SELF - DECEPHON;
A MEASURE OF DEFENSIVENESS

Them for the Dawn of. M A».
MICHXGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Mona Rosenberg
19.62

V." ;.v

 

     
   

  

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

' ' '1';7"~)
, » 13% .

ABSTRACT
SELF-DECEPTION: A MEASURE OF DEFENSIVENESS

by Mona Rosenberg

This study, stemming from psychoanalytic theory, was under-
taken in order to ascertain whether it was possible to measure degrees
of defensiveness (in the form of self-deception) and to determine whether
some lawful association between self-deception and. amount of anxiety
in a stress situation existed. Self-deception was defined as the dis-
crepancy between strengths of needs expressed in a conscious assess-
ment of self and strengths of needs derived from fantasy (material
brought to awareness but not necessarily associated consciously with
self). The stress situation was defined as an examination where subjects
were required to write essays with a strong ingredient'of self-reference.

Three sections of a "Methods of Study" course, taught by one
instructor,xwere~ separated according to grade point average into the
Experimental group (those with failing grades) and the Control group
(those with passing grades). The two groups were adequately equated on
age, sex, number of terms spent at college and intelligence.

Subjects were group administered the EPPS, seven TAT cards
and the examination. From this basic data scaled scores of the strength
of five needs (Ach. , Def. , Aut. , Int. , Agg.) were derived from the
EPPS scale and strengths of the same needs were judged on a five point
scale on relevant TAT stories. The relevance of particular stories was
previously determined by an‘analysis of all seven stories to elicit which

stories contained the most need content across the whole group.

Mona Ros enberg

The discrepancies between needs as expressed on each instrument were
calculated, and then the resulting five scores were totalled to form the
final discrepancy score (DS). The essay was scored by means of the
DiscomforteRelief Ratio technique to ascertain amount of anxiety re-
vealed in the stress situation.

It was predicted that, l) the DS scores for the Experimental group
would be higher than the DS scores for the Control group; 2) the DRQ for
the experimental group would be higher than the DRQ for the Control
group, and 3) in the sample as a whole subjects with high DS scores
would be high DRQ scorers. None of these predictions were borne out,
but some slight trends were noted. The probable causes of the failure
to elicit significant results were discussed and tended to cluster around
the inadequacy of the control measure and the subjective relevance of the
experimental situation for individual subjects.

A second analysis was carried out on the secondand third hypotheses
using the DRQ ratio of . 50 as the critical difference rather than the median
DRQ. On the latter, where the control variable is not operative significant
results were obtained. The implications of this result were discussed.

It was concluded that in a stress situation subjects who are more self-
deceptive are the more anxious. The self-deception measure would
therefore appear to have some validity within the theoretical framework

from which it stems.

 

 

SELF-DECEPTION: A MEASURE OF DEFENSIVENESS

BY

Mona Rosenberg

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MAST ER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1962.

DEDICATION

To Eddie, Iriet and Edor

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express her gratitude to
Dr. A. I. Rabin who acted as the original chairman of
this thesis committee and to Dr. H. C. Smith who later
agreed to act in this capacity.

Gratitude is also here expressed to Dr. Josephine
Morse for her close attention, sympathetic treatment
and constant cooperation in the preparation of this
project.

>i<>k>l<>l<>i<>i<>i<>k=i<>§<

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

‘ Page
I. INTRODUCTION ........................ 1
A.. Unconscious motivation and the concept of defense . . 1
B. The concept of self and the relation to anxiety .....

C. The concept of self-deception: Rationale and State-
ment of Hypotheses ................... 5
:11. METHOD ............................ 8
A. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule ........ 8
B. The Thematic Apperception Test ....... . 11

C. Studies Seeking Relationships Between the TAT and
EPPS.. ......... ........ ..14
D. Discomfort-Relief Ratio ............... .. 16
E. Selection of Subjects .................. ' 17
F. Procedure ........................ 18
1) Administration . . ................ 18
2) Steps in the Analytic Procedure . . ....... 20
G.- Statements of Hypotheses and Operational Predictions 25
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................. 26
A. Results ........................ . 26
B. Discussion ...................... . 28
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... _ ........ . 30
REFERENCES ........... ' .............. 32
APPENDICES ......................... 35

iv

TABLE

mquN

LIST OF TABLES

The Experimental and Control Groups Compared on
FourVariables.....................

Frequencies of Needs Expressed in TAT Stories . . .
DS and DRQ Related to Grade Point Attainment . . . .
DS Scores Related to Strength of DRQ Ratios .....

Critical DRQ Ratio of . 50 Related to Control Variable
and DS . . . . ............... . ......

Page

19
21
26
27

27

APPENDIX

A.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page
The manifest needs associated with each of the
15 PPS variables . . . . .......... . . . 36
The Examination Topic .......... . . . . 39
An example of an examination essay showing
DRQ scoring ...... . ....... . . . . . 40

vi

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Unconscious motivation and the concept of defense.

Freud's critical contribution to contemporary understanding of
human behaviour was his theory of unconscious motivation. Fenichel
(1945) has stated that the differentiation between conscious and
unconscious phenomena is purely descriptive and not quantitative.

He proposes that the problem of differentiation be approached by dis-
covering under "what circumstances and what energies" the condition
of consciousness arises (p. 14).

Focusing attention on the circumstances under which latent
material becomes manifest calls for the necessity of Specifying what is
latent and what is manifest and of showing that there is a continuity
of motivation from one level to another. It is therefore necessary to
demonstrate that samples of derived ideation belong to unitary and
genotypical motives operative at the different levels of the unconscious-
conscious continuum, differing in qualitative features associated with
the particular levels.

The point, in time and form of qualitative change, at which
unconscious material becomes conscious is highly elusive. This aspect
of the problem requires research into phenomena of insight or regres-
sion in the service of the ego and similar processes where continuation
of primary process thought into secondary process thought can be
demonstrated.

Another aspect of the problem is the failure of unconscious
material to become conscious. This, too, is relevant to Fenichel's

statement which may be rephrased: what are the circumstances and

energies under which the condition of consciousness arises for one
group of individuals and how do they differ from the circumstances

and energies under which consciousness fails to arise in another group
of individuals when the research focus is on the same motivational
content?

To account for the failure of unconscious material relevant to
a particular stimulus situation to come into awareness, Freudian theory
postulates the interaction of anxiety associated with the previous
expression of this material. To avoid the painful anxiety a non-discharge
apparatus is developed, which in varying degrees of effectivity, employs
defensive maneouvres protecting the individual from awareness of the
material (Fenichel, 1945). Schafer (1954) discussing the defensive
operations indicates that they usually involve the denial of conscious
representation of ideas, affects and other impulses associated with the
threatening discharge as well as that discharge itself. The implication
is that the complex web of defensive operations is intricately interwoven
and interacting so that a single motivational thread would be difficult to
isolate and trace. Schafer points out that it cannot be said of any
behaviour item or trend, simply that it is a "defense" but that one can
speak of a defensive aspect that is particularly striking, relevant or
crucial.

The defensive aspects of varying samples of behaviour have been
discussed and elaborated by several writers. Anna Freud» (1946) has
delineated and described the operations of nine major mechanisms.

The crucial theme in all these discussions is the protection of the ego
from anxiety, conceptualized as avoidance of loss of self-esteem
(Fenichel, 1945). Thus defenses are geared to the maintenance of

self-esteem.

B. The concept of self and the relation to anxiety.

This emphasis on the dynamic principle of the maintenance of
self-esteem in interpersonal experience has been the central notion
of theories of personality developed since the early Freudian (Munroe,
1955). To Adler the basic generalized anxiety of the infant, felt as
inferiority, is the motivational drive of behaviour directed toward
overcoming this vulnerable situation. As a function of social determinants
the creative self strives toward self-actualization resulting in the neutral-
ization of anxiety. Adler thus implies considerable awareness in the
individual of the source of anxiety and of self.

Horney, too, is concerned with the unitary concept of self and the
need to maintain self-esteem. In the neurotic, driven by the conflicting
demands of reality and the excessively demanding idealized image of
self, the attempt to avoid unpleasant loss of self-esteem engenders
conflict which requires the repression of some of his needs. These may
now be unconscious but are not eliminated. By virtue of their unconscious
form they become more vigorous and are cut off from modification via
reality testing. They may erupt into consciousness through the safety
devices of rationalization and externalization. The aim of the safety
devices (defenses) is the avoidance of anxiety.

Sullivan's emphasis is more on the immediate disorganizing effects
of anxiety arising out of interpersonal experience. But the historical
antecedents of anxiety are rooted in the early infantile differentiation of
self and non-self; as with Horney the antecedents are the infant's
insecurity. The developing personality has at its disposal mechanisms
of selective inattention and dissociation which permit the exclusion from
awareness an aspect of experience that is anxiety provoking. Since
anxiety is disorganizing the aim of these mechanisms is essentially the

preservation of the self as a unit.

Rogers (1951), concentrating on a more organismic concept of
self, has delineated nineteen propositions which underlie the several
functional aspects of the self. The essential thread is a striving for
consistency which may be thwarted by the introjection of values per-
ceived in a distorted fashion or by experiences perceived as threats.

In striving for coherence, and maintenance of the self as worthy, many
experiences, feelings and ideas are kept out of awareness as not
congruent with the self-image. They nevertheless continue to disturb
and disrupt psychological adjustment.

More recently Rogers (1958) has described self-awareness as
one of the signs of a mature and "healthy" individual, conceiving of
defensive structures as withering away, as anxiety dissipates and
spontaneity increases. By implication, it is assumed that under stress,
with concomitant anxiety, there will be an increased need for defensive
maneouvering.

Hilgard (1949) draws these concepts of self, anxiety and defense
together by specifying that defenses have a twofold role in regard to
the self: a) defense mechanisms protect the self from anxiety, and
b) they are self-deceptive in their operation. Since defenses all have
a self-reference an interaction is implied between anxiety, levels of
self-awareness and degree of self-deception. Whether this interaction
is haphazard and subject merely to chance variations or whether there
are some consistent and lawful relationships between these attributes of
personality, is the concern of this study.

The research focus is, therefore, upon a group of individuals
experiencing considerable generalized threat to self-esteem. From the
theoretical viewpoints outlined above, it would be expected that these
individuals would need to resort to defensive strategies (equated here

with self-deception) in varying degrees. Further, that those individuals

employing the more extensive strategies would be those who are more

anxious in a specific stress situation relevant to the generalized threat.

C. The concept of self-deception: rationale and statement
of hypotheses.

The concept of self-deception rests on the theory that the individual
operates at different levels of self-awareness, particularly with regards
to sources of motivation, and the need to externalize derived ideation
despite its unpleasurable associations. Fenichel (1945) states that:

Unconscious material under (such) high pressure has only one
aim: discharge. Its freely floating energy is directed according
to the 'primary process'; that is, it is unburdened by the demands
of reality, time, order or logical considerations; it becomes
condensed and displaced, following only the interests of increased
possibilities of discharge. This mode of functioning of the archaic
mind remains effective in the realm of the unconscious; in the
more differentiated parts of the mind it gradually becomes sup-
planted by the organized secondary process (p. 15).

Here, then, two levels of awareness are described and another inter-
mediate level, more accessible to consciousness, functions just below
awareness and is called the preconscious. Material from the preconscious
can be brought into awareness by the act of attention but is altered by
the displaced unconscious material which, in a sense, has used the
preconscious as a vehicle for externalization.

Hilgard (1949) presents two concepts to embrace the implications

of self at all levels of awareness. 1) The self present in awareness which

 

is dependent on the organizing features of continuity of memories as
binding the self and maintaining self-identity, and self— evaluation and

self-criticism. 2) the inferred self which comprises both conscious but

 

not necessarily ego controlled phenomena, and unconscious phenomena.

A critical differentiation between these is that some conscious phenomena

(e. g. dreams) may be in awareness but are not part of the self in
awareness and the inferred self may be excluded from awareness.

Then, if we can validly obtain a description of a particular aspect
of personality which the individual consciously ascribes to himself in
a self-evaluative and self-critical manner, and juxtapose it with a
description of the same aspect of his personality inferred from material
in awareness which he does not consciously ascribeto himself we will
have two descriptions of the self. The first description represents the
self in awareness and the second the inferred self and the discrepancy
between the two, assuming that they are measured with the same or
similar rule, is the operational definition of self-deception.

Since impulses and needs denied conscious expression by the ego,
theoretically continuing to strive to break through into consciousness,
are assumed to be linked with anxiety when they do begin to reach
awareness (Blum, 1954) we would expect,

1) that subjects who are experiencing the greater objective

threat to their self-esteem are those who will exhibit more
self-deception, and

2) that subjects exhibiting more self-deception will be the more
anxious in a stress situation relevant to that particular threat.

These hypotheses rest on the following three assumptions:

a) That a description of a sample of needs ascribed to the self in
awareness may be validly obtained from individual subjects.

b) A description of the same needs applicable to the inferred self
may be reliably derived from samples of fantasy produced by
these subjects.

c) The discrepancy between these descriptions are the result of

defensive strategies in the form of self-deception.

The burden of demonstrating the validity of assumptions (a) and
(b) rests on data from experimental literature cited in following
chapters. Assumption (c) is inherent in the theory upon which this

study is based.

II. METHOD

This study was designed to investigate the relationship between a
measure of defensiveness pertaining to a circumscribed area of threat
to self and a measure of anxiety obtained during a relevant stress
situation. For this purpose two groups of subjects differing with respect
to that threat to self, and matched on all other pertinent variables, were
compared on the amounts of defensiveness assessed and the amounts of
anxiety expressed.

Self-deception, our measure of defensiveness, was defined as the
discrepancy between strength of needs as expressed through statements
consciously attributed to self (i. e. , in awareness) and strength of the
same needs‘ as assessed from fantasy material (i. e. ,. inferred self).

The instrument selected to measure needs ascribed to the self in
awareness was the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS)(1954).
The instrument selected to obtain fantasy material was the Thematic
Apperception Test (Murray and Morgan, 1935), which was then rated on
scales of the strength of needs expressed. Discrepancy scores derived
from the differences between the obtained values for each need at the
two levels of awareness were summed for each subject and this summed
score represented the measure of self-deception.

Themeasure of anxiety selected was the Discomfort-Relief Ratio
(Dollard and “Mowrer, .195 3). ‘.

We come now to a description of the materials used and the rele-

vant literature.

A. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule.

In the EPPS manual Edwards maintains that the statementsnto which

subjects respond measure 15 personality variables which have their
origin in a list of manifest needs suggested by H. A. Murray. The
manifest needs are listed below and the operational definitions of each

are given in Appendix 1.

. Achievement
. Deference

. Order
Exhibition

. Autonomy

. Affiliation

. Intraception
. Succorance

. Dominance
10. Abasement
11. Nurturance
12. Change

13. Endurance
l4. Heterosexuality
15. Aggression

\O®~lO‘U1r¥>LAJNv—'

Also the EPPS has built in a measure of test consistency.

The EPPS is constructed in the forced choice form and statements
are paired for equality of value on a social desirability scale in order to
minimize the influence of the social desirability (SD) factor in responses.
Edwards (1957) is of the opinion that each statement from the population
of statements describing personality may be characterized in terms of
its position on a single dimension of desirability-undesirability. Using
the scaling method he obtained the scale values of each statement and
paired them accordingly. He believes that only 16 per cent of the total
variance in the EPPS may be attributed to the 5-D factor. He further
claims that conscious distortion of scores (faking) is to this extent con-
trolled and also that unconscious self-deception and role-playing are
simultaneously controlled.

Recent studies (Borislow, 1958; Heilbrun and Goodstein, 1961)

have indicated that the EPPS can be faked under special conditions of

10

instructions and that social desirability set is an important source of
variance for some (Deference, Succorance and Abasement) but not all
variables. However, these authors do conclude that the instrument is
not greatly susceptible to the influence of fakability.

The manual presents internal consistency correlations for each
of the 15 variables ranging from . 60 to . 87 and stability coefficients
from . 74 to . 88. Fiske, Howard and Rechenberg (1960) investigated the
profile stability coefficient and found that their results were highly
congruent with those of Edwards. They point out that the stability co-
efficient is in part a reflection of the relative scatter or differentiation
of the subject's profile of needs and that it is also associated with
separate scale scores. They suggest that individuals who attribute to
themselves statements positive and active in meaning may be less
variable both in responses and behaviour than individuals who attribute
more negative and passive terms.

Evidence for the validity of this scale as a measure of manifest
needs has been sought in various areas. Correlations have been obtained
from studies involving subjects who were given the EPPS, The Guilford-
Martin Personnel Inventory and the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale
(Edwards, 1959). Edwards has shown that the common S-D factor
contributes a not inconsiderable amount to this common variance.

Studies have been reported wherein the validity of subscales or
clusters of subscales has been investigated. Zuckerman and Grosz
(1958) used the Sway test (a test with a high loading on a factor of
"primary suggestibilityi") with the subscales of Deference and Succorance
comprising the construct 'Dependency' . They found that subjects who
scored 'high sway' scored higher on these two scales of the EPPS
while the 'low sway' subjects were higher on the Autonomy scale.

Bernadin and Jessor (1957) had previously investigated the construct

'Dependency' in three experimental situations. High Deference and low

11

Autonomy scorers were clearly differentiated from high Autonomy

and low Deference scorers in two of these situations (reliance on others
for approval and reliance on others for help) but were not differentiated
in the third situation (conformity to Opinions and demands).

Zuckerman (1958) using a sample of student nurses and relating
their EPPS scores to peer-ratings on a 'dependency-rebelliousness'
measure obtained significant results indicating that the overtly rebellious
nurses had higher scores on a combined score derived from the Autonomy,
Deference and Abasement subscales.

Gebhardt and Hoyt (1958), using an analysis of variance design of
2 schools by 3 ability levels by 2 achievement levels, were able to show
that overachievers scored significantly higher on Achievement, Order
and Intraception subscales while underachievers scored significantly higher
on Nurturence, Affiliation and Change.

The foregoing is evidence that the EPPS is a sufficiently stable
and reliable test for measuring manifest needs which do, indeed, have
considerable validity in behavioural correlates. These studies also
tentatively indicate that there are clusters of needs and variabilities of
patterns on the EPPS which may have a meaning associated with, and
supporting constructs in personality theory. An example of the former
is the association between overt rebelliousness and scores on Autonomy,

Deference and Abasement with the implication of conflict between needs.

B. The Thematic Apperception Test.

Holt (1951) has spelled out the rationale for the projective interpre-
tation of stories written to TAT picture stimuli (Murray and Morgan,
1935) which forms the basis for its use in this study. This rationale is
closely related to the psychoanalytic theory of dreams. The following

assumptions are necessarily drawn from his discussion:

12

1. The picture stimulus stands in the same relation to the story
response as the thought residues of the day stand in relation
to the dream.

2. The perceptual awareness of the stimulus makes some
meaningful contact with the ideational content of the subject's
past conative and emotional experiences (preconscious) which
he draws upon for story content.

3. Unconscious material seeking discharge is likely to be-con-
densed and displaced onto this vehicle of externalization (the
story) within the limitations set by the demands of reality,
time, order and logic.

In other words, the basic assumption is that the perceptual impact
of the picture stimulus has set off a particular'train of thought determined
by and relevant to motivational forces and their derivatives.

Further assumptions for this method are clarified by Henry (1956)
under the concept of 'habitual response tendencies' which allow the
experimenter to infer a consistency between the deduced dynamic meaning
of the TAT story and the stable aspects of the personality. Henry writes,

These habituated tendencies are then seen as character-
istic modes of response descriptive of the individual's emotion
and behaviour in situations broader then the test but parallel to
the particular stimulus situations provided by the pictures. . .

(p. 31).

King (1960) has recommended that the experimenter also take
cognizance of the implied assumptions, in all projective tests, that the
particular test samples enough of the subject's personality to allow
generalizations to be made and that the responses reflect the stated needs
equally in different subjects.

King asserts that there is considerable evidence in research
results to warrant the revision of some of these assumptions which are
accordingly made in our discussion of procedure for this particular study.
Some of the evidence he refers to is reviewed by Masling (1960). These

are the situational and interpersonal variables which tend to contaminate

13

the perception of the stimulus and the resultant reSponse. Although
there is strong evidence of the influence of these variables, Masling
writes that ”it is important to note, however, that the projective response
did not change with any and all conditions imposed by the experimenter"
(p. 81) and further, that the "subject in the projective test setting will
not only use those cues furnished by the (picture) but also those supplied
by his feelings about the examiner, those furnished by his needs,
attitudes and fears, those implied in the instructions, the room and
previous knowledge of the test and those cues supplied consciously or
unconsciously by the Experimenter. " Moreover, we accept his con-
tention that these are indications of adaptation to the task rather than
sources of error.

The reliability of the TAT is not a simple matter of statistical
verification of the consistency of the technique for measuring attributes
of a single individual over time, or equally measuring the several
individuals along a specific continuum. King has asserted that the prob-
1em of reliability is implied in validity. On this issue he points to the
flexibility of the instrument, which both prohibits the simple validation
study and yet enhances the varied ways in which validity has been
demonstrated. The work of McClelland, and Atkinson is cited in this
connection.

Murstein and Pryer (1959) specify four distinct concepts subsumed
under the concept of projection, all of which have been shown to have
some validity. Most relevant to this study is the concept of "attributive
projection" emphasizing the externalization of the subject's needs,
motives et cetera. They cite Friedman's work, (1955) which revealed
significant relationships between self-sorts and projected self on the TAT
for normal and neurotic groups but not for a psychotic group. This
supports the assumption of habitual response tendencies at least for non

psychotic groups .

l4

Returning to the reliability issue, King notes that interscorer
reliability is the essential measurable form which must bear the burden
of the reliability of a particular research project using a technique such
as the TAT. r Interscorer reliability is basically a problem of the
communicability of scoring criteria and categories used. Henry and
Shaw (1956) present a method of analyzing TAT data which is intended
to stabilize the interpretative procedure and allow for communicability
to other workers without overformalizing the data. Their method purports
to adequately compare groups without losing the dynamic nature of the
material or the individual variations pertaining to particular subjects.
Themas, the unit of response, are categorized according to Murray's
need-press scheme. The central issue of a story is analyzed into ele-
ments of the initial stage, the manipulatory phase and the outcome.
Thus it is possible to denote differing themas for each story and the dif-
ferent ways the same issues are handled by individuals or subgroups
within the research sample.

These central issues (in terms of needs) are here considered the
appropriate variables to be dealt with, since they are the needs most
frequently and forcefully projected into the stories. The spectrum of
needs reflected by our sample through this type of analysis are those
more relevantly and directly related to the purpose of this research

rather than an a priori selected group of needs.

C. Studies Seeking Relationships Between the TAT and EPPS.

Since the description of the needs measured by the EPPS and TAT
(or projective tests derived from the TAT), have the same origin several
investigators have studied the possibility of a direct relationship between

the two, with little apparent success.

15

Dilworth (1958) using a correlation technique found no significant
relationship was present between strengths of needs of 20 male subjects,
as measured by the EPPS and relative strengths of the same needs as
assessed from TAT protocols. . Also using the correlation technique,
Bendig (1957) found a small correlation between n Achievement as
measured by the EPPS and as measured by McClelland's Need Achieve-
ment Scale. From this Bendig concluded that the traits being measured
by each instrument are probably a different type of n Achievement, or
each instrument taps different aspects of it.

Melikian (1958), also using these two instruments, obtained an
r O. 16, non-significant. In accounting for this absence of relationship
he points out that Edwards' description of n Achievement implies only
success whereas McClelland's concept is more complex. Melikian
thought too, that the responses measured were at different levels of
psychic functioning, one manifest and one latent, hence the discrepancy.

Marlowe (1959) added to the above dimensions a sociometric
measure. He sought to find relationships among a direct, and an indirect
measure of n Achievement and overt behaviour. His results revealed no
significant relationship between the projective responses and the EPPS or
between the sociometric and the EPPS, but there was a significant corre-
lation between the sociometric and the projective measure. . He concludes
that the EPPS and McClelland's TAT method are not equivalent measures
and suggests that the former is the subject's view of self while the latter
is a measure of the strength of internal motivation.

The discrepancy between the strength of motivation and overt
behaviour, on the one hand, and a view of the self, on the other, suggests
the existence of some form of self-deception. Melikian's point that the
EPPS is measuring a manifest level of functioning (self in awareness)

while the TAT is measuring a latent level (and perhaps a more unconscious

16

motivational pattern) gains considerable support from this latter study.
Moreover, these findings tend to support the contention held here, that
ego defensive mechanisms are operative for some (if not most) of the
subjects when responding to the EPPS, which results in the small corre-—
lations obtained. Operationally, the mechanisms fit into the concept of
self-deception as defined earlier. The experimental procedure of this
study, to be described later, attempts to avoid some of the difficulties
encountered by these workers as well as using their negative findings as

a starting point for the theoretical approach taken here.

D . Discomfort-Relief Ratio .

The problem of obtaining a valid non-physiological measure of
anxiety is particularly thorny. Our interest is to measure anxiety
specific to, or at least most closely associated with the particular life-
experience, of the subjects, under scrutiny. . In this study, the major
life experience variable is academic achievement at college. The thesis
is, that if failure is imminent the concept of self as adequate is
threatened, arousing anxiety. The situation of potential threat is the
examination with its concomitant anxiety. Dollard and Mowrer (1953)
provide a method of measuring tension in written documents which is
applicable to the examination essay if the tOpic has some personal
reference.

In their discussion of the theory behind this method they state:

Learning theory holds that responses are incited by drives--
primary and secondary. In a learning dilemma, these drives
produce novel responses. In the earliest learning situations,
responses are connected directly to drives, under the pressure of
reward. Reward is viewed as drive reduction. In most complex
learning situations drives acquire cue properties; that is, lesser
strengths of drive can elicit a response. Similarly other cues
(often external). become patterned with drives and drive cues as
a condition of evoking a response.

In the sense of learning theory, thoughts, ideas, and plans
are all special cases of habits which are mediated by sentences
(p. 235). '

17

Accordingly words, phrases or sentences may indicate drive-
tension or drive-reduction (i. e. , relief) and the ratio of the discomfort
phrases to the sum of both discomfort and relief phrases may indicate
the amount of tension (equated with anxiety) experienced while writing.

The authors report an average inter-correlation between ten
independent scorers, using this method on a single case, Of r+. . 88.
Mowrer, McV. Hunt and Kogan in their chapter (1953) report further
research which was undertaken with this method, largely on counseling
and psychotherapy cases. Their data tended to validate the DRQ as a
reliable measure of tension and tension change during single interviews,
and over several interviews of terminated therapy cases.

They also report a study using 35 chronic schizophrenic patients
where the DRQ was used to assess tension in free verbalization. The
ratio was then correlated with clinical ratings of tension for each subject,
by a psychiatrist. An insignificant correlation was obtained indicating
that the DRQ could not be used as a valid measure of tension in
schizophrenics. The discussants point out that this finding does not
invalidate the DRQ as a measure of tension in written documents since
schizophrenics use language in a qualitatively different way from normal

or neurotic subjects .

E. Selection of Subjects.

"Methods of Study" (Psychology 101) is a course at Michigan State
University provided more especially for those students doing poorly in
their college work. On the whole it is attended by freshmen and
sophomores with a grade point average of less than two; in other words,
it is composed largely of students faced with the threat of suspension
because of failure to attain the required scholastic standard. There are
a few students who enroll in this course as an introductory course to
further courses in Psychology. Their scholastic status is not in the

same precarious position.

18

Three sections of the "Methods of Study" course of the winter
term of 1961 were chosen to represent the sample for this research.
These sections were taught by the same instructor, in the same class-
room, and were administered the three tests by him. Conditions of
testing were relatively uniform for all subjects. Those subjects who
completed all three tests constituted the sample. Two subjects were
dropped from the sample because they were foreign students, whose
limited use of English confounded their responses. Yet another three
were eliminated from the total sample because their Consistency
scores on the EPPS were below the recommended nine points. The
remaining 35 subjects constitute the sample, divided into the experi-
mental group (those under objective threat of suspension) and the
control group (those under no such threat). Thus this division results
in an experimental group of 21 subjects with grade point averages below
2.00 and the control group of 14 subjects with averages of 2.00 or
higher.

Table 1 shows the relative status of both groups with respect to
' age, sex, intelligence and time in college. i It can be seen that there
are no significant differences between the two groups on these variables.

In summary then, the experimental group is comprised of students
faced with the objective threat of suspension from university if their
grades are not improved while the control group is made up of students
not now facing such threat. The two groups have been matched on all

important variables .

F. Procedure.
1) Administration: The three tests were administered by the
instructor after the course was already in progress and students were

well acquainted with him. - Initially the EPPS was administered in group

l9

.ucwoflfismfim «on .2808 05 Gems/pen mononommfio use no“ amen?»
*

 

2: .5 .
3 .m N.N mém adm Hum TA: 3 w o 33:00
E .5
so .N a .N «g: m .3 m; 92 S 2 w Hassoaimaxm
Qm 2 Gm SH Om 2
emoon madam uoseuusm Angunozcmnmmei Hmeoh 032 Beach macaw
um mguoh. .D.m.2 so om<
mo MMQESZ .- wcfldm ofiuseonofl. *
* x.

 

 

.moandfludxw know so pondQEoO mmfiouO HonesoO pad Heusecfinomxm 05H. .H can?

20

form, with standard instructions. About three weeks later cards
1, 2, 4, 6BM, 8BM, 7BM and 17 were group administered with
instructions suggested by Henry (1956). . At the end of the nine week
term, during the scheduled examination period, the subjects were
required to write an essay which clearly called for self-reference.
The stimulus to which they responded was a quotation from Goethe
(see Appendix B).

2) Steps in the Analytic Procedure:

a) The EPPS protocols were scored according to the procedure
outlined in the manual. The analysis is based on the raw scores
collapsed to a five point scale.

b) The TAT protocols were analyzed by the Henry and Shaw method
by two judges scoring independently. Scorer agreement was 83 per cent.

In order to ascertain which of the fifteen needs specified for the
EPPS were most often expressed in the TAT responses, a count was
made across all protocols for the whole sample. Column one of Table 2
presents this result ranking the needs from the most frequently expressed
to those least frequently expressed. Column two of that table presents
the breakdown of the most frequently expressed needs in terms of the
first and second most productive stories.

This analysis revealed that the responses to the seven picture
stimuli did not reflect all fifteen needs in appreciable strengths, or by
all subjects, and therefore we concluded that these stimuli do not sample
enough of the subjects' personalities to allow generalizations to be made
on each category of the 15 needs. Five of these needs are revealed in
the elicited responses in more than one story in appreciable strength,
and to this extent only further analysis and generalizations are made.
These needs are Achievement on stories 2 and 17, Deference on stories
1 and 4, Autunomy on stories 4 and 2,. Intraception on stories 1 and 7BM,

and aggression on stories 4 and 1.

21

Table 2. Frequencies of Needs Expressed in TAT Stories

 

 

Total lst Most 2nd Most
Fre- Productive Fre- Productive Fre-
Need quencies Story quency Story quency

Aggression 160 4 37 1 34
Autonomy 101 4 21 2 19
Achievement 99 2 34 17 19
Intraception 80 1 21 7BM 15
Affiliation 75 1 15 6BM 15
Deference 62 l 20 4 l3
Abasement 62 6BM 15 4 13
Nurturance 57 7BM l4 4 13
Endurance 37 1 15 17 8
Succorance 36 2 8 4 8
Heterosexuality 35 4 20 2 9
Exhibition 23 17 17 8BM 2
Dominance 10 4 7 l 1
Change 5 2 2 8BM 1
Order 1 6BM l - -

 

22

c) Evaluation of the strength of these five needs, comparable to

the EPPS needs were then made in terms of the definitions provided by

Edwards in the manual (see Appendix A). Evaluation of the strengths

of these five needs were made by two independent scorers applying the

following scales to each story (as specified above), across the entire

sample arranged in random order.

List of scales of needs derived from Edwards' definitions:

1) Achievement.

1.
2.

No involvement in, or avoidance of, achievement.
Occasionally exerts some effort but sees outcome as
failure.

. Frequently exerts some effort but sees outcome as

doubtful.

. Often exerts effort and sees some success in outcome.
.- Always exerts effort to accomplishand sees outcome

as successful.

2) Deference.

1.

Never makes himself acceptable to others, no need to
accept leadership or conform to will of others.

. Occasionally makes himself acceptable to others, or

accepts leadership, or conforms slightly.

. Frequently makes himself acceptable to others or accept

leadership or conforms .

. Often makes himself acceptable .to others, accepts

leadership and conforms .

. Always accepts leadership, decisions of others and

makes himself acceptable at all costs.

3) Autonomy.

1

.. Has constant need to do what others require of him.

(Never attempts to be his own master.)

. Usually acts in accordance with the requirements of

others, sometimes is self-directive.

. Frequently takes cognizance of requirements of others

yet retains ability to be self-directive.

. Rarely heeds requirements of others, almost always

attempts to be self-directive.

. Always acts according to the idea that he is his own

master.

23

4) Intraception.

1.. No contact with the feelings and motives of others
or of self.

2. Some superficial and stereotyped categorizing of
feelings.

3. Some understanding of the feelings of others with
little empathy.

4. Considerable understanding of the feelings of others
and empathy. -

5. Always sees into, feels and empathizes with, the
feelings and behaviour of others.

5) Aggression.
1. Never disparages, attacks or feels angry with others.
2. Occasionally disparages, attacks or feels angry with
others.
3. Frequently disparages, attacks or feels angry with
others.
4. Often disparages, attacks or feels angry with others.
. Always disparages, attacks and is angry with others.

U‘l

As previously pointed out, each subject is rated on each of the five
needs twice. That is, a particular need is scored on only two pictures
and is ignored when it appears in lesser strengths on other pictures.
The relevant scale was applied to the first story, and a value from 1.45
was judged for each subject across the whole sample. Then the same
need was judged on the second story. Thus for a particular need, two
values were obtained pertaining to two stories. These two values were
averaged to form the judged strength of a need. . This was done for each
of the five needs, thus each subject was evaluated ten times and five
final ratings were derived. A second judge applied the same procedure.
Average percentage agreement between the two judges for the five needs
was 88 per cent, with a range of 85-91 for individual needs.

d) The scaled scores of strength of five needs from the EPPS and
scaled ratings of the strength of the same needs derived from TAT
protocols were then available. It was then possible to determine

arithrnetically whether the strength of needs expressed in awareness

24

differedfrom those assessed from fantasy, by subtracting the TAT
score from its EPPS equivalent. Thus five discrepancy scores for each
of the five needs were obtained for each subject. . These five. discrepancy
scores were then summed on each protocol to form the experimental
variable, total Discrepancy Score (DS). The DS is now a broad and more
inclusive self-deception measure, yet confined to an area relating only
to Achievement, Deference, Autonomy, Intraception and Aggression.

. An example of an individual protocol of scoring as developed

through these stages of analysis is given in Figure 1°

 

 

 

Figure 1
‘ EPPS TAT
Need Scaled Average Discrepancy
Score Rating
Achievement 4 2 2
Deference 2 3 1
Autonomy 3 2 l
Intraception 1 1 0
Aggression 5 4 1
Total 5 DS

 

The resulting distribution of DS scores for the entire sample of
35 subjects ranged from 2. 5 DS to 12 DS with a median of 4. 5.

.e) The examination essays were then scored for DRQ ratios by
two scorers, working independently. . Appendix C illustrates the procedure
whereby each thought unit, or phrase, was assessed for its implication
of discomfort or relief. . Neutral phrases were not included. in the compu-
tation of the ratio g::::::::: :lldeelief units . . The inter-scorer
reliability was 0. 82. The resulting distribution of DRQ ratios ranged

from 0. 273 to 0. 711 with a median at 0. 525.

25

G.. Statements of Hypotheses and Operational Predictions.

1. The subjects who are experiencing the greater objective threat
to their self-esteem will be more defensive. Operationally, DS scores
for the experimental group will be greater than DS scores for the control
group.

2., In a stress situation relevant to the particular threat to self-
esteem, the more threatened group will be the more anxious. Operationally,
the DRQ ratios for the experimental group will be higher than the DRQ
ratios for the control group.

3. The subjects who are the more defensive will be those who are
more anxious in a relevant stress situation. .Operationally, the group

with-the higher DS scores will be those with the higher DRQ ratios.

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Results.

The first hypothesis--that the DS for the experimental group will
be greater than the DS for the control group--was tested by means of
the median chi square test and found to be non- significant. Similarly
the second hypothesis--that DRQ ratios for the experimental group
will be greater than the DRQ ratios for the control group-~proved to
be non-significant when tested by means of the median chi square test.

The results of these analyses are given below in Table 3.

Table 3. DS and DRQ Related to Grade; Point Attainment.

 

 

 

= w
~ Group
Analysis Dichotomy Experimental Control X2
1. Below median DS 10 8 n. s .
Above median DS 11 6
2. Below median DRQ 9 8 n. s
. Above median DRQ 12 6

 

Again the third hypothesis--that the group with the highest DSs will
be the group with the highest DRQs--was tested using the medians of the
distributions to separate the two groups. The control variable, grade
point average, was ignored for this analysis. The resulting chi square
was not significant but a trend in the predicted directioncan. be observed

in the analysis presented in Table 4.

26

27

Table 4. DS Scores Related to Strength of DRQ Ratios.

 

Below median DS Above median DS N. . Xz

 

 

Below median DRQ 10 7 17 n. s.
Above median DRQ 8 10 18
18 17 35

 

Consideration of these results led the writer to evaluate further
the theory behind the DRQ ratio. The ratio of . 50 represents a balance
between discomfort words and relief words implying an equilibrium of
tension, which is more meaningful to this thesis than the artificial
division at the median DRQ of the distribution. Therefore, both the
second and third hypotheses were again subjected to statistical testing,
using the ratio . 50 as the value of critical difference. The results of

these two tests are given in Table 5.

Table 5. Critical DRQ Ratio of . 50 Related to Control Variable and DS.

 

 

 

 

 

====== M
Analysis Dichotomy Group X2 P
Experimental Control
Hypothesis 2 DRQ of . 50 7 6
or less
DRQ above .50 14 8 ..n.s.
Below median Above median
DS DS
Hypothesis 3 DRQ of . 50
or less 10 3

DRQ above .50 8 14 3.88 .025

28

It is now more evident that there is a tendency for more of the E
group to be the more anxious on the examination, two-thirds of this group
have DRQs higher than . 50 while just more than half of the control group
have ratios above . 50. When the control variable is ignored the relation-
ship between high DS and high DRQ, previously masked, is now quite

apparent.

B. Discussion.

The results of the present study indicate no difference between
students with failing grade point averages and those with passing averages
with respect to self-deception (as represented by DS) or with respeCt to
anxiety (as represented by DRQ). Both groups exhibit similar distributions
of measures for these variables. There is, however, a slight trend to
be noted in the predicted direction. This becomes more evident for the
anxiety scores when the critical difference score for the DRQ is based
on the logic of the ratio rather than the median score.

The explanation for the failure to differentiate between the experi-
mental and control groups, to any appreciable extent, may well lie in
the relevance of the control variable (i. e. , 2. 00 grade point avena'gaat
the beginning of the term). We have no way of assuring that marginal
or better attainment at college (above 2. 00 point average) is less
threatening for some subjects whose goal may be considerably higher,
than is afailing grade for others. Indeed, the extent to which the
"objective threat" (failing grade) contributes to the anxiety felt by some
subjects in the experimental group, may well be less than the "subjective
threat" of not achieving beyond, say, 2. 5 grade points for others.

It would appear then, not that DS scores increase with increase
of real threat (as defined in this study) but that this relationship must

be further investigated with a more reliable measure of objective threat

29

in order to ascertain if such. a relationship does or does not exist.
The specific hypothesis that individual subjects who experience a- greater
objective threat to self-esteem_ are the more self-deceptive has not been
supported by this study. The crucial researchproblem is clearly the
isolation of the pivot upon which self-esteem balances, then the instru-
ment for upsetting the balance, experimentally, can reliably be chosen.

Similarly, although the trend is more in evidence, the results
obtained with respect to anxiety (DRQ) experiencedrin a relevant stress
situation (examination) are confounded by the unreliability of the control
measure. It must also be noted that certain subjects are intrinsically
more anxious in a stress situation irrespective of the particular relevance
of the specified situation. This factor becomes magnified in a small
sample such as ours. Chronically anxious subjects in the control group
perhaps mask the real effects that may indeed exist.

The significant results for the third hypothesis, using the DRQ
ratio of . 50 as the critical difference indicates that the presence of a
few subjects in the control group with both. high DS and high DRQ scores
on the one hand, and subjects in the experimental group with both .low DS
and DRQ scores, on the other hand, did tend to obscure an existing
relationship. This result supports the more general hypothesis that in
a- stress situation the subjects who are more self-deceptive are the more
anxious. - It also contributes validity to a major assumption. of this study,
that the discrepancies between a descriptionof self in awareness and a
description of self derived from fantasy is associated with anxiety.
. Self-deception as a form of defensiveness which can be measured,

requires further support from replications of studies such as this.

IV- SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study, stemming from psychoanalytic theory, was undertaken
in order toascertain whether it was possible to measure degrees of
defensiveness (in the form of self-deception) and to determine whether
some lawful association between self-deceptionand amount of anxiety
in a stress situation existed. . Self-deception was defined as the discrep-
ancy between strengths of needs expressed in a conscious assessment
of self and strengths of needs derived fromifantasy (material brought to
awareness but not necessarily associated consciously with, self). . The
stress situation was defined as an examination where subjects were
required to write essays with a strong ingredient of self-reference.

Three sections of a "Methods of Study" course, taught by one
instructor were separated according to grade point average into the
Experimental group (those with failing grades) and the Control group
(those with passing grades). The two groups were adequately equated
on age, sex, number of terms Spent at college and intelligence.

Subjects were group administered the EPPS, seven TAT cards and
the examination. From this basic data scaled scores of the strength. of
five needs (Ach. ,. Def. , Aut. , Int. ,1 Agg.) were derived from the EPPS
scale and strengths of the same needs were judged on a five point scale
on relevant TAT stories. The relevance of particular stories was
previously determined by an analysis of all seven stories to elicit which
stories contained the most need content across the whole group. . The
discrepancies between needs as expressed on each instrument were
calculated, and then the resulting five scores were totalled to form the
final discrepancy score (DS). The essay was scored by means of the
Discomfort-Relief Ratio technique to ascertain amount of anxiety revealed

in the stress situation.

30

31‘

It was predicted that, 1) the DS scores for the Experimental group
would be higher than the DS scores for the Control group; 2) the DRQ
for the Experimental group would be higher than the DRQ for the Control
group, and 3) in the sample as a whole subjects with high DS scores
would be high DRQ scorers. None of these predictions were borne out,
but some slight trends were noted. The probable causes of the failure
to elicit significant results were discussed and tended to cluster around
the inadequacy of the control measure and the subjective relevance of
the experimental situation for individual subjects.

A second analysis was carried out on the second and third hypothe-
ses using the DRQ ratio of . 50 as the critical difference rather than the
median DRQ. On the latter, where the control variable is not operative
significant results were obtained. The implications of this result were
discussed. It was concluded that in a stress situation subjects who are
more self-deceptive are the more anxious. The self-deceptionmeasure
would therefore appear to have some validity within the theoretical

framework from which it stems.

REFERENCES

Bendig, A. W. . Manifest anxiety and projective and objective measures
of need achievement. ~ J. consult. Psychol., 1957, 21, 354.

 

Bernardin, A. C. and Jessor, R. A construct validation of the Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule with respect to dependency.
J. consult. Psychol., 1957, 21, 63-67.

 

Blum, G. S. An experimental reunion of psychoanalytic theory with
vigilance and defense. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1954, 49,
94-98.

Borislow, B. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and fakability.
J. appl..Psychol., 1958, 42, 22-27.

 

 

Dilworth, T. A comparison of the EPPS variables with. some aspects
of the TAT. J. consult. Psychol., 1958, 22, 486.

 

Dollard, J. and Mowrer, O. H. A method of measuring tension in written
documents. In 0. H. Mowrer (Ed.) Psychotherapy, Theory and
Research, New York: Ronald Press. 1953, pp. 235-256.

 

Edwards, A. L. . Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. New York:
The Psychological Corp. 1954.

 

Edwards, A. L. . Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. New York:
The Psychological Corp. 1959.

 

Edwards, A. L. The social desirability variable in personality assess-
ment and research. New York: Dryden Press, 1957.

 

 

Fenichel, O. (The psychoanalytic theory of Neuroses. New York:
Norton. 1945.

 

Fiske, D. W., Howard, K. and Rechenberg, W. The EPPS profile
stability coefficient. ‘J. consult. Psychol., 1960, 24, 370.

 

Freud, Anna. . The ego and the mechanisms of defence. London:
Hogarth Press. 1937.

 

32

33

Friedman, I. Phenomenal, ideal and projected conceptions of self.
J..abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, 51, 611-615.

 

Gebhart, G. G. and Hoyt, D. T. Personality needs of under- andover-
achieving freshmen. -J. appl. Psychol.,. 1958, 42,. 125-128.

 

Heilbrun, A. B. and Goodstein, L. D. The relationship between
individually defined and group defined social desirability and
performance on the EPPS. n J. consult- Psychol. , 1961, 25,
200-204.

 

Henry, W. E. - The analysis of fantasy. New York: John Wiley, 1956.

 

Hilgard, E. R. Human motives and the concept of the self.
.Amer. Psychologist, 1949, 4, 374-382.

 

Holt, R. R. The Thematic Apperception Test. - In_H.. H- Anderson
and G. L. Anderson (Eds. ), An Introduction to Projective
Techniques. New York: Prentice Hall, 1951, pp. 181-229.

 

 

King, G. F. Recent Developments in the Field of Projective Techniques.
In A. I. Rabin and Mary Haworth (Edsm), Projective Techniques
~ with Children. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1960, pp. 364-379.

 

 

Marlowe, D. Relationships among direct and indirect measures‘of the
achievement motive and overt behaviour. . J. consult°~ Psychol. ,
1959, 23, 329-332.

 

Masling, J. The influence of Situational and Interpersonal Variables
in Projective Testing. Psychol. Bull. , 1960,. 57, 65-85.

 

Melikian, L. H. . The relationship between Edwards' and McClelland's
measures of achievement motivation. .J. consult. Psychol. ,
1958, 22, 296-298.

 

Mowrer, O. H. , Hunt, J. McV. and Kogan, L. S. . Further studies
utilizing the Discomfort Relief Quotient. In 0. H. Mowrer (Eds),

Psychotherapy, Theory and Research. New York: Ronald Press,
1953, pp. 257- 295.

 

.Munroe, Ruth L. 1 Schools of Psychoanalytic Thought. . New York:
Henry Holt, 1955.

 

Murstein, B. I. and Pryer, R. S. The concept of projection: a review.
Psgghol. Bull., 1959, 56, 353-374.

 

34

Rogers, C. R. —Client Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
1951.

 

Rogers, C. R. A process conception of psychotherapy..- Amer. ‘lPSychologist.
1958, 13, 142-149.

 

Schafer, R. . Psychoanalytic interpretation in Rorschach testing.
New York: Grune and Stratton. 1954.

 

. Schaw, L. C. and Henry, W. E. A method for the comparisonof groups:
A study in Thematic Apperception. . Genet. Psychol. Monqg. , 1956,
54, 207-253.

 

. Siegel, S. - Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.

 

Zuckerman, M. The validity of the EPPS in the measurement of
dependency-rebelliousness. ‘J. clin. Psychol., 1958, 14, 379-382.

 

Zuckerman, M. and Groz, H. J. Suggestability and dependency.
J. consult. Psychol., 1958, 22, 328.

 

APPENDIC ES

35

APPENDIX A

The manifest needs associated with each of the 15 PPS variables are:

1.. ach- -Achievement: To do one's best to be successful,. to
accomplish tasks requiring skill and effort, to be a recognized authority,
to accomplish something of great significance, to do a difficult job well,
to solve difficult problems and puzzles, to be able to do things better
than others, to write a great novel or play.

2. def--Deference: To get suggestions from others, to find out
what others think, to follow instructions and do what is expected, to
praise others, to tell others that they have done a good job, to accept the
leadership of others, to read about great men, to conform to custom and
avoid the unconventional, to let others make decisions.

3., ord--Order: To have written work neat and organized, to make
plans before starting on a difficult task, to have things organized, to keep
things neat and orderly, to make advance plans when taking a trip, to
organize details of work, to keep letters and files according to some
system, to have meals organized and a definite time for eating, to have
things arranged so that they run smoothly without change.

4. exh--Exhibition: To say witty and clever things, to tell amusing
jokes and stories, to talk about personal adventures and experience, to
have others notice and comment upon one's appearance, to say things just
. to see what effect it will have on others, to talk about personal achieve-
rments, to be the center of attention, to use words that others do not know
the meaning of, to ask questions others cannot answer.

5. aut- -Autonomy: To be able to come and go as desired, to say
what one thinks about things, to be independent of others in making
decisions, to feel free to do what one wants, to do things that are uncon-
ventional, to avoid situations where one is expected to conform, to do
things without regard to what others may think, to criticize those in
positions of authority, to avoid re5ponsibi1ities and. obligations.

6. aff- -Affiliation: To be loyal to friends, to participate in friendly
groups, to do things for friends, to form new friendships, to make as many
friends as possible, to share things with friends, to do things with friends
rather than alone, to form strong attachments, to write letters to friends.

36

37

7. int--Intrac eption: To analyze one's motives and feelings, to

' observe others, to understand how others feel about problems, to put
one's self in another's place, to judge people bywhy they do things rather
than by what they do, to analyze the behavior of others, to analyze the
motives of others, to predict how others will act.

8. suc--Succorance: To have others provide help whenin trouble,
to seek encouragement from others, to have others be kindly, to have
others be sympathetic and understanding about personal problems, to
receive a great deal of affection from others, to have others do favors
cheerfully, to be helped by others when depressed, to have others feel
sorry when one is sick, to have a fuss made over one when hurt.

9. dom--Dominance: To argue for one's point of View, to be a
leader in groups to which one belongs, to be regarded by others as a
leader, to be elected or appointed chairman of committees, to make group
decisions, to settle arguments and disputes between others, to persuade
and influence others to do what one wants, to supervise and direct the
actions of others, to tell others how to do their jobs°

10. aba--Abasement: To feel guilty when one does something
wrong, to accept blame when things do not go right, to feel that personal
pain and misery suffered does more good than harm,» to feel the need-for
punishment for wrong doing, to feel better when giving in and avoiding a
fight than when having one's own way, to feel the need for confession of
errors, to feel depressed by inability to handle situations, to feel timid
in the presence of superiors, to feel inferior to others in most respects.

ll. nur--Nurturance: To help friends when they are in trouble,
to assist others less fortunate, to treat others with kindness and sym-
pathy, to forgive others, to do small favors for others, to be generous
with others, to sympathize with others who are hurt or- sick, to show a
great deal of affection toward others, to have others confide in. one about
personal problems.

12. chg--Change: To do new and different things, to travel, to meet
new people, to experience novelty and change in daily routine, to experi-
ment and try new things, to eat in new and different places, to try new
and different jobs, to move about the country and live in different places,
to participate in new fads and fashions.

13. end--Endurance: To keep at a job until it is finished, to com-
plete any job undertaken, to work hard at a task, ' to keep at a puzzle or
problem until it is solved, to work at a single job before taking onothers,

38

to stay up late working in order to get a job done, to put in long hours of
work without distraction, to stick at a problem even though it may seem
as if no progress is being made, to avoid being: interrupted while at work.

14. het--Heterosexuality: To go out with members of the opposite
sex, to engage in social activities with the opposite sex, to be in love
with someone of the opposite sex, to kiss those of the opposite sex, to be
regarded as physically attractive by those of the opposite sex, to participate
in discussions about sex, to read books and plays involving sex, to listen to
or to tell jokes involving sex, to become sexually excited.

15. agg--Aggression: To attack contrary points of view, to tell
others what one thinks about them, to criticize others publicly, to make
fun of others, to tell others off when disagreeing with them, to get revenge
for insults, to become angry, to blame others when things go wrong, to
read newspaper accounts of violence.

APPENDIX B

THE EXAMINATION TOPIC

"That I am a man,

this I share with other men,
That I see and hear and
that I eat and drink

is what all animals do likewise.
But that I am I is only mine
and belongs to me

and to nobody else;

to no other man

not to an angel nor to God--. "

39

 

APPENDIX C

AN EXAMPLE OF AN EXAMINATION ESSAY
SHOWING DRQ SCORING

Each of us is a man (+) in the strict sense of the word. (6) Everyone
has certain things in common (+). We all eat, sleep, talk, walk, etc.
(+) Everyone is in the same society (+) so therefore we cannot be basically
different (-). Our environment, however, influences our lives (-) and
this is different for every person (-). One sees different things around
him than does the next person (-). These things effect different people in
different ways (-). Each and every man is a man within a group (+).

Each one of us has certain characteristics which make us an in-
dividual (0). Whether it be leadership ability or artistic ability (+) each
has its own place in society (+). . Every person is an individual and must
act accordingly (+).

My own experience, which didn't take place until I took this course
(-) was self- evaluation (-). I thought I knew myself and what I was like
(-). But when I began to really look deep (-) I found that there were many
things which I thought were so that didn't show the real me (-).

The most important thing I received from this course (+) was the
realization that other people have the same problem that I do (+). Whenl
know that there are other people doing the same things that I am (+), then
it is that I feel I have a chance (+). I am not easily persuaded to admit
my faults (-) but in this course it seemed like it was the right thing to do
(+). I have the urge to be a leader (+) and therefore I don't like to admit
my faults (-) for fear that it will hinder my major objective (-).

Since I have taken this course I have realized that everyone has
faults (+) and the sooner we admit our faults (-) the sooner they can be
corrected. (+)

Every man is himself (+) and shouldn't try to copy or imitate (-)
someone he admires (+). Our fellow men are like ourselves (+) only they
have different interests and tastes. (-) Who is to say which is better?(-)
Be yourself (+) and when you know that you areTbeing yourself (-) think that
you are just as good as the next person (+) and things will be alright. (+)

Key:

Discomfort. . . . -
Relief......+
Neutral . . . . . 0

40