new USE om Room. 1525 mm ABSTRACT SELF PERCEPTIONS AND PERCEPTIONS OF SELECTED BIBLE CHARACTERS: A STUDY OF DEPRESSED PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS by William L. Hiemstra The study was designed to determine possible differences in a measure of self-regard (measured by Actual Self and Ideal Self tetra- choric correlation coefficients) between normals (30), depressed patients (30), and nondepressed patients (30) in a church-related general psychiatric hospital. _S_s were members of a Protestant sub- culture and were equated for age and education. The study also sought to determine if the groups differed in perceptions and choices of Most and Least Preferred Bible Character. _S_s ranked, in relation to psychological affinity, ten selected Bible characters, empirically derived from a preliminary project involving a different sample from the same sub-culture. They also marked an empirically derived adjective check list indicating their perceptions of Bible Character No. 1 Most Preferred, Bible Character No. 10 Least Preferred, Your Self As You See Yourself, and Your Self As You Would Like To Be. The discrimination of depressed and nondepressed (within the hospitalized sample) was done by attending psychiatrists who gave a diagnostic evaluation of symptomatology (qualitative, quantitative, observability) on a four point scale (1 = none, 2 = little, 3 = some, 4 2 much). The mean diagnostic evaluations were: depressed C21. 3. 366, Qt. 3.1, Ob. 3., and nondepressed 01. 3.3. Qt. 3.2, Ob. 2.8. William L. Hiemstra 2 As a secondary criterion for depression the 12 scale of the MMPI was administered to all _Ss resulting in mean T scores: normals 50. , depressed 88. 3, and nondepressed 68. 57. _z_' transformations led to a 3 test of the significance of the dif- ference between rt's of independent samples and the t_ test was used to test the significance of the difference between rt's of non-independent groups. Spearman rs' were used to test for significant differences in choices of Most and Least Preferred Bible Character. One-tailed, . 05 level of significance tests were used for accepting or rejecting the hypotheses. Eight hypotheses were studied with the following results: The rt of Actual Self and Ideal Self was significantly greater for normals than depressed, confirming the findings of Rogers (1951), Chodorkoff (1954), Rayrnaker (1956), Chase (1956), Aspromonte (1959), and Gavales (1960). The rt was not significantly greater for the non- depressed than for the depressed. The rt of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character for all _S_s was . 84rt. Normals did not differ from depressed, and the rela- tionship was not greater for the nondepressed over depressed. The rt of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character was significantly greater than rt of Actual Self and Most Preferred Bible Character for all _S_s. The difference was greater for depressed than normals and nondepressed. The rt of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character was significantly greater than the rt of Ideal Self and Least PreferredrBible Character for all _S_s. The difference was greater for normals than depressed, but the difference was not greater for the nondepressed than depressed. . The rt of Actual Self and Most Preferred Bible Character was significantly greater than rt of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible William L. Hiemstra 3 Character for all Es; the difference was greater for normals than depressed, and the difference was greater for nondepressed than depressed. Depressed did not differ significantly from normals or nonde- pressed on rt Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character. Depressed did not differ significantly in choice of Most Preferred Bible Character from total normal or nondepressed groups. The sex variable causes a significant difference when all small groups are com- pared. Depression affects the specific choice of Most Preferred Bible Character, when controlling for the sex variable, even though it does not affect significantly the perception of Most Preferred Bible Character. Distortion (there were 13 diagnosed schizophrenics in the 30 nondepressed) accounted for significant differences of nondepressed from depressed in choice of Most Preferred Bible Character. Depressed did not differ significantly in choice of Least Pre- ferred Bible Character from normals or nondepressed. The sex vari- able affected the rs only when 1_\I_ was large. The sex variable caused rs' below level of significance on the Sums of Rank Order of all ten Bible characters. The investigation suggests the following conclusions: 1. Depression affects a measure of self-regard in hospitalized psychiatric patients whose major symptomatology is depression. 2. Depression does not significantly affect perceptions of Ideal Self, Most Preferred Bible Character, or Least Preferred Bible Character. 3. Depression affects the choice of Most Preferred Bible Character but does not affect choice of Least Preferred Bible Character. 4. There is a measure of secondary depression in hospitalized psychiatric patients whose major symptomatology is not depression. William L. Hiemstra 4 5. There is probable distortion in the perceptions of schizophrenic patients. 6. The sex variable is most consistently discriminating in causing significant differences in choice of Most and Least Preferred Bible Character, and in the total rank order of the ten selected Bible characters. SELF PERCEPTIONS AND PERCEPTIONS OF SELECTED BIBLE CHARACTERS: A STUDY OF DEPRESSED PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS s William LO. Hiem stra A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Guidance and Personnel Services College of Education 1964 To: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dr. John E. Jordan for his interest, encouragement, and guidance during this study. My doctoral committee which included Dr. John E. Jordan, Chairman, Dr. Jean Le Pere, Dr. James W. Costar, and Dr. Alfred G. Dietze. They have given guidance and encourage- ment during the progress of the study. Mr. Theodore H. Monsma, Dr. Richard Westmaas, and Dr. William Kooistra of the psychology department at Pine Rest Christian Hospital for their assistance in problems of research design. Dr. Jean Le Pere and Mr. William Darnell of the Bureau of Educational Research at Michigan State University for their assistance in problems of research design and statistical analysis. Dr. Gelmer A. Van Noord, Superintendent at Pine Rest Christian Hospital, for his cooperation in making available the facilities, personnel, and patients of the Hospital for this research. Dr. Stuart Bergsma, clinical director, Dr. Marenus J. Beukema, Dr. Robert J. Baker, Dr. Floyd Westendorp, and Dr. Klaire V. Kuiper, psychiatrists at Pine Rest Christian Hospital for their cooperative participation in the research project in making diag- nostic evaluations of patients used in this research. The members of the Riverside Christian Reformed Church and the Grace Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan who participated in this research. The newly admitted patients at Pine Re st Christian Hospital who participated in this research between January 2, 1964 and April 30, 1964. Dr. James W. Silver, professor of history at the University of Mississippi, who encouraged me to pursue advanced graduate study. Thelma, my wife, and Lois Ann, Paul, and Marc, our children, I gratefully dedicate this study. They have not only shared the pressures and sacrifices involved, but also the satisfaction of achievement. ii WILLIAM LOUIS HIEMSTRA CANDIDATE FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Final Examination: July 23, 1964 College of Education Thesis: Self Perceptions and Perceptions of Selected Bible Characters: A Study of Depressed Psychiatric Patients Outline of Studies: Major Subject: Guidance and Personnel Services Minor Subjects: Professional Education and Psychology Biographical Items: Born: March 6, 1915, Clifton, New Jersey Undergraduate Studies: New York University, 1932-1934; Calvin College, 1935-1938, A. B. Degree, June, 1938; Graduate Studies: Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), 1938-1942, Th. B. Degree, May, 1941, Th. M. Degree, May, 1942; University of Mississippi, 1945-1947, M. A. Degree, June, 1947; Columbia University, 1948-1955; Michigan State University, 1961-1964, Ph. D. Degree, August, 1964. Experience: Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Milton, Florida, 1943-1945; First Presbyterian Church, Water Valley, Mississippi, 1945—1948; First Reformed Church, Paterson, New Jersey, 1948-1950; Chaplain, Christian Sanatorium, Wyckoff, New Jersey, 1950-1957; Lecturer, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1955-1957; Chaplain, Pine Rest Christian Hospital, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1957-- Lecturer, Western Theological Seminary, Holland, Michigan, 1958-— CHAPTER I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS THE PROBLEM Introduction............... Purpose ofthe study . . . . . . . . . . Needforthestudy. . . . . . . . .. . . . Research hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . Definition of terms . . . . . . . . . . . Delimitations............... Organization of the thesis. . . . . . . . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Studies related to self concept . . . . . Studies related to perceptions of others METHOD AND PROCEDURE Selection of the sample . . . . . . . . . Instrumentsused . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis procedures . . '. . . . . . . . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SUMMARY Recommendations for further research REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O '0 O O O 0 O 0 iv O‘O‘U'IUJNNH 13 14 20 52 54 57 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TA BLES AgesinyearsforallSs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Education in years for a11_S_s . . . . . . . . . . . . :Scores on the 2 Scale of the MMPI for all _S_s . . Psychiatrists' diagnostic evaluations of depressed patients 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Psychiatrists‘ diagnostic evaluations of non- depressedpatientS.oooooosooooeoso. Subanalysis of psychiatrists' diagnostic evaluations of nondepressed patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tetrachoric correlation coefficients of Actual Self and Ideal self 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Tetrachoric correlation coefficients of Most Pre- ferred Bible Character and Ideal Self . . . . . . . Tetrachoric correlation coefficients of Most Pre- ferred Bible Character and Actual Sélf . . . . . . Tetrachoric correlation coefficients of Least Pre- ferred Bible Character and Ideal Self . . . . . . . Tetrachoric correlation coefficients of Least Pre- ferred Bible Character and Actual Self . . . . . . Tetrachoric correlation coefficients of Most Pre- ferred and Least Preferred Bible Characters . . . _z_ Scores on the correlation of Actual Self and Idealself................... _z_ Scores on the correlation of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 15 16 21 22 23 24 2.6 26 27 27 28 28 31 33 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE Page 15. _t Scores on the difference between the correlation of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character from that of Actual Self and Most Preferred Bible Character....................... 34 16. 1 Scores on the difference between the correlation of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character from that of Ideal Self and Least Preferred Bible Character...................... 35 17. Tetrachoric correlation coefficients of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character and that of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character. . 36 18. L Scores on the difference between the correlation of Actual Self and Most Preferred Bible Character from that of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character....................... 38 19. 3. Scores on the correlation of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 20. Frequency table: Choice of Most Preferred Bible Character (absolute check) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 21. Spearman rank order correlation coefficients: Choice of Most Preferred Bible Character . . . . . 42 22. Frequency table: Choice of Least Preferred Bible Character (absolute check) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 23. Spearman rank order correlation coefficients: Choice of Least Preferred Bible Character . . . . 45 24. Spearman rank order correlation coefficients: Sums of rank order for preference of 10 Selected Biblecharacters................... 47 LIST OF APPEN DIC ES APPENDIX ' Page I Instrument used in preliminary project. . . . . 57 11 Instruments used in main research. . . . . . . 61 Introductory face sheet Schedule A Ranking of Bible Characters Schedule B Instructions and adjective check list for Bible Character No. 1 Most Preferred Schedule C Instructions and adjective check list for Bible Character No. 10 Least Preferred Schedule D Instructions and adjective check list for Your Self As You See Your Self Schedule E Instructions and adjective check list for Your Self As You Would Like To Be 111 Instrument used by psychiatrists for diagnostic evaluation................... 76 IV I_)_ scale of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory................... 79 V Sample scoring sheet used in the computation of tetrachoric correlation coefficients . . . . . 84 vii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The American Academy of Religion and Mental Health has called attention to the dearth of relevant research on the relationships of religion and mental health. It has been assumed in connection with the Rogerian theory of self concept that a high measure of self-regard or self-esteem is essential to a healthy self concept and consequent mental health (Rogers ,., 1951). This assumption is related to the theoretical formu- lation of Carl Rogers (1951, p. 136) regarding the self concept which he defines: The self-concept or self-structure may be thought of as an organized configuration of perceptions of the self which are admissible to awareness. It is composed of such elements as the perceptions of one's characteristics and abilities; the percepts and concepts of the self in relation to others and to the environment; the value qualities which are perceived as associated with experiences and objects; and goals and ideals which are perceived as having positive or negative valence. Studies by Rogers (1951), Chodorkoff (1954), Raymaker (1956), Chase (1956), Aspromonte (1959), and Gavales (1960) have shown that psychiatric patients differ from normals in self concept. This re- search will test if these findings apply to the population of a Protestant religious sub-culture. In addition, this study aims to test the effect of different self perceptions upon the perceptions of selected Bible characters. This relationship is described as psychological affinity. Purpose of the Study The basic purpose of this study is to ascertain, within a religious sub-culture, if depressed hospitalized psychiatric patients differ in self concept from normals and nondepressed hospitalized psychiatric patients. ' In addition this study seeks to discover if there are significant differences in the way in which the three groups perceive selected Bible characters. The Need for the Study A prerequisite to successful therapy with depressed psychiatric patients is an understanding of how these patients differ from normals and other psychiatric patients in their perceptions of self and others. Although this study is similar to several earlier studies involving Self and Ideal Self relationships, this study is different from each in a significant way. Most of the research on self concept relationships among psychiatric patients was done in VA hospitals. This study tests psychiatric patients in a private church-related general psychiatric hospital. With the exception of the study of Rosenzweig (1960) who studied depressed patients and normals, the other reported research studied psychotic s, paranoid schizophrenics, and psychoneurotics without con- trolling for the effects of hospitalization. In this study newly admitted depressed patients were tested prior to receiving major chemotherapy, psychotherapy, or electro-stimulus therapy. In Rosenzweig's study (1960) of depressed patients only a hospital- ized control group was used. In this study a non-hospitalized normal control group is used as well as a hospitalized nondepressed group. In all of the reported research cited in Chapter 11 only male sub- jects were studied in relation to measured self-regard. This study tests both male and female subjects to discover possible differences, on the basis of the sex variable, in self perceptions and in choices of selected Bible characters. Although it has been demonstrated that personality needs deter- mine the quality of relationship to a significant other, this relationship has not been empirically tested with regard to perceptions of selected Bible characters. Re 3 ear ch Hypothe 3 es In order to discover if depressed hospitalized psychiatric patients differ from normals and from nondepressed hospitalized psychiatric patients in self perceptions and in perceptions and choices of selected Bible characters, the following hypotheses were tested: HR: 1 The correlation of Actual Self and Ideal Self will be significantly greater for the normal group than for the depressed group; and within the hospitalized groups the correlation will be greater for the nondepressed than for the depressed group. HR: 2 There will be a positive relationship of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character for all _S_s, but for the normal group this relationship will be significantly greater than for the depressed group; and within the hospitalized groups this relationship will be greater for the nondepressed than for the depressed group. HR: 3 The correlation of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character will be significantly greater than that of Actual Self and Most Preferred Bible Character for all _S_s, but the difference will be greater for the depressed group than for the normal group; and within the hospitalized groups the difference for the depressed will be greater than that of the nondepressed group. HR: 4 The correlation of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character will be significantly greater than the correlation of Ideal Self and Least Preferred Bible Character for all §S, but the difference will be greater for the normal group than for the depressed group; and within the hospitalized groups the difference will be greater for the nondepressed than for the depressed group. HR: 5 The correlation of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character will be greater than the correlation of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character for all _S_s, but the difference in correlation observations will be greater for the normal group than for the depressed group; and within the hospitalized groups the difference will be greater for the nondepressed than for the depressed group. HR: 6 The correlation of Actual Self and Most Preferred Bible Character will be significantly greater than the correlation of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character for all _S_s, but the difference will be greater for the normal group than for the depressed group; and within the hospitalized groups the difference will be greater for the nondepressed than for the depressed group. HR: 7 The correlation of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character will be significantly greater for the depressed group than for the normal group; and within the hospitalized groups the corre- lation will be greater for the depressed than for the nondepressed group. HO: 8 There will be no significant difference in choice of Most Preferred Bible Character by the depressed group as compared with the normal group; and within the hospitalized groups there will be no significant difference in the choice made by depressed and nondepressed groups. HO: 9 There will be no significant difference in choice of Least Preferred Bible Character by the depressed group as compared with the normal group; and within the hospitalized groups there will be no significant difference in the choice made by depressed and non- depres sed groups . Definition of Term 5 Selfperceptions describe the relationship of the empirically derived adjectival descriptions of Your Self As You See Yourself and Your Self As You Would Like To Be (see Schedules D and E of Appendix II). Psychological affinity is used as the approximate equivalent of identification involving a dispositional attitude toward a significant other in real life. This term will be defined by the relationship be- tween Most Preferred Bible Character (see Schedule B of Appendix II) and self perceptions. It is also used to describe the relationship between Least Preferred Bible Character (see Schedule C of Appendix II) and self perceptions. The term Bible Characters refers to the 10 Bible Characters empirically derived (see Appendix I and Schedule A of Appendix II). Psychiatric patients describes patients admitted between January 2 and April 30, 1964 (and who met the stated criteria for the sample) to Pine Re st Christian Hospital in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Depressed patients describes those patients whose major psychiatric symptom is depression, as determined by the judgment of the attending psychiatrist (see Schedule F of Appendix II). Nondepressed patients describes those patients whose major psychiatric symptom is not depression, as determined by the judgment of the attending psychiatrist (see Schedule F of Appendix II). Normals or Control Group are terms used to describe those _S_s who are not hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital and who come from a similar religious sub-culture as the psychiatric _S_s. They met the same criteria for sex, age, and education as do the psychiatric _S_s. Delimitations 1. This study will be limited to members of two Protestant denominations: the Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America, a Calvinistic religious sub-culture in which there is a high degree of interest in and familiarity with the Bible. 2. This study will be further limited to patients who were new admissions between January 2, 1964 and April 30, 1964 to Pine Rest Christian Hospital in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and who are members of the population described above. They were selected as they met the following criteria: (a) New admission, prior to major chemotherapy, psychotherapy or electro-stimulus therapy (b) Sex (1) 15 male depressed (2) 15 female depressed (3) 15 male nondepressed (4) 15 female nondepressed 3. This study will be limited to a normal control group of 30 (15 male and 15 female), a hospitalized depressed group of 30 (15 male and 15 female), and a hospitalized nondepressed group of 30 (15 male and 15 female) who meet the following criteria (in addition to the religious variable): (a) Age range 20-55 years (b) Education--8th grade to some college Organization of the Thesis The following is an outline of the thesis: Chapter I presents an introduction to the study, purposes of the study, need of the study, research hypotheses, definition of terms, delimitations of the study, and organization of the investigation. Chapter II is concerned with a review of selected literature re- lated to the problem. Chapter III presents the methodology of the study, selection of the sample, instruments used, and analysis procedures. Chapter IV contains the results and discussion of the investigation. Chapter V is a summary of the study with recommendations for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Studies Related to Self Concept Carl R. Rogers has pioneered in research on the self concept. In his article, "The Case of Mrs. Oak: A Research Analysis" (Rogers, 1951, pp. 47-165), he shows that changes occur in the relationship between the perceived and ideal self at different stages of therapy. The research of Rogers and-Dymond (1954) indicates that their client group applying for therapy showed a mean initial self-ideal E. of -. 01, while the control subjects who volunteered to take a part in research on personality showed a significantly different initial mean self-ideal _1; of +.58. The self-idea1_i:§_ were obtained through use of the Butler and Haigh 9 sort. Chodorkoff (1954) in research designed to test the theoretical formulations regarding Rogers' self concept found confirmation for the hypothesis that the greater the correspondence between the per- ceived self and the ideal self, the more adequate was the individual's personal adjustment. Raymaker (1956) has also confirmed the hypothesis that dis- crepancy between self concept and ideal self concept is associated with adjustment. He found that persons who tend to show wide dis- crepancies between the way they see themselves and the way they like to be, seem to be characterized by feelings of self-dissatisfaction and tend to be maladjusted. Sarbin and Rosenburgh (1955) found that normal, volunteer student _Ss and student §s who had been diagnosed as neurotic and 8 recommended for therapy showed significant differences in Self- Acceptance and in a Self-Criticality Index derived from Gough's Adjective Check List. The neurotic subjects were less self-accepting and more self-critical (Wylie, 1961, p. 205). Tolor (1957) compared hospitalized neuropsychiatric patients and hospitalized medical patients. . He concluded that "Emotionally disturbed patients appear to have a far less adequate self-concept in terms of self-differentiation ~and group identification than do normals." In a study involving two groups Tamkin (1957) found that schizo- phrenic _S_s had significantly lower self-acceptance scores on the Scott- Duke Questionnaire than did non-patient Ss (Wylie, 1961, p. 209). In another study involving two groups Arthur H. Rogers (1958) found that paranoid schizophrenics had a significantly higher self ideal-self congruence than the normal group. Ibelle challenges the results of much of the cited research which tested the Rogerian theory of the self concept. On the basis of his research on "Discrepancies Between Self-Concept and Ideal Self- Concepts in Paranoid Schizophrenics and Normals, " Ibelle concludes (1960, p. 79): 1. with at least one well-defined group (paranoid schizo- phrenics), discrepancy between self and ideal "Q" sorts will not give an adequate reading on the state of a person's psycho- logical health. 2. . . . the use of the self-ideal discrepancy as a sole and definitive indicator of an individual's need for psycho- logical or psychiatric help is not warranted. 3. . . . the magnitude of the discrepancy between the self-reported self-concept and ideal self-concept may be an ex- cellent gauge of the state of an individual's self-system. The three studies last mentioned illustrate conflictual findings in testing schizophrenics in relation to a measure of self-regard. 10 This type of differing results is also seen in the research involving a comparison of three groups, to be reviewed subsequently. In the research of Fagan and Guthrie (1959, p. 207), a conclusion is made that ”schizophrenics differ most, not in their conception of the average other, but in their perception of themselves. " Aspromonte (1959), using Pearson product-moment correlations found that degree of illness in schizophrenia is positively related to the amount of self-distortion. In the study of Worchel and Hillson (1958) it was observed that the mean self concept of the criminal is relatively favorable and sig- nificantly superior to that of the normal person. However, the mean self vs. ideal discrepancy in the criminal is significantly smaller than in the normal person. Gavales (1960) reports that his research on "Relationships Between Self-Portrayal and Psychopathology" indicate that accuracy in self-portrayal is related to psychological health and distortion in the self-picture is associated with psychopathology. Using 15 scales of Osgood's Semantic Differential Rosenzweig (1960) observed that 40 male depressed patients rated themselves lower on the evaluative factor than did normals. In the following investigations an adjusted group was compared with two or more maladjusted groups: Friedman (1955) found no significant difference in self-ideal correlations of paranoid schizophrenic and normal §S (although schizo- phrenic Ss' _r_'s were somewhat lower than those of normal subjects). Neurotic _S_s gave self-ideal correlations significantly lower than either the schizophrenic or normal groups (Wylie, 1961, p. 211). Chase (1956) found that psychotics in general and paranoid schizophrenics in particular had a significantly lower correlation be- tween their self concept and ideal self concept than a group of normals. 11 Zuckerman, Baer, and Monashkin (1956) found that patients were less self-accepting than normals, but within the patient group there was no relation between adjustment and self-acceptance (Wylie, 1961, p. 211). Corrie (1958) found significant differences between three groups (hospitalized schizophrenic, hospitalized psychoneurotic, and hospitalized tubercular non-psychiatric patients). Corrie also made a comparison of groups by means of_t_ tests. These indicated schizo- phrenics to be more self-accepting than neurotics or normals and neurotics to be less self-accepting than normals. Studies Related to Perception of Others Thompson and Nishimura (1952, p. 310) found that "in monosex friendships, each person regards the other of the pair as conforming to his own ideal. " Fiedler, Warrington, and Blaisdell conclude (1952, p. 795): "We perceive those we like to be more similar to ourselves than those we dislike. " They believe the results of their research (idem) "strongly suggest a relationship between the way individuals feel about others and how they perceive them. “ Stock (1949) has shown that there is a definite relationship be- tween the way one feels about one's self and one's attitudes towards others. He found that an individual who holds negative feelings about himself, also holds negative feelings about others. Omwake's (1954, p. 446) more recent research supports Stock's results: The results support the hypothesis in that there is marked relationship between the way an individual sees himself and the way he sees others; those who accept themselves tend to be acceptant of others and to perceive others as accepting them- selves; those who reject themselves hold a correspondingly low opinion of others and perceive others as being self-rejectant. 12 Mullen (1958, p. 90) found that within a non-psychiatric population, the depressed person does not project himself in such a way that he perceives those he does not like as more similar to himself than the person who is not depressed. Chang and Block (1960) found that "the higher the degree of corres- pondence between one's ego ideal and one's parent, the greater the identification with that parent. " The research studies cited have dealt essentially with the process of identification or psychological affinity. The research of this study investigates the relationship between the conscious perception of a sig- nificant other (Most Preferred Bible Character) and the conscious perception of ideal self. In this study psychological affinity or identifi- cation is viewed as a construct involving projection and introjection. CHAPTER III METHOD AND PROCEDURE Selection of the Sample A. Subjects The §S for this study were drawn from members of two Protestant denominations: the Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America. These churches represent a religious sub-culture in which there is a high degree of interest in and familiarity with the Bible. B . Ho spitalized Sample 8 A sample of 60 hospitalized psychiatric patients who are members of the population described above was selected as they met the follow- ing criteria: (a) New admission, prior to major chemotherapy, electro- stimulus therapy or psychotherapy (b) Age range, 20-55 (c) Education, 8th grade-some college (d) 30 Depressed (15 male + 15 female) (e) 30 Nondepressed (15 male + 15 female) (1) Diagnosis of depressed or nondepressed to be made by psychiatrist assigned to patient (see Appendix III). C. Normal or Control Group Sample A sample of 30 non-hospitalized subjects was selected (15 male + 15 female) from the normal population described above. This sample was the Couples Fellowship Club of the Grace Reformed Church and the Fellowship Club of the Riverside Christian Reformed Church of 13 14 Grand Rapids, Michigan. These organizations are not primarily oriented to Bible Study (since this research project is not related to degree of theological knowledge) in order to acquire a sample truly representative of the sub-culture population. D. Equating of Variables In addition to being equated on the variable of religious affiliation, the sample of the Normal Control Group was equated for the following (similar to hospital patients): (a) Age range, 20-55‘ (b) Education, 8th grade-some college (c) Sex, 15 male and 15 female Table 1 provides statistical data regarding ages of all _S_s. Table 2 provides statistical data regarding education for all _S_s. Instruments Us ed 1. This research study involved a preliminary project in order to develop empirically an adjective check list of 70 adjectives (see Appendix II, Schedules B, C, D. E). This adjective check list was developed in the following manner: (a) Fifty adjectives were added to the 70 adjectives of an adjective check list developed by Block of the University of California. (The latter is described on p. 154 of Block, J. The Q-sort Method in Personality Assessment and Psychiatric Research. Springfield 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1961). (b) The next step in the procedure of developing the adjective check. list used in this study was to submit the list of 120 adjectives to three professional judges (clinical psychologist, counseling psychologist, pastoral counselor) with instructions to place the 120 adjectives into the following behavioral categories: 15 Table 1. Ages in Years for All §S Depressed Nondepressed Normals Patients Patients Men Ill 15 15 15 X 33.06 41.73 33.333 Sd 7.005 10.244 9.524 R 26-49 23-55 20-49 Women 1:1 15 15 15 X 31.866 34.466 29.466 Sd 7.02 5.917» 9.703 R 23-45 24-44 20—53 Tptals: Men and Women N 30 3O 30 X 32.47 38.1 31.4 Sd 6.917 9.011 9.648 R 23-49 23-55 20-53 16 Table 2. Education in Years for All _S_s Depressed Nondepressed Normals Patients Patients _Men 1:1 15 15 15 X 12.73 11 10.866 Sd 1.165 2.725 2.07 R 11 - 14 8 - 16 8 - 14 mg N 15 15 15 X 12.266 11.2 12.53 Sd 3.723 1.254 1.363 R 8-16 8-12 10-16 Totals: Men and Women 1! 30 30 30 X 12.5 11.1 11.7 Sd 1.408 2.09 1.915 R 8 - 16 8 - 16 8 - 16 1'? Dominant - Insensitive Submissive - Dependent Impulsive Complaintive Competent . Courageous Sociable Gracious Vigorous Depressive Oxom'xlO‘U‘rkaNr—I H (c) Those adjectives on which 2 of 3 or 3 of 3 professional judges agreed, regarding each as being properly related to each category were submitted to 6 lay judges (volunteer clerk - steno- graphers from the normal population) with the request that each exclude any adjective not belonging to the category. ((1) Adjectives were accepted as belonging in the category if 6 of 6, 5 of 6 or 4 of 6 lay judges agreed. In order to reduce the number of adjectives to 7 for each of the 10 categories, ran- dom elimination was used on those adjectives on which there was 4-2 agreement. (e) The professional and lay judges also evaluated each of the 70 adjectives as "generally regarded as favorable" or "generally regarded as unfavorable. " This allowed for categories with adjectival clusters to be regarded as generally positive or negative in character. (f) The 70 adjectives were used as the adjective check list in the main research (see Appendix II) as well as the instrument providing 10 series of 7 adjectival descriptions related to cate- gories used in the second phase of the preliminary project. 2. A second phase of the preliminary project was to submit 50 names of Bible characters with the 10 category personality descriptions containing 7 adjectives each to a sample of 68 persons (33 male + 35 18 female) from the same population to be sampled in the main research (Sample form is given in Appendix I). The selected _S_s were asked to place one name be side each cluster of adjectival descriptions. A frequency table was prepared; the Bible character receiving the highest score was selected to be related to the category matching the adjectival description. In the case of one tie, a coin was tossed to eliminate the tie. As a result of the second phase of the preliminary project the following Bible characters were matched with the ten cate- gories in preparation for the main research. Category Bible Character 1. Dominant - Insensitive. . . . . . . Jezebel 2. Submissive - Dependent . . . . . . Mary (Mother of Jesus) 3.1mpulsive..............Peter 4. Complaintive - Critical ...... . Cain 5. Competent — Able. . . . . . . . . . Daniel 6. Courageous - Brave . . . . . . . . David 1 7. Sociable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mary of Bethany 8.Gracious...............Ruth 9.Vigorous...............Paul 10. Depressive . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moses Main Res earch 1. A face sheet containing an introduction, blanks for personal data, and instructions in use of code was read and presented to each _S_ (see Appendix II). 2. The ten Bible characters produced by the second phase of the preliminary project were ranked by all _S_s according to psycho- logical affinity. The following instructions were given (see Appendix 11, Schedule A): Please rank the following Bible characters in answer to this question: “If it were possible, with which Bible characters would you feel comfortable enough to have them visit in your home 7” Rank your choice from 1 - 10, from most desired to least desired, according to your dominant feeling. l9 3. The adjective check list (obtained from the preliminary project and now in the main research in alphabetical order) with the caption, BIBLE CHARACTER No. 1 MOST PREFERRED was distributed to all _S_s with the following instructions (see Appendix 11, Schedule B): "For the most preferred Bible character which you have just selected, please describe this MOST preferred character by using the adjective check list to be distributed. Simply follow this procedure: In front of those adjectives which you feel DO apply, mark a _1. (one); and mark 9 (zero) those adjectives which you feel do NOT describe this MOST PREFERRED Bible character. Please respond according to your dominant feeling. " 4. The-adjective check list (with similar instructions) with the heading BIBLE CHARACTER NO. 10 LEAST PREFERRED was distributed to all _S_s (see Appendix 11, Schedule C). 5. With appropriate similar instructions, _S_s were asked to mark appropriately the adjective check list with the caption, YOUR SELF AS YOU SEE YOURSELF (see Appendix 11, Schedule D). 6. With appropriate similar instructions, §_s were asked to mark appropriately the adjective check list with the caption, YOUR SELF AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE (see Appendix 11, Schedule E). 7. Test Administrator's Responses to Resistances. In anticipation that some _S_s would be resistive to the forced choice technique of the scoring of 1 and 0 on the adjective check list, the following uniform responses were given to _S_s' resistances to the for c ed choic e te chnique: lst order response to resistance: ”I realize the task is a forced choice technique, but answer the items according to your dominant feeling. ” 20 2nd order response to resistance: "Yes, I can appreciate the many distinctions or feelings one may have, but answer the items according to your dominant feeling. " 8. The 2 (Depression) Scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory was administered to all _S_s as a secondary criterion (see Appendix IV). Table 3 provides statistical data regarding 2 scores on the 12 scale of the MMPI for all SS. 9. As a primary criterion for the determination of depression or nondepression among the hospitalized patients, attending psychiatrists completed a diagnostic evaluation form (see Appendix 111) within 48 hours after this was submitted to them. These forms were distributed to the psychiatrists immediately following the testing of each _S_. 2313133 provides statistical data regarding diagnostic evaluations of depressed patients. _T_a_b_l_e__§ provides statistical data regarding diagnostic evaluations of nondepressed patients. Table 6 provides statistical data regarding a subanalysis of diagnostic evaluations of nondepressed patients. Analysis Procedures Inasmuch as S5 marked the adjective check list _1_ or 9_ in describ- ing Most Preferred Bible Character, Least Preferred Bible Character, Your Self As You See Yourself and Your Self As You Would Like To Be (see Appendix II, Schedules B, C, D, E) the tetrachoric correlation co- efficient (rt) was computed. according to the formula bc ad 1"-ad or k“bc 21 Table 3. 2 Scores on the I_)_ Scale of the MMPI for All _S_s Depressed Nondepressed Normals Patients Patients Men Ii 15 15 15 X 50.93 85.93 73.266 Sd 9. 323 16.482 20.43 R 36-65 58- 116 53- 108 Women I_\I_ 15 15 15 X 49.13 90.66 63.866 Sd 5. 392 6.71 14.407 R 42 - 59 80 - 100 32 - 84 Totals: Men and Women E 30 30 30 X 50. 88.3 68.57 Sd 7.543 12.595 18.01 R 36~65 58-116 32-108 22 Table 4. Psychiatrists' Diagnostic Evaluations of Depressed Patients Diagnostic Scale of MMPI Depression 12 Scale Code Psychiatrist Q1. Qt. Ob. 2 Scores Men N = 15 200 M. B. 4 3 3 89 201 S. B. 4 4 4 72 206 K. K. 3 3 2 80 210 R. B. 3 2 2 77 211 R. B. 3 3 2 58 213 S.B. 3 3 3 75 215 S. B. 3 4 4 116 216 K. K. 4 3 4 82 217 S.B. 3 3 3 82 218 S.B. 4 3 2 89 219 M. B. 3 3 3 108 224 M. B. 3 2 2 87 226 R. B. 3 3 3 108 227 M. B. 3 3 2 65 229 M. B. __4_ __3 _3_ 101 50 45 2 1289 3. 33 3. 2.8 85. 93 Women N = 15 300 S. B. 3 3 3 88 302 R. B. 3 2 3 84 303 S.B. 3 3 3 84 306 R. B. 4 4 4 98 308 R. B. 3 3 3 98 317 R. B. 3 3 2 92 322 R.B. 4 3 3 100 323 R. B. 3 3 3 92 325 S.B. 3 3 3 96 326 K.K. 3 3 2 94 327 R. B. 4 4 4 88 330 F.W. 4 4 4 98 334 R. B. 4 3 4 88 336 S.B. 3 3 3 80 341 R. B. _4_ _fi __4 80 '1 8 8 1360 3.4 3.2 3.2 90.66 N = 30 Totals 101 93 90 2649 3.366 3.1 3. 88. 3 Legend: 01. = Qualitative; Qt. = Quantitative; Cb. = Observability. 1 = None; 2 = Little; 3 = Some; 4 = Much. 23 Table 5. Psychiatrists' Diagnostic Evaluations of Nondepressed Patients MMPI Diagnostic Scale I_D Scale Code Psychiatrist Diagnosis Q1. Qt. Ob. _T Score Men N = 15 202 R. B. Schizophrenia 4 4 3 63 203 S. B. Anxiety 4 4 4 77 204 S. B. Schizophrenia 4 4 4 108 205 F. W. Adj. Reaction 2 2 1 53 207 R. B. Soc. Personality 3 2 2 65 208 R. B. Schizophrenia 4 4 4 60 209 R. B. Schizophrenia 3 3 4 58 212 M. B. Schizophrenia 3 3 3 99 214 F. W. Adj. Reaction 3 3 3 104 221 R. B. Schizophrenia 3 3 4 72 222 R. B. Org. Br. Dam. 2 3 3 63 223 F. W. Soc. Personality 3 3 1 34 225 M. B. Schizophrenia 2 3 3 84 228 R. B. Schizophrenia 4 3 2 89 230 M. B. Schizophrenia 3 2 2 70 '_I‘_otals 47 4‘6" 43’ 1099 X 3 133 3.06 2.866 73.266 Women N = 15 307 R. B. Pers. Trait Dist. 3 3 2 67 310 S. B. Adj. Reaction 3 3 2 65 314 S.B. Adj. Reaction 3 3 3 65 316 F. W. Manic 4 4 4 32 319 K. K. Pers. Trait Dist. 4 3 3 53 320 S. B. Adj. Reaction 3 2 2 51 324 R. B. Hysteria 3 3 2 76 331 S. B. Schizophrenia 4 4 4 84 332 R. B. Schizophrenia 4 4 3 84 338 F. W. Schizophrenia 4 4 4 63 343 K. K. Pers. Trait Dist. 3 3 2 84 348 R. B. Pers. Pattern Dist. 4 3 2 67 351 S. B. Schizophrenia 4 4 2 53 352 R. B. Hypomanic 4 4 4 59 354 S. B. Pers. Trait Dist. 2 3 2 55 Totals 52- 50 41- 9% X 3.466 3.333 2.733 63.866 N = 30 Totals 99 96 84 2057 X 3. 3 3. 2 2. 8 68. 57 Legend: Q1. = Qualitative; Gt. = Quantitative; Ob. = Observability. 1 = None; 2 = Little; 3 = Some; 4 = Much. Table 6. 24 Nondepres sed Patients Subanalysis of Psychiatrists' Diagnostic Evaluations of Psychiatrist MMPI 12 Scale __‘EScore Psychiatrist' 8 Diagnosis Qualitative Quantitative Observabilihr Schizophrenia N = 13 U) mini?!” wpwppmw P” .5 wwwwwws 3”?” Totals X 84 84 63 53 63 108 60 58 9‘9 72 84 89 70 987 75. 92 IthNWWWvP‘u-hvbrhnhvbth «.9 U1 Lump- 000* Personality Trait Disturbance N = 4 S.B. .B .B. W OW. mmmw Totals X 104 338 67.6 up» O‘U‘IINwWWWWrbnnPrbrfiI-th-rp U.) lumuw p—a UJN Immwwm N 0 H 0t» wNINqubwrh-vknhwwuswrk U) was INNwN N N U1~O leNwN N NH Legend: 1 = None; 2 = Little; 3 = Some; 4 = Much. Continued 25 Table 6 - Continued MMPI _I_)_ Scale Psychiatrist's Diagnosis Psychiatrist T Score Qualitative Quantitative Observability Sociopathic Personality N = 2 R.B. 65 3 2 2 PM 23 .3. .3. 1 Totals 99 6 5 3 X 49.5 3 2.5 1.5 Manic N = 2 F.W. 32 4 4 4 ms. .52. 3. 3. 3. '_I‘_otals 91 8 8 8 X 45.5 4 4 4 Diajnosis -- Others N = 4 Hysteria 76 3 3 2 Pers. Pattern Dist. 67 4 3 2 Anxiety 77 4 4 4 Org. Br. Damage 63 __2_ _3 _3 Totals 283 13 13 11 X 70.75 3.25 3.25 2.75 Summary __N Diagnosis 13 Schizophrenia 987 46 45 42 4 Per. TraitDist259 12 12 9 5 Adj. Reaction 338 14 13 11 2 Soc. Person- ality 99 6 5 3 2 Manic 91 8 8 8 _i Others 283 13 _1_3 _1_1_ 30 Totals 2057- I)? 96 84 X 68.566 3. 3 z 8 26 dependent on which was the larger (Edwards, 1960, p. 192). A sample scoring sheet is given in Appendix V. As a base for additional statistical computations, a series of six tetrachoric correlation coefficients was computed for all _S_s from the four adjective check lists. Table 7 shows the rt of Actual Self and Ideal Self. Table 7. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients of Actual Self and Ideal Self Normal Depressed Nondepressed Hospitalized Group Group Group Groups All _S_s N=30 N=30 N=30 N=60 N=90 Men (N = 15) .'§'5rt .34rt .52rt .43rt Women (N = 15) .69r«C .08rt .53rt .311-t Men and Women .72rt .21rt .53rt .37rt .50rt (N = 30) Table 8 shows the rt of Most Preferred Bible Character and Ideal Self. Table 8. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients of Most Preferred Bible Character and Ideal Self Normal Depressed Nondepressed Hospitalized Group Group Group Groups A11§s N=30 N=30 N230 N=60 N=90 Men (N = 15) .84rt .83rt .77rt .80r,c Women (N = 15) . 91rt . 88rt . 82rt . 85rt Men and Women . 88 rt . 85rt . 79rt . 83r,c . 84rt (N = 30) 27 Table 9 shows the rt of Most Preferred Bible Character and Actual Self. Table 9. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients of Most Preferred Bible Character and Actual Self 1 Normal Depressed Nondepressed Hospitalized Group Group Group Groups All _Ss N=30 N=30 N=30 N=60 N=90 Men (N = 15) . 64rt . 22rt .47rt . 34rt Women (N = 15) .64rt .151‘t . 57rt . 37rt Men and Women . 64rt .18rt . 52rt . 36rt . 46rt (N = 30) Table 1__(_)_ shows the rt of Least Preferred Bible Character and Ideal Self. Table 10. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients of Least Preferred Bible Character and Ideal Self Normal Depressed Nondepressed Hospitalized Group Group Group Groups All _S_s N=30 N=30 N=30 N=60 N=90 Men (N = 15) -.26rt -.39rt -.20rt -.30rt Women (N =15) -.60rt —. 51rt -.47rt -.49rt Men and Women -. 44rt -. 45rt —. 34rt -. 4Ort -.41rt (N = 30) Table 11 shows the rt of Least Preferred Bible Character and Actual Self. 28 Table 11. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients of Least Preferred Bible Character and Actual Self Normal Depressed Nondepressed Hospitalized Group Group Group Groups All Ss N=30 N=30 N=30 N=60 N=90 Men (N: 15) --.13r.c -.01rt --.13rt -.06rt Women (N = 15) -. 37rt -. 31rt -.29rt —.30rt Men and Women -.25rt -.l6rt -.21rt -.18rt -.20rt (N = 30) Table 12 shows the rt of Most Preferred and Least Preferred Bible Character. Table 12. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients of Most Preferred and Least Preferred Bible Characters Normal Depressed Nondepressed Hospitalized Group Group Group Groups All _S_s N=30 N=30 N=30 N=60 N390 Men (N= 15) --.11rt -.34rt -.31rt --.33rt Women (N = 15) -. 59rt -. 58rt -.49rt -. 54rt Men and Women =-. 37r.c -.47rt -.40rt -.44rt -.41rt (N = 30) In connection with the testing of hypotheses HR:1, HR:2, HR:7 in which the groups were independent, the significance of the difference between two correlation coefficients was determined by the use of the a test which necessitated the _z_' transformation (Edwards, 1960, pp. 305-307). 29 A table constructed by F. P. Kilpatrick and D.‘ A. Buchanan (Edwards, 1960, p. 503) was used to obtain _z_' values for rt. - The standard error of the difference between two independent values of z' is given by 0,. ._ 1 +___}_ zl-zz— n1-3 nz-3 The observed difference between the two 5' values was divided by the standard error of the difference in order to obtain a normal deviate to be evaluated by reference to the table of the normal curve. The formula used in testing these hypotheses, which were one- tailed tests of significance, is given by (Edwards, 1960, p. 306). ' t Zl-Z Z 3 0’21 “' 22 The hypotheses HR:3, HR:4, and HR:6, involve non-independent samples. Therefore a test developed by Harold Hotelling (Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1__l_, 271-283) was used. This test is non- directional. This test of significance for _r_ differences of related samples is given by (Peatman, 1963, p. 309) t = (r2g - EJM-M (1+ r1,2) z z z N/ 2(1-r1g - rZg - r1,2 + 2(r1g)(1‘2g)(1‘1,2) Observations were made of the values of correlation coefficients at . 05 level of significance in connection with H :5. In connection with the analysis of Hoz8 _angHoz9, the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient was used (Siegel, 1956, pp. 202-212). The formula is given by N 6 2 «1’- rs = 1 .. i= 1 N3-N 30 When a considerable number of ties were present, the formula used in computing rS is given by _.Z_xz+ Zyz- zdz S 2423.2 2.3,?- 3 t - t where T - 12 and 3 3 2x2: M— - Zr and 12 x N3 - N z- — - 2y - 12 ETY The critical values of rs were obtained from Table P of Siegel (p. 284). CHAPT ER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The research data was subjected to statistical analysis according to the prescribed hypotheses with the following results: HR: 1 (a) the correlation of Actual Self and Ideal Self will be greater for the normal group than for the depressed group; and (b) within the hospitalized groups the correlation will be greater for the nondepressed than for the depressed group. The following 3. scores relate to hypothesis number one: Table 13. _z_ Scores on the Correlation of Actual Self and Ideal Self 2 HR: p Normal > p Depressed 2. 56* HR: p Nondepressed > p Depressed 1. 386 Subanalyses HR: p Normal > p Nondepressed 1.17 HR: p Normal > p Hospitalized 1. 534 HR: p Normal men > p Depressed men 1. 517 HR: p Normal women > p Depressed women 1. 882* HR: p Nondepressed men > p Depressed men . 544 HR: p Nondepressed women > p Depressed women 1. 25 HR: p Normal men > p Nondepressed men . 973 HR: p Normal women > p Nondepressed women . 632 HR: p Normal men > p Hospitalized men 1. 478 HR: p Normal women > p Hospitalized women 1. 518 0= .05 5.95 = 1.645 a: Statistically significant at .05 level, one-tailed. 31 32 Inspection of results of testing hypothesis number one indicates there is a statistically significant difference in a measure of self-regard between the normal group and the depressed group (3‘. 2. 56). These results corroborate the findings of Rogers (1951), Chodorkoff (1954), Raymaker (1956), Chase (1956), Aspromonte (1959), and Gavales (1960). In the subanalyses it is indicated that there is a greater disparity between Your Self As You See Yourself and Your Self As You Would Like To Be among the depressed women vs. normal (_z_ 1.882) than among the depressed men vs. normal (35 l. 517). The examination of psychiatrists' diagnostic evaluations and '_I‘_ scores of the MMPI 2 scale indicate that there is a greater measure of depression present among the depressed women sample (see Table 4). The mean for the depressed women on the diagnostic scale is Q1. 3.4, Qt. 3.2, Ob. 3. 2 whereas that for de- pressed men is Ql. 3.33, Qt. 3. , Ob. 2.8. The mean I score for the depressed women on the I_)_ scale of the MMPI is 90.66 whereas that for the depressed men is 85.93. In connection with HR: 1 (b) it is to be noted that p nondepressed > p depressed produced a Z‘. of 1. 386 which is significant at .10 level but not at the . 05 level. It would appear that there is an element of depression in hospitalized psychiatric patients whose primary symptoma- tology is not depression according to psychiatric diagnosis. This assumption is supported by the fact that on the 2 scale of the MMPI, a secondary criterion, the mean '2 score for the nondepressed group is 68. 57. The mean '_I‘_ score for nondepressed women is 63.866, and the mean I: score for nondepressed men is 73. 266 (see Table 5). These findings confirm the report of Gottlieb and Tourney (1959) that secondary depressive symptoms are extremely common in schizophrenic patients. H 2 (a) There will be a positive relationship of Ideal Self and R: Most Preferred Bible Character for all _S_s, 33 (b) but for the normal group this relationship will be greater than for the depressed group; (c) and within the hospitalized groups this relationship will be greater for the nondepressed than for the depressed group. The following _z_ scores relate to hypothesis number two. Table 14. 5. Scores on the Correlation of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character Z: HR: p Normal > p Depressed . 44 HR: p Nondepressed > p Depressed-not con- firmed, by inspection .79r.C is not > .85 rt Subanalyses H : p Normal > p Nondepressed 1.12 Hi: p Normal > p Hospitalized . 803 HR: p Normal men > p Depressed men . 08 HR: p Normal women > p Depressed women . 372 HR: p Normal men > p Nondepressed men .492 HR: p Normal women > p Nondepressed women . 909 HR: p Normal men ‘> p Hospitalized men . 352 HR: p Normal women > p Hospitalized women . 784 Q = .05 E. 95 = 1 645 Inspection of the results obtained from testing hypothesis number two show that there is a high positive correlation (. 84rt) of Ideal Self adjectival descriptions and Most Preferred Bible Character adjectival descriptions for all §5. The lower measure of self-regard character- izing the depressed group (see Table 13) does not appear to affect 34 significantly their perceptions of Ideal Self or Most Preferred Bible Character since the result of testing H z .44. R: p normal > p depressed is The fact that the result of testing H : 2 (c) is inverse from that predicted (. 79r.c is not > .85rt) suggests tie possibility of distortion in the nondepressed group. This conjecture is supported by the fact that there were 13 patients in the nondepressed group who were diag- nosed as schizophrenic (see Table 6). This evaluation is supported by the results of Aspromonte (1959) who found that the degree of illness in schizophrenia is positively related to the amount of self distortion and distortion in perceptions of others. In addition, see Walters (1964, p. 29). HR: 3 (a) The correlation of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character will be significantly greater than that of Actual Self and Most Preferred Bible Character for all SS, (b) but the difference will be greater for the depressed group than for the normal group; (c) and within the hospitalized groups the difference for the depressed will be greater than that of the non— depressed group. The following _t_ scores relate to hypothesis number three. Table 15. t_ Scores on the Difference Between the Correlation of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character from that of Actual Self and Most Preferred Bible Character Group Obtained; _c_l_f Sig._£ All 6. 554* 87 1.66 Hospitalized 5.135* 57 1. 67 Depressed 4. 713* 27 1. 70 Nondepressed 2. 406* 27 1. 70 Normal 3. 50* 27 1.. 70 3): Statistically significant at .05 level, one-tailed. 35 Inspection of the results obtained from testing hypothesis number three indicate the predicted distance in correlations of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character from the correlations of Actual Self and Most Preferred Bible Character for all _S_s (1 6.554). The fact that the difference was greater for the depressed group (_t__ 4.713) than for the normal group (_t_ 3.50) indicates the effect of the lower measure of self-regard among depressed patients (see HRH). Although the score for the nondepressed group is statistically significant (L 2.406), the fact that the difference is less than that of the normal group (L 3. 50) would indicate some measure of distortion as previously discussed in the discussion of the results of testing HR:2. HR: 4 (a) The correlation of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character will be significantly greater than the corre- lation of Ideal Self and Least Preferred Bible Character for all _S_s, (b) but the difference will be greater for the normal group than for the depressed group; (c) and within the hospitalized groups the difference will be greater for the nondepressed than for the depressed group. The following L scores relate to hypothesis number four: Table 16. 1:_ Scores on the Difference Between the Correlation of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character from that of Ideal Self and Least Preferred Bible- Character fi Group Obtained L if. Sig; All 12.91* 87 1.66 Hospitalized 9.835* 57 1. 67 Depressed 7. 521* 27 1. 70 Nondepressed 5.729* 27 1. 70 Normal 9.034* 27 1. 70 * ~ Statistically significant at .05 level, one-tailed. 36 Inspection of the results obtained from testing hypothesis number four shows the predicted difference in correlations of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character from the correlations of Ideal Self and Least Preferred Bible Character for all _Ss (L 12. 91). The significantly different measure of self-regard by the de- pressed group affects their perception of the Least Preferred Bible Character to some degree so that there is an expected difference be- tween the _t_ scores of the depressed group (L 7. 521) from that of the normal group (_t_ 9. 034). Distortion (as previously discussed) could account for the fact that the score for the nondepressed group is lower (L 5. 729) than that for the depressed group (1 7.521). HR: 5 The correlation of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character will be greater than the correlation of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character for all _S_s, but the difference in correlation observations will be greater for the normal group than for the depressed group; and within the hospitalized groups the difference will be greater for the nondepressed than for the depressed group. The following observations are made in relation to hypothesis number five . Table 17. Tetrachoric Correlation Coefficients of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character and that of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character _— A - Ideal Self and Actual Self and N Group Most Preferred Least Preferred 90 All . 84rt* -. 20rt=k 60 Hospitalized . 83rt* -.18rt 30 Depressed . 85rt* - . 16rt 30 Nondepressed . 79rt* -. ert 30 Normal . 88 rt* -. 25rt it Statistically significant at .05 level, one-tailed. 37 The rt of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character for all _S_s indicates that these are greater than the rt of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character for all _S_s. Observations also show that the rt for the normal group is greater than that for the depressed group. However the rt of the nondepressed group is not greater than that of the depressed group as was hypothesized. Values of Correlation Coefficient at .05 level of significance. d_f P = .05, one-tailed 88 .171 58 . 210 28 .306 28 .306 28 .306 HR: 6 (a) The correlation of Actual Self and Most Preferred Bible Character will be significantly greater than the corre- lation of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character for all. _S_s, (b) but the difference will be greater for the normal group than for the depressed group; (c) and within the hospitalized groups the difference will be greater for the nondepressed than for the depressed group. The following :5. scores relate to hypothesis number six. 38 Table 18. L Scores on the Difference Between the Correlation of Actual Self and Most Preferred Bible Character from that of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character Group Obtained L _d_f_ Sig. _t_ All 4.13* 87 1. 66 Hospitalized 2.477* 57 1. 67 Depressed 1. 052 27 1. 70 Nondepressed 2. 654* 27 1. 70 Normal ' 3.637* 27 1.70 a: Statistically significant at . 05 level, one-tailed. Inspection of the results obtained from testing hypothesis number six shows that HR: 6 (a), (b), and (c) can be accepted at the 95% level of confidence. The results also indicate that the adjective check list, Your Self As You See Yourself (Actual Self), affords the best measure of dis- crimination between the depressed and normal groups. This is sup- ported by the observation that the t_ score for the depressed group is 1.052 which is below the significance level for the t_ test for non- independent groups £25. 27 = 1. 70). The _t_ score for the nondepressed group (2.654) shows that this group is in fact different from both the depressed group (t_ 1.052) and the normal group (t_ 3.637). HR: 7 (a) The correlation of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character will be significantly greater for the depressed group than for the normal group; (b) and within the hospitalized groups the correlation will be greater for the depressed than for the nondepressed group. The following ’3 scores relate to hypothesis number seven: 39 Table 19. 5. Scores on the Correlation of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character .2. HR: p Depressed > p Normal . 346 HR: p Depressed > p Nondepressed .191 Subanalyses HR: p Nondepressed > p Normal . 154 HR: p Hospitalized > p Normal . 312 G. = e 05 E. 95 = 1. 645 Inspection of the results obtained from. testing hypothesis number seven show that even though the depressed group and the normal group differ significantly in measure of stated self-regard (see results of HR:1) they do not differ significantly in perceptions of Least Preferred Bible Character. These findings are to be related to the results of testing H :9 in which the two groups do not differ significantly in choice 0 of Least Preferred Bible Character. The depressed group does not differ significantly from the non- depressed group in perceptions of Least Preferred Bible Character. HO: 8 was stated. (a) There will be no significant difference in choice of Most Preferred Bible Character by the depressed group as com— pared with the normal group; and (b) within the hospitalized groups there will be no significant difference in the choice made by the depressed and non- depressed groups. The null hypothesis of hypotheses number eight (a) and (b) was accepted on the basis of testing, using the Spearman Rank Order 40 Correlation Coefficient test of statistical analysis. Table 20 presents a Frequency Table (absolute check) of the specific choices of Most Preferred Bible Character for all §S as supple- mentary information. Table 21 gives the rS for various groups. Inspection of the results obtained from testing hypothesis number eight (see Table 21) indicate that there is no significant difference in choice of Most Preferred Bible Character by the depressed and normal groups (.79rs) and for depressed and nondepressed groups (.834rS). However, significant differences appear in the subanalyses. The sex variable seems to cause a significant difference when all small groups are compared (see Table 21). Only when the N is increased to 90 by correlating the choice of All men (N = 45) and All women (_N = 45) is there no significant difference (.602rS). The same is true for the correlation of All hospitalized men (N = 30) and All hospitalized women (N = 30) producing .722rs. It would appear that with the increase of N_ from different groups, ch01ces cancel one another. Depression affects the specific choice of Most Preferred Bible Character even though it does not affect the perception of the Most Pre- ferred Bible Character (see HR:2 and Table 14). The following correlations support the previous statement: Normal men and and Normal women and Depressed. women = Depressed men 1' . 513r .569rs. S Distortion plus depression would account for the significantly lower correlations regarding choice of Most Preferred Bible Character: Depressed men and Nondepressed men = .431rS and Depressed women and Nondepressed women = . 245rs. HO: 9 was stated: (a) There will be no significant difference in choice of Least Pre- ferred Bible Character by the depressed group as compared with the normal. group; and HooNHHdHHHHmoHH u I pommonmopdoz .1. Q2 pommoumoQ n Q H5503 u 3 Q0: H 2 . HwEqu .I. Z noHfiHHHomoQ opoU "Honewvd oo 3 mHu ob om cm on 0m 0m mH mH mH mH mH mH 3.30m. H» m H H H m H H N H @0602 wH w HH HH m H. N. H4 N. HN H o m H4 3mm NH 6 H. H. H. m 6 m. N N N N H. N . find .4. H. m H N H N H N H H H .H H >865on Ho >32 N. H o o H4 N H H m H4 H H H UH>mQ HN N N m H H H N H H H H H HoHch N H H N N H H H H deU mH m OH H. m H4 o N m m N N H m spawn.“ mN 6H s ON a HH m NH w m H. H. H. H. H H6562. H6 $525 332 Honouoh .m .3 2 3&2 3J2 3HwH>H 3&2 H5 H2 .3 H2 3 SH H5 2 H2 :4 HH< H..H QZ Q 7H H.H H.H .QZ QZ Q Q Z Z 2.308 9230 330M. 1 _ h. I‘ - HuHooHHU oudHomnHHcJ “.308anan oHnHmH ponuowounn HmoHZ Ho ooHOaHU "3nt >onosHVouh .ON 03.68 42 .Ho>oH oucmoHHHcmHm BoHoQ u "w "wom. um unmoHHHsmHm HooHHmHToGo HHo>oH mo. "OH N Z mRN06. 6HNN». msemm. m m 4 HmNH. * HmHN. smuHme. *msHem. Hm» . memes. you. muses. H05. Hapm . H23 52 H2. 25$ 586? 5. $3szva H5503 Hucm G62 HuoNHHmuHmmoZ :53 5825 63233663 mnhoc . 323V H82 HooNHHduHmmoHH SSHwHZQH/HV dunno? Hm H82 pommuumopdoz tees: H8503 pm 6 m OHQOHEOZ 463:. . 2.57: :62 6666366682 tseeHH smack, Hm G02 commoumoQ CSQV H8503 pommoumoQ *msNHm . H23 :62 summoned CSHwHZZH 3&2 Hmauoz ammuHNm . C573 H3803 568qu 3.42782 Hdanoz H32 H2 SH >2ng HH< H.H Q7H Q H n: 3 :2 >>sz 23 z 2 HouomHmsHU mHnHQ tenuouounm 302 mo @39an "mHGoHonwooU GoHHmHonnoU noHVHO vHGmM cognmomm .HN 3nt 43 (b) within the hospitalized groups there will be no significant difference in the choice made by depressed and nondepressed groups. The null hypothesis of hypothesis number nine (a) and (b) was accepted on the basis of testing, using the Spearman Rank Order Corre- lation Coefficient test of statistical analysis. Table 22 presents a Frequency Table (absolute check ) of the specific choice of Least Preferred Bible Character for all _S_s as supple- mentary information. Table 23 gives the rs for various groups. Inspection of the results obtained from testing hypothesis number nine (see Table 23) indicate that there are no significant differences in choice of Least Preferred Bible Character for the Depressed and Normal groups (.792rs) and for Depressed and Nondepressed groups (.697rs). The sex variable seems to affect the correlation when it is large (N = 90 or N = 60) but not when it is small (N = 30). Two correlations which approach the one-tailed significance level of .564 for N = 10 are: All men and All women = . 576rs and All hospitalized men and All hospitalized women a . 578rs. In the small group comparisons, controlling for the sex variable, only that of Depressed men and Nondepressed men is below the level of significance indicating a significant difference in choice (.504r3). Several factors may account for differences in the subanalyses of HO: 8 and HO: 9 (see Tables 21 and 23). - The ten empirically derived Bible Characters which were to be ranked (see Appendix I and Schedule A of Appendix 11) contained two strongly negative Bible Characters, "Jezebel" and "Cain, " so that there was not as much choice as was afforded for the Most Preferred Bible Character (see Table 22 - Frequency Table of Choices of Least Preferred Bible Character). HooNHHmHHnHmom n H.H pommoumopcoz n QZ HuommounHoQ M Q COED; H 3 Q0: H 2 HNEHOZ H z coHumHHomoQ opoO updowod co mHN mHN Op OM OM om om om mH mH mH mH mH mH 3.308 3502 Hanna H H H H H H £53m H H H H H H >553 Ho >32 H H H H H H Hung H H H H H H HoHHHmQ ow. wH MN om H4H NH HVH NH 2 h N. m N. o m deU Hoaonm N H H N N H H H H H658... Ho .8525 >52 Hue. mm 3H mm NH pH pH pH NH 0 0 OH 0 o N. Hononoh Pm 3 2 3&2 3&2 3&2 3&2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 Q4 HH< d< H.H QZ Q 7H TH H.H QZ QZ Q Q Z Z HvHooHHU 353453 neuomumHHU mHnHmH pouuvwoum amped mo ooHoHHU "2nt >osmsvonh .NN sash. 45 .Hm>oH mocmonHcmHm BonQ u * “wom. Hm HdmoHHHGmHm HooHHmHnoso HH®>oH mo. “OH N Z m uwhm. mstN. 66>oo. msmNN. mHMF. msHmN. rmuvom. m swan. mHNNN. HeemvsoeaHdN H33 5863 HH< Harweemv 3sz 6633866: mummh . :5.: H8503 HooNHHmHHnHmoHH 6:3 . :23 $2 HUSHHSESHH Hawsdzv 3&2 pommoumopnoz mHmNL . H3QZV 3 pmmmmumvpsoz mumoh . H2QZV H32 HuommoumupnoZ H3&2Qv 3&2 powmoumoQ no .H H3Qv c0503 HoommoumoQ mummn . H2Qv G62 pommoumoQ Hsazzv >32 3882 mum; . H3Zv H5503 HmEqu H27: H82 168qu G02 2 2 34 I QZ 3&2 Q 3 Q 3 2 Z nouomumHHU anHHm ponuowounm $va Ho ooHoHHU HcheHoHHHmoU :oHumHounoU .5330 Hand cmfiumomm .MN 333. 46 In addition, the descriptive perceptions of the Least Preferred Bible Character did not differ significantly among the three groups (see Table 19). In order to obtain additional data regarding the preference choices of Bible Characters by the three groups, a Sums of Rank Order of Ranked Bible Characters was prepared, using the Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficient (rs). The results are given in Table 24. Inspection of the data in Table 24 shows that the sex variable is significant in causing correlations below the significance level of . 564rs (. 05 level, one-tailed) for all rS where the rank order of male §_s is compared with the rank order of female SS. It is progressively more true in regard to choice of Least Preferred Bible Character, Most Preferred Bible Character, and the Sums of Rank Order that the sex variable causes significant differences in choice. Inasmuch as depression and distortion do cause differences in choice of Most Preferred Bible Character, but do not do so in the choice of Least Preferred Bible Character (and less so in the Sums of Rank Order), it may be concluded that the selection of Most Preferred Bible Character was most expressive of unique personality needs. In the process of test administration it was noted that considerable time and thought was given by each _S_ to the selection of the Most Pre- ferred Bible Character. Another factor in test administration which may lend support to the highly discriminating function of Most Preferred Bible Character is the fact that the adjective check list descriptive of the Most Preferred Bible Character was given as the first in the series of four. .Ho>oH cosmonHcmHm BoHemH n a. ”wom. um HGmoHHHHHme HooHHmHuoco HH®>oH mo. HOH n Z m 4 nemm. 47 *muNmm. m 4 seem. HES :62 :4 H33 386? HH< SH... gage >32 souHHfiHemom 63mm. :55 6688.5 6326:6663 memos. H25 :62 HUSHHSHAHmoHH 6.32s. 2 H mm. Hasznzv 3&2 pommoumopGoZ ME. 22.. H396 C0503 pommoumopdoz mnHom . muHmw . H2QZV H52 pommonmopnoz 62mg. $323 :0803 & C¢2 pmmmouamQ *mnwmm . muNHo . H3QV c6853 pommonmoQ 65%. H29 82 363360 HBaszH H5503 & H32 HaEHoZ *mume. H323 583$ H6882 2)sz 52 H8682 G02 :4 2 2 Z QZ 3&2 3 2 3&2 3 2 Z mo mucouomoum uoH 6.8.5.639an oHnHHQ pouueHom OH .2250 MESH Ho mEdm HmHGoHonwooU GoHHmHoHHoU HopHO Madam cmgnmomm .HNN 3an CHAPTER V SUMMARY In this investigation an attempt was made to discover possible differences, on the basis of the Rogerian theory of the self concept, in a measure of self-regard (as measured by Actual Self and Ideal Self tetrachoric correlation coefficients) between normals, depressed patients, and nondepressed patients in a church-related general psychiatric hospital. The study also investigated if the three groups differed in perceptions and choices of Most Preferred Bible Character and Least Preferred Bible Character. _S_s ranked ten selected Bible Characters (empirically derived from a preliminary project) in relation to psychological affinity. The population used for this study was the membership of two Protestant denominations: the Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America. These churches represent a religious sub-culture in which there is a high degree of interest in and familiar- ity with the Bible. A sample of 30 normal _S_s (15 men and 15 women) was obtained from two Fellowship Clubs which were representative of the sub- culture population. _S_s were selected from Fellowship Clubs because these groups are not primarily oriented to Bible study and this re— search was not related to the degree of theological knowledge possessed by the _S_s. The normal _S_s were equated for Age (20-55 years) and Education (8th grade - some college). A sample of 60 psychiatric patients was selected from the newly admitted patients at Pine Rest Christian Hospital in Grand Rapids, 48 49 Michigan, who were similarly equated for Age and Education. Of this 60, 30 were depressed and 30 were nondepressed according to the diagnostic evaluation of the attending psychiatrist. Within each cate- gory there was an equal number of men and women. As a secondary criterion all _S_s were administered the 12 scale of the MMPI. In a preliminary project an adjective check list of 70 adjectives was developed empirically from a revision of Block (1961, p. 154). A second phase of the preliminary project, using the "Guess Who?" technique, produced 10 selected Bible characters which were matched with the 10 category personality descriptions, each containing 7 ad- jectives. In the main research all SS ranked the 10 selected Bible Characters, from Most Preferred to Least Preferred, according to psychological affinity. _S_s also marked, 1 and 9, the adjective check list in relation to perceptions of Bible Character No. 1 Most Preferred, Bible Character No. 10 Least Preferred, Your Self As You See Your Self, and Your Self As You Would Like To Be. — As a base for additional statistical computations, a series of six tetrachoric correlation coefficients was computed for all _S_s from the four scored adjective check lists. One-tailed tests with .05 level of significance were used as the level of significance for accepting or rejecting the hypotheses. The _z_ test was used to test the significance of the difference between two correlation coefficients in hypotheses involving independent groups. The L test was used to test the significance of the difference between two correlation coefficients in hypotheses involving non- independent groups. Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients were used to test for significant differences in choices of Most Preferred Bible Character and Least Preferred Bible Character. 50 Tables were used to indicate results and subanalyses were pre- sented to provide supplementary information. Eight hypotheses were subjected to statistical analysis with the following results: The correlation of Actual Self and Ideal Self was greater for the normal group than for the depressed group (_z 2. 56) confirming the findings of Rogers (1951), Chodorkoff (1954), Raymaker (1956), Chase (1956), Aspromonte (1959), and Gavales (1960). However the correlation of Actual Self and Ideal Self was not significantly greater for the non- depressed group than for the depressed group (_z_ 1. 386). There was a positive correlation of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character for all §_S (.84rt) but this relationship was not signifi- cantly greater for the normal group than for the depressed group (5 .44), and the relationship was not greater for the nondepressed (. 79rt) than for the depressed group (.85rt). The correlation of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character was significantly greater than that of Actual Self and Most Preferred Bible Character for all _S_s (t_ 6.554). The difference was greater for the depressed group (t_ 4.713) than for the normal group (_t_ 3.50); and the difference was greater for the depressed group (_t__ 4. 713) than for the nondepressed group (t_ 2.406). The correlation of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character was significantly greater than the correlation of Ideal Self and Least Preferred Bible Character for all _Ss (_t_ 12.91); and the difference was greater for the normal group (t_ 9.034) than for the depressed group (_t_ 7.521); but the difference was not greater for the nondepressed group (_t_ 5.729) than for the depressed group (t_ 7.521). The rt of Ideal Self and Most Preferred Bible Character (.84rt) for all _S_s was greater than the rt of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character (-. 20rt) for all _S_s. Observations also show that the 51 rt of the normal group (.88rt LS. and M. P. and -. 25rt A. S. and L. P.) is greater than that for the depressed group (.85rt LS. and M.P. and -.16rt A. S. and L. P.). However, the r of the nondepressed group t (.79rt LS. and M. P. and --.21rt A. S. and L.P.) is not greater than that of the depressed group as was hypothesized. The correlation of Actual Self and Most Preferred Bible Character was significantly greater than the correlation of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character for all _S_s (t_ 4.13); and the difference was greater for the normal (_t_ 3.637) than for the depressed group (1:_ 1.052). The difference was greater for the nondepressed group (t_ 2.654) than for the depressed group (_t_ 1.052). The correlation of Actual Self and Least Preferred Bible Character was not significantly greater for the depressed group than for the normal group (_z_ . 346); and the correlation was not significantly greater for the depressed group than for the nondepressed group (a .191). There was no significant difference in choice of Most Preferred Bible Character for the depressed and normal groups (. 79rs) and for the depressed and nondepressed groups (.834rs). The sex variable causes a significant difference when all small groups are compared (see Table 21). Depression affects the specific choice of Most Preferred Bible Character even though it does not affect significantly the perception of the Most Preferred Bible Character (compare Tables 14 and 21). The following correlations (rs) on choice of Most Preferred Bible Char- acter support the previous statement: Normal men and Depressed men = . 513rs and Normal women and Depressed women = . 569rs. Distortion plus some depression would account for the following significantly lower correlations in choice of Most Preferred Bible Character: Depressed men and Nondepressed men == . 431rs and Depressed women and Nondepressed women = . 245rs. 52 There were no significant differences in choice of Least Preferred Bible Character for the depressed and normal groups (. 792rs), and for depressed and nondepressed groups (.697rs). The sex variable affected the correlation when N was large, but not when it was small (see Table 23). Two correlations which are greater than the one-tailed, . 05 signifi- cance level of . 564rS for N = 10 are: All men and All women = . 576rs and All hospitalized men and All hospitalized women = . 578rs. In the small group comparisons, controlling for the sex variable, only that of Depressed men and Nondepressed men was below the level of significance, indicating a significant difference in choice of Least Preferred Bible Character (. 504rs). The sex variable was significant in causing correlations below the significance level of .564rS on the Sums of Rank Order (see Table 24). Recommendations for Further Research 1. A replication of this study could be done, achieving greater homogeneity in the nondepressed group by confining the sample to diagnosed Schizophrenics who score below 60 (2 score) on the I_)_ scale of the MMPI in order to measure possible distortion in isolation from secondary depression. 2. A replication of this study could be done using the MMPI 2 scale as a primary criterion rather than psychiatrist's evaluation. This would also make possible a test of the significance of degree of depression as it affects self perceptions and perceptions of selected Bible characters. 3. A replication of this study could be performed using the statis- tical technique of Block's (1961) (_D_—sort in order to determine the strength of the tetrachoric correlation coefficient (rt) in discriminating between normals' and depressives' self perceptions and perceptions of selected Bible character 8. 53 4. A comparative study could be made of theological students and persons without specialized theological training to determine if education affects self perceptions and perceptions of selected Bible characters. 5. A replication of this study could be done in a general Protestant population to ascertain if the sub-culture population of this study differs significantly. 6. A replication of this study could be made using the population of the Calvinistic Protestant religious sub-culture of the Netherlands in order to test for the effect of geographical and cultural environment in relation to self perceptions and perceptions of selected Bible characters. 7. A similar study could be made in various religious sub- cultures such as Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Hebrew, and Unitarian-Universalist, in order to discover if the variable of religious affiliation is significant in causing differences in self perceptions and perceptions of selected Bible characters. In some of the suggested further research (especially in 7) it would be necessary to have separate preliminary projects for the development of an adjective check list and selected Bible characters. 10. 11. R EF ERENC ES . Aspromonte, A. Distortion of the self and others in schizophrenia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1959. . Block, J. An unprofitable application of the semantic differential. J. consult. Psychol., 1958, L2, 235-236. Block, J. The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psy- chiatric research. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1961. Chang, Judy, and Block, J. A study of identification in male homo- sexuals. J. consult. Psychol., 1960, 24, 307-310. . Chase, P. H. Concepts of self and concepts of others in adjusted and maladjusted hospital patients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Colorado, 1956. . Chase, P. H. Self concepts in adjusted and maladjusted hospital patients. J. consult. Psychol., 1957, _2_1_, 495-497. . Chodorkoff, B. Adjustment and the discrepancy between the per- ceived and ideal self. J. clin. Psychol., 1954, _12, 266-268. . Corrie, C. Aspiration, self acceptance, and acceptance of others in normal and neuropsychiatric groups. Unpublished doctoral disser- tation, The Florida State University, 1958. Edwards, A. L. Statistical methods for the behavioral sciences. New York: Rinehart, 1960. Fagan, M. J., and Guthrie, E. R. Perceptions of self and of normality in schizophrenics. J. clin. Psychol., 1959, _1_5_, 203-207. Fiedler, F. E., Warrington, W. C., and Blaisdell, F. J. Unconscious attitudes as correlates of sociometric choice in a social group. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1952, 41, 790-796. 54 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 55 Friedman, I. Phenomenal, ideal, and projected conceptions of self. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, §_1_, 611-615. Gavales, D. Relationships between self-portrayal and psychopath- ology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Houston, 1960. Gottlieb, J. , and Tourney, G. The depressive illnesses: their diagnosis and treatment. J. chronic Diseases, 1959, 2, 234-248. Ibelle, B. P., Discrepancies between self-concepts and ideal self- concepts in paranoid schizophrenics and normals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, 1960. Mullen, Esther. An investigation of some aspects of depression and its effect on the perception of the self and others in a non-psychiatric population. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1958. Omwake, K. T. The relationship between acceptance of self and acceptance of others as shown by three personality inventories. J. consult. Psychol., 1954, i8, 443-446. Peatman, J. G. Introduction. to applied statistics. New York: Harper, 1963. Raymaker, H. , Jr. Relationships between the self-concept, self- ideal concept and maladjustment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1956. Rogers, A. H. The self concept in paranoid schizophrenia. J. clin. Psychol., 1958, _l_i, 365-366. Rogers, C. R. Client—centered therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1951. (a) Rogers, C. R. The case of Mrs. Oak: a research analysis. Psychol. Serv. Bull., 1951, 3, 47—165. (b) Rogers, C. R., and Dymond, Rosalind F. (Eds.) Psychotherapy and personality change. Chicago: Univer. of Chicago Press, 1954. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 56 Rosenzweig, S. The effects of failure and success on evaluation of self and others: a study of depressed patients and normals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1960. Sarbin, T. R., and Rosenberg, B. G. Contributions to role-taking theory: IV. A method for obtaining a qualitative estimate of the self. J. soc. Psychol., 1955, 4_2_, 71-81. Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Stock, D. An investigation into the interrelations between the self concept and feeling directed towards other persons and groups. J. consult. Psychol., 1949, _l_3_, 176-180. Tamkin, A. S. Selective recall in schizophrenia and its relation to ego strength. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, _5_5_, 344-349. Thompson, W. R., and Nishimura, Rhoda. Some determinants of friendship. 11.3.3.5.” 1952, 2__0, 305—314. Tolor, A. Self-perceptions of neuropsychiatric patients on the W-A-Y Test. J. clin. Psychol., 1957, _l_3_, 403-406. Walters, O. 5. Religion and psychopathology. Compr. Psychiat., 1964, _5_, 29. Worchel, P. , and Hillson, J. S. The self-concept in the criminal: an exploration of Adlerian theory. J. Indiv. Psychol. , 1958, _l_4. 173-181. Wylie, Ruth C. The self concept (A critical survey of pertinent research literature). Lincoln: Univer. of Nebraska Press, 1961. Zuckerman, M., Baer, M., and Monashkin, 1. Acceptance of self, parents, and people in patients and normals. J. clin. Psychol. , 1956, g, 3274332.. APPENDIX I INSTRUMENT USED IN PRELIMINARY PROJECT 58 INSTRUCTIONS The task you are asked to perform is part of a preliminary study which is being made prior to a major research project. 1. Please complete the following information, using appropriate (V) check marks. DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME AGE: years SEX: Male Female MARITAL STATUS: Married, Single, Widow, Widower. OCCUPATION: CHURCH AFFILIATION: Chr. Ref. Ref. Prot. Ref. Other EDUCATION: Last grade attended. 2. On the sheet, "Guess Who" - place one name from the attached listing of Bible Characters which you believe best matches each separate description. Do not use a name more than once. Instructions: 59 GUESS WHO ? First read each separate cluster of adjectives, second, examine the complete listing of Bible characters which appear at the left, then place the ONE name which you believe best matches each description. . Repeat for each cluster of adjectives. Joshua Hagar Peter Aaron Thomas Elizabeth Joseph (Husband of Mary) Abel Naomi Sarah Jonah Esther Abraham Samson Jonathan Delilah Moses Absalom Samaritan woman Judas Iscariot Andrew Mary (mother of Jesus) Ruth Barnabas Leah John the Baptist Cain Rebekah Job Daniel Rahab Lot David Jezebel Pontius Pilate Hannah Paul assertive-dominant, bossy, overly-confident, austere, dogmatic, insensitive, tyrannical. submissive, dependent, obedient, quiet, agreeable, timid-meek, subdued. impulsive, hasty, hurried, impetuous, impatient, changeable, tactless. critical, dissatisfied, whining, bitter, envious, resentful, touchy-irritable. able, adequate, confident, intelligent, precise, self-assured (poised), sensible (level-headed). brave, daring, dauntless, determined, fearless, heroic, valiant. soc1able, congenial, friendly, warm, affable, cooperative, cordial. considerate, kindly, pleasant, sincere, gentle, relaxed, sympathetic. active, vigorous, energetic, forceful, intense, lively, industrious. continued Mary of Bethany Elijah Miriam Deborah Queen of Sheba Esau Mary Magdalene Jacob Martha Herodias Eve John (apostle) Rachel 60 unhappy, worried (anxious), pessimistic, withdrawn (introverted), defensive (self- excusing), uninterested (indifferent), slow in speech and movement. A PP EN DIX II INSTRUMENTS USED IN MAIN RESEARCH 61 62 Code No. Introduction I am asking your participation in this project in order to help solve some problems related to pastoral counseling. Your partici- pation will be very beneficial to pastoral counselors. This study is not concerned in any way with knowing your indi- vidual name. I am therefore assigning a coded number to each person. Please do not write your name on any sheet of paper given to you, but be sure to put the assigned number at the top right-hand corner of each sheet which is marked Code No. . We also are using this procedure because we need your free and honest participation. There are no riglit and wronLanswers. Your answers to the items depend upon your personal feelings, and not upon how you think others would answer the items. Now--are there any questions before we begin? PERSONAL DATA Please complete the following information. DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME! AGE: years SEX: Male Female MARITAL STATUS: _____ Married _______ Single __ Widow Widower ____ Separated or Divorced OCCUPATION: CHURCH AFFILIATION: __ Chr. Ref. __ Ref. __ Prot. Ref. __ Other EDUCATION : 1 Last grade attended 63 Schedule A Code No. RANKING OF BIBLE CHARACTERS Instructions Please rank the following Bible characters in answer to this question: "IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, WITH WHICH BIBLE CHARACTER WOULD YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO HAVE THEM VISIT IN YOUR HOME?" Rank your choice from 1 to 10, from most desired to least desired, according to your dominant feeling. Bible Characters Rank Order Jezebel David 1. Mary (mother of Jesus) Mary of Bethany Peter Ruth Cain Paul Daniel Moses OOCDKIO‘WfiUJN y-a 64 Schedule B BIBLE CHARACTER NO. 1 MOST PREFERRED Instructions For the M_O_SI preferred Bible character which you have just selected, please describe this MOST preferred character by using the adjective check list to be distributed. Simply follow this procedure: In front of those adjectives which you feel I_)_C_) apply, mark a _1_ (one); and mark 2 (zero) those adjectives which you feel do NOT describe this _M_C_)_§_T Preferred Bible character. Please respond according to your domi- nant feeling. 65 Schedule B Code No. BIBLE CHARACTER NO. 1 MOST PREFERRED Name of Character able impulsive active industrious adequate insensitive affable intelligent agreeable intense assertive, dominant kindly austere lively bitter obedient bossy overly-confident brave pessimistic changeable pleasant confident precise congenial quiet considerate relaxed cooperative resentful cordial self-assured, poised critical sensible, level-headed daring sincere dauntless slow in speech and movement defensive-self-excusing sociable dependent subdued determined submissive dissatisfied sympathetic dogmatic tactless energetic timid, meek envious touchy, irritable fearless tyrannical forceful unhappy continued 66 friendly gentle hasty heroic hur ried impatient impetuous uninterested valiant vigorous warm whiny withdrawn worried, anxious 67 BIBLE CHARACTER NO. 10 LEAST PREFERRED Instructions For the LEAST preferred Bible character which you have just selected, please describe this LEAST preferred character by using the adjective check list to be distributed. Simply follow this pro- cedure: In front of those adjectives which you feel I_)_O apply mark a i (one), and mark 9_ (zero) those adjectives which you feel do N(_)_'_I‘ describe this LEAST Preferred Bible character. Again, respond according to your dominant feeling. 68 Schedule C Code No. BIBLE CHARACTER No. 10 LEAST PREFERRED Name of Characte r able impulsive active industrious adequate insensitive affable intelligent agreeable intense assertive, dominant kindly austere lively bitter obedient bossy overly—confident brave pessimistic changeable pleasant confident precise congenial quiet considerate relaxed cooperative resentful cordial self-assured, poised critical sensible, level-headed daring sincere dauntless slow in speech and movement defensive-self-excusing sociable dependent subdued determined submissive dissatisfied sympathetic dogmatic tactless energetic timid, meek envious touchy, irritable fearless tyrannical c ontinued 69 forceful friendly gentle hasty heroic hurried impatient impetuou s unhappy uninter ested, indiffer ent valiant vigorous warm whiny withdrawn worried, anxious 70 Schedule D YOUR SELF AS YOU SEE YOUR SELF Instructions Now we would like you to use the adjective check list to be distributed to describe YOUR SELF AS YOU SEE YOUR SELF. If you feel that an adjective does apply to you, mark_1_ (one), if it does NOT apply to to YOUR SELF AS YOU SEE YOUR SELF, markg (zero). Respond according to your dominant feeling. 71 Schedule D Code No. YOUR SELF AS YOU SEE YOUR SELF able impulsive active industrious adequate insensitive affable intelligent agreeable intense assertive, dominant kindly austere lively bitter obedient bossy overly-confident brave pessimistic changeable pleasant confident ‘ precise congenial quiet considerate relaxed cooperative resentful cordial self-assured, poised critical sensible, level-headed daring sincere dauntless slow in speech and movement defensive-self-excusing sociable dependent subdued determined submissive dissatisfied sympathetic dogmatic tactless energetic timid, meek envious touchy, irritable fearless tyrannical forceful unhappy continued 72 friendly gentle hasty heroic hurried impatient impetuou s unintere sted, indifferent valiant vigorous warm whiny withdrawn worried, anxious 73 Schedule E YOUR SELF AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE Instructions Finally, we would like you to use the adjective check list to be dis- tributed for describing YOUR SELF AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE. If you feel that an adjective DOES apply, marki (one), if it does NOT apply to YOUR SELF AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE, mark _0_ (zero). Again, respond according to your dominant feeling. 74 Schedule E Code No. YOUR SELF AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE able impulsive active industrious adequate insensitive affable intelligent agreeable intense assertive, dominant kindly austere lively bitter obedient bossy overly-confident brave pessimistic changeable pleasant confident precise congenial quiet considerate relaxed cooperative resentful cordial self—assured, poised critical sensible, level-headed daring sincere dauntless slow in speech and movement defensive self-excusing sociable dependent subdued determined submissive dissatisfied sympathetic dogmatic tactless energetic timid, meek envious touchy, irritable fearless tyrannical continued 75 forceful friendly gentle hasty heroic hurried impatient impetuou s unhappy uninter e sted, indiffer ent valiant vigorous warm whiny withdrawn, introverted worried, anxious APPENDIX III INSTRUMENT USED BY PSYCHIATRISTS FOR DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION 76 77 Date To: Psychiatrist - Pine Rest Christian Hospital From: Chaplain W. L. Hiemstra Subject: Your research participation INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT Judgment of individuals for diagnostic reasons varies in complexity. Both quantitative and qualitative aspects of symptomatology are involved. For example, one case of depression may have a wide spreading effect, almost pervading the total personality (quantitative) but it may not necessarily be an intense depression (qualitative). On the other hand, an individual may feel profoundly or intensely depressed, but the sympto- matology may only have a relatively narrow spreading effect upon the personality. Therefore it is possible to have many symptoms but not feel intensely depressed, or to have few symptoms but feel profoundly depressed. In addition to the quantitative and qualitative aspects of sympto- matology, the dimension of Observability is also involved. For example, in some cases schizophrenia is highly observable but in other instances this condition is primarily inferred without much visibility. In connection with the latter possibility an individual may suppress, deny, or "hide" direct symptom expression with or without insight but the patient's incon- sistent behavior, including verbal remarks or history, may nevertheless lead to the judgment of schizophrenia. Moreover, with this same type of circumstances both the quantitative and qualitative aspects are involved. Many other factors are involved in establishing a diagnostic con- clusion. Various dimensions or variables are involved. But in this study please attempt to make your diagnosis in terms of the above aspects: qualitative, quantitative, Observability vs. non-Observability aspects of the symptomatology of the patient. 78 Page 2. Code No. Patient's Name P.R. C. H. No. Date Admitted Attending Psychiatrist After evaluating the patient, please complete the following tasks by making a check mark (V) where judged applicable: A. QUALITATIVE (degree of intensity or disturbance of symptomatology as judged by psychiatrist) 1. None 2. Little 3. Some 4. Much B. QUANTITATIVE (number of symptoms affecting entire person as judged by psychiatrist) . None . Little . Some . Much fith—d C. OBSERVABILITY (degree of visibility of symptomatology as judged by psychiatrist) 1. None 2. Little 3. Some 4. Much D. DIAGNOSTIC CATEGORY: 1. Adjustment reaction 2. Depression 3. Personality Trait Disturbance 4. Schizophrenia 5. Sociopathic Personality 6. Other (specify) APPENDIX IV D SCALE OF MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY 79 80 Code No. INDIVIDUAL INV EN TO RY This inventory consists of numbered statements. Read each state- ment and decide whether it is true as applied to you or false as applied to you. You are to mark your answers to the left of each statement. If a statement is TRUE or MOSTLY TRUE, as applied to you, check (J) the space in the column head 2. If a statement is FALSE or NOT USUALLY TRUE, as applied to you, check (V) the space in the column headed Ii. Remember to give YOUR OWN opinion of yourself. Do not leave any blank space if you can avoid it. Erase completely any answer you wish to change. Remember, try to make some answer to every state- ment. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 81 I have a good appetite. I am easily awakened by noise. My daily life is full of things that keep me interested. I am about as able to work as I ever was. I am very seldom troubled by constipation. At times I feel like swearing. I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job. I seldom worry about my health. At times I feel like smashing things. I have had periods of days, weeks, or months when I couldn't take care of things because I couldn't "get going. " My sleep is fitful and disturbed. My judgment is better than it ever was. I am in just as good physical health as most of my friends. I prefer to pass by school friends, or people I know but have not seen for a long time, unless they speak to me first. I am a good mixer. Everything is turning out just like the prophets of the Bible said it would. I sometimes keep on at a thing until others lose their patience with me. I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be. I sometimes tease animals. I am certainly lacking in self-confidence. I usually feel that life is worth-while. It takes a lot of argument to convince most people of the truth. I go to church almost every week. I believe in the second coming of Christ. I don't seem to care what happens to me. I am happy most of the time. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 82 I seem to be about as capable and smart as most others around me. Ihave never vomited blood or coughed up blood. I do not worry about catching diseases. Criticism or scolding hurts me terribly. I certainly feel useless at times. At times I feel like picking a fist fight with someone. Most nights I go to sleep without thoughts or ideas bothering me. During the past few years I have been well most of the time. Ihave never had a fit or convulsion. I am neither gaining or losing weight. I cry easily. I cannot understand what I read as well as I used to. Ihave never felt better in my life than I do now. My memory seems to be all right. I am afraid of losing my mind. I feel weak all over much of the time. Sometimes, when embarrassed, I break out in a sweat which annoys me greatly. I do not have spells of hay fever or asthma. I enjoy many different kinds of play and recreation. I like to flirt. I have at times stood in the way of people who were trying to do something, not because it amounted to much but because of the principle of the thing. I brood a great deal. I dream frequently about things that are best kept to myself. I believe I am no more nervous than most others. Sometimes without any reason or even when things are going wrong I feel excitedly happy, "on top of the world. " 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 83 I have difficulty in starting to do things. j. .J I sweat very easily even on cool days. When I leave home I do not worry about whether the door is locked and the windows closed. I do not blame a person for taking advantage of someone who lays himself open to it. At times I am full of energy. Once in a while I laugh at a dirty joke. I am troubled by attacks of nausea and vomiting. I work under a great deal of tension. I have periods in which I feel unusually cheerful without any special reason. APPENDIX V SAMPLE SCORING SHEET USED IN THE COMPUTATION OF TETRACHORIC CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS 84 'Age Education Occupation Church Marital Status Ideal Self Ideal Self Actual Self Mo st Pr efe rred l 0 0 Actual Self 1 0 0 Least Preferred l 0 o Bible Character Rank Ord er Most Least 85 Ideal Self Actual Self Least Pr eferr ed Code No. MMPI 13 - TScore Most Preferred 1 0 Least Preferred 1 0 Most Preferred l 0 ~Age Education Occupation Church Marital Status Ideal Self Ideal Self Actual Self Mo st Pr efe rred Least 1 0 0 Actual Self 1 0 0 Least Preferred 1 0 0 Bible Character Rank Order Most 85 Ideal Self Actual Self Least Pr eferr ed Code No. MMPI 12 - [Score Most Pr efe rr ed 1 0 Least Preferred 1 0 Most Preferred 1 0