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 IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF • THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department o f PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOLOGY We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the s tandard r e q u i r e d from candidates f o r the degree o f MASTER OF ARTS Members o f the Department o f Ph i lo sophy and Psychology THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1951 A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF PROJECTIVE AND QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS UPON RESPONSES TO PICTURES OF THE ROSENZWEIG PF STUDY TYPE A b s t r a c t 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 the PF Study t y p e . I t was hypothes ized t ha t when sub jec t s are d i r e c t e d t o respond 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 , they would g ive more unfavorab le responses than when ques t ioned d i r e c t l y as t o t h e i r own presumed behav io r i n the dep ic ted . s i t u a t i o n s . I t was hypo thes i zed , f u r t h e r , t ha t one type o f response l i k e l y t o be w i t h h e l d when the q u e s t i o n i n g 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 f e l l o w men. In order to t e s t the hypotheses, 58 u n i v e r s i t y s tudents were g iven a se t o f p i c t u r e s under PF Study i n s t r u c t i o n s , and an a l t e r n a t e se t admin i s t e r ed i n ques t i onna i r e f a s h i o n . For h a l f the sub jec t s the order 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 not o f i n s t r u c t i o n s , was r eve r sed . A l l responses were scored a c c o r d i n g to the same c r i t e r i a , and sub jec ted t o s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s i n order tha t the e f f ec t s 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 sub jec t s might be e s t ima ted . The r e s u l t s o f the experiment l e n d support to both hypotheses, the main f i n d i n g s be ing as f o l l o w s : 1. When the p i c t u r e s were admin i s t e r ed under q u e s t i o n n a i r e r a t h e r than PF Study i n s t r u c t i o n s , the sub jec t s gave fewer responses i n d i c a t i n g tha 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 pe r son , and a g rea te r number o f responses 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 sub jec t takes i t upon h i m s e l f t o t r y t o overcome the o b s t a c l e . 2 . The observed d i f f e r e n c e s i n frequency o f these two types o f response , 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 great 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 f o r th ree o f Rosenzweig '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 , Ego-defensiveness and Need-pe r s i s t ence . 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 the 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 . Ques t ionna i re i n s t r u c t i o n s , by d i r e c t i n g the sub jec t t o i n d i c a t e h i s own presumed behavior 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 end to put the sub jec t on the de fens ive . S ince the sub jec t must c o n s c i o u s l y acknowledge each response as h i s own, the p r o d u c t i o n o f two types o f response i s p revented : (a) a response which t he sub jec t i s u n w i l l i n g t o acknowledge as h i s own, and (b) a response w h i c h m a k e s m a n i f e s t a f e e l i n g o r w i s h w h i c h d o e s n o t n o r m a l l y -e n t e r t h e s u b j e c t ' s a w a r e n e s s , t h a t i s , 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 a b l e t o a c k n o w l e d g e a s h i s o w n . T h e m a i n c o n c l u s i o n s a n d 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 w e r e : 1 . T h e t y p e o f i n s t r u c t i o n s u s e d w i t h p i c t u r e s o f t h e P F S t u d y t y p e m a y d e c i s i v e l y a f f e c t t e s t r e s u l t s . 2* O n e t y p e o f r e s p o n s e w h i c h s u b j e c t s s o m e t i m e s w i t h h o l d , w h e n q u e s t i o n e d d i r e c t l y a s t o t h e i r b e h a v i o r i n f r u s t r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s , i s a r e s p o n s e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e s u b j e c t a g g r e s s i v e l y b l a m e s a n o t h e r p e r s o n 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 . 3. *-he t y p e o f r e s p o n s e w h i c h i s e l i c i t e d m o r e f r e q u e n t l y b y d i r e c t q u e s t i o n i n g t h a n b y t h e u s e o f P F S t u d y i n s t r u c t i o n s i s a r e s p o n s e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , i n f r u s t r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s , t h e s u b j e c t t a k e s i t u p o n h i m s e l f t o s e e k a s o l u t i o n t o t h e p r o b l e m . 4* I f r e s p o n s e s e l i c i t e d u n d e r P F S t u d y i n s t r u c t i o n s b e c o n s i d e r e d m o r e v a l i d i n d i c a t o r s o f b e h a v i o r i n f r u s t r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s , t h e n t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h i s e x p e r i m e n t s u g g e s t t h a t , f o r s o m e ' s u b j e c t s , d i r e c t q u e s t i o n i n g e l i c i t s r e s p o n s e s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e s u b j e c t i s l e s s f r e q u e n t l y h o s t i l e t o w a r d f e l l o w m e n , a n d m o r e f r e q u e n t l y w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r o v e r c o m i n g o b s t a c l e s , t h a n i s a c t u a l l y t h e c a s e . 5. S i n c e P F S t u d y i n s t r u c t i o n s d o l e s s t o s t r u c t u r e t h e t e s t s i t u a t i o n 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 , t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s e x p e r i m e n t s u p p o r t t h e h y p o t h e s i s , w h i c h i s b a s i c . t o m o s t t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n s o f p r o j e c t i v e t e c h n i q u e s , t h a t t h e r e v e l a t o r y p o w e r o f a d i a g n o s t i c t e c h n i q u e v a r i e s i n v e r s e l y w i t h t h e d e g r e e o f s t r u c t u r i n g o f t h e t e s t s i t u a t i o n . ACKNOWLEDGMENT The writer is indebted to his advisor, Mr. D.T. Kenny, for helpful criticism and encouragement, to his colleague, Mr. G.K. Johnson, for time spent in scoring several hundred responses, and to his fifty-eight assistants, for serving as subjects. C O N T E N T S - 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 The Sets of Pictures B The Instructions C Scoring Form D Allport AS Study Items E Analysis of Variance for Nine Minor Scoring Categories T A B L E S A N D F I G U R E S T A B L E P A G E I C o m p a r i s o n o f S c o r i n g o f 400 R e s p o n s e s by -E x p e r i m e n t e r a f t e r T h r e e W e e k s w i t h O r i g i n a l S c o r i n g 19 I I C o m p a r i s o n o f E x p e r i m e n t e r ' s S c o r i n g a n d S c o r i n g b y a S e c o n d E x a m i n e r f o r 400 R e s p o n s e s 21 I I I M e a n S c o r e s a n d . S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r 58 U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t s R e s p o n d i n g t o T w o S e t s o f P i c t u r e s u n d e r T w o 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 24 I V A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f S c o r e s f o r 58 U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t s R e s p o n d i n g t o ' T w o S e t s o f P i c t u r e s U n d e r T w o 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 26 V F r e q u e n c i e s o f R e s p o n s e s o f 58 U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t s t o P i c t u r e s A d m i n i s t e r e d u n d e r T w o C o n d i t i o n s , C l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o N i n e S c o r i n g C a t e g o r i e s 30 F I G U R E I C o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e T w o S e t s o f 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 his personality characteristics when the test situation i s ambiguous than when i t i s well defined, or highly "structured". This hypothesis gains theoretical support from several considerations: (1) a highly structured object, such as a chair, i s , by definition, responded to in a stereotyped manner by most people, whereas less structured materials permit more individual modes of behavior; (2) i n familiar situations there are conventional forms of behavior which, by guiding the individual, conceal as much as they reveal his personality; (3) i f the situation i s ill-defined, 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 less l i k e l y to be guided by a concept of "good response" than i f the situation 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 own personal needs, attitudes and fantasies. In accordance with the projective hypothesis, the materials of projective tests are made 1 2 ambiguous, that i s , they are so constructed as to admit of more varied interpretations than do familiar 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 instructions do less to'^structure" the test situation than do questionnaire instructions, i t was predicted that there would be differences between the responses el i c i t e d by the two techniques. Insofar as the results of this comparison w i l l be relevant to the projective hypothesis, i t was f e l t that this study would have theoretical significance. The practical importance of this investigation derives from the fact that i f responses e l i c i t e d by projective instructions differ 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 c l i n i c i a n using the techniques, may lead to invalid interpretations. One such invalidating factor i s the tendency, on the part of subjects, to censor their responses to personality tests. This i s the tendency to deny expression to certain thoughts, wishes and feelings, or to allow their expression only i n some distorted form. In this sense, not only responses to test situations, but any behavior may be "censored". The 3 problem which is encountered by-the psychologist using diagnostic techniques is 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 is commonly done, by extrapolation from the test situation to everyday situations. If, however, responses have been withheld or distorted to an extent which is not characteristic of the subject in his reactions to everyday happenings, then this must be taken into account by the examiner in his interpretation of test data. The validity of an interpretation of a test record will 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 is 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 its 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 is •social behavior, i t seemed reasonable to suppose that one type of response likely 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 in 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 first question to be investigated was: If 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 is withheld, and what sort of response is offered? Restating these questions in the form of hypotheses to be tested in this experiment, they become: 1. If one set of pictures is administered to a group of subjects under the projective instructions of the Rosenzweig PF Study, and an alternate set administered in questionnaire-fashion, then the sets of responses so elicited will differ to an extent not attributable solely to differences between the two sets of pictures. 2. If subjects are required to respond to a set of pictures under the conditions prescribed by the author of the PF Study, then they will 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 the l a r g e number o f pe r sona l i t y -q u e s t i o n n a i r e s which 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 admi t ted t ha t t he re a re few which have much p r a c t i c a l v a l u e i n i n d i v i d u a l d i a g n o s i s . The yea r s , as Hunt ( 18, p 207 ) s a y s , have not t r e a t e d these techniques i n a k i n d l y manner. One o f t h e i r most important 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 " or " l y i n g " i n one way or another , 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 unconscious s e l f - d e c e p t i o n on the pa r t o f sub jec 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 responses . The p o s s i b i l i t y o f such f a c t o r s hav ing an i n v a l i d a t i n g e f f ec t upon the scores ob ta ined 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 ) , Bernreu te r ( 4 )> E i senbe rg ( 6 ), G u i l f o r d ( 15 ) , Humm ( 17 ) , K e l l y ( 19 ) , Landis ( 20 ), M c K i n l e y ( 21 ) , McQui 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 the assumed advantages o f p r o j e c t i v e methods i s t ha t they a re r e l a t i v e l y l e s s i n f l u e n c e d by such d i s t o r t i n g f a c t o r s , a l though the re have been v e r y few attempts 6 7 to j u s t i f y this assumption experimentally. A number of investigators have concluded that subjects can, and do, censor their responses to personality questionnaires. Hendrickson ( 16 ), cited by Olson ( 26 ), reported that a group of teachers earned significantly more stable, dominant, extraverted and self-sufficient scores on the Bernreuter scales when instructed to take the test as though they were applying for a position, than when under more neutral conditions. Bernreuter ( 4 ) found that college students could produce marked shifts in their Bernreuter scores i n the "socially approved" direction, although he interpreted this finding as indicating the comparative unimportance of the faking tendency. His reasoning was that had the need for giving socially approved responses operated i n the f i r s t administration to any appreciable extent, the effect of special instructions to take this attitude should not have been great. This reasoning seems rather tenuous, inasmuch as the occurence of a shift merely shows that conscious and permitted faking can produce greater effects than those which may have been operating i n the "naive" original testing. The insignificant correlations between naive and faked scores were also used by Bernreuter to support his view, an argument which seems very questionable in 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 their 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 the e f f ec t s o f anonymity on responses t o ques t i onna i r e s and shown tha t the requirement o f s i g n i n g one 's name has a d e f i n i t e e f f e c t on the s c o r e s . K e l l y , M i l e s and Terman ( 19 ) demonstrated the ease w i t h which scores on the Terman-Miles M a s c u l i n i t y -F e m i n i n i t y Test cou ld be "faked" i n e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n once the subjec ts had been l e t i n on the s ec re t o f what the t e s t measured. E l l i s ( 7 ) made a r a t h e r comprehensive rev iew o f f o r t y - t w o experiments designed t o e s t a b l i s h t h i s " f a k i n g " or "ove r -r a t i n g " tendency on the p a r t o f respondents to 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 concluded 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 ove r -r a t i n g o r l y i n g d i d t ake 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 ha t the problem o f censorsh ip o f responses may be o f l e s s s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r some types o f p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t than f o r o thers seems l a r g e l y t o have been i gno red by r e s e a r c h e r s . I n order 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 necessa ry t o compare da ta ob ta ined by t e s t i n g the same group o f sub jec t s by d i f f e r e n t t e chn iques . Thus, E l l i s ( 8 ) compared the use o f d i r e c t p h r a s i n g o f ques t ions w i t h the use o f i n d i r e c t forms o f the same q u e s t i o n s . He found t h a t when ques t ions were changed from the d i r e c t form, " I get angry VERY OFTEN PRETTY OFTEN e t c . " , t o the i n d i r e c t form, " C h i l d r e n 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 thirty-seven 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 is 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 exp lana t ions a r e : ( l ) the sub jec t i s l e s s s e l f - c o n s c i o u s than he i s w h i l e responding to inventory-t e s t s . As Rosenzweig ( 3 2 , p . 63 ) s ays , i n s t e a d o f t a k i n g h i m s e l f as the ob jec t o f o b s e r v a t i o n , the sub j ec t , i n coopera t ion w i t h the c l i n i c i a n , " ' l o o k s the o ther way' a t some ego -neu t r a l ob jec t " ; and (3) the Rorschach t e s t i s so far-removed from s i t u a t i o n s o f everyday l i f e t h a t the sub jec t i s guided t o a l e s s e r extent by convent ion than when he i s t a k i n g a p e r s o n a l i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Whatever the 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 supposing tha t p r o j e c t i v e methods a re l e s s s u s c e p t i b l e t o " d i s t o r t i n g " i n f l u e n c e s , the problem o f censorsh ip i n t e s t s i t u a t i o n s i s one which deserves much exper imenta 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 ha t some p r o j e c t i v e techniques a re i n f l u e n c e d by such f a c t o r s . A sub jec t who, on the 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 convent ion 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 to the woman. Such a p o s s i b i l i t y has been mentioned by Rosenzweig ( 33 ) • The need f o r r e sea rch i n t h i s a r ea , a l though urgen t , has been l a r g e l y unrecognized or i g n o r e d , as a survey o f the cur ren t l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s . CHAPTER I I I EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS, SUBJECTS AND DESIGN M a t e r i a l s The twen ty - four p i c t u r e s o f the Rosenzweig P i c t u r e - F r u s t r a t i o n Study ( 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 twelve p i c t u r e s each. I n an attempt t o improve the (undetermined) r e l i a b i l i t i e s o f the ins t ruments be ing developed, 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 re s i m i l a r t o those o f the PF Study i n s o f a r as t hey have the f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : 1. each i s a c a r t o o n - l i k e drawing d e p i c t i n g two o r more persons who a re 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 occurrence ; 2. the f i g u r e a t the 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 which e i t h e r f r u s t r a t e the o ther i n d i v i d u a l or he lp d e s c r i b e what i s f r u s t r a t i n g him; 3. the person on the r i g h t i s shown under a b lank c a p t i o n box; 4« f a c i a l f ea tures a re omi t t ed , and o ther express ions o f p e r s o n a l i t y , such as s t a t u r e and pos tu r e , a re shown 11 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 se 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) the number o f " superego-b lock ing" s i t u a t i o n s ( s i t u a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g accusa t ions and i n s u l t s ) i s the same f o r each s e t , and (b) the number o f male f i g u r e s shown be ing f r u s t r a t e d i s the same f o r each s e t , as i s the number o f f r u s t r a t e d female f i g u r e s . 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 the PF Study i n the manner shown i n F i g u r e I , and bound i n b o o k l e t form, as shown i n Appendix I . Responses t o a l l the p i c t u r e s were scored f o r both D i r e c t i o n o f Aggress ion and Type o f R e a c t i o n , i n accordance w i t h Rosenzweig 's ( 31 ) c r i t e r i a : Under d i r e c t i o n o f aggress ion i t i s cons idered whether the sub jec t t u rns h i s aggress ion outward upon the environment ( e x t r a p u n i t i v e n e s s ) , tu rns i t inward 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 ) , or avo ids exp re s s ing i t by smoothing over the 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 the subjec t appears t o be b locked a t the v e r y outse t o f the problem (obs tac le -dominance) , whether h e . d w e l l s on the ques t ion o f who i s t o blame f o r the f r u s t r a t i o n (ego-defense) , 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 s o l u t i o n (need -pe r s i s t ence ) . ( 31? P« 364 ) Subjec ts F i f t y - e i g h t sub jec t s 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 elementary c l a s s i n psychology a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia . T h i r t y were male s tuden t s , twenty-FIGURE I COMPOSITION OF THE TWO SETS OF PICTURES Picture Set I Picture Set II Number Source Number Source 1 PF Study, Item 1 1 new 2 II u 2 2 it 3 it II 3 3 n 4 II ti 4 4 it 5 new 5 PF Study, Item 5 6 6 •» 6 7 7 " 8 8 '» " 8 9 9 '» tt 9 10 10 •• " 10 11 11 " 11 12 12 " 12 13 PF Studs Item 13 13 " 21 14 » " 14 14 " 22 15 it it 1 5 15 » " 23 16 .. II L 6 16 11 24 17 17 new 18 it II 1 8 18 II 19 " 11 19 19 it 20 " " 20 20 II L4 e igh t were female s tuden t s . The i r ages ranged 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 , the mean age be ing 20.0 y e a r s , the s tandard d e v i a t i o n , 2.76. A t the t ime o f t e s t i n g , no l e c t u r e s on psychometr ics had been g iven i n the course i n which they were e n r o l l e d . Design o f the Esperiment I n 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 taken i n t o account : 1. I n order t ha t the r e l i a b i l i t y o f the exper imente r ' s s c o r i n g might be taken i n t o account i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the exper imenta l r e s u l t s , t en r e c o r d s , randomly s e l e c t e d , were r e sco red by the exajniner a f t e r th ree weeks. A measure o f agreement between the two se t s o f s c o r e s , based on 400 responses , cou ld then be c a l c u l a t e d . 2. I n order t o determine whether another r a t e r would agree w i t h the exper imente r ' s s c o r i n g , t en records were s e l e c t e d a t random from the p r o t o c o l s o f a l l s u b j e c t s , and scored by a second r a t e r . The percentage agreement between these two se t s o f scores cou ld then be c a l c u l a t e d and used as an es t imate o f i n t e r -s c o r e r r e l i a b i l i t y . 3« The r e l a t i v e s t imu lus " c a r d - p u l l " o f the two se t s o f p i c t u r e s was unknown. One se t might , f o r example, e l i c i t more e x t r a p u n i t i v e responses than the o the r , when c o n d i t i o n s o f administration were-the same for both, '^ he experiment was therefore designed so that the effects of this extraneous variable might be controlled. Half the subjects were given Set I under PF Study-instructions, while the remaining subjects took Set II under these instructions. Similarly, half the subjects took Set I under questionnaire instructions, while the others were given Set II under these instruvtions. 4* In order that the effects of the main experimental variable, namely, type of test instructions, might be investigated, i t was necessary that each subject respond to the pictures under two different sets of instructions. It seemed possible that the i n i t i a l projective instructions might induce a set which would carry over into the second administration of pictures, and so conceal or minimize any difference in the effects of the instructions. Pictures were always to be administered f i r s t under PF Study instructions. 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 Allport AS Study ( 2 ) was given to each subject. The items chosen were considered typical of personality tests of the questionnaire type insofar as they require that the subject indicate how he believes he would behave in a variety of hypothetical situations. It seemed that, by so turning the subject's attention upon himself, the possibility of continuance of any 16 " p r o j e c t i v e " se t might be - e f f e c t i v e l y removed. The two se t s o f i n s t r u c t i o n s are presented i n Appendix B , the A l l p o r t AS Study i tems i n Appendix D. 5. The order 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 responses made to them. In an attempt to c o n t r o l t h i s v a r i a b l e , the se t s o f p i c t u r e s were admin i s t e r ed i n one order f o r h a l f the sub jec t s and i n the r eve r se order f o r the o t h e r s . 6. Randomization o f the sub jec t s t a k i n g the p i c t u r e s i n , t h e d i f f e r e n t orders had t o be e f f e c t e d . This was accompl ished by s t a c k i n g the t e s t m a t e r i a l s i n a random order , i . e . an order 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 then determined which order 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 andomiza t ion , so f a r as age and sex a re concerned, were found to be as f o l l o w s : (a) one group c o n s i s t e d o f four teen male and f i f t e e n female s tuden t s , r ang ing 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 19*45 years and a s tandard d e v i a t i o n o f 1.92; (b) the o ther 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 tuden 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 years and a s tandard d e v i a t i o n o f 3.31. 7« I t was cons idered impor tant t ha t a l l sub jec t s be f u l l y aware o f the p h r a s i n g o f each se t o f i n s t r u c t i o n s . The t e s t s were t he re fo re admin i s t e r ed i n d i v i d u a l l y , w i t h a demonst ra t ion o f 17 the f i r s t item of the f i r s t test as described by Rosenzweig ( 29 )• In brief: the experiment was so designed as to permit the two sets of pictures to be given to the two experimental groups in two orders of presentation and under two sets of instructions, without any bias as to the arrangement of the subjects, the groups, or the orders. CHAPTER IV RELIABILITY OF THE SCORING In t ra -examiner R e l i a b i l i t y I n o rder t h a t the c o n s i s t e n c y o f the exper imen te r ' s s c o r i n g might be es t imated , t en r e c o r d s , randomly s e l e c t e d , were r e sco red by him a f t e r th ree weeks. Table I p resents the r e s u l t s o f a comparison o f the two se t s o f s c o r e s . The examiner d i sagreed 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 ems , or 7 per cent o f the 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 igher f o r the new items ( 9«5$ ) than f o r i tems from the Rosenzweig PF Study ( 5«5$ )• Since 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 Aggress ion and one f o r Type o f R e a c t i o n , separa te measures o f disagreement were c a l c u l a t e d . Table I shows t ha t the examiner d i sagreed 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 Aggres s ion , i n J,% o f the cases , as t o Type o f R e a c t i o n , i n L\% o f the cases , and as t o the u n s c o r a b i l i t y o f the response , i n 1% o f the cases . The va lues f o r percentage agreement ob ta ined by comparing 400 o r i g i n a l scores w i t h scores a s s igned 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 T o t a l Disagreements Items Disagreed Upon Number o f Disagreements Percentage Disagreement PF Study Items 13 5.5 .New Items 15 9-5 A l l Items 28 7 B . Disagreements I n v o l v i n g One S c o r i n g Dimension Only Type o f Number o f Percentage Disagreement. Disagreements Disagreement Disagreement as t o D i r e c t i o n o f Aggress ion 12 3 Disagreement as t o Type o f Reac t ion 17 4 Disagreement as t o U n s c o r a b i l i t y 4 1 20 interval were considered sufficiently 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 in 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 distort the means. Inter-examiner R e l i a b i l i t y In order that an estimate of scorer agreement might be obtained, ten records were scored by a second examiner, and his scores compared with those assigned by the experimenter. Table II shows that the two scorers disagreed on 69 items, or 11% of the responses scored. The disagreement was lower for PF Study items ( 1% ) than for 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 for Direction of Aggression and Type of Reaction. Table II 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 unscorability of the response i n 2% of the cases. TABLE II COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTER•S SCORING WITH SCORING BY A SECOND EXAMINER FOR 400 ITEMS A. Total Disagreements Items Disagreed Number of Percentage Upon Disagreements Disagreement PF Study Items 35 - 5 15 New Items 3 3 . 5 21 A l l Items 69 17 B. Disagreements Involving One Scoring Dimension Only Type of Number of Percentage Disagreement Disagreements Disagreement Disagreement as to Direction of Aggression 35 8 . 5 Disagreement as to Type of Reaction 3 8 9 . 5 Disagreement as to Unscorability 8 2 Although the values reported in Table II suggest that subjective factors played a part in 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 in interpretation by different scorers to a small figure. CHAPTER V THE DATA AND THEIR TREATMENT The b a s i c data on the mean scores and v a r i a b i l i t y ob ta ined by f i f t y - e i g h t u n i v e r s i t y s tudents 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 Table I I I i t would appear t h a t , f o r both groups o f s u b j e c t s : (a) h ighe r E x t r a p u n i t i v e scores were ob ta ined when the p i c t u r e s were admin i s t e r ed under PF Study i n s t r u c t i o n s than when they were admin i s t e r ed i n q u e s t i o n n a i r e f a s h i o n ; (b) h igher Ego-defens ive scores were ob ta ined when PF Study i n s t r u c t i o n s r a t h e r than 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 used; and (c) P i c t u r e Set I e l i c i t e d more Impuni t ive and Need-p e r s i s t e n t responses , and l e s s I n t r o p u n i t i v e and Obstacle-dominant 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 data suggest , t o o , t ha t the group o f sub jec t s r e c e i v i n g p i c t u r e s i n the order I , I I d i f f e r s from the o ther group w i t h r e spec t t o E x t r a p u n i t i v e n e s s and Ego-defens iveness . The ques t ion 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 ince th ree 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 2 4 TABLE III 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 PF Study Instructions Questionnaire Instructions of Pictures M S D M S D Extrapunitiveness I II 8 . 1 9 2 . 6 4 8 . 1 0 2 . 2 5 II I 1 0 . 0 6 2 . 4 2 8 . 2 6 2 . 3 8 Intropunitiveness I II 5 - 3 5 1 . 6 4 6 . 8 4 2 . 0 0 II I 5 - 4 9 1 . 9 0 5 - 1 3 1 . 6 2 Impunitiveness I II 6 . 4 6 2 . 0 6 5 . 0 6 1 . 6 9 II I 4 . 4 4 1 . 7 8 6 . 6 1 1 . 7 6 Obstacle-dominance I II 3 . 2 6 1 . 7 6 4 - 7 3 2 . 1 3 II I 4 . 4 5 0 . 7 2 2 . 9 6 1 . 4 0 Ego-defensiveness I II 1 0 . 3 2 1 . 7 3 8 . 9 9 1 . 6 2 II I 1 0 . 9 1 1 . 8 3 9.80 1 . 9 9 Need-persistence I II 6 . 4 2 1.98 6.28 1 . 7 3 II I 4 . 6 3 1 . 6 7 7 . 2 4 2 . 1 5 25 experiment, namely, instructions, pictures and groups, the analysis of variance technique seemed to be the most practical method of treating the data of Table III. 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 in the manner which he describes. The Problems Treated Problem 1. Were the subjects' mean scores significantly affected by the form of instructions? Table IV presents the analysis of variance applied to the data of Table III. It shows significant F-values for three scoring factors: Extrapunitiveness ( 4«78 ), Ego-defensiveness ( 16.51 ) and Need-persistence ( 26.21 ). It may therefore be stated, with respect to Extrapunitiveness, that there are less than five chances in a hundred that a difference as large as the observed difference for "instructions" would be caused by chance factors. Regarding Ego-defensiveness and Need-persistence, i t may be stated that there i s considerably less than one chance in a hundred that a difference as large as the observed difference for "instructions" would accidentally occur. Another way of interpreting the three significant 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 Sum of Mean Level of Variation . df Squares Square F Confidence Extrapunitiveness Order 1 29.91 29-91 5.54 .01 Pictures 1 21.29 21.29 3.94 low Instructions 1 25-79 25.79 4-78 • 05 Ss within order 56 380.83 6.80 1.26 low Error 56 302.52 5.40 Total 115 760.34 tntropunitiven ess Order 1 17.77 17.77 5-35 .01 Pictures 1 24.77 24.77 •7-46 .01 Instructions 1 9.16 9.16 2.76 low Ss within order 56 189.46 - "3-38 1.02 low Error 56 186.12 3.32 Total 115 427-28 Impunitiveness Order 1 1.57 1.57 0.54 low Pictures 1 91.63 91.63 31-27 .01 Instructions 1 4-29 4.29 I.46 low Ss within order 56 223.87 4.00 1.37 low Error 56 164.62 2.93 Total 115 485-98 27 TABLE IV (CONTINUED) Source of Sum of Mean Level of Variation df Squares Square F Confidence Obstacle-dominance Order 1 2.46 2.46 1.59 low Pictures 1 63-31 63.31 40.85 .01 Instructions 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 low Ss within order 56 207-12 3.70 2.39 low Error 56 86.73 1.55 Total 115 359.63 Sgo-defensiveness Order 1 14.00 14.00 5.36 .01 Pictures 1 O.36 0.36 0.13 low Instructions 1 43-09 43.09 16.51 .01 Ss within order 56 229.00 4.09 1.57 low Error 56 146.37 2.61 Total 115 432.83 Need-persistence Order 1 4-92 4.92 2.89 low Pictures 1 54.76 54-76 32.21 .01 Instructions 1 44-57 44-57 26.21 .01 Ss within order 56 319.13 5.70 3.35 low Error _56 95.35 1.70 Total 115 518.73 28 represented, that, with the influence of pictures and groups eliminated, the mean scores for PF Study instructions are significantly different from the means for questionnaire instructions. This assertion can be made with greater confidence for Ego-defensiveness and Need-persistence than for Extrapunitiveness. Since the results of the analysis suggest that the form of instructions affected the subjects' mean scores for Extrapunitiveness, Ego-defensiveness and Need-persistence, each of these scoring categories w i l l be considered in greater detail: (a) Extrapunitiveness: Extrapunitive responses are of three types: i . obstacle-dominant extrapunitiveness ( the presence of the frustrating obstacle i s insistently pointed out), scored E'; i i . ego-defensive extrapunitiveness (blame, hos 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 frustrating situation i s emphatically expected of someone else ), scored e. The question which arises i s : which of these types of extrapunitive response was most affected by the form of 29 the instructions? Table V shows that, when the pictures were administered under questionnaire instructions rather than PF Study-instructions, 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 for ego-defensive extrapunitiveness, proved to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant ( level of confidence = .01 ). (b) Ego-defensiveness: Ego-defensive responses are also of three types: i . ego-defensive extrapunitiveness ( defined above ), scored E; i i . ego-defensive intropunitiveness ( blame, censure, etc. are directed by the subject upon himself ), scored I j and i i i . ego-defensive impunitiveness ( blame for the frustration i s evaded altogether, the situation being regarded as unavoidable; the frustrating individual i s absolved ), scored M. The question i s : Which of these types of ego-defensive response was most affected by the form of instructions? 1. The analysis of variance for the nine minor scoring categories E', E, e, I 1 , I , i , M', M and m i s presented in Appendix E. The F-values for "instruct-ions" are contained in Table V. 3 0 TABLE V FREQUENCIES OF RESPONSES OF 58 UNIVERSITY STUDENTS TO PICTURES ADMINISTERED UNDER TWO CONDITIONS, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO NINE SCORING CATEGORIES Number of Responses Difference L e v e l Scoring in Number PF Study Questionnaire of ^ o f > Category Instructions Instructions Responses F"^  Significance E 1 111 95 -16 1 .87 low E 330 276 -54 8.97 .01 e 92 102 . +10 - low I» 50 58 + 8 - low I 142 121 -21 3.18 low i 121 170 +49 11.47 .01 M< 60 68 + 8 - low M 147 147 0 - low m 107 123 + 6 1.51 low 1 1 6 0 1160 1. The analysis by which these F-values are derived i s presented i n Appendix E. 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 instructions, 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 significant s t a t i s t i c a l l y , reaching the .01 level of confidence ( Appendix E ). In summary: the observed differences i n mean scores for Extrapunitiveness, Ego-defensiveness and Need-persistence apparently reflect differences i n frequency of two types of response: ego-defensive extrapunitiveness ( E ) and need-persistent intropunitiveness ( i ). Problem 2. Were the subjects' mean scores significantly affected by differences between the sets of pictures? Table IV indicates that differences in pictures effected significant differences in 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 significant at the .01 level of confidence. Problem 3a. Did the order of presentation of pictures produce significant differences in scores? Problem 3b. Did the two groups of subjects'differ sufficiently to produce differences i n their 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 to each. The F-values for "order", in 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 significant for Extrapunitiveness, Intropunitiveness and Ego-defensiveness. It may be stated that, with the influence of pictures and instructions eliminated, the mean score for the group of subjects receiving pictures in the order I, II differs significantly from the mean score for the group taking the pictures in the reverse order, for three scoring factors. 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 intropunitive responses ( scored i ). The observed differences are both s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant at the . 0 1 level of confidence. 2 . The differences in frequencies of E and i responses, due to instructions, were sufficiently great to produce s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant changes in three major scoring categories:. 34 Extrapunitiveness ( significant at .05 ), Ego-defensiveness (significant at .01 ), and Need-persistence ( significant at .01 ). 3» Differences between the two sets of pictures produced significant differences i n mean scores, for four major scoring categories. 4« Even with the influence of pictures and instructions eliminated, the mean score for the group of subjects receiving pictures i n the order I, II differs significantly from the mean score for the group taking the pictures in the reverse order, for three major scoring factors. CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS Since s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant differences were found for instructions, pictures and orders of presentation of pictures, i t may now be asked why they occurred and what they mean. Because the main independent variable i n this experiment was the difference between the two sets of instructions used, differences attributable to i t w i l l be dealt with more extensively than the other observed differences. Interpretation of the Instruction Differences It was found that the subjects of this experiment gave significantly fewer E responses, and a significantly greater number of i responses, when the pictures were administered under questionnaire rather than PF Study instructions. The differences i n frequency of these responses may be attributable mainly to ( l ) temporal position of instructions and / o r (2) differences in instructions. The subjects responded f i r s t to pictures under PF Study instructions, then to pictures under questionnaire 35 36 instructions. It is logically possible, therefore, that the temporal position of the task, rather than differences in 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 is given continued testing by projective techniques, there is 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 in the present experiment, however, i t could not account for the observed differences in responses because i t would have resulted in the production of less acceptable rather than more acceptable types of response. Fatigue, although i t frequently operates temporally in psychological experiments, cannot readily be held responsible for the observed differences in this study. Since there is l i t t l e reason to believe that the difference in temporal position of the instructions was responsible for the observed differences in responses, these would seem to be attributable to differences in instructions. PF Study instructions, then, seem to facilitate the production of responses indicating hostility toward fellow men, or more specifically, responses in which the person aggressively blames someone e l s e f o r hav ing f r u s t r a t e d h i s needs. Ques t ionna i re i n s t r u c t i o n s , on the o ther hand, seem to encourage sub jec t s t o g i v e more responses i n d i c a t i n g t h a t , i n the face o f f r u s t r a t i n g c i rcumstances , the sub jec t takes i t upon h i m s e l f t o f i n d a way o f removing the o b s t a c l e . A comparison o f the two types o f i n s t r u c t i o n s w i l l a i d i n the 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 Study i n s t r u c t i o n s d i r e c t the sub jec t t o respond f o r the p i c t u r e d c h a r a c t e r s , and t o w r i t e down the f i r s t r e p l y t h a t comes t o mind . In so fa r as the sub jec t responds i n the manner i n t ended , there i s l i t t l e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r him to censor h i s responses . Responses which might have been w i t h h e l d , had he been ques t ioned d i r e c t l y , a re g i v e n , s i n c e (a) h i s a t t e n t i o n i s t u rned away from h i m s e l f t o the t e s t m a t e r i a l s , and (b) he g ives f i r s t a s s o c i a t i o n s r a t h e r than c a r e f u l l y eva lua ted responses . Ques t ionna i re i n s t r u c t i o n s , on the o ther hand, 1. The w r i t e r has omi t ted "or t h i n g " from Rosenzweig 's d e f i n i t i o n o f ego-defens ive e x t r a p u n i t i v e n e s s , as g iven on page 28, above. 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 ings" i n the environment were v e r y r a r e l y g iven to the p i c t u r e s used i n t h i s s tudy . In a few cases , aggress ion 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 than two books be taken from the l i b r a r y ( p i c t u r e 6, Set I I ) the f r u s t r a t e d person may d i r e c t aggress ion a t the l i b r a r y . 38 by directing the subject to indicate his own presumed behavior in hypothetical situations, tend to put the subject on the defensive. Since the subject must consciously acknowledge each response as his own, the production of two types of response i s prevented: (a) a response which the subject i s unwilling to acknowledge as his own, and (b) a response which makes manifest a feeling or wish which does not normally enter the subject's awareness, that i s , a response which the subject is unable to acknowledge as his own. It may be asked why only one of the three extrapunitive scores showed a significant 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 total 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. If, for example, response A i s more l i k e l y to be inhibited than response B, and B i s more l i k e l y to be inhibited 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 significant changes: the score representing the most l i k e l y to be inhibited response, and the score representing the most favored response. Applying these considerations to the results of the present experiment, 39 i t i s possible to account for the fact that only two scores were significantly affected by the form of instructions. In brief: The findings of this experiment suggest that when subjects are required to respond to pictures under PF Study instructions, they censor responses to a lesser extent than i s the case when pictures are administered in questionnaire-fashion. If responses el i c i t e d under PF Study instructions be considered more valid indicators of actual behavior in frustrating situations, then i t may be stated that, for some subjects, direct questioning e l i c i t s responses indicating that the subject i s less frequently hostile toward fellow men, and more frequently willing to accept responsibility for overcoming obstacles, than i s actually the case. Interpretation of the Pictures Differences The obtained mean score differences for the two sets of pictures are explicable in 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 to be "parallel" with respect to the frequencies of the various types of response el i c i t e d , i t was not deemed necessary to do so i n the present study since this factor was controlled by the experimental design. 40 Interpretation of the Order of Presentation of Pictures  Differences It was found, by statistical analysis, that the mean score for the group of subjects receiving pictures in the order I, II differed from the mean score for the group taking the pictures in the reverse order, for three major scoring factors. Although i t is logically possible that the observed differences are attributable mainly to the difference in order of presentation of pictures, i t seems more likely that, despite attempts at randomization, subjects in one group differed from those in the other group with respect to the three characteristics being measured, This interpretation seems particularly plausible in view of the small number of subjects in each group. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the effect of instructions upon responses to pictures of the PF Study type. It was hypothesized that when subjects are directed to respond for, and presumably to identify with, the pictured characters, there i s less censoring of responses than when subjects are questioned as to their own presumed behavior i n the depicted situations. It 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 indicating 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 instructions, 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 to s t a t i s t i c a l analysis i n order that the effects 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 sub jec t s might be e s t ima ted . The r e s u l t s o f the experiment l e n d support t o both hypotheses, the main f i n d i n g s be ing as f o l l o w s : 1. When the 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 than PF Study i n s t r u c t i o n s , the sub jec 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 person, and a g rea te r number o f responses 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 sub jec t takes i t upon h i m s e l f t o t r y t o overcome the o b s t a c l e . 2 . The observed d i f f e r e n c e s i n frequency o f E and i responses , 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 great 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 f o r t h ree m a j o r - 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 , Ego-defensiveness and Need-pe r s i s t ence . Before drawing the main i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s experiment , i t should be emphasized t ha t v a r i a b l e s o ther than the main exper imenta l v a r i a b l e were found to have been o p e r a t i n g i n the experiment . Therefore , a l though i t was p o s s i b l e , by the 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 echn iques , t o cons ide r the e f f e c t s o f each i n i s o l a t i o n from the o t h e r s , the f i n d i n g s a re no t as c o n c l u s i v e as would be the case , had these 43 extraneous variables not been working to produce statistically-significant effects. Keeping these considerations i n mind, then, the major implications of this experiment are: 1. The type of instructions used with pictures of the PF Study type may decisively- affect test results. 2 . One type of response which subjects sometimes withhold, when questioned directly as to their behavior i n frustrating situations, i s a response indicating that the subject aggressively blames another person for having frustrated his needs. 3« One type of response which i s eli c i t e d more frequently by direct questioning than by the use of PF Study instructions i s a response indicating that, i n frustrating situations, the subject takes i t upon himself to seek a solution to the problem. 4« I f responses el i c i t e d under PF Study instructions be considered more valid indicators of behavior i n frustrating situations, then the findings of this experiment suggest that, for some subjects, direct questioning e l i c i t s . responses indicating that the subject i s less frequently hostile toward fellow men, and more frequently willing to accept responsibility for overcoming obstacles, than i s actually the case. It would seem that subjects who tend to censor 44 t h e i r r e s p o n s e s , w h e n q u e s t i o n e d d i r e c t l y a b o u t t h e i r 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 , d o s o t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t w h e n t h e y a r e r e q u i r e d t o a n s w e r f o r p i c t u r e d c h a r a c t e r s . 5. S i n c e P F S t u d y i n s t r u c t i o n s d o l e s s t o s t r u c t u r e t h e t e s t s i t u a t i o n 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 , t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s e x p e r i m e n t s u p p o r t t h e h y p o t h e s i s , w h i c h i s b a s i c t o m o s t t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n s o f p r o j e c t i v e t e c h n i q u e s , t h a t t h e r e v e l a t o r y p o w e r o f a d i a g n o s t i c t e c h n i q u e v a r i e s i n v e r s e l y w i t h t h e d e g r e e o f s t r u c t u r i n g o f t h e t e s t s i t u a t i o n . CHAPTER VIII IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The conclusions and implications of the present study should be taken as tentative, and as requiring for their f i n a l confirmation further experimentation. Since several variables were found to have operated i n the experiment, i t i s possible that there were interactive effects among them which have gone undetected. It i s suggested, therefore, that the experiment be repeated (a) with larger groups of subjects, and (b) using a design which permits control of the temporal position of test instructions. If, by such a procedure, these variables could be effectively controlled, then any observed differences could be attributed to the main independent variable with more justification 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 this assumption be correct, the question remains as to the possible invalidating effects of 45 4 6 censorship upon the interpretation of data obtained by the Picture-association and other projective methods. It is suggested that this problem be investigated by comparing findings from these techniques with observational data. Findings from the Rosenzweig PF Test, for example, might be compared with data obtained by observing the behavior of subjects in a number of frustrating situations. 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 satisfactory diagnostic instruments. 47 R E F E R E N C E S 1. A D A M S , C . R . A n e w m e a s u r e o f p e r s o n a l i t y . J . a p p l . P s y c h o l . , 1941, 25, 141-151-2. A L L P O R T , G . W . A t e s t f o r a s c e n d a n c e - s u b m i s s i o n . J . a b n . P s y c h o l . . 1928, 23, 118-136. 3. A L L P O R T , G . W . P e r s o n a l i t y : a P s y c h o l o g i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . N e w Y o r k : H e n r y H o l t a n d C o . , 1937. 4. B E R N R E U T E R , R . G . V a l i d i t y o f t h e p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n t o r y . P e r s o n . J . , 1933, 11, 383-386. 5. C L A R K E , H . J . e t a l . T h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e s c o r i n g o f t h e R o s e n z w e i g P i c t u r e - F r u s t r a t i o n S t u d y . J . c l i n . P s y c h o l . , 1947, 3, 364-370. 6. E I S E N B E R G , P . A N D W E I S M A N , A . C o n s i s t e n c y i n r e s p o n s e a n d a n d l o g i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f p s y c h o n e u r o t i c i n v e n t o r y i t e m s . J . e d u c . P s y c h o l . , 1941, 32, 321-338. 7. E L L I S , A . T h e v a l i d i t y 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 . P s y c h o l . B u l l . , 1946, 43, 385-440. 8. E L L I S , A . A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e u s e o f d i r e c t a n d i n d i r e c t p h r a s i n g i n 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 . P s y c h o l .  M o n o g r . , L947, 61, 3• 9. F O S B E R G , I . A . A n e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d y o f t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e R o r s c h a c h p s y c h o d i a g n o s t i c t e c h n i q u e . R o r s c h a c h  R e s . E x c h . , 1941, 5, 72-84. 10. F O S B E R G , I . A . H o w d o s u b j e c t s a t t e m p t f a k e r e s u l t s o n t h e R o r s c h a c h T e s t ? R o r s c h a c h R e s . E x c h . , 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 : Char les C. Thomas and C o . , 1948. 12. GARRETT, H . E . AND ZUBIN, J . 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 o g i c a l r e s e a r c h . 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 the des ign and a n a l y s i s o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l exper iments . P s y c h o l . 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 frequent exper imenta 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 teachers and p r o s p e c t i v e t eache r s . Paper g iven before S e c t i o n Q, AAAS, A t l a n t i c C i t y , Dec. 27, 1932 ( unpub l i shed ) . 17. HUMM, D . G . AND HUMM, K . A . V a l i d i t y o f the 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 one ' s score on a t y p i c a l p a p e r - a n d - p e n c i l t e s t o f p e r s o n a l i t y . 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 ques t ions which purpor t t o measure n e u r o t i c t endenc ie s . J . a p p l . P s y c h o l . , 1934, 18, 343-356. 21. MCKINLEY, J . C et a l . The Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l -i t y Inven to ry : 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 . Cond i t i ons a f f e c t i n g the v a l i d i t y 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 . J . soc . P s y c h o l ., 1942, 15, 33-39. 49 2 3 . 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 t e s t s . J . c l i n . P s y c h o l . ' , 1945, 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 Inven to ry . J . a p p l . P s y c h o l . , 1946, 3 0 , 525-564-2 5 . METFESSEL, M. P e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s i n motion p i c t u r e w r i t i n g . J . abn. s o c . P s y c h o l . , 1935, 3 0 , 333-347* 26. OLSON, W.C. The waiver o f s igna tu re i n pe r sona 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 note 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 bas i s f o r the 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 r e fe rence t o the M-F b a t t e r y . J . abn. soc . 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 s tudy o f r e a c t i o n s t o f r u s t r a t i o n . J . P e r s . , 1945, 14, 3-23. 3 0 . ROSENZWEIG, S. et a l . S c o r i n g samples f o r the Rosenzweig P i c t u r e - F r u s t r a t i o n S tudy . J . P s y c h o l . , 1946, 21, 45-72. 31. ROSENZWEIG> S. et a l . Revised s c o r i n g manual f o r the Rosenzweig PF Study. J . P s y c h o l . , 1947, 24 , 165-208. 3 2 . 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 . In T . G . Andrews ( E d . ) , Methods o f Psycho logy . New York : John W i l e y and Sons, 1948. Pp. 539-568. 33. ROSENZWEIG, S. Leve l s o f behav ior i n psychodiagnos i s w i t h s p e c i a l r e fe rence t o the P i c t u r e - F r u s t r a t i o n S tudy . Amer. J . Qrthopsychiat., 1949, 20, 63-72. 34* ROSENZWEIG, S. Some problems r e l a t i n g t o r e sea rch on the Rosenzweig PF Study . J . P e r s . , 1950, 18, 303-305. 35. ROSENZWEIG, S. Rev i sed norms' f o r the a d u l t form o f the Rosenzweig PF Study. J . P e r s . , 1950, 18, 344-346. 50 36. RUCH, F.L. Abi l i t y of adults to fake desirable responses on two personality self-inventories and an attempt to develop a " l i e detector" test. Psychol. Bull., 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 attitude of the subject i n personality testing. J. appl. Psychol., 1934, 18, 165-177. 39. WASHBURNE, J.N. A test of social adjustment. J. appl.  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-APPENDIX A THE SETS OF PICTURES P I C T U R E S E T I Name Address Institution Age Birthday Education Present date 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 very s o r r y we splashed your clothing just now though we tried hard to avoid the puddle. How awful! That was my mother's favorite vase you just broke. u You can't see a thing. It's a shame my car had to break down and make you miss your train. 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 . You cheated and you know i t s 7. I know it 's a cold day, but hot meals are served only betv/een 12 and 2 o'clock Your reserva-tion seems to have been can-celled, and there isn't an available room in 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 five minutes now, and she s t i l l hasn't come to take our order. You would lose the tickets 5 ., and they are sold out now. I can't cash your chocquo without better proof of your identity. 57 This is the third time I've had to bring back this brand 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 fussy? The l i b r a r y rules permit you to take only two books at a time. Your g i r l friend invited me to the dance tonight--she said you weren't going. Perhaps you do need your umbrella but you will have to wait until this after-noon when the manager comes You're a liar and you know it! Pardon me--the operator gave me the wrong number, '5M If this isn't your hat, Fred Brown must have walked off with it by mistake and left his. 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 c i g a r e t t d a s h h a s b u r n e d f •a h o l e i n o u r n e w c h e s t e r -f i e l d . I t ' s h a r d t o s t u d y w h i l e o t h e r p e o p l e a r e t a l k i n g . T h e w a y y o u d r i v e , t h i s c a r w o n ' t ' l a s t l o n g I I ' m s o r r y " I k n o c k e d t h o s e p a r c e l s o u t o f y o u r a r m . 1 9 , 2 0 . 59 APPENDIX B THE INSTRUCTIONS 61 INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE ROSENZWEIG PF STUDY 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 f i r s t reply that comes into your mind. Avoid being humorous. Work as fast as you can. QUESTIONNAIRE TYPE INSTRUCTIONS Many of the pictures in this le a f l e t w i l l remind you of your own actual experiences. Write in the blank box in each picture the answer which represents your usual reaction. Do this spontaneously and truthfully. If the situation has not been experienced, endeavor to fee l yourself into i t and respond on the basis of what you believe your reaction would be. Avoid being humorous. APPENDIX C SCORING FORM 64 SET I N o , 0 -D E - D N-P "j 0 f_ 2 to i 1 7 i 3 ! 9 I 10 j . 12 ~ r-: 0 1? 20 SET II N o . 0 -D E - D N-P 1 2 3 & 7 8 9. 10 11 12 13 14 11 ItS j 17 18 19 20 I 1 APPENDIX D ALLPORT AS STUDY ITEMS 66 Name ^ Score Age A-S REACTION STUDY Directions: ""Most of these situations w i l l Teprosent to you your"'own actual oxporioncos. Reply to the questions spontaneous-l y and t r u t h f u l l y by chocking the answer which most nearly"' represents your usual reaction. I f a 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. 1 . At church, a lecture, or an entertainment, i f you ar r i v e a f t e r the. program has commenced and find that there aro people standing, b u f a l s o that there are front seats available which might bo secured without "piggishness" or discourtesy, but with considerable cons'picuousness, do you take thq seats? habitually occasionally never 2 . a) At a reception or tea do you seek to moot the important person present? usually ']: - occasionally never b) Do you f e e l reluctant to meet him? yes, usually sometimos no- • -• 67 3. A salesman takes manifest trouble to show you a quantity of merchandise; you are not e n t i r e l y suited; do you f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t to say "No:!? yes, as a rule sometimes no 4. a) A professor or lec t u r e r "asks any one i n the audience, say of 20 or more people, to volunteer an idea to start discussion. You have what appears to be a good idea, do you speak out? habi t u a l l y occasionally rarely never b) Do you f e e l self-conscious when you speak under such circumstances? very moderately not at 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 to be serious in"'consequence, arc'nevertheless 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 of yours i n every.way. Do you usually !,have i t out" with the person l e t i t pass without any fe e l i n g tako revenge i n d i r e c t l y f e e l disturbed 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 waiting for some time, and can't wait much longer. • Suppose the intruder i s the same sex as yourself, do you usually remonstrate with the intruder ;t16ok daggers" at the intruder or "mako c l e a r l y audible comments to your neighbor docido not to wait, and go away do nothing 7. Do you f e o l self-conscious i n the prcsoncc of superiors i n tho academic or business world? markedly • HI. . somewhat not at a l l 8. Some possossion'of yours i s being worked upon at a" rep a i r shop. You c a l l for i t at tho time appointed, ~ but the r e p a i r man informs you that ho has "only just begun work on i t " . Is your customary reaction to upbraid 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 feelings e n t i r e l y 9. You are at a mixed party whero about half the people are' friends of yours. The a f f a i r becomes very d u l l , and some-thing should bo done to onlivon i t . You have an idea. Do you usually tako the i n i t i a t i v e i n carrying i t out pass i t on to another to put into execution say nothing about i t 69 10, Have'you crossed the street to avoid meeting some person? " f requcntly : occasionally never 11, I f you hold an opinion the rovcrso of that"which tho lecturer has expressed i n class, do you usually voluntcor your opinion i n class a f t e r class not at a l l 12. When an accident or f i r e occurs where many people aro proscnt besides yourself do you usually take an active part i n a s s i s t i n g take the part of a spectator leave the scene at 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 Sum of Mean Level of Variation df Squares Square F Confidence Obstacle-dominant Extrapunitiveness (E-) Order 1 0.17 0.17 — low Pictures 1 0.95 0.95 - low Instructions 1 2.23 2.23 1.87 low Ss within order 56 105.10 1.88 1.58 low Error 66.55 1.19 Total 115 175-00 Ego-defensive (E) Extrapunitiveness Order 1 41-76 41.76 14.91 .01 Pictures 1 15-50 15.50 5-53 .05 Instructions 1 25.14 25.14 8>97 .01 Ss within order 56 322.84 5.76 2.06 low Error _56 157.07 2.80 Total 115 562.31 Need-persistent (e) Extrapunitivenes s Order 1 0.02 0.02 low Pictures 1 0.03 0.03 low Instructions 1 0.88 0.88 - low Ss within order 56 67.66 1.21 1.21 low Error. _56 56.11 1.00 Total 115 124.70 72 A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E F O R N I N E M I N O R S C O R I N G C A T E G O R I E S ( C O N T I N U E D ) S o u r c e o f S u m o f V a r i a t i o n d f S q u a r e s O b s t a c l e - d o m i n a n t I n t r o p u n i t i v e n e s s ( I 1 ) O r d e r 1 1.46 P i c t u r e s 1 20.53 I n s t r u c t i o n s 1 0.55 S s w i t h i n o r d e r 56 46.03 E r r o r J 6 34.44 T o t a l 115 103.01 E g o - d e f e n s i v e I n t r o p u n i t i v e n e s s ( I ) O r d e r 1 4.6O P i c t u r e s 1 1 0 . 98 I n s t r u c t i o n s 1 3 - 9 8 S s w i t h i n o r d e r 56 8 0 . 9 9 E r r o r _56 70.16 T o t a l 115 170.71 N e e d - p e r s i s t e n t I n t r o p u n i t i v e n e s s ( i ) O r d e r 1 2.21 P i c t u r e s 1 ' 9.05 I n s t r u c t i o n s 1 20.19 S s w i t h i n o r d e r 56 154.20 E r r o r J 6 98.58 T o t a l 115 284-23 M e a n L e v e l o f S q u a r e F C o n f i d e n c e 1.46 2.39 l o w 20.53 33-66 .01 0.55 - l o w 0 . 8 2 1.34 l o w 0.61 4.60 3.67 l o w 10.98 8.76 .01 3-98 3 - 1 8 l o w 1.45 1.16 l o w 1.25 2.21 1.26 l o w 9.05 5.14 .05 20.19 11.47 .01 2.75 1.56 l o w 1.76 73 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR NINE MINOR SCORING CATEGORIES (CONTINUED) Source of Sum of Mean Level of Variation df Squares Square F Confidence Obstacle-dominant Impunitiveness (M1) Order 1 0.00 0.00 low Pictures 1 6.19 6.19 8.60 .01 Instructions 1 0.50 0.50 - low Ss within order 56 50.01 0.89 1.24 low Error 56 40.07 0.72 Total 115 96.77 Ego-defensive Impunitiveness (M) Order . 1 0.00 0.00 low Pictures 1 0.54 0.54 - low Instructions 1 0.00 0.00 - low Ss within order 56 102.15 1.82 1.27 low Error 56 80.31 1.43 Total 115 183.00 Need-persistent Impunitiveness (m) Order 1 1.37 1-37 0.99 low Pictures 1 128.31 128.31 92.31 .01 Instructions 1 2.10 2.10 1.51 low Ss within order 56 93-64 1.67 1.20 low Error 56 77-98 1-39 Total 115 303.40 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0107029/manifest

Comment

Related Items