e environment ( e x t r a p u n i t i v e n e s s ) , t u r n s i t i n w a r d upon h i m s e l f ( i n t r o p u n i t i v e n e s s ) , o r a v o i d s e x p r e s s i n g i t by smoothing over t h e s i t u a t i o n ( i m p u n i t i v e n e s s ) . Type o f r e a c t i o n i s c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o whether t h e s u b j e c t appears t o be b l o c k e d a t t h e v e r y o u t s e t o f t h e problem ( o b s t a c l e - d o m i n a n c e ) , whether h e . d w e l l s on t h e q u e s t i o n o f who i s t o blame f o r t h e f r u s t r a t i o n ( e g o - d e f e n s e ) , o r whether he d i r e c t s h i s a t t e n t i o n toward a p o s s i b l e solution (need-persistence). ( 31? P« 364 )  Subjects F i f t y - e i g h t subjects  were o b t a i n e d , on a  v o l u n t a r y b a s i s , from an e l e m e n t a r y c l a s s i n p s y c h o l o g y a t  the  U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . T h i r t y were male s t u d e n t s ,  twenty-  FIGURE I  COMPOSITION OF THE TWO SETS OF PICTURES  Picture Set II  Picture Set I Number  1  Source  Number  Source  PF Study, Item 1  1  new  2  it  3  n  4  it  2  II  u  3  it  II  2 3  4  II  ti  4  5  5  new  PF Study, Item 5  6  6  •»  7  7  "  8  8  '»  "  '»  tt  ••  "  10  6 8  9  9  10  10  11  11  "  11  12  12  "  12  13  "  21  " 22  13  PF Studs Item 13  14  »  " 14  14  15  it  it  16  ..  II  15 16  1  5  L  6  17 18  it  19 20  " "  II  1  8  19 " 20  11  9  " 23  »  11  17  new  18  II  19 20  it II  24  L4 e i g h t were female s t u d e n t s .  T h e i r ages r a n g e d from s i x t e e n t o  t h i r t y - t h r e e y e a r s , t h e mean age b e i n g 20.0 y e a r s , t h e d e v i a t i o n , 2.76.  standard  A t t h e t i m e o f t e s t i n g , no l e c t u r e s on  p s y c h o m e t r i c s had been g i v e n i n t h e c o u r s e i n w h i c h t h e y were enrolled.  Design o f t h e Esperiment In d e s i g n i n g the experiment, s e v e r a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s had t o be t a k e n i n t o a c c o u n t : 1.  In order that the r e l i a b i l i t y of the  e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s s c o r i n g might be t a k e n i n t o account i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s , t e n r e c o r d s , randomly s e l e c t e d , were r e s c o r e d b y t h e exajniner a f t e r t h r e e weeks. A measure o f agreement between t h e two s e t s o f s c o r e s , b a s e d on 400 responses,  c o u l d t h e n be c a l c u l a t e d . 2. I n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e whether a n o t h e r  rater  would a g r e e w i t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s s c o r i n g , t e n r e c o r d s were s e l e c t e d a t random from t h e p r o t o c o l s o f a l l s u b j e c t s , and s c o r e d by a second r a t e r . The p e r c e n t a g e agreement between t h e s e two s e t s o f s c o r e s c o u l d t h e n be c a l c u l a t e d and used as an e s t i m a t e o f i n t e r scorer  reliability. 3« The r e l a t i v e s t i m u l u s " c a r d - p u l l " o f t h e two  s e t s o f p i c t u r e s was unknown. One s e t m i g h t , f o r example,  elicit  more e x t r a p u n i t i v e responses t h a n t h e o t h e r , when c o n d i t i o n s o f  administration were-the same f o r both, '^he experiment was  therefore  designed so that the effects of t h i s extraneous variable might be controlled. Half the subjects were given Set I under PF Studyinstructions, while the remaining subjects took Set I I under these i n s t r u c t i o n s . S i m i l a r l y , h a l f the subjects took Set I under questionnaire i n s t r u c t i o n s , while the others were given Set I I under these i n s t r u v t i o n s . 4* In order that the effects of the main experimental variable, namely, type of t e s t i n s t r u c t i o n s , might be investigated, i t was necessary that each subject respond to the pictures under two d i f f e r e n t sets of i n s t r u c t i o n s . I t seemed possible that the i n i t i a l projective instructions might induce a set which would carry over i n t o the second administration of pictures, and so conceal or minimize any difference i n the effects of the i n s t r u c t i o n s . Pictures were always to be administered  f i r s t under  PF Study i n s t r u c t i o n s . In an attempt to remove the set which these instructions are designed to induce, before the administration of the second set of pictures a questionnaire consisting of fourteen items from the A l l p o r t AS Study ( 2 ) was  given to each subject.  The items chosen were considered t y p i c a l of personality tests of the questionnaire type insofar as they require that the subject indicate how he believes he would behave i n a v a r i e t y of hypothetical s i t u a t i o n s . I t seemed that, by so turning the subject's attention upon himself, the p o s s i b i l i t y of continuance of any  16 " p r o j e c t i v e " s e t m i g h t be - e f f e c t i v e l y removed. The two s e t s o f i n s t r u c t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n Appendix B , t h e A l l p o r t AS S t u d y i t e m s i n Appendix D . 5. The o r d e r o f p r e s e n t a t i o n o f p i c t u r e s might i n f l u e n c e the r e s p o n s e s made t o them. I n an attempt t o c o n t r o l t h i s v a r i a b l e , t h e s e t s o f p i c t u r e s were a d m i n i s t e r e d i n one o r d e r f o r h a l f t h e s u b j e c t s and i n t h e r e v e r s e o r d e r f o r t h e  others.  6. R a n d o m i z a t i o n o f t h e s u b j e c t s t a k i n g t h e p i c t u r e s i n , t h e d i f f e r e n t o r d e r s had t o be e f f e c t e d .  T h i s was  a c c o m p l i s h e d b y s t a c k i n g t h e t e s t m a t e r i a l s i n a random o r d e r , i . e . an o r d e r d e r i v e d from a t a b l e o f random numbers. Chance f a c t o r s t h e n d e t e r m i n e d w h i c h o r d e r o f p i c t u r e s any i n d i v i d u a l r e c e i v e d . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s r a n d o m i z a t i o n , so f a r as age and s e x a r e c o n c e r n e d , were found t o be as f o l l o w s :  (a) one group  c o n s i s t e d o f f o u r t e e n male and f i f t e e n female s t u d e n t s , r a n g i n g i n age from seventeen t o t w e n t y - f i v e y e a r s , w i t h a mean age o f y e a r s and a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 1.92;  19*45  (b) t h e o t h e r group c o n s i s t e d  o f s i x t e e n male and t h i r t e e n female s t u d e n t s , r a n g i n g i n age from s i x t e e n t o t h i r t y - t h r e e y e a r s , w i t h a mean age o f 20.52 y e a r s and a standard d e v i a t i o n o f  3.31.  7« I t was c o n s i d e r e d i m p o r t a n t t h a t a l l  subjects  be f u l l y aware o f t h e p h r a s i n g o f each s e t o f i n s t r u c t i o n s . The t e s t s were t h e r e f o r e a d m i n i s t e r e d i n d i v i d u a l l y , w i t h a d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f  17 the f i r s t item of the f i r s t test as described by Rosenzweig ( 29 )• In b r i e f : the experiment was  so designed as to  permit the two sets of pictures to be given to the two  experimental  groups i n two orders of presentation and under two sets of i n s t r u c t i o n s , without any bias as to the arrangement of the subjects, the groups, or the orders.  CHAPTER I V  RELIABILITY OF THE SCORING  Intra-examiner  Reliability In order t h a t the consistency o f the  e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s s c o r i n g might be e s t i m a t e d , t e n r e c o r d s , randomly s e l e c t e d , were r e s c o r e d b y him a f t e r t h r e e weeks. T a b l e I p r e s e n t s t h e r e s u l t s o f a comparison o f t h e two s e t s o f s c o r e s . The examiner d i s a g r e e d w i t h h i s o r i g i n a l s c o r i n g on 28 i t e m s ,  or  7 per cent o f t h e responses r e s c o r e d . The disagreement was c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r f o r t h e new items ( 9«5$ ) t h a n f o r i t e m s from t h e Rosenzweig PF S t u d y ( 5«5$ )• S i n c e each response a c t u a l l y r e c e i v e d two s c o r e s , one f o r D i r e c t i o n o f A g g r e s s i o n and one f o r Type o f R e a c t i o n , s e p a r a t e measures o f disagreement were c a l c u l a t e d . T a b l e I shows t h a t t h e examiner d i s a g r e e d w i t h h i s o r i g i n a l s c o r i n g , as  to  D i r e c t i o n o f A g g r e s s i o n , i n J,% o f t h e c a s e s , as t o Type o f R e a c t i o n , i n L\% o f t h e c a s e s , and as t o t h e u n s c o r a b i l i t y o f t h e i n 1% o f t h e  response,  cases. The v a l u e s f o r percentage agreement o b t a i n e d by  comparing 400 o r i g i n a l s c o r e s w i t h s c o r e s a s s i g n e d a f t e r a 3-week  18  TABLE I  COMPARISON OF SCORING OF 400 RESPONSES BY THE EXPERIMENTER AFTER 3 WEEKS WITH ORIGINAL SCORING  A. T o t a l t  Disagreements  Items Disagreed Upon  Number o f Disagreements  Percentage Disagreement  PF S t u d y Items  13  5.5  .New Items  15  9-5  All  28  7  Items  B . Disagreements I n v o l v i n g One S c o r i n g Dimension Only Type o f Disagreement.  Number o f Disagreements  Percentage Disagreement  Disagreement as to Direction of Aggression  12  3  Disagreement t o Type o f Reaction  17  4  4  1  Disagreement as t o Unscorability  as  20  i n t e r v a l were considered s u f f i c i e n t l y high to make further rescoring unnecessary.  Since the records of responses were  scored i n a random sequence, i t can be assumed that discrepancies i n scoring due to the examiner's inconsistent application of the scoring c r i t e r i a have cancelled out, i . e . did not appreciably d i s t o r t the means.  Inter-examiner  Reliability In order that an estimate of scorer agreement  might be obtained, ten records were scored by a second examiner, and h i s scores compared with those assigned by the  experimenter.  Table I I shows that the two scorers disagreed on 69 items, or 11% of the responses scored. The disagreement was lower f o r PF Study items ( 1%  ) than f o r the new items ( 21$  ). The former figure  agrees with that reported by Clarke ( 5, p. 369  ), who  calculated the percent agreement between two examiners who  scored  100 normal PF Study records. Since disagreements commonly involved only one of the two scoring dimensions,  separate measures of agreement  were calculated f o r Direction of Aggression and Type of Reaction. Table I I shows that the two scorers disagreed, as to Direction of Aggression, i n 8.5% of the cases, as to Type of Reaction i n 9.5% of the cases, and as to the u n s c o r a b i l i t y of the response i n 2% of the cases.  TABLE I I  COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTER•S SCORING WITH SCORING BY A SECOND EXAMINER FOR 400 ITEMS  A. Total Disagreements Items Disagreed Upon  Number of Disagreements  PF Study Items  35-5  15  New Items  33.5  21  A l l Items  69  17  Percentage Disagreement  B. Disagreements Involving One Scoring Dimension Only Type of Disagreement  Number of Disagreements  Percentage Disagreement  Disagreement as to Direction of Aggression  35  8.5  Disagreement as to Type of Reaction  38  9.5  Disagreement as to Unscorability  8  2  Although the values reported i n Table II suggest that subjective factors played a part i n the scoring of responses, perhaps the agreement, rather than the disagreement, should be stressed. It would seem that the criteria for placing responses in one or another scoring category were sufficiently well defined to reduce differences i n interpretation by different scorers to a small figure.  CHAPTER V  THE DATA AND THEIR TREATMENT  The b a s i c d a t a on t h e mean s c o r e s and v a r i a b i l i t y o b t a i n e d by f i f t y - e i g h t u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s under two c o n d i t i o n s o f p i c t u r e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n are presented i n Table I I I . From T a b l e I I I i t would appear t h a t , f o r b o t h groups o f s u b j e c t s :  (a) h i g h e r E x t r a p u n i t i v e s c o r e s were  o b t a i n e d when t h e p i c t u r e s were a d m i n i s t e r e d under P F S t u d y i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a n when t h e y were a d m i n i s t e r e d i n q u e s t i o n n a i r e fashion;  (b) h i g h e r E g o - d e f e n s i v e s c o r e s were o b t a i n e d when PF  S t u d y i n s t r u c t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n s t r u c t i o n s were u s e d ; and ( c ) P i c t u r e S e t I e l i c i t e d more I m p u n i t i v e and N e e d persistent  responses,  and l e s s I n t r o p u n i t i v e and O b s t a c l e - d o m i n a n t  responses,  than d i d Set I I , r e g a r d l e s s o f the c o n d i t i o n s o f  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The d a t a s u g g e s t ,  t o o , t h a t t h e group o f  subjects  r e c e i v i n g p i c t u r e s i n t h e o r d e r I , I I d i f f e r s from t h e o t h e r  group  w i t h r e s p e c t t o E x t r a p u n i t i v e n e s s and E g o - d e f e n s i v e n e s s . The question i s : Are these d i f f e r e n c e s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ? S i n c e t h r e e main v a r i a b l e s were o p e r a t i n g i n t h i s  23  24  TABLE I I I  MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR 5 8 UNIVERSITY STUDENTS RESPONDING TO WO SETS OF PICTURES UNDER TWO CONDITIONS OF ADMINISTRATION  Mean Score and Standard Deviation Order of Presentation of Pictures  PF Study Instructions  Questionnaire Instructions  M  S D  M  S D  II  8.19  2.64  8.10  2.25  I  10.06  2.42  8.26  2.38  5-35  1.64  6.84  2.00  5-49  1.90  5-13  1.62  6.46  2.06  5.06  1.69  4.44  1.78  6.61  1.76  3.26  1.76  4-73  2.13  4.45  0.72  2.96  1.40  10.32  1.73  8.99  1.62  1.83  9.80  1.99  6.42  1.98  6.28  1.73  4.63  1.67  7.24  2.15  Extrapunitiveness I II  Intropunitiveness I II  II I  Impunitiveness I II II I Obstacle-dominance I II II I Ego-defensiveness I II  II I  10.91  Need-persistence I II II I  25 experiment, namely, instructions, pictures and groups, the analysis of variance technique seemed to be the most p r a c t i c a l method of t r e a t i n g the data of Table I I I . The application of this technique to the 2 by 2 Latin Square design has been described by Grant ( 14  ), and the analysis of the data proceeded i n the manner which  he describes.  The Problems Treated Problem 1.  Were the subjects' mean scores s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected  by the form of instructions? Table IV presents the analysis of variance applied to the data of Table I I I . I t shows s i g n i f i c a n t F-values f o r three scoring factors: Extrapunitiveness ( 4«78 ), Ego-defensiveness ( 16.51  ) and Need-persistence ( 26.21  ). I t may therefore be stated,  with respect to Extrapunitiveness, that there are l e s s than f i v e chances i n a hundred that a difference as large as the observed difference f o r "instructions" would be caused by chance factors. Regarding Ego-defensiveness and Need-persistence, i t may be stated that there i s considerably l e s s than one chance i n a hundred that a difference as large as the observed difference f o r "instructions" would a c c i d e n t a l l y occur. Another way of i n t e r p r e t i n g the three s i g n i f i c a n t F-values i s to say, with respect to each of the scoring factors  26  TABLE IV  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SCORES FOR 58 UNIVERSITY STUDENTS RESPONDING TO TWO SETS OF PICTURES UNDER WO CONDITIONS OF ADMINISTRATION  Source of Variation .  df  Sum of Squares  Mean Square  F  Level of Confidence  Extrapunitiveness Order Pictures Instructions Ss within order Error Total  1 1 1 56 56  29.91 21.29 25-79  29-91 21.29 25.79  380.83  6.80  302.52  115  760.34  1 1 1 56 56  17.77 24.77 9.16  5.40  5.54 3.94 4-78 1.26  .01  low  • 05  low  tntropunitiven ess Order Pictures Instructions Ss within order Error Total  115  189.46  186.12  17.77 24.77 9.16  5-35 •7-46 2.76 1.02  1.57 91.63 4.29 4.00 2.93  0.54 31-27 I.46 1.37  - "3-38 3.32  .01 .01  low low  427-28  Impunitiveness Order Pictures Instructions Ss within order Error Total  1 1 1 56 56  4-29 223.87 164.62  115  485-98  1.57 91.63  low  .01  low low  27  TABLE IV (CONTINUED)  Source of Variation  df  Sum o f Squares  Mean Square  F  Level of Confidence  Obstacle-dominance  1 1 1 56 56  2.46 63-31 0.00 207-12 86.73  115  359.63  1 1 1 56 56  14.00 O.36 43-09 146.37  115  432.83  Order Pictures Instructions Ss within order Error  1 1 1 56 _56  4-92  54.76 44-57 319.13 95.35  Total  115  518.73  Order Pictures Instructions Ss within order Error Total  2.46 63.31 0.00 3.70 1.55  1.59 40.85 0.00 2.39  14.00 0.36 43.09 4.09 2.61  5.36 0.13 16.51 1.57  low  .01  low low  Sgo-defensiveness Order Pictures Instructions Ss within order Error  Total  229.00  .01 low  .01  low  Need-persistence  4.92 2.89 54-76 32.21 44-57 26.21 5.70 3.35 1.70  low  .01 .01  low  28 represented, that, with the influence of pictures and groups eliminated, the mean scores for PF Study instructions are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the means for questionnaire i n s t r u c t i o n s . This assertion can be made with greater confidence for Ego-defensiveness  and Need-persistence  than for  Extrapunitiveness. Since the r e s u l t s of the analysis suggest that the form of instructions affected the subjects' mean scores f o r Extrapunitiveness, Ego-defensiveness  and Need-persistence,  each of  these scoring categories w i l l be considered i n greater d e t a i l : (a) Extrapunitiveness:  Extrapunitive responses  are of three types: i.  obstacle-dominant  extrapunitiveness ( the  presence of the f r u s t r a t i n g obstacle i s i n s i s t e n t l y pointed out), scored E'; ii.  ego-defensive  extrapunitiveness (blame,  h o s t i l i t y , etc. are turned against some person or thing i n the environment), scored E; and i i i . need-persistent extrapunitiveness ( a solution for the f r u s t r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n i s emphatically  expected  of someone else ), scored e. The question which arises i s : which of these types o f extrapunitive response was most a f f e c t e d by the form o f  29 the instructions?  Table V shows that, when the pictures were  administered under questionnaire instructions rather than PF Studyinstructions, the subjects gave fewer E' responses, fewer E responses, and a greater number of e responses. When these differences were tested by the analysis of variance technique, only one, that f o r ego-defensive extrapunitiveness, proved to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ( l e v e l of confidence = .01 ). (b) Ego-defensiveness:  Ego-defensive responses  are also of three types: i.  ego-defensive extrapunitiveness ( defined  above ), scored E; ii.  ego-defensive intropunitiveness ( blame,  censure, etc. are directed by the subject upon himself ), scored I j and iii.  ego-defensive impunitiveness ( blame  for the f r u s t r a t i o n i s evaded altogether, the s i t u a t i o n being regarded as unavoidable; the f r u s t r a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l i s absolved ), scored M. The question i s : Which of these types of egodefensive response was most affected by the form of instructions?  1. The analysis of variance f o r the nine minor scoring categories E', E, e, I , I , i , M', M and m i s presented i n Appendix E. The F-values for " i n s t r u c t ions" are contained i n Table V. 1  30  TABLE V  FREQUENCIES OF RESPONSES OF 58 UNIVERSITY STUDENTS TO PICTURES ADMINISTERED UNDER TWO CONDITIONS, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO NINE SCORING CATEGORIES  Number of Responses Scoring >  Category  PF Study Questionnaire Instructions Instructions  Difference i n Number of ^ Responses F"^ Significance L  e  o  v  e  l  f  111  95  -16  1.87  low  E  330  276  -54  8.97  .01  e  92  102 .  +10  I»  50  58  + 8  I  142  121  -21  i  121  170  +49  60  68  + 8  M  147  147  0  -  m  107  123  +6  1.51  1160  1160  E  1  M<  -  low low  3.18  11.47  1. The analysis by which these F-values are derived i s presented i n Appendix E.  low  .01 low low low  31  Table V shows that, when the pictures were administered under questionnaire rather than PF Study instructions, the subjects gave fewer E responses and fewer I responses, while the frequency of M responses did not show any change. An analysis of the variance of I scores showed that the obtained difference in frequency of these responses was probably spurious ( Appendix E ). The change in frequency of ego-defensive extrapunitive ( E ) responses, then, seems to have produced the observed difference in Ego-defensive scores as well as the above-noted difference in Extrapunitive scores. (c) Need-persistence:  The three types of  need-persistent response are: i . need-persistent extrapunitiveness ( a solution for the frustrating situation is emphatically expected of someone else ), scored e; i i . need-persistent intropunitiveness ( amends are offered by the subject, usually from a sense of guilt, to solve the problem ), scored i ; and i i i . need-persistent impunitiveness ( expression is given to the hope that time will bring about a solution of the problem; patience and conformity ), scored m. The question here is: Which of these types of need-persistent response was most affected by the form of instructions? Table V shows that, when the pictures were  32 administered under questionnaire  rather than PF Study i n s t r u c t i o n s ,  the subjects gave more e responses, more i responses, and more m responses.  Of these differences, however, only the difference i n  frequency of i responses was s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l l y ,  reaching  the .01 l e v e l of confidence ( Appendix E ). In summary: the observed differences i n mean scores for Extrapunitiveness,  Ego-defensiveness and Need-persistence  apparently r e f l e c t differences i n frequency of two types of response: ego-defensive extrapunitiveness intropunitiveness Problem 2.  ( E ) and need-persistent  ( i ).  Were the subjects' mean scores s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected  by differences between the sets of pictures? Table IV indicates that differences i n pictures effected s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n mean scores for four scoring factors:  Intropunitiveness,  Impunitiveness, Obstacle-dominance  and Need-persistence. Each of the four F-values was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l o f confidence. Problem 3 a .  Did the order of presentation  of pictures produce  s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n scores? Problem 3b.  Did the two groups of s u b j e c t s ' d i f f e r s u f f i c i e n t l y  to produce differences i n t h e i r mean scores? Although the combined effects of these two  33 i variables may be investigated, the design of the experiment does not permit a separation of the variance due t o each.  The F-values  for "order", i n Table IV, accordingly represent the resultant effect of order of presentation of pictures and differences between groups of subjects.  They are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t  for Extrapunitiveness, Intropunitiveness and  Ego-defensiveness.  I t may be stated that, with the influence of pictures and instructions eliminated, the mean score f o r the group of subjects receiving pictures i n the order I, I I d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the mean score f o r the group taking the pictures i n the reverse order, f o r three scoring f a c t o r s .  Resume of the Findings 1.  When the pictures were administered under questionnaire rather  than PF Study instructions, the subjects gave fewer  ego-defensive  extrapunitive responses ( scored E ) and a greater number of need-persistent i n t r o p u n i t i v e responses ( scored i ). The observed differences are both s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at the . 0 1 l e v e l o f confidence. 2.  The differences i n frequencies of E and i responses,  due to  instructions, were s u f f i c i e n t l y great to produce s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n three major scoring categories:.  34 Extrapunitiveness  ( s i g n i f i c a n t a t .05  ( s i g n i f i c a n t at .01 3»  ), Ego-defensiveness  ), and Need-persistence ( s i g n i f i c a n t a t .01  Differences between the two sets of pictures produced  s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n mean scores, f o r four major scoring categories. 4«  Even with the influence of pictures and i n s t r u c t i o n s  eliminated, the mean score f o r the group of subjects r e c e i v i n g pictures i n the order I, I I d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the mean score f o r the group taking the pictures i n the reverse f o r three major scoring f a c t o r s .  order,  ).  CHAPTER VI  DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS  Since s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found f o r i n s t r u c t i o n s , pictures and orders of of pictures, i t may now  be asked why  presentation  they occurred and what  they mean. Because the main independent variable i n t h i s experiment was  the difference between the two  sets of  instructions used, differences a t t r i b u t a b l e to i t w i l l be dealt with more extensively than the other observed differences.  Interpretation of the Instruction Differences I t was  found that the subjects of t h i s  experiment gave s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer E responses, and a s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater number of i responses, when the pictures were administered under questionnaire instructions. may  rather than PF Study  The differences i n frequency of these responses  be a t t r i b u t a b l e mainly to ( l ) temporal position of  instructions and / o r  (2)  differences i n i n s t r u c t i o n s .  The subjects responded f i r s t to pictures under PF Study i n s t r u c t i o n s , then to pictures under  35  questionnaire  36 instructions. It i s logically possible, therefore, that the temporal position of the task, rather than differences i n instructions, was the principal factor influencing the responses. There seems l i t t l e reason, however, for believing this to be the case.  Clinicians have found that, when a patient i s given  continued testing by projective techniques, there i s a tendency for his defenses to "break down" toward the end of the testing session, facilitating the production of responses of an unfavorable nature. Frank ( 11, p. 58 ) refers to this phenomenon as the "cathartic" function of projective techniques. Had such a factor been operating i n the present experiment, however, i t could not account for the observed differences i n responses because i t would have resulted i n the production of less acceptable rather than more acceptable types of response. Fatigue, although i t frequently operates temporally i n psychological experiments, cannot readily be held responsible for the observed differences i n this study. Since there i s l i t t l e reason to believe that the difference i n temporal position of the instructions was responsible for the observed differences i n responses, these would seem to be attributable to differences i n instructions. PF Study instructions, then, seem to facilitate the production of responses indicating hostility toward fellow men, or more specifically, responses i n which the person aggressively blames  someone e l s e f o r h a v i n g f r u s t r a t e d h i s n e e d s .  Questionnaire  i n s t r u c t i o n s , on t h e o t h e r hand, seem t o encourage s u b j e c t s  to  g i v e more responses i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , i n t h e f a c e o f f r u s t r a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e s u b j e c t t a k e s i t upon h i m s e l f t o f i n d a way o f removing t h e o b s t a c l e . A comparison o f t h e two t y p e s o f i n s t r u c t i o n s w i l l a i d i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f these r e s u l t s . PF S t u d y i n s t r u c t i o n s d i r e c t t h e s u b j e c t respond f o r t h e p i c t u r e d c h a r a c t e r s , f i r s t r e p l y t h a t comes t o m i n d .  to  and t o w r i t e down t h e  I n s o f a r as t h e s u b j e c t  responds  i n t h e manner i n t e n d e d , t h e r e i s l i t t l e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r him t o censor h i s r e s p o n s e s .  Responses w h i c h m i g h t have been w i t h h e l d ,  had he been q u e s t i o n e d d i r e c t l y , a r e g i v e n , s i n c e (a)  his  a t t e n t i o n i s t u r n e d away from h i m s e l f t o t h e t e s t m a t e r i a l s , and (b) he g i v e s f i r s t a s s o c i a t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n c a r e f u l l y evaluated  responses. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n s t r u c t i o n s , on t h e o t h e r hand,  1. The w r i t e r has o m i t t e d " o r t h i n g " from Rosenzweig's d e f i n i t i o n of ego-defensive e x t r a p u n i t i v e n e s s , as g i v e n on page 2 8 , a b o v e . Responses i n d i c a t i n g t h a t blame i s a g g r e s s i v e l y a t t r i b u t e d t o " t h i n g s " i n t h e environment were v e r y r a r e l y g i v e n t o t h e p i c t u r e s used i n t h i s s t u d y . I n a few c a s e s , a g g r e s s i o n was d i r e c t e d a t i n s t i t u t i o n s o r r u l e s . For example: when r u l e s f o r b i d t h a t more t h a n two books be t a k e n from t h e l i b r a r y ( p i c t u r e 6, Set I I ) t h e f r u s t r a t e d p e r s o n may d i r e c t a g g r e s s i o n a t t h e library.  38  by d i r e c t i n g the subject to indicate h i s own presumed behavior i n hypothetical situations, tend to put the subject on the defensive. Since the subject must consciously acknowledge each response as his own, prevented:  the production of two types of response i s  (a) a response which the subject i s u n w i l l i n g to  acknowledge as his own,  and  (b) a response which makes manifest  a f e e l i n g or wish which does not normally enter the subject's awareness, that i s , a response which the subject i s unable to acknowledge as his  own. It may be asked why  only one of the three  extrapunitive scores showed a s i g n i f i c a n t change, since a l l three types of extrapunitiveness involve h o s t i l i t y . The answer seems to be that, since the t o t a l number of responses to a set of pictures remains constant, a lowered frequency of one type of response implies an increased frequency of the other types of response. I f , for example, response A i s more l i k e l y to be i n h i b i t e d than response B, and B i s more l i k e l y to be i n h i b i t e d than C, then the A score ( based on the frequency of A responses ) w i l l be lowered, and the C score w i l l be raised, whereas the B score may remain constant.  This reasoning shows that i t i s  possible for only two scores to show s i g n i f i c a n t changes: the score representing the most l i k e l y to be i n h i b i t e d response, and the score representing the most favored response.  Applying  these considerations to the results of the present experiment,  i t i s possible to account for the fact that only two scores  39  were s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected by the form of i n s t r u c t i o n s . In b r i e f :  The findings of t h i s experiment  suggest that when subjects are required to respond to pictures under PF Study instructions, they censor responses to a l e s s e r extent than i s the case when pictures are administered i n questionnaire-fashion.  I f responses e l i c i t e d under PF  Study i n s t r u c t i o n s be considered more v a l i d i n d i c a t o r s of actual behavior i n f r u s t r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s , then i t may be stated that, f o r some subjects, d i r e c t questioning  elicits  responses i n d i c a t i n g that the subject i s l e s s frequently h o s t i l e toward fellow men, and more frequently w i l l i n g to accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for overcoming obstacles, than i s a c t u a l l y the case.  Interpretation of the Pictures Differences The obtained mean score differences for the two sets of pictures are explicable i n terms of differences between the "card p u l l " of the two sets.  Although i t i s  conceivable that two sets of pictures could be so constructed as t o be " p a r a l l e l " with respect to the frequencies of the various types o f response e l i c i t e d , i t was not deemed necessary to do so i n the present study since t h i s f a c t o r was controlled by the experimental  design.  40 Interpretation of the Order of Presentation of Pictures Differences It was found, by s t a t i s t i c a l analysis, that the mean score for the group of subjects receiving pictures i n the order I, II differed from the mean score for the group taking the pictures i n the reverse order, for three major scoring factors. Although i t i s logically possible that the observed differences are attributable mainly to the difference in order of presentation of pictures, i t seems more l i k e l y that, despite attempts at randomization, subjects i n one group differed from those i n the other group with respect to the three characteristics being measured,  This interpretation  seems particularly plausible i n view of the small number of subjects i n each group.  CHAPTER VII  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  The purpose of t h i s experiment was t o investigate the effect of instructions upon responses to pictures of the PF Study type.  I t was hypothesized that when subjects are  directed t o respond f o r , and presumably to i d e n t i f y with, the pictured characters, there i s less censoring of responses  than  when subjects are questioned as to t h e i r own presumed behavior i n the depicted situations. I t was hypothesized, further, that one type of response l i k e l y to be withheld when the questioning procedure i s employed i s a response i n d i c a t i n g h o s t i l i t y toward fellow men. In order to test the hypotheses,  5 8 university  students were given a set of pictures under PF Study i n s t r u c t i o n s , and an alternate set administered i n questionnaire fashion. For half the subjects, the order of presentation of pictures, but not of instructions, was reversed.  A l l responses  were scored according to the same c r i t e r i a , and subjected t o s t a t i s t i c a l analysis i n order that the e f f e c t s of differences i n  41  i n s t r u c t i o n s , p i c t u r e s and groups o f s u b j e c t s might be estimated. The r e s u l t s o f t h e experiment l e n d s u p p o r t t o both hypotheses,  t h e main f i n d i n g s b e i n g as  follows:  1. When t h e p i c t u r e s were a d m i n i s t e r e d under q u e s t i o n n a i r e r a t h e r t h a n PF S t u d y i n s t r u c t i o n s , t h e gave fewer responses  i n d i c a t i n g t h a t blame f o r f r u s t r a t i o n  a g g r e s s i v e l y a t t r i b u t e d t o a n o t h e r p e r s o n , and a number o f r e s p o n s e s  subjects is  greater  i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , when f r u s t r a t e d ,  the  s u b j e c t t a k e s i t upon h i m s e l f t o t r y t o overcome t h e obstacle. 2 . The o b s e r v e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n f r e q u e n c y o f E and i r e s p o n s e s ,  e l i c i t e d under d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n s , were  s u f f i c i e n t l y g r e a t t o produce s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean scores for three major-scoring categories:  Extrapunitiveness,  E g o - d e f e n s i v e n e s s and N e e d - p e r s i s t e n c e . B e f o r e d r a w i n g t h e main i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s e x p e r i m e n t , i t s h o u l d be emphasized t h a t v a r i a b l e s o t h e r  than  t h e main e x p e r i m e n t a l v a r i a b l e were found t o have been o p e r a t i n g i n the experiment.  T h e r e f o r e , a l t h o u g h i t was  p o s s i b l e , by t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s t a t i s t i c a l t e c h n i q u e s , consider the e f f e c t s  to  o f each i n i s o l a t i o n from t h e o t h e r s ,  the  f i n d i n g s a r e n o t as c o n c l u s i v e as w o u l d be t h e c a s e , had t h e s e  43  extraneous variables not been working t o produce s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s . Keeping these considerations i n mind, then, the major implications of t h i s experiment are: 1. The type of instructions used with pictures of the PF Study type may decisively- a f f e c t t e s t r e s u l t s . 2.  One type of response which subjects  sometimes withhold, when questioned d i r e c t l y as to t h e i r behavior i n f r u s t r a t i n g situations, i s a response i n d i c a t i n g that the subject aggressively blames another person f o r having frustrated h i s needs. 3« One type of response which i s e l i c i t e d more frequently by d i r e c t questioning than by the use of PF Study instructions i s a response i n d i c a t i n g that, i n f r u s t r a t i n g situations, the subject takes i t upon himself to seek a solution to the problem. 4« I f responses e l i c i t e d under PF Study instructions be considered more v a l i d indicators of behavior i n f r u s t r a t i n g situations, then the findings o f t h i s experiment suggest that, f o r some subjects, d i r e c t questioning e l i c i t s . responses i n d i c a t i n g that the subject i s l e s s frequently h o s t i l e toward fellow men, and more frequently w i l l i n g t o accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r overcoming obstacles, than i s a c t u a l l y the case. I t would seem that subjects who tend to censor  44 t h e i r i n are  responses,  h y p o t h e t i c a l r e q u i r e d  when  s i t u a t i o n s ,  t o  answer  5. s t r u c t u r e the i s  the  r e s u l t s basic  of  questioned  t e s t  for  Since  do  PF  most  t h e o r e t i c a l  techniques,  that  the  the  t e s t  v a r i e s  s i t u a t i o n .  than  a  w i t h  about  l e s s e r  extent  i n s t r u c t i o n s  questionnaire  support  power the  t h e i r  behavior when  they  characters.  the  discussions  r e v e l a t o r y  i n v e r s e l y  to  Study  experiment  to  technique  so  p i c t u r e d  s i t u a t i o n  t h i s  d i r e c t l y  of  degree  l e s s  to  i n s t r u c t i o n s ,  hypothesis,  of a  do  which  p r o j e c t i v e d i a g n o s t i c of  s t r u c t u r i n g  of  CHAPTER VIII  IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH  The conclusions and implications of the present study should be taken as tentative, and as requiring f o r t h e i r f i n a l confirmation further experimentation. Since several variables were found to have operated i n the experiment,  i t is  possible that there were i n t e r a c t i v e effects among them which have gone undetected. I t i s suggested, therefore, that the experiment be repeated (a) with l a r g e r groups of subjects, and (b) using a design which permits control of the temporal position of test i n s t r u c t i o n s . I f , by such a procedure,  these  variables could be e f f e c t i v e l y controlled, then any observed differences could be a t t r i b u t e d to the main independent  variable  with more j u s t i f i c a t i o n than was possible i n the present study. The present study has provided some support for the commonly held assumption  that responses are censored to  a lesser extent when projective rather than questionnaire methods are employed. However, even i f t h i s assumption  be correct,  the question remains as to the possible i n v a l i d a t i n g effects of  45  46  censorship upon the interpretation of data obtained by the Picture-association and other projective methods. I t i s suggested that t h i s problem be investigated by comparing findings from these techniques with observational data. Findings from the Rosenzweig PF Test, f o r example, might be compared with data obtained by observing the behavior of subjects i n a number of f r u s t r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s . The problem of censorship of responses i s must be subjected to much more experimental investigation before personality tests can be expected to be f u l l y s a t i s f a c t o r y diagnostic  instruments.  47  REFERENCES  1.  ADAMS,  C.R.  A  2.  ALLPORT,  G.W.  A  ALLPORT, New  4.  G.W.  5.  CLARKE,  t e s t  Henry  R.G.  Person.  of  J . ,  H.J.  for  p e r s o n a l i t y .  J .  a p p l .  ascendance-submission.  P e r s o n a l i t y :  York:  BERNREUTER,  measure  J .  abn.  1928, 23, 118-136.  P s y c h o l . .  3.  new  1941, 25, 141-151-  P s y c h o l . ,  et  Rosenzweig  Holt  a  and  V a l i d i t y  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Co.,  of  the  I n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  1937.  p e r s o n a l i t y  inventory.  1933, 11, 383-386. a l .  The  r e l i a b i l i t y  P i c t u r e - F r u s t r a t i o n  of  the  Study.  s c o r i n g  of  J .  c l i n .  i n  response  the  P s y c h o l . ,  1947, 3, 364-370. 6.  EISENBERG, and  P.  items.  7.  ELLIS,  A.  J .  ELLIS,  A.  A  phrasing Monogr.,  9.  FOSBERG, the Res.  10.  FOSBERG,  of  p e r s o n a l i t y  L947, 61, 3•  I.A.  An  Exch.,  I.A.  of  Consistency of  psychoneurotic  1941, 32, 321-338.  p e r s o n a l i t y  the  experimental  use  do  of  study  1941, 5, 72-84.  How  q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .  d i r e c t  and  questionnaires.  psychodiagnostic  Test?  and  i n v e n t o r y  1946, 43, 385-440.  comparison i n  A.  P s y c h o l . ,  v a l i d i t y  B u l l . ,  Rorschach  Rorschach  WEISMAN,  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n educ.  The  Psychol.  8.  AND  l o g i c a l  subjects Rorschach  of  r e l i a b i l i t y  technique.  attempt Res.  the  fake  Exch.,  i n d i r e c t  Psychol.  of  Rorschach  r e s u l t s  on  the  1943, 7, 119-121.  48 11.  FRANK, L . K . P r o j e c t i v e Methods. S p r i n g f i e l d : C h a r l e s C . Thomas and C o . , 1948.  12.  GARRETT, H . E . AND ZUBIN, J . psychological research.  The a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e i n P s y c h o l . B u l l . , 1943? 40,  233-267. 13.  GRANT, D . A . The L a t i n Square p r i n c i p l e i n t h e d e s i g n and a n a l y s i s of p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiments. Psychol. B u l l . ,  1948, 45, 427-442. 14.  GRANT, D . A . The s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f a f r e q u e n t e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n . Am. J . P s y c h o l . , 1949, 62, 119-  122.  15.  GUILFORD, J . P . AND GUILFORD, R . B . P e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s S, E and M, and t h e i r measurement. J . P s y c h o l . ,  1936, 2, 109-127. 16.  HENDRICKSON, G. A t t i t u d e s and i n t e r e s t s o f t e a c h e r s and p r o s p e c t i v e t e a c h e r s . Paper g i v e n b e f o r e S e c t i o n Q, AAAS, A t l a n t i c C i t y , Dec. 27, 1932 ( u n p u b l i s h e d ) .  17.  HUMM, D . G . AND HUMM, K . A . V a l i d i t y o f t h e Humm-Wadsworth Temperament S c a l e . J . P s y c h o l . , 1944, 18, 55-64«  18.  HUNT, H . F .  C l i n i c a l methods: p s y c h o d i a g n o s t i c s .  Ann.  Rev. P s y c h o l . , 1950, 1, 207-220. 19.  KELLY, E . L . et a l . A b i l i t y t o i n f l u e n c e o n e ' s s c o r e on a t y p i c a l paper-and-pencil t e s t of personality.  Char, and P e r s . , 1936, 4, 206-215. 20.  LANDIS, C . AND KATZ, S . E . The v a l i d i t y o f c e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s w h i c h p u r p o r t t o measure n e u r o t i c t e n d e n c i e s .  J . appl. Psychol., 21.  1934, 18, 343-356.  MCKINLEY, J . C et a l . The M i n n e s o t a M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y : V I . The K S c a l e . J . a p p l . P s y c h o l . ,  1948, 12, 20-31.  22.  MCQUITTY, L . L . C o n d i t i o n s a f f e c t i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f personality"questionnaires. J . s o c . P s y c h o l . , 1942,  15, 33-39.  49  23.  MEEHL, P . E . The dynamics o f " s t r u c t u r e d " p e r s o n a l i t y tests. J . c l i n . P s y c h o l . ' , 1 9 4 5 , 1, 296-303.  24-  MEEHL, P . E . AND HATHAWAY, S . R . The K f a c t o r as a suppressor v a r i a b l e i n the Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory. J . a p p l . P s y c h o l . , 1946, 3 0 , 525-564-  25.  METFESSEL, M . P e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s i n m o t i o n p i c t u r e writing. J . a b n . s o c . P s y c h o l . , 1935, 3 0 , 333-347*  26.  OLSON, W.C. The w a i v e r o f s i g n a t u r e i n p e r s o n a l r e p o r t s . J . a p p l . P s y c h o l . , 1936, 2 0 , 442-450.  27-  ROSENZWEIG, S. A n o t e f o r making v e r b a l p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t s more v a l i d . P s y c h o l . R e v . , 1934, 41, 400-401.  28.  ROSENZWEIG, S . A b a s i s f o r t h e improvement o f p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t s w i t h s p e c i a l reference t o the M-F b a t t e r y .  J . a b n . s o c . P s y c h o l . , 1938, 33, 476-488.  29.  ROSENZWEIG, S . The P i c t u r e - a s s o c i a t i o n Method and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n i n a study o f reactions t o f r u s t r a t i o n . J . P e r s . , 1945, 14, 3-23.  30.  ROSENZWEIG, S . e t a l . S c o r i n g samples f o r t h e Rosenzweig P i c t u r e - F r u s t r a t i o n S t u d y . J . P s y c h o l . , 1946, 21, 45-72.  31. ROSENZWEIG> S . e t a l . R e v i s e d s c o r i n g manual f o r t h e Rosenzweig PF S t u d y . J . P s y c h o l . , 1947, 2 4 , 165-208. 32.  ROSENZWEIG, S . I n v e s t i g a t i n g and a p p r a i s i n g p e r s o n a l i t y . I n T . G . Andrews ( E d . ) , Methods o f P s y c h o l o g y . New Y o r k : John W i l e y and Sons, 1948. P p . 539-568.  33.  ROSENZWEIG, S. L e v e l s o f b e h a v i o r i n p s y c h o d i a g n o s i s with s p e c i a l reference to the P i c t u r e - F r u s t r a t i o n S t u d y . Amer. J . Qrthopsychiat. , 1949, 20, 63-72.  34*  ROSENZWEIG, S . Some problems r e l a t i n g t o r e s e a r c h on t h e Rosenzweig P F S t u d y . J . P e r s . , 1950, 18, 303-305.  35. ROSENZWEIG, S. R e v i s e d norms' f o r t h e a d u l t form o f t h e Rosenzweig PF S t u d y .  J . P e r s . , 1950, 18, 344-346.  50  36.  RUCH, F.L. A b i l i t y of adults to fake desirable responses on two personality s e l f - i n v e n t o r i e s and an attempt to develop a " l i e detector" t e s t . Psychol. B u l l . , 1945,  42, 539-540.  37.  SPENCER, D. Frankness of subjects.on personality measures. J . educ. Psychol., 1938, 29, 26-35*  38.  VERNON, P.E. The a t t i t u d e of the subject i n personality t e s t i n g . J . appl. Psychol., 1934, 18, 165-177.  39.  WASHBURNE, J.N. A t e s t of s o c i a l adjustment. Psychol., 1935, 19, 125-144.  40.  WILLOUGHBY, R.R. AND MORSE, M.E. Spontaneous reactions to a personality inventory. Amer. J . Orthopsychiat.,  1936, 6, 562-575-  J . appl.  APPENDIX A  THE SETS OF PICTURES  PICTURE SET  I  Name  Age  Address  Education  Institution  Present date  Birthday  ROSENZWEIG P-F STUDY (Revised Form for Adults)  Instructions  In each of the pictures in this leaflet two people are shown talking to each other. The words said by one person are always given. Imagine what the other person in the picture would answer and write in the blank box the very first reply that comes into your mind. Avoid being humorous. Work as fast as you can.  Copyright, 1948, by Saul Rosenzweig  I'm v e r y s o r r y we s p l a s h e d y o u r clothing just now though we t r i e d h a r d to a v o i d the puddle.  How awful! That was m y mother's f a v o r i t e vase y o u just broke.  u  Y o u can't see a thing.  It's a shame m y c a r had to b r e a k down and make y o u m i s s your t r a i n .  53  I know you've been over twice to fix my radio, but there's s t i l l too much static  You can't go on board to see your friends off without a special pass.  6.  I know i t ' s a cold day, but hot meals are served only betv/een 12 and 2 o'clock  You cheated and you know i t s  7.  Your reservation seems to have been cancelled, and there i s n ' t an available room i n the hotel.  Prctty tight with your money, aren't you.  54  I can't see you this morning even though we made the arrangement yesterday.  Too bad, partner. We'd have won after your swell playing if I hadn't made that stupid mistake.  She should have been here 10 minutes ago.  You had no right to try and pass me.  This is a fine time to have lost the keys!  I'm s o r r y — we just sold the last one.  55  PICTURE SET II  We've been here f i v e minutes now, and she s t i l l hasn't come to take our order.  I can't cash your chocquo without better proof of your identity.  You would lose the tickets 5 ., and they are sold out now.  57 T h i s i s the t h i r d time I've had to b r i n g b a c k this b r a n d new watch which I bought only a week ago~it always stops as soon as I get home  Aren't you being a little too f u s s y ?  The l i b r a r y rules permit you to take only two books at a t i m e .  Your girl friend invited me to the dance tonight-she s a i d you weren't going.  Perhaps you do need your umbrella but you will have to wait until this afternoon when the manager comes  You're a liar and you know it!  Pardon me-the operator gave me the wrong number,  If this isn't your hat, F r e d Brown must have walked off with it by mistake and left his.  '5M  58 The woman about whom you are saying those mean things was in an accident yesterday and is now in the hospital.  It's Auntie. She wants us to wait awhile until she can get here to give us her blessing again.  Did you hurt yourself?  Here's your newspaper I borrowed— I'm sorry the baby tore it.  O h ,  d e a r ?  y o u r a s h •a  h a s  h o l e  n e w  . .  I t ' s  c i g a r e t t d burnedf i n  h a r d  s t u d y o t h e r  o u r  a r e  t o  w h i l e p e o p l e t a l k i n g .  c h e s t e r -  f i e l d .  The  w a y  d r i v e , c a r l a s t  y o u  I ' m  t h i s  s o r r y "  k n o c k e d  w o n ' t ' l o n g I  19,  I  t h o s e  p a r c e l s  o u t  o f  a r m .  y o u r  20.  59  APPENDIX B  THE INSTRUCTIONS  61  INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE ROSENZWEIG PF STUDY  In each of the pictures i n t h i s l e a f l e t two are shown t a l k i n g to each other. person are always given.  people  The words said by one  Imagine what the other person  i n the picture would answer and write i n the blank box the very f i r s t r e p l y that comes into your mind. being humorous.  Work as fast as you can.  Avoid  QUESTIONNAIRE TYPE INSTRUCTIONS  Many of the pictures i n t h i s l e a f l e t w i l l remind you of your own actual experiences. Write i n the blank box i n each picture the answer which represents your usual reaction. Do t h i s spontaneously and t r u t h f u l l y . I f the s i t u a t i o n has not been experienced, endeavor to f e e l yourself into i t and respond on the basis of what you believe your reaction would be. humorous.  Avoid being  APPENDIX C  SCORING FORM  64 SET I I  SET I  No, "j  0-D  E-D  N-P  No.  0-D  E-D  N-P  1  0 _ f  2 3  2 to i  1  7  &  7  i 3  8  !9 I 10 j .  9. 10  12  12  11 13 14  ~ r-:  11  0  ItS  1?  17 18  20  19 20  j  I 1  APPENDIX D  ALLPORT AS STUDY ITEMS  66 Name  ^  Score  Age  A-S  REACTION  STUDY  D i r e c t i o n s : ""Most of these s i t u a t i o n s w i l l T e p r o s e n t to you your"'own a c t u a l oxporioncos. Reply t o the questions spontaneousl y and t r u t h f u l l y by chocking the answer which most nearly"' r e p r e s e n t s your u s u a l r e a c t i o n . I f a s i t u a t i o n has not been experienced, endeavor to f e e l y o u r s e l f i n t o i t and respond on the b a s i s of what you b e l i e v e your r e a c t i o n would be. 1.  At church, a l e c t u r e , or an entertainment, i f you a r r i v e a f t e r the. program has commenced and f i n d t h a t t h e r e aro people s t a n d i n g , b u f a l s o that there are f r o n t seats a v a i l a b l e which might bo secured without " p i g g i s h n e s s " or d i s c o u r t e s y , but w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e cons'picuousness, do you take thq seats? habitually occasionally never  2.  a) At a r e c e p t i o n or tea do you seek t o moot the important person present? usually  ' ]:  occasionally never b) Do you f e e l r e l u c t a n t to meet him? yes, u s u a l l y sometimos no-  • -•  67 3. A salesman takes m a n i f e s t t r o u b l e to show you a q u a n t i t y of merchandise; you are not e n t i r e l y s u i t e d ; do you f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o say "No ? :!  yes, as a r u l e sometimes no 4. a) A p r o f e s s o r or l e c t u r e r "asks any one i n the audience, say of 20 or more people, to v o l u n t e e r an i d e a to s t a r t d i s c u s s i o n . You have what appears t o be a good i d e a , do you speak out? habitually occasionally rarely never b) Do you f e e l s e l f - c o n s c i o u s when you speak under circumstances?  such  very moderately not a t a l l 5. You have heard i n d i r e c t l y that ah acquaintance has been spreading rumors' about"you which, though n o t " l i k e l y t o be s e r i o u s in"'consequence, a r c ' n e v e r t h e l e s s u n j u s t i f i e d and d i s t i n c t l y uncomplimentary. The acquaintance i s an equal o f yours i n every.way. Do you u s u a l l y !,  have i t out" w i t h the person  l e t i t pass without any f e e l i n g tako revenge  indirectly  f e e l d i s t u r b e d but l e t i t pass  6. Someone t r i e s to push ahead of you i n l i n o . You have boon w a i t i n g f o r some time, and can't wait much longer. • Suppose the i n t r u d e r i s the same sex as y o u r s e l f , do you u s u a l l y remonstrate ;t  w i t h the i n t r u d e r  16ok daggers" a t the i n t r u d e r or "mako c l e a r l y a u d i b l e comments to your neighbor  docido not to wait, and go away do nothing 7.  Do you f e o l s e l f - c o n s c i o u s i n the prcsoncc of s u p e r i o r s i n tho academic or b u s i n e s s world? markedly •  HI.  .  somewhat not at a l l 8.  Some p o s s o s s i o n ' o f yours i s being worked upon a t a" r e p a i r shop. You c a l l f o r i t a t tho time a p p o i n t e d , ~ but the r e p a i r man informs you that ho has " o n l y j u s t begun work on i t " . Is your customary r e a c t i o n to u p b r a i d him to oxpress d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n m i l d l y to smother your f e e l i n g s  9.  entirely  You are a t a mixed p a r t y whero about h a l f the people are' f r i e n d s of yours. The a f f a i r becomes very d u l l , and somet h i n g should bo done to o n l i v o n i t . You have an i d e a . Do you u s u a l l y tako the i n i t i a t i v e i n c a r r y i n g i t out pass i t on to another to put i n t o e x e c u t i o n say n o t h i n g about i t  69  10, Have'you crossed the s t r e e t t o avoid meeting some person? " f requcntly :  occasionally never 11, I f you h o l d an o p i n i o n the r o v c r s o of that"which tho l e c t u r e r has expressed i n c l a s s , do you u s u a l l y v o l u n t c o r your o p i n i o n i n class after class not a t a l l 1 2 . When an a c c i d e n t or f i r e occurs where many people a r o proscnt besides y o u r s e l f do you u s u a l l y take an a c t i v e p a r t i n a s s i s t i n g take the p a r t o f a s p e c t a t o r leave the scene a t once  APPENDIX E  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR NINE MINOR SCORING CATEGORIES  71  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SCORES FOR 58 UNIVERSITY STUDENTS RESPONDING TO TWO SETS OF PICTURES UNDER TWO CONDITIONS OF ADMINISTRATION, GROUPED ACCORDING TO NINE SCORING CATEGORIES  Source of Variation  df  Sum o f Squares  Mean Square  Level of Confidence  F  Obstacle-dominant Extrapunitiveness (E-) Order Pictures Instructions Ss within order Error Total  1 1 1 56  0.17 0.95 2.23 105.10 66.55  115  175-00  0.17 0.95 2.23 1.88 1.19  —  -  1.87 1.58  low low low low  Ego-defensive Extrapunitiveness (E)  1 Order Pictures 1 Instructions 1 Ss within order 56 _56 Error  41-76 15-50 25.14 322.84 157.07  115  562.31  Total  41.76 15.50 25.14 5.76  14.91 5-53 8>97 2.06  .01 .05 .01 low  2.80  Need-persistent Extrapunitivenes s (e)  1 Order Pictures 1 Instructions 1 Ss within order 56 Error. _56  0.02 0.03 0.88 67.66 56.11  115  124.70  Total  0.02 0.03 0.88 1.21 1.00  -  1.21  low low low low  72  ANALYSIS  OF  VARIANCE  FOR  NINE  MINOR  SCORING  CATEGORIES  (CONTINUED)  Source  of  Sum  V a r i a t i o n  df  of  Squares  Mean Square  Level  of  F  Confidence  2.39 33-66  low  Obstacle-dominant Intropunitiveness  ( I  1  )  E r r o r  1 1 1 56 J6  1.46 20.53 0.55 46.03 34.44  T o t a l  115  103.01  Order P i c t u r e s I n s t r u c t i o n s Ss  w i t h i n  order  1.46 20.53 0.55  .01  1.34  low  4.60 10.98 3-98 1.45 1.25  3.67 8.76  low  3-18  low  2.21 9.05 20.19 2.75 1.76  1.26 5.14 11.47 1.56  0.82  0.61  low  Ego-defensive Intropunitiveness  (I)  Error  1 1 1 56 _56  T o t a l  115  Order P i c t u r e s I n s t r u c t i o n s Ss  w i t h i n  order  4.6O 10.98 3-98 80.99  70.16  1.16  .01 low  170.71  Need-persistent Intropunitiveness  ( i )  E r r o r  1 1 1 56 J6  2.21 ' 9.05 20.19 154.20 98.58  T o t a l  115  284-23  Order P i c t u r e s I n s t r u c t i o n s Ss  w i t h i n  order  low  .05 .01 low  73  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR NINE MINOR SCORING CATEGORIES (CONTINUED)  Source of Variation  df  Sum of Squares  Mean Square  Level of Confidence  F  Obstacle-dominant Impunitiveness (M ) 1  Order Pictures Instructions Ss within order Error Total Ego-defensive Impunitiveness  1 1 1 56 56  0.00 6.19 0.50 50.01  0.00 6.19  40.07  0.72  115  96.77  0.50 0.89  8.60  -  1.24  low .01 low low  (M)  Order Pictures Instructions Ss within order Error Total  .1 1 1 56 56 115  0.00 0.54 0.00 102.15 80.31  0.00 0.54 0.00 1.82 1.43  1.27  low low low low  0.99 92.31 1.51 1.20  low .01 low low  -  -  183.00  Need-persistent Impunitiveness (m) Order Pictures Instructions Ss within order Error Total  1 1 1 56 56 115  1.37  128.31  2.10 93-64 77-98  303.40  1-37 128.31 2.10 1.67 1-39  

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.831.1-0107029/manifest

Comment

Related Items