:2g_E5égEgg;:5, ,3 51 C DOG MATE (1‘ t luv. " In. '0 .‘X‘ hit ,n.o..\.t .9“ o “I! .r;.. .5 PL LENS" 'n'rr: ;L 3. !“'-. n"; :2. . N ‘9 .l ”"8 3"}: w,- {‘4 y W "hi gal- ‘3'" LIBRAR Y ’5 Michigan State University Tfli5|9 ABS'I‘ RACT DOGMATISM AND SELF DESCRIPTION AS THEY ARE RELATED TO ATTRAC‘I‘lON TO A THERAPEUTIC SITUATION by Harvey Milkman This study was designed to shed light on some of the personality variables which are related to an indivi- dual's attraction to a therapeutic situation. In general, it was hypothesized that subjects who score high on dog- matism will tend to be unattracted to therapeutic situations and that there will be a positive relationship between degree of dogmatism and the subject's perception of himself as competitive, managerial, blunt, and distrustful. In addition, individuals who are attracted to therapeutic situations will tend to view themselves as reSponsible, c00perative, modest, and docile, while individuals who are not attracted to therapeutic situations will tend to view themselves as competitive, managerial, blunt, and distrust- ful. Subjects consisted of 150 male undergraduate psychology students enrolled in junior level psychology 1 Harvey Milkman courses at Michigan State University. Rokeach's Dogmatism figalg was used to measure degree of dogmatism, Libo's gicture Impressions Test (PIT) was used to measure attraction to therapeutic situations, and Leary's Interpersonal Check- liéE (ICL) was used to measure conscious self descriptions. The results indicated that subjects who are not attracted to therapeutic situations tend to be more dogmatic than subjects who are attracted to therapeutic situations. Subjects who scored high in dogmatism tended to describe themselves as responsible, c00perative, docile, and modest. This finding, while only a trend was contrary to the original prediction. There were no significant relationships between attraction to therapeutic situations and conscious self description. The results were discussed in terms of unconscious processes which might cause the dogmatic person to avoid the therapeutic situation and view himself as a less com- petitive and blunt individual. Cultural stereotypes and the develOpmental stage of the subjects were also seen as forces acting against attraction to the therapeutic situation. It was suggested that future research in this area might direct itself toward using a more differentiated.measure of attraction to therapeutic situations which could then lead to a study of the relationships between unconscious processes and attraction to therapeutic situations. Thesis Committee: Norman Abeles, Lawrence Mesee Gary Stellak Chairman Harvey Milkman 9’77 :7 ‘ ,9 Committee Chairman ‘9” . Date: 1' «can! 5’29! 92/1 fiZ/é 5/ DOGMATISM AND SELF DESCRIPTION AS THEY ARE RELATED TO ATTRACTION TO A THERAPEUTIC SITUATION BY Harvey B§ Milkman A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1969 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Norman Abeles, chairman of this thesis committee, for the help that he provided whenever it was needed. His support, understanding, and constructive criticisms were invaluable to the successful completion of this study. I am greatly indebted to Dr. Messe for the assist- ance he provided with regard to the statistical analyses of the data. His penetrating comments helped me to decide what to do and to better understand what I was doing. I would also like to thank Dr. Messe, Dr. Donelson, and Dr. De Rath for allowing me to use class time for the purpose of gathering the data used in this study. ii Dedicated to Li'l Goof she was always there iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....................ii LISTOETABLES.................... v INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 METHOD.... 9 RESULTS........................20 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 SUMMARY........................34 APPENDIX.......................36 BIBLIOGRMHY O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O 44 iv LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page I. Scoring criteria for PIT (Libo, 1956) . . . . . 12 2. Categories for interperSOnal diagnosis . . . . 14 3. Correlation between scores obtained from two independent scorers on P.I.T. (N=28) . . . . . 20 4. Means, variances, and standard deviations for all S's on dogmatism Scale and I.C.L. . . . 21 5. Correlation between dogmatism and five ICL variables (N=105) o o o o o o o o o o o o o 23 6. T-tests comparing mean ICL scores for subjects high, medium and low on dogmatism . . . . . . . 24 7. T-tests comparing attracted and not attracted subjects on the basis of mean ICL variables . . 25 DOGMATISM AND SELF DESCRIPTION AS THEY ARE RELATED TO ATTRACTION TO A THERAPEUTIC SITUATION INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to shed light Upon those faCtors which are related to whether or not an indi- vidual will be attracted to a therapeutic situation. Tenbusch (1967) attempted to explain an individual's receptiveness to a helping situation in terms of dogmatism and self-ideal discrepancy. She hypothesized that a common element of peOple who seek therapy is a non-rigid or Open belief system. If Open-mindedness is accompanied by a large self-ideal discrepancy, the relationship should be inverted. Highly dogmatic individuals with large self- ideal discrepancies and Open-minded individuals with small self-ideal discrepancies should only be moderately attracted to a helping situation. After reviewing some pertinent literature and scanning her results, (none of which were significant) this author has concluded that the situation is somewhat more complicated than she had imagined. Leary (1951) stated that we can suspect that about 50 percent of individuals with marked character distortions ,A. \. 2 (i.e. about one half of the diagnostic continuum) did not Show up in large numbers in the nineteenth century psychiatric office because the very essence of their in- balance tended to push them away from dependence, self- revelation and conforming COOperation. They did not seek therapeutic assistance because the core of their anxiety reducing Operations was a compulsive maintenance of power, independence, competitiveness, ofi defiance: interpersonal techniques which preclude, under ordinary circumstances, the role of the psychiatric patient. Rokeach (1960) defined persons with similar dynamics as "dogmatic". These individuals attempt to overcome feelings of isolation and helplessness by becoming excessively concerned with needs for power and status. Along with such an overconcern there follow compensatory attitudes of egotism on the one hand and misanthrOpy (Sullivan and Adelson, 1954) on the other. These in turn lead to feelings of guilt and (through rationalization) projection to a generally dis- affected outlook on life (Rokeach, 1960). Rokeach defines Open-mindedness as "the extent to which the person can receive, evaluate, and act on relevant information received from outside on its own intrinsic merits. Unencumbered by irrelevant factors in the situation arising from within the person or from outside." (Rokeach, 1960) Irrelevant internal pressures which limit realistic reCeption of information include irrational ego motives, power needs, 3 the need for self aggrandizement, the need to allay anxiety etc. External pressures include reward and punishment from external authority as exerted by parents, peers, social and institutional group norms, reference groups, and cultural norms. Because the dogmatic individual is excessively con— cerned with needs for power and status and is generally mis- anthrOpic in nature, he would probably be quite uncomfortable perceiving himself as a dependent and socially incapable individual. Hence the very nature of his disturbance would repell him from the therapeutic situation. Kemp (1961), using Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale as an index of Open-mindedness, investigated the hypothesis that Open-minded individuals (as indicated by a low score on the dogmatism scale) have fewer personal problems and respond more favorably to counseling than the closed-minded person. He 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. Kemp's subjects did not request thera- peutic aid but agreed to participate in "counseling sessions" as part of his experiment. The fact that the dogmatic individuals changed little as a result of sessions lends support to the idea that closed-minded individuals have negative attitudes toward therapy and under natural conditions 4 would not seek assistance in solving their personal prob- lems. The therapeutic Situation can be looked upon as a learning experience, Ehrlich (1961) explored the relation- ship between dogmatism and learning. He also studied the validity of certain aspects 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) He felt that if the above defining charaCteristic of a dogmatic person is accurate, then a highly dogmatic person should learn less in the classroom situation than the individual low in dogmatism. His data support this hypothesis. Ehrlich also found that the split-half reliability for the Dogmatism scale was .75, and the correlation between two administrations of the Scale was .73. After five years, he restudied the same pOpulation and his original findings were replicated. These results give further support to the validity of Rokeach's theoreti- cal formulations which underly his scale. Hollenback (1965) found that the less dOgmatic a blind person, the more depression he showed in relation to his disability, and the more dogmatic a blind person, the more he denied his disability and its effects. Here we have further evidence that closedaminded individuals tend to deny their problems and thus experience little need for assist- ance in attempting a solution. 5 If Open-minded individuals are more capable of ex- periencing their problems, what are the dynamics which cause them to seek assistance in a therapeutic situation? Or if they don't seek therapy, why do they or they not have a positive attitude toward a therapeutic situation? Rogers (1961) found that individuals entering therapy exhibit considerable discrepancy between their per- ceived-self and ideal-self. Butler and Haigh (1954) found that patients entering therapy had a self-ideal correlation of -.47 while a non-therapy control group which was matched for age, sex, and socioeconomic status had self-ideal correlations of .58. From this, Tenbusch (1967) concluded that if an individual eXperiences a large self-ideal dis- crepancy, he should be attracted to a therapeutic situation. In this study, however, we were interested in a person's attitude toward therapy rather than in predicting whether or not he will actually enter a therapeutic situation. A person with a small self-ideal discrepancy may never ex- perience the need for therapy but may still have a positive attitude towards the therapeutic situation. This author has speculated that while self-ideal discrepancy may be important in predicting whether or not an individual will enter therapy, it has little or no relevance to an indivi- dual's attitude toward a therapeutic situation. Thus an attempt shall be made to uncover personality variables which are related to this attitude. 6 Leary (1951) classifies interpersonal behavior into sixteen mechanisms Or reflexes. These variables are designed to measure, on the same continuum, the normal adjustive aspects of behavior as well as abnormal and pathological extremes. Degree of adaptiveness is defined by the intensity of the mechanism used rather than by culturally imposed criteria. Neurosis or maladjustment involves the “limiting of one's interpersonal apparatus and the compulsive use of certain inflexible, inapprOpriate interpersonal Operations which bring about results that are painful, unsatisfactory or different from one's con- scious goals.“ (Leary, 1951) Interpersonal operations can be viewed on any one, or all of five different levels, ranging from the level of public communication to the level of deeply internalized values of which the subject has no conscious awareness. In this study, we predicted that dogmatic individuals would tend to be competitive, managerial, blunt, and dis- trustful (on the level of conscious self-description). Excessive use of these mechanisms tends to pull these peOple away from a therapeutic situation. Those peOple who see themselves as reSponsible, COOperative, docile, and modest should have a positive attitude towards therapy and when these mechanisms are excessively used, the individual should be more strongly attracted to a therapeutic situation. 7 Libo (1953) designed the Picture Impressions Test to measure patientétherapist attraction. The validity of this projective instrument was studied by investigating whether or not the test could predict that the client would return for his second interview. (Libo, 1957) The test was administered to forty patients at a psychoSomatic clinic after the first interview. Strength of attraction to I 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 independent scorers. The results in- dicated a significant relationship between actual and pre- dicted behavior (chi Square of 4.23). Mullen (1966) studied the ability of the P.I.T. to reflect information about the specific client-therapist relationships. He found that students attending one counseling interview had higher attraction scores than students with no counseling eXperience. He was also able to successfully predict whether or not a client would return for a second interview. From these research findings, it seems safe to consider the P.I.T. a valid measure of attraction to therapy. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This study was designed to investigate the follow- ing hypotheses: 1) Individuals who are not attracted to therapeutic situ- ations tend to receive higher dogmatism scores than indivi- duals who are attracted to therapeutic situations. 2) Individuals who score high in dogmatism tend to view themselves as competitive, managerial, blunt and distrustful. 3) The more dogmatic the individual, the more marked will be his tendencies to perceive himself as competitive, managerial, blunt, and distrustful. 4a) Individuals who are attracted to therapeutic situations tend to view themselves as responsible, COOperative, modest, and docile. 4b) Individuals who are not attracted to therapeutic situations tend to view themselves as competitive, managerial, blunt, and distrustful. METHOD Sample: The subjects consisted of 105 male under- graduates enrolled in 300 level psychology courses at Michigan State University. All of the subjects were either SOphmores, juniors, or seniors. Freshmen were not used because it was felt that their situational adjustment prob- lems might influence the validity of the study. Subjects who had received counseling, either in the past or during the time of the study were eliminated. Subjects who either did not understand the directions or who chose not to con- sider the study seriously were also eliminated. Instruments: The Picture Impressions Test is a projective technique consisting of four pictures (see Table A in Appendix). It was originally designed to measure the attraction of‘a patient toward his therapist and toward the setting that he represents. Attraction is defined as "the resultant of all forces acting on the patient to maintain his relationship with the therapist." The pictures are apprOpriate for adolescents and adults of both sexes, and for white and Negro subjects (Libo, 1956). The client is shown eaCh picture and is asked to make up a story about it. He is instructed to use his 9 10 imagination and 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 and felt? What is wanted? 4) What will happen? What will be done? If the client asks what he is supposed to write, he should be answered, "It's up to you." About five minutes is required for the writing of each Story. Two methods can be used for analyzing the stories. One is a systematic scoring method designed to yield a quantitative statement of attraction strength (this is the method used in this study). The other is a qualitative clinical analysis. Before a story can be scored, it must include an individual client whose relationship with the therapist is with reference to diagnostic or therapeutic functions. Help must be sought for the self, rather than for a child, Spouse or friend. The relationship can be actual or imaginary, existing or desired, and can be seen as in the past, present, or future. If the story meets the above requirements, scoring can begin. A + 1 is given for every indicator of attraction in the story. A -l is given for every indicator of repul- sion. Attraction can be physical or psychological and is scored for every mention of movement of one individual (client) toward the other (therapist). The total score is the algebraic sum of all the "+" and "-"scores: the higher the score, the greater the individualis presumed attraction 11 to his doctor. The number of stories receiving a score was interpreted as the subjects degree of involvement in the story—writing task. Both the total score and number of stories receiving a score were given consideration in deter- mining whether or not the client is attracted to therapy. The result for each subject is recorded. The following is a sample scoring unit: Score = +3(2). Explanation: +3 indicates the level of attraction.‘ (2) indicates the level of involvement in the story writing taSk. Some general rules were prescribed for the coding and scoring of stories. The scoreable unit was defined as any word, phrase, clause or sentence qualifying under one of the following coding categories: 1) Locomotion, actual or attempted, 2) Locomotion, desired, 3) Barriers to Desired Locomotion, 4) Barriers to Desired Locomotion Over- come, 5) Satisfaction. A series of descriptive words, all of which, if treated separately, would b e scored in the same code category and with the same Sign is defined as one unit. But if the descriptive word is preceded by a verb, each verb—adjective combination is scoreable as a separate unit. “Either-or" statements are scored for each scoreable unit present, but conditional statements are not scored. If the writer eXpresses a personal Opinion about what the story character should do, the item is not scored. Also if the item involves involuntary or accidental action or events, it is not scored. In general, unless movement, motivation, 12 or satisfaction are explicitly mentioned in the story, their nature should not be assumed by the scorer. As mentioned earlier in this paper, two studies were conducted to investigate the reliability of scoring. Picture Impressions stories (Libo, 1956; Libo, 1957). Two coders independently scored the records of 30 subjeCts, and one coder repeated his scoring of 40 records after a six month interval. The two independent scorers achieved 87% agreement on their judgment of "attracted" or “not attracted." Agreement on number of stories receiving a score was 100%; One coder who repeated scoring achieved an agreement of 95% on his judgment of “attracted" or “not attracted," 98%.on number of stories receiving a scOre, and 92% on total score. Criteria for interpretation of "attracted" or "not attracted” are summarized in Table I. TABLE I Scoring Criteria for PIT (Libo, 1956) No. of stories with a score Total Score Interpretation 2. 3, or 4 +1 or higher Attracted Any 0 or lower Not Attracted 0 or 1 Any Not Attracted Leary (1956) devised a theory of personality where- by interpersonal behavior is classified into sixteen mech- anisms or reflexes. These mechanisms Operate to different 13 degrees in 5 levels of personality ranging from the level of public communication to the level of deeply internalized values of which the individual has no conscious awareness. He develOped the Interpersonal Checklist as a means of quantifying behavior at two of these levels: 1) Level II — theindividual's conscious descriptions of self and others, 2) Level V - the individual's conscious ideal self. I The checklist comprises 128 items - eight for each of the sixteen interpersonal variables. The sixteen vari- ables can be combined to form a group of eight octant vari- ables which are coded by the use of letters: 1) AP - Managerial-Autocratic, 2) NO - Responsible-Hypernormal, 3) LM - COOperative-OveréConventional, 4) JK - Docile- Dependent, 5) HI - Self Effacing-Masochistic, 6) FG - Rebellious-Distrustful, 7) DE - Aggressive-Sadistic, 8) BC - Competitive-Narcissistic. An intensity dimension is built into the checklist. The items in the left column are the most moderate aspects of the interpersonal trait, and the items in each of the rows increase in intensity as they move toward the right. Example: “Well thought of“ is a moderate item for the variable “P" (prestige), and. "Tries to be too successful" is an intense or maladaptive “P" item. Table 2 indicates the categories employed for interpersonal diagnosis of adaptive and maladaptive behavior at all levels. 14 TABLE 2 Adaptive Interpersonal Letter maladaptive Interpersonal Diagnostic Categories Code Diagnostic Categorie§__ Managerial AP Autocratic Competitive BC Narcissistic CritiCal DE Sadistic Skeptical FG Distrustful Self-effacing HI Masochistic Docile JK Dependent Conventional LM Over-conventional Responsible NO Hypernormal There are a number of ways in which the data from the Interpersonal Cheeklist can be handled statistically. A simple procedure is to count and graph the number of raw score items falling in each octant. In this study the Interpersonal Checklist was given for the subject's description of his perceived "self” and his "ideal self." The test yields a set of 8 variables which tap the following areas of self description: competi- tive, managerial, blunt, distrustful, responsible, COOpera- tive, modest, and docile. These variables were combined in groups of four, yielding two broad categories: a) Aggressive (competitive, managerial, blunt, distrustful) and b) Passive (COOperative, modest, responsible, docile). Scores for each major category were derived by taking the 15 algebraic sum of scores obtained on the minor categories. Thus a score of 23 for passivity could represent the sum of 8 (responsible), 4 (modest), 6 (COOperative), and 5 (docile). Scores for each subject were computed for his description of his perceived "self" and his "ideal self." By taking the abSolute difference between soores on each minor variable for ideal and perceived self, and then adding these differ- ences algebraically, a score for SID (self-ideal discrepancy) was derived. Thus the Interpersonal Checklist yielded 5 coding categories for each subject: a) SA (self-aggressive), b) SP (self-passive), c) IA (ideal-aggressive), d) IP (ideal- passive), e) SID (self-ideal discrepancy). - I ' DirectiOns to the subject are as follows: This is a list of words and phrases which describe the way peeple 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 128 items in all. The test is gone through separately for each person described. To describe his ideal self, the subject is requested to circle the number of each item that is descrip- tive of himself as he would.like to be (see Table B in Appendix). The entire test requires about 10 - 15 minutes. Test-retest reliability correlations average .78. These correlations suggest that Interpersonal Checklist Scores have sufficient stability to be useful in personality research. l6 Rokeach (1960) designed the Dogmatism Scale to measure individual differences in closedness of belief systems. Because of the way Open and closed are defined (see introduction) the scale also measures authoritarianism and general intolerance. The procedure used to construct the scale was essentially deductive. The various defining characteristics of Open and closed systems were scrutinized, and statements were devised to try to tap these character- istics. The primary assumption was that if a person strongly agrees with such statements it would indicate that he possesses one extreme of the particular characteristic being tapped, and if he strongly disagrees, that he possesses the Opposite extreme. The statements that were chosen express ideas that are familiar to the average person. Each statement was designed to transcend specific ideologi- cal positions in order to penetrate the formal and structural characteristics of all positions: ie. persons adhering dogmatically to capitalism and communism should all score together at one end of the continuum. The Dogmatism Scale had 5 revisions to increase reliability and to take advant- age of theoretical refinements. For all statements, agree- ment is scored as closed and disagreement is Open. The Dogmatism Scale is typically administered to persons meeting in groups. They take the tests without putting their names to them, thus encouraging frank answers. Subjects are instructed as follows: 17 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 ygur_personal gpinion. 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 un- certain 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. The scale is converted for scoring purposes to a l to 7 scale by adding a constant of 4 to each item scored. The total score is the sum of scores obtained on all items of the test. The final 40 item scale, Form B, was found to have a reliability ranging from .68 to .93. A shorter method of scoring, which has a reliability of .89 is achieved by adding the number of positives without regard to the numerical value of each. This method yields an average score of about 17, an upper bound of 32, and a lower bound of zero (Rokeach and Norrell, 1956). Procedure: Data was collected on three separate occasions. The procedure for each administration was the same. To avOid contamination of the data by order effects, the PIT was always administered first, and the Dogmatism Scale and ICL were each administered as the second test 50 percent of the time and as the third test 50 percent of the time. The PIT was originally designed for administration in a therapeutic situation. The directions for the test 18 were adjusted so that it could be used in the classroom. There are separate cards for males and females but only male cards were used because analysis of the data was limited to male subjects. Pictures were traced on clear plastic slides so that they could be projected on a screen in the front of the room. Before presentation of the pictures, subjects 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 picture, answering the four questions on the answer 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. Yofir story should be about what you see in the picture. 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. Be sure to mark the number of the story at the tOp of each sheet. ' Are there any questions? O.K. Here is the first picture. Each picture was shown for 25 seconds. It was then removed from the projector and subjects were given 5 minutes to make up a story. Those who did not finish were told to go on to the next story (almost all subjects were able to complete each story in 5 minutes). After the PIT was administered, the following directions were given: 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 necessarily 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. 19 Instructions for the Dogmatism Scale and ICL were not changed from those outlined in the section on instruments. The data sheet requested the subject's age, sex, student number and whether or not he had in the past or was presently obtaining psychological counseling or psychotherapy. The entire procedure took about one hour. Results Reliability of the Picture Impressions Test Before the data could be submitted to statistical analysis, it was necessary to check the reliability of scoring on the P.I.T. Correlation Coefficients were computed for scores obtained by two independent scorers on the following dimensions: Absolute score, total number of stories scored, attraction to therapy. Table 3 presents the results of this analysis. Table 3. Correlation Between Scores Obtained From Two Independent Scorers on P.I.T. (N=28) P.I.T. Dimension r Number of Stories Scored .83* Absolute Score .77* Attraction .7l* * p<.001 These correlation coefficients suggest that scoring of the . P.I.T. was sufficiently reliable for use in this investiga- tion. Table 4 presents the mean, variance and standard deviation obtained for all subjects on the Dogmatism Scale 20 21 and each of the 5 variables on the Interpersonal Checklist. Table 4. Means, Variances and Standard Deviations for all Subjects on Dogmatism Scale and I.C.L. (N = 105) m ICL* Dogmatism SA 7 SP IA IP SID 3? 15.68 23.95 21.35 22.90 19.32 19.19 52 21.74 50.35 90.99 26.71 48.25 107.53 s 4.66 7.09 9.54 5.17 6.75 10.36 * SA = Self-Aggressive (competitive, managerial, blunt, distrustful) - SP = Self-Passive (COOperative, modest, responsible, docile) IA = Ideal-Aggressive (competitive, managerial, blunt, distrustful) IP = Ideal-Passive (cOOperative, modest, responsible, , docile) . SID = Self-Ideal Discrepancy Attraction on P.IgT. The P.I.T. was scored and interpreted according to the criteria desCribed in the section on instruments. Scores for 47 out of the 105 subjects were interpreted as "attracted to therapeutic situations" while scores for 58 Out of the 105 subjects were interpreted as “not attracted to therapeutic situations.” Hypgthesis l The first hypothesis to be tested was that indivi- duals who are not attracted to therapeutic situations tend to receive higher dogmatism scores than individuals who are attracted to therapeutic situations. 22 The mean dogmatism score for individuals attracted to thera- peutic situations was 14.74 while the mean dogmatism score for those individuals who were not attracted was 16.44. A t-test comparing these means reveals that the results were significant at the .05 level (+ = 1.874, df = 100, pg< .05). This indicates that subjects scoring high in dogmatiSm indicate less attraction to a therapeutic situa- tion. Hypgthesis 2 The second hypothesis tested was that individuals who score high in dogmatism tend to see themselves as com- petitive, managerial, blunt, and distrustful. These vari- ables were combined to form a single variable, A (Aggressive). Each subject received a score for two A variables} SA (Self- Aggressive) and IA (Ideal-Aggressive). Each subject also received a score on the ICL for SP (Self-Passive), IP (Ideal- Passive), and SID (Self—Ideal Discrepancy). A description of the derivation of these categories is presented in the section on instruments. Table 5 shows the obtained corre- lations and their significance levels. From Table 5, it can be seen that the hypothesis that dogmatic individuals tend to see themselves as com- petitive, managerial, blunt and distrustful was not supported. The results show a trend in the Opposite direction. Dog- matic subjects tended to view themselves as passive 23 Table 5. Correlation Between Dogmatism and Five ICL Variables (N = 105) =========================================================== ICL Variable r SA -.19* 5p .32** IA .06 IP .17* SID .l7* * p4 .05 ** p< .001 (COOperative, modest, responsible, docile). The correlation between dogmatism and SP is .32 and the cOrrelation between dogmatism and IP is .17. These correlations are significant at the .001 and .05 level respectively. Interpretation of this result is deferred for the discussion section. Hypothesis 3 The third hypothesis tested was that the more dog- matic the individual, the more marked will be his tendencies to perceive himself as competitive, managerial, blunt, and distrustful. This hypothesis was not SUpported. It has already been pointed out that there is a negative relation- ship between dogmatism and aggressive self description (r = -.19). i In addition to the analyses of the stated hypothesis, further analyses were performed. There appears to be a positive relationship between dogmatism and all of the ICL 24 variables with the exception of SA. Perhaps dogmatic indi- viduals tend to describe themselves as possessing a more extreme degree of all the traits presented on the ICL. In order to examine this possibility more closely, subjects were divided into 3 dogmatism groups. Subjects who scored more than one standard deviation from the mean were placed in either the high (20-29) or low (6-11) category. T-tests were then computed, comparing the mean Scores for each of the ICL variables. Results are indicated in Table 6. Table 6. T-tests Comparing Mean ICL Scores for Subjects High, Medium and Low on Dogmatism Dogmatism High (N=l9) Medium (N=67) Low (N=19) Significance SA 23.58 24.40 23.74 N.S. IA 22.05 19.88 20.53 N.S. SP 27.11* 23.78 20.79* p <‘.05 for H vs. L IP 20.84 19.30 17.89 N.S. SID 21.58 19.25 16.11 N.S. With the exception of SA (Self—Aggressive), mean ICL scores were highest for the high dogmatism group and lowest for the low dogmatism gro up. The only significant difference how- ever, was between high and low dogmatic subjects on the SP variable. There does seem to be a trend for subjects who scored high on dogmatism to describe their perceived and 25 ideal selves as possessing more extreme degrees of the traits presented on the ICL than subjects who scored low on dogmatism. Hypothesis 4 The fourth hypothesis tested was that individuals who are not attracted to therapeutic situations tend to view themselves as managerial, blunt, distrustful, and com- petitive, while individuals who are attracted to therapeutic situations tend to view themselves as responsible, cOOpera- tive, modest, and docile. These results are found in Table 6. Table 7. T-tests Comparing Attracted and Not Attracted — h Attracted (N=47) Not Attracted (N=58) t Signifi- cance Level SA 22.96 224.75 -1.309 N.S. IA 21.91 23.71 -l.784* p<:.05 SP 20.23 22.51 -1.221 N.S. IP 18.49 20.00 -1.120 N.S. SID 18.89 19.10 —0.101 N.S. As the table indicates, the relationship between SA scores and attraction to therapeutic situations did not reach statistically significance. Neither was there a statistic- ally significant relationship between SP scores and 26 attraction to therapy. If, however, we consider the remaining variables, we note that the relationship between IA and attraction to therapy was significant. Subjects who are not attracted to therapy tend to describe their ideal selves as more aggressive than subjects who are attracted to therapy. DISCUSSION This study was designed to investigate some of the personality variables that are related to an individual's attitude toward a therapeutic situation. Of the four hypo- theses that were tested, one was supported, two were not supported and one was partially supported. While some Of the data were not specifically relevant to the stated hypo- theses, they were analyzed in the hOpe that further insight might be gained. The first hypothesis tested was that individuals who are not attracted to therapeutic situations tend to receive higher dogmatism scores than individuals who are attracted to therapeutic situations. The results were sig- nificant in the predicted direction. This finding is con- sistent with Rokeach's (1960) formulations concerning the dynamics of the dogmatic individual. He states that one of the defining characteristics of the dogmatic person is that his basic belief about the social world in which he lives is that it is threatening and unfriendly. In addition, the dogmatic individual is unable to receive new information to the extent that it threatens to provoke anxiety. The thera- peutic situation can be viewed as one in which the individual 27 28 receives new information which is directly related to his means of COping with anxiety. For a dogmatic person, a direct confrontation with the anxiety, against which he is so strongly defending, could be extremely threatening. Hence he projects his basic belief about the unfriendly world in which he lives to the therapeutic situation. He is able to successfully ward Off the threat of anxiety at the expense of being rigid and unable to utilize new infor- mation that might be relevant to his defensive maneuvers. This interpretation is consistent with Kemp's (1961) finding that dogmatic individuals responded less favorably to coun- seling than Openminded persons. The second hypothesis tested was that individuals who score high in dogmatism tend to view themselves as competitive, managerial, blunt and distrustful. This hypo- thesis was not supported. It is very interesting to note, however, that the results were significant in the Opposite direction. Subjects who scored high on dogmatism tended to perceive their selves and ideal selves as COOperative, responsible, modest, and docile. A possible eXplanation for the discrepancy between the predicted and obtained results centers around the difference between the dogmatic individual's unconscious motives and defenses and his conscious interpretation and understanding of these processes. One could speculate that at an unconscious level, the dogmatic individual is 29 defending against feelings of self-inadequacy and self- hate. He has been made to feel alone and helpless in a threatening world and attempts to overcome these feelings by becoming excessively concerned with needs for power and status (Rokeach, 1960). But conscious experience of these needs might well lead to pervasive feelings of guilt. The dogmatiCindividual denies his unconscious aggressive tendencies and projects them to the external world. Con- sequently he views himself aSCDOperative, responsible, modest and docile. Hollenback's (1965) finding, that the more dogmatic a blind person, the more he denies his dis- ability and its effects, lends support to the notion that dogmatic individuals use the defenses of denial. The dogmatic person's self-perception is not totally incompatible with his behavior. In pursuit of power and status, the closed-minded person does not rely on his own evaluation of environmental events. He adheres rigidly and unchallengingly to the values of an external authority figure. In this sense he is correct in describ- ing himself as passive. What he does not see, however, is that by rigidly adhering to some absolute authority he be- haves in a managerial, competitive, blunt, and distrustful manner with respect to the individuals and events that are incongruent with his absolute system of values. The third hypothesis tested was that the more dogmatic the individual, the more marked will be his 30 tendencies to perceive himself as competitive, managerial, blunt, and distrustful. By extrapolating from the above discussion, one can see that this hypothesis was not supported. The correlation between dogmatism and aggressive self description was -.l9. There appears to be a positive relationship between dogmatism and all of the ICL variables with the exception of SA. It was thought that by dividing the subjects into high, medium, and low dogmatism groups (by defining high and low as scores falling one or more standard deviations from the mean), greater insight could be gained in terms of understanding the differences in self perception between high and low dogmatic subjects. Although further statistical analysis along these lines were beyond the SCOpe of this study, it is interesting to note that in all cases, the variance of ICL scores was higher for the group that scored high in dogmatism than it was for the group that scored low in dogmatism. This Observation is consistent with the notion that dogmatic individuals tend to view life in absolute terms. The high- ly dogmatic subject either perceives himself as possessing an extreme amount Of a trait or a very small amount of a trait. Restated in Rokeach's (1960) terms, there is a relatively great discrepancy in the degree of differentiation between belief and disbelief systems. 31 It is also interesting that there is a positive relationship between dogmatism and self-ideal discrepancy. Perhaps this relationship can be understood in terms Of the closed-minded individual's de-emphasis of the present and preoccupation with the future (Bonier, 1957). Given that the dogmatic individual experiences a great deal of anxiety connected with his perception of the future, he is likely to defend against this anxiety by formulating extreme and unrealistic goals. Hence, his ideal self, which represents his projection of what he would like to be in the future, is likely to be discrepant from his perceived self which is rooted in the de-emphasized present. Conversely, the Open- minded individual, who is not as anxious about what the future holds, is less likely tO experience the desire for his future self to be different from his present self. The fourth hypothesis tested was that individuals who are not attracted to therapeutic situations tend to view themselves as managerial, blunt, distrustful and com- petitive, while individuals who are attracted to therapeutic situations tend to view themselves as reSponsible, COOp- erative, modest, and docile. Only the first part of this hypothesis was partially supported. There was a statistic- ally significant differenco between “attracted“ and "not attracted" subjects on the basis Of their ideal-aggressive self descriptions. Subjects who were not attracted to therapeutic situations tended to view their ideal selves as 32 more aggressive than subjects who were attracted to thera- peutic situations. Given that an individual is not attracted to situations in which he must accept assistance with his personal problems, he is being psychologically con- sistent by valuing competition, dominance, distrust and bluntness. It is interesting to note that the majority of sub- jects (57 out of 105) indicated that they were not attracted to therapeutic situations. Furthermore, subjects who were not attracted, tended to view their ideal selves as com- petitive, managerial, blunt, and distrustful. Perhaps this result is related to the social position of our subjects in this culture. Late adolescents who are relatively naive regarding therapy might view the therapeutic situation as an extension of childhood dependency which they are struggl- ing to overcome. This tendency, which may be exaggerated by cultural values such as competition and independence, might well exert a powerful force acting to repel the late adolescent from a help seeking situation. The finding that there were no other significant relationships (with the exception of IA) between attraction to therapeutic situations and conscious self description, coupled with the observed relationship between attraction to therapeutic situations and dogmatism, has led us to be- lieve that attraction to therapeutic situations is more closely related to unconscious processes than it is to 33 conscious self descriptions. In view of this formulation, a direction for future research might be to study the relationship between such variables as the need for affili- ation (as measured by the TAT, for example) and attraction to therapeutic situations. . The PIT was originally designed for individual ad- ministration in a therapeutic situation. Because of the instrument's sensitivity to situational factors, it was felt that valid statistical analysis could only be achieved by interpreting PIT scores in terms of "attracted" or ”not attracted" to therapeutic situations. In actual therapy, however, the PIT has been used to measure degree of attrac- tion (Mullen, 1966). If this method of scoring could be validated for group administration, in a non-therapy situation (by testing a group of subjects and predicting which ones-will enter therapy and how long they will remain), more powerful statistical analysis could be performed on the data. For example, an hypothesis such as, dogmatism is inversely related to attraction to therapeutic situations, could be tested. In conclusion, this investigation was only roughly analagous to the actual therapy situation. Specifically, these subjects were not in treatment and did not seek treat- ment. It would be interesting to explore these same vari- ables with an actual pOpulation of individuals who are seeking help. SUMMARY This study was designed to shed light on some of the persOnality variables which are related to an individual's attraction to a therapeutic situation. In general, it was hypothesized that subjects who score high on dogmatism will tend to be unattracted to therapeutic situations and that there will be a positive relationship between degree of dogmatism and the subject‘s perception of himself as competitive, managerial, blunt, and distrustful. In addi- tion, individuals who are attracted to therapeutic situa- tions will tend to view themselves as responsible, cOOpera- tive, modest, and docile, while individuals who are not attracted to therapeutic situations will tend to view them- selves as competitive, managerial, blunt, and distrustful. Subjects consisted of 150 male undergraduate psychology students enrolled in junior level psychology courses at Michigan State University. Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale was used to measure degree of dogmatism, Libo's Picture Impressions Test (PIT) was used to measure attraction to therapeutic situations, and Leary's InterpersonalCheck- list (ICL) was used to measure conscious self descriptions. 34 35 The results indicated that subjects who are not attracted to therapeutic situations tend to be more dogmatic than subjects who are attracted to therapeutic situations. Subjects who scored high in dogmatism tended to describe themselves as reSponsible, COOperative, docile, and modest. This finding, while only a trend was contrary to the Original prediction. There were no significant relationships between attraction to therapeutic situations and conscious self description. The results were discussed in terms of unconscious processes which might cause the dogmatic person to avoid the therapeutic situation and view himself as a less com- petitive and blunt individual. Cultural stereotypes and the develOpmental stage of the subjects were also seen as forces acting against attraction to the therapeutic situation. It was suggested that future research in this area might direct itself toward using a more differentiated measure of attraction to therapeutic situations which could then lead to a study of the relationships between unconscious pro- cesses and attraction to therapeutic situations. APPENDIX 36 APPENDIX Table A 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. 7. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve my personal problems. 37 38 Appendix Table A (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. 8. Of all the different philosophies which exist in 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 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 experts 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 Opinion among its own members cannot exist for long. It is only natural that a person should have a much better vauaintance 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 Einstein, 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. If a man is to accomplish his mission in life it is Sometimes necessary to gamble “all or nothing at all. N Most peOple just don't give a “damn" for others. A person who gets enthusiastic about too many Causes is likely to be a pretty “wishy-washy” sort ofperson. . . To compromise with our political Opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to the betrayal of our Own side. 39 Appendix Table A (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. 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. 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. 40 Appendix Table A (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. 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 fear- ful 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. you would like to be. APPENDIX Table'B Interpersonal Check List DIRECTIONS FOR IDEAL-SELF This is the same list of words and phrases that you just used to describe yourself. the number of each item that is descriptive of yourself 2E This time, please circle 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 2. Appreciative 3. Apologetic 4. Able to take care of self. 5. Accepts advice readily 6. Able to doubt others 7. Affectionate and under- Standing 8. Acts important 9. Able to criticize self 10. Admires and imitates others 11. Agrees with everyone 12. Always ashamed of self 13. Very anxious to be approved of 14. Always giving advice 15. Bitter 16. Bighearted and unselfish 17. Boastful 18. Businesslike l9. Bossy 20. Can be frank and honest 21. Clinging vine 22. Can be strict if necessary 23. Considerate 24. Cold and unfeeling 25. Can complain if necessary 41 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. COOperative Complaining Can be indifferent to others Critical of others Can be obedient Cruel and unkind Dependent Dictatorial Distrusts everybody Dominating Easily embarrassed Eager to get along with others Easily fooled Egotistical and con- carted Easily led Encouraging to others Enjoys taking care of others EXpects everyone to admire him Faithful follower Frequently disappointed Firm but just Fond of everyone Forceful 42 Appendix Table B (continued) 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 600 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 Grater1 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 impresssion 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. 1210 122. Proud and self—satisfied Always pleasant and agreeable Resentful Respected by others Rebels against everything 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 successful 43 Appendix Table B (continued) 123. Trusting and eager to 129. Wants to be led please 130. Will confide in anyone 124. Tries to comfort everyone 131. Warm 125. Usually gives in 132. Wants everyone to 126. Very respectful to like him authority 133. Will believe anyone 127. Wants everyone's love 134. Well-behaved 128. Well thought of BIBLIOGRAPHY Bonier, R.J. A study of the relationship between time per- Spective and Open-closed belief systems. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, M.S.U. Library. 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.) gpychothera nd Person lit Change, Uhiv. of Chicago Press, 1954, pp. 55-75. Ehrlich, H.J. Dogmatism and learning. Jour, Abni and Soc. Psy.a 1961, 62, 148-149. 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). Kemp, C.G. Influence of dogmatism on counseling. Personal gpidance Journal, 1961, 39, 662-665. Leary, T. The Intrapersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York: Ronald Press, 1957. Libo, L.M. Measuring Group Cohesivenepp. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Mich. Press, Institute for Social Resaardh, 1953. . The projective expression of patient-therapist attracfion. Jrn. Clinical Pays, 1957, 13 (1), 33-36. Mullen, J. Client-therapist attraction as perceived on the Picture Impressions Test. M.A. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1966. Rogers, C.R. Personality change in psychotherapy. In Rogers, C.R. On Becomipg a Person, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961. . Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. 44