(DWEM‘MNDEDNESS AND SELF-«RB-EAL
BESCREPAKCY AS THEY AFFECT
ATTMCFEON 11'6" A HELPENG SSWUAIEGEQ

Thesis for flu: Dogma of M. A.
MECEIEGAN STATE URIVEESETY
Lynne G. Tenbusch

£967

11125.53:

 

 

ABSTRACT

OPEN-MINDEDNESS AND SELF-IDEAL DISCREPANCY
AS THEY AFFECT ATTRACTION TO A HELPING

SITUATION
by Lynne G. Tenbusch

Attitude toward becoming involved in a helping sit-
uation is shaped by many factors. two of which should be
receptivity to new information and the extent to which
one describes his real self as differing from his ideal
self. Attraction to a helping situation. receptivity to
new information. and self-ideal discrepancy were investi-
gated by assessing the relationship among these variables.
In general it was hypothesized that: l) dogmatism is nega-
tively related to attraction to therapy. 2) size of self-
ideal discrepancy is positively related to attraction to
therapy. and 3) size of self-ideal discrepancy is nega-
tively correlated with dogmatism.

Two hundred sixty undergraduate students enrolled
in introductory psychology courses. who had never had any

1

Lynne G. Tenbusch

psychological counseling or psychotherapy. filled out Ro-

keach's Dogmatism Scale for a measure of openness to new

 

information. Leary's Interpersonal Check List (ICL) as an
index of self-ideal discrepancy. and Libo's Picture Impres-
sions Test (PIT) for an attraction to therapy indicator.
Males and females were analyzed separately.

The hypothesis that dogmatism and attraction to
therapy would be negatively related was not supported at a
statistically significant level. but data tended in the ex-
pected direction. The relation between ICL discrepancy
score and PIT score. predicted as positive. turned out neg-
ative. but not significantly. Further analysis indicated
that degree of dogmatism and size of self-ideal discrepancy
are positively correlated at a significant level for females
but not for males. Difference in N was postulated to ac-

count for the lack of significance in males.

4
If .3
. l I
n" I .li "‘ / 7-.
Approved: [CUlbfltx %;H€I;\)
Committee Chairman
Date: jg}! 3:6 W357

 

Thesis Committee:

Norman Abeles. Chairman
Charles Hanley
Milton Rokeach

OPEN-MINDEDNESS AND SELF-IDEAL DISCREPANCY
AS THEY AFFECT ATTRACTION TO A HELPING

SITUATION .

BY

Lynne G. Tenbusch

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1967

A

‘. ’3 .' I
J 1% V.

,f‘ /n 3/ (5,7
3A7“/”‘

.

,. x 75-.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my deepest appreciation to
Dr. Norman Abeles for acting as the chairman of this thesis
committee. His guidance in designing the research and his
assistance in preparing this manuscript. as well as his
supportive understanding. patience. and insightful ideas
were invaluable in bringing this study to fruition.

To the members of the committee. I acknowledge a
debt of gratitude. Dr. Hanley's stimulating criticisms
and helpful advice in the statistical analyses of the data.
and Dr. Rokeach's ready availability. continual support.
and penetrating questions contributed to making this study
personally valuable as a learning experience.

I would like to extend special thanks to Gerald
Gillmore. graduate student. for his help with computer pro-
graming and computer laboratory routines. not to mention
his unfailing patience.

I am happy to express my appreciation to my friends
whose continual encouragement transformed even the discourag-
ing parts of this research into an enriching experience.

ii

To all those people who contributed to this study
by making class time available or assisting with adminis-
tration of the tests. I would like to indicate my gratitude.

Finally. I am indebted to the National Institute of

Mental Health for their generous financial support during

the past two years.

iii

Dedicated to Tammela Lynne and Michelle Karen

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

LIST OF TABLES

INTRODUCTION

METHOD . . .

RESULTS. . .

DISCUSSION .

SUMMARY. . .

APPENDIX . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ll
0 O C O O O C O O O O O O O O 0 V1
0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O 1

LIST OF TABLES

Table I Page
I. Scoring Criteria for the PIT. . . . . . . . . . 21

II. Means. Standard Deviations. and Correlation
Coefficient for Dogmatism and ICL Discrepancy
Scores from Subjects with No Scoreable Pic-
tures on the PIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

III. Inter-Scorer Reliability for the PIT. . . . . . 30

IV. Means and Standard Deviations for Dogmatism.
ICL Discrepancy. and PIT Scores . . . . . . . 30

V. T-Values from Comparison of Male and Female
Scores on Dogmatism. ICL Discrepancy. and PIT 31

VI. Summary of Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Coefficients for Dogmatism. ICL Discrepancy.
and PIT Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

VII. Quartile Comparisons Between Criterion and
Dependent Variables on Dogmatism. ICL Dis—

crepancy. and PIT Scores. . . . . . . . . . . 34

VIII. T-Values for Upper Versus Lower Quartiles as
Found in Table VII. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

IX. Summary Data from Analysis of Variance. . . . . 38

X. Comparison of Predicted PIT Total Score with
Obtained PIT Total Score. . . . . . . . . . . 39

XI. T-Ratios from Comparison of 'Attracted' versus
'Not Attracted' Groups on Dogmatism and.ICL

Discrepancy Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

vi

List of Tables (continued)

Table Page

Appendix

A. Obtained Values of Eta for all Combinations

of Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
B. Male Pictures for the Picture Impressions Test. 70
C. Dogmatism Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

D. Interpersonal Check List. . . . . . . . . . . . 75

vii

OPEN-MINDEDNESS AND SELF-IDEAL DISCREPANCY
AS THEY AFFECT ATTRACTION TO A HELPING

SITUATION

INTRODUCTION

What types of peOple are attracted to therapy?
Are there some characteristics common to those individuals
who approach a therapeutic situation? Since attitudes
play an important role in behavior. it is reasonable to
suspect that one's attitude toward helping situations in
general will be influential in whether he will approach
such situations. But. then what shapes attitudes toward
helping situations? Given that therapeutic settings are
oriented to reception. evaluation. and integration of new
information. ideas. and experiences. it seems plausible
that one's attitude toward helping situations will be in-
fluenced by his degree of openness to new information
(cognitive functioning). But given that an individual's
cognitive functioning is flexible enough to enable him to
receive and objectively evaluate new information. it does
not necessarily follow that he will get involved in therapy.

1

A second relevant factor. obviously. is recognition by the
individual that he is different from what he wants to be.
or a feeling of dissatisfaction with himself. and the con-
sequent desire to change. This lack of satisfaction should
be reflected in the way he perceives himself.

How are perceptions and attitudes influenced by
cognitive functioning? If we define the latter in terms
of openness or closedness (dogmatism). then certain percep-
tions should vary systematically with degree of openness.
Specifically. the manner in which one perceives himself as
he really is and the ideal person that he would like to be.
as well as his perception of helping situations should be
related to his cognitive functioning. That is. one's per-
ception of discrepancy between his real and ideal self. and
his perception of helping situations should vary with in-
creasing degrees of cognitive openness. Thus. receptivity
to new information and self-ideal discrepancy may be deter-
mining factors in whether or not an individual will seek
therapy.

It is assumed that one's perception of a given situ-

ation or object reflects his attitude toward it. Thus. we

can refer to an attitude toward. or perception of. a helping

situation. In the same manner. we can speak in terms of an
attitude toward oneself or in terms of perception of self-
ideal discrepancy.

This investigation was concerned with openness of
belief systems and self-ideal discrepancy as they relate to
attraction to helping situations. It was reasoned that
one's receptivity to new information influences how he per-
ceives himself. and that both variables then contribute to
forming his attitude toward helping situations. Libo
(1957. p. 35) defines attraction as ". . . the resultant of
forces acting on the patient to maintain his relationship
with the therapist." In the present study. that definition
was extended. interpreting attraction as the resultant of
all forces acting on the subject to perceive helping situ-
ations in a positive manner. Self-ideal discrepancy. or
the extent to which one describes his real self as differ-
ing from his ideal self. is considered as one force contrib-
uting to attraction. with attraction increasing as amount
of discrepancy increases. On the other hand. closed or
dogmatic cognitive functioning is interpreted as a force
working against attraction to a helping situation. Low

dogmatism may be conceived as the removal of an obstacle

to attraction. becoming a positive force for attraction
only when accompanied by a sufficient degree of discrepancy
between real and ideal self.

According to this approach. an individual's attrac-
tion to a helping situation is positively related to his
willingness to accept new information. to recognize and
explore his subjective experiences. and to perceive and
conceptualize himself and his experiences in each of pos-
sible alternatives. Furthermore. self-ideal discrepancy is
negatively related to degree of closed-mindedness. and posi-
tively related to attraction to therapy. For example. if a
person sees himself as deviating to a great extent from the
ideal to which he aspires. he should perceive a helping sit-
uation more favorably than should an individual unaware of
any self-ideal discrepancy. If a person's cognitive func-
tioning is very dogmatic. he should be less capable of per-
ceiving how he differs from his ideal self. and less inter-
ested in obtaining help. On the other hand. an open-minded
approach should facilitate one's perception of differences
in real and ideal self and. given a sizeable discrepancy.
should dispose the individual favorably toward obtaining

help. Thus. according to the ideas presented here. the

manner in which an individual perceives himself is related
to the manner in which he perceives a helping situation.
and also to the Openness of his belief system or c0gnitive
functioning.

Rokeach (1960) has developed a scale to measure one
aspect of cognitive functioning—-how open is the individual
in his approach to new experiences. problems. situations.
opportunities. etc.? Open—mindedness is defined as ". . .
the extent to which the person can receive. evaluate. and
act on relevant information received from the outside on
its own intrinsic merits. unencumbered by irrelevant factors
in the situation arising from within the person or from out-
side." (Rokeach 1960. p. 57) Irrelevant internal pressures
functioning to limit realistic reception of information in-
clude unrelated habits. beliefs. and perceptual cues. irra—
tional ego motives. power needs. the need for self aggran-
dizement. the need to allay anxiety. etc. External pres—
sures include reward and punishment from external authority
as exerted by parents. peers. social and institutional group
norms. reference groups. and cultural norms.

The same author (Rokeach. 1960) has shown that the

Doodle Bug Problem can be solved more easily by open-minded

6

than closed—minded individuals. Solution of the problem re-
quires the individual to discard old beliefs. or sets. and
replace them with new ones. which must then be organized
into a new system by some process of integration. From his
experimental findings. Rokeach concluded that open-minded
persons are superior in solving this and other problems re—
quiring transfer of learning. Similarly. Kemp (1960) found
the performance of open-minded subjects superior to that of
closed-minded subjects in handling critical thinking problems.

From the demonstration of difference in approach to
experience between the Open and closed-minded individual.
and given the nature of the counseling situation as one re-
quiring analysis and evaluation of ideas. replacement of old
beliefs with new. the making of inferences. and transfer of
learning. it follows that the closed-minded. or highly dog-
matic person. is less likely to profit from counseling.
Kemp (1961) investigated this idea. using'the Specific hy-
pothesis that an open-minded person. as indicated by a low
score on Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale. will have fewer personal
problems and will respond more favorably to counseling than
will the closed-minded person. Results indicated that low

dogmatism subjects. during the counseling sessions. were

described as more relaxed. having greater tolerance of am-
biguity (less need for closure). attempting a more complete
exploration of problems and issues. and having greater
awareness of multiple contributors to a single effect. High
dogmatism subjects spoke mainly about topics with no personal
relevance. showed difficulty in tolerating certain ideas or
areas of discussion. and tended to label these prior to ex-
ploration. Kemp concluded that dogmatism influences the
number of an individual's personal problems. and that highly
dogmatic persons have a greater number of such problems.
which are reduced to a lesser degree through counseling than
for low dogmatic subjects.

It should be noted that Kemp does not indicate whether
his subjects were obtained from a population of students re-
questing counseling. but it seems as though they were not.
The 25 highest and the 25 lowest scorers on the Dogmatism
Scale became the experimental group. each member of which
then participated in four individual counseling interviews
over the course of ten weeks. Subjects agreed to attend
counseling sessions. but from all indications they did not
seek such help themselves prior to the experiment. Thus.

attitude toward the counseling situation is a variable

overlooked by Kemp. That is. whether subjects sought help
on their own initiative has important implications for their
attitude toward helping situations. which could have been an
influencing factor in Kemp's results. To phrase it differ—
ently. we suspect that dogmatism is related to one's atti-
tude toward a helping situation. which in turn affects one's
behavior with respect to such situations.

Concerning Kemp's study. whether or not a subject's
problems were reduced during counseling may have been due to
his attitude toward helping situations. which was influenced
not only by the openness or closedness of his cognitive func-
tioning. but also by the subject's perception of his real
and ideal self. It is proposed that awareness of discrepan-
cies between perception of real self and perception of ideal
self is a crucial factor in one's attitude toward helping
situations. Self-ideal perception. however. is also influ- \/
enced by one's receptivity to new information. But does the
openness of one's cognitive functioning affect one's percep-
tion of self-ideal discrepancy. or does the latter influence
the former. or are both manifestations of a third factor
which we have not even mentioned? In general. the present

study intended to show that the relationship between dogmatism

and the other variables discussed here is not as simple as
Kemp's study would lead one to believe.

Finally. in contrast to Kemp's demonstration that
high dogmatics have more personal problems. we suspect that
a highly dOgmatic person may. in fact. admit to fewer prob-
lems because he is less aware of discrepancies between his
real and ideal self. That is. the narrow approach of highly
dogmatic persons may limit their ability to recognize their
problems. in which case dogmatic persons will have fewer
problems than more open—minded persons. We could not di-
rectly test this last speculation. however. because our
study did not include a measure of personal problems as
such. Where Kemp used the Mooney Problem Check List as an
index of personal problems. we used an interpersonal check
list as a measure of self-ideal perception. through which we
attempted to demonstrate a lower awareness of self—ideal dis-
crepancy on the part of high dogmatics.

Kaplan and Singer (1963) proposed that pathology is
primarily characterized by various forms of closed-mindedness
and rigidity. all of which detract from self-awareness. Their
experimental results warranted the conclusion that the degree

of dogmatism Operant within an individual reduces. to that

10
extent. his self-awareness. This limited self-awareness is
reflected by decreased emphasis on personal experience and
subjective reactions. and increased emphasis on “. . . objec-
tification. or grasping the nature of the object . . ."
(Kaplan and Singer 1963. p. 487) In addition. Kaplan and
Singer found that Open and closed-mindedness are not ap-
proaches specific to some areas of a person's life. Rather.
they represent pervasive attitudes. An open—minded person
approaches personal and_objective data openly. while a
closed-minded person approaches both narrowly.

An individual enters a therapy situation (or a help-
ing situation) for the purpose of learning something. whether
such learning refers to altered behavior patterns. increased
self-knowledge. revision of a value system. or a change in
stimulus response connections. Ehrlich (1961) explored the
relationship between dogmatism and learning. He also pro-
posed to investigate certain aspects of the validity of the
Dogmatism Scale. i.e. the defining of closed-mindedness as
". . . a relatively closed cognitive organization of beliefs
and disbeliefs about reality." (Ehrlich 1961. p. 148) He
reasoned that if the above defining characteristic of a dog-

matic person is accurate. then a highly dogmatic person

11

should exhibit less learning in the classroom situation than
should the person low in dogmatism. Data indicated that low
dogmatism subjects had already achieved a higher level of
learning before they enrolled for the course. learned more
in the course. and retained the information to a signifi—
cantly greater degree than highly dogmatic subjects. Time
lapse was 5 to 6 months. Split—half reliability for the
Dogmatism Scale was .75. and correlation between the two
administrations of the Scale was .73. In a follow-up study.
Ehrlich (1961) restudied the same population after five
years. and his findings replicate those of the original
study. These results render further validity to Rokeach's
theoretical formulations underlying the Dogmatism Scale.
Restle. Andrews. and Rokeach (1964) and Moore (1961)
have demonstrated the differences in types of learning which
open versus closed-minded persons can achieve. Restle et a1.
(1964) showed that open-minded subjects perform better at a
task requiring them to seek a general principle which would
predict the Experimenter's reinforcements. than do closed-
minded subjects. The dogmatic subject's tendency to rely
passively on authority was cited to account for the results.

Moore (1961) has demonstrated the greater influence of verbal

12

reinforcement for low dogmatics than high dogmatics in a dis-
crimination conditioning situation. In this situation. the
only source of information available to the gs were rein-
forcements from the Experimenter. thus making all reinforce-
ments. initially. relevant information. A significant point
illustrated in this study is the fact that the limited range
of responses available to the §s put a premium on the abil-
ity to differentiate the crucial responses or relevant infor-
mation. Viewed in this way. the open—minded person. who is
theoretically more capable of making cognitive discrimina-
tions and separating relevant from irrelevant information.
would be expected to respond more easily in this type of con-
ditioning situation. Results confirmed such expectations and
suggest that low dogmatics are more attuned to accepting all
incoming information and more capable of discriminating the
greater relevancy of some.

Additional data pertinent to the present study were \\
obtained by Hollenbeck (1965) in her investigation of the ‘
effects of dogmatism on aspects of adjustment to severe dis-
ability. Depression and mourning were used as signs of ac-

ceptance of loss of sight. while denial indicated non—

acceptance of the loss. Analysis. or taking in new

13

information. was equated with learning facts about the dis-
ability; synthesis. or organizing new beliefs into a working
system. was equated with acceptance of the disability. Re-
sults showed that the reactions of denial and depression are
inversely related. In addition. the less dogmatic a blind
person. the more depression he showed in relation to his dis-
ability. and the more dogmatic a blind person. the more he
denied his disability and its effects.

If a large discrepancy between self and ideal is
thought of as undesirable. or as a defect or imperfection.
and if it is assumed that recognition of a defect is similar
to acceptance of it. then. given (from the above results)
that highly dogmatic persons are less likely to accept their
defects. it would follow that highly dogmatic persons will
be less willing to recognize or become aware of discrepancies
between real and ideal self. Then. if such recognition (not
necessarily termed as self-ideal discrepancy. but generally
that the person desires to become different in some way from
his present self) is a necessary prerequisite to seeking
therapy. it would follow that highly dogmatic persons are
less likely to seek therapy or to perceive a helping situa-

tion positively.

14

Rokeach (1960. p. 70) has written “. . . in the ex-
treme. the closed system is nothing more than the total net-
work of psychoanalytic defense mechanisms organized together
to form a cognitive system and designed to shield a vulner-
able mind." This. too. points in the direction of predict-
ing that a closed—minded person will be less willing to
recognize how and where he deviates from his ideal. and less
likely to approach or have a positive attitude toward a help-
ing situation.

Rogers' (1961) findings that the client entering
therapy exhibits considerable discrepancy between his real
self and the ideal person he would like to become. contrib-
utes to the vast array of literature on the subject. Typi-
cal of Rogers' general findings is a decrease in such dis-
crepancy during and after therapy. thus facilitating a con-
gruence between self and ideal. Butler and Haigh (1954)
demonstrated a significant decrease in self-ideal discrepancy
as a function of therapy. The self-ideal correlation moved
from a -.47 at the beginning of therapy. to a .59 at the
termination of therapy. Important to the present study is
the fact that the control group--a non-therapy group matched

for age. sex. and socio-economic status-~had initial self-ideal

15

correlations of .58 which did not change significantly over
time. measuring .59 at the follow-up. In other words. the
control group had self-ideal correlations equivalent to the
post—therapy correlations of the therapy group. These re-
sults strongly suggest the function of self-ideal discrepancy
as a positive force contributing to an individual's attrac-
tion to a helping situation.

Hartley (1950) has also presented evidence showing
that before therapy the self as perceived had little rela-
tionship to the ideal self. while after therapy. the discrep-
ancy had decreased significantly. Raimy (1948) has provided
testimony that successful counseling involves a change in
the client's self-concept. manifested as a shift from a pre-
ponderance of self-disapproval and ambivalence at the begin-
ning of therapy to a preponderance of self-approval at the
end of therapy. Self-approval can be defined as a signifiv
cant positive correlation between real and ideal self.
Braaten (1961) showed significant movement in therapy when
the self-ideal correlation was used as a criterion. Similar
evidence has been obtained by Sheerer (1949).

From the above research. it seems justified to assume

that the manifest awareness of self-ideal discrepancy is

16

related in some manner to an individual's perception of a
helping situation.

Libo (1953) designed the Picture Impressions Test
(PIT) in an attempt to capitalize on the sensitivity of pro-
jective techniques to the social situation in which they are
administered. Validity of the PIT as a measure of patient-
therapist attraction has been investigated (Libo. 1957;
Mullin. 1966). Operationally. Libo's study tested the abil-
ity of the PIT to predict whether or not a patient will re-
turn for his next interview. The test was administered to
40 patients at a psychosomatic clinic after the first inter—
view. Strength of attraction to therapy was derived from
both total score and number of stories with a score. Two
approaches were used to measure reliability of scoring: 1)
agreement ranging between 92% and 100% was obtained with one
scorer who repeated scoring after six months: 2) agreement
between 87% and 100% resulted from the use of two independ-
ent scorers. The study included observation of whether the
patients actually attended therapy the following week. Re-
sults indicated a significant relationship between actual
and predicted behavior. Six of the nine patients who did

not return. and 24 of the 31 patients who did return. were

l7

correctly predicted. In other words. 89% of the predicted
returns. and only 53% of the predicted 'not returns' did.
in fact. return for the second interview.

Mullin (1966) explored the concurrent validity of
the PIT as an index of the client's projected attraction to
the therapeutic situation. More specifically. he investi-
gated the ability of the PIT to reflect information about
the client-therapist relationship. Results showed that the
PIT does elicit information relevant to attraction between
client and therapist. Students attending one counseling
interview had higher attraction scores than students with
no counseling contact. In addition. he found that after
eliminating gs whose behavior (i.e. returning or not return-
ing for counseling) was influenced by factors other than
attraction. students returning for the second interview had
higher attraction scores than those not returning.

The present study was designed to investigate the

following hypotheses:

1) The higher the dogmatism score. the less will the indi-

vidual be attracted to therapy or to a helping situation.

2) The greater the perceived discrepancy between real self

3)

4)

18

and ideal self. the more will the individual be at-

tracted to therapy.

The higher the dogmatism score. the less will be the

perceived discrepancy between real and ideal self.

Dogmatism and self-ideal discrepancy will interact in

such a manner that:

a) The highly dogmatic person with high self-ideal dis-

crepancy will show a moderate attraction to therapy.

b) The person low in dogmatism with high self—ideal

discrepancy will be highly attracted to therapy.

c) The highly dOgmatic person with low self-ideal dis-

crepancy will show a low attraction to therapy.

d) The person low in dogmatism with low self-ideal dis—

crepancy will show a low attraction to therapy.

METHOD

Sample. The subjects consisted of 260 students en—
rolled in undergraduate psychology courses at Michigan State
University. Ages ranged from 17 to 22 years old. Students
who had in the past. or were at the time of the study. re—
ceiving counseling or therapy were eliminated.

Instruments. The Picture Impressions Test (PIT) is
a series of four pictures. similar to TAT cards. designed to
elicit stories about patient-therapist interactions. They
can be used for white and Negro subjects and for adolescents
and adults of both sexes (Libo. 1956). Separate cards are
given to males and females (see Appendix. Table B). After
the first therapy session. the therapist administers the
pictures to the client. requesting that he write or tell a
story about each one. In each story he is asked to include
answers to the following questions: 1) What is happening?
Who is involved? 2) What led up to this? What happened
before? 3) What is being thought or felt? What is wanted?
4) What will happen? What will be done? About 20 to 25
minutes are required for completion of the test.

19

20

Coding renders an attraction score. with attraction
being defined as ". . . the resultant of forces acting on
the patient to maintain his relationship with the therapist.“
(Libo 1957. p. 35) The coding scheme is derived from the
same general principles used in Libo's first study (Libo.
1953). Accordingly. to be scoreable a story must include
a doctor. therapist. or examiner (i.e. medical man. dentist.
psychiatrist. psychologist. etc. as opposed to a friend.
lawyer. employee. etc.). and a client seeking diagnosis or
therapy for himself rather than for a friend. child. etc.
If either of these elements is not present. the story is
marked Not Scoreable (NS). If both requirements are satis-
fied. a +1 is assigned to each mention of actual or desired
movement of a patient toward a therapist and of expected or
derived satisfaction from their relationship. A -l is as-
signed to each mention of actual or desired movement away
from the therapist and of loss of satisfaction caused or
expected from contact with him. A score for each story is
the algebraic sum of all the plus and minus values assigned
to it. while the total score is the sum of scores obtained
on all four stories. Results are reported in two parts:

the algebraic sum explained above. and the number of stories

21

with a score. To be considered as having a score. a story
must receive at least one value other than a zero. even if

the algebraic sum for the stories is zero. The number of
stories receiving a score is interpreted as the Subject's
degree of involvement in his story—writing. It is assumed
that the higher the positive total score and the greater the
number of stories from which scores are obtained. the stronger
is the client's attraction to the therapist and the thera-
peutic situation. Criteria for interpretation of 'attracted'

or 'not attracted' are summarized in Table I.

Table I
Scoring Criteria for PIT

(See Manual; Libo. 1956)

 

 

— *— E m

 

 

No. of stories

 

. Total score Interpretation
Wlth a score
2. 3. or 4 +1 or higher Attracted
Any 0 or lower Not attracted
0 or 1 Any Not attracted

 

Additional scoring criteria include the following.
The scoreable unit is any word. phrase. clause. or sentence

which contains an indication of the movement or satisfaction

22

described earlier. More than one scoreable part may be con-
tained in a sentence. clause. or phrase. but each scoreable
part can only receive one score. The shortest part necessary
should always be chosen for scoring. thus facilitating the
scoring of other parts of the story. A series of words
which. if treated separately. would receive the same sign.
is treated as one unit. but if a descriptive word is preceded
by a verb. it is scoreable as a separate unit even if it ap-
pears in a series. A sequence of descriptive words qualify-
ing for both positive and negative scores receives one plus
and one minus regardless of the number of positives and nega-
tives in the sequence. Each scoreable unit in an 'either-or'
statement is scored. Conditional statements. moralistic
statements, and involuntary or chance actions are not scored.
As mentioned earlier. Libo has conducted two studies
to determine the reliability of scoring the PIT (Libo. 1956;
Libo. 1957). Emphasis was on determining the reliability of
scoring procedures which influence the final interpretation
of a Subject as 'attracted' or 'not attracted.' Results.
from two independent scorers using 30 SS showed 87% agree-
ment on interpretation of 'attracted' or 'not attracted.'

100% agreement on 'number of stories receiving a score.‘

23

and 87% agreement on 'total score.‘ Results from one coder's
repeated scoring indicated 95% agreement on interpretation
of 'attracted' or 'not attracted.' 98% agreement on 'number
of stories receiving a score.‘ and 92% agreement on 'total
score.‘

Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale was used to obtain a mea-
sure of open-mindedness or openness to new information (see
Table C in Appendix). The scale contains a total of 40
statements on a number of important questions. Subjects
were instructed as follows:

The following is a study of what the general

public thinks and feels about a number of important
social and personal questions. The best answer to
each statement below is yourpersonalfiopinion. We
have tried to cover many different and opposing
points of view; you may find yourself agreeing
strongly with some of the statements. disagreeing
just as strongly with others. and perhaps uncertain
about others. Whether you agree or disagree with
any statement. you can be sure that many other
people feel the same as you do.

'Mark each statement in the left margin accord-
ing to how much you agree or disagree with it.
Please mark every one. Write +1. +2. +3. or -1. -2.
-3. depending on how you feel in each case.

Scores are added algebraically and yield an index of
dogmatism. Reliabilities of the final form of the DOgmatism

Scale range from .68 to .93 (Rokeach. 1960). A shorter meth-

od of scoring can be accomplished by simply adding the number

24

of positives without regard to the numerical value of each.
This method has a reliability of .89 and renders an average
score of about 17. an upper bound of 32. and a lower bound
of zero (Rokeach and Norrell. 1966).

Timothy Leary (1957) has constructed an interpersonal
adjective check list (ICL). to be used as a tool in assessing
various aspects of personal adjustment. It contains 134
words and phrases descriptive of the way peOple feel and be-
have. One purpose of the ICL is to measure the discrepancy
between real and ideal self. thus providing an index of self-
acceptance. This level of the ICL deals with the individ-
ual's perception of himself and his world as he reports
them.

Directions to the g were as follows:

This is a list of words and phrases which des-

cribe the way people behave. Circle the number of
each item that is descriptive of you. Your first
impression is generally the best. Therefore. go
through the list as-quickly as you can. However.
please be certain to consider each item. but circle
only those that describe you. There are 134 items
in all.

To describe his ideal self. the §_was requested to circle

the number of each item that is descriptive of himself as he

would like to be (see Table D in Appendix).

25

The discrepant items are added algebraically. and
used as a measure of self-ideal discrepancy. The entire pro-
cedure requires about 10 to 15 minutes. Test-retest correla-
tions average from .73 to .78. These correlations suggest
that the ICL discrepancy scores have sufficient stability to
be useful in personality research and clinical evaluation.

Procedure. All three tests were given in the class-
room situation. To avoid contamination of the data by order
effects. the PIT was always administered first. and the Dog-
matism Scale and ICL were each administered as the second
test 50%»of the time and as the third test 50% of the time.
with sex controlled (i.e. the ICL was given immediately after
the PIT to 50% of the SS. half being male and half female).

Because the PIT was originally designed to be admin-
istered in a therapeutic situation. the directions were
amended to adjust the test to a classroom setting. Pictures
were shown one at a time by projecting them on to a screen
at the front of the room. Before presentation of the pic-
tures. gs were told:

For the first part of the study. I am going

to show you some pictures. Each one will be
flashed on the screen for a short time. Look at
it. and imagine that you or a close friend has

gone to see someone about some problems you or
he may have. Then make up a story about the

26

picture. answering the four questions on the an—
swer sheet. By answering these questions. all
the parts of your story's plot will be covered.
Write a definite. interesting story. rather than
a simple description of the picture. Use your
imagination. There is no right or wrong way.
Your story should be about what you see in the
picture.

There are separate pictures for males and
females. I will always show the male (female)
picture first. As soon as it goes off the screen.
males (females) begin working on your story. Do
not wait for the female (male) picture to be shown.

There are four pictures in all and each has
a separate answer sheet. Please work fast. Each
story should take you about five minutes to write.

Are there any questions?

O.K. Here is the first picture for the males
(females).

Each picture was shown for 25 seconds. after which
the SS were given 5 minutes to write a story. Male and fe-
male pictures were each shown first 50% of the time.

On completion of the PIT. gs were given further
directions.

Now you may go on to the other tests. You
should each have a data sheet. two check lists.
and a psychology questionnaire. but not necessar-
ily in that order. Please complete them in the
order in which they appear. and replace them in
the envelope in the same order. Directions for
each one appears at the top of the page. Please
begin.

27

Instructions for the Dogmatism Scale and ICL were
not changed from those outlined in the section on instru-
ments. Since gs were taking three tests. each §_was given
an envelope containing all test materials at the beginning
of the hour. In this way. it was hoped to save time. A
data sheet requesting the following information was also in
the envelope: age. sex. and whether the § had in the past
or was presently obtaining psycholOgical counseling or psy-
chotherapy. Possible answers to this last question included;
none. one session. 2-5 sessions. 6-10 sessions. more than 10
sessions. The purpose of such detail was to eliminate the
possibility of a yes-no dichotomy. Finally. gs were asked

not to sign their name.

RESULTS

Of the 260 gs who met the requirements of the study.
24 had no scoreable stories on the PIT. Their data were not
included in any of the analyses. Means. standard deviations.
and a correlation coefficient for dogmatism and ICL discrep-
ancy score from these 24 gs appear in Table II. No signifi—
cant differences were found between the mean scores of these
gs as compared to the mean scores of the remaining 236 S5.
The t—value obtained from a comparison of the two groups on
dogmatism was .826 (df = 258) and the tfvalue from a compar-
ison of mean ICL discrepancy scores was .239 (df = 258). The
correlation cOefficient between dogmatism and ICL discrepancy
score for the 24 §s with no scoreable stories (r = .596).
however. was markedly higher than that for the group with at
least one scoreable picture (r = .178 for males and .221 for
females).

Inter-scorer reliability for the PIT was obtained by
having 25% of the PITs scored independently by a second
scorer using PITs from every fourth S. The criteria for com-
parison were: 1) Correlation coefficient for total score.

28

29

Table II

Means. Standard Deviations. and Correlation Coefficient for
Dogmatism and ICL Discrepancy Scores from Subjects with
No Scoreable Pictures on the PIT (N = 24)

 

 

I

Measure _ Dogmatism ICL
Mean 17.458 34.50
Standard deviation 5.192 13.76

Pearson r .596*

 

*Significant at .01 level

using the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient; 2)
Agreement on the:'number of stories scored.' using the.Pear-
son product moment correlation coefficient; 3) Agreement on
interpretation of 'attracted' or 'not attracted.' using the
phi coefficient. which is the Pearson r for dichotomized var-
iables; 4) Agreement on interpretation of 'attracted' or 'nOt
attracted.' measured in percentage. Table III summarizes the
results for all four criteria. These results indicate a con-
sistency in the scoring system when used by independent
scorers.

All test data were first analyzed with the sexes com-
bined. and then identical analyses were performed on data for

each of the sexes separately. Means and standard deviations

30

of dogmatism. ICL discrepancy. and PIT score for both types

of analysis appear in Table IV.

Table I II

Inter-Scorer Reliability for the PIT

 

 

 

L W

 

Correlation .Corrélation Interpretation of
Coefficient Coefficient 'Attracted' or 'Not
for Total for Number of Attracted~I
Score Stories Scored

Phi Coef. % Agreement
54 .85* .89* .775 .889

 

*Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient

Table IV

Means and Standard Deviations for Dogmatism.
ICL Discrepancy. and PIT Scores

 

E m

Males & Females Males Females
Test ‘ “*

Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev.

 

 

 

Dogmatism 18.28 4.576 18.44 4.824 18.18 4.407

ICL 33.84 12.798 34.55 13.129 33.38 '12.560
# Pictures 2.114 .952 1.946 .913 2.22 .961
PIT Total

Score 1.191 3.545 .630 3.071 1.549 3.775

 

N 236 92 144

 

31

To compare the mean score of males and females on
dogmatism, ICL discrepancy. and PIT score (both 'number of
stories scored' and 'total score'). t—tests were performed.
A significant difference between males and females was ob—
tained for the 'number of stories scored' on the PIT (t =
2.16. df = 234). with females having higher mean scores.

The difference in means for the 'total PIT score' was very
close to statistical significance. The obtained value for
E_in this case was 1.949 (df = 234). which is significant at
the .06 level. whereas the value necessary for significance
at the .05 level is between 1.98 and 1.96. Table V presents

these results.

Table V

.T-Values from Comparison of Male and Female Scores
on DOgmatism. ICL Discrepancy. and PIT

 

Variable Obtained t—value Df
Dogmatism .426 234
ICL .686 234
# Stories Scored 2.160* 234
Total PIT Score 1.949 234

 

*Significant at .05 level.

32

In exploring the hypotheses of this study. several
methods of analysis were used: ‘Pearson product moment cor-
relation coefficient to test for linear relationships: £33
to reveal non—linear relationships; analysis of variance to
test for interaction effects: and t—tests to detect differ—
ences among mean scores. Results will be presented in terms
of specific hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1 was not supported. Analysis of dogma-
tism and PIT score yielded a Pearson product moment correla-
tion coefficient of -.068 for males and -.064 for females.
neither of which is significant. Table VI summarizes the
correlation data relating to linearity. It should be noted
that though neither relationship is statistically signifi-

cant.'both are in the predicted direction. Inspection of

Table VI

Summary of Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients
for Dogmatism. ICL Discrepancy. and PIT Scores

 

W
Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients

 

 

Sex N
Dog and PIT ICL and PIT ICL and D09
Males -.068 -.075 .178 92

Females -.064 -.139 .221* 144

 

*Significant at .01 level.

33

the mean PIT score for upper and lower quartile dogmatism
scorers provides further indication of this direction among
females. For example. the mean PIT score for high dogmatism
scorers (N = 34) is .62. while the mean PIT score for §s
scoring low on dogmatism (N = 41) is 2.15. The relation-
ship is as predicted. i.e. highly dogmatic gs as a group
(disregarding ICL discrepancy scores) have a lower PIT mean
score than do gs low on dogmatism. However. close scrutiny
of data from male gs reveals that. though there is an over-
all negative relation between dOgmatism and total PIT score.
high dogmatism scorers as a group. in fact. have the highest
mean PIT score (see Table VII.a).

The 3535 Obtained from male data were .445 for PIT/
Dog and .527 for Dog/PIT. and from female data were .435 for
PIT/Dog and .299 for Dog/PIT. None of these is statisti-
aflly significant. Table A summarizes results from the non-
linear analyses (see Appendix).

For the Eatests. dogmatism. ICL discrepancy. and PIT
scores were divided into quartiles. as in Table VII (see Cri-
terion Variable). Then. SS in the high and low quartiles of
a given variable were looked at more closely in terms of

means and standard deviations on the other two variables.

34

.Amanmflum> cofluwufluov OHQMHHM> OHHLB m co mmnoom mo mammm on» so mmaauumso oucfl
UOOH>HQ mum mm.:m£3 AmOHQMHHm> admocmmmnv moaflmfium> 039 no m203umfl>mn enmecmum ecu names;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3 3.3 moé 3.3 *3 mos ow m3.3 3.3 33v 00.3 33 mom. 3
3.3 ooém 3.... 3.3 x3 63 3. 33.3 3.3 63...... 3.3 *3 3m 3
3.3 3.3. 36 3.3 x3 63 am 333 3.3 33+ 3.3 $3 63 3
3.3 3.3 $6 3.3 .33 33 3 333 5.3 Sod 3.3 *3 33 mm
30H .mon aHm .o 30H .moo eHm .u
36 3.0 34V 3.3 .33 mos mm 3.3m 3m. 33¢ 3.3 .33 mos 3
$3 3.3 004. 3.3 *3 3m 3 33m 3.... ~34. 3.3 *3 3m 3
36 N33 3% 3.3 $3 63 3V 3.3m omo. 33¢ 00.3 .33 6cm 3
36 3.3 36 3.3 .33 33 3 83m 03.. 83¢ 3.: x3 33 3
.3 m . mon 33 . a . mon .33 . n
3.... 3.0 3.3 3.3 .33 mom. em 33m «3. 33.3 3.3 $3 mom. 3
:3 33 $6 3.3 .33 e3 3 833. 03.- 333 3.3 .33 3m 3
33 3.3 3.3 3.3 x3 63 o... mmo.m 36. 33m 3.3. .33 63 3
03¢ 33 3.3 3.0... .33 33 3 333 So. 63.3 3.3 $3.33 3.
.>on.um cmmz .>wa.um cam: .m .>on .um cam: .>mn.um COOS .m
.mon .moa
aHm 30H aHm AOH
OHQmHnm> magmanm>
m . .
mmHQMHHm> ucwecm on COAHODHHU z mmHQmHHm> unmocmmma GOHHmuHHU z
mmq¢2mm mmqmz

 

 

*BHm cam .AOH .EmaumEmon so mmHQMHHm> unmocmmwn cam GOHHODHHU :mm3umm mGOmHHmmEOU mHHuumno

HH> magma

35

In reference to hypothesis 1. no significant differences were
found between the PIT scores of the upper and lower quartile
of dogmatism scorers for either males or females. Efratios
of -.0462 (df = 48) and 1.586 (df = 73) were obtained for
males and females respectively. Table VIII presents these

results.

Table VIII

‘T—Values for Upper Versus Lower Quartiles
As Found in Table VII (N = 236)

A4

 

 

 

 

MALES FEMALES
Var. Criterion Df .T-Value Var. Criterion Df TfValue
ICL D09 48 -l.854 ICL Dog 73 -2.017*
PIT Dog 48 —0.046 PIT Dog 73 1.586
Dog ICL 49 -l.773 Dog ICL 63 -2.380*
PIT ICL 49 0.306 PIT ICL 63 1.434
Dog PIT 43 -O.422 Dog PIT 77 0.767
ICL PIT 43 1.523 ICL PIT 77 1.172

 

*Significant at .05 level.

Hypothesis 2 was not supported. The Pearson r for
males was -.075 and that for females was -.139. neither of

which is statistically significant. For both males and

36

females. however. the relationship tends in a direction Oppo-
site to that which was predicted. Comparison of the mean
PIT scores for high and low ICL discrepancy scorers also in-
dicates a negative relationship. That is. among both males
and females. the group with the highest ICL discrepancy
scores has a lower mean PIT score than does the group with
the lowest ICL discrepancy scores. For example. the mean
PIT score for high ICL male scorers (N = 26) is .538. while
that for low ICL scorers (N = 25) is .96. Regarding females.
it is true that the upper quartile ICL scorers have the high-
est mean PIT score. However. among males the increase in
mean PIT score with decrease in mean ICL discrepancy score
is not so consistent. Here the 3rd quartile of ICL scorers
has the lowest mean PIT (.333). while the upper quartile has
the second lowest mean PIT (.538). (See Table VII.b) It
was predicted that the greater the discrepancy between the
real and the ideal self. the higher would be the attraction
to therapy. but results. though not significant. indicate
the reverse.

Statistical analysis of ICL discrepancy score and
PIT score using eta_yielded no significant findings. Among

the males. an eta of .323 was obtained for PIT/ICL and .398

 

37

for ICL/PIT. Etas for females were .294 for PIT/ICL and .335

 

for ICL/PIT.

.E-tests revealed no significant differences between
the mean PIT scores of the upper and lower quartile of ICL
scorers. The obtained values of Erwere .3058 (df = 49) and
1.4342 (df = 63) for males and females respectively (see
Table VIII) .

Hypothesis 3 was not supported. The Pearson r for
ICL discrepancy and dogmatism was .178 for males (N = 92.

p < .10). and .221 for females (N = 144. p < .01). These
results indicate a relationship opposite to the original
prediction.

§£3§_of .447 for Dog/ICL and .479 for ICL/Dog were
found from male data. while eggs from female data were .387
for Dog/ICL and .50 for ICL/Dog. The only value which
reached statistical significance was the e£g_for ICL/Dog
from female data (F = 2.03; df = 19. 122; p < .01). A test
for linearity of regression indicated that ICL/Dog for fe-
males is significantly non-linear (F = 1.739; df = 19. 122;
p < .05). These tests were computed according to Walker and

Lev (1953. p. 278).

38

A trtest on the ICL means of the upper and lower
quartile dogmatism scorers produced a significant E-ratio
for females. but not for males (see Table VIII).

Hypothesis 4 was not supported. A one-way analysis
of variance was performed on the means of the four groups
created by assigning §s according to whether they scored
high or low on dogmatism and ICL discrepancy. For this anal-
ysis. dogmatism and ICL diScrepancy scores were dichoto-
mized into high and low groups by dividing at the value

closest to the median. Table IX summarizes the results.

Table IX

Summary Data from Analysis of Variance

 

m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MALES FEMALES

N Dog ICL Mean PIT o N Dog ICL Mean PIT O
26 Low Low 0.8077 2.8145 47 Low Low 1.8936 4.0552
19 High Low 0.8421 3.8911 30 High Low 2.0000 3.8327
20 Low High 0.7500 3.0929 34 Low High 1.5588 3.1641
27 High High 0.2222 2.8330 33 High High 0.6364 3.9514
Source SS DF F Source SS DF: F
Between 6.453 3 0.3199 Between 39.173 3 0.908
Within 860.981 88 Within 2012.487 140

Total '867.435 91 Total 2051.660 143

 

39

Although the overall F test showed a non-significant
difference. comparison of group means with the hypothesized
order relation reveals some interesting trends. For example.
if the dichotomized groups were arranged in descending order

for mean PIT score. results would appear as in Table X.

Table X

Comparison of Predicted PIT Total Score with Obtained
PIT Total Score

Predicted Obtained PIT Dichotomized N Hyp.
PIT PIT Mean Score Groups
Score Score

 

Male Female ' Dog. ICL Male Female

 

Moderate Low .2222 .6364 High High 27 33 4.a.
High Low .7500 1.5588 Low High 20 34 4.b.
Low High .8077 1.8936 Low Low 26 47 4.d.
Low High .8421 2.0000 High Low 19 30 4.c.

 

Regarding the PIT scores. if 'moderate' were considered 'mod-
erately high' or 'high.‘ the results become just the reverse
of the original predictions. Let us consider the findings in
terms of each particular hypothesis.

Hypothesis 4.a: The combination of high dogmatism

and high self-ideal discrepancy. predicted to result in a

4O

moderate attraction to therapy. was associated with the low-
est mean PIT for both males and females.

Hypothesis 4.b: The group low in dogmatism and high
in self—ideal discrepancy. predicted to indicate high attrac-
tion to therapy. showed the second lowest mean PIT score for
both males and females.

Hypothesis 4.c: High dogmatism and low self-ideal
discrepancy. hypothesized to interact in such a manner as to
produce low attraction to therapy. was associated with the
highest mean PIT score for both males and females.

Hypothesis 4.d: The group low in dogmatism and low
in self-ideal discrepancy. predicted to show a high attrac-
tion to therapy. had the second highest mean PIT score among
both males and females.

Finally. tftests on mean dogmatism and ICL discrep-
ancy scores comparing 'attracted' versus 'not attracted'
groups yielded insignificant.£-ratios for both males and
females. Table XI presents the findings of this analysis.

In summary. no significant relationships were found
between PIT scores and dogmatism scores or between PIT scores
and ICL discrepancy scores. Analysis of variance revealed

no interaction effects between dogmatism. ICL discrepancy.

41

and PIT. Results did show that ICL discrepancy and dog-

matism are positively related.

Table XI

‘TeRatios from Comparison of 'Attracted' Versus
'Not Attracted' Groups on Dogmatism and ICL
Discrepancy Scores

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E
MALES (N - 92)
Attracted Not Attracted
(N = 33) (N = 59)
Variable Df t
St. St.
Mean Dev. Mean Dev.

Dog 18.06 4.636 18.64 4.992 90 -0.551
ICL 34.21 13.946 34.75 12.885 90 -0.266
FEMALES (N - 144)

Attracted Not Attracted
(N = 70) (N - 74)
Variable Df t
St. St.
Mean Dev. Mean Dev.
Dog 17.68 3.752 18.65 4.956 142 -l.309

ICL 32.83 12.970 33.91 12.312 142 -0.665

 

DISCUSSION

While none of the hypotheses of this study were sup-
ported. data from one were in the predicted direction. and
data from six were in a direction opposite to the prediction.
Results from only one of the seven were statistically sig-
nificant.

None of the hypotheses involving the PIT were statis-
tically significant. which we must consider a generic issue
in evaluating these results. It is suspected that the lack
of significant findings here is due to the particular sample
used. In past research. the PIT was always used with clin-
ical populations. i.e. with gs having had experience in
therapy. The one exception was Mullin's study (1966). in
which case the SS. being enrolled in 400-1eve1 psychology
courses. can be considered more psychologically sophisti—
cated than the Se in this study. the majority of whom were
18 or 19 years old. Thus. possibly the PIT is not sensitive
to this age group. However. Libo claims that his projective
measure can be used with adolescents or adults. The issue.
then. may be that the sensitivity of the PIT is restricted

42

43

by the combination of group administration and a non-client
population which is relatively unSOphisticated.

Support for this suggestion is provided by Webster's
studies (Sanford. 1964) of college girls. Results indicated
that in terms of attitudes and amount of personality disturb-
ance experienced. students entering therapy are more like
seniors than freshmen. The latter Sanford (1964. p. 836)
described as ". . . idealistic. sociable. well—organized.
well-behaved . . . " individuals whose participation in
family values and community is comfortable and uncritical.
In terms of the present study. it follows that a freshman
would be much less likely to project a helping situation
into the four pictures of the PIT than would the senior who
has had several years to develOp an awareness of personal
feelings and become sensitized to value conflicts. differ-
ent points of view. etc. In conjunction with this. it is
important to note that the proportion of clients seeking
help with personal problems at the MSU Counseling Center is
greater for upperclassmen than for freshmen and sophomores.
(Annual Report. MSU Counseling Center).

Now let us consider the results of the present study
in light of the underlying theory and explore possible in-

ferences.

44

The first hypothesis predicted that as dogmatism in-
creases. the individual will become less likely to project
attraction to a helping situation. Results. though not sig-
nificant. were in the predicted direction. If we assume
that the negative trend is not due to chance. the following
is a plausible explanation. The closed—minded or dogmatic
person perceives things. as well as himself. differently than
does the open—minded person. The former is not willing to
discuss subjective experiences. to seek and/or accept new
information. or to see things as changeable. Consequently.
if he perceives the therapeutic setting as one facilitating
the exploration of new concepts and ideas. the discussion of
his feelings and experiences. and the learning of different
vantage points from which to view information. issues. and
experiences. then he will not be drawn to it. In short. if
the dogmatic individual sees therapy as a situation conducive
to change. he will not approach it.

It is interesting to speculate that the relationship
between dogmatism and attraction to therapy could just as
easily be positive. That is. given a certain conception of
the therapeutic situation. the dogmatic person could be more.

rather than less. attracted to it than the open-minded person.

45

If a dogmatic individual views therapy as "a way to produce
a fixed or rigid 'healthy state of mind.'" or as “a virtuous
act which will be rewarded by relief of difficulties" (Gold-
stein. 1962). or as a setting which he can enter. thereafter
relying on the therapist to tell him What to do and solve
his problems for him. he will be more likely to approach
therapy than will the open—minded person with the same con-
ception of therapy. Such an expectation of the therapeutic
process is referred to by Apfelbaum (1958) as 'nurturant.‘
Thus. it would seem that an essential factor in relation-
ships between manner of thinking and attitude toward helping
situations is one's qualitative conception of the therapeutic
process.

The second hypothesis stated that the greater the
discrepancy between real self and ideal self. the greater
would be the projected attraction toward a helping situation.
However. results indicated a negative trend between ICL dis-
crepancy and attraction to therapy. though not at a statis-
tically significant level. If there really is a negative
relation between these two variables. how can it be explained?

According to Leary (1957. p. 205). ". . . discrepancy

between ideal and real self provides an index of self-

46

acceptance. This variable then plays a most crucial role in
arousing motivation for therapy.” Are we to conclude. then.
that the less a person accepts himself (as indicated by high
ICL discrepancy score). the less likely he will be to seek
help? Those gs who. on the basis of self-ideal discrepancy.
would seem to be the most highly motivated for therapy are
not really the ones who approach it. If this is true. then
those who do. in fact. seek and obtain therapeutic help are
those that need it the least: But recall that Rogers has
demonstrated a considerable discrepancy between real and
ideal self in clients entering therapy. In addition. Butler
and Haigh (1954) not only have shown that such discrepancy
decreases as a function of therapy. but also that a non-
therapy control group had consistent self-ideal correlations
similar to the post-therapy correlations of the experimental
group. So we cannot conclude that in general those who
really need help. as indicated by self-ideal discrepancy. do
not enter therapy. or that discrepancy scores of those enter-
ing therapy are not really different from discrepancy scores
of those not entering therapy.

Perhaps the discrepancy among freshmen students is

situationally bound rather than psychically or dynamically

47

related. Thus. the star of the debate team in high school
finds himself surrounded by stars of greater magnitude in
college. setting up a conflict in self-concept and related
self—ideal which may or may not be dynamically based. Dy-
namic is used here to refer to psychological functioning.
Accordingly. perhaps the discrepancy indicated by freshmen
is simply a result of what they see about them (i.e. talent
equaling and surpassing their own) rather than an index of
how they really feel about themselves or how much they
really accept themselves. An evaluation of Rogers' discrep-
ancy measures suggests that his Q-sort items are more re-
lated to feelings. attitudes. and values. The crucial fac-
tor could be the instrument itself or the age and experience
of the clients used in his studies. At any rate. it seems
reasonable to suspect that his measures are a more accurate
reflection of how the gs think and feel than are the ones
used in the present study.

In viewing the negative trend between-ICL discrepancy
and attraction to therapy. we may ask what high ICL discrep-
ancy reveals about an individual. Why would the person with
many characteristics that he would like to change actually

be unwilling to approach therapy? Perhaps we must ask What

48

the ICL is really measuring. or what is anoflner level at
which the discrepancy score can be interpreted. Then. why
would the person scoring high in this 'something' be less
willing to enter a helping situation than the person scoring
low? Perhaps the therapeutic situation would be too threat-
ening for the person who is so much different than he would
like to be. If this is the case..it would seem that the ICL
is measuring defensiveness. At any rate. it cannot be as-
sumed that ICL is necessarily an indication of an individ-
ual's dissatisfaction with himself.

It is reasonable to suppose that experiences at.a
large university have a great deal of effect on the typical
freshman. The extent to which this impact affects him in
his first or second term may be quite variable. Thus. the
freshman may be admitting a difference between self and
ideal without feeling that he would need to do much about
change (attraction to therapy) at that time. There is so
much novel stimuli impinging upon him that he has not yet
had a chance to evaluate and integrate it so that his whole
person is influenced.

To speculate as Rokeach has done (1966). perhaps the

ICL measures attitude toward the object. i.e. the self.

49

whereas the PIT measures attitude toward the situation in
which the self is functioning as the major focus. i.e. a
helping situation. High ICL discrepancy would indicate a
negative attitude toward oneself. while low discrepancy
would reveal a positive attitude toward oneself. High PIT
can be interpreted as a testimony that the individual feels
capable of change. that he has a positive attitude toward
undergoing change. or toward functioning in a situation de-
signed primarily to help him change. Finally. low PIT would
imply a more static concept of the self. in that it indicates
a negative attitude toward being in a change-inducing situa-
tion. One could also speculate using ICL discrepancy as a
measure of attitude toward change in the abstract. with PIT
measuring attitude toward the process of changing.

At this point. it should be interesting to consider
some of the responses to the PIT made by S5 with high and
low ICL discrepancy scores. In answer to the question "What
will happen? What will be done?" in Picture I. a S with a
high ICL discrepancy score (e.g. 47) wrote the following:

I will leave the counselor (in my imagination)

feeling disgusted. I didn‘t find any answers. I

will be depressed. I probably won't go for coun-
seling.

50

The same S. describing what is being thought or felt in Pic-
ture II. wrote:

I again have this feeling of not letting my-

self express my innermost feelings. I want to
yet I don't feel secure enough to think he'd
understand.

Similarly. answering all four questions about Picture III.
this S wrote:

Some woman is leaving a doctor's office (pre-
sumably a counselor). She isn't happy - She is
confused. She can't take advice from this man -
it reminds her of her father.

She got mad at him. He asked her questions
she didn't want to answer. He seemed to confuse

her.

She is frustrated — she can't feel innocent -
it's always guilty. guilty. guilty.

Nothing because she can trust no one or love
no one. She is alone.

A negative attitude toward the therapist is quite evident.
On the other hand. a positive feeling is conveyed by the
stories of a‘g who scored low in ICL discrepancy (e.g. 21).
Describing what will happen in Picture II. she wrote:
The psychiatrist will ask her many questions

about her association with males before and after

and during this instance. He will have her come

for numerous visits and try to help her overcome

her fear of getting involved and hurt again.

The same S composed the following in response to Picture III:

51

Janice is leaving the office of her trusted
analyst for the last time.

Janice had an abnormal fear of the dark.
Her husband had sent her to the analyst in the
first place. because even when she went to bed
she had to have a light on.

Janice is feeling proud now. Proud. because
she had enough courage to go to an analyst and
together the two of them conquered her problem.
All that is wanted is a chance.

Janice will go home with more confidence in
herself. She will become a much better person —
and a much happier one.

These stories are not representative. in that the

client-therapist relationship is directly projected and des-

cribed. A more typical protocol. from aig scoring low in

ICL discrepancy (e.g. 19) is the following story written in

response to Picture I.

His

A man is thinking of seeing his doctor.

He had a violent argument with a friend who
called him mentally insane.

He wants to find out from his doctor if he
needs treatment.

The doctor says no - his friend is the one
who needs help.

story for Picture III was:

This man is leaving his doctor's office. He
has just had a physical.

52

He had an accident on his job. he sprained
his back.

The doctor has just given him the O.K. to
go back to work. This is what the man wanted.

The man will resume work beginning Monday.
Finally. here is the story he composed about Picture IV.
A man is waiting to see his doctor.

He has had a chest X-ray — is waiting to
find out the results.

He is concerned for fear he might have can-
cer. He hopes the X-ray will be negative.

When he sees the doctor he will be told he
has not got cancer.

A representative story from a §_scoring high in ICL discrep—
ancy (e.g. 63) is the following. written in response to Pic-

ture III:

A woman is just leaving a doctor's office.
after having her yearly physical.

She does this regularly. once a year. so
this is no abnormal activity.

The woman thinks nothing. She has had her
physical. and commonly thinks little of it. She
is healthy and well adjusted. Should she be
thankful? Might this be lacking?

The woman will go on living life as usual.
She will be oblivious to those around her. per-
haps even to those persons who are physically
handicapped and unhealthy. Nothing will be done.
because most people are like the woman. and are
not concerned.

53

The same S composed the following for Picture IV:

The woman is waiting for the dentist to return
from lunch. because she has an appointment with
him.

She has a toothache which suddenly deVeloped.
She called the dentist an hour ago and he said
that he would see her during his lunch hour.
(The toothache is. after all. quite painful.)
She is waiting. but he is not there.

The woman is disgusted and discouraged. be-
cause the dentist has not shown up. and because
her toothache is very painful.

The woman will leave before the dentist re-
turns from lunch. forgetting about her pain be-
cause she is too mad at the dentist for failing
to show up. The next day she will call up an-
other dentist. and stop seeing her old dentist.

Finally. another § scoring high in ICL discrepancy (e.g. 56)
and low on the PIT responded to Picture III as follows:

A woman is leaving the office of her family
physician. (Who is involved?) She. Dr.. husband.
an unborn child.

She suspected that she was pregnant. She and
her husband wanted a child so they had sexual in-
tercourse.

The woman is pleased with herself and her hus-
band. and yet she is terribly afraid of having a
child. She wants her husband to get very thrilled
over the aspect that she is expecting.

She will tell her husband. He will hug and
kiss her. Eventually she will have feelings that
she is less appealing and will continually need
reassurance from her husband. They will have the
child. but may argue a lot before it is born.

54

Her story about Picture IV was:
The woman is waiting to see the doctor about
her regular pregnancy checkup. (Who is involved?)

Woman. Dr.. baby.

She has to make these visits. (What happened
before?) No complication.

She is nervous for it is nearing the time of
delivery. (What is wanted?) No complications.

plus not having to have the baby.

She will suffer and then have it. She will
receive an anesthetic as soon as she can.

Many of the stories written by female gs described
a visit to the doctor regarding pregnancy. While physical
examinations for the army constituted the theme for many of
the males' stories. It is plausible that for this age group.
a positive attitude toward a medical doctor or dentist has no
relation to his attitude toward a therapist. This may pro-
vide further indication of the PIT's lack of sensitivity to
freshmen.

In addition. recall that in all but one previous use
(Mullin. 1966) the PIT was administered individually (in a
testing room or by a therapist in his office) in a one to
one relationship. and always after a counseling session.
rather than in the classroom. In designing the present

study. it was hoped that this factor was compensated for

55

in part by the directions to ". . . imagine that you or a
close friend has gone to see someone about some problems. .“
Perhaps. with more psychologically sophisticated gs or

with §s having had some experience in therapy or counseling.
the classroom situation would not stifle the projection of
more experiential. personal. psychological types of problems.
However. in this study. gs having had therapeutic experiences
were discarded for this very reason. That is. it was sus-
pected that §s who had at one time obtained psychotherapy
would make different responses in general than gs without
such experience. We wanted to avoid confusing the 'gestalt'
by contamination due to the experience factor. In light of
results it is reasonable to conclude that. given the lack
of certain types of experiences. the classroom situation

may. indeed. elicit more medical or objective types of
problems than would the clinical setting.

The third hypothesis predicted that a high dogmatism
score would be correlated with a low ICL discrepancy score.
Results. however. showed that these two variables are posi—
tively related at a significant level for females but not

for males. It is suspected that the difference in N accounts

for the lack of significance among males.

56

Through this study. we had hOped to show that a
highly dogmatic person would be less aware of discrepancy
between real and ideal self. It was reasoned that his
narrow approach would prevent him from recognizing charac-
teristics in himself that deviate from his ideal. Results.
however. demonstrated that the highly dogmatic person ac-
tually sees more about himself that he would like to change.
or more that differs from his ideal. than does the less dog-
matic person. Apparently then. a closed outlook does not
prevent the individual from identifying desired changes in
himself. But can we assume that self-ideal discrepancy in-
dicates desired change? Again. what does ICL discrepancy
score indicate? If we considered ICL discrepancy an index
of personal problems. present results would be consistent
with flaose of Kemp (1961) who demonstrated a positive rela—
tion between dogmatism and number of personal problems.
However. we are not completely satisfied with this inter-
pretation of the discrepancy measure.

The positive correlation between dogmatism and self-
ideal discrepancy. and the tendency for both to be negatively
related to attraction score leads to the suggestion that ICL

discrepancy score is a measure of defensiveness. Given that

57

dogmatism has been referred to as a “. . . network of . . .
defense mechanisms" (Rokeach 1960. p. 70» it seems plausible
that recognition of large differences between real and ideal
self is also a defense. Identifying a great many desired
changes or less than ideal characteristics in oneself could
be very threatening. But such identification could also
function to reduce the threat of the possible accuracy of
large discrepancies. In this case. the recognition is not
integrated with the self-concept or psychological function-
ing. It is. rather. kept at a safe distance. and compart-
mentalized from the functioning self. In short. indicating
a manifest awareness of very large discrepancies between
ideal and real self can shield an individual from the threat
of genuinely believing any of the less than ideal traits to
which he subscribes. Within this interpretative framework.
the low attraction score of highly dogmatic and discrepant
l§s is easily explained as the avoidance of exposing or
threatening situations. If an individual is defensive
about certain areas. it follows that he will not approach
situations which will focus on the vulnerable material.

Let us for a moment discuss the positive correlation

between ICL discrepancy score and dogmatism in terms of the

58

latter. Recall that a 'closed-minded' outlook refers to a
tendency to receive. evaluate. and act upon information on
the basis of irrelevant factors. Highly dogmatic persons
perceive things in categories. in terms of blacks and whites
with no allowance for greys. They tend to label new exper-
iences prior to exploration. and they approach objective as
well as personal data very narrowly. Given the tendency to
categorize. it is reasonable to speculate that a dogmatic
person will see himself as 'always' acting a certain way or
'never' acting that way. He will picture himself as 'all'
of something or as 'none' of it because he cannot deal with
shadings of a trait or with subtle mixtures of good and bad
or worthy and unworthy. In terms of the ICL. he will tend
to conceive of himself as 'always' or 'never' bitter or as
'all' forgiving or completely incapable of forgiving. Con-
sequently. he will have a higher discrepancy score than the
individual who can discern an overlap between degrees of
'always' and 'never' or between 'all' and 'none.‘ In addi-
tion. the dogmatic person is more likely to have an unreal-
istic self-ideal in the sense that his ideal is based more
on external sources of what is desirable than on his poten-

tial and desires or on his tendency to self-actualize.

59

Consequently. the dogmatic S will be more stringent in eval-
uating himself. He perceives himself one way—-he either is
or is not described by given characteristics. and the des-
cription he wants to fit is unrealistic. so he has little
chance of qualifying for 'all of it. all of the time.‘

In light of the age group used in this study. it is
interesting to consider that perhaps highly dogmatic §s per-
ceive themselves as falling so far short of their ideal be—
cause they are different from their parents whom they tend
to glorify (Rokeach. 1960: Adorno et al.. 1950). Since dOg-
matic persons tend to rely on external authority. perhaps
the §s in this study were actually comparing themselves to
their parents who have become their ideal.

The fourth hypothesis speculated that high ICL dis-
crepancy and high dogmatism Would be opposing forces in re-
lation to attraction to therapy. the former pushing an indi—
‘vidual toward therapy and the latter pulling him away from
therapy. The results were not significant. but it is inter-
esting to infer from the obtained trends.

It was found that high dogmatism and high self-ideal
discrepancy both function as resisting forces. serving to

inhibit an individual from being attracted to therapy. On

60

approaching this study. it was assumed that ICL discrepancy
is a measure of how much the individual is hurting--i.e..
how much mental conflict he is experiencing as indicated by
his dissatisfaction with himself. However. as discussed
earlier. it appears that self-ideal discrepancy is another
index of Openness. Further. there is reason to suspect that
ICL discrepancy score is a more subtle measure of openness
than dogmatism score. Indication of this possibility is
provided by those gs whose scores on dogmatism.and ICL dis-
crepancy were in opposite directions--i.e. high on one and
low on the other. For these gs. PIT scores tended in the
direction predicted by the relation between ICL and PIT.
For example. §s with low ICL discrepancy scores (which
would predict high PIT scores) and high dogmatism scores
(which would predict low attraction) actually have the high-
est mean PIT score as a group. Again. §s with high ICL dis-
crepancy scores (which alone would predict low attraction
score) and low dogmatism.score (which would predict high PIT
score) actually have the second lowest mean PIT score as a
group.

There is another possibility to account for the
above trends. Perhaps the ICL is a less threatening instru-

ment than the Dogmatism Scale. For a college student it may

61

be more socially acceptable to admit to differences in real
and ideal self than it is to be closed-minded.

Several results remain to be discussed. The high
correlation between dogmatism and ICL discrepancy score for
the §s with no scoreable pictures warrants some comment. In
light of previous discussion. it seems reasonable to conclude
that projection of helping situations was too threatening
for these 24 gs. Their defenses were tight enough to pre-
vent projection of therapeutic settings into any of the four
pictures. That is. given their high dogmatism and ICL dis-
crepancy scores. they would be too threatened to see in any
of the pictures. someone seeking help. To ward off the po-
tential threat. these gs kept their stories far enough re:
moved from anything personal as to render them completely
devoid of help seeking settings or indications of attitude
toward seeking help.

Two minor issues seem worthy of mention. The signif-
icant difference between males and females on the number of
pictures scored seems explainable by the fact that girls
tend to be more verbal than boys. Finally. it should be
noted that the lack of sex differences in dogmatism is not
consistent with past research. Rokeach and Norrell (1966)

found a significantly higher mean dogmatism score for males.

62

In general the results of this study did not support
the original theory. Individuals with a closed-minded ap-
proach tended to be less willing than open-minded persons to
become involved in a helping situation. but the differences
were not statistically significant. Persons who described
themselves as very different from their ideal tended to be
less desirous of obtaining help than those admitting to
lesser degrees of self—ideal discrepancy. but again the dif-
ferences were not significant. Closed-minded gs admitted
large discrepancies between real and ideal self. while the
more open-minded individuals described their real selves as
much closer to their ideal selves. The positive correlation
was statistically significant.

(For future research. it would be interesting to con-
vert the Check List scores of these gs into placements on
Leary's interpersonal diagnostic grid to obtain personality
profiles. Also. this study might be replicated with a more
sophisticated non—client population and a clearly clinical
population. including individuals continuing and discontin-

uing treatment.

SUMMARY

Since the therapeutic setting is one in which new in—
formation and ideas are evaluated and personal experiences
are explored. one's attitude toward such a situation should
be related to his willingness to receive and integrate new
information. Another important motivational factor in atti-
tude toward therapy should be the extent to which one is dif-
ferent from what he would like to be.

It has been shown that closed-minded persons have a
greater number of personal problems and are less likely to
succeed in therapy than open-minded persons (Kemp. 1961).
Experimental results also testify that self-ideal.correla-
tions are significantly lower for §§ entering therapy than
for non-therapy control §s (Butler and Haigh. 1954). and
that self—ideal correlations increase as a function of ther-
apy (Rogers. 1961).

This study investigated the relationship between re-
ceptivity to new information (dogmatism). discrepancy between
description of real self and description of ideal self. and
projected attraction toward a helping situation. The following

63

64

hypotheses were tested: 1) The higher the dogmatism score.
the less will an individual project attraction to a helping
situation. 2) The greater the discrepancy between self and
ideal. the greater will be the projected attraction toward
a helping situation. 3) The higher the dogmatism score.
the lower will be the discrepancy between perception of real
and ideal self. 4) Dogmatism and self—ideal discrepancy
will interact with projected attraction to a helping situa-
tion in such a way that (a) high dogmatism combined with
high self-ideal discrepancy will result in moderate attrac-
tion to a helping situation and (b) low dogmatism combined
with high self-ideal discrepancy will result in high attrac-
tion to a helping situation while (c) high dogmatism combined
with a low self-ideal discrepancy will result in low attrac-
tion to a helping situation and (d) low dogmatism combined
with low self-ideal discrepancy will result in low attraction
to a helping situation.

Subjects consisted of 260 male and female undergrad-
uates (who had never sought psychological help) enrolled in
introductory psychology courses at Michigan State University.

Separate analyses were made for males and females.

Rokeach's ngmatism Scale was used to obtain an in-

dex of open-mindedness or receptivity to new information.

65

Leary's Interpersonal Check List (ICL) rendered a measure of
discrepancy between self and ideal. and Libo's Picture Im-
pressions Test (PIT) yielded a measure of projected attrac-
tion to a helping situation.

Hypothesis 1 was not supported. though results indi-
cated a trend in the expected direction. Analysis of data
for hypothesis 2 suggested a strong trend in the direction
opposite to prediction. Hypothesis 3 was supported in the
direction Opposite to the prediction (p < .10 for males.

p < .01 for females). Hypothesis 4 was not supported though
data tended in a direction opposite to the prediction.

It was suggested that the lack of significant results
with regard to the PIT may be accounted for by the fact that
the test was administered in the classroom situation to a
ncni-clinical population of (freshman) undergraduate students.
It is suspected that the combination of these two factors
rendered the PIT less sensitive in eliciting personal. psy-
chological types of problems of sufficient intensity to pro-
vide statistically significant results.

The positive correlation between dogmatism and ICL
discrepancy score is plausible if both are interpreted as

measures of openness. The trend toward low attraction

66

scores for high dOgmatism and high ICL discrepancy scorers
was explained as the defensive avoidance of a situation that
may arouse threatening material.

Within the framework of Rokeach's theory on the na-
ture of attitudes. it was argued that attitude toward an
object (e.g. myself or therapy as an object) is quite dif—
ferent from attitude toward a situation (e.g. myself in ther-
apy). Thus. while highly dogmatic individuals will not be
attracted to helping situations in general. individuals
whose high dogmatism is accompanied by low self-ideal dis-
crepancy may perceive the helping situation positively when
considered for its advice-giving potential or seen in terms
of someone other than themselves receiving help. On the
other hand. dogmatic individuals with high self-ideal dis—
crepancy. having a greater amount of personal defensiveness.
fail to show attraction to therapy because they see it as
an ongoing situation in which they are personally involved.
Irather than something more objective and removed from them-
selves. That is. their higher self-ideal discrepancy. sug—
gesting more personal defensiveness and hence greater fear.
facilitates their perception of therapy as a situation in
which they are involved and prevents them from projecting

themselves into the helping situation.

67

It was also suggested that the self-ideal discrepancy
to which freshmen subscribe may be more situationally bound
than dynamically related. Thus. they are willing to admit
discrepancies between what they are and what they would like
to be. while not necessarily wanting to do anything about it
at the time because they are struggling with the impact of a

new environment.

APPENDIX

69

APPENDIX
Table A

Obtained Values of Eta for all Combinations of Variables

 

 

 

 

MALES FEMALES

Variables

Eta Df F Eta Df F
PIT/Dog .445 17.74 1.04 .435 20.123 1.43
Dog/PIT .527 17.74 1.6 .299 19.124 .633
PIT/ICL .323 16.75. .544 .294 19.124 .614
ICL/PIT .398 17.74 .813 .335 19.124 .823
Dog/ICL .447 16.75 1.187 .387 19.124 1.14
ICL/DOg .479 17.74 1.3 .500 20.123 2.04*

 

*Significantly different from 0 at .01 level.
1.739; df

cantly non-linear at .05 level (F
These tests were computed according to Walker and Lev (1953.

p. 278).

Also signifi-
= 19.123).

70

APPENDIX
Table B

Male Pictures for the Picture Impression Test*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PICTURE! PICTURE“

l 113.7(6)}...
. >3 1

4 (ELI/$8 L..._J
A

PICTURE m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Female cards have the same setting. but a woman appears

in the picture rather than a man.

71

APPENDIX
Table C

Dogmatism Scale

PSYCHOLOGY QUESTIONNAIRE

The following is a study of what the general public thinks
and feels about a number of important social and personal
questions. The best answer to each statement below is your
.personal opinion. We have tried to cover many different and
Opposing points of view: you may find yourself agreeing
strongly with some of the statements. disagreeing just as
strongly with others. and perhaps uncertain about others.
Whether you agree or disagree with any statement. you can

be sure that many other people feel the same as you do.

Mark each statement in the left margin according to how much
you agree or disagree with it.) Please mark every one. Write
+1. +2. +3. or —1. -2. -3. depending on how you feel in each
case.

+1 I agree a little. -1 I disagree a little.
+2 I agree on the whole. -2 I disagree on the whole.
+3 I agree very much. -3 I disagree very much.

1. A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is
beneath contempt.

2. The main thing in life is for a person to want to do
something important.

3. In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat

myself several times to make sure I am being under-
stood.

4. Most people just don't know what's good for them.;

5. In times like these. a person must be pretty selfish
if he considers primarily his own happiness.

6. A man who does not believe in some great cause has
not really lived.

72

Appendix Table C (continued)

+1 I agree a little. -1 I disagree a little.
+2 I agree on the whole. -2 I disagree on the whole.
+3 I agree very much. -3 I disagree very much.

7. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

me how to solve my personal problems.

Of all the different philosophies which exist in
this world there is probably only one which is
correct.

It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal
or cause that life becomes meaningful.

In this complicated world of ours the only way we
know what is going on is to rely on leaders or ex-
perts who can be trusted.

There are a number of persons I have come to hate
because of the things they stand for.

There is so much to be done and so little time to
do it in.

It is better to be a dead hero than a live coward.

A group which tolerates too much difference of opin-
ion among its own members cannot exist for long.

It is only natural that a person should have a much
better acquaintance with ideas he believes in than
with ideas he Opposes.

While I don't like to admit this even to myself. my
secret ambition is to become a great man. like Ein-
stein. Or Beethoven. or Shakespeare.

Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a
worthwhile goal. it is unfortunately necessary to
restrict the freedom Of certain political groups.

73

Appendix Table D (contined)

+1 I agree a little. -1 I disagree a little.
+2 I agree on the whole. -2 I disagree on the whole.
+3 I agree very much. -3 I disagree very much.
18. If a man is to accomplish his mission in life it is
sometimes necessary to gamble “all or nothing at
all.“

19. Most people just don't give a "damn" for others.

20. A person who gets enthusiastic about too many causes
is likely to be a pretty "wishy-washy" sort of per-
son.

21. To compromise with our political opponents is danger-
ous because it usually leads to the betrayal of our
own side.

22. If given the chance I would do something of great
benefit to the world.

23. In times like these it is often necessary to be more
on guard against ideas put out by peOple or groups
in one's own camp than by those in the Opposing camp.

24. In a heated discussion I generally become so absorbed
in what I am going to say that I forget to listen to
what the others are saying.

25. Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I just
can't stop.

26. There are two kinds of people in the world: those
who are for the truth and those who are against the
truth.

27. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.

28. The United States and Russia have just about nothing
in common.

74

Appendix Table D (continued)

+1 I agree a little. -1 I disagree a little.
+2 I agree on the whole. -2 I disagree on the whole.
+3 I agree very much. —3 I disagree very much.

29. In the history of mankind there have probably been
just a handful of really great thinkers.

30. The highest form of government is a democracy and
the highest form of democracy is a government run by
those who are most intelligent.

31. The present is all too often full of unhappiness.
It is only the future that counts.

32. Unfortunately. a good many people with whom I have
discussed important social and moral problems don't
really understand what's going on.

33. Fundamentally. the world we live in is a pretty
lonesome place.

34. It is Often desirable to reserve judgment about
what's going on until one has had a chance to hear
the opinions of those one respects.

35. The worst crime a person could commit is to attack
publicly the people who believe in the same thing
he does.

36. In the long run the best way to live is to pick
friends and associates whose tastes and beliefs are
the same as one's own.

37. Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't
worth the paper they are printed on.

38. It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful
of the future.

39. My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses
to admit he's wrong.

40. When it comes to differences of Opinion in religion
we must be careful not to compromise with those who
believe differently from the way we do.

75

APPENDIX
Table D

Interpersonal Check List

DIRECTIONS FOR IDEAL-SELF

This is the same list of words and phrases that you
just used to describe yourself. This time. please circle the
number of each item that is descriptive of yourself as you
would like to be. Remember that your first impression is

generally the best. so please go through the list as quickly

as you can.

Be sure to consider each item. but circle only

those that describe yourself as you would like to be.

1. Able to give orders 26. Cooperative

2. Appreciative 27. Complaining

3. Apologetic 28. Can be indifferent to
4. Able to take care of self others

5. Accepts advice readily 29. Critical of others

6. Able to doubt others 30. Can be obedient

7. Affectionate and under- 31. Cruel and unkind

standing 32. Dependent

8. Acts important 33. .Dictatorial

9. Able to criticize self 34. Distrusts everybody

10. Admires and imitates others 35. Dominating

ll. Agrees with everyone - 36. Easily embarrassed

12. Always ashamed of self 37. Eager to get along with
13. Very anxious to be others

approved of 38. Easily fooled

14. Always giving advice 39. Egotistical and conceited
15. Bitter 40. Easily led

16. Bighearted and unselfish 41. Encouraging to others
17. Boastful 42. Enjoys taking care of
18. Businesslike others

19. Bossy 43. Expects everyone to ad-
20. Can be frank and honest mire him
21. Clinging vine 44. Faithful follower
22. Can be strict if necessary 45. Frequently disappointed
23. Considerate 46. Firm but just
24. Cold and unfeeling 47. Fond of everyone
25. Can complain if necessary 48. Forceful

76

Appendix Table D (continued)

49.
50.
51.
52.
53.

54.
55.

56.
57.
58.

59.
60.
61.
62.

63.

64.

65.

66.
67.
68.
69.
70.

71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.

Friendly

Forgives anything

Frequently angry

Friendly all the time

Generous to a fault

Gives freely of self

Good leader

Grateful

Hard-boiled when necessary

Helpful

Hard-hearted

Hard to convince

Hot-tempered

Hard to impress

Impatient with others'
mistakes

Independent

Irritable

Jealous

Kind and reassuring

Likes responsibility

Lacks self-confidence

Likes to compete with
others

Lets others make decisions

Likes everybody

Likes to be taken care of

Loves everybody

Makes a good impression

Manages others‘

Meek

Modest

Hardly ever talks back

Often admired

Obeys too willingly

Often gloomy

Outspoken

Overprotective of others

Often unfriendly

Oversympathetic

Often helped by others

Passive and unaggressive

89.
90.

91.
92.
93.

94.
95.

96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.

104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.

112.
113.
114.
115.

116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.

122.

Proud and self-satisfied

Always pleasant and
agreeable

Resentful

Respected by others

Rebels against every-
thing

Resents being bossed

Self-reliant and
assertive

Sarcastic

Self-punishing

Self-confident

Self-seeking

Shrewd and calculating

Self-respecting

Shy

Sincere and devoted to
friends

Selfish

Skeptical

Sociable and neighborly

Slow to forgive a wrong

Somewhat snobbish

Spineless

Stern but fair

Spoils people with
kindness

Straightforward and direct

Stubborn

Suspicious

Too easily influenced by
friends

Thinks only of self

Tender and soft-hearted

Timid

Too lenient with others

Touchy and easily hurt

Too willing to give to
others

Tries to be too success-
ful

Appendix Table D (continued)

123. Trusting and eager to
please

124. Tries to comfort everyone

125. Usually gives in

126. very respectful to
authority

127. Wants everyone's love

128. Well thought of

77

129.
130.
131.
132.-

133.
134.

Wants to be led

Will confide in anyone

Warm

Wants everyone to like
him

Will believe anyone

Well-behaved

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adorno et al. (The Authoritarian Personality. New York:
Harper. 1950.

Apfelbaum. D. Dimensions of Transference in Psychotherapy.
Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press. 1958.

Braaten. L. J. The movement from self to nOn-self in client-
centered psychotherapy. Jrn. Counseling Psy.. 1961.
8. 20—24.

Butler. J. M. and Haigh. G. V. Changes in the relation be—
tween self-concepts and ideal concepts consequent
upon client-centered counseling. In C. R. ROgers
and Rosalind Dymond (eds.) Psychotherapy and Person-
.alitinhanqe. Univ. of Chicago Press. 1954. pp. 55-
75.

Ehrlich. H. J. Dogmatism and learning. Jrn. Abn. and Soc.
Psy.. 1961. 62. 148-149.

Ehrlich. H. J. Dogmatism and learning: a S-year followup.
Psy. Reports. 1961. 9. 283-286.

Goldstein. A. P. Therapist-Patient Expectations in Psycho-
therapy. New YOrk: Macmillan CO.. 1962.

Hartley. M. Q technique—-its methodology and application.
In Blake. R. R. and Ramsey. G. V. Perception--An
Approach to Personality. New YOrk: Ronald Press.
1951.

Hollenbeck. P. N. A study of the effects of dogmatism on
aspects of adjustment to severe disability. Ph.D.
dissertation. Western Reserve University. 1964.
(Dissertation Abstracts. 1965. 25(4). 11. 6759-6760).

Kaplan. Martin F.. and Singer. E. Dogmatism and sensory
alienation: an empirical investigation. Jrn. Con-
sult. Psy.. 1963. 27 (4). 314-319.

78

79

Kemp. C. G. Effect of dogmatism on critical thinking. Sch.
Sci. Math.. April 1960. 40 (4). 314-319.

Kemp. C. G. Influence of dogmatism on counseling. Personal
Guidance Journal. 1961. 39. 662-665.

LaForge. R.. and Suczek. R. The interpersonal dimension of
personality: III. An interpersonal check list. Jrn.
Personality. 1955. 24. 94-112.

Leary. T.. and Coffey. H. S. Interpersonal diagnosis: some
problems of methodology and validation. Jrn. Abn.
Soc. Psy.. 1955. 50. 110-124.

Leary. T. The Interpersonal Diagnosis o£_Persona1ity. New
YOrk: Ronald Press. 1957.

Libo. L. M. Measuring Group Cohesiveness. Ann Arbor: Univ.
of Mich. Press. Institute for Social Research. 1953.

Libo. L. M. The projective expression of patient-therapist
attraction. Jrn. Clinical Psy.. 1957. 13 (1). 33-36.

Libo. L. M. Picture Impressions: A Projective Technique
for Investigating the Patient-Therapist Relationship.
Baltimore. Univ. of Maryland Medical School. Dept. Of
Psychiatry Publication Series. 1956.

Moore. Dorothy. Dogmatism and anxiety in the conditioning
of verbal behavior. Ph.D. dissertation. Louisiana'
State University. 1961.

Mullen. J. Client-therapist attraction as perceived on the
Picture Impressions Test. M.A$ thesis, Michigan
State University. 1966.

Raimy. V. C. Self-reference in counseling interviews. Jrn.
Consulp. Psy.. 1948. 12. 153-183.

Restle. F.. Andrews. M.. and Rokeach. M. Differences between
open- and closed-minded subjects on learning-set and
oddity problems. Jrn. Apn. Soc. Psy.. 1964. 68 (6).
648-654.

80

Rogers. C. R. Personality change in psychotherapy. In_
Rogers. C. R. On Becomipg a Person. Boston: Houg-
ton Mifflin. 1961.

Rogers. C. R. Client-centered therapy in its context of
research. In Rogers. C. R. On Becoming a Person.
Houghton Mifflin. 1961.

Rokeach. M. The Open and Closed Ming. New York: Basic
Books. 1960.

Rokeach. M.. and Norrell. G. Part II: Analysis. synthesis.
and academic performance. Final report of research
submitted in March 1966.

Rokeach. M. The nature of attitudes. International Encyclo-
pedia of the Social Sciences. Prepublication copy.

Sanford. Nevitt (ed.). The American Cpllege. New York:
J. Wiley. 1964.

Sheerer. E. T. An analysis of the relationship between ac-
ceptance of and respect:for.3elf and accecptance of
and respect for others in ten counseling cases. Jpn.
Consult. Psy.. 1949. 13. 169-175.

Walker. H. M. and Lev.. J. Statistical Inference. New York:
Holt. Reinhart. and Winston. 1953.